News: Tony Romo at his very worst wouldn't be as bad as the Cowboys' backup quarterbacks

[Yakuza Rich]

I understand the point you were making, and I agree. I was just saying that Romo was (and has on numerous other occasions) able to cover fora a horrendous game. Cassell may have been able to pull it out against NY after his three picks if he would have had the opportunity at the end, though I doubt it.

The Buffalo game may not have been his worst game. Off the top of my head the SF game last year was probably worse since he showed no ability to get the offense to score, turned the ball over due to being rusty and then turned the ball over on pure sloppiness.

I remember the 2008 game against the Steelers being quite awful. The rest of the team did everything to win that game, but Romo woefully incompetent and didn't look like he quite recovered from the thumb injury.

The 2011 Lions game was more frustrating than anything. First, he played great in the first half. And even some of the INT's were not his fault. But what was inexcusable was us throwing the ball so often and apparently Romo was audibling out of run plays. That's the Romo that frustrates me the most...the guy that has a real lack of football awareness and not understanding in that game, the only thing that likely allows a team like the Lions to get back into the game is if they get a INT or fumble for a return TD (or a punt return).

I've seen far less of 'poor football awareness' Romo in the past 2 seasons. Even in 2013 when we neglected the run and had some back breaking interception. If there's a weakness in Romo it' that I don't think he always sees the big picture of what the opposing team is trying to do and what needs to happen. That's how guys like Haslett gave him fits because he was going to send the blitz time and time again, get us out of running the ball, get us into a dink-n-dunk offense (which we suck at) and eventually get the reads of where Romo is going with the ball and then bait him into a play.

Of course, some of the blame falls on Garrett. I wanted to strangle both of them after the 2011 Lions loss for not forcing Romo to run the ball and be far more careful. And it would help if Garrett made Romo aware of the trap that D-Coordinators like Haslett try to set for them.






YR

 

[tyke1doe]

Nah. I wrote it perfectly clear. Especially when I wrote 'you can say that for any QB.'

But you also said ...

I would take Weeden or Cassel over him.

I know logical statements since I'm a professional statistician and mathematics is very logic centric.

That simply means you apply logic with numbers and numerical statements. It doesn't necessarily mean you exercise logic with words. There are plenty of mathematicians and accountants who can't write worth a darn.

Further qualifying a statement as 'I would say that about ANY Quarterback' is a statement that also includes that I would rather see Weeden or Cassel over any other QB on their *worst* day. That includes Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc.

Ah, but you said ... I would take Weeden or Cassel over HIM. And the HIM is Romo.
And in specific, you mentioned Romo's five interceptions.
Well, that might have been Romo's worst day, but it was also one of his best days because it showed his ability to overcome insurmountable odds.
Even so, your statement and comparison is odd.
So if Romo's worst day is five interceptions, yet he leads a comeback to win and he has an interception-free day but loses, which do you think would be his worst day or best day?
Furthemore, are you saying that you would rather have a quarterback who throws no interceptions or even two interceptions and loses versus a quarterback who throws five interceptions yet lead his team back to win?

And when I pre-qualified that with 'it depends how literal you want to take it', that's a statement that indicates that I know the writer probably does not literally mean it, but in case he does...I would not want to take Romo on his very worst day over Cassel or Weeden.

The problem with our argument is that you chose a game where Romo threw five interceptions YET WON!!!!. Therein lies the problem with your statement. You should have used a game where Romo threw five interceptions and lost. But you didn't.
You used an example that isn't consistent with what you were trying to prove.

And this can be easily showed by asking the question to you and the forum: Would you take a quarterback who throws five interceptions but leads his team to win over a quarterback who throws two interceptions but leads his team to a lose?

I think we all know the answer to that.

I included enough statements and qualifiers to limit the logical conclusion to basically one conclusion. But instead, you came up with your own answer as a dig at me because you're passive-aggressive. And when I pointed how illogical that was, instead of giving a mea culpa, you just made illogical excuses.
YR

You're too far in to admit you're wrong. And, no, it wasn't a passive-aggressive dig. You used an inappropriate and inconsistent example and tried to weasel out by saying you're talking about all quarterbacks. But the critical point isn't the interceptions per se, but the game in which they happened and what the outcome of those games were.

