We are now in Last place in NFC east

[AdamJT13]

Didn't Romo get hurt on an incomplete 3rd down pass

You know that's not true.

And are ST TDs not legit???

Of course they're legit. But they're also rare. And getting two in one game is extremely rare.

If we had returned two kickoffs for touchdowns today and beat the Giants 31-28 in overtime, the Giants obviously would have a reason to think our win was a bit of a fluke. And so would I and most of the fans here.

 

[firehawk350]

Calm down and think for a minute.

All I've said is that with Romo, we can overcome a mediocre or even poor day by the defense. Not EVERY game, but often. We won a 41-37 game and a 31-22 game this season, games of 45-35, 28-23, 28-27 and 37-27 last year, and a 37-27 game after he took over in 2006. Without Romo, we haven't scored more than 14 points in any game, and our opponents have scored more than 10 points per game on drives that started inside our territory.

So ... to summarize ... with Romo, we typically score a lot more points than we have without Romo -- this year, it's 29.2 points per game when Romo plays, compared to 13.7 when he doesn't. And when our offense moves the ball and doesn't give the opponent the ball deep in our territory, the opponent has a much more difficult time scoring. Combine the two, and our chances of winning go up greatly.

Seriously, even the biggest hater in the world has to recognize those simple facts.

I understand that Romo gives you a better chance of winning, that's obvious. But this attitude, and I see it the players echo it, is of non-accountability. This Romo excuse is just the next in a long line of non-accountability starting with the last 07 Skins loss.

Skins loss... We didn't care
Playoff loss... The better team lost, 13-3, next year is ours and so on...
Skins loss... If Miles Austin only held onto the onsides kick and it was only a 2 point loss...
AZ loss... It took 2 ST TDs and Romo was injured...
Giants loss.. Look at our injuries...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I understand that Romo gives you a better chance of winning, that's obvious. But this attitude, and I see it the players echo it, is of non-accountability. This Romo excuse is just the next in a long line of non-accountability starting with the last 07 Skins loss.

Skins loss... We didn't care
Playoff loss... The better team lost, 13-3, next year is ours and so on...
Skins loss... If Miles Austin only held onto the onsides kick and it was only a 2 point loss...
AZ loss... It took 2 ST TDs and Romo was injured...
Giants loss.. Look at our injuries...

:laugh1: please

but go on, keep making **** up to wet yourself over

 

[firehawk350]

You know that's not true.



Of course they're legit. But they're also rare. And getting two in one game is extremely rare.

If we had returned two kickoffs for touchdowns today and beat the Giants 31-28 in overtime, the Giants obviously would have a reason to think our win was a bit of a fluke. And so would I and most of the fans here.

That's assuming a lot... The Giants beat you handily in the other two phases of the game, you weren't beating the crap out of the Cards until those "fluke" plays. I don't remember the exact stats, but it was a much closer game

 

[firehawk350]

:laugh1: please

but go on, keep making **** up to wet yourself over

Oh, the poor soul who has nothing left to say... Show me one example of somebody being held accountable (negative action, negative consequence)

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh, the poor soul who has nothing left to say... Show me one example of somebody being held accountable (negative action, negative consequence)

I'm not arguing that

just laughing at you trying to claim that the Skins started our streak of non-accountability

when in fact we haven't had to be held accountable until the last 6 weeks

 

[Everson24]

we're undisciplined

crap we're failing at is crap you teach in mini-camps: tackling, fundamentals

it's obvious Wade let the inmates run the asylum, while he coddled them, when he should have been reinforcing the fundametals of football, what a sorry excuse for a coach, and a prime example of someone just being happy to be somewhere

I keep hearing Wade's comment on Hard Knocks. "I will not over work this team". That philosophy is really paying off now isn't it?

 

[firehawk350]

Romo way>>>> Campbell

can't even mention the 2 together



want a cookie?

Last season, sure... But this season... it depends on what you want your QB to do. If they changed places, I'm not sure Washington would be 6-2 by this point.

 

[firehawk350]

I'm not arguing that

just laughing at you trying to claim that the Skins started our streak of non-accountability

when in fact we haven't had to be held accountable until the last 6 weeks

The only reason I said Skins is I don't remember what the excuses were for the Eagles loss.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Last season, sure... But this season... it depends on what you want your QB to do. If they changed places, I'm not sure Washington would be 6-2 by this point.

that's why you're an idiot

Tony Romo is more effective: more TDs, higher ypa, heck, higher QB rating

idiot

 

[AdamJT13]

Way to pick out one sentence... 28 points a game wouldn't have won the two games you've lost with Romo out.

If Romo's putting up 28 points on offense, he's probably not giving the opponent the ball deep in our territory, going three-and-out and making us punt from our own end zone, or consistently giving the opponent the ball near midfield. It's not just about the points you score, it's about field position and where you give the opponent the ball. In our two losses without Romo, we've given the opponent the ball FIVE times inside OUR 35, plus four more times either inside our territory or within 2 yards of midfield. In the win, we didn't give the opponent the ball inside our 35 at all and only twice near midfield (resulting in six of the nine points allowed).

