<< <i>In an effort of finding common ground can we at least all agree that the Cowboys suck?
That defense is offensive. NFC East, yikes.
I proposed a trade of top 12 Qb's………….Romo for Cutler. Both cities seem to hate their current Qb's but yet there are 20 teams that would rather be in their place/ There are not enough good Qb's to go around.
Romo is far from elite but is well above average in today's NFL talent wise.
MJ >>
Cowboys don't suck. Defense is horrible (see Rob Ryan comments earlier in thread). Offense has to be in the top 2 or 3 in the NFL in pure talent just like they are every year. If a team with that much perennial talent continues to be mediocre, it all falls back on coaching. No other reason.
Cutler has always been garbage. Every now and then he has a game where you see what he could be if he played his best every game.
If you put any other QB in the league, with the exception of Peyton or Brady, into the Cowboys offense with Garrett calling the plays any time in the last 3 years at best the Cowboys might win 1 extra game a season. Even if Peyton was the Cowboys QB this season they may only win one extra game. Can not give up 4+ TDs almost every game and expect to win. >>
Well That didn't take long. I guess nothing will ever be agreed on then.
Somebody will make Cutler uber rich next year………The state of Qb's in a Qb driven league dictates it.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hey, I am a bigger Cowboy fan than any of you fruitcakes here!!!!!!
I'm sure that is something you can prove too, right?
Not sure why you need to revert to name calling.
The only thing people have called you is an "idiot". But that's only because you have relentlessly proven that.
I've been a Cowboys fan since the early 70's and I have seen many players/units come and go. They are not a great team right now by any means. They have under performed for several years while having many individual All Pro players.
I also know that statistics are not a complete measure of how god a team or player really is.
However, when you blame a QB, who is ranked in the top 5 of the NFL statistically, and turn a blind eye to the defense which is ranked in the bottom 5, if not bottom period, then you are simply announcing yourself as an "idiot" to the world.
lightingboy - I have you beat by over 10 years. I have been a Cowboy fan since they became a team in 1960.
I have been to numerous games and consider myself their biggest fan. I have defended Cowboy players to a fault simply because they were Cowboys. I try to look at the players objectively now and not praise players simply because they are Cowboys.
I have never blamed Romo for all of the Cowboy problems, but he has lost games for them by making stupid decisions at crucial times in games. He has talent no doubt, but is NOT an elite QB to me and lots of others that have posted here.
Have you ever noticed that when he plays his best is when he is ahead. He is terrible at coming from behind. I knew as soon as the Saints went up big .......he was done.....and he was.
Yes, Jerry Jones is probably the worst owner in the NFL, but there isn't much we can do about that. I keep hoping that he will eventually see what he needs to do. He is not stupid. You don't get to where he is by being stupid. He is just trying to do things that should be done by others and he is the owner so who is going to tell him!
I almost dropped the Cowboys when he came in and fired Tom Landry (Mr. Cowboy), but then thought no that would be a fair weather fan. He did good at first by building a good team and hiring Jimmy Johnson, but then things went haywire. So since 1996 things have been dismal for Cowboy fans.
If that's true, then why is he behind only Luck and Wilson since the beginning of 2012 with 4th quarter comebacks? Let me guess, the defense won the games for them.
If that's true, then why is he behind only Luck and Wilson since the beginning of 2012 with 4th quarter comebacks? Let me guess, the defense won the games for them. >>
Stop making sense. Oh, the Rome led defense ranks 32 out of 32. Not sure how to interrupt this.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I have been to numerous games and consider myself their biggest fan. I have defended Cowboy players to a fault simply because they were Cowboys. I try to look at the players objectively now and not praise players simply because they are Cowboys. >>
No, you don't. You have already called Danny White a better QB than Romo, with the only metric for this being the number of playoff wins each has. Any objective observer can see Romo is a better QB. You, sir, are not an objective observer.
<< <i>I have never blamed Romo for all of the Cowboy problems, but he has lost games for them by making stupid decisions at crucial times in games. He has talent no doubt, but is NOT an elite QB to me and lots of others that have posted here. >>
You are unable to realize that a defense ranked dead last who gives up 50 points in a game is the reason they lose and not the QB who throws for over 500 yards and 5 TDs. In this regard YOU are wrong. Irrefutably wrong.
<< <i>Have you ever noticed that when he plays his best is when he is ahead. He is terrible at coming from behind. I knew as soon as the Saints went up big .......he was done.....and he was. >>
So just last week when the Vikings went up late and he was terrible? Oh wait he drove the length of the field and threw the game winning score with less than 30 seconds remaining. That damned Romo sure does suck at late game comebacks.
<< <i>Yes, Jerry Jones is probably the worst owner in the NFL, but there isn't much we can do about that. I keep hoping that he will eventually see what he needs to do. He is not stupid. You don't get to where he is by being stupid. He is just trying to do things that should be done by others and he is the owner so who is going to tell him! >>
You can be smart about business and dumb about the NFL. Jerry Jones is exactly that.
<< <i>I almost dropped the Cowboys when he came in and fired Tom Landry (Mr. Cowboy), but then thought no that would be a fair weather fan. He did good at first by building a good team and hiring Jimmy Johnson, but then things went haywire. So since 1996 things have been dismal for Cowboy fans. >>
Right, I mean getting the best field in the country has been 'dismal'. Getting to see one of the premier QBs has been 'dismal'. You want dismal? Try being a Browns fan (no offense Browns fans).
Can't decide if Dimeman is truly this clueless or messing with all of us. Seems to have the IQ of your average stray dog but insists on calling everyone that posts here an idiot.
If you're at the poker table and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you.
<< <i>Seems to have the IQ of your average stray dog
I take offense to this comment. I did adopt a stray puppy and even he knows when he is wrong. >>
I adopted 2 abandoned puppies about 6 years ago. Two best dogs I have ever owned but they still aren't smart enough to stop licking their own butts and occasionally each others.
