Romo at #76 In PFT's Top 100

[Jon88]

 

[dbair1967]

Yes, we were lucky to have great QBs for many years. But how does that have any bearing whatsoever on today?

That's like assuming we're more likely to win Superbowls today because we did it decades ago. We all know that's not the case.

Whereas you think its fine to assume we'd have no luck whatsoever finding a QB more than capable replacing Romo, even though for most of the history of the team, thats not been the case?

We've been fortunate, no doubt. But its assinine IMO to believe that if Romo isnt here, we have no chance whatsoever to have an adequate to good QB following him up.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I didn't say we'd have no chance whatsoever. But odds are, unless you suck enough to have a really high draft pick, you're going to struggle to find a good one. And even a high pick is no guarantee. We've seen that for every team, not just us.

It's too bad that what Tom Landry did decades ago can't help us today, but fact is, it can't and doesn't.

 

[Jon88]

I didn't say we'd have no chance whatsoever. But odds are, unless you suck enough to have a really high draft pick, you're going to struggle to find a good one. And even a high pick is no guarantee. We've seen that for every team, not just us.

It's too bad that what Tom Landry did decades ago can't help us today, but fact is, it can't and doesn't.

Three Super Bowls in the 90s.

31 other teams

 

[Texas Ace]

I mean, my god... those almost comebacks against New York, Washington, Baltimore, and New Orleans were incredible.

I won't argue it with you either, but I will counter this statement....

That "amazing" comeback vs the Giants? It had to happen because HE threw 3 1st half picks which all led to points.

Washington? He wasn't terrible, but again, he turned the ball over which helped put us behind.

It would be nice to see him lead the team the way he did in those 2nd halves without being responsible for the hole he is trying to dig them out of.

 

[Midswat]

Hey you must've accidentally forgot to counter all those other points I made in my post!

 

[2233boys]

The guy was a turnover machine last year, and his turnovers played just a big a part in us losing a number of games as his 29 TD's helped.

Who put us in that hole vs the Giants in game at Dallas? He did. 3 picks in the 1st half.

Who couldn't stop turning the ball over against the Bears? Romo

Who completely shit the bed against the Redskins in the season finale when the game was there for the taking? Romo.

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to admit that Romo's failure to protect the ball is a huge handicap at times for this team.

I'm not saying that turnovers aren't an issue from time to time. That doesn't mean he isn't still a top 100 player. If we had a running game worth a damn and an oline that didn't fold up the middle every other play the turnovers wouldn't have been as bad. That being said Tony needs to make better decisions in those cases.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

If you can point out his stats are meaningless in regards to yards and td's then you can't point to Inflated turnovers like it tells the whole story.

Is a 50 yard pass down field to miles austin 1on1 a bad pass? How is it his fault miles austin sucks. Is it his fault that dez ran the wrong route an the cb was waiting for the pass? Is it a bad pass to try to make something happen on 4th down?

I'm not making excuses he's had his terrible moments . But when you look at the totality of the season it's impressive to pull off that high wire act every week. Trailing at the half always, miscommunication, drawing plays up in the dirt, it's not supposed to be done like that and he mostly pulled it off

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

I forgt to mention laurent Robinson to the list of nobodies romo played with.

Eat a penis David

 

[Texas Ace]

Hey you must've accidentally forgot to counter all those other points I made in my post!

I could've countered you, but you said you didn't wanna argue it. So there's no sense in pulling a Schmitty and arguing over and over about a subject that neither party is going to change their mind about.

 

[Texas Ace]

I'm not saying that turnovers aren't an issue from time to time. That doesn't mean he isn't still a top 100 player. If we had a running game worth a damn and an oline that didn't fold up the middle every other play the turnovers wouldn't have been as bad. That being said Tony needs to make better decisions in those cases.

I think he is a top 100 player in the NFL, but he was not a top 100 player in 2012, which is what I said.

 

[2233boys]

I really don't care if he is listed on any list and after reading Ace's and even dbairs follow up statements I understand where they are coming from.

 

[2233boys]

I think he is a top 100 player in the NFL, but he was not a top 100 player in 2012, which is what I said.

My bad

 

[ravidubey]

I don't disagree.

I saw far less defense of White back in the day. Most everyone was convinced he would never win anything, and well...he didn't unfortunately.

Romo? You STILL have people...a lot of delusion Dallas fans...claiming he needs this, he needs that. Whatever.

I am still hoping he wins one, but I am not going to hold my breath.

He's 5th all time QB passer rating is not an accident. He DOES need a running game. He does need blocking. The last time he got blocking in 2007 he could have been in the running for MVP. He could also use a defense that can actually stop the other team consistently.

Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Brady-- these guys are clearly better players, though Romo can give them a run every once in a while. But players like Big Ben and Eli have done what they've done with better blocking, running, ,much better defense, and superior receivers.

I know none of the four QB's I mentioned before would have succeeded behind Dallas' 2012 OL with Garrett calling plays, and Ben and Eli definitely wouldn't have. Pittsburgh has had some poor OL's, but nothing next to what the Cowboys fielded in 2012 (or from 2010-2012).

 

[Texas Ace]

He's 5th all time QB passer rating is not an accident. He DOES need a running game. He does need blocking. The last time he got blocking in 2007 he could have been in the running for MVP. He could also use a defense that can actually stop the other team consistently.

He played very well that season, yes.

But even then, he still threw 19 INT's. Again, he has a propensity for turning the ball over that is not going to disappear regardless of how good his defense is or whether his line blocks or not.

It has been and always will be a flaw in his game which is why he can't be given any benefit of doubt when it comes to determining how good he is or could be.

But players like Big Ben and Eli have done what they've done with better blocking, running, ,much better defense, and superior receivers.

I know none of the four QB's I mentioned before would have succeeded behind Dallas' 2012 OL with Garrett calling plays, and Ben and Eli definitely wouldn't have. Pittsburgh has had some poor OL's, but nothing next to what the Cowboys fielded in 2012 (or from 2010-2012).

Eli and Ben are two other QB's who are prone to mistakes too. They can look like shit at times. But what you're also failing to note is that they also have been huge in crunch time in their careers, which Romo has not.

You can come up with all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change the facts. And the facts are that in spite of their flaws, both Eli and Ben have been able to be at their best in the biggest games and in the biggest moments. Romo on the other hand has found new ways to continuously fail.

Most Cowboys fans don't acknowledge this because we're talking about QB's for the Giants and Steelers, but the fact of the matter is, both QB's are better players than Romo. Saying differently is just being a homer.

 

[Texas Ace]

So as not to keep going on and on with this, I'll leave this discussion with this:

Romo is a good QB. He's accurate and he's tough. When he's at his best, he's a joy to watch and very few QB's in recent memory have his improvisation skills. Some of the plays he's made, only he could make.

With that said, as someone pointed out already in this thread, if you have to keep defending the guy and keep coming up with what-if scenarios and excuses for him, then he simply isn't the player you want him to be.

He has contributed just as much to his own lack of success as any perceived hindrance from his coach/o-line/defense. It's not all him when they lose, but it's also not never him when fail either.

Thems is just the facts.

 

[ravidubey]

Most Cowboys fans don't acknowledge this because we're talking about QB's for the Giants and Steelers, but the fact of the matter is, both QB's are better players than Romo. Saying differently is just being a homer.

The only reason they had the opportunity to become great is because the Giants defense held New England to 14 points and James Harrison ran a ball for a 100 yard TD with no time left in the 1st half.

You need the opportunity, and Romo has to do everything for the Cowboys in "crunch time". You can't do everything.

In 2007 with TO and Gurode playing hurt, Tony Romo wins the game if Patrick Crayton catches a football OR if Leonard Davis doesn't take a cheap shot at Michael Strahan while he's already beaten on all fours. He still wins the game on the second to last pass play if Crayton simply continues his pass pattern.

He wins the game if the Jacques Reeves and the pass defense doesn't melt down multiple times in the first half.

No one on the Cowboys returns an interception for 100 yards to create a 10 or probably 14 point swing against a HOF QB in a playoff game. No Cowboy defense holds Tom Brady to 14 points. No Cowboys WR catches the ball on his head after a prayer of a pass into the middle of the field.

No, in the playoffs Cowboys DBs watch over their left shoulder the instant Brett Favre passes sail over their right shoulder... for a TD. Cowboy RT's make opposing DE's look like first ballot Hall of Famers in the playoffs. Cowboy LT's choose the playoffs as a perfect time to get hurt.

Those clutch plays only come with opportunities, and those have been very limited for Romo. Romo has been bad at times too. He's held the ball too long and gotten sacked and often stripped as a result. But this is a result of the desperation he's left with. He's forced to make plays on way too many drives.

You just don't see meltdowns from other players around these other QB's-- and that has nothing to do with the QB's themselves and everything to do with the GM and coaches around them.

 

[Texas Ace]

The only reason they had the opportunity to become great is because the Giants defense held New England to 14 points and James Harrison ran a ball for a 100 yard TD with no time left in the 1st half.

