Tony Romo Compared to 8 Greats After 39 Career Starts

[Doomsday101]

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.

Sure allot is expected but it is still the team who wins not the QB and it has not been a situation where others are playing great and Tony is holding them back there are ample players who need to get it together and produce. I think the biggest misconception put out is QB are judge on SB, there have been a lot less talented QB’s like Dilfer who won a ring while guys like Marino who Dilfer is not even a fraction of his talent does not have a ring. The sports media makes these comments and many fans buy into it and it is just not reality. Teams win SB not QB’s

 

[Arch Stanton]

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.

I wonder just how many 300+ yards, 3 tds, and 0 turnovers = doing his part games in December Troy Aikman had during his career? The answer is ZERO. Why was he ever on the team?

 

[gimmesix]

Plus a lot of people really are morons. Stup?d?ty was around long before ESPN or talk rad?o. It makes it enterta?n?ng for the rest of us when we can l?sten to how Stephen McGee ?s go?ng to push a 90+ QB rat?ng QB out of h?s job. Just l?ke we got to po?nt and laugh last year at the people say?ng the team was go?ng to be even better after Tony got hurt because at least Brad Johnson wouldnt fumble and turn the ball over.

Well, I don't like calling people morons, but we do live in a different time where we get all kinds of different voices and opinions thanks to message boards.

I've often thought it would be interesting if we could similarly see people's thoughts on Aikman when he first started out or even Staubach. Now, I'm not saying Romo's career will end up on the same level, but simply that it would be interesting (to an extent) to have read all the panic regarding things like Aikman's rookie season.

 

[TNCowboy]

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

Couldn't find anything you could reasonably refute, eh?

If anyone is delusional on the matter, it is you, and the Tony Romo fan club that thinks he's already an elite QB. The same sorts who insisted last fall the team was "progressing nicely" when any realistic person could observe that it was falling apart. The same ones who insisted that all is well last preseason, when it was obvious the team had major issues. The same fans who convinced themselves that the end of the '07 season didn't matter, and that everything was ok going into the playoffs, and those negative guys who claimed "the sky is falling" were just alarmists who didn't know what they were talking about.

But don't let me interrupt your fantasy where the Cowboys are great and Jerry Jones is one of the league's best GMs and Tony Romo is already a legendary QB. Sounds like it's time to hand out some more props, no?

 

[TNCowboy]

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!

Must-win final game of the season in Philly with the whole year on the line....confidence high?

 

[gimmesix]

Doesn't mean Romo will never get it, but three consecutive less than stellar Decembers isn't just a coincidence. The onus is not on people who doubt Tony Romo; it's on Tony Romo. I don't believe anyone can honestly argue otherwise. But since there's really no defense for Romo's disappointing end to the previous 3 seasons, his over-the-top supporters issue a blanket "THEY WANT TO GET RID OF ROMO EVEN THOUGH HE'S STATISTICALLY BETTER THAN MANNING!!???!!" argument or other such nonsense.

Yeah, but where we lack perspective is in looking at the three less-than-stellar Decembers and not considering the circumstances involved.

We look at the playoff losses and label him for it but don't consider the circumstances.

A lot more goes into winning than just how the quarterback plays, no matter how good that quarterback is.

The statistics offered are an attempt to put the arguments against him in perspective, to point out that his numbers show he's a much better quarterback than many make him out to be. It's a counterpoint for those who just see the December collapses and playoff losses as condemnation for Romo's playing ability.

The numbers say look elsewhere for the reasons for those failures, but everyone loves to blame the quarterback. ... That's not saying Romo can't play better down the stretch and in the playoffs, just simply that people are making those losses Romo losses instead of Cowboys losses.

It doesn't matter how good the quarterback is if the line can't block, if the receivers can't get open or drop crucial passes, if the defense can't protect a lead ... and we've seen some of all those things in December and in the playoffs.

 

[Hostile]

Couldn't find anything you could reasonably refute, eh?

If anyone is delusional on the matter, it is you, and the Tony Romo fan club that thinks he's already an elite QB. The same sorts who insisted last fall the team was "progressing nicely" when any realistic person could observe that it was falling apart. The same ones who insisted that all is well last preseason, when it was obvious the team had major issues. The same fans who convinced themselves that the end of the '07 season didn't matter, and that everything was ok going into the playoffs, and those negative guys who claimed "the sky is falling" were just alarmists who didn't know what they were talking about.

But don't let me interrupt your fantasy where the Cowboys are great and Jerry Jones is one of the league's best GMs and Tony Romo is already a legendary QB. Sounds like it's time to hand out some more props, no?

