Tony Romo Compared to 8 Greats After 39 Career Starts

[AmishCowboy]

Todd Collins won a Playoff game, should we make a swap for Him?, better yet, Brad Johnson won a SB, let's bring him back. I find it funny that someone like Gosselin thinks Romo is a top 6 QB and around here you think he was Gary Hogeboom.

 

[Hostile]

Todd Collins won a Playoff game, should we make a swap for Him?, better yet, Brad Johnson won a SB, let's bring him back. I find it funny that someone like Gosselin thinks Romo is a top 6 QB and around here you think he was Gary Hogeboom.

How dare you make a salient point.

 

[gimmesix]

How many less-than-stellar Decembers does he get a pass on before we admit he's part of the problem?

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.

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.

First, I agree that you cannot give Romo all the credit for his Sept.-Nov. play, just like you can't with any QB. A good/great QB will sometimes overcome having a bad cast around him, but usually when they start putting up real good numbers is when they have enough talent around them to do so or the scheme is clicking. Where would Aikman have been without Emmitt playing well and Irvin playing well? Yes, he elevated their play, but they also did that for him. We saw with him what happens to even a Hall of Fame quarterback when he no longer has a fairly strong supporting cast.

With Romo in December, we've also seen what happens when the supporting cast fails. Blame Romo for not elevating his teammates' play, but realize the reasons he hasn't played well have little to do with the ability he has already proven he has.

When a good player does not play up to his previous standards, there should be an alarm that goes off in our heads that maybe something is causing that to happen. Is he injured? Is another key player injured? What took place in that game to cause his drop in performance? That's the perspective we need.

People seem to want to wrap it all up with a tidy little bow that Romo "hasn't played well" in December, but as with most things, it's more complicated than that. Giving him too much credit or too much blame shouldn't just be the way it is, not if we consider ourselves knowledgable fans of the game.

Understanding all the things that happened to affect each game allows us to properly lay blame instead of making the blanket "Romo good Sept.-Nov., bad in December."

 

[RS12]

* 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.

Preposterous. Staubach not Aikman at this point in my mind is the measuring stick for all other Cowboy quaterbacks. Yes he had two Super Bowl losses but those were against two of the greatest teams in NFL history by a total of eight points. Two Super Bowl victories, numerous playoff wins and last quater comebacks. What really seals it for me is the fact that to this day his teamates still say that they never felt like they were out of any game, and could not win. I like Romo but doubt his team mates feel the same.

 

[Mansta54]

Todd Collins won a Playoff game, should we make a swap for Him?, better yet, Brad Johnson won a SB, let's bring him back. I find it funny that someone like Gosselin thinks Romo is a top 6 QB and around here you think he was Gary Hogeboom.

:clap2:

 

[AmishCowboy]

I have learned so much here over the years, such as that Quincy's a great QB, Romo not so much, that Kosier is very replaceable and our worse OL man, that we were crazy to take Jones over Mendenhall and Marty B shouldn't have gone in the 2nd, people here saw him play! and our 2009 draft already sucks, plus if you find God like Roy W, you can't be a good Football player. I sure hope that when openings occur in our scouting Dept, Jerry will consider some Zoners, we have such a wealth of Knowledge to share.

 

[jimmy40]

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.

You do realize that you're arguing with guys that were comparing Henson with Aikman after ONE drive against Baltimore don't you?

 

[Doomsay]

And of course, he doesn't win or lose games all by himself, does he??

Occasionally

 

[jobberone]

Before blaming anyone (although I can make a case for several), it may be prudent (for the Cowboys) to decide if there is a causal relationship for all these clubs over the years to fail in December for the same reasons.

I don't think, personally speaking, there is a common thread other than other than losing.

If that's correct then why are we losing with this team in December and January when it counts the most? Some of the blame in on Romo's style of play. The game changes in crunch time. Some is on STs. Some is on the defense's critical flaws. Some is on the play calling and coaching.

