The media does not pick on Ben or Eli like they do Romo.

[Nav22]

Just kidding.

 

[cannonball44]

8.5/10

 

[tyke1doe]

Actually, the Giants have been getting hammered for their piss-poor showing against the Falcons.

As for Big Ben, why would he get bashed? He threw an interception, true. But that was just an outstanding play by Brandon Carr. As I say with other teams when it happens to the Cowboys, I say it with the Cowboys also. Sometimes, a player (in this case Brandon Carr) just makes a greater play. Yes, Big Ben threw the ball slightly behind the receiver. But Carr made an excellent read and grab to snag the ball.

But let's stop this before it starts. I don't know why some people fail to understand that when a quarterback wins multiple Super Bowls, he gets a certain leeway.

Resist it or hate it all you want, but that's just the way it is.

Romo has not done that yet. Until he does, when he makes a mistake, it's going to get magnified more so than if Eli (two rings) and Big Ben (two rings, three appearances) make a mistake.

Is it unfair? Yes. No. Maybe so.

 

[perrykemp]

These types of post can be counted on like clockwork here on CZ whenever a player like Brady, Brees, Eli Manning, Big Ben have bad games.

And everyone here knows these types of posts aren't about those guys at all -- they are really about the insecurity that Romo-sexuals have with Romo.

Don't you understand that these posts are so transparent?

Just say it man.... "Why don't those guys get criticized like our guy Romo?..... it's not fair...... it's not fair...... it's not fair....." :cry2:

The answer seems so obvious -- those two guys have 4 rings between them -- they won almost half of the Superbowls since they entered the league.

 

[CATCH17]

Rocks on fingers.

 

[MissouriCowboy]

These types of post can be counted on like clockwork here on CZ whenever a player like Brady, Brees, Eli Manning, Big Ben have bad games.

And everyone here knows these types of posts aren't about those guys at all -- they are really about the insecurity that Romo-sexuals have with Romo.

Don't you understand that these posts are so transparent?

Just say it man.... "Why don't those guys get criticized like our guy Romo?..... it's not fair...... it's not fair...... it's not fair....." :cry2:

The answer seems so obvious -- those two guys have 4 rings between them -- they won almost half of the Superbowls since they entered the league.

Eli has got slammed on NFL network. I heard even mediocre play mentioned.

 

[Nav22]

The answer seems so obvious -- those two guys have 4 rings between them -- they won almost half of the Superbowls since they entered the league.

No crying from me. I actually find the double-standard to be quote comical.

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

 

[5Stars]

No crying from me. I actually find the double-standard to be quote comical.

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

 

[AsthmaField]

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

Nice job, but the Packers fan will ignore it.

 

[perrykemp]

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

Highly original response - the default response for every fan ever who's QB has never been to or won a superbowl.

Wow, you sure got me there.

 

[tyke1doe]

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

If that's the case, then why this incessant need to validate Romo (not saying you are doing this, but this thread implies that)?

Why don't after every game the Cowboys win, posters who slobber over Romo (not that there's anything wrong with that ) say, "Boy, Romo sure was part of the larger team win."?

You know why they don't? You know why these constant references to Romo and other quarterbacks?

It's because despite all the talk about Super Bowls not being about an individual award but a team award, we understand that quarterbacks are the players who impact the offense and winning the most. Unless one's defense is scoring all the point, every team must rely on one's quarterback (who touches the ball every play) to produce points.

We understand that the quarterback is important. We make him important - even those who are now saying, "Ah ha! See, Romo is good."

You can't have it both ways. If Super Bowls are all about team awards, then you can't point to what Romo is doing now as if he's Mr. Individual who plays a greater role in the Cowboys' success than the team.

Yes, it's a team sport. But it's also an individual sport in that each position has to play up to its ability and responsibility; otherwise, the team isn't successful.

 

[5Stars]

Highly original response - the default response for every fan ever who's QB has never been to or won a superbowl.

Wow, you sure got me there.

Admit it, bro! You got punked!

:laugh2:

You know as well as I do and most of the free world aside from the "realists", that the QB is not the only guy that makes a team win.

 

[perrykemp]

If that's the case, then why this incessant need to validate Romo (not saying you are doing this, but this thread implies that)?

Why don't have every game the Cowboys win, posters who slobber over Romo (not that there's anything wrong with that ) say, "Boy, Romo sure was part of the larger team win."?

You know why they don't? You know why these constant references to Romo and other quarterbacks?

It's because despite all the talk about Super Bowls not being about an individual award but a team award, we understand that quarterbacks are the players who impact the offense and winning the most. Unless one's defense is scoring all the point, every team must rely on one's quarterback (who touches the ball every play) to produce points.

We understand that the quarterback is important. We make him important - even those who are now saying, "Ah ha! See, Romo is good."

