Was Romo's Career "Wasted"?

[Ring Leader]

Kind of criminal and sad that QBs like Cam Newton and Matt Ryan at least got their teams to that level.

What Matt Ryan wasted dwarfs anything Romo did. And what level are you talking about - Super Bowl loser? Would that have somehow elevated Romo's resume?

 

[Cowboysfan917]

Parcells was the best coach Romo ever played for and he had a solid offensive line of aging vets in 2007... the last good line he would have until 2014. He had 1 truly great defensive player his entire career.

His signature 'no-look spin move' was used so often because the offensive system was not very good and forced him to hold the ball so long that the mediocre offensive line couldn't block any longer and defenders were pouring into the backfield.

Romo drug this team into the playoffs or the cusp of them for his entire career. Without him, 8-8 teams were 3-13 teams and the Cowboys would be the Browns/Raiders of the past 10 years.

He wasted a chunk of time with a defensive coordinator as a retread head coach. Then an offensive coordinator who still may not know how to coach.

There were A LOT of personnel misses:
Roy Williams trade. Ouch. What could we have gotten with those draft picks?

Trading up for Mo Claiborne?

2009 draft class?

Had the rebuilding of the offensive line began in 2009, what could he have done?

Hell, I sometimes wonder what Norv Turner could've done with the team had he been hired instead of Wade.

Tony Romo was duct tape for a dysfunctional franchise with an egomaniac owner.

 

[Idgit]

"Was Romo's career wasted?"

Based on the responses in this thread I think people interpret this question in a variety of different ways. (which is okay; I'm not saying there's a right or wrong)

My answer is an ENORMOUS NO, it was not wasted. Romo gave it his all, made the most of his opportunities, and did all he could do considering the circumstances he was in. He played as well as he could for us. No way you can call that a waste in my eyes.

To me, when I talk about wasted careers I think of guys like Ryan Leaf, Rolando McClain, probably Randy Gregory in a couple of years (hopefully I'm wrong), Greg Hardy, Jay Ratliff, Josh Gordon, etc. THOSE are wasted careers.

I think most fans answer this relative to their expectations. I also think most fans don't have realistic expectations. It's hard to put a Superbowl contending team together. During Romo's career, we had one in 2007 and in 2014. Problem was, other teams had them, too, and we didn't get it done. As disappointing at that is, it's not a 'waste' to get (relatively) close to a difficult accomplishment and to come up short. Like with everything, there's value in the attempt, which is why we all watch games in the first place. Yes, there's nothing like winning the tournament, but that doesn't mean qualifying and losing the tournament is a waste.

Unless, of course, you're entitled and will only consider willing it all to be worthwhile. Fortunately, I don't think that's most people.

 

[hornitosmonster]

No, he put the team in position to win but a bad call in Greenbay and a non catch by Crayton ruined his chances of advancing

 

[MarkP88]

It was wasted just as surely as we wasted the back half of Troy's career. Inexcusable that we had franchise QBs from 96-99 (I'll allow Troy was shot after that) and '06-'14, and we have zero trips to the Championship Game to show for it, let alone Super Bowl appearances or wins.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Yes his Career was wasted, and Wittens'. Wares would have been as well, thx Jerrel.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

One question I ask myself is, "What if we had had Aaron Rodgers instead?" which was a real possibility since he fell in the draft. No one can say for 100 percent certain, but I think the same team deficiencies that tripped up Romo would have tripped up Rodgers and we would not have gotten a Super Bowl with him.

 

[DallasEast]

I believe there is one thing almost every observer of last season's team can agree on:

The Cowboys' defense lost the Packers divisional round game.

Every season has favorites to win it all, or teams that seem like they have a better chance than another team, etc. Sometimes, a particular team seems certain to win it all by consensus and that team end up holding up the trophy in February. Other times, a team gets labeled a dark horse, runs the table, and wins the Super Bowl.

Teams get a lot of perceptions about their chances of winning the ultimate prize from other competing teams, other fans, media, etc. There is one thing all playoff bound teams share despite what the teams themselves, how others think about their chances, or whether their chances are practical or not practical:

Every playoff team believes it can win it all. However, does every playoff team do whatever it takes to win it all?

If NFL history is any indication, an expectation that a rookie quarterback would help win an NFC Divisional round game, the NFC Championship game, and the Super Bowl, can only subtract opportunities for winning all three playoff games. Regardless, the following was the concise euphoric mindset held before November of last year:

• The veteran quarterback has never won a Super Bowl and cannot win one this season.
• The rookie quarterback has never won a Super Bowl but he can win one with this team despite no other rookie quarterback accomplishing the exact same feat in NFL history.

