Tony Romo Compared to 8 Greats After 39 Career Starts

[TNCowboy]

The major problem with your theory is that the "less than stellar Decembers" are not confined to the Tony Romo years. So the theory that he is responsible does not hold water. Our December fades date back to 1997. Way before Tony Romo even arrived at Eastern Illinois.

That year Barry Switzer's Aikman led Cowboys were 0-3.

We only won 3 games total in Gailey's 2 years as HC, also with Aikman at the helm.

Campo was 4-9 in December. Over 3 years.

The great Bill Parcells was 8-9 overall and was a very average 6-6 without Tony Romo.

It is a Cowboys December fade thing, not a Tony Romo December fade thing.

The major problem with your theory is that only 2 players are on the team from most of those seasons. And I advocate replacing both of them. Tony Romo's #s fade significantly in December. For the most part, no one can attribute much of that to bad weather.

Barry Switzer was the team's primary problem (along with the GM who hired him). Unlike Romo and the current crop of Cowboys, Aikman had proven himself many times over by the Switzer and Gailey years.

A 4-9 December record for Dave Campo is virtually the same winning % as Sept-Nov winning % for Dave Campo. His December record would only be relevant if they actually had any success before December.

The Cowboys were essentially a .500 team under Bill Parcells, 34-32, I believe. A .500 December record doesn't suggest anything, other than the Cowboys were the same in December as they were Sept-Nov. And if you want to joke about "the Great Bill Parcells", you should recall he's essentially the only person associated with this club since Emmitt Smith left that had any history of success at all.

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 22-4 from Sept - Nov under Romo, but only 5-10 thereafter. Most of those other seasons, the Cowboys were bad in December, because they were a bad or mediocre team, and their record showed it. But under Romo, you have a team that has won 85% of its games pre-December, but less than 35% after November.

The same fans who want to try to use #s to justify Romo in some historical context continue to ignore or omit those which matter most.

 

[jobberone]

I would like to see how he compares in wins and losses.

I will go ahead and say it for his detractors, until he wins in the post season it means nothing. I don't happen to agree with that, but it has now been said.

You beat me to it but I do buy it....in part. You can either be Fran Tarketon or Dan Fouts or even Dan Marino. Or you can be a Staubach or Aikman or even (this is hard to do) a Bradshawralph: :steelers.

Not our rules.

Romo has the tools. If the OL will play like it can then he'll do a good+ job.

 

[RESIN8]

Plus a lot of people really are morons. Stupıdıty was around long before ESPN or talk radıo. It makes it entertaınıng for the rest of us when we can lısten to how Stephen McGee ıs goıng to push a 90+ QB ratıng QB out of hıs job. Just lıke we got to poınt and laugh last year at the people sayıng the team was goıng to be even better after Tony got hurt because at least Brad Johnson wouldnt fumble and turn the ball over.

Someone actually said that? I thought Jerry was ******** going into the season with BJ as the backup. We had a pretty solid prospect the year before for the back up roll in Matt Moore. I'm not saying this guy was going to take over for Tony, but he was a way better option then some of the backups we've had after Tony took over.

 

[JVita17]

I didn’t have time to look at the playoff numbers.

Didnt have time or wanted to save Romo in this thread?

 

[Alexander]

the whole not winning in the playoff game argument is ridiculous

how does one team usually make the postseason? great QB play, wow, what a concept

if Romo doesn't play lights out, he doesn't have a chance to lose in the playoffs, because Dallas probably doesn't make it there

you can't go straight to looking at his playoff record, and totally disregard his career stats

Nor can you simply wave off his poor showings late in each of his three seasons and dismiss them as folly.

 

[Dallaslullaby]

I think people expect a lot from the QB sometimes too much. As great as Marino was no SB, Dan Fouts no SB and others like Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton made it to the SB but never won. In my view Football is the ultimate team sport and it is teams who get it done or not, not the QB alone. So when I see Romo getting the crap kicked out of him in Dec where he was sacked 12 times I know it was more than just Romo that is not to say Romo has to do a better job of protecting the ball when the rush is coming but overall this team did not play good enough to win we they needed to.

Full agreement - sure he needs to cut the fumbles but that o-line better protect him better this year

Litmus test for me is this - if dallas cut romo tomorrow, how many teams move to sign him? I say at least 25, he is that good

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Nor can you simply wave off his poor showings late in each of his three seasons and dismiss them as folly.

I don't

Alex

 

[TNCowboy]

Full agreement - sure he needs to cut the fumbles but that o-line better protect him better this year

Litmus test for me is this - if dallas cut romo tomorrow, how many teams move to sign him? I say at least 25, he is that good

Salary considerations aside, probably more than 25. But if the Cowboys cut Jason Williams tomorrow, I'd say 25 teams would give him serious consideration as well, even though he's yet to play a down.