As usual there is no one person to point a finger at and say 'you're the entire problem'.

 

[Alexander]

in reality Tony has had a better team then Roger did for most of those 39 starts.

Really? That's odd. I have read all through this thread that we have receivers that can't catch and offensive linemen that can't block, its a team sport etc.

The simple quandry about any QB debate is that there will always have people who will vehemently defend their own and try to minimize the level of accountability of the position because it makes them feel more secure. No position is more important, no position touchs the ball more and no position can say that their miscues are more profound. Giving thanks that he's not Carter, Stoerner, Wright, Leaf, Hutchinson or Bledsoe does not make him great. Nor does a sparkling set of meaningless QB ratings and statistical mumbo-jumbo. The great ones were winners. And not just in the regular season.

The simple fact of the matter is that Romo is not great. He is, however, on the cusp of being great. He has to correct his issues: the fumbling, the reckless behavior when trying to "make a play" and the winning "the big one". If those are corrected, we will lose fewer games and above all start winning championships. A lot of great QBs have faced the same challenges and had to eventually break through. So does Romo.

 

[birdwells1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Trouble
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double bubbles
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.
__________________


Fact is Hostile, you can ridicule Double Trouble's post all you want but right now he has facts and that means scoreboard. He's reduced you to lame attempts at humor to try to discredit him but his post is legit and your rebuttal is not.

 

[joseephuss]

Really? That's odd. I have read all through this thread that we have receivers that can't catch and offensive linemen that can't block, its a team sport etc.

The simple quandry about any QB debate is that there will always have people who will vehemently defend their own and try to minimize the level of accountability of the position because it makes them feel more secure. No position is more important, no position touchs the ball more and no position can say that their miscues are more profound. Giving thanks that he's not Carter, Stoerner, Wright, Leaf, Hutchinson or Bledsoe does not make him great. Nor does a sparkling set of meaningless QB ratings and statistical mumbo-jumbo. The great ones were winners. And not just in the regular season.

The simple fact of the matter is that Romo is not great. He is, however, on the cusp of being great. He has to correct his issues: the fumbling, the reckless behavior when trying to "make a play" and the winning "the big one". If those are corrected, we will lose fewer games and above all start winning championships. A lot of great QBs have faced the same challenges and had to eventually break through. So does Romo.

Great points.

Something that gets overlooked is that Romo has actually done a good job of correcting his weaknesses during his two playoff games. He didn't make the errant throws that resulted in interceptions against either Seattle or NY. He didn't carelessly hold the ball in the pocket leading to fumbles in those games.

He has only one turnover in those 2 games and that interception was on a 4th down play when no one was open and he just had to throw it up hoping a receiver could make a play. In that situation an incompletion would have hurt just as much and so would a completion short of the end zone.

He needs to continue to improve. If he does and the rest of the team follows suit then they may all break through in the playoffs.

 

[Alexander]

Great points.

Something that gets overlooked is that Romo has actually done a good job of correcting his weaknesses during his two playoff games. He didn't make the errant throws that resulted in interceptions against either Seattle or NY. He didn't carelessly hold the ball in the pocket leading to fumbles in those games.

He has only one turnover in those 2 games and that interception was on a 4th down play when no one was open and he just had to throw it up hoping a receiver could make a play. In that situation an incompletion would have hurt just as much and so would a completion short of the end zone.

Miscues aren't just interceptions though. Missing a wide open receiver in a clutch situation can be just as bad. Its not appropriate to put the blame on him exclusively for the playoff losses, well, Seattle was a botched placement if you want to get technical. He hasn't played the worst, but he certainly hasn't played exceptional either. That's what made Aikman great. He was flawless in playoff games save a poor outing against Detroit where he had no business even starting.