 

[Mansta54]

that's why you're an idiot

Tony Romo is more effective: more TDs, higher ypa, higher completion percentage, heck, higher QB rating

idiot

Damn!!! I couldn't have said it better myself...

 

[TellerMorrow34]

You know what I find funny from this thread? All summer long I watched as Skins fans talked about how much their injuries played a factor in their losses last year and how they just got unlucky with all these injuries.

Now when it's Dallas that has a load of injuries, to many key positions, it's not as big a factor for Dallas it's just us not being good.

You don't think that not just Romo being out but the losses of our starting LG, our starting best CB, and our huge contributing rookie RB are big time losses for this team?

When this team gets healthy I believe some of these people will eat a lot of their words.

 

[firehawk350]

If Romo's putting up 28 points on offense, he's probably not giving the opponent the ball deep in our territory, going three-and-out and making us punt from our own end zone, or consistently giving the opponent the ball near midfield. It's not just about the points you score, it's about field position and where you give the opponent the ball. In our two losses without Romo, we've given the opponent the ball FIVE times inside OUR 35, plus four more times either inside our territory or within 2 yards of midfield. In the win, we didn't give the opponent the ball inside our 35 at all and only twice near midfield (resulting in six of the nine points allowed).

That's, again, assuming Romo does not do that at all (a heady assumption given his turnover problems as of late). Romo turns over the ball, but he gives you a much better offense. That's why I don't see Romo coming back as being the band-aid for the defense.

 

[AdamJT13]

Last season, sure... But this season... it depends on what you want your QB to do. If they changed places, I'm not sure Washington would be 6-2 by this point.

If Romo didn't get hurt, Washington probably would be at least 6-2. The Commanders lost one game 17-7 and the other 19-17, so a few more touchdowns could have won those games. Not to mention that Romo was 23-8 in his career as a starter (and 17-4 in the past two seasons) before he got hurt.

And if they changed places and Campbell got hurt when Romo did, we certainly wouldn't be any better than 5-4 right now, and probably not even that (we likely would have lost to the Eagles).

 

[firehawk350]

that's why you're an idiot

Tony Romo is more effective: more TDs, higher ypa, heck, higher QB rating

idiot

He has has far more turnovers. What Campbell is asked to do is to make the teams keep 8 out of the box and not turn it over, and he does this well. Romo is asked to win the games and to hell with the turnovers. He does this well. But what I've seen lately is a defense who doesn't care and an offense who doesn't block.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

That's, again, assuming Romo does not do that at all (a heady assumption given his turnover problems as of late). Romo turns over the ball, but he gives you a much better offense. That's why I don't see Romo coming back as being the band-aid for the defense.

No defense can win, or keep you in the game, when your backup QBs are giving the other team the ball on your end of the field all game long. This defense played on our end of the field, and many times inside our own 30 yard line, all game long. It's pretty tough to keep teams from out scoring you when they get that kind of field position all day.

 

[firehawk350]

If Romo didn't get hurt, Washington probably would be at least 6-2. The Commanders lost one game 17-7 and the other 19-17, so a few more touchdowns could have won those games. Not to mention that Romo was 23-8 in his career as a starter (and 17-4 in the past two seasons) before he got hurt.

And if they changed places and Campbell got hurt when Romo did, we certainly wouldn't be any better than 5-4 right now, and probably not even that (we likely would have lost to the Eagles).

A few more turnovers would have made those losses more lopsided. Do you really think that Romo's first game in a completely new offensive system would have seen a crapload of TDs anyways???

 

[Bizwah]

That's, again, assuming Romo does not do that at all (a heady assumption given his turnover problems as of late). Romo turns over the ball, but he gives you a much better offense. That's why I don't see Romo coming back as being the band-aid for the defense.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish.

Do you want us to wail, gnash our teeth, and bow at the Commander superiority over us?

It won't happen.

Most fans during difficult times will try to find a silver lining. That's what most are doing now. And, most fans of other teams will try to stick a fork in us....which is what you're doing now.

You're on a Cowboy board. You can expect us to try to rationalize poor play. Now, is Romo all that is missing? No....we weren't playing very well.

But we were still scoring points....he still gives us a good opportunity to win every game we're in. There's too much talent on this team to ignore. For you to simply think our team is the worst in the division, and we'll fade away quietly is foolish on your part.

Again....I know what you're doing....you're here to kick us while we're down. And maybe we deserve it....sheesh...we gave you all kinds of junk when we practically owned you guys earlier in the decade.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He has has far more turnovers. What Campbell is asked to do is to make the teams keep 8 out of the box and not turn it over, and he does this well. Romo is asked to win the games and to hell with the turnovers. He does this well. But what I've seen lately is a defense who doesn't care and an offense who doesn't block.

ok

but you guys can play D and block for your QB

put Romo on the Commanders and you have a similar, '07 Pat's situation