You can't have it both ways. If Super Bowls are all about team awards, then you can't point to what Romo is doing now as if he's Mr. Individual who plays a greater role in the Cowboys' success than the team.

Yes, it's a team sport. But it's also an individual sport in that each position has to play up to its ability and responsibility; otherwise, the team isn't successful.

Pretty much nailed it.

I view the OP's post for what it is -- latent insecurity about how Tony Romo is perceived outside of Dallas.

The never-ending posts about how Tony Romo would have 3 or 4 superbowls if he was the QB for the Steelers, Giants, <Insert team name>, and how Tony Rony is truly better than just about every other elite QB if only X, Y, and Z can be taxing.

 

[perrykemp]

You know as well as I do and most of the free world aside from the "realists", that the QB is not the only guy that makes a team win.

You know as well as I do that the very 1st criteria used to evaluate a QB's career is Superbowls.

It may not be fair, and your can choose to stick your head in the sand if you don't like it, but it's just the way it is. I'm sorry.

 

[tyke1doe]

Pretty much nailed it.

I view the OP's post for what it is -- latent insecurity about how Tony Romo is perceived outside of Dallas.

The never-ending posts about how Tony Romo would have 3 or 4 superbowls if he was the QB for the Steelers, Giants, <Insert team name>, and how Tony Rony is truly better than just about every other elite QB if only X, Y, and Z can be taxing.

And it's subtle message is Romo is a great quarterback he just doesn't have the rings. While the bold may be true, the basic message still points to the quarterback. I mean who says, Witten would have 3 or 4 rings if he played for the Steelers, Giants, <Insert team name>? Who says DeMarcus Ware would have 3 or 4 rings if he played for the Ravens, Steelers or Giants?

I rarely, if ever, see such comments. But I generally see them associated with Romo.

So basically what that says is that the quarterback IS important. Not that other positions aren't for you need a complete team (relatively speaking) to get to the Super Bowl. But we recognize, whether we want to admit it or not, that the quarterback plays a pivotal part above all other positions in getting a team there; otherwise, you'd see the same importance placed on Witten or Ware or any other Cowboy with respect to Super Bowl appearances. And yet, for some strange reason, you don't see that with other positions nearly as much as you see it with the quarterback position.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Just kidding.

I shudder at the media reaction if Romo had thrown the INT in OT like number 7 in black did.

 

[Nav22]

It's because despite all the talk about Super Bowls not being about an individual award but a team award, we understand that quarterbacks are the players who impact the offense and winning the most.

Team sport, period. The Giants and Steelers wouldn't have won a thing if not for their dominant defenses, despite the media's QB fawning.

Again, the blissful football ignorance is a popular choice. Actually, it's the MOST popular choice. I'm not scolding you or anyone else for choosing it.

We make him important - even those who are now saying, "Ah ha! See, Romo is good."

You can't have it both ways. If Super Bowls are all about team awards, then you can't point to what Romo is doing now as if he's Mr. Individual who plays a greater role in the Cowboys' success than the team.

Actually, my opinion of Romo has never changed, and I'm definitely not giving him all the credit for our recent success.

If Carr doesn't make the play of the game Sunday, we might not win. If Victor Butler doesn't force the fumble on the punt return, we probably don't win.

If our D doesn't hold the Bengals out of the endzone time and time again (or if they don't drop several possible INTs), we definitely don't win.

See how that works? You don't over-hype the QB after a win just like you don't pin it all on them after a loss. Team sport. Everybody plays a role.

But again, blissful football ignorance is a pretty sweet deal. Who wants to be in the minority, anyways?

 

[5Stars]

And it's subtle message is Romo is a great quarterback he just doesn't have the rings. While the bold may be true, the basic message still points to the quarterback. I mean who says, Witten would have 3 or 4 rings if he played for the Steelers, Giants, <Insert team name>? Who says DeMarcus Ware would have 3 or 4 rings if he played for the Ravens, Steelers or Giants?

I rarely, if ever, see such comments. But I generally see them associated with Romo.

So basically what that says is that the quarterback IS important. Not that other positions aren't for you need a complete team (relatively speaking) to get to the Super Bowl. But we recognize, whether we want to admit it or not, that the quarterback plays a pivotal part above all other positions in getting a team there; otherwise, you'd see the same importance placed on Witten or Ware or any other Cowboy with respect to Super Bowl appearances. And yet, for some strange reason, you don't see that with other positions nearly as much as you see it with the quarterback position.

Trent Dilfer - Dan Marino

 

[Nav22]

You know as well as I do that the very 1st criteria used to evaluate a QB's career is Superbowls.

It may not be fair, and your can choose to stick your head in the sand if you don't like it, but it's just the way it is. I'm sorry.

I enjoyed this post tremendously. Thank you, sir.

 

[Lodeus]

Watching Ben and Eli win Super bowls are perfect example on how its a team game.