Tony Romo Has a 104.5 Passer Rating in Losses This Season

[TwoDeep3]

Haha Parcells is on record as saying he KNOWS that Romo is good enough to win a Super Bowl with. As recently as 2011 he said there is no doubt in his mind about that.

He had 3 full seasons watching Romo develop THEN inserted him as the starter. Why do that if you don't think the kid will ever be what you want him to be?

And what makes you think Landry would take Morton over Staubach again? Do you have anything to back that up?

Are you mental?

Landry took Staubach over Morton. That was my point. He rotated them with each play for a while and then chose Staubach. It bore fruit when Dallas beat Morton like a drum in the Super Bowl against the Broncos.

But...it has become clear after finding out your age and this response where you problem lies with football and comprehension.

 

[KJJ]

Can't disagree with you there. The rest.......not so much....

You might not agree with the rest but Romo clearly folded in the final 4 1/2 minutes of the game. On the Cowboys second to last possession he made one of the worst decisions of his career by changing from a run play to a pass play which resulted in a pick that led to the Packers go ahead TD with just over 2 1/2 minutes to play. The game ended with another Romo int. He had no turnovers all day until the final 4 1/2 minutes when the game was on the line. Romo was outplayed by a journeymen QB when the game was on the line.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You implied that Landry/Parcells didn't want QBs like Marino/Favre, and the "proof" you presented was that neither coach drafted them.

So that must mean that Tom Brady lasted as long as he did because nobody wanted a QB like him, right? The Lions simply preferred a guy like Joey Harrington (1st rounder the next year) and wouldn't change their minds even in hindsight!

No coach in his right mind would prefer Jeff Hostetler over Dan Marino or Vinny Testaverde over Brett Favre. But that's what you were trying to sell here.

No, actually, I said that they wanted QBs who were more interested in winning, good decision makers, QBs who took care of the ball, rather then stat machine QBs. You implied the rest. I simply asked you what your proof was that they valued QBs like Marino and Favre more. You never answered that question. Fell free to present any proof of this.

The fact that you threw up Tom Brady showed that you had no idea what you were talking about. Neither Coach Landry, nor Parcells could have drafted Brady because neither one was coaching at the time. That's not proof that he wasn't the kind of QB either of these Coaches would or would not have drafted. That's proof that you are trying to string together a bunch of what ifs in an attempt to prove what? I still don't know.

As to your statement on Hostetler or Marino, you don't know that. I'd bet good money that Parcells would have taken his kind of QB over Marino. I don't know where Testaverde came from. I guess that's more of you trying to throw up stuff to see what sticks. He's not in the conversation here. Favre would not have been a Landry or Parcells guy either. He threw too many INTs.

You don't agree and that's fine but at least stick to the facts.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

You might not agree with the rest but Romo clearly folded in the final 4 1/2 minutes of the game. On the Cowboys second to last possession he made one of the worst decisions of his career by changing from a run play to a pass play which resulted in a pick that led to the Packers go ahead TD with just over 2 1/2 minutes to play. The game ended with another Romo int. He had no turnovers all day until the final 4 1/2 minutes when the game was on the line. Romo was outplayed by a journeymen QB when the game was on the line.

Changing from a run to a pass wasn't the big mistake. Throwing off balance and making an innacurate throw was the mistake. A good pass there goes for a huge gain.

 

[KJJ]

Changing from a run to a pass wasn't the big mistake. Throwing off balance and making an innacurate throw was the mistake. A good pass there goes for a huge gain.

Changing from a run to a pass wasn't the "big" mistake the throw was the "big" mistake but had Romo not changed from a run to a pass that big mistake would have never happened. Having a 5 point lead with 4 1/2 minutes to play and a back averaging 7.5 a carry you DO NOT throw the ball in that situation especially when your Tony Romo. You would think even Romo would be apprehensive to throw the ball in that situation with his history of screwing things up. The Cowboys second to last possession is what cost them the game.

Had they run the ball they could have eaten up a lot of clock and forced the Packers to have to use their time outs. A punt with less than 2 minutes left would have made the Packers have to drive the length of the field for a TD with a career backup QB at the helm. Flynn may have made a mistake in that situation but the mistake came from the QB who's being paid over $100 million.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Changing from a run to a pass wasn't the "big" mistake the throw was the "big" mistake but had Romo not changed from a run to a pass that big mistake would have never happened. Having a 5 point lead with 4 1/2 minutes to play and a back averaging 7.5 a carry you DO NOT throw the ball in that situation especially when your Tony Romo. You would think even Romo would be apprehensive to throw the ball in that situation with his history of screwing things up. The Cowboys second to last possession is what cost them the game.

