When they write that Romo hasn't proven he can win a big game...

[bbgun]

I know none are needed. Why are you using one? Or are you going to sit there and in sobriety tell me that Romo not winning big games is not a topic? Because that was and is the point of Juke's thread. Not all this attempted diversion tactics.

Well, the media types who doubt Tony aren't likely to consider last night's contest a "big" game anyway, so this whole thing is a colossal waste of time.

 

[Juke99]

Not at all. As terrible as he was that night, the secondary was even worse, and they were rightly excoriated for it. I'm not interested in "percentages" of blame. Maybe you are.



People expect him to thrive in November and he did, but he wasn't the only one who had a nice night. Tony would be the first one to humbly share the credit.



Or you could do a better job of spreading the praise instead of carrying water for Tony. Just a thought.

Interesting...I don't hear the media saying "The secondary can't win a big game"

I am unsure of why you think my saying that Romo can win a big game means I have excluded the effort of the others. My point was about ROMO. Not the others. I could just as easily have said "When people say our defense can't make a big stop in a big situation, let them look at last night's game" I wanted to discuss Romo.

In the future, I'll be sure to pass my threads by you before posting them.

And while I appreciate your "just a thought" I'm thinking perhaps you're not capable of that.

 

[Juke99]

Well, the media types who doubt Tony aren't likely to consider last night's contest a "big" game anyway, so this whole thing is a colossal waste of time.

Yes...then you should go back to being sarcastic in other threads that are also a waste of your time.

Just a thought.

 

[chinch]

When it is a win or go home for the off-season, and he delivers, I'll sign off on this.


Grow a little thicker skin and just enjoy the season.

BINGO

 

[Hostile]

Well, the media types who doubt Tony aren't likely to consider last night's contest a "big" game anyway, so this whole thing is a colossal waste of time.

That doesn't answer why you need a strawman.

Bottom line, what he wrote was about one topic. 4 lines counting the thread title. It wasn't that hard to grasp at all. Perhaps you can show us in 3 lines and a title how the topic would have been sufficient rather than to make up a strawman about everything the topic did not cover?

Probably not.

 

[Hostile]

Interesting...I don't hear the media saying "The secondary can't win a big game"

I am unsure of why you think my saying that Romo can win a big game means I have excluded the effort of the others. My point was about ROMO. Not the others. I could just as easily have said "When people say our defense can't make a big stop in a big situation, let them look at last night's game" I wanted to discuss Romo.

In the future, I'll be sure to pass my threads by you before posting them.

And while I appreciate your "just a thought" I'm thinking perhaps you're not capable of that.

That is the strawman.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. I knew what kinds of reactions the topic would illicit and I predicted what type of reactions. What assessment did I make that someone else is not agreeing with?

The only irony is the belief that I have done or said anything other than predicted a reaction from a group based upon long experience with the reactions of said group.

In your comments about your prophecy of soon to be posts you labeled the posters as troglodytes.

See Hos, I think you are a persuasive writer that has a compelling style and when motivated can take a side of an issue and win over the other side.

The second you label them you shoot your point in the foot.

The thread is about this being a big game. Your comments about the reactionary fan surely fits both sides or none at all.

I truly get a kick out of how quickly the rank and file race to the site to post the business as usual justifications of Romo when truthfully it still is November and even ESPN, the bane of human existence - so says this place - has awarded him the Mr. November title.

The proof in the proverbial pudding isn't due for another 21 days.

 

[bbgun]

Interesting...I don't hear the media saying "The secondary can't win a big game"

I'm not part of the mouth-breathing "mediot" crowd. That's why I don't care.

I am unsure of why you think my saying that Romo can win a big game means I have excluded the effort of the others. My point was about ROMO. Not the others. I could just as easily have said "When people say our defense can't make a big stop in a big situation, let them look at last night's game" I wanted to discuss Romo.

The premise is wrong. Very seldom does a player win or lose a game all by his lonesome. If his critics were wrong to imply that he can't, then you're just as wrong to imply that he could. Last night he was typically good, but he clearly was not a one-man show.

In the future, I'll be sure to pass my threads by you before posting them.