But that has nothing to do with how Romo fits in any historical context. Few posters are arguing that Tony Romo sucks. He's clearly a good player. But the OP was trying to put him in some brilliant historical light vs. several legendary QBs, even though many of those QBs played in a completely different era, in a very different game, and most of the #s compiled here were in the early stages of their careers, not the middle of their careers, as is the case with Romo.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Great post OP. Good thread with lots of interesting, entertaining, and valid points.

 

[Dallaslullaby]

Salary considerations aside, probably more than 25. But if the Cowboys cut Jason Williams tomorrow, I'd say 25 teams would give him serious consideration as well, even though he's yet to play a down.

But that has nothing to do with how Romo fits in any historical context. Few posters are arguing that Tony Romo sucks. He's clearly a good player. But the OP was trying to put him in some brilliant historical light vs. several legendary QBs, even though many of those QBs played in a completely different era, in a very different game, and most of the #s compiled here were in the early stages of their careers, not the middle of their careers, as is the case with Romo.

Well yes I agree with you with the last part which is a little bit of overhype

On the other hand I personally feel that unless this team unites, romo can play lights out and the cowboys still wont win. I am confident for some reason they will unite though, perhaps the sad incident at the weekend will help speed the healing process in a strange way also

 

[birdwells1]

It's not that they don't like Romo and of course they don't have a better option.
The people that want to shew away/ disregard his eye-poping numbers fall into one of three categories:

1) They are a Troll. They know Romo is a great QB and will keep Dallas in contention each and every year during his prime. Their objective is to plant seeds of doubt in us fans.

2) They are a less than asstute fans of the game. They just don't get it.

3) They are bitter. They're sick and tired of the team's failings and they truely believe no member of this team should receive credit of any kind. I also suspect they believe things written on this board will actually have an impact on the players.

WOW!!! are you serious? Put your blue tinted shade down.

 

[Hostile]

The major problem with your theory is that only 2 players are on the team from most of those seasons. And I advocate replacing both of them. Tony Romo's #s fade significantly in December. For the most part, no one can attribute much of that to bad weather.

Barry Switzer was the team's primary problem (along with the GM who hired him). Unlike Romo and the current crop of Cowboys, Aikman had proven himself many times over by the Switzer and Gailey years.

A 4-9 December record for Dave Campo is virtually the same winning % as Sept-Nov winning % for Dave Campo. His December record would only be relevant if they actually had any success before December.

The Cowboys were essentially a .500 team under Bill Parcells, 34-32, I believe. A .500 December record doesn't suggest anything, other than the Cowboys were the same in December as they were Sept-Nov. And if you want to joke about "the Great Bill Parcells", you should recall he's essentially the only person associated with this club since Emmitt Smith left that had any history of success at all.

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 22-4 from Sept - Nov under Romo, but only 5-10 thereafter. Most of those other seasons, the Cowboys were bad in December, because they were a bad or mediocre team, and their record showed it. But under Romo, you have a team that has won 85% of its games pre-December, but less than 35% after November.

The same fans who want to try to use #s to justify Romo in some historical context continue to ignore or omit those which matter most.

Oh well, I tried. Good luck with your delusions.

 

[sonnyboy]

The major problem with your theory is that only 2 players are on the team from most of those seasons. And I advocate replacing both of them. Tony Romo's #s fade significantly in December. For the most part, no one can attribute much of that to bad weather.

Barry Switzer was the team's primary problem (along with the GM who hired him). Unlike Romo and the current crop of Cowboys, Aikman had proven himself many times over by the Switzer and Gailey years.

A 4-9 December record for Dave Campo is virtually the same winning % as Sept-Nov winning % for Dave Campo. His December record would only be relevant if they actually had any success before December.

The Cowboys were essentially a .500 team under Bill Parcells, 34-32, I believe. A .500 December record doesn't suggest anything, other than the Cowboys were the same in December as they were Sept-Nov. And if you want to joke about "the Great Bill Parcells", you should recall he's essentially the only person associated with this club since Emmitt Smith left that had any history of success at all.

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 22-4 from Sept - Nov under Romo, but only 5-10 thereafter. Most of those other seasons, the Cowboys were bad in December, because they were a bad or mediocre team, and their record showed it. But under Romo, you have a team that has won 85% of its games pre-December, but less than 35% after November.

The same fans who want to try to use #s to justify Romo in some historical context continue to ignore or omit those which matter most.

They have the same record with Witten and Ware. Do you want to detract from their performances? Are they not both the best at their positions?
I guess not since they're 5-10 after Nov the past three years.