<< <i>Can't decide if Dimeman is truly this clueless or messing with all of us. Seems to have the IQ of your average stray dog but insists on calling everyone that posts here an idiot.
If you're at the poker table and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you. >>
He's not clever enough for this to be an act. I truly believe these ignorant, wildly uninformed statements are his true, deep down beliefs.
>>>Getting to see one of the premier QBs has been 'dismal'.<<<
You have got to be kidding me! "PREMIER" The Romo years will go down in Cowboy history as the worst time in the Cowboy franchise ever! Go look at the history. They came in in 1960 and by 1962 were play for championships. The lost in 1962 to Green Bay in the frozen bowl on a QB sneak by Starr in the final seconds of play. In a few years they were playing in a SB. They set records during the 60's 70's and early 80's for playoff appearencses. 18 out of 20 years. This time period had Merideth, Staubach and White at QB. Sorry if I misspelled any names. Then there were a few bad years before they got Aikman and the crew in. The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history.
And YES Danny White was a winner despite not having Romo's stats. White had more important stats "WINNING" and "PLAYOFF WINS"!!
<< <i>>>>Getting to see one of the premier QBs has been 'dismal'.<<<
You have got to be kidding me! "PREMIER" The Romo years will go down in Cowboy history as the worst time in the Cowboy franchise ever! Go look at the history. >>
Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
EDIT: I apologize for adding undeniable stats that refute your IDIOTic arguments.
Completion Percentage Highest Completion Percentage, Career (40 attempts) 70.0 Troy Aikman, Dallas, 3 games, (80-56) ......AND 3 WINS! 68.0 Joe Montana, San Francisco, 4 games (122-83) 64.1 Tom Brady, New England, 4 games (156-100)
Completion Percentage Highest Completion Percentage, Career (40 attempts) 70.0 Troy Aikman, Dallas, 3 games, (80-56) ......AND 3 WINS! 68.0 Joe Montana, San Francisco, 4 games (122-83) 64.1 Tom Brady, New England, 4 games (156-100) >>
Not really sure what that has to do with anything but 2 of those 3 were hall of famers without having a great team built around them.
EDIT AGAIN: Just thought I would add this again.... Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
<< <i> Go look at the history. They came in in 1960 and by 1962 were play for championships. The lost in 1962 to Green Bay in the frozen bowl on a QB sneak by Starr in the final seconds of play. >>
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
That game took place in 1967. They came in in 1960, and it wouldn't be until 1966 that they saw a winning season. (and it's the 'Ice Bowl').
<< <i> In a few years they were playing in a SB. They set records during the 60's 70's and early 80's for playoff appearencses. 18 out of 20 years. This time period had Merideth, Staubach and White at QB. >>
You're missing the biggest key. It wasn't the QB play alone, it was they had a fantastic TEAM and a legendary head coach.
<< <i> Sorry if I misspelled any names. Then there were a few bad years before they got Aikman and the crew in. >>
Oh you mean before Aikman got his all time, all pro team in? You mean when he was going 1-15? Before the Herschel Walker trade that made the Cowboys the dynasty that would define them?
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history. >>
Worse than the five year from '86-'90 when they didn't have a winning record? You know what also coincides with that 5 year run? The exact stretch between the end of Dorsett's career and the start of Smith's, two all time great RBs and the two best to ever play for Dallas. It's also not a coincidence that when Dallas has struggled, it's been a lack of a running game that's been there too. Hmm think that might be a coincidence, or maybe more?
<< <i>And YES Danny White was a winner despite not having Romo's stats. White had more important stats "WINNING" and "PLAYOFF WINS"!! >>
You mean he had better TEAMS. You really aren't playing dumb, are you?
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history. >>
Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? LOL Good lord you really are a dense one!
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history. >>
Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? LOL Good lord you really are a dense one! >>
I will add this again... Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
In case he doesn't have the intelligence to understand, that's his W/L record not his TD/INT stats.
Who else is beginning to think that DIMEMAN is an 8 year old kid who hijacked his father's account? At least then some of his comments and "knowledge" could be rationalized.
I think DIMEMAN is playing someone's spin-card-at-all-costs MO and he's got it down to the T.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
OK, I got the year wrong on the Ice Bowl......should have looked it up. My point was that it did not take that long for them to get good. And they stayed good until the the 86-90 period. But that period has been long over shadowed by the current Romo years.
On the Ice Frozen bowl...you are getting a little picky. I was watching the game were you????
>>>Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? <<<
Where did I say different. Yes, he started in 2006. That would make this his 8th year...RIGHT! That is already more that the 5 year span you mentioned. And he probably has 6 or 7 more years (shudder) so that will make it a 11 or 12 year span!
And have never said Aikman didn't have a great team around him, but he still did his part. Romo has some really good recievers and had a pretty good line until all the injuries.
>>>Not really sure what that has to do with anything but 2 of those 3 were hall of famers without having a great team built around them. <<<
You are saying Brady and Montana didn't have great teams!! Get real!!
2006: 9-7 (playoffs + also the last year the Cowboys had a 1000 yard rusher with Julius Jones with 1084) 2007: 13-3 (playoff appearance) 2008: 9-7 2009: 11-5 (playoff appearance) 2010: 6-10 2011: 8-8 2012: 8-8
And with the exception of 1989, these were teams blessed with a dependable 1500+ yards each year from the running back position, which we've already shown Romo has NEVER had, not even close. The fact that you want to continue to blame Romo for the team's ills when the clear answer is actually terrible defenses + no running game proves you have no idea what you're talking about. But then, when you're so ready to blow the the most famous game in your franchise's history by FIVE YEARS only confirmed that further!
2006: 9-7 (playoffs + also the last year the Cowboys had a 1000 yard rusher with Julius Jones with 1084) 2007: 13-3 (playoff appearance) 2008: 9-7 2009: 11-5 (playoff appearance) 2010: 6-10 2011: 8-8 2012: 8-8
1985fan, can you explain something to me in terms that even DIMEMAN might understand?
