What One Player Could Put Us Over The Hump?

[burmafrd]

Yeah isn't that interesting? For all the yards and TDs he put up the Packers still lost that game because their D could not do a thing. Ring a bell?

 

[gbrittain]

True, however you failed to mention he threw for 4 TD passes, 400 Yards, and ran for another TD up to that point.

I can't much blame Rogers when his defense gave up 45 points leading up to that sack.

Actually Perry, I do not blame him AT ALL!!! I am just point out the hypocrisy of the Romo haters.

You know STATS DONT MATTER crowd..."He put up great stats but yet in crunch time came up small when it mattered most."

Basically that game is a microcosm of what they accuse Romo of being. A stats guy that can't seal the deal.

 

[realtick]

Not to knock Rodgers, because I think highly of him, but he did cost the Packers in the playoffs by holding the ball too long and taking a sack and fumbling the ball away for a TD. Romo would be crucified for that play among the hater crowd.

I could care less about the Rodgers vs. Romo debate, but I have a hard time blaming Rodgers for "holding the ball too long" and assigning him blame when his defense gave up 531 yards and 45 points to the Cardinals.

The fact they were still in the game should be a credit to him.

It's not much different than people criticizing Romo's QB ability because he flubbed holding a FG kick. What folks tend to forget is it was Romo who even put them in the spot to win the game in the first place.

 

[gbrittain]

I could care less about the Rodgers vs. Romo debate, but I have a hard time blaming Rodgers for "holding the ball too long" and assigning him blame when his defense gave up 531 yards and 45 points to the Cardinals.

The fact they were still in the game should be a credit to him.

It's not much different than people criticizing Romo's QB ability because he flubbed holding a FG kick. What folks tend to forget is it was Romo who even put them in the spot to win the game in the first place.

I agree. Not sure if you saw my other post. I do not blame Rodgers. He is an excellent QB. Again, I am ok with anyone not liking, doubting, hating or whatever you want to call it.

I just don't like it when people are not consistent. As I alluded to earlier.

You know how Ben R can stink but turn it around at the very end and he is clutch. Tony plays a bad game, turns it around and puts 17 points on the board in the 4th, but in two back to back series the D gives up a 77 yard and 82 yard runs and Romo gets the blame??? What kind of bizarro world is that?

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

A starting QB with an above average arm...

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

A starting QB with an above average arm...

Lolz both Romo and Kitna have above average arms

 

[KJJ]

No you suffer from a disease known as thinking just because you say something its the truth.

Tony also had a much worse HC. As we saw this year, and frankly most have seen for a couple of years. Aaron Rodgers also had a much better defense this year and for a lot of last year. So he was not having to come from behind as much as Tony has had to.

So if you want to be honest there is no real evidence that Tony is more prone to turnovers then Rodgers is. You can claim all you want at what would have happened this year and you HAVE NOTHING to back it up but the fact that you don't like Romo.

Now with a better coach and hopefully a better O line next year we shall see. And I am willing to bet that just like the last few years there will be little difference at the final stats between Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers.

Look, I'm giving my opinion you don't like it fine. It's a post board most of what is said here is based on opinion.

If you don't think I know what I'm talking about then nothing I say should bother you.

You have fans here claiming Romo's been stuck on nothing but bad Cowboy teams. LMAO!

They'll find an excuse for every Cowboy team Romo has been apart of.

They claim put Romo on the Packers or Steelers and they would be unstoppable and that's not an exaggeration that's actually been posted. :laugh2:

No matter how great Rodgers performs some here WILL NOT accept he's the better QB.

You hear a lot of the same excuses with Romo that were made with Danny White.

There's some here that are so bias even Rodgers SB win hasn't convinced them he's better than Romo...Whatev!

I actually exchanged a post with a fan in another thread who tried arguing that Romo has just as good an arm as Rodgers.

It's a waste of time arguing with fans who are too bias to be objective.

 

[KJJ]

Who are you whining about now?

Talking to yourself again? I'm not the one whining. LOL

 

[bbgun]

Look, I'm giving my opinion you don't like it fine. It's a post board most of what is said here is based on opinion.

If you don't think I know what I'm talking about then nothing I say should bother you.

You have fans here claiming Romo's been stuck on nothing but bad Cowboy teams. LMAO!

They'll find an excuse for every Cowboy team Romo has been apart of.

They claim put Romo on the Packers or Steelers and they would be unstoppable and that's not an exaggeration that's actually been posted. :laugh2:

No matter how great Rodgers performs some here WILL NOT accept he's the better QB.