 

[RESIN8]

Full agreement - sure he needs to cut the fumbles but that o-line better protect him better this year

Litmus test for me is this - if dallas cut romo tomorrow, how many teams move to sign him? I say at least 25, he is that good

If he got cut before teams made moves than you can cut my no list in half. This isn't sayiing that they have a better option then Romo, but moves have already been made to satisfy that need
Colts?no
Patriots?no
Chargers?no
Pittsburg?no
Detroit?no
NY Jets?no
Chicago?no
NY G?no
Green Bay?no
KC?no
Cincy?no
Buffalo?if they cut TO
Tampa Bay?no
Arizona?no
Atlanta?no
New Orleans?no
Baltimore?no


bubble teams
Philly
Oakland
Cleveland
Jax
Seattle
Carolina
Houston


For sure
SF
Minny
Washington
Denver
Miami
Tennessee
Saint Louis

 

[birdwells1]

The truth of the matter is if Dallas had made the playoffs three years in a row and Romo had won at least one or two playoff games every year but not the Super Bowl he would then get the "He can't win the big one" argument from the same people.

If Romo helps guide Dallas this year all the way to the NFC championship game or even the Super Bowl but does not win, the same detractors will be calling him a choke artist that can not win the big one.

I fully understand that QBs are measured ultimately by the Super Bowl rings they wear. I also understand that two and a half years does not constitute a career.

Romo has to get better at certain parts of his game, but from the best I can tell so does nearly every other Cowboy on the roster.


Naw, it really depends on how the player performs in said game. If Romo throws for 300+, 3tds, 0 turnovers, he would have done his part. If he has a subpar game compared to his regular season averages the he will get the blame and should

 

[SkinsFan28]

Pro Football Reference is a great website. An interesting point, is that 34 of his 81 TDs went to TO. Patrick Crayton was next with 14. So, to me, I think you all will score a little less, but it will be a more evenly divided scoring, which in the long run helps.

 

[birdwells1]

The major problem with your theory is that only 2 players are on the team from most of those seasons. And I advocate replacing both of them. Tony Romo's #s fade significantly in December. For the most part, no one can attribute much of that to bad weather.

Barry Switzer was the team's primary problem (along with the GM who hired him). Unlike Romo and the current crop of Cowboys, Aikman had proven himself many times over by the Switzer and Gailey years.

A 4-9 December record for Dave Campo is virtually the same winning % as Sept-Nov winning % for Dave Campo. His December record would only be relevant if they actually had any success before December.

The Cowboys were essentially a .500 team under Bill Parcells, 34-32, I believe. A .500 December record doesn't suggest anything, other than the Cowboys were the same in December as they were Sept-Nov. And if you want to joke about "the Great Bill Parcells", you should recall he's essentially the only person associated with this club since Emmitt Smith left that had any history of success at all.

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 22-4 from Sept - Nov under Romo, but only 5-10 thereafter. Most of those other seasons, the Cowboys were bad in December, because they were a bad or mediocre team, and their record showed it. But under Romo, you have a team that has won 85% of its games pre-December, but less than 35% after November.

The same fans who want to try to use #s to justify Romo in some historical context continue to ignore or omit those which matter most.

Great post. America's Team should expect more out of the QB position. Remember, Danny White would have his jersey retired if he played for Seattle, TB, or Arizona but this is THE DALLAS COWBOYS and much is expected.

 

[sonnyboy]

I've been on the Romo bandwagon since his first pre-season start in Seattle.
Could not believe what I was seeing.

The numbers are great. They add up and make sense. They offer a good bit of undeniable evidence of what he does.

But I go beyond the numbers. He passes my tests for what I believe makes a great QB.

* 3rd and 10. I have as much confidence in him making the play to move the sticks as any Cowboys QB I've seen. Including Staubach.

* 2 min warning down by 4 with 70-90 yards to go. One shot, one possesion 4 down territory. How confident are you he navigates the team down field and sticks it in the end zone for 7. Confidence HIGH!

* 1 min, no time outs and at least 40 yards to go to get in field goal range down by 2. Again confidence HIGH!

 

[Idgit]

Naw, it really depends on how the player performs in said game. If Romo throws for 300+, 3tds, 0 turnovers, he would have done his part. If he has a subpar game compared to his regular season averages the he will get the blame and should

This is the argument against Romo in a nutshell: 300+ yards, 3 tds, and 0 turnovers = doing his part. Something less = he's deserving of blame. People have ridiculous expectations for him, and it affects their perspective on his ability to play his position.

 

[jobberone]

There are plenty of savvy and conservative people on this site who don't expect Romo to have to win a game for us. And believe he needs to have better games in crunch time. And believe he needs to protect the ball better. It's not black and white.