Why does Tony Romo win so many more games in years (2007 & 2009) that the defense is ranked in the top half in allowing points scored? Does he just pick those years to pretend to be "elite" or is there actually a correlation between a team's defense and their win/loss record? Just when I thought DIMEMAN had all the answers and you throw this out there
<< <i>And have never said Aikman didn't have a great team around him, but he still did his part. Romo has some really good recievers and had a pretty good line until all the injuries. >>
Maybe you should re-remember what you said earlier. You said Aikman lead them to 3 SBs. No he was just the lucky QB to have the job on historically great teams. If Steve Walsh had beat out Aikman for the starting job, the results would have been the same.
As for Romo, please tell me when he has ever had a good offensive line or Pro Bowl RB to open up the offensive game plan or even a decent defense that could hold an opponent in check.
Go ahead and use Google. We can wait a few more days for you to find something that fits your argument.
My point was that it did not take that long for them to get good. And they stayed good until the the 86-90 period. But that period has been long over shadowed by the current Romo years.
I did a little research on those glory years of Meredith, Staubach and White. I'm sure you already know this DIMEMAN, but from 1964 - 1982, not once did they have a defense ranked in the bottom half of the league. NOT ONCE FOR 19 STRAIGHT YEARS!!!
Romo has played a total of 2 seasons with a defense ranked in the top half of the league, and his record is 24- 8, in those seasons.
I'm pleading with you to drop the "look at how I can say things that make me sound dumb as a door knob" act and acknowledge all the facts thrown your way.
Romo being "elite" is a matter of subjectivity. Were Fouts or Marino as "elite" as Eli Manning -- argument for another day.
What is not a matter of subjectivity however, is that during Romo's entire tenure with Dallas, it has been, so dramatically, the Defense that has been the weakest link.
I pointed out earlier that when Aikman didn't have the elite surrounding teams, that his record was below average. That shouldn't be implied that Aikman was a below average QB, just as it should not be implied(or flat out said) that Aikman was better than others simply by virtue of his team's championship victories.
Furthermore, it also seems that the big argument being put forth by Dimeman and Co, is that Aikman(or other QB's) are proven winners because when their team's did give them the proper supporting cast, that they won, therefore it proves that they are winners or elite.
If you look at Romo's teams(or a guy like Marino's teams), they may have indeed had the pieces in place for one or two seasons...and they didn't win the Super Bowl those years, and the Dimeman guys believe that is proof that they aren't capable of winning.
Look at Marino, his teams really only had the pieces in place for two times in his career. His team got to the Super Bowl one of those years, and lost to one of the five best teams in NFL history. Yet, people use that as 'proof' that Marino was not capable of leading a team to a championship.
You guys are quick to point out that Brees and Manning won a SB with a below average defense. Great, you found two examples...but are ignoring the other 30 that needed the top ten defense to win.
Two out of 30 is poor ground to stand on. .....and that is only defense. There are still 10 other guys on offense that will make or break the QB's chances of winning a championship. Not to mention special teams.
Judging individual players in team sports based on how many championships their teams have won, is a lesson in foolishness. Yes, I am well aware that it goes with the territory of a QB(fair or not)...but that doesn't make it a correct way to judge a player.
Anyone that disagrees with that, is welcome to put their beliefs to a test. Pick any team sport you excel in, and I will play against you...only I will pick your teammates and I will pick my teammates. You can be the QB for your team, I will be for mine. Then we will play. Winner gets the cash prize. Then we will see how quickly you point out the unfairness of judging an individual based on the results of the team.
It shows a real lack of understanding of how team sports work when people want to judge individual players based on team results. It's obvious to me that these people completely buy into the talking heads spouting off about championships and how players should be able to 'will' their teams to winning titles. Well, folks, listening to those guys, and basing your entire philosophy about sports because 'they played the game!' is foolish. You think someone who played sports is somehow the most knowledgeable, yet time and again they are proven to know the least. Once you realize these guys on TV's sole job is to say things which (a) what they say is never criticized on air *ever*, and (b) the more outrageous the claim the more they will be featured on TV. How does one think Skip Bayless and Steven A. Smith have an entire hours long show?
Dimeman has repeatedly referred to ESPN and other shows as 'proof' his idea of championships=great player, which only further undermines his wildly ignorant (and completely wrong) viewpoints of Romo. Letting some media personality wholly shape your viewpoints on sports shows a real lack of passion for sports as well.
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread. >>
So you're saying he secretly loves the Washington "Offensive team name"?
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread. >>
I've seen nothing but incomplete and faulty analysis from Dimeman.
His goal is really undefined to begin with. He keeps saying Romo isn't elite...yet no clear definition of elite is given, nor are the QB's who are elite or not elite given for context.
If Dimeman is as knowledgeable as he claims, he should be able to whip out where exactly Romo ranks among the current QB's, but I believe people are afraid to do that...mostly because they are using wishy washy criteria to define their opinions, and it will lead to big inconsistencies when they actually rate each of the QB's. So it is easier, to just not do it, and then continue with biased and faulty analysis.
For instance, there are 7 active QB's that have won a Super Bowl. Since that is such a big criteria for some, are all seven better than Romo? Is Flacco better? If so, why? If not, why? If all the negative things being applied to Romo are also applied to the other QB's, how do they stack up?
As of now, Dimeman really hasn't presented anything of significance...except for the faulty method of using championship rings as the main criteria for judging an individual player.
Last time I'm touching this thread, and I'm sure the pro-Romo crowd will rejoice. The truth about TR probably lies somewhere in between the dichotomy, but I definitely agree that it's skewed toward Dimeman's take. With that said, I have never once considered Tony Romo to be the primary source of the Cowboys' ineptitude. My point of contention, however, has been with sentences that contain both his name and "elite." If contributors like 1985fan are going to place him in that category -- a category that contains the likes of Brees, Brady and Manning -- then there better be something on his resume that proves he channeled his inner Jordan when the Cowboys' season depended on it. Not week #2. Not week #14. Not weeks #2-#14. I'm talking about games where the alternative meant whipping out his golf clubs. Not only have Brees, Brady and Manning done that, but they each did so with cohorts on the other side of the ball who ranked in the bottom half of the league. Moreover, those three can shine a ring in your face from their accomplishments with said teammates.
