Tony, I love you man

[03EBZ06]

Sometimes a QB's early career can bite him in the behind. His decision making the past three years has been solid. Currently 31 games at 13 INT's. That's protecting the football. I'd take Romo over Smith all day. Alex is still a solid QB that can protect the ball and get ya a W with the right talent around him.

Last 31 games? So you are going to cherry pick stats, lol.

Never mind that he has thrown 53 INTs in 54 games prior to those 31 games.

 

[dragon_mikal]

Woah, get off his sack. He's been good. But the metric used for "greatness" is Super Bowls.

Not even remotely true.

 

[kirkjrk]

This game is a historical proof that Tony Romo is the greatest quarterback to ever play for this franchise. This game defines the Romo era, and it proves once again that without Romo, this team would be meaningless and a losing franchise the past 7 years. It's too much pressure for Romo, constant change of defensive coordinators, schemes, players, etc, he just has to play perfect ball in order for this team to achieve, and truth is no quarterback, no human has ever been flawless at any level.


I too will join this thread's bandwagon; Tony, I love you man, you are the greatest Cowboy I have ever seen.

If yardage and TDs are what you based your best ever on , then Romo would have a strong case for best ever. If meaningful wins would be your base for best ever, then Romo would be far down the list. I'll always take wins over stats.

The fact remains quite clear that the ball was in Romo's hands at the end of the KC game and Denver game--also the last game against Washington last year and how many wins did we come away with--zero. Romo will most always find a way to lose the game. History proves that and no excuse for him can disprove the fact.

This team basically has no chance without Romo, but unfortunately they also have very little chance with him and all his blunders. Dallas will become a better team, win wise, when Romo leaves--might take 1-3 years but will be no worse than the mediocre team we have now.

I don't hate Romo but I'm not a white laboratory rat that keeps going in door number one and getting banged over the head. I'm a realist and can see Romo at QB is nothing more than a dead end road.

I always stress to my students to strive strongly for perfection. I also tell them most probably they won't attain that loft but their plateau should be somewhere between good and perfect. I also remind them if their goal is set at being mediocre, then that is the best they can hope for and never have a chance at being good or perfect. Over the last 15-17 years the Cowboys goal, unknowing to them, has been to be mediocre. I'll give them this they have fully attained their goal. Probably the best mediocre team during that period, but unfortunate for the fans. The fans deserve much more than this.

 

[StarBoyz83]

It sucks that the int happened but oh well. I love romo. Theres only 4 qds id take over him. Hes a great qb.

 

[Broges74]

Aikman could not have won with this team is all I am saying. They would be 8-8 with him just like they are now. Aikman was a good QB but would have been knocked out of games with this line and no Emmitt. And I am 39 and remember the triplets being drafted, the horrible first season and everything that happened after that.

 

[ringmaster]

Agreed to some extent although, Aikman is overrated. Alex Smith could have won 3 Super Bowls with that team.

I will have to disagree with you about Alex Smith winnning 3 SBs with those Dallas teams of the 90s, Smith is nowhere near the QB that Aikman was.

 

[ringmaster]

I said Tony is going to obliterate Aikmans numbers. Then somehow from there it became "I hate Aikman." I love the dude. He's a good QB. He deserves to be in the HOF. There are ya happy? Tony is a better QB. Even Aikman said it. How about them apples.

You're right about when its all said and done Romo, will own every single record in franchise history passing. As for you hating Aikman, I don't think you do but if any QB could win with those teams then Garrett, or Wilson both could done the same thing but they didn't.

 

[pastordug]

I mean to even compare Romo to Staubach is pointless.

Really? So in your opinion because the "game has changed" so much it would be "pointless" to compare Jim Brown to any other running back because the game has changed? How about comparing Emmitt? Or Owens? You get the point. It is a valid comparison and I stand by my opinion........Romo could not carry Roger's STRAP.

 

[FLCowboyFan]

Too young to see Staubach, 5 years old when Aikman won his last Super Bowl, witness of the Stoerner/Wright/Carter/Hutchinson/Henson years, nothing but love for Tony Touchdown. It's been a life of many-a-heartbreak.

Roger was the opposite of Romo. He might not play well early but he was clutch under pressure. I love Romo but I just knew Roger would win no matter the score.

 

[percyhoward]

I'll always take wins over stats.

There's no difference between wins and stats. Wins are stats. What you're calling the difference between "wins" and "stats" is really just the difference between an individual stat and a team stat.

Often in a discussion about individual players, when it's pointed out that a player on a losing team has great individual stats, someone makes a post like yours without realizing that it wasn't the team that was being touted in the first place. It was the player.

 

[HeavyBarrel]

Tony Romo may not ever win a title here but that's because the team around probably isn't good enough......I know it's loser talk but if Patrick Crayton catches that ball that hit him right in the hands in the 07' playoff game against the Giants, Dallas probably wins that game, goes on to beat Brett Favre at Texas stadium (again) and we would have seen Romo in a SB and who knows.....I know big if!