Had they run the ball they could have eaten up a lot of clock and forced the Packers to have to use their time outs. A punt with less than 2 minutes left would have made the Packers have to drive the length of the field for a TD with a career backup QB at the helm. Flynn may have made a mistake in that situation but the mistake came from the QB who's being paid over $100 million.

I don't agree. A 5 point lead with 4 and a half minutes left on this team may as well not be a lead at all. You can't give them the ball back with 3 or 4 minutes left and expect our defense to get any kind of a stop in that situation. With the box being stacked as it was, i don't mind the switch to a pass in that situation. Like we saw, had it been an accurate throw, it would have been a big gain and would have almost guarenteed us another score.

The only problem, imo, was the execution.

 

[5Stars]

Well, I see the usual suspect is here dogging Romo again. Tunnel vision strikes again!

Yes, Romo threw the picks....BUT, he was put into the position to THROW THE PICKS! That is on the coaches, period, no matter how you look at it...without tunnel vision hate.

A coach that should know his QB should never allow him the option to throw. There should have been run plays called no matter what, and it should have been told to Romo, do not throw. So he did throw, now he is the dog, again?

Pathetic!

I guess Romo is at fault for the defense also? smfh

 

[Nav22]

Are you mental?

Landry took Staubach over Morton. That was my point. He rotated them with each play for a while and then chose Staubach. It bore fruit when Dallas beat Morton like a drum in the Super Bowl against the Broncos.

But...it has become clear after finding out your age and this response where you problem lies with football and comprehension.

Hahahahahaha. Old guys like you are funny to me. So senile and out of touch, but grumpy enough not to care.

If CRAIG MORTON was your example of a "stat machine QB", there really are no words to describe just how mental YOU are, Old Man.

You were way off-base about Parcells' opinion of Romo, too. But alas, you're old and set in your ways. No point trying to teach Old Yeller new tricks.

 

[ghst187]

what i think is funny (ie, annoying as hell) is that people like you complain week in and week out that romo is going to cost us the game. when he wins it for us, it's back to "oh he will though!!!" and no credit given for when he *wins* us the game.

what a prediction. sooner or later a team is going to win the superbowl - just wait!!!

well he may not be the only problem but he's singlehandedly given away more games than about any qb still starting.
its become so routine we have come to expect it, tell me you don't...?
I love the guy as a player, he's usually fun to watch, he's a great and classy guy and I've always wanted him to win but i've given up on him getting us anywhere.
He's become a 50/50 guy as far as when games get to clutch time, although this year he's dipping under that.
sorry to annoy you so terribly with our realizations that Romo chokes at least half the time, maybe more.

 

[ufcrules1]

Changing from a run to a pass wasn't the big mistake. Throwing off balance and making an innacurate throw was the mistake. A good pass there goes for a huge gain.

Yes, but a good pass wasn't even needed right there. By throwing a pass on 2nd down, you increase your chances of something going wrong. You go with the run to burn clock and they may have even picked up the first down.. it was only 6 yards and Murray had been averaging 7 on the day. Also, there would still be 3rd down to run or pass. Instead he chooses to audible out of the common sense play and into the throw and then he burned the team. Other teams have to just love that stupidity.

Remember Denver? 2nd down and instead of throwing a dump pass to a wide open Murray he makes a tough throw ending the game? Or how about Washington 2012 on first down... FIRST DOWN.. throws an interception. He had all of his timeouts and 3 minutes on the clock. No need to do anything stupid on first down but he does. Tony Romo is football stupid!

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Well, I see the usual suspect is here dogging Romo again. Tunnel vision strikes again!

Yes, Romo threw the picks....BUT, he was put into the position to THROW THE PICKS! That is on the coaches, period, no matter how you look at it...without tunnel vision hate.

A coach that should know his QB should never allow him the option to throw. There should have been run plays called no matter what, and it should have been told to Romo, do not throw. So he did throw, now he is the dog, again?

Pathetic!

I guess Romo is at fault for the defense also? smfh

lol

I don't know if you're referring to me or KJJ here, but as a coach, you can't tell your 100 million dollar QB NOT to throw no matter what.