And therein lies the reason why the entire "but his defense sucks" stance is so laughable. You want to have him breathing the same air as those guys, yet you'll so easily justify one playoff victory during his era? 1-6 in elimination games -- including 0-3 in the regular season -- doesn't dissuade the love affair? Shouldn't it stand to reason that an "elite" quarterback be able to fall bass ackwards into more than one playoff W over seven seasons?
<< <i>Last time I'm touching this thread, and I'm sure the pro-Romo crowd will rejoice. The truth about TR probably lies somewhere in between the dichotomy, but I definitely agree that it's skewed toward Dimeman's take. With that said, I have never once considered Tony Romo to be the primary source of the Cowboys' ineptitude. My point of contention, however, has been with sentences that contain both his name and "elite." If contributors like 1985fan are going to place him in that category -- a category that contains the likes of Brees, Brady and Manning -- then there better be something on his resume that proves he channeled his inner Jordan when the Cowboys' season depended on it. Not week #2. Not week #14. Not weeks #2-#14. I'm talking about games where the alternative meant whipping out his golf clubs. Not only have Brees, Brady and Manning done that, but they each did so with cohorts on the other side of the ball who ranked in the bottom half of the league. Moreover, those three can shine a ring in your face from their accomplishments with said teammates.
And therein lies the reason why the entire "but his defense sucks" stance is so laughable. You want to have him breathing the same air as those guys, yet you'll so easily justify one playoff victory during his era? 1-6 in elimination games -- including 0-3 in the regular season -- doesn't dissuade the love affair? Shouldn't it stand to reason that an "elite" quarterback be able to fall bass ackwards into more than one playoff W over seven seasons?
Proceed, gents. >>
Pretty solid.
Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman?
<< <i>Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman? >>
Since you directly asked me a question, I'll reluctantly rejoin this fracas.
Marino, and it's not even close. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) diminish Aikman's accomplishments. I touched on Marino somewhere in this haystack, if you're in the mood to search for a needle.
My prediction for Romo today: He does NOT blow the game ... he does NOT throw an INT!
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman? >>
Since you directly asked me a question, I'll reluctantly rejoin this fracas.
Marino, and it's not even close. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) diminish Aikman's accomplishments. I touched on Marino somewhere in this haystack, if you're in the mood to search for a needle.
And you? >>
lol.
I agree with Marino.
I often bag on Aikman, but i also agree he was outstanding as well.
OK, lightingboy and 11985fan aka axtel. You guys are not paying attention because my points are not being taken correctly.
Here we go again and for the LAST time:
1) I have never said that Romo is the only problem! There is the owner that won't leave football to the coaches. Then there is the coach that shouldn't even be there.......BUT who is Jones going to get to come in and be his puppet???
2) I'm not judging or comparing Romo with other greats based on SB rings. Maybe those other elite QB's found ways to win big games and that is why they have the rings. Instead Romo finds ways to lose games that are in his hands but blows it.
3) He is not the reason for all the losses, but seems to perform badly in crunch time. Please don't bring up the crap 4th quarter stat.
4) On the defense.......yes they are terrible this year. But he had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009 and still found a way to screw that playoff game and went home early.
In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't.
lightingboy you are happy with Romo and his stats while I am NOT! We are both Cowboy fans and that is our right.
1985fan - you are just a trouble maker like most out here have attested to. The fact that you are a Bucs fan shows lack of sound judgement.
<< <i> 4) On the defense.......yes they are terrible this year. But he had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009 and still found a way to screw that playoff game and went home early. >>
"Phillips was 0-4 in the playoffs as a head coach, covering stints with Denver and Buffalo, too. Romo was 0-2, with bizarre circumstances surrounding each. Fittingly enough, Phillips' defense was a huge reason for this victory, and Romo broke the game open with five straight scoring drives in the second quarter.
Tony Romo got his first playoff win after losing his first two appearances, going 23 for 35 for 244 yards and two touchdowns."
I guess you're forgetting that 2009 was the year the Cowboys actually WON a playoff game, with Romo playing exceptionally well and the defense doing its damn job? Then let's ignore the Cowboys o-line allowed 6 sacks against Minnesota and the defense allowed 34 points. Romo was not without blame, but he wasn't alone in the cause for losing.
<< <i>In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't. >>
Or, as the facts have proven, those guys had much better teams around them in which to win. We've already shown Aikman SUCKED without a top tier defense. What's the matter, if he was so elite and defense didn't matter, then why was he terrible without an elite defense?
<< <i>lightingboy you are happy with Romo and his stats while I am NOT! We are both Cowboy fans and that is our right. >>
No, lighningboy realizes it takes a TEAM to win championships. You fail, time and again, to comprehend this basic fact.
<< <i>1985fan - you are just a trouble maker like most out here have attested to. The fact that you are a Bucs fan shows lack of sound judgement. >>
Since your entire argument on super bowl wins, tell me, which team has won a super bowl more recently, Bucs or Cowboys? Class DISMISSED son!
<< <i>In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't. >>
So it's gone from "what a loser" to "he doesn't win like Peyton Manning."
By my count there have been about 60 QBs since 2006 to have started 20 or more games. Only the very best -- Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees -- would have given the Cowboys any chance (but no guarantee) of winning anything significant during the past eight years. Maybe there are a few more that would have been slightly better than 60-43 during Romo's starts. Most of the others would have done significantly worse. A few like Newton and Luck might look like better options now, but if they had either of them, it would have meant five or six years of going through guys like Curtis Painter and Jimmy Clausen
In this case 'stats matter', but all those that prove Romo is not a 'choker' don't.
Got it. You pick and choose whatever it takes to prop up your fraudulent thought process which suggests Romo is the reason the Cowboys struggle. You're hilariously ignorant, and debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>In an effort of finding common ground can we at least all agree that the Cowboys suck?