I couldn't find anything interesting in what you said. It was better than Sominex. In fact, after I read it I took a nap. I'd still be asleep if the stupid phone had not rang to tell me my prescription is ready.

You want to talk about Tony collapsing in Decembers like it is some kind of epidemic. The fact of the matter is the entire Cowboys team has collapsed in Decembers dating all the way back to 1997. So it is NOT endemic of Tony Romo no matter how delusional you become.

You want some props? For what? A silly supposition which you cannot support? Oh, kudos to you. Here you go.

I hope you feel better now. My apologies for leaving you hanging before. I had no idea you were fishing for a pat on the back.

 

[TNCowboy]

Yeah, but where we lack perspective is in looking at the three less-than-stellar Decembers and not considering the circumstances involved.

We look at the playoff losses and label him for it but don't consider the circumstances.

A lot more goes into winning than just how the quarterback plays, no matter how good that quarterback is.

The statistics offered are an attempt to put the arguments against him in perspective, to point out that his numbers show he's a much better quarterback than many make him out to be. It's a counterpoint for those who just see the December collapses and playoff losses as condemnation for Romo's playing ability.

The numbers say look elsewhere for the reasons for those failures, but everyone loves to blame the quarterback. ... That's not saying Romo can't play better down the stretch and in the playoffs, just simply that people are making those losses Romo losses instead of Cowboys losses.

It doesn't matter how good the quarterback is if the line can't block, if the receivers can't get open or drop crucial passes, if the defense can't protect a lead ... and we've seen some of all those things in December and in the playoffs.

How many less-than-stellar Decembers does he get a pass on before we admit he's part of the problem? I don't recall putting 100% of the blame on Romo. The OP was a ridiculous comparison of Romo to a bunch of all time greats.

You can't honestly give Romo credit for all of his Sept-Nov play, and then turn around and discount all of his responsibility for what's happened after. Which is what some that have posted in this thread tend to do.

Fact is, his #s are significantly worse in December. That's not only because his teammates haven't played well, but also because he hasn't played well.

Romo will get the lion's share of the blame, just as he gets the bigger part of the credit when things go well. That's the way it is.

 

[peplaw06]

How many less-than-stellar Decembers does he get a pass on before we admit he's part of the problem? I don't recall putting 100% of the blame on Romo. The OP was a ridiculous comparison of Romo to a bunch of all time greats.

No matter how many times you say it, it's not a ridiculous comparison.

None of the all-time greats were all-time greats after 39 starts... NONE of them. So no one is saying Romo is now. Sorry you can't wrap your brain around that one, I really am.

OMGzs!!!!!1!!! The OP is sayin Romo is the greatest of all timez!!! Reeee-diculuz!!!!!!111111!!!111!!!

 

[TNCowboy]

I couldn't find anything interesting in what you said. It was better than Sominex. In fact, after I read it I took a nap. I'd still be asleep if the stupid phone had not rang to tell me my prescription is ready.

You want to talk about Tony collapsing in Decembers like it is some kind of epidemic. The fact of the matter is the entire Cowboys team has collapsed in Decembers dating all the way back to 1997. So it is NOT endemic of Tony Romo no matter how delusional you become.

I was thinking more along the lines of you handing out a load of props for the Cowboys, because hey, they had a 9-7 season and almost made the playoffs. I'm really looking forward to the next pro-Jerry Jones post. Will you have a chapter in your book on how great he is as a GM?

What's generally been the rule since '97? The Cowboys have been a mediocre to bad team. That's not supposition, it's fact. That all changed when Tony Romo took over. Also fact. I may have missed a game, but Romo's something like 22-4 pre-December.

The Cowboys didn't collapse in December under Dave Campo. It's hard to collapse when you're already in shambles. They won 31% of all their games under Campo, and 31% in December, according to what you posted earlier.

The Cowboys didn't collapse under Bill Parcells. According to you, they were 8-9, which is only the slightest % under what they were under Bill Parcells for the rest of the year.

That's the reality of it. Not some mythical jinx or curse from above.

See a trend here? The Cowboys were generally not a good team all those years. So a December "collapse" was, for the most part, simply a continuation of poor to mediocre play in the previous 3 months.

A collapse is what we've seen under Romo. The NFC's best record Sept-Nov, since he took over the team, but dismal in December and January.

I'm sure you'll have a more detailed analysis of all this in your book.

 

[TNCowboy]

No matter how many times you say it, it's not a ridiculous comparison.

None of the all-time greats were all-time greats after 39 starts... NONE of them. So no one is saying Romo is now. Sorry you can't wrap your brain around that one, I really am.