Thus, owner, coaches, players, media and fans who honestly believe Dallas had even the tiniest chance of winning Super Bowl LI thought the odds were greater with a rookie quarterback than a veteran quarterback.

I've had my share of private conversations with Cowboy and non-Cowboy fans about this topic. Most said, "You must go with the rookie." I asked afterwards, "Did you think the team has/had a chance of winning the Super Bowl with a rookie quarterback?" The general reply was, "Yes. Anything can/could happen in the playoffs."

A few replies were different. Some said, "You must go with the rookie quarterback. It is/was his time." So I asked the same question about the team's chances of winning in February and occasionally got the different answer of no.

At least some people are honestly self-realistic about odds no matter how slim the odds are in every conceivable circumstance.

 

[Coy]

Great article for the ones that appreciated Tony and even better for the ones that hated on him.
Couldn't have said it better.

 

[waving monkey]

Parcells was the best coach Romo ever played for and he had a solid offensive line of aging vets in 2007... the last good line he would have until 2014. He had 1 truly great defensive player his entire career.

His signature 'no-look spin move' was used so often because the offensive system was not very good and forced him to hold the ball so long that the mediocre offensive line couldn't block any longer and defenders were pouring into the backfield.

Romo drug this team into the playoffs or the cusp of them for his entire career. Without him, 8-8 teams were 3-13 teams and the Cowboys would be the Browns/Raiders of the past 10 years.

He wasted a chunk of time with a defensive coordinator as a retread head coach. Then an offensive coordinator who still may not know how to coach.

There were A LOT of personnel misses:
Roy Williams trade. Ouch. What could we have gotten with those draft picks?

Trading up for Mo Claiborne?

2009 draft class?

Had the rebuilding of the offensive line began in 2009, what could he have done?

Hell, I sometimes wonder what Norv Turner could've done with the team had he been hired instead of Wade.

Tony Romo was duct tape for a dysfunctional franchise with an egomaniac owner.

you almost got a like

 

[sean10mm]

Let's be clear here: Romo isn't the most elite of the most elite, and some people will always hate him for that, because the world is full of morons. But he was more than good enough to take a well-run franchise to 1-2 titles and several more deep playoff runs. Unfortunately, the Cowboys were not a well-run franchise for most of his career. By the time they even sniffed that level of management Romo's bones were already stale pretzel sticks.

Most of his career was spent with weak coaches that have no respect anywhere in the league (Wade Phillips, Jason Garrett during his "training wheels" seasons). Most of his career took place at the peak of Bad Jerry wheeling-dealing that wasted draft picks trading for the likes of Roy Williams and burned cap space on players cashing out at the butt end of their careers. Most seasons behind trash lines, most seasons without a legit running threat, most seasons with mediocre to poor defenses. There were partial exceptions here or there, but nothing approaching a complete team.

Look at the 2014 and 2016 Patriots teams. Look at how they rank in both points scored and points allowed - they were QUALITY organizations, top to bottom. And they BARELY won those Super Bowls, because they played against an uber-defense and an uber-offense in the big games. When did the Cowboys ever sniff building teams like those in Romo's career? MAYBE twice, if we're generous? But the Patriots do that every year, and don't win the Super Bowl most years. If you're not consistently fielding those strong teams, year in and year out, you're not winning a title, never mind multiple titles or whatever.

Cowboys fans recognize how bad their organization is, and never stop whining about it - right up until the topic of Romo comes up, then they instantly get amnesia and act like the Cowboys are run like the Packers, Ravens or Steelers. No, and it's not even close. Rodgers is absolutely elite and plays for a much better-run organization... and got 1 ring.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Jerry has wasted quite a few careers trying to prove ONE point that after 20+ years still only he believes.

 

[haleyrules]

Jerry has wasted quite a few careers trying to prove ONE point that after 20+ years still only he believes.

lol. That he's a HC?