Again, I'm not the one who chose the one game where Romo throws five interceptions and wins to make a comparison on how you'd much prefer Weeden and Cassel.

It's pretty clear to everyone but you, which makes it quite laughable.

 

[tyke1doe]

The Buffalo game may not have been his worst game. Off the top of my head the SF game last year was probably worse since he showed no ability to get the offense to score, turned the ball over due to being rusty and then turned the ball over on pure sloppiness.

I remember the 2008 game against the Steelers being quite awful. The rest of the team did everything to win that game, but Romo woefully incompetent and didn't look like he quite recovered from the thumb injury.

The 2011 Lions game was more frustrating than anything. First, he played great in the first half. And even some of the INT's were not his fault. But what was inexcusable was us throwing the ball so often and apparently Romo was audibling out of run plays. That's the Romo that frustrates me the most...the guy that has a real lack of football awareness and not understanding in that game, the only thing that likely allows a team like the Lions to get back into the game is if they get a INT or fumble for a return TD (or a punt return).

I've seen far less of 'poor football awareness' Romo in the past 2 seasons. Even in 2013 when we neglected the run and had some back breaking interception. If there's a weakness in Romo it' that I don't think he always sees the big picture of what the opposing team is trying to do and what needs to happen. That's how guys like Haslett gave him fits because he was going to send the blitz time and time again, get us out of running the ball, get us into a dink-n-dunk offense (which we suck at) and eventually get the reads of where Romo is going with the ball and then bait him into a play.

Of course, some of the blame falls on Garrett. I wanted to strangle both of them after the 2011 Lions loss for not forcing Romo to run the ball and be far more careful. And it would help if Garrett made Romo aware of the trap that D-Coordinators like Haslett try to set for them.

YR

And you have the NERVE to talk about someone being logically inconsistent while lauding your perfectly clear writing skills when you contradict yourself. I'll remind you what you said.

If I had to take Tony at his very worst...say the 5 INT Buffalo game ...

You're now backtracking because you realize the error of what you said and instead of acknowledging you chose a very poor example - one I called you on - you are now trying to say it wasn't Romo's worst game. I wonder why? Uh, because he WON the game in one of the greatest examples of him overcoming his own mistakes to lead his team to victory? Naahhh, that couldn't be it.

 

[cowboyuptx]

Duh... Even in those rare games where Romo throws 3-4 interceptions, we still have a much better chance of winning.

 

[Eddie]

What kills me about the Seattle game was that we had the ball with a minute and 20 seconds only down by 1 point. A few first downs and we would have been in FG position to win the game. After a penalty gave us a free 5 yards ... we couldn't even get 1 first down.

 

[LandryFan]

I've seen far less of 'poor football awareness' Romo in the past 2 seasons. Even in 2013 when we neglected the run and had some back breaking interception. If there's a weakness in Romo it' that I don't think he always sees the big picture of what the opposing team is trying to do and what needs to happen. That's how guys like Haslett gave him fits because he was going to send the blitz time and time again, get us out of running the ball, get us into a dink-n-dunk offense (which we suck at) and eventually get the reads of where Romo is going with the ball and then bait him into a play.

Of course, some of the blame falls on Garrett. I wanted to strangle both of them after the 2011 Lions loss for not forcing Romo to run the ball and be far more careful. And it would help if Garrett made Romo aware of the trap that D-Coordinators like Haslett try to set for them.


YR

All well stated. The one thing Romo has done is work on his weaknesses (both physical and mental), IMO. He states every year that he picks something in his game to improve, and then he does it. I think a lot of players say that, but it's just lip service...not Romo. He actually works hard at it. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the coaches could have done a much better job of helping him stay out of bad situations in the past when Romo just couldn't seem to do it himself. But that, to me, is a part of the reason the coaches are there.

 

[tyke1doe]

Duh... Even in those rare games where Romo throws 3-4 interceptions, we still have a much better chance of winning.

As the Buffalo game proves. The one game cited as Romo's worst is actually the best game to show he can overcome tremendous odds, even if they're self-inflicted.

Romo throws five picks and STILL leads the Cowboys to victory. Matt Cassel throws three picks, and we still lose. Yeah, tell me who you want behind center.

