Options
ESPN just did a film clip of Romo blowing games....
DIMEMAN
Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
of course they didn't have enough time to show them all! That would take a full day!
But they did show last weeks against Denver.
Several commentators saw the wide open back he should have gone to.....which other elite QB's would have done!
It's sad as Cowboy fans we have many more years to suffer through.
But they did show last weeks against Denver.
Several commentators saw the wide open back he should have gone to.....which other elite QB's would have done!
It's sad as Cowboy fans we have many more years to suffer through.
0
Comments
Romo can put up big numbers, BUT CANNOT GET THE JOB DONE UNDER PRESSURE WHEN IT COUNTS!!!!!
Looks like you sir....... don't know **** about anything we have been talking about!!!
And ***PLEASE*** don't compare Romo with Jordan. No comparison!!! Jordan actually was probably the best at taking over games and "WINNING" them.
Actually just the opposite of ROMO!
<< <i>Michael Jordan famously quoted the hundreds of shots he missed in his career... You could make a montage of any player failing. It doesn't mean a thing and your continued insistence that he's the problem is proof positive you don't know **** about football. >>
I battle Axtell all the time, and he has made several good points in this whole Romo elite QB thread, that have been brushed away. This above is a very solid point and true.
As for Romo, he has 19 game winning drives in his career. Aikman has 21. So if somebody would make a film of those 19 game winning drives, then he would look unstoppable.
If Romo were given the supporting cast of Aikman, I am quite sure he would win all the time. Heck, Jason Garrett won 66% of his games as starting QB for Dallas!!
Also, if Troy Aikman were given a weaker supporting cast, then I am also 100% certain that he would not be an above .500 QB and would certainly NOT win a Super Bowl!
How do I know that? In the seven years Aikman did not have that cast, his QB record was 38-52! Inexcusable! I though elite Qb's win?? What happened there? Seven seasons makes up more than half his career! So, everything thrown at Romo, should probably be directed to the MOST OVERRATED QB in history, Troy Aikman!
Also, Romo has a QB record of 58-41. Isn't that winning? You can't just discount that because it doesn't fit your perspective..
Dimeman, by the way, Jordan was viewed as not being able to win too! His first seven years in the league, he was brushed aside when mentioned with Bird/Magic because he didn't win titles. Jordan was far superior to Magic in those years too....they just didn't win, because teams filled with Brad Sellers types don't usually win titles, lol.
<< <i>Dimeman, by the way, Jordan was viewed as not being able to win too! His first seven years in the league, he was brushed aside when mentioned with Bird/Magic because he didn't win titles. Jordan was far superior to Magic in those years too....they just didn't win, because teams filled with Brad Sellers types don't usually win titles, lol. >>
I didn't see the ESPN segment but they had something similar on NFL Network. Their overall point was: with the season on the line, Romo historically commits a turnover or has a brainfart.
There's absolutely no denying that Jordan missed *plenty* of shots during the regular season. However, Jordan gets a pass because of his ability to nail game winners; especially during the playoffs, Finals, and the '82 NCAA championship.
BIG difference, imo.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dimeman, by the way, Jordan was viewed as not being able to win too! His first seven years in the league, he was brushed aside when mentioned with Bird/Magic because he didn't win titles. Jordan was far superior to Magic in those years too....they just didn't win, because teams filled with Brad Sellers types don't usually win titles, lol. >>
I didn't see the ESPN segment but they had something similar on NFL Network. Their overall point was: with the season on the line, Romo historically commits a turnover or has a brainfart.
There's absolutely no denying that Jordan missed *plenty* of shots during the regular season. However, Jordan gets a pass because of his ability to nail game winners; especially during the playoffs, Finals, and the '82 NCAA championship.
BIG difference, imo. >>
Yes, true he(jordan) did. But they still could not win championships until he got the proper supporting cast.