Like i said in the post above, the box was stacked, you're only up 5, and you can't risk giving the ball back to the other team with 3 or 4 minutes left with a chance to win the game. Our defense can't stop a little girl from getting in the end zone (as you obviously agree) so for Romo to try and throw to make sure we get the first down is a no brainer, imo.

Again, the only problem was the execution. It was a good decision, imo.. with the Packers stacking the box. A good throw is a huge gain and most likely another score.. so i don't see how anyone can fault the decision.

 

[5Stars]

well he may not be the only problem but he's singlehandedly given away more games than about any qb still starting.
its become so routine we have come to expect it, tell me you don't...?
I love the guy as a player, he's usually fun to watch, he's a great and classy guy and I've always wanted him to win but i've given up on him getting us anywhere.
He's become a 50/50 guy as far as when games get to clutch time, although this year he's dipping under that.
sorry to annoy you so terribly with our realizations that Romo chokes at least half the time, maybe more.

So, the defense did it's job this past game, huh?

 

[5Stars]

lol

I don't know if you're referring to me or KJJ here, but as a coach, you can't tell your 100 million dollar QB NOT to throw no matter what.

Like i said in the post above, the box was stacked, you're only up 5, and you can't risk giving the ball back to the other team with 3 or 4 minutes left with a chance to win the game. Our defense can't stop a little girl from getting in the end zone (as you obviously agree) so for Romo to try and throw to make sure we get the first down is a no brainer, imo.

Again, the only problem was the execution. It was a good decision, imo.. with the Packers stacking the box. A good throw is a huge gain and most likely another score.. so i don't see how anyone can fault the decision.

I fault the decision because they needed to milk the clock. You don't do that by throwing the ball, you do it by running the ball. Sure, had Romo composed himself after evading the rusher like he did, he may have led Austin a little better and it could have been a TD. But, we all saw what happened when the coaches did not run.

That is just Basic 101 football.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Yes, but a good pass wasn't even needed right there. By throwing a pass on 2nd down, you increase your chances of something going wrong. You go with the run to burn clock and they may have even picked up the first down.. it was only 6 yards and Murray had been averaging 7 on the day. Also, there would still be 3rd down to run or pass. Instead he chooses to audible out of the common sense play and into the throw and then he burned the team. Other teams have to just love that stupidity.

Remember Denver? 2nd down and instead of throwing a dump pass to a wide open Murray he makes a tough throw ending the game? Or how about Washington 2012 on first down... FIRST DOWN.. throws an interception. He had all of his timeouts and 3 minutes on the clock. No need to do anything stupid on first down but he does. Tony Romo is football stupid!

Its not common sense to run your back into a brick wall if you read the entire D stacked in the box playing the run.

He clearly had the D fooled with the pass play, which is why Austin was open and had he led him the ball, Austin had a wide open field to run.

Like i said, the playcall wasn't the mistake, the execution was.

 

[ufcrules1]

Its not common sense to run your back into a brick wall if you read the entire D stacked in the box playing the run.

He clearly had the D fooled with the pass play, which is why Austin was open and had he led him the ball, Austin had a wide open field to run.

Like i said, the playcall wasn't the mistake, the execution was.

I prefer smash mouth football. Yeah, the defense was playing the run because on 2-6 with crucial time running down, we are supposed to run the ball. Especially if they haven't been able to stop it all day. Both the decision and the execution were bad IMO. We can agree to disagree though.

 

[Nav22]

No, actually, I said that they wanted QBs who were more interested in winning, good decision makers, QBs who took care of the ball, rather then stat machine QBs. You implied the rest. I simply asked you what your proof was that they valued QBs like Marino and Favre more. You never answered that question. Fell free to present any proof of this.

The fact that you threw up Tom Brady showed that you had no idea what you were talking about. Neither Coach Landry, nor Parcells could have drafted Brady because neither one was coaching at the time. That's not proof that he wasn't the kind of QB either of these Coaches would or would not have drafted. That's proof that you are trying to string together a bunch of what ifs in an attempt to prove what? I still don't know.

As to your statement on Hostetler or Marino, you don't know that. I'd bet good money that Parcells would have taken his kind of QB over Marino. I don't know where Testaverde came from. I guess that's more of you trying to throw up stuff to see what sticks. He's not in the conversation here. Favre would not have been a Landry or Parcells guy either. He threw too many INTs.

