Things that Romo Brought
- Thread starter khiladi
- Start date
Tripod
New Member
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 0
My singular problem is this.
Romo came into a 5 point game and turned it into an embarassing rout by a division rival. We have played no other more singularly important game this year.
Bill panicked, and would probably do anything to have that decision back.
Purposely turning this season into a rebuilding year with 10 and a half games to go when your record was 3-2, was assinine.
Romo came into a 5 point game and turned it into an embarassing rout by a division rival. We have played no other more singularly important game this year.
Bill panicked, and would probably do anything to have that decision back.
Purposely turning this season into a rebuilding year with 10 and a half games to go when your record was 3-2, was assinine.
CrazyCowboy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 32,287
- Reaction score
- 440
Nice observations on Romo.....he did show a lot of leadership abilities.
wileedog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 11,356
- Reaction score
- 2,393
Tripod;1113455 said:
What was Bledsoe doing that was convincing you that the score would be much different if he played the 2nd half? I mean other than throwing an INT inside the 10 on a complete bonehead play?
Heck, what has he done all season to warrant that idea?
cowboys19
New Member
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 0
superpunk;1113341 said:
Yes your kidding. One thing Romo showed this game is he has plenty of arm strength.
Did you actually watch his throws?
That one throw to witten was a bullet. That one throw to TO that he dropped,(not the 4th down) was a bullet.
One thing is for sure. He has a stronger arm than Pennington and Brees.
SultanOfSix
Star Power
- Messages
- 12,956
- Reaction score
- 8,174
cowboys19;1113503 said:
Yeah, the way people always talked on this board, I thought he had a weak arm as well. Until I saw him actually throw last night.
I'm not sure how that apparent myth got started.
YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
Things that Romo Brought:
- Peppermint falvored Chapstick
- 5 'o clock shadow
- Pencil with Snoopy Eraser
- Picture of Buddy Ebsen as Jed Clampett
- C3PO Pez candy dispenser
- Clapper for his light in his locker
- 500 We WANT ROMO signs he wanted to pass out to the crowd.
- Messages
- 78,651
- Reaction score
- 42,995
superpunk;1113607 said:
And a six-pack of
Whoa...Romo could sell that and be rich, I bet it would sell as much as TOs lame popcorn.
CaptainAmerica
Active Member
- Messages
- 5,030
- Reaction score
- 26
Here is what I noticed about Romo in addition to all the other things that have been mentioned. (If someone else mentioned this forgive me for repeating)...What I was impressed with was Romo getting a lot more offensive players involved. Just think, in one half of play, T.O., Witten, Fasano, Crayton and Glenn all caught meaningful passes from Romo.
I understand a lot of back-up QBs have come into a game and looked like a gem, so we have to give this time to see if it's for real, but if Romo can cut down on his impulse throws, he shows signs of being a QB who gets a lot of people involved in the offense. That is a VERY, VERY good quality for a QB.
I understand a lot of back-up QBs have come into a game and looked like a gem, so we have to give this time to see if it's for real, but if Romo can cut down on his impulse throws, he shows signs of being a QB who gets a lot of people involved in the offense. That is a VERY, VERY good quality for a QB.
Slammin Bran 23
New Member
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 0
He brough 227 yards and 2 Td's in one half. The picks he can fix.
YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
superpunk;1113607 said:
And a six-pack of
LOL
Ever been to the Centennial Quickshop on 121 up near the Colony?
They have...
SMCowboy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 26
Guys, lets not blow this thing completely out of proportion. Romo did bring alot fo good things to the offense, BUT he also was VERY careless with the football.
When Romo came in, we went from an offense that could not move the football at all to moving it down the field several times, even a few times when the game was still VERY much in doubt. It really did open up the playbook, all the recievers were involved in the game. Witten became a weapon in the offense again instead of being forced to be a blocker. Even Joe Thiesman had to point out that Romo definately opened up the offense.
However, Romo also had some very bad plays. The INT on the screen pass was beyond stupid, I have no idea what he was thinking. And anytime you throw 3 INT's in a half you definately have a VERY real problem. There is no way of glossing over the fact that he did throw 3 INT's.
That said, there are definately some positives to be taken from the game. Against a good D, when the game was definately still in contention (unlike Henson and the Ravens) Romo should he could move the team and did not appear intimidated by the situation or look lost against the Giants blitz's. A LOT of QB's getting there first playing time would NOT hold up well under those circumstances.
But there is also a HUGE Question Mark, THREE INT'S in a HALF is completely unacceptable.
What do we really have in Romo is still in question. Was this an issue of a young QB being excited and tring to make to much happen. Was it an issue of Romo like the rest of the team having a bad day. Was it Romo pulling a Brett Farve, without the unbelievable talent level that Farve possessed when he was younger? Or is he anouther QB that just can not make all of the reads that are required and will always endup staring down to many WR's and thus always make WAY to many INT's. Do we have anouther Jake Delhomme who will always be a bit of a gunslinger but will grow out of it a little as he gets a few years of experience. Honestly noone knows the real answer to that question. And the answer to that question will determine if we have our QB of the future or not.
When Romo came in, we went from an offense that could not move the football at all to moving it down the field several times, even a few times when the game was still VERY much in doubt. It really did open up the playbook, all the recievers were involved in the game. Witten became a weapon in the offense again instead of being forced to be a blocker. Even Joe Thiesman had to point out that Romo definately opened up the offense.
However, Romo also had some very bad plays. The INT on the screen pass was beyond stupid, I have no idea what he was thinking. And anytime you throw 3 INT's in a half you definately have a VERY real problem. There is no way of glossing over the fact that he did throw 3 INT's.
That said, there are definately some positives to be taken from the game. Against a good D, when the game was definately still in contention (unlike Henson and the Ravens) Romo should he could move the team and did not appear intimidated by the situation or look lost against the Giants blitz's. A LOT of QB's getting there first playing time would NOT hold up well under those circumstances.
But there is also a HUGE Question Mark, THREE INT'S in a HALF is completely unacceptable.
What do we really have in Romo is still in question. Was this an issue of a young QB being excited and tring to make to much happen. Was it an issue of Romo like the rest of the team having a bad day. Was it Romo pulling a Brett Farve, without the unbelievable talent level that Farve possessed when he was younger? Or is he anouther QB that just can not make all of the reads that are required and will always endup staring down to many WR's and thus always make WAY to many INT's. Do we have anouther Jake Delhomme who will always be a bit of a gunslinger but will grow out of it a little as he gets a few years of experience. Honestly noone knows the real answer to that question. And the answer to that question will determine if we have our QB of the future or not.
CoCo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,603
- Reaction score
- 187
The problems aren't solved just because Romo took the field but I think trying this with Romo is no riskier than the path we were on with Bledsoe.
Its very clear who Bledsoe is and who our O-line is. That is not going to change as long as teams have the front 7 personnel to exploit it.
I really liked seeing a QB out there who actually went through multiple reads quickly. That stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
We didn't throw away our season last night. We had no season to throw away. What we did was try a new strategy in hopes it can save the season and at worst take a long look at the near term future and adjust our offseason plans accordingly.
Our QB options in 2007 are either Romo or a player not currently on the roster. That much is now clear.
Its very clear who Bledsoe is and who our O-line is. That is not going to change as long as teams have the front 7 personnel to exploit it.
I really liked seeing a QB out there who actually went through multiple reads quickly. That stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
We didn't throw away our season last night. We had no season to throw away. What we did was try a new strategy in hopes it can save the season and at worst take a long look at the near term future and adjust our offseason plans accordingly.
Our QB options in 2007 are either Romo or a player not currently on the roster. That much is now clear.