-5 < -3 is correct if you're looking strictly at interception numbers and not considering any other variable.
But if you consider final score 25 > 24 is more important. To me, 25 > 24 is more significant than -5 < -3.

But that's just me. Others may enjoy losing as long as their quarterback's interception count is low or zero.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You're now backtracking because you realize the error of what you said and instead of acknowledging you chose a very poor example - one I called you on - you are now trying to say it wasn't Romo's worst game. I wonder why? Uh, because he WON the game in one of the greatest examples of him overcoming his own mistakes to lead his team to victory? Naahhh, that couldn't be it.

Who is backtracking?

I said 'it depends on how literal you want to take it?' Tony Romo at his very worst is no better than Weeden or Cassel. The same goes for Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

That's why I said 'you could say this about any quarterback.'

Just admit that you jumped the gun on a perfectly logical statement that had qualifiers to where you could reach one conclusion.

That sure beats being passive aggressive about it.






YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

All well stated. The one thing Romo has done is work on his weaknesses (both physical and mental), IMO. He states every year that he picks something in his game to improve, and then he does it. I think a lot of players say that, but it's just lip service...not Romo. He actually works hard at it. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the coaches could have done a much better job of helping him stay out of bad situations in the past when Romo just couldn't seem to do it himself. But that, to me, is a part of the reason the coaches are there.

It may come from his golf background. As a former collegiate golfer that works with Tour players and is good friends with many instructors, that's kind of the mentality they have.

One of the things I disliked about what Romo was working on was trying to be Tom Brady and stay in the back of the pocket. Theoretically, it's a nice idea. Much like a golfer trying to do something that say Jordan Spieth does in his golf swing. But, Romo isn't Brady. Two completely different physical profiles, athleticism, strengths and weaknesses along with 2 very different throwing motions. I think Romo should have tried to follow more of Drew Brees' mechanics. A guy that moves around in the pocket well and in particular makes big plays when he steps up into the front of the pocket (which Romo does well, too...just he stopped doing it for a while). And better learning how to throw screens and swing passes and hit the checkdowns like Brees does so well.

I think Wade Wilson deserves a lot of blame for either teaching Romo that or letting Romo to his own and not stepping in and saying that isn't a good idea.

That's why I have preached limiting Romo's throws and audibles. It's not really an indictment of Romo. Every QB has their flaws. It's really more of an indictment against the coaching staff for allowing it to happen (or promoting it). It's just like if a golf instructor tried to turn Jordan Spieth into a 120 mph club speed golfer (he's at 113 mph). It's just a very bad fit.






YR

 

[tyke1doe]

Who is backtracking?

You are.

I said 'it depends on how literal you want to take it?' Tony Romo at his very worst is no better than Weeden or Cassel. The same goes for Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

That's why I said 'you could say this about any quarterback.'

You can't even quote yourself correctly.

This is what you said:

Depends on how literal you want to get with it. If I had to take Tony at his very worst...say the 5 INT Buffalo game...I would take Weeden or Cassel over him.

But, the same could be said about virtually any QB.

You're now ignoring the context YOU established. Let's carefully dissect YOUR statement.

Based on YOUR statement, you:

1. You establish that Tony Romo has had a bad game
2. You establish the game that Tony Romo was at his worst - the Buffalo game where he throws five picks.
3. You establish that based on the Buffalo game, you would take Weeden and Cassel over Romo
4. Then you say this would apply to any other quarterback.

What is your context? Your context is that Tony Romo has played a very bad game, i.e., the Buffalo game where he threw five picks.
You then use the FIVE PICKS to illustrate why you would take Cassel and Weeden over him (Romo).
But you conveniently omit the fact that ROMO LED A COMEBACK TO WIN THE GAME!!!!
This is a critical error in your statement because you don't fully explore the factors in that game that would invalidate your conclusion. And you know it is because you later try to amend your point by saying the Buffalo game wasn't his worst (then pick the San Francisco game last year that he lost. Heh!) and never answered my question:

Would you take Romo who threw five interceptions but won a game over Cassel or Weeden who throw fewer interceptions but lose games? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Then, you say "the same could be said about virtually any quarterback." And to back this up, you added in a subsequent post the names of Joe Montana and other great quarterbacks. But ...
The example you picked had Romo leading his team back from multiple interceptions to win the game.