No need. Just don't be so petty.

 

[fan62]

Just a quick note here (not much time to do it).

First of all, I do believe in Romo. If he had as much time in the pocket as do some in this league, I think he could possibly be the best.

My props to the offensive line (and other blockers) that gave a bit of time for Romo to get rid of the ball. I thought the Eagles blitz would overwhelm them, but they did a decent job of picking them off.
My only knock on Romo, is that in some games where he is roughed up, he makes mental errors and bad throws at times. He did very well with that last night, he read the blitzes and got the ball to the best receiver that was left open. No, not every time, but just enough.

I have given the OL and secondary a hard time when we were 2-2, but they have learned and grown. Congrats to the team and the coaches.
I thought at best this would be a 9-7 team, but I think this team has the capability to go deep in the playoffs, now. The off-season pickups have made a huge difference.

I also did not think our wide receivers would perform as well as they have. Congrats to them, too!

In fact congrats to the Cowboys all around. It almost makes my season when we can defeat the Eagles in Philly. I almost hope we need the last game of the year, so that we can give a max effort to defeat them again, but again I hope we don't even need that game to be in first place of the NFC.

 

[bbgun]

That doesn't answer why you need a strawman.

Bottom line, what he wrote was about one topic. 4 lines counting the thread title. It wasn't that hard to grasp at all. Perhaps you can show us in 3 lines and a title how the topic would have been sufficient rather than to make up a strawman about everything the topic did not cover?

Probably not.

No strawman. He was in a rush to 1) unfairly praise Tony, to the exclusion of his teammates, and 2) settle scores with yet unnamed media types who are unlikely to be impressed with November victories anyway. Conclusion: waste of time.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Let's remember this one.

When December rolls around, the same garbage will be written...blah blah, Romo can't win the big one.

Simply not true.

The win last night was huge and shows that this team is turning the corner, but lets not kid oursleves: "Big Games" in Dallas are in the playoffs and the Superbowl. If he falls apart again in December this win looks far less significant.

Romo can win big games in the regular season, and yesterday wasnt the first time he's proven that. Indy in 06, New York in 06 and 07, Green Bay in 07, New York in 08, etc. We KNOW Romo can play well and win big regular season games. However, until he wins some playoff games and ultimately a SB, the national perception of him will not change.

Look at Peyton manning. He won MVPs, division titles and multiple playoff games, but he was always the guy who couldnt win the big one until 2006.

 

[Hostile]

In your comments about your prophecy of soon to be posts you labeled the posters as troglodytes.

It is merely a point of parliamentary procedure TD, but no I didn't. In fact, I labeled the coming comments to be those from a "herd." Troglodytes was a comment for later. In between the two I also labeled some as parrots.

I would like to point out that I spoke no names. I pointed no fingers directly at anyone. I singled no one out. Would you agree with that?

If so, I have a very simple question to ask. Why should anyone take offense unless they feel guilt at the prediction? I didn't ask anyone to confess to being a member of a herb mentality. I didn't ask anyone to parrot the media. I didn't ask anyone to sell Geico. I didn't ask for volunteers. I merely made an observation about the responses and what they would be.

Why? Because Tony Romo is a lightning rod subject. I have done these same tactics for 7 years across several Cowboys forums over different players.

It is an observation of a mentality, nothing more.

See Hos, I think you are a persuasive writer that has a compelling style and when motivated can take a side of an issue and win over the other side.

Thank you, but I wasn't trying to win over anyone. I'm not trying to create Tony Romo fans in this thread. I am not arguing the merits of Tony Romo. I am not defending him. In fact, in my very first response I somewhat validated the very herd I was promising. I ratified their responses to a degree.

I am simply making a remark that Juke, while right as rain about this being a big win, is not going to sway anyone about this win when it comes to bashing Tony Romo.

The second you label them you shoot your point in the foot.

If they choose to see themselves in the label, then they are applying the label to themselves. Again, I didn't point a finger at one single, solitary poster.

It's sort of like me saying this...

"Some people stink."

Then someone else says...

"I do not."

It is now my fault that people around that person are sniffing to see if I am right?