You hear a lot of the same excuses with Romo that were made with Danny White.

There's some here that are so bias even Rodgers SB win hasn't convinced them he's better than Romo...Whatev!

I actually exchanged a post with a fan in another thread who tried arguing that Romo has just as good an arm as Rodgers.

It's a waste of time arguing with fans who are too bias to be objective.

I doubt that Tony could have made this clothesline throw to Jennings, but arm strength ain't everything. Joe Montana probably had a weaker arm than every QB he squared off against in the Super Bowl.

[youtubehd]ldR3DVmsxpc&hd=1[/youtubehd]

 

[KJJ]

I doubt that Tony could have made this clothesline throw to Jennings, but arm strength ain't everything. Joe Montana probably had a weaker arm than every QB he squared off against in the Super Bowl.

[youtubehd]ldR3DVmsxpc&hd=1[/youtubehd]

He throws a beautiful ball with a lot of zip. Can't believe anyone would try and compare Romo's arm strength with Rodgers but nothing here surprises me anymore.

 

[MapleLeaf]

He throws a beautiful ball with a lot of zip. Can't believe anyone would try and compare Romo's arm strength with Rodgers but nothing here surprises me anymore.

...alot on why people are so irritated by your responses.

First, I wouldn't have been baited by the question of this thread of restricting the team's fortunes to one player because anyone who has played, coached and analyzed football knows the one player rule is not the end all and be all.

Second, does anyone really think Romo is so terrible a QB that he could never be part of a Superbowl team?

If you really were so tapped into stats here's what I have always felt is the most pertinent part of the game of football.

How many possessions are there in an average football game for each team? Depending on the league and age group you coach or play in that number changes, but oddly enough it is fairly consistent throughout leagues - especially the parity driven NFL.

The point of the game is to add numbers to the electronic device located somewhere in the stadium. If your side of the board has more numbers than the other team you win.

In the ping pong aspect of posession the strategy becomes for you to score more than the other team or, as many in football know, to stop them more times than they stop you.

Affecting the scoreboard is the key. The game has been designed in the modern era to ensure that the probability of success is on the offensive side.

It's the play of the defensive side that has a greater impact of the results of the game.

If you put your efforts on the side of the football where you only have a 40% chance of success you will experience greater returns than if you add more to the 60% side.

If you look at the Dallas Cowboys of 2010/11 you could argue that the offence with Romo had a greater % of success than the defence.

As a coach/GM why would you focus on the QB when you could possibly make a better argument for lower value performances on the defensive side?

(Obviously I have oversimplified the strategy of winning games to prove my point. I haven't taken into account game changers such as turnovers, but in a situation where all things are equal I believe my point has merit.)

 

[Hostile]

...alot on why people are so irritated by your responses.

First, I wouldn't have been baited by the question of this thread of restricting the team's fortunes to one player because anyone who has played, coached and analyzed football knows the one player rule is not the end all and be all.

So true. I read all the time where we could enver win a Super Bowl with ____________. Okay, the Packers just won one with a kid named Jonathon Starks running the ball. Would anyone take him over Felix Jones? I wouldn't. Green Bay wouldn't.

No one player has ever made that much of a difference one way or the other.

Second, does anyone really think Romo is so terrible a QB that he could never be part of a Superbowl team?

Anyone who does has their head in the sand. They are basically saying they'd take a Mark Rypien or Brad Johnson over Romo and that's plain stupid.

 

[texbumthelife]

Larry Allen </Delorean>

 

[perrykemp]

So true. I read all the time where we could enver win a Super Bowl with ____________. Okay, the Packers just won one with a kid named Jonathon Starks running the ball. Would anyone take him over Felix Jones? I wouldn't. Green Bay wouldn't.

No one player has ever made that much of a difference one way or the other.

Anyone who does has their head in the sand. They are basically saying they'd take a Mark Rypien or Brad Johnson over Romo and that's plain stupid.

Starks at RB tells you everything you need to know about how important a big time RB really is to winning in the NFL these days.

It's all about the QB.

 

[KJJ]

...alot on why people are so irritated by your responses.

Exactly, I said Rodgers throws a beautiful ball and has a stronger arm than Romo and a few here got upset about it. LOL Some see honesty as being unexceptable unless it favors the Cowboys.

This is what you deal with on a fan site. If you give an opposing player more credit than one of your own players it's going to anger a few fans here.