He was also the greatest ever in his sport, and if the greatest ever in a sport can be viewed as a non winner, and can also be seen missing plenty of game winning shots, it makes it a pretty good point to bring it up to show that Romo(who unlike Jordan is NOT the greatest ever), may be getting an unfair slant when only examining his missed opportunities. After all, Romo does have 19 game winning drives to his credit, only two behind the most overrated QB in history, Troy Aikman.
One can't just ignore those game winning drives, yet that is what people are doing. Or, they marginalize them by bringing variables into the equation, yet they don't look at the variables in his game 'chokes'.
Also, one cannot say that Romo can't win, and then just ignore the 58-41 career record. That is a pretty good record. Aikman could not win either. His elite team won...but Aikman proved he could not post a winning record without an elite team. Seven seasons without elite teammates, Aikman had a poor QB record.
It may be true that Romo's QB rating may be misleading, and that he does lack game winning drives that the immortals have. Game winning drives certainly may have some merit, because unlike an entire game, it does isolate the QB a little more. There are still a ton of variables however, but I can see the point in using those to a degree. But again, Romo does have 19 of them(two less than Aikman).
<< <i>it makes it a pretty good point to bring it up to show that Romo(who unlike Jordan is NOT the greatest ever), may be getting an unfair slant when only examining his missed opportunities. >>
It comes with the territory. Right or wrong, quarterbacks are always in the spotlight and it's always shown brighter during make or break moments. According to the standings, every game counts and are treated the same. On the other hand, fans place a greater importance on "big" games and the season's end (be it regular season or playoffs). It's human nature and it will always be like that. For the NFL, what QBs do in January (now a little bit of February) defines their career.
Try this:
What image comes to mind when thinking of Romo and the playoffs?
What images come to mind when thinking of any other "elite" quarterback and the playoffs?
It is what it is.
<< <i>
<< <i>it makes it a pretty good point to bring it up to show that Romo(who unlike Jordan is NOT the greatest ever), may be getting an unfair slant when only examining his missed opportunities. >>
It comes with the territory. Right or wrong, quarterbacks are always in the spotlight and it's always shown brighter during make or break moments. According to the standings, every game counts and are treated the same. On the other hand, fans place a greater importance on "big" games and the season's end (be it regular season or playoffs). It's human nature and it will always be like that. For the NFL, what QBs do in January (now a little bit of February) defines their career.
Try this:
What image comes to mind when thinking of Romo and the playoffs?
What images come to mind when thinking of any other "elite" quarterback and the playoffs?
It is what it is. >>
All true, and that entire aspect is built up by the league to make the whole entertainment level higher. Hero/goat, come from adversity, comebacks, underdogs...always make a good story.
However, I'm not about that
If someone is saying that teams can't win with Romo at QB, they are wrong, they won 58 times and lost 41, good by any measure.
If someone says Romo isn't capable of winning a playoff game, they are wrong too, because he did.
If someone says that Romo throws interceptions at the wrong time, they are correct. He isn't the only one, and he may not have equal variables as the guys who don't.
Obviously, looking at Romo's body of work, including the fact that his offense puts the points on the board and his team wins, and even if you believe in his 'choker' status, then his body of work(including the choker status), has still won his team 58 games and lost 41...and that is ignoring all the other variables involved. So he has certainly done much better than the avg QB.
Whether or not his team won the Super Bowl, seems to be the biggest gripe, then they probably need better teammates for that to happen. Romo is not the best QB in the league, so go out and get an elite D, RB, O-Line, WR, TE, and then you will have given him what Troy Aikman needed...because without all that carrying Aikman, Aikman was a below average QB and his teams were below average at 38-52.
If we were talking about Brady or Manning, then you probably wouldn't need as many elite players at other positions to win a Super Bowl, much like Favre, Manning, etc..didn't in order for their teams to win Super Bowls(despite them only winnning one...but proving that they were the main reasons with all their success, game winning drives, and done with other sets of teammates and environments). Unlike Aikman, who proved that without the elite teammates, he was MUCH WORSE than Romo.
<< <i>
Try this:
What image comes to mind when thinking of Romo and the playoffs?