That defense is offensive. NFC East, yikes.
I proposed a trade of top 12 Qb's………….Romo for Cutler. Both cities seem to hate their current Qb's but yet there are 20 teams that would rather be in their place/ There are not enough good Qb's to go around.
Romo is far from elite but is well above average in today's NFL talent wise.
MJ >>
Cowboys don't suck. Defense is horrible (see Rob Ryan comments earlier in thread). Offense has to be in the top 2 or 3 in the NFL in pure talent just like they are every year. If a team with that much perennial talent continues to be mediocre, it all falls back on coaching. No other reason.
Cutler has always been garbage. Every now and then he has a game where you see what he could be if he played his best every game.
If you put any other QB in the league, with the exception of Peyton or Brady, into the Cowboys offense with Garrett calling the plays any time in the last 3 years at best the Cowboys might win 1 extra game a season. Even if Peyton was the Cowboys QB this season they may only win one extra game. Can not give up 4+ TDs almost every game and expect to win. >>
Well That didn't take long. I guess nothing will ever be agreed on then.
Somebody will make Cutler uber rich next year………The state of Qb's in a Qb driven league dictates it.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm sure that is something you can prove too, right?
Not sure why you need to revert to name calling.
The only thing people have called you is an "idiot". But that's only because you have relentlessly proven that.
I've been a Cowboys fan since the early 70's and I have seen many players/units come and go. They are not a great team right now by any means. They have under performed for several years while having many individual All Pro players.
I also know that statistics are not a complete measure of how god a team or player really is.
However, when you blame a QB, who is ranked in the top 5 of the NFL statistically, and turn a blind eye to the defense which is ranked in the bottom 5, if not bottom period, then you are simply announcing yourself as an "idiot" to the world.
I have been to numerous games and consider myself their biggest fan. I have defended Cowboy players to a fault simply because they were Cowboys. I try to look at the players objectively now and not praise players simply because they are Cowboys.
I have never blamed Romo for all of the Cowboy problems, but he has lost games for them by making stupid decisions at crucial times in games. He has talent no doubt, but is NOT an elite QB to me and lots of others that have posted here.
Have you ever noticed that when he plays his best is when he is ahead. He is terrible at coming from behind. I knew as soon as the Saints went up big .......he was done.....and he was.
Yes, Jerry Jones is probably the worst owner in the NFL, but there isn't much we can do about that. I keep hoping that he will eventually see what he needs to do. He is not stupid. You don't get to where he is by being stupid. He is just trying to do things that should be done by others and he is the owner so who is going to tell him!
I almost dropped the Cowboys when he came in and fired Tom Landry (Mr. Cowboy), but then thought no that would be a fair weather fan. He did good at first by building a good team and hiring Jimmy Johnson, but then things went haywire. So since 1996 things have been dismal for Cowboy fans.
If that's true, then why is he behind only Luck and Wilson since the beginning of 2012 with 4th quarter comebacks? Let me guess, the defense won the games for them.
<< <i> He is terrible at coming from behind
If that's true, then why is he behind only Luck and Wilson since the beginning of 2012 with 4th quarter comebacks? Let me guess, the defense won the games for them. >>
Stop making sense. Oh, the Rome led defense ranks 32 out of 32. Not sure how to interrupt this.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
I have been to numerous games and consider myself their biggest fan. I have defended Cowboy players to a fault simply because they were Cowboys. I try to look at the players objectively now and not praise players simply because they are Cowboys.
>>
No, you don't. You have already called Danny White a better QB than Romo, with the only metric for this being the number of playoff wins each has. Any objective observer can see Romo is a better QB. You, sir, are not an objective observer.
<< <i>I have never blamed Romo for all of the Cowboy problems, but he has lost games for them by making stupid decisions at crucial times in games. He has talent no doubt, but is NOT an elite QB to me and lots of others that have posted here. >>
You are unable to realize that a defense ranked dead last who gives up 50 points in a game is the reason they lose and not the QB who throws for over 500 yards and 5 TDs. In this regard YOU are wrong. Irrefutably wrong.
<< <i>Have you ever noticed that when he plays his best is when he is ahead. He is terrible at coming from behind. I knew as soon as the Saints went up big .......he was done.....and he was. >>
So just last week when the Vikings went up late and he was terrible? Oh wait he drove the length of the field and threw the game winning score with less than 30 seconds remaining. That damned Romo sure does suck at late game comebacks.
<< <i>Yes, Jerry Jones is probably the worst owner in the NFL, but there isn't much we can do about that. I keep hoping that he will eventually see what he needs to do. He is not stupid. You don't get to where he is by being stupid. He is just trying to do things that should be done by others and he is the owner so who is going to tell him! >>
You can be smart about business and dumb about the NFL. Jerry Jones is exactly that.
<< <i>I almost dropped the Cowboys when he came in and fired Tom Landry (Mr. Cowboy), but then thought no that would be a fair weather fan. He did good at first by building a good team and hiring Jimmy Johnson, but then things went haywire. So since 1996 things have been dismal for Cowboy fans. >>
Right, I mean getting the best field in the country has been 'dismal'. Getting to see one of the premier QBs has been 'dismal'. You want dismal? Try being a Browns fan (no offense Browns fans).
<< <i> They are not a great team right now by any means. They have under performed for several years while having many individual All Pro players.
>>
My point again. All that reverts back to coaching.
If you're at the poker table and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you.
I take offense to this comment. I did adopt a stray puppy and even he knows when he is wrong.
<< <i>Seems to have the IQ of your average stray dog
I take offense to this comment. I did adopt a stray puppy and even he knows when he is wrong. >>
I adopted 2 abandoned puppies about 6 years ago. Two best dogs I have ever owned but they still aren't smart enough to stop licking their own butts and occasionally each others.
<< <i>Can't decide if Dimeman is truly this clueless or messing with all of us. Seems to have the IQ of your average stray dog but insists on calling everyone that posts here an idiot.