What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is that many of those guys started from day 1. Romo first started in like day 1001. Comparing their stats to Romo is meaningless. Staubach had many games where he threw 15 or so passes, while Romo usually throws double that many.

What's relevant is looking at the whole picture. How good the defense is, what the record is, and yes, most importantly, what happened in the playoffs. If you pull out his #s before December, they're phenomenal. Probably the best in the game since he took over. Unfortunately, they don't play the Super Bowl on Thanksgiving weekend.

Bottom line, the Cowboys have started strong and finished weak every year Romo has played. His career is severely lacking until he turns that around. It's not as though he's played fantastic, only to have his teammates let him down. Like last year in Philly and in Pittsburgh.

 

[Hostile]

I was thinking more along the lines of you handing out a load of props for the Cowboys, because hey, they had a 9-7 season and almost made the playoffs. I'm really looking forward to the next pro-Jerry Jones post. Will you have a chapter in your book on how great he is as a GM?

Thanks for asking. I doubt it.

If you bothered to pay attention at all (which I am not surprised you don't) prior to the Eagles game I predicted we were going to lose and miss the playoffs.

You're no good at bitterness when actual facts slap you right in the mouth.

What's generally been the rule since '97? The Cowboys have been a mediocre to bad team. That's not supposition, it's fact. That all changed when Tony Romo took over. Also fact. I may have missed a game, but Romo's something like 22-4 pre-December.

Once again you miss the point. I guess we can call this par for your course then.

The Cowboys didn't collapse in December under Dave Campo. It's hard to collapse when you're already in shambles. They won 31% of all their games under Campo, and 31% in December, according to what you posted earlier.

Yep par.

The Cowboys didn't collapse under Bill Parcells. According to you, they were 8-9, which is only the slightest % under what they were under Bill Parcells for the rest of the year.

Par.

Just a guess, you like vanilla.

That's the reality of it. Not some mythical jinx or curse from above.

Someone mentioned a jinx or curse? It wasn't me, so blather on about that to someone else. Maybe they won't forget to give you props like I did.

See a trend here? The Cowboys were generally not a good team all those years. So a December "collapse" was, for the most part, simply a continuation of poor to mediocre play in the previous 3 months.

This is so faulty it's almost comical. Do I want to shoot this down or let it wallow in misery?

I will let it wallow in misery.

A collapse is what we've seen under Romo. The NFC's best record Sept-Nov, since he took over the team, but dismal in December and January.

Par.

I'm sure you'll have a more detailed analysis of all this in your book.

Probably. At the very least it will be interesting to read. Unlike this screed.

 

[TNCowboy]

Thanks for asking. I doubt it.

Just as before, you absolutely cannot make a point. Other than some childish attempt at humor, or GO COWBOYS!!!!111!! Or how fortunate we are to have Jerry Jones as owner and GM.

That book will be a doozy, no doubt. I look forward to the chapter on the December curse, and the one about how fans hate the Cowboys because they'd had the most success since the merger. Or some phony story about some crazy Commander or Eagle fan.

Edit: I hope you've already amended the winning % and super bowl chapter since neither is true now. Thanks to Jones' brilliant leadership.

 

[Hostile]

Just as before, you absolutely cannot make a point. Other than some childish attempt at humor, or GO COWBOYS!!!!111!! Or how fortunate we are to have Jerry Jones as owner and GM.

That book will be a doozy, no doubt. I look forward to the chapter on the December curse, and the one about how fans hate the Cowboys because they'd had the most success since the merger. Or some phony story about some crazy Commander or Eagle fan.

Edit: I hope you've already amended the winning % and super bowl chapter since neither is true now. Thanks to Jones' brilliant leadership.

You've clearly got me confused with someone else who is stomping your butt.

Love the jealousy over my actually being able to write. It's cute as hell.

 

[Alumni2k11]

ADVOCATE BlogWrite Post
Originally posted by Americas' Team… from a sports forum:

Tony Romo Compared to 8 Greats After 39 Starts in Career
02:08 PM ET 04.29 Share Edit Post Delete Post Views 3 Comments 0
I compiled these stats for each quarterback at www.pro-football-reference.com . These stats are each players' stats after 39 starts. Since Romo has 39 career starts, thats my comparison number of games. After looking at these numbers, we know Romo is more then capable of greatness. For the exception of Marino, Romo pretty much has stats that were actually better then the others. His future looks very bright.

Attempts Comp. Yds. Pct. TDs. INTs.