That's the context YOU established. So are you saying that you would take Cassel and Weeden if they threw one pick yet loss the game over a Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady who threw five picks yet led their teams to victory? Surely, you're not THAT stubborn to argue a position for which YOU established the context.

Just admit that you jumped the gun on a perfectly logical statement that had qualifiers to where you could reach one conclusion.

You mean the qualifier you established by citing a game where Tony Romo throws five interception but leads a game-winning drive?

I guess you thought some ambiguously meaningless statement such as "It depends on how literal you want to make this" somehow obscures your concrete example of a real game with a real conclusion.

That sure beats being passive aggressive about it.

This is pure deflection. You're trying to push everything back on me because I called you on YOUR poor example.
Oh, and there's NOTHING passive about my approach.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You are.



You can't even quote yourself correctly.

This is what you said:



You're now ignoring the context YOU established. Let's carefully dissect YOUR statement.

Based on YOUR statement, you:

1. You establish that Tony Romo has had a bad game
2. You establish the game that Tony Romo was at his worst - the Buffalo game where he throws five picks.
3. You establish that based on the Buffalo game, you would take Weeden and Cassel over Romo
4. Then you say this would apply to any other quarterback.

What is your context? Your context is that Tony Romo has played a very bad game, i.e., the Buffalo game where he threw five picks.
You then use the FIVE PICKS to illustrate why you would take Cassel and Weeden over him (Romo).
But you conveniently omit the fact that ROMO LED A COMEBACK TO WIN THE GAME!!!!
This is a critical error in your statement because you don't fully explore the factors in that game that would invalidate your conclusion. And you know it is because you later try to amend your point by saying the Buffalo game wasn't his worst (then pick the San Francisco game last year that he lost. Heh!) and never answered my question:

Would you take Romo who threw five interceptions but won a game over Cassel or Weeden who throw fewer interceptions but lose games? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Then, you say "the same could be said about virtually any quarterback." And to back this up, you added in a subsequent post the names of Joe Montana and other great quarterbacks. But ...
The example you picked had Romo leading his team back from multiple interceptions to win the game.

That's the context YOU established. So are you saying that you would take Cassel and Weeden if they threw one pick yet loss the game over a Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady who threw five picks yet led their teams to victory? Surely, you're not THAT stubborn to argue a position for which YOU established the context.



You mean the qualifier you established by citing a game where Tony Romo throws five interception but leads a game-winning drive?

I guess you thought some ambiguously meaningless statement such as "It depends on how literal you want to make this" somehow obscures your concrete example of a real game with a real conclusion.



This is pure deflection. You're trying to push everything back on me because I called you on YOUR poor example.
Oh, and there's NOTHING passive about my approach.

I can see why you worked in the press. Convoluted logic so you don't have to admit you were wrong and to fit your agenda.

Again, play the passive-aggressive game with somebody who cares.





YR

 

[tyke1doe]

I can see why you worked in the press. Convoluted logic so you don't have to admit you were wrong and to fit your agenda.

What agenda would that be? Dismantling your faulty reasoning and poor example? Yeah, I'm good at that.

And my logic is not convoluted at all, which is why I so easily and thoroughly dissected your argument. You ignore your OWN example in reaching your conclusion. Yeah, you'd better stick to math equations and numbers.

Again, play the passive-aggressive game with somebody who cares.

Translation: You won't answer my question which gets to the heart of this matter, i.e., whether you'd prefer Cassel and Weeden who throw for zero interceptions yet lose games over Romo who throws five interceptions but leads a comeback to win a game. You won't respond because the answer is clear, and it exposes your original point as being utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and, no I'm not being passive at all. I'm being very aggressive.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

What agenda would that be? Dismantling your faulty reasoning and poor example? Yeah, I'm good at that.

And my logic is not convoluted at all, which is why I so easily and thoroughly dissected your argument. You ignore your OWN example in reaching your conclusion. Yeah, you'd better stick to math equations and numbers.



