Video: Vintage Romo

[DallasEast]

 

[MarcusRock]

I might fall under the "I'm gonna have some fun with this" category.

Because Dez didn't catch it vs. Green Bay that time. Was a great pass from Romo though.

 

[erod]

Lmao! Here we go again! And you dare to take jabs at other fans' football smarts? Ahahaha!

I can only win this so many times.

Good day.

 

[DallasEast]

I might fall under the "I'm gonna have some fun with this" category.

Because Dez didn't catch it vs. Green Bay that time. Was a great pass from Romo though.

I think it is safe saying you fall under a number of categories judging by your participation in the catch threads.

 

[G2]

I can only win this so many times.

Good day.

Oh, one of those. "I win." Lmao... Awesome!

 

[erod]

Oh, one of those. "I win." Lmao... Awesome!

Learn when you're out of your depth.

 

[G2]

Learn when you're out of your depth.

Bring something else to the discussion but chest puffing and cherry picking.
Until then, stifle.

 

[aria]

Bring something else to the discussion but chest puffing and cherry picking.
Until then, stifle.

Lol @ “stifle”.

 

[Aviano90]

I can only win this so many times.

Good day.

That’s because the should’ve, could’ve, would’ve is undefeated, as Jim Harbaugh said. Romo didn’t actually win anything but the claims he could’ve won can’t be disproven. Hypothetical wins don’t do anything for most fans, but if that is good for some, then so be it. Romo is one of the best “should be” champions of all time, in any sport. But week 17 and divisional playoff games were too big of mountains to actually climb in order to get a shot at the true tests.

 

[Aviano90]

This is Vintage Romo:



This was the type of awful protection he received for so many years.

But the primary reason for Romo's lack of post season success was due to the mostly bad defenses he had. The best teams he had were the 2006 and the 2014 teams, neither of which had defenses that were better than average.

I don’t buy this. I will agree the defense was the weak link, but the seasons typically came down to a particular game to determine if the season continued on or not. So, even if the defense stunk up and the offense was great up until that point where the rubber met the road , it didn’t matter. What mattered is what occurred during that game and what actually happened was the offense typically underperformed their season average and the average of the opponent’s defense. The defense typically outperformed their season averages and the averages of the offense they were playing against.

It wasn’t the offense scoring a bunch of points and the defense sucking. I get the defense wasn’t great, but the offense only averaged like 19 points a game in the do or die games. Even if we had a great defense you aren’t winning many games like that.

 

[Cowpolk]

Look at Romo’s QBR his first 3 years, compare it to Dak’s first two, and let me know how it’s not even close. The majority of people here wanted Romo gone early in his career as well, give Dak some time before making a statement like that.

Romo is better than Dak period

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Romo is better than Dak period

That troll leaves out that the ESPN made QBR is the only “stat” that Dak has an advantage in, and that Romo literally obliterates Dak in every other metric there is (except for pick sixes). Meanwhile, he can’t even tell you how QBR is calculated because no one knows.

 

[Aviano90]

Romo is better than Dak period

You’re right. Romo is better than Dak. Now, what does that win us? Any caps and shirts on sale, parades to be attended to celebrate?

It’s about as useless of an argument as fans of two 8-8 teams arguing about which team was “better.

DeMarcus Ware is better than Dlaw. We need to cut Dlaw

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Romo putting up big numbers in a loss is “Vintage Romo”.

Funny but true.

 

[erod]

That’s because the should’ve, could’ve, would’ve is undefeated, as Jim Harbaugh said. Romo didn’t actually win anything but the claims he could’ve won can’t be disproven. Hypothetical wins don’t do anything for most fans, but if that is good for some, then so be it. Romo is one of the best “should be” champions of all time, in any sport. But week 17 and divisional playoff games were too big of mountains to actually climb in order to get a shot at the true tests.

So Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Rex Grossman, Jeff Hostetler, Stan Humphries, Neil O'Donnell, Tony Eason.....they were all Super Bowl caliber quarterbacks then, right?

C'mon. Watch the games.

 

[erod]

Bring something else to the discussion but chest puffing and cherry picking.
Until then, stifle.

Learn an ounce of football. Stop being a mindless lemming. Then get back to us.

 

[Aviano90]

So Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Rex Grossman, Jeff Hostetler, Stan Humphries, Neil O'Donnell, Tony Eason.....they were all Super Bowl caliber quarterbacks then, right?

C'mon. Watch the games.

They got there, didn’t they?

C’mom, join us on earth.

 

[erod]

They got there, didn’t they?

C’mom, join us on earth.

I rest my case.

Good gawd almighty. Wow.

 

[Aviano90]

Learn an ounce of football. Stop being a mindless lemming. Then get back to us.

Careful when responding to this Streetwise. We are being “negative” and we can’t pound on the “positive” pansies.

 

[Aviano90]

I rest my case.

Good gawd almighty. Wow.

You have no case, unless we are taking about hemroids for the butt hurt.

Your post actually helps prove my point in that a lot of QBs can actually win if they are in the right situation, not just Tony Romo.