What images come to mind when thinking of any other "elite" quarterback and the playoffs?
It is what it is. >>
The images that come to mind are being fostered by a media more interested in ratings than in being objective. If you are so weak-minded as to be willed one way or the other by these 'stories' and this 'reporting' then that's on you and has no relevance to the discussion about Romo being an elite QB. Stats don't lie, as the saying goes, and sitting there trying to spin it and saying that games in October don't count (even though they do) or that he can't close (despite having these late game come back and the best fourth quarter QB rating of all active QBs) is ridiculous.
I don't really want to spend much more time on this topic, but to sum it up, if I were to create a scale based on who is overrated/underrated by people who use 'championships won' as such a big factor in their determination, it would look something like this.
Most Underrated..................................................................Most overrated
Dan Marino, Tarkenton...................................................................Bradshaw, Aikman
I put Dan Marino as underrated, because it is referring to the segment of the fan base that degrades him simply by the virtue of lack of championships. He is far better than both Bradshaw and Aikman, both of whom epitomize the QB that is overrated by virtue of championships won. When you have Bradshaw's backups having a better winning percentage than him in the Super Bowl era, and just as good as passer ratings, and then when anyone with a half a brain sees that their Defense was their primary force, and then saw how his receivers made tremendous acrobatic catches, Bradhshaw epitomizes a QB who was least responsible for his team's championships. Same for Aikman and his abysmal record and performance when he did not have an elite supporting cast.
If Bradshaw/Aikman were truly elite and the reason why their team won, then they would not have allowed their teams(or themselves) to perform so poorly when they did not have an elite supporting cast. Both of that has been well documented enough on these boards, so any new posters can search the threads on Bradshaw and Aikman.
If you want to heap praise all over Montana, Brady, or Staubach, then that is warranted as they were the primary forces behind their teams' success. However, that is not to say that their praise over someone like Marino, Favre, or Manning, who have one or zero championships(or one), is Just- because they have won more championships than those guys. There are still a multitude of variables at play that need to be looked at.
In final thought, yes, the QB is very important, but when looking at all the evidence with guys like Bradshaw, Aikman, Montana's mediocre championship game record, or Brady's recent poor playoff record...the QB gets too much credit when things are going right, and to much blame when things are going wrong, especially by the people who use championship won as their main barometer for valuating an individual player in a team sport.
PS, Axtell, football stats lie all the time. They simply aren't as valid as the stats in baseball. In fact, some baseball stats lie too...like RBI and defensive measurements.
<< <i>the QB gets too much credit when things are going right, and to much blame when things are going wrong >>
Oh, absolutely but that's football. Not just with pros but college, high school, jr high, and pee-wee. He's expected to be the leader and gets 90% of the praise or blame, regardless if he deserves it or not. Thing is, every QB knows being *the* face for the team is part of the job description. If a player didn't want to stand out and/or get the extra scrutiny, they would go after another position and blend in with everyone else.
Just a random example, after NE didn't convert the 4th down, Brady was jawing on the sidelines. Not yelling down his teammates but rather, even when most (including myself) thought the game was essentially over, motivating them and insisting they still had a chance. He did it again after the following series with a minute(?) left. Brees did something similar a couple years ago against the Redskins. Those intangibles, which cannot be converted into numbers, are what separate the tiers.
Add a championship (or more) to that quality and the quarterback will forever be a part of NFL, CFL, college, high school, jr high, pee-wee lore.
I know where you're coming from but again, that's just football.
<< <i>I wouldn't expect Cheeto-breathers to comprehend the concept. After all, google's short term insight only provides so much... >>
'Intangibles' and 'clutch' are what people whose entire argument has been blown to hell fall back on. The idea that someone can't be considered 'clutch' despite possessing the best passer rating in the fourth quarter (crunch time! according to people who believe in such things) is proof positive they use these terms without having anything resembling an idea of what they mean.
edited: obviously not directed at edmund.