There is a reason why Romo isn't regarded as great outside of those that want to believe he is (fans, team brass). He hasn't had a great game when it could have the most impact (i.e. playoffs, games for the division title, win or out games). He hasn't had the miracle comeback in the clutch like a Staubach or Elway. But thats why the QB gets paid the big bucks, they are and should be more accountable when the chips are down. They have to eventually produce when it matters most. Not everyone is going to have the luxury of being a Trent Dilfer-like bus driver.

 

[birdwells1]

Really? That's odd. I have read all through this thread that we have receivers that can't catch and offensive linemen that can't block, its a team sport etc.

The simple quandry about any QB debate is that there will always have people who will vehemently defend their own and try to minimize the level of accountability of the position because it makes them feel more secure. No position is more important, no position touchs the ball more and no position can say that their miscues are more profound. Giving thanks that he's not Carter, Stoerner, Wright, Leaf, Hutchinson or Bledsoe does not make him great. Nor does a sparkling set of meaningless QB ratings and statistical mumbo-jumbo. The great ones were winners. And not just in the regular season.

The simple fact of the matter is that Romo is not great. He is, however, on the cusp of being great. He has to correct his issues: the fumbling, the reckless behavior when trying to "make a play" and the winning "the big one". If those are corrected, we will lose fewer games and above all start winning championships. A lot of great QBs have faced the same challenges and had to eventually break through. So does Romo.

My feelings exactly. Look I like Tony as our QB what I don't like is that people don't hold him to the same standard as the other players. You can twist statistical data anyway you want but that won't get us to the bowl only winning in Dec and Jan will do that. Go look at Ben R.'s stats, I'll bet they're pretty pedestrian but Tony would trade his career for his in a second.

 

[birdwells1]

Miscues aren't just interceptions though. Missing a wide open receiver in a clutch situation can be just as bad. Its not appropriate to put the blame on him exclusively for the playoff losses, well, Seattle was a botched placement if you want to get technical. He hasn't played the worst, but he certainly hasn't played exceptional either. That's what made Aikman great. He was flawless in playoff games save a poor outing against Detroit where he had no business even starting.

There is a reason why Romo isn't regarded as great outside of those that want to believe he is (fans, team brass). He hasn't had a great game when it could have the most impact (i.e. playoffs, games for the division title, win or out games). He hasn't had the miracle comeback in the clutch like a Staubach or Elway. But thats why the QB gets paid the big bucks, they are and should be more accountable when the chips are down. They have to eventually produce when it matters most. Not everyone is going to have the luxury of being a Trent Dilfer-like bus driver.

FYI he didn't start that game Buerlein(sp?) did, Aikman finished it.

 

[peplaw06]

Miscues aren't just interceptions though. Missing a wide open receiver in a clutch situation can be just as bad. Its not appropriate to put the blame on him exclusively for the playoff losses, well, Seattle was a botched placement if you want to get technical. He hasn't played the worst, but he certainly hasn't played exceptional either. That's what made Aikman great. He was flawless in playoff games save a poor outing against Detroit where he had no business even starting.

There is a reason why Romo isn't regarded as great outside of those that want to believe he is (fans, team brass). He hasn't had a great game when it could have the most impact (i.e. playoffs, games for the division title, win or out games). He hasn't had the miracle comeback in the clutch like a Staubach or Elway. But thats why the QB gets paid the big bucks, they are and should be more accountable when the chips are down. They have to eventually produce when it matters most. Not everyone is going to have the luxury of being a Trent Dilfer-like bus driver.

The point of the comparison AND the problem with it IMO is the fact that it's still a small sample size. 39 starts is just 2 1/2 seasons. At 39 starts, Aikman didn't have any playoff wins either.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that he can't play in the clutch, but that opinion can change in one game or one playoff run.

 

[gbrittain]

My feelings exactly. Look I like Tony as our QB what I don't like is that people don't hold him to the same standard as the other players. You can twist statistical data anyway you want but that won't get us to the bowl only winning in Dec and Jan will do that. Go look at Ben R.'s stats, I'll bet they're pretty pedestrian but Tony would trade his career for his in a second.