The thread is about this being a big game. Your comments about the reactionary fan surely fits both sides or none at all.

I honestly don't see where I have defended one side and derided the other. I merely made a comment about how some will react. But okay, if you say I have. Should I ask for a penance?

I truly get a kick out of how quickly the rank and file race to the site to post the business as usual justifications of Romo when truthfully it still is November and even ESPN, the bane of human existence - so says this place - has awarded him the Mr. November title.

As do I by the people who shout "I do not" when no one is making personal accusations.

The proof in the proverbial pudding isn't due for another 21 days.

And I will stand by my commentary that 21 days will merely shift the focus. If he wins in December and loses in the Post Season the finger of blame will move. If he wins in the Post Season, but doesn't win it all the finger of blame will move. If he wins it all one time and fails to win it all again the finger of blame will move.

Do you doubt me? You've been around these forums as long as I have. You're every bit the same cynic of human nature that I am. Only on this topic I am on the opposite side of the fence and thus you feel jaded by my commentary when no label is being applied to you by me.

 

[Hostile]

No strawman. He was in a rush to 1) unfairly praise Tony, to the exclusion of his teammates, and 2) settle scores with yet unnamed media types who are unlikely to be impressed with November victories anyway. Conclusion: waste of time.

Well, it was three lines of commentary, but not what I asked for.

Yeah, it is a strawman, and I know you know what that means.

 

[bbgun]

Well, it was three lines of commentary, but not what I asked for.

Yeah, it is a strawman, and I know you know what that means.

Indeed I do, which is why I reject your accusation.

 

[Hostile]

Indeed I do, which is why I reject your accusation.

You are perfectly free to. That doesn't mean you didn't do it.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It is merely a point of parliamentary procedure TD, but no I didn't. In fact, I labeled the coming comments to be those from a "herd." Troglodytes was a comment for later. In between the two I also labeled some as parrots.

I would like to point out that I spoke no names. I pointed no fingers directly at anyone. I singled no one out. Would you agree with that?

If so, I have a very simple question to ask. Why should anyone take offense unless they feel guilt at the prediction? I didn't ask anyone to confess to being a member of a herb mentality. I didn't ask anyone to parrot the media. I didn't ask anyone to sell Geico. I didn't ask for volunteers. I merely made an observation about the responses and what they would be.

Why? Because Tony Romo is a lightning rod subject. I have done these same tactics for 7 years across several Cowboys forums over different players.

It is an observation of a mentality, nothing more.

Thank you, but I wasn't trying to win over anyone. I'm not trying to create Tony Romo fans in this thread. I am not arguing the merits of Tony Romo. I am not defending him. In fact, in my very first response I somewhat validated the very herd I was promising. I ratified their responses to a degree.

I am simply making a remark that Juke, while right as rain about this being a big win, is not going to sway anyone about this win when it comes to bashing Tony Romo.

If they choose to see themselves in the label, then they are applying the label to themselves. Again, I didn't point a finger at one single, solitary poster.

It's sort of like me saying this...

"Some people stink."

Then someone else says...

"I do not."

It is now my fault that people around that person are sniffing to see if I am right?

I honestly don't see where I have defended one side and derided the other. I merely made a comment about how some will react. But okay, if you say I have. Should I ask for a penance?

As do I by the people who shout "I do not" when no one is making personal accusations.

And I will stand by my commentary that 21 days will merely shift the focus. If he wins in December and loses in the Post Season the finger of blame will move. If he wins in the Post Season, but doesn't win it all the finger of blame will move. If he wins it all one time and fails to win it all again the finger of blame will move.

Do you doubt me? You've been around these forums as long as I have. You're every bit the same cynic of human nature that I am. Only on this topic I am on the opposite side of the fence and thus you feel jaded by my commentary when no label is being applied to you by me.

Clearly there are two schools of thought on the lightening rod.

Both sides defend their positions.

Lots of people label. I surely have in the past. But what I find to be most interesting about it is the fact that labeling diminishes the other's point without actually addressing it.

I mean you really do not have to debate if the person you are engaged with is a moron. You simply need to call attention to that assertion.