If any of the talking heads on ESPN/NFLN don't list Romo ahead of Rodgers, Rivers or Roethlisberger they're morons in the eyes of a few here.

How dare anyone even so much as hint that Aaron Rodgers is better than Tony Romo.

Aikman praised Kevin Kolb and Rodgers and naturally a few fans here didn't appreciate it because Troy was a Cowboy and they expect him to be bias.

A few years ago Aikman said Romo doesn't seem to understand what it means to be the QB of the Dallas Cowboys and naturally that irked some fans.

I was on another board a couple of years ago and Emmitt made some critical comments about Romo and was trashed by a few on that board.

Some fans here are so bias they don't want to here anything negative about the players or the team regardless if it's true.

If Marshall Faulk or Jamie Dukes says anything negative about the Cowboys a few here go nuts saying what do they know.

If they say anything good about the Cowboys they all of a sudden start respecting their views. LOL

First, I wouldn't have been baited by the question of this thread of restricting the team's fortunes to one player because anyone who has played, coached and analyzed football knows the one player rule is not the end all and be all.

It takes more than one player but if a team doesn't have a real solid QB they're not going to win a SB in this era.

You're not winning a SB in todays NFL with a Brad Johnson or a Trent Dilfer. The days of winning SB's with bus drivers are long gone.

You have to throw the ball now to win championships. You don't win SB's with defense anymore you win them with great passing attacks and not making mistakes.

Back in the day before all the rule changes opened up the passing game to promote more scoring teams could pound the ball and sit on a 10 point lead and allow their defense to shut teams down.

The rule changes have changed all that. Defenses have to play scared because one wrong move and it's a penalty and a fine.

DB's can touch receivers after 5 yards. You can't hit QB's high, low or a fraction of a second late.

Defenders can't horse collar or aim at the head. There's too much thinking going on and not as much reacting.

The rule changes have made it extremely difficult for defenses to defend 3-4 WR sets.

Great defensive teams can't sit on 14 point leads anymore because these great offensive teams with outstanding QB's can score at will againt any defense by spreading them out.

Hard to defend 6'4" -6'5" 220-235 pound WR's who have 4.4 speed with the rule changes.

Years ago SB's were never that competitive most had one team dominate.

Now we're seeing high scoring SB's that go down to the wire all because of the rule changes that have opened up the passing game.

If you get a team down it's hard keeping them down now.

Second, does anyone really think Romo is so terrible a QB that he could never be part of a Superbowl team?

I've never said or heard anyone say Romo is terrible but that's how some fans here try and spin constructive criticism.

Romo is far from terrible but he's had some terrible games when the Cowboys needed him at his best. This is a fact!

I've seen Romo have games that were so impressive if he played that way in Dec/Jan the Cowboys would easily win the SB.

I've only seen the Cowboys lose ONE game where he played excellent and that was against the Giants in Dec of 09.

The point of the game is to add numbers to the electronic device located somewhere in the stadium. If your side of the board has more numbers than the other team you win.

You add those numbers to the scoreboard by throwing the football and your QB not turning it over.

You can't score enough to win games by pounding the ball all day. There's a reason why so many QB's throw for over 4000 yards every season. We never saw that years ago because the rules prevented it.

Teams have figured out ways of taking advantage of the rules with big, fast physical WR's and TE's to move the ball quickly down the field.

QB's have a lot more on their plates than QB's 20-30 years ago. This is why so many big games come down to QB's having to make plays to win.

If you look at the Dallas Cowboys of 2010/11 you could argue that the offence with Romo had a greater % of success than the defence.

Are you serious? LOL No one in their right mind could argue that because the Cowboys had their worst defensive team statistically in the history of the franchise.

Anyone could see that the Cowboys offense had more success than the defense. The defense was horrible giving up a franchise record number of points.

The Cowboys defense was thoroughly disgusting let's see how many of the apologists want to hate on me for saying that. :laugh2:

Most of the talent on the team is on the offensive side of the ball. Even an old journeyman like Jon Kitna had success with the offensive talent the Cowboys have.

 

[KJJ]

So true. I read all the time where we could enver win a Super Bowl with ____________. Okay, the Packers just won one with a kid named Jonathon Starks running the ball. Would anyone take him over Felix Jones? I wouldn't. Green Bay wouldn't.

No one player has ever made that much of a difference one way or the other.

Anyone who does has their head in the sand. They are basically saying they'd take a Mark Rypien or Brad Johnson over Romo and that's plain stupid.