You need the opportunity, and Romo has to do everything for the Cowboys in "crunch time". You can't do everything.

In 2007 with TO and Gurode playing hurt, Tony Romo wins the game if Patrick Crayton catches a football OR if Leonard Davis doesn't take a cheap shot at Michael Strahan while he's already beaten on all fours. He still wins the game on the second to last pass play if Crayton simply continues his pass pattern.

He wins the game if the Jacques Reeves and the pass defense doesn't melt down multiple times in the first half.

No one on the Cowboys returns an interception for 100 yards to create a 10 or probably 14 point swing against a HOF QB in a playoff game. No Cowboy defense holds Tom Brady to 14 points. No Cowboys WR catches the ball on his head after a prayer of a pass into the middle of the field.

No, in the playoffs Cowboys DBs watch over their left shoulder the instant Brett Favre passes sail over their right shoulder... for a TD. Cowboy RT's make opposing DE's look like first ballot Hall of Famers in the playoffs. Cowboy LT's choose the playoffs as a perfect time to get hurt.

Those clutch plays only come with opportunities, and those have been very limited for Romo. Romo has been bad at times too. He's held the ball too long and gotten sacked and often stripped as a result. But this is a result of the desperation he's left with. He's forced to make plays on way too many drives.

You just don't see meltdowns from other players around these other QB's-- and that has nothing to do with the QB's themselves and everything to do with the GM and coaches around them.

See, that's what I'm saying.....these are all excuses.

Last year, Romo had two chances to deliver the game winning drive at the end of the game - against the Giants in Dallas and at Washington.

Against the Giants, it stalled around the 10 and against the Skins, he threw a horrible interception on the first play of the drive. I don't want to hear how Garrett didn't call this or the defense didn't do that. Almost every time he's had the ball on the final drive, it somehow falls short.

So for all the excuses that people come up with for Ben and Eli, the facts are that Ben did get the Steelers into the endzone at the end of a Super Bowl as did Eli on TWO occasions.

Eli and Ben have game winning drive after game winning drive on their resumes while Romo has a bunch of almosts and a line of fans looking for every excuse under the sun to explain how somehow he just keeps on coming up short.

Poor ol' Romo.....the unluckiest QB the planet has ever seen.

And about that Giants playoff loss? You're right in that Jacques Reeves and Roy Williams sucked and allowed a TD in 30 seconds or whatever. Patrick Crayton did blow big opportunities. But you know what else? Romo did not have his best game either and you could see he was nervous.

Remember that easy crossing route to Owens to start the 3rd quarter where he would've walked into the endzone? Romo threw that about a mile above his head.

Again, Romo contributes just as much to his failures as all the other factors the fans can come up with.

 

[boozeman]

I know none of the four QB's I mentioned before would have succeeded behind Dallas' 2012 OL with Garrett calling plays, and Ben and Eli definitely wouldn't have. Pittsburgh has had some poor OL's, but nothing next to what the Cowboys fielded in 2012 (or from 2010-2012).

Roethlisberger has had worse lines than Romo has. Rodgers' line in 2012 was horrible...the guy was sacked 51 times and threw only 8 picks. Neither the Steelers or Packers had a "run game" to speak of.

Fact is, he's just not on their level, so it is stupid to keep saying they wouldn't do better...because they have with just as little support.

That said, Romo has been shackled with Jason Garrett's idiotic playcalling as well. That is a factor.

 

[Texas Ace]

Roethlisberger has had worse lines than Romo has. Rodgers' line in 2012 was horrible...the guy was sacked 51 times and threw only 8 picks. Neither the Steelers or Packers had a "run game" to speak of.

Fact is, he's just not on their level, so it is stupid to keep saying they wouldn't do better...because they have with just as little support.

Exactly.

Between 2008-2011, Ben had some pretty shitty lines and he got hit a ton. They signed fricking Flozell Adams for crying out loud.

But no no no, it can't be that he's better. It's just luck or whatever. Too bad the Cowboys didn't have Mike Tomlin and Jason Pierre Paul to keep him from throwing that awful INT against Washington last year in the finale. unce

Romo has been shackled with Jason Garrett's idiotic playcalling as well. That is a factor.

Garrett does him no favors, that's for sure.

The entire team, not just Romo, would benefit from a more dominant defense. The O-line would make things easier for the offense as a whole.

Jerry Jones disappearing would be great for anyone who loves the Cowboys.

But you know what? None of them can stop Romo from having a bad Romo game. They aren't responsible for the same identical pick he threw to JPP and Rob Jackson last year.

People need to accept that.