You don't agree and that's fine but at least stick to the facts.

Find me one coach in NFL history who didn't want a QB who was "interested in winning" or a "good decision-maker".

Again, the burden of proof was on YOU, not on me.

You want PROOF that they would've loved to coach Hall of Famers like Marino or Favre? You're joking, right?

Tom Brady was brought up as an analogy. YOU implied that because they didn't draft Marino/Favre that this was somehow proof that they didn't want QBs like that. So I countered that by YOUR logic, all the coaches who passed on Brady did so because they didn't WANT a QB like Brady. With the benefit of hindsight, Brady would've been a #1 overall pick.

Haha you don't know where Testaverde came from? Let me clue you in: Parcells chose Testaverde to be his QB TWICE! With the Jets and again with the Cowboys. That's where it comes from. Testaverde was a solid QB for some time but he threw a lot of picks and would hardly be described as a "game manager" or "good decision-maker".

Hostetler over Marino... wow. You ask ME to "stick to the facts" but you've presented none to back up your baseless opinion.

Parcells' 1st draft pick as the Patriots coach was a guy named Drew Bledsoe. Now tell me, did Bledsoe fit the mold of a "good decision-maker"? Or was he more of a "stat machine QB"?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I fault the decision because they needed to milk the clock. You don't do that by throwing the ball, you do it by running the ball. Sure, had Romo composed himself after evading the rusher like he did, he may have led Austin a little better and it could have been a TD. But, we all saw what happened when the coaches did not run.

That is just Basic 101 football.

If we try to milk the clock and they stop us from getting the first because they are lining up 8 and 9 guys in the box.. and we end up giving the ball back to them with 2 or 3 minutes left, fans would still be whining and complaining about that, too.

You know why? Because GB would do exactly what they did when they got the INT.. march right down the field for the game winning score because our defense can't stop anyone.

Its not Basic 101 football to play passive and not do everything you can to get the first down when you know if you let the other team get the ball back they are going to march it right down the field against your D.

This is where i disagree with you all. The playcall clearly caught the packers off guard, as was clear by the fact that Austin had not a single defender between himself and a TD on that play.

If we execute.. its a great play.. the problem was the execution.

 

[KJJ]

I don't agree. A 5 point lead with 4 and a half minutes left on this team may as well not be a lead at all. You can't give them the ball back with 3 or 4 minutes left and expect our defense to get any kind of a stop in that situation. With the box being stacked as it was, i don't mind the switch to a pass in that situation. Like we saw, had it been an accurate throw, it would have been a big gain and would have almost guarenteed us another score.

The only problem, imo, was the execution.

The problem is the Cowboys only attempted to run the ball ONCE on that possession. On first down with 4:17 left with a 5 point lead Romo came out throwing the ball. After his first pass attempt went incomplete he dropped back to pass again and got sacked which put the Cowboys in a 3rd and long a situation. After a 13 yard completion to Dez which gained a first down the Cowboys ran Murray for 4 yards that was the only carry he saw on that possession. Why not run the ball again and use up some clock? Murray had a nice gain on first down it only would have made sense to run it again and that was the plan until Romo changed the play. There was no reason to throw the ball on a second down and 6.

The Packers were having trouble stopping Murray you don't think there was a chance he could have churned out a couple of first downs? The Cowboys had a 5 point lead they needed to eat up some clock not come out throwing on a second and 6 and risk a big mistake by a QB who has a history of making them in that situation. I understand the defense may not have been able to stop the Packers but to go away from Murray with the game he was having made no sense in that situation.

 

[ufcrules1]

So for Romo to try and throw to make sure we get the first down is a no brainer, imo.

Yeah, on 3rd down it is a no brainer. Not on 2nd and 6 when you have been gashing the other team all day with the run game. Just because they stack the box doesn't mean they are going to stop the RB. Also, there is still 3rd down if they do. Pass on 3rd down.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I prefer smash mouth football. Yeah, the defense was playing the run because on 2-6 with crucial time running down, we are supposed to run the ball. Especially if they haven't been able to stop it all day. Both the decision and the execution were bad IMO. We can agree to disagree though.

Which is why, as a QB, if you see 9 guys lined up in the box, and you know they are all selling out against the run, switching to a pass and calling a play where you get your receiver wide open with no one between him and the end zone isn't a bad idea.

lol