Was Romo's Career "Wasted"?

[MichaelWinicki]

d

And Romo is the 3rd highest rated passer of all time, 6th all time in yards per attempt and consistently top 5 in just about every category in his era every year.

I think if Fouts is in, Romo should be as well.

Fouts also played in far more games.

Like I posted early, Romo's short career is going to hamper his ability to get in the hall in conjunction with the lack of playoff success.

 

[DallasEast]

Anyone can tell a lot from what the PFHOF Board of Selectors consider as Hall of Fame worthy in context by enshrines' short bios. (although each inductee has full length biographies also). Dan Fouts' HOF short bio reads as:

• PLAYED MAJOR ROLE IN TRANSFORMING CHARGERS FROM ALSO-RAN TO THREE-TIME AFC WEST CHAMPIONS
• THIRD PLAYER EVER TO PASS FOR MORE THAN 40,000 YARDS
• CAREER STATS: 43,040 YARDS, 254 TOUCHDOWNS PASSING; 476 YARDS, 13 TDS RUSHING
• SIX-TIME PRO BOWLER, THREE-TIME ALL-PRO
• NFL MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, 1982
• AFC PLAYER OF YEAR, 1979, 1982

http://www.profootballhof.com/players/dan-fouts/

I think if a selector introduced the premise that Romo's career attributes mirrored Fouts into a HoF nomination discussion, the assertion would not fare well.

Romo headed three 10-plus win playoff teams but at different junctures of his career. In comparison, Fouts quarterbacked three straight 10-plus win playoff teams during a seemingly 'magical' run during the prime of his career. Even though the respective decades that preceded each player were mostly down years, Fouts was (and would be) seen as a 'superior' or transformative difference maker.

Currently, Romo ranks 29th in passing yards with 34,183. Fouts has almost 10,000 more yards and is ranked 15th in the same category after finishing third all-time with 40,000-plus yards when he left the game.

Their Pro Bowl selections favor, six for Fouts and four for Romo, but Fouts has three NFL first-team All-Pro selections in contrast to Romo's singular NFL second-team All-Pro honor.

Fouts was awarded league and conference Most Valuable Player honors while Romo didn't receive any (although an argument can be made for his worthiness concerning the 2014 season).

Passing touchdowns are tight--Fouts 254 to Romo 248. Understandably, Romo has the definitive edge in career rushing yards, 620 to 476, but eight fewer rushing touchdowns--13 for Fouts and 5 for Romo.

Romo is/was a quarterback capable of helping a team win a championship but didn't do so. He shares that aspect with Fouts but I don't think Romo's career accomplishments correlate strongly enough with Fouts' in persuading Board of Selectors to nominate, and subsequently elect, Romo for PFHOF enshrinement. If a selector considered arguing a case for Romo, a different comparative quarterback argument should probably be made in my opinion.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Anyone can tell a lot from what the PFHOF Board of Selectors consider as Hall of Fame worthy in context by enshrines' short bios. (although each inductee has full length biographies also). Dan Fouts' HOF short bio reads as:

• PLAYED MAJOR ROLE IN TRANSFORMING CHARGERS FROM ALSO-RAN TO THREE-TIME AFC WEST CHAMPIONS
• THIRD PLAYER EVER TO PASS FOR MORE THAN 40,000 YARDS
• CAREER STATS: 43,040 YARDS, 254 TOUCHDOWNS PASSING; 476 YARDS, 13 TDS RUSHING
• SIX-TIME PRO BOWLER, THREE-TIME ALL-PRO
• NFL MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, 1982
• AFC PLAYER OF YEAR, 1979, 1982

http://www.profootballhof.com/players/dan-fouts/

I think if a selector introduced the premise that Romo's career attributes mirrored Fouts into a HoF nomination discussion, the assertion would not fare well.

Romo headed three 10-plus win playoff teams but at different junctures of his career. In comparison, Fouts quarterbacked three straight 10-plus win playoff teams during a seemingly 'magical' run during the prime of his career. Even though the respective decades that preceded each player were mostly down years, Fouts was (and would be) seen as a 'superior' or transformative difference maker.

Currently, Romo ranks 29th in passing yards with 34,183. Fouts has almost 10,000 more yards and is ranked 15th in the same category after finishing third all-time with 40,000-plus yards when he left the game.

Their Pro Bowl selections favor, six for Fouts and four for Romo, but Fouts has three NFL first-team All-Pro selections in contrast to Romo's singular NFL second-team All-Pro honor.