If you're at the poker table and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you. >>
He's not clever enough for this to be an act. I truly believe these ignorant, wildly uninformed statements are his true, deep down beliefs.
You have got to be kidding me! "PREMIER"
And YES Danny White was a winner despite not having Romo's stats. White had more important stats "WINNING" and "PLAYOFF WINS"!!
<< <i>>>>Getting to see one of the premier QBs has been 'dismal'.<<<
You have got to be kidding me! "PREMIER"
Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
EDIT: I apologize for adding undeniable stats that refute your IDIOTic arguments.
Completion Percentage
Highest Completion Percentage, Career (40 attempts)
70.0 Troy Aikman, Dallas, 3 games, (80-56) ......AND 3 WINS!
68.0 Joe Montana, San Francisco, 4 games (122-83)
64.1 Tom Brady, New England, 4 games (156-100)
<< <i>This is a Super Bowl Stat!!
Completion Percentage
Highest Completion Percentage, Career (40 attempts)
70.0 Troy Aikman, Dallas, 3 games, (80-56) ......AND 3 WINS!
68.0 Joe Montana, San Francisco, 4 games (122-83)
64.1 Tom Brady, New England, 4 games (156-100) >>
Not really sure what that has to do with anything but 2 of those 3 were hall of famers without having a great team built around them.
EDIT AGAIN: Just thought I would add this again.... Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
Hey Mr "I'm a bigger Cowboys fan than all of you". Why dont you check your dates on the "frozen bowl" QB sneak?
First of all a REAL Cowboys fan would know it was referred to as the "Ice Bowl", and secondly it was the 1967 Championship Game.
You have more holes in your stories/opinions than the Cowboys do in their defense and thats saying a lot.
<< <i>
Go look at the history. They came in in 1960 and by 1962 were play for championships. The lost in 1962 to Green Bay in the frozen bowl on a QB sneak by Starr in the final seconds of play. >>
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
That game took place in 1967. They came in in 1960, and it wouldn't be until 1966 that they saw a winning season. (and it's the 'Ice Bowl').
<< <i> In a few years they were playing in a SB. They set records during the 60's 70's and early 80's for playoff appearencses. 18 out of 20 years. This time period had Merideth, Staubach and White at QB.
>>
You're missing the biggest key. It wasn't the QB play alone, it was they had a fantastic TEAM and a legendary head coach.
<< <i> Sorry if I misspelled any names. Then there were a few bad years before they got Aikman and the crew in. >>
Oh you mean before Aikman got his all time, all pro team in? You mean when he was going 1-15? Before the Herschel Walker trade that made the Cowboys the dynasty that would define them?
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history. >>
Worse than the five year from '86-'90 when they didn't have a winning record? You know what also coincides with that 5 year run? The exact stretch between the end of Dorsett's career and the start of Smith's, two all time great RBs and the two best to ever play for Dallas. It's also not a coincidence that when Dallas has struggled, it's been a lack of a running game that's been there too. Hmm think that might be a coincidence, or maybe more?
<< <i>And YES Danny White was a winner despite not having Romo's stats. White had more important stats "WINNING" and "PLAYOFF WINS"!! >>
You mean he had better TEAMS. You really aren't playing dumb, are you?
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history.
>>
Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? LOL Good lord you really are a dense one!
<< <i>
<< <i>The sense 2000 when key players retired or went elsewhere it has been ....YES....dismal!!! and most of that time has been the Romo years. They had 1 good year in there 2008 I believe or 2009 where they had a great record and then Romo choked against the Vikings. If Romo continues on this course it will definitely be the WORST time period in Cowboy history.
>>
Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? LOL Good lord you really are a dense one! >>
I will add this again... Romo was 38-17 as a starter without Garrett, 22-26 since Garrett became his head coach.
In case he doesn't have the intelligence to understand, that's his W/L record not his TD/INT stats.
Probably around 3, when school lets out.
<< <i>So what time does Dumbman come back?
Probably around 3, when school lets out. >>
HAHA!! That was funny
On the Ice Frozen bowl...you are getting a little picky. I was watching the game were you????
>>>Hey, Mr. Real Cowboy Fan, do you realize Romo didn't become the starter until 2006, right? <<<
Where did I say different. Yes, he started in 2006. That would make this his 8th year...RIGHT! That is already more that the 5 year span you mentioned. And he probably has 6 or 7 more years (shudder) so that will make it a 11 or 12 year span!
And have never said Aikman didn't have a great team around him, but he still did his part. Romo has some really good recievers and had a pretty good line until all the injuries.
>>>Not really sure what that has to do with anything but 2 of those 3 were hall of famers without having a great team built around them. <<<
You are saying Brady and Montana didn't have great teams!! Get real!!
Dallas Cowboy Records Under Romo:
2006: 9-7 (playoffs + also the last year the Cowboys had a 1000 yard rusher with Julius Jones with 1084)
2007: 13-3 (playoff appearance)
2008: 9-7
2009: 11-5 (playoff appearance)
2010: 6-10
2011: 8-8
2012: 8-8
Team Defense Points Allowed Ranking:
2006: 20th
2007: 13th
2008: 20th
2009: 2nd
2010: 31st
2011: 16th
2012: 24th
2013: 23rd
Seeing a trend yet?
Let's see where Aikman's team defenses ranked in his time at QB:
2000: 22nd
1999: 5th
1998: 3rd
1997: 13th
1996: 3rd
1995: 3rd
1994: 3rd
1993: 2nd
1992: 5th
1991: 17th
1990: 15th
1989: 24th
And with the exception of 1989, these were teams blessed with a dependable 1500+ yards each year from the running back position, which we've already shown Romo has NEVER had, not even close. The fact that you want to continue to blame Romo for the team's ills when the clear answer is actually terrible defenses + no running game proves you have no idea what you're talking about. But then, when you're so ready to blow the the most famous game in your franchise's history by FIVE YEARS only confirmed that further!