MARINO 1,370 839 11,103 61.2 95 42

ROMO 1,280 815 10,300 63.6 78 43

MONTANA 1,318 841 9,623 63.8 64 36

P. MANNING 1,355 818 10.024 60.0 67 50

FAVRE 1,341 833 8.113 62.1 52 45

S. YOUNG 1,072 672 8,412 62.6 51 35

AIKMAN 1,086 636 7,290 58.5 32 48

STAUBACH 912 528 7,395 57.8 49 42

BRADSHAW 969 469 6.098 48.4 36 63

Just looking at the stats, you see that some players got off to slow starts. Badshaw was a big game player like no other but his regular season numbers weren't great. His numbers picked up when Swann and Stallworth got drafted before the 74 season. Romo is 2nd in completion pct. He had more yards passing then everyone except Marino and is only 2nd to Marino in touchdown passes. Amazingly Romo had only 1 more INT then Marino did. He had 7 less INTs then Manning did. I believe all Jones has to do is put the players around Romo. Hey! look at the numbers guys! Romo will start winning the big games very soon. The future of the Cowboys could be very bright. Gotta love the numbers !!!!

Great post.

 

[peplaw06]

What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is that many of those guys started from day 1. Romo first started in like day 1001. Comparing their stats to Romo is meaningless. Staubach had many games where he threw 15 or so passes, while Romo usually throws double that many.

Who cares when they started playing? Is Kurt Warner going to be kept out of the HOF because he played in the AFL for a few years and didn't start until he was in his 30s? Did it matter that Staubach didn't start playing until he got out of the Navy?

And I've never argued that offenses weren't different across these guys playing eras. Still though, completion percentage and TD:INT ratio are important. Romo 64% and 78:43, Staubach 58% and 49:42.

What's relevant is looking at the whole picture. How good the defense is, what the record is, and yes, most importantly, what happened in the playoffs. If you pull out his #s before December, they're phenomenal. Probably the best in the game since he took over. Unfortunately, they don't play the Super Bowl on Thanksgiving weekend.

It's all relevant. And no matter what else you deem is relevant, the OP is not a ridiculous comparison.

Bottom line, the Cowboys have started strong and finished weak every year Romo has played. His career is severely lacking until he turns that around. It's not as though he's played fantastic, only to have his teammates let him down. Like last year in Philly and in Pittsburgh.

That's tangential to the point of the thread. We're not talking about team performance. this is strictly a comparison of Romo after 39 starts to other QBs. There is nothing about the December records, defensive prowess or who else was on the roster in the post. If you want to argue about that stuff, start a new thread with a new premise. If you want to label the OP ridiculous, you should stick to what's in the OP and not what isn't said.

 

[gbrittain]

What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is that many of those guys started from day 1. Romo first started in like day 1001. Comparing their stats to Romo is meaningless. Staubach had many games where he threw 15 or so passes, while Romo usually throws double that many.

What's relevant is looking at the whole picture. How good the defense is, what the record is, and yes, most importantly, what happened in the playoffs. If you pull out his #s before December, they're phenomenal. Probably the best in the game since he took over. Unfortunately, they don't play the Super Bowl on Thanksgiving weekend.

Bottom line, the Cowboys have started strong and finished weak every year Romo has played. His career is severely lacking until he turns that around. It's not as though he's played fantastic, only to have his teammates let him down. Like last year in Philly and in Pittsburgh.

I guess I do not know what your point is...for that matter I am not sure what the point is of any of the Romo haters, critics or what have you.

Do you want him gone, traded, benched, released or what?

He is a very good QB has not won yet. Does that mean he never will? Did Peyton win anything his first five years in the league? Did he win anything that at all that meant something until his 9th year in the league?

A career is not made in 2 1/2 seasons.

 

[burmafrd]

One point to be made about Staubach. He only started and played full time 7
games his first year they won the SB. He was injured and out the entire next season only coming back in the playoffs. By 1973 the Cowboys were aging and not that good. It was only in 75 that they really came back and were a top team again. So for 2 of his first seasons as a starter the Cowboys were not much above .500- in reality Tony has had a better team then Roger did for most of those 39 starts. Of course the game was MUCH different back then so comparing them is pretty much out of the question. Now Marino, Young, AIkman and the rest are much more realistic since they played in a time not unlike now where the passing game had been allowed a lot more roo. Of course right now its better then ever so once again the comparisons really are a bit of a stretch. And of all those QBs the only one who did not start as a rookie was Staubach and also I believe Montana split his first season with Deberg.

 

[jobberone]

You CANNOT compare players across eras esp QBs.

You must take their play against their contempories and then 'eyeball' all the data. It's not baseball numbers. Just watch them.

 

[Hostile]

You CANNOT compare players across eras esp QBs.

You must take their play against their contempories and then 'eyeball' all the data. It's not baseball numbers. Just watch them.