Fouts was awarded league and conference Most Valuable Player honors while Romo didn't receive any (although an argument can be made for his worthiness concerning the 2014 season).

Passing touchdowns are tight--Fouts 254 to Romo 248. Understandably, Romo has the definitive edge in career rushing yards, 620 to 476, but eight fewer rushing touchdowns--13 for Fouts and 5 for Romo.

Romo is/was a quarterback capable of helping a team win a championship but didn't do so. He shares that aspect with Fouts but I don't think Romo's career accomplishments correlate strongly enough with Fouts' in persuading Board of Selectors to nominate, and subsequently elect, Romo for PFHOF enshrinement. If a selector considered arguing a case for Romo, a different comparative quarterback argument should probably be made in my opinion.

All true.

And if Fouts numbers were normalized for Romo's era or visa versa the spread between the two would be even greater.

 

[haleyrules]

Romo, did the best he could do. He simply wasn't good enough. I heard that so many times about White. OK. I get it. He still deserves our respect. He was a good Cowboy.

 

[haleyrules]

All true.

And if Fouts numbers were normalized for Romo's era or visa versa the spread between the two would be even greater.

Yep. Tony is simply not in the same category as Fouts or Marino.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yep. Tony is simply not in the same category as Fouts or Marino.

Yep, just comparing QB numbers from today to those of the late 70's & 80's isn't going to fly.

It's like comparing a pitcher today to the "deadball" era or hitters today to those of 1930. Unless you normalize the numbers their value is dubious. But it speaks to the strength of Fouts' career that even today his numbers look darned good! And when he was playing they looked that much better because he was head & shoulders above most other QB's. During the early 80's there were many that felt he was the best QB in the NFL. That in itself is telling.

Tony put up some terrific numbers but he's never been called "the best QB in the NFL" except maybe by Jerry or a smattering of Cowboy fans. Brady & Peyton were 1& 1A. Virtually everyone would also take Brees over Romo. I think most would take Rodgers over Romo. Probably the same with Ben R. Eli's probably a coin-flip (not as eye-popping numbers as Tony but as we know far more success in the post season) and Rivers would be a coin-flip.

 

[haleyrules]

Yep, just comparing QB numbers from today to those of the late 70's & 80's isn't going to fly.

It's like comparing a pitcher today to the "deadball" era or hitters today to those of 1930. Unless you normalize the numbers their value is dubious. But it speaks to the strength of Fouts' career that even today his numbers look darned good! And when he was playing they looked that much better because he was head & shoulders above most other QB's. During the early 80's there were many that felt he was the best QB in the NFL. That in itself is telling.

Tony put up some terrific numbers but he's never been called "the best QB in the NFL" except maybe by Jerry or a smattering of Cowboy fans. Brady & Peyton were 1& 1A. Virtually everyone would also take Brees over Romo. I think most would take Rodgers over Romo. Probably the same with Ben R. Eli's probably a coin-flip (not as eye-popping numbers as Tony but as we know far more success in the post season) and Rivers would be a coin-flip.

Tell you what. Tony played in a QB protected...pass happy...sizzle and highlight reel inspired NFL. In fact, he is not the tough and well schooled QB that Danny White was. He is not in that category. He was a good QB and a better Cowboy. But not more than that. The Dallas Cowboys have a long history.

 

[DandyDon52]

OK on the HOF issue, that is a individual honor, it isnt a team honor.
It takes a team to win in playoffs, and win a SB .
If they only induct players who happened to be on a SB winning team then it is flawed.
They should rename it the SB hof.

As a individual tony did enough to get in at some point later on.
However if I had everything tony has, I really wouldnt care, fine if it happens, fine if it doesnt.

 

[sean10mm]

The truth is the Hall of Fame is for QBs who have rings, or overwhelming career stats, or both. That's how it actually works.

Romo has none of those things. He didn't start enough games to make the top 10 in volume stats, and he didn't play for an organization that could field Super Bowl worthy rosters year-in and year-out.

 

[MileyDancer]

Romo, did the best he could do. He simply wasn't good enough. I heard that so many times about White. OK. I get it. He still deserves our respect. He was a good Cowboy.