That is a common tactic on message boards. The other is to change the focal point so you aren't pinned into a position you cannot defend.

I say tomato and you say tomato and I say radish.

Will there be people who lambaste Romo if he doesn't win? Surely.

But since this thread was about what constitutes a big game, that really wasn't germane.

The inception of Romo chokes at the end came from the press and stats. Stats lie depending on how you use them. But the fact remains Romo hasn't been as sharp at the end of the season as he has in September and November.

There are other factors. He does play a team sport. But since the OP decided to state this game answers the premise that Romo cannot win a big game, he leaves the other factors out of the equation. Thus those factors cannot be used to prove or disprove the point.


My position is simple. Does this or does this not constitute a big game?

My way of thinking is this is an important game, but hardly qualifies as a big game. Since the loser still has a shot at making the play-offs rather than the season ends or the play-offs are in dire jeopardy for the loser.

Those games have conventionally come in December. Hence the comments by the press on Romo's late season erosion.

I have yet to see anyone really take up an opposing position and defend it.

Of course, if I'm a trogodyte, just ignore my post. ;C)

 

[chinch]

The win last night was huge and shows that this team is turning the corner, but lets not kid oursleves: "Big Games" in Dallas are in the playoffs and the Superbowl. If he falls apart again in December this win looks far less significant.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately many cowboys fans have taken on the failed persona of our last few years teams... thin skinned, blame the media, excuse making pity party.

Have cowboy fans been so marginalized to CHAMPIONING a road victory in November vs NFC East with 11 penalties (70-yards), horrendous coaching by the opponents, nevermind & some bone-headed moments by the 'boys as a crown achievement?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I have to agree with those that say that big games are Playoff Games and Super Bowls in Dallas.

However, it is hard to put a label on any game because you never know what the ramifications are later on in the Season. How many times have we looked back at a loss during the Regular Season and found out if we won that game, we would be in the Playoffs?

Tony Romo has proven that he is a great Regular Season Quarterback. Like all the other great Quarterbacks of the past, after you prove you are a very good Quarterback in the Regular Season, you take the next step and start having success in the Post Season because that is ultimately what you will be judged on by the fans, the media and your peers.

Tony Romo is an extremely good Quarterback but I have seen him win a ton of big games during the Regular Season. I think it is great that we won the game, which I thought we would but this was a huge game in the Regular Season, which is something we have done before.

Right now, I think people should just focus on trying to get through the 2nd half of the Season and see how everything shakes out.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have to agree with those that say that big games are Playoff Games and Super Bowls in Dallas.

However, it is hard to put a label on any game because you never know what the ramifications are later on in the Season. How many times have we looked back at a loss during the Regular Season and found out if we won that game, we would be in the Playoffs?

Tony Romo has proven that he is a great Regular Season Quarterback. Like all the other great Quarterbacks of the past, after you prove you are a very good Quarterback in the Regular Season, you take the next step and start having success in the Post Season because that is ultimately what you will be judged on by the fans, the media and your peers.

Tony Romo is an extremely good Quarterback but I have seen him win a ton of big games during the Regular Season. I think it is great that we won the game, which I thought we would but this was a huge game in the Regular Season, which is something we have done before.

Right now, I think people should just focus on trying to get through the 2nd half of the Season and see how everything shakes out.

Of course Playoffs and SB are the real big games not just in Dallas. People talk like this is the 70's or 90's where it was a given that we would be in the playoffs the teams in the 2000's are not those teams this is a team learning how to win in big games and make a push for the post season

 

[baj1dallas]

Juke, you underestimate the mentality of the herd. He has faded and lost in December. He has two post season losses. The Cowboys have 13 year sof post season failure to fuel the issue. Tony Romo will be given no credit by the parrots until he wins in the post season. Then if we do not win a Super Bowl that will be the rally cry. He can't win a Super Bowl.

The kid is in a no win situation. It is a big game until we actually win it. Then they were actually just an average team and we didn't do anything. Even this win will produce that mentality. Forget all facts about the Eagles, that will be the continued mindless mantra.

If Romo wins the Superbowl but wears his hat backwards in the post game (on field) interview, he'll still be judged lacking.