<< <i>
<< <i>the QB gets too much credit when things are going right, and to much blame when things are going wrong >>
Oh, absolutely but that's football. Not just with pros but college, high school, jr high, and pee-wee. He's expected to be the leader and gets 90% of the praise or blame, regardless if he deserves it or not. Thing is, every QB knows being *the* face for the team is part of the job description. If a player didn't want to stand out and/or get the extra scrutiny, they would go after another position and blend in with everyone else.
Just a random example, after NE didn't convert the 4th down, Brady was jawing on the sidelines. Not yelling down his teammates but rather, even when most (including myself) thought the game was essentially over, motivating them and insisting they still had a chance. He did it again after the following series with a minute(?) left. Brees did something similar a couple years ago against the Redskins. Those intangibles, which cannot be converted into numbers, are what separate the tiers.
Add a championship (or more) to that quality and the quarterback will forever be a part of NFL, CFL, college, high school, jr high, pee-wee lore.
I know where you're coming from but again, that's just football. >>
I really can't argue with any of that, and there are more intangibles in football than any other sport, and guys like Marino also possessed those at an elite level as anyone else. Unfortunate for him, he gets unfairly downgraded(by some) due to having a lesser cast than other inferior QB's who won more(due to a greater cast and other variables). Does make for good debates(I'm still on R&R from my long debates with Baseball about them, lol).
Romo has better recievers than Troy had before Dallas became great. Aikman came in first on the rebuild. Dallas had adismal team when Troy came in. He was a great QB with no support. When the recievers and Smith and the defense and the o-line all got in place the yes Troy had the support and won 3 SB's. That Cowboy team was the best team ever and no one will ever be that great again because or parity. You could drop Troy in this team Romo has and he would do better. He is just overall better. You just can't compare the two periods of time.
<< <i>I really can't argue with any of that, and there are more intangibles in football than any other sport, and guys like Marino also possessed those at an elite level as anyone else. Unfortunate for him, he gets unfairly downgraded(by some) due to having a lesser cast than other inferior QB's who won more(due to a greater cast and other variables). Does make for good debates(I'm still on R&R from my long debates with Baseball about them, lol). >>
Agreed. It's a unique position in sports and justified or not, it just is what it is.
You want to post funny pictures? How about this gem of a guy who set the record for consecutive pick 6s. Talk about a knack for blowing games!
And lets look at Romo's recievers. He has Dez Bryant who could turn out to be another Irvin. He has Whitten who is one of the best if not best TE's in football. He has Miles Austin who is close to Irvin when not injured. And the new kid Williams is also looking pretty good.
I would say Romo has a pretty good recieving core!
<< <i>Three strawmen in one post that has nothing to do with the OP. That's gotta be a record and a perfect example of why he's not worth engaging.
Three strawmen? Are you that delusional that you can't see any posts other than your own? It's clear to anyone with a functioning brain that I was referring to:
<< <i>Romo has better recievers than Troy had before Dallas became great. Aikman came in first on the rebuild. Dallas had adismal team when Troy came in. He was a great QB with no support. When the recievers and Smith and the defense and the o-line all got in place the yes Troy had the support and won 3 SB's. That Cowboy team was the best team ever and no one will ever be that great again because or parity. You could drop Troy in this team Romo has and he would do better. He is just overall better. You just can't compare the two periods of time. >>
Good gravy you are a dense one, and don't be upset that I posted a picture of what a true choke artist looks like, a QB who really can't close out games (unlike Romo who CAN).
And you see, that's what truly elite quarterbacks do. They aren't just good in weeks 1-16. They're good then, quite obviously, but then they ratchet it up a few notches in week 17 (if necessary) and beyond. For the final time, Tony Romo does not do that. And don't you dare start talking about his supporting cast again, because I'll be more than happy to reiterate the defenses afforded to Peyton ('06) and Brees ('09). Does lower half ring a bell? Yet astoundingly, they won rings. I don't know, perhaps it was because they personally upped their play? Well, what does Romo do when faced with the same type of adversity? Does he find a way when the end of the season looms? Does he ratchet it up a few notches? And what did he