That's the thing. Romo WAS good enough. He just played under a terrible GM that made horrendous trades and draft choices, refused to bulk up the offensive line (until it was too late), and neglected the defense year after year. On top of that, a coach that was in diapers for 5 years. That same coach is in pull-ups now. Hopefully Dak has a ring by the time he graduates to big boy undies

 

[Animosity]

And Romo is the 3rd highest rated passer of all time, 6th all time in yards per attempt and consistently top 5 in just about every category in his era every year.

I think if Fouts is in, Romo should be as well.

If Romo goes in, you think McNabb should go in? Similar stats, y et McNabb blows Romo out of the water when it comes to playoff success. And Romo had an extra 5 years or so in a QB friendly era.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The truth is the Hall of Fame is for QBs who have rings, or overwhelming career stats, or both. That's how it actually works.

Romo has none of those things. He didn't start enough games to make the top 10 in volume stats, and he didn't play for an organization that could field Super Bowl worthy rosters year-in and year-out.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[DFWJC]

All true.

And if Fouts numbers were normalized for Romo's era or visa versa the spread between the two would be even greater.

Romo needed more than just 8 full seasons.
He didn't start until he was a bit older and then he missed most of 2010, 2015, and 2016 due to inju
Thats almost certainly 10000+ yards, 90-100 TDs that he would've had....but he didn't

Just don't see him making the HOF

ROH? Yes

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Romo needed more than just 8 full seasons.
He didn't start until he was a bit older and then he missed most of 2010, 2015, and 2016 due to inju
Thats almost certainly 10000+ yards, 90-100 TDs that he would've had....but he didn't

Just don't see him making the HOF

ROH? Yes

I'm right there with you...

 

[DallasEast]

Super Bowl winning quarterbacks.

Jim McMahon.

Mark Rypien.

Brad Johnson.

Trent Dilfer.



...but Tony Romo wasn't 'good enough'.



A person cannot literally make this stuff up. Humans. lol. smh.

 

[DFWJC]

Super Bowl winning quarterbacks.

Jim McMahon.

Mark Rypien.

Brad Johnson.

Trent Dilfer.



...but Tony Romo wasn't 'good enough'.



A person cannot literally make this stuff up. Humans. lol. smh.

ZERO doubt in my mind that Romo was good enough.
He was easily good enough.
24++ starters in every game...the ultimate team game.
Sure, he easily wins a Super Bowl if he was QB for tahat Bears, Bucs, or Ravens team. No question.
You only needed to score 10 points on offense and win on those teams...the defense would get you 14 more..lol.

But he won't be in the HOF...imo.

 

[Sarek]

Romo's gone, it's done, it's over. If his career was wasted or not simply doesn't matter now. Enjoy the new Cowboy team and Happy Easter to all.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

ZERO doubt in my mind that Romo was good enough.
He was easily good enough.
24++ starters in every game...the ultimate team game.
Sure, he easily wins a Super Bowl if he was QB for tahat Bears, Bucs, or Ravens team. No question.
You only needed to score 10 points on offense and win on those teams...the defense would get you 14 more..lol.

But he won't be in the HOF...imo.

1. Zero doubt he was good enough = AGREED!
2. Could he limit his mistakes to win 2-3 straight playoff games = I AM GONNA SAY NO.
3. If he was able to win all the playoff games to get to Super Bowl = MAYBE.


The problem there is.... never getting #2 ... never gets you to MAYBE.

 

[DFWJC]

1. Zero doubt he was good enough = AGREED!
2. Could he limit his mistakes to win 2-3 straight playoff games = I AM GONNA SAY NO.
3. If he was able to win all the playoff games to get to Super Bowl = MAYBE.


The problem there is.... never getting #2 ... never gets you to MAYBE.

Well the last 2 playoff games he played in he did just that....limited his mistakes.
2014
4tds
0 ints
127 QB rating...in the playoffs, and best in the league that year
. Sure he could do it, and he did.
The run game and better protection made all the difference

At this point, its all in the past. Going forward and healthy (a big hypothetical) we'll never know if he would or would have won a Super Bowl, or even two.
The current offense is plenty good enough.
Its the defense....

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Well the last 2 playoff games he played in he did.
2014
4tds
0 ints
127 QB rating...in the playoffs, and best in the league that year
. Sure he could do it, and he did.
The run game and better protection made all the difference

No. He didn't.

Wait... he did what? He didn't make it anywhere near NFC title game. Sorry, Charlie.

That ridiculous lions game and that bogus call.



Anyway. Wished he did. But he didn't.