2007: 13-3 (playoff appearance)
2008: 9-7
2009: 11-5 (playoff appearance)
2010: 6-10
2011: 8-8
2012: 8-8
Team Defense Points Allowed Ranking:
2006: 20th
2007: 13th
2008: 20th
2009: 2nd
2010: 31st
2011: 16th
2012: 24th
2013: 23rd
1985fan, can you explain something to me in terms that even DIMEMAN might understand?
Why does Tony Romo win so many more games in years (2007 & 2009) that the defense is ranked in the top half in allowing points scored? Does he just pick those years to pretend to be "elite" or is there actually a correlation between a team's defense and their win/loss record? Just when I thought DIMEMAN had all the answers and you throw this out there
<< <i>And have never said Aikman didn't have a great team around him, but he still did his part. Romo has some really good recievers and had a pretty good line until all the injuries. >>
Maybe you should re-remember what you said earlier. You said Aikman lead them to 3 SBs. No he was just the lucky QB to have the job on historically great teams. If Steve Walsh had beat out Aikman for the starting job, the results would have been the same.
As for Romo, please tell me when he has ever had a good offensive line or Pro Bowl RB to open up the offensive game plan or even a decent defense that could hold an opponent in check.
Go ahead and use Google. We can wait a few more days for you to find something that fits your argument.
I did a little research on those glory years of Meredith, Staubach and White. I'm sure you already know this DIMEMAN, but from 1964 - 1982, not once did they have a defense ranked in the bottom half of the league. NOT ONCE FOR 19 STRAIGHT YEARS!!!
Romo has played a total of 2 seasons with a defense ranked in the top half of the league, and his record is 24- 8, in those seasons.
I'm pleading with you to drop the "look at how I can say things that make me sound dumb as a door knob" act and acknowledge all the facts thrown your way.
Romo being "elite" is a matter of subjectivity. Were Fouts or Marino as "elite" as Eli Manning -- argument for another day.
What is not a matter of subjectivity however, is that during Romo's entire tenure with Dallas, it has been, so dramatically, the Defense that has been the weakest link.
I pointed out earlier that when Aikman didn't have the elite surrounding teams, that his record was below average. That shouldn't be implied that Aikman was a below average QB, just as it should not be implied(or flat out said) that Aikman was better than others simply by virtue of his team's championship victories.
Furthermore, it also seems that the big argument being put forth by Dimeman and Co, is that Aikman(or other QB's) are proven winners because when their team's did give them the proper supporting cast, that they won, therefore it proves that they are winners or elite.
If you look at Romo's teams(or a guy like Marino's teams), they may have indeed had the pieces in place for one or two seasons...and they didn't win the Super Bowl those years, and the Dimeman guys believe that is proof that they aren't capable of winning.
Look at Marino, his teams really only had the pieces in place for two times in his career. His team got to the Super Bowl one of those years, and lost to one of the five best teams in NFL history. Yet, people use that as 'proof' that Marino was not capable of leading a team to a championship.
You guys are quick to point out that Brees and Manning won a SB with a below average defense. Great, you found two examples...but are ignoring the other 30 that needed the top ten defense to win.
Two out of 30 is poor ground to stand on. .....and that is only defense. There are still 10 other guys on offense that will make or break the QB's chances of winning a championship. Not to mention special teams.
Judging individual players in team sports based on how many championships their teams have won, is a lesson in foolishness. Yes, I am well aware that it goes with the territory of a QB(fair or not)...but that doesn't make it a correct way to judge a player.
Anyone that disagrees with that, is welcome to put their beliefs to a test. Pick any team sport you excel in, and I will play against you...only I will pick your teammates and I will pick my teammates. You can be the QB for your team, I will be for mine. Then we will play. Winner gets the cash prize. Then we will see how quickly you point out the unfairness of judging an individual based on the results of the team.
Dimeman has repeatedly referred to ESPN and other shows as 'proof' his idea of championships=great player, which only further undermines his wildly ignorant (and completely wrong) viewpoints of Romo. Letting some media personality wholly shape your viewpoints on sports shows a real lack of passion for sports as well.
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread. >>
So you're saying he secretly loves the Washington "Offensive team name"?
<< <i>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread. >>
When you watch and root for the Astros and Texans, it's understandable you don't understand 'winning' when you see it.
<< <i>
<< <i>And today is the 3rd day in a row that he has logged in and didn't say a word. Maybe he is starting to realize that he is the sucker at the table. >>
Quite the contrary, my friend. While I don't agree with everything he says, DIMEMAN is winning this thread. >>
I've seen nothing but incomplete and faulty analysis from Dimeman.
His goal is really undefined to begin with. He keeps saying Romo isn't elite...yet no clear definition of elite is given, nor are the QB's who are elite or not elite given for context.
If Dimeman is as knowledgeable as he claims, he should be able to whip out where exactly Romo ranks among the current QB's, but I believe people are afraid to do that...mostly because they are using wishy washy criteria to define their opinions, and it will lead to big inconsistencies when they actually rate each of the QB's. So it is easier, to just not do it, and then continue with biased and faulty analysis.
For instance, there are 7 active QB's that have won a Super Bowl. Since that is such a big criteria for some, are all seven better than Romo? Is Flacco better? If so, why? If not, why? If all the negative things being applied to Romo are also applied to the other QB's, how do they stack up?
As of now, Dimeman really hasn't presented anything of significance...except for the faulty method of using championship rings as the main criteria for judging an individual player.
stown, how do you define "winning this thread"?
And therein lies the reason why the entire "but his defense sucks" stance is so laughable. You want to have him breathing the same air as those guys, yet you'll so easily justify one playoff victory during his era? 1-6 in elimination games -- including 0-3 in the regular season -- doesn't dissuade the love affair? Shouldn't it stand to reason that an "elite" quarterback be able to fall bass ackwards into more than one playoff W over seven seasons?