I guess this is where we really do not see eye to eye. I constantly see Romo blamed for no championships, no playoff wins, and bad December's. I could be wrong but there were at 21 other guys on the field.

Did any defense player step up during the Philly 44-6 thumping or did they get 44 points despite great defensive play.

I have no problem with anyone placing the blame squarely on Romo for the Pittsburgh game. There were many many other factors, but in the end through an INT that cost us.

The Raven game. Not Romo's greatest game but in the 4th quarter when Romo was bringing the Cowboys back for a win the defense did him in with allowing two ridiculous runs.

The NY playoff game last year? If Crayton finishes his route correctly we are in all likelihood talking about Dallas being the NFC Super Bowl representative against New England.

So to me it looks like Romo is taking the blame while the rest of the team which failed to show up as well gets let off the hook.

If you go back and read my posts after those losses you will see that I am not a Romo shill. I have been very critical of him. He needs to quit fumbling too much. He is good for a turnover nearly every game. Has to get better. But if you think Romo is the guy who has been holding Dallas back then that is crazy. Without Romo the word playoffs and Super Bowl would have never been in the vocabulary.

The team needs to step up during crunch time. Plain and simple.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

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.

Bravo sir.

 

[skicat1898]

I don't think anybody thinks Romo sucks, he just sucks beyond December 1st.

I also haven't seen anybody wanting to get rid of Romo,,,, well, anybody that knows what they are talking about.

As I have stated before, a more legit comparison would be to compare the QBs after 6 seasons or what they had accomplished by their 30th birthday.

Romo didn't start til 4 games into his 4th season, on a team that was playoff ready. Most of the other QBs that he is being compared to started 1st or 2nd years on pretty bad teams.

Romo has a chance to be great, but he isn't there just yet,, very close but not quite. A lot of what he does this seaon could determine how he will be viewed in the future.

 

[Alexander]

I guess this is where we really do not see eye to eye. I constantly see Romo blamed for no championships, no playoff wins, and bad December's. I could be wrong but there were at 21 other guys on the field.

He's the QB. That's a natural assumption and it goes with the territory. Its not always right but you can always point out why the QB can never be blameless as they are the most accountable person on the field. Always.

Did any defense player step up during the Philly 44-6 thumping or did they get 44 points despite great defensive play.

It was also only 17-3 when Romo committed the first of three turnovers. He did his fair share.

I have no problem with anyone placing the blame squarely on Romo for the Pittsburgh game. There were many many other factors, but in the end through an INT that cost us.

That was all on Romo. Our defense couldn't have done much more. That goal-line stand should have sealed it. But it didn't.

The Raven game. Not Romo's greatest game but in the 4th quarter when Romo was bringing the Cowboys back for a win the defense did him in with allowing two ridiculous runs.

The ridiculous interceptions he threw to Ed Reed were partially responsible for the loss. There is an ebb and flow to every game and even when turnovers are viewed as "punts" they happen and contribute to the overall flow of that game. Our defense sacked Flacco five times in that first half, yet the score was still 9-7 at half. When a defense keeps the offense in games and gives them opportunities, they need to be capitalized on. Above all, you can't turn the ball over. You just cannot do it. He also missed a wide open Austin on a deep post in the third quarter. Everyone remembers the late drives to bring it to within two points twice, but forget that his interceptions were crucial to the ebb and flow of the game. It is that old adage about letting teams "hang around". Blame him exclusively? No. But again, he's accountable for his errors.

The NY playoff game last year? If Crayton finishes his route correctly we are in all likelihood talking about Dallas being the NFC Super Bowl representative against New England.

The miss when Owens was wide open could also have affected the outcome of the game. Crayton's everyone's whipping boy but that was also another game where Romo simply didn't play all that well either. And the force to Glenn that McQuarters picked off was inexcusable.

A QB is going to have to get more blame simply because their miscues are magnified and no player can have a bigger impact on how a game unfolds. It is never exclusive for the most part, nor should it be implied.