The Packers certainly didn't win the SB with Starks running the ball they won the SB with Rodgers arm and superior play.

Rodgers passed for almost 1100 yards throughout the playoffs and SB completing over 68% of his passes with a QB rating of 109.8.

QB's make a HUGE difference one way or another or you wouldn't see so many of them winning SB MVP awards and see so many taken with the #1 overall pick.

You take Rodgers off the Packers and they wouldn't be holding the Lombardi Trophy right now.

 

[Hostile]

The Packers certainly didn't win the SB with Starks running the ball they won the SB with Rodgers arm and superior play.

Rodgers passed for almost 1100 yards throughout the playoffs and SB completing over 68% of his passes with a QB rating of 109.8.

QB's make a HUGE difference one way or another or you wouldn't see so many of them winning SB MVP awards and see so many taken with the #1 overall pick.

You take Rodgers off the Packers and they wouldn't be holding the Lombardi Trophy right now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the team that will win the Super Bowl is the one that is hottest at the right time. Green Bay was hot at the right time.

QB plays a huge role in that. It is exactly why I was a non stop whiny brat when Hutch and Q were our only options at QB.Everyone tried to tell me we could win with a bus driver, but that is so rare and you need an exceptional team everywhere else to hide the bus driver.

Give me a star at QB every time. No offense Coach Parcells, but I think you were dead wrong man. Tony has star power.

I'm ready for him to live up to it.

 

[KJJ]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the team that will win the Super Bowl is the one that is hottest at the right time. Green Bay was hot at the right time.

That's usually the case unfortunately that didn't workout for the Cowboys in 09 there wasn't a hotter team entering the playoffs that season.

QB plays a huge role in that. It is exactly why I was a non stop whiny brat when Hutch and Q were our only options at QB.Everyone tried to tell me we could win with a bus driver, but that is so rare and you need an exceptional team everywhere else to hide the bus driver.

Any team that won a SB with a bus driver had a GREAT defense and a solid running game and none of those teams ever repeated. It didn't take long for those teams to replace their QB's.

The Ravens dumped Dilfer immediately after their SB win. You can't hide inefficiency at the QB position anymore because QB's have far too much on their plates nowadays.

It's becoming harder for pocket passers to win consistently. Pocket passers are becoming a rare breed of QB in this era.

DC's are finding more ways to get to the QB so QB's are having to roll out more to stay alive and extend plays.

QB's have to be able to throw on the run.

Once a team feels they have a QB they have to protect it won't be long before they'll be looking for another one.

It's gotten to the point where you need a dynamic player at the position to win a SB.

If they're not dynamic they're going to have to play dynamic when it really matters to get it done.

It's always been a crapshoot finding a great QB but it's gotten even more difficult to gage whether a QB has what it takes to win a championship at the NFL level.

The talent that surrounds some of these college QB's can hide some of the deficiencies they have. You don't find out what you really have until they face adversity in the NFL.

Give me a star at QB every time. No offense Coach Parcells, but I think you were dead wrong man. Tony has star power.

I'm ready for him to live up to it.

Romo has star power because he's a very productive playmaking QB but for him to be talked about in the same light as Peyton Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger and even Ryan he's going to have to put a lid on the inopportune turnovers that have plagued him and have more success in postseason.

A lot of attention has been focused on his mistakes that started with the fumbled snap against Seattle in 06.

It's led to questions about his leadership and poise under pressure.

Unfortunately that fumbled snap against Seattle has been the most memorable play of his career and to erase it and some of the other big mistakes he's made from everyones memory he's going to have to have postseason success and win a SB.

Romo has some very good qualities that's made him a starter since 06 but he also has some bad qualities that keep him from receiving the respect that some of these other QB's receive.

Romo has shown during the months of Sept thru Nov that he's capable of taking the Cowboys a long way but he has to improve his play in the money games.

The Cowboys will only go as far as he takes them. We all know it's a team sport but no one player on the team controls the fate of the Cowboys more than Romo.

It's the same thing for the Colts, Saints Packers and a lot of other teams their QB's have to perform well or they'll lose. The most successful teams in the league have excellent QB's who limit their mistakes and make a lot of plays.

Every year seasons and championships come down to QB's.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Clay Mathews, he and Ware on the same team would be a freaking nightmare for opposing offenses.

 

[perrykemp]

Clay Mathews, he and Ware on the same team would be a freaking nightmare for opposing offenses.

Certainly would reduce the pressure on the secondary.