Translation: You won't answer my question which gets to the heart of this matter, i.e., whether you'd prefer Cassel and Weeden who throw for zero interceptions yet lose games over Romo who throws five interceptions but leads a comeback to win a game. You won't respond because the answer is clear, and it exposes your original point as being utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and, no I'm not being passive at all. I'm being very aggressive.

It obviously upsets you that I pointed out your passive-aggressiveness ways and you're starting to get into the 'stalker zone.'

So, you 'win.' You're right.

Happy?

Now go and play your passive aggressive games with somebody else.





YR

 

[tyke1doe]

It obviously upsets you that I pointed out your passive-aggressiveness ways and you're starting to get into the 'stalker zone.'

So, you 'win.' You're right.

Happy?

Now go and play your passive aggressive games with somebody else.

You returned NOT to answer my question (would you chose Cassel/Weeden and their no interception winless ways vs. a Romo with five interceptions winning ways), but to carry on about your perceptions of my being passive-aggressive.

Translation: You can and will continue to argue your perception of me but you WON'T argue the football issue like whether Romo being a winning quarterback despite throwing interceptions is better than Cassel/Weeden not throwing interceptions but losing games.

Perfect.

 

[CCBoy]

I'm not sure I agree with your detective work there, CCBoy.

At his worst, Tony half had 5 picks.

First off, if there were a beef from you, it is against the author of the article...but I guess that in the midst of Fall Festivals you failed to read and relate to information presented in the article.

Pick a presented fact, and then disprove upon points for discussion. Based purely upon a convenient apprehension, build a stronger objection to talk football.

Oh, and I contribute to Wounded Warriors also...

 

[CCBoy]

Nah. I wrote it perfectly clear. Especially when I wrote 'you can say that for any QB.'



I know logical statements since I'm a professional statistician and mathematics is very logic centric.

Further qualifying a statement as 'I would say that about ANY Quarterback' is a statement that also includes that I would rather see Weeden or Cassel over any other QB on their *worst* day. That includes Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc.

And when I pre-qualified that with 'it depends how literal you want to take it', that's a statement that indicates that I know the writer probably does not literally mean it, but in case he does...I would not want to take Romo on his very worst day over Cassel or Weeden.

I included enough statements and qualifiers to limit the logical conclusion to basically one conclusion. But instead, you came up with your own answer as a dig at me because you're passive-aggressive. And when I pointed how illogical that was, instead of giving a mea culpa, you just made illogical excuses.





YR

Between the running game and distance thrown by Weeden, previously, defenses could just keep all eleven defenders in the box area. And until Dez is introduced strongly in a game plan, Cassell had a pretty similar result also...to add a discussive element to the picture.

 

[CCBoy]

You returned NOT to answer my question (would you chose Cassel/Weeden and their no interception winless ways vs. a Romo with five interceptions winning ways), but to carry on about your perceptions of my being passive-aggressive.

Translation: You can and will continue to argue your perception of me but you WON'T argue the football issue like whether Romo being a winning quarterback despite throwing interceptions is better than Cassel/Weeden not throwing interceptions but losing games.

Perfect.

Or, that problem boils down to whether or not, against Philadelphia, the Cowboys can present a valid vertical game to expand what Philadelphia sees it beyond the box area. That with Cassell or Weeden.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

First off, if there were a beef from you, it is against the author of the article...but I guess that in the midst of Fall Festivals you failed to read and relate to information presented in the article.

Pick a presented fact, and then disprove upon points for discussion. Based purely upon a convenient apprehension, build a stronger objection to talk football.

Oh, and I contribute to Wounded Warriors also...

I ... I don't rightly no what this is about but i trust that it is germane and humane.
but what i was trying to say in that special way i half is that we don't really want Romo at his worst because at his worst he will thow 4 or 5 picks in one game. Now, this is not chronic with him, but since the author say, he say "at his worst" I flashed back to his worst and that was not pretty.
And I dont no where wounded warriers came from so I will not comment. maybe you confuse me with some other intelgent mans. allow me to reread the author's article because i suspect i missed something.
Half a great day and I salute you as always esept when I am asleep.

 

[Slashar00]

I'm starting to become convinced that Romo is the only reason why this team has been relevant since 2006.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

as a mans with a big brain I want to clarify that passive aggressive is very different and stuff than passive.

OK, continue fighting.