 

[cowboy_ron]

lol. That he's a HC?

lol, yea...and a GM

 

[Jkyle]

Romo's time was "Wasted" in the sense that they didn't find the formula to maximize his game until 2014: emphasize the running game and use that to set up Romo's talent as a passer.
Before then, the scheme relied on Romo's passing to dictate the offense.
Romo had a ton of talent but he didn't really mature as a QB until late in his career and the team was overdependent on him instead of reigning in his deficiencies as a "Gun-Slinger" by utilizing a running game.
By the time they figured out the correct formula, Romo's injuries prevented the team from reaping the benefits.
Pre-2014, Jerry was so enamored with Romo's abilities as a passer, he went all in and focused on having a Romo-centric offense which resulted in inconsistent results and many faulty personnel decisions. There were more highs than lows but having that focus created a team that wasn't conducive for big Post season success.
Parcell's had the right idea about needing to keep the reigns of Romo to save him, and the team, from himself.
But once Parcell's was gone, Jerry hired coaches who would follow his thinking that having Romo as the focus was the correct route. Jerry didn't realize that while Romo had some "Elite" abilities, he wasn't an Elite QB, in the true sense. There was a reason he went to Eastern Illinois and was undrafted. A QB of his pedigree, or lack there of, needs to demonstrate that they are worthy of being considered as Elite by accomplishing some post-season. Kurt Warner is a good example. He had early success which warranted his elevation to that Elite status. Romo never demonstrated that except for the regular season and even that was mired in the 8-10 win range. (Not entirely his fault, but he was the QB)
I hate that Romo won't be able to display his Peak abilities as a QB with this current team.
It seemed that he had finally mastered his craft, mentally and physically/Technique-wise, but his injuries negated the chances of the Team and Fans from witnessing what could have been.
Let's hope that Dak can provide what Romo was unable to.

 

[Cowboysfan917]

One question I ask myself is, "What if we had had Aaron Rodgers instead?" which was a real possibility since he fell in the draft. No one can say for 100 percent certain, but I think the same team deficiencies that tripped up Romo would have tripped up Rodgers and we would not have gotten a Super Bowl with him.

Totally agree. Or what if Romo was in New England

 

[sean10mm]

Before then, the scheme relied on Romo's passing to dictate the offense.

This was done out of NECESSITY, not out of some grand conspiracy to make Romo throw 600 times a year.

When your defense and run game are trash, you HAVE TO throw to have ANY CHANCE of coming back.

Or are you arguing that Felix Jones was a 300 carries a year back and we all missed it? And he wasn't even a low point of the run game, honestly.

Bad personnel decisions FORCED "bad" strategy on them, basically. I complained about the coaching under Phillips and Garrett (especially his first couple years), but in fairness if you don't have a deep roster on both sides of the ball you're kind of forced to do "bad" things like pass "too much" to overcome your weaknesses. When your defense is historically bad due to being a complete talent void, you can't just go run-run-run-punt every other drive just for the sake of not passing "too much."

 

[German Corner]

Was Dan Marino's?

exactly!!! dan marino was one of the best yet no rings. qb's can't play defense. itz a team game, we all know that. I've stated many times if tony romo played on the 1992 cowboys OFCOURSE he would have been good enough to win the super bowl...

 

[Jkyle]

This was done out of NECESSITY, not out of some grand conspiracy to make Romo throw 600 times a year.

When your defense and run game are trash, you HAVE TO throw to have ANY CHANCE of coming back.

Or are you arguing that Felix Jones was a 300 carries a year back and we all missed it? And he wasn't even a low point of the run game, honestly.

Bad personnel decisions FORCED "bad" strategy on them, basically. I complained about the coaching under Phillips and Garrett (especially his first couple years), but in fairness if you don't have a deep roster on both sides of the ball you're kind of forced to do "bad" things like pass "too much" to overcome your weaknesses. When your defense is historically bad due to being a complete talent void, you can't just go run-run-run-punt every other drive just for the sake of not passing "too much."

You hurt your own argument.
It can be argued that they didn't address the running game issue due to the organizations complacency with having Romo being the main focus.
They didn't think it was crucial because Romo would throw them to the Promise Land.
That's why they focused more on beefing up the Receiving positions (R. Williams, M. Austin, M. Bennett, T. Glenn) while going cheap on the RB position.
They made a mistake by unleashing Romo instead of being more measured.
They gave him too much responsibility instead of reigning him in a bit more to maximize and grow his talents, as was evident later in his career.

 

[haleyrules]

exactly!!! dan marino was one of the best yet no rings. qb's can't play defense. itz a team game, we all know that. I've stated many times if tony romo played on the 1992 cowboys OFCOURSE he would have been good enough to win the super bowl...

He was young though!!. I suppose a 12 yr old could win a SB!!