Proceed, gents.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>Last time I'm touching this thread, and I'm sure the pro-Romo crowd will rejoice. The truth about TR probably lies somewhere in between the dichotomy, but I definitely agree that it's skewed toward Dimeman's take. With that said, I have never once considered Tony Romo to be the primary source of the Cowboys' ineptitude. My point of contention, however, has been with sentences that contain both his name and "elite." If contributors like 1985fan are going to place him in that category -- a category that contains the likes of Brees, Brady and Manning -- then there better be something on his resume that proves he channeled his inner Jordan when the Cowboys' season depended on it. Not week #2. Not week #14. Not weeks #2-#14. I'm talking about games where the alternative meant whipping out his golf clubs. Not only have Brees, Brady and Manning done that, but they each did so with cohorts on the other side of the ball who ranked in the bottom half of the league. Moreover, those three can shine a ring in your face from their accomplishments with said teammates.
And therein lies the reason why the entire "but his defense sucks" stance is so laughable. You want to have him breathing the same air as those guys, yet you'll so easily justify one playoff victory during his era? 1-6 in elimination games -- including 0-3 in the regular season -- doesn't dissuade the love affair? Shouldn't it stand to reason that an "elite" quarterback be able to fall bass ackwards into more than one playoff W over seven seasons?
Proceed, gents. >>
Pretty solid.
Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman?
<< <i>Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman? >>
Since you directly asked me a question, I'll reluctantly rejoin this fracas.
Marino, and it's not even close. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) diminish Aikman's accomplishments. I touched on Marino somewhere in this haystack, if you're in the mood to search for a needle.
And you?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>
<< <i>Galaxy, in your opinion, who was better, Marino or Aikman? >>
Since you directly asked me a question, I'll reluctantly rejoin this fracas.
Marino, and it's not even close. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) diminish Aikman's accomplishments. I touched on Marino somewhere in this haystack, if you're in the mood to search for a needle.
And you? >>
lol.
I agree with Marino.
I often bag on Aikman, but i also agree he was outstanding as well.
Here we go again and for the LAST time:
1) I have never said that Romo is the only problem! There is the owner that won't leave football to the coaches. Then there is the coach that shouldn't even be there.......BUT who is Jones going to get to come in and be his puppet???
2) I'm not judging or comparing Romo with other greats based on SB rings. Maybe those other elite QB's found ways to win big games and that is why they have the rings. Instead Romo finds ways to lose games that are in his hands but blows it.
3) He is not the reason for all the losses, but seems to perform badly in crunch time. Please don't bring up the crap 4th quarter stat.
4) On the defense.......yes they are terrible this year. But he had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009 and still found a way to screw that playoff game and went home early.
In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't.
lightingboy you are happy with Romo and his stats while I am NOT! We are both Cowboy fans and that is our right.
1985fan - you are just a trouble maker like most out here have attested to. The fact that you are a Bucs fan shows lack of sound judgement.
<< <i>
4) On the defense.......yes they are terrible this year. But he had the 2nd ranked defense in 2009 and still found a way to screw that playoff game and went home early.
>>
"Phillips was 0-4 in the playoffs as a head coach, covering stints with Denver and Buffalo, too. Romo was 0-2, with bizarre circumstances surrounding each. Fittingly enough, Phillips' defense was a huge reason for this victory, and Romo broke the game open with five straight scoring drives in the second quarter.
Tony Romo got his first playoff win after losing his first two appearances, going 23 for 35 for 244 yards and two touchdowns."
I guess you're forgetting that 2009 was the year the Cowboys actually WON a playoff game, with Romo playing exceptionally well and the defense doing its damn job? Then let's ignore the Cowboys o-line allowed 6 sacks against Minnesota and the defense allowed 34 points. Romo was not without blame, but he wasn't alone in the cause for losing.
<< <i>In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't. >>
Or, as the facts have proven, those guys had much better teams around them in which to win. We've already shown Aikman SUCKED without a top tier defense. What's the matter, if he was so elite and defense didn't matter, then why was he terrible without an elite defense?
<< <i>lightingboy you are happy with Romo and his stats while I am NOT! We are both Cowboy fans and that is our right. >>
No, lighningboy realizes it takes a TEAM to win championships. You fail, time and again, to comprehend this basic fact.
<< <i>1985fan - you are just a trouble maker like most out here have attested to. The fact that you are a Bucs fan shows lack of sound judgement.
Since your entire argument on super bowl wins, tell me, which team has won a super bowl more recently, Bucs or Cowboys? Class DISMISSED son!
BOY ARE YOU EASY!!!! THE SCORE IS 5 COWBOY SUPER BOWL WINS and tampa 1!
GAME....SET.....MATCH!!!! Geeze you are easy!!!!
I'll just add a few more Cowboy Bucs stats........since you like stats.
The total record between Dallas and Tampa is 11-3 Dallas!
Including a 38-0 spanking that sent Tampa home from the playoffs in 1981.....and
a 30-17 whipping that sent Tampa home from the playoffs in 1982!
Both of these were led by Danny White.
We even bet you last year with your hero Romo.....WOW!
<< <i>In summation he usually has good stats, but is not elite and finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Mannings Aikmans Youngs and etc......and that is probably why they have the rings and Romo doesn't. >>
So it's gone from "what a loser" to "he doesn't win like Peyton Manning."
By my count there have been about 60 QBs since 2006 to have started 20 or more games. Only the very best -- Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees -- would have given the Cowboys any chance (but no guarantee) of winning anything significant during the past eight years. Maybe there are a few more that would have been slightly better than 60-43 during Romo's starts. Most of the others would have done significantly worse. A few like Newton and Luck might look like better options now, but if they had either of them, it would have meant five or six years of going through guys like Curtis Painter and Jimmy Clausen
Tampa Bay last won the super bowl in 2002.
Dallas last won the super bowl in 1995 (!!!)
In this case 'stats matter', but all those that prove Romo is not a 'choker' don't.
Got it. You pick and choose whatever it takes to prop up your fraudulent thought process which suggests Romo is the reason the Cowboys struggle. You're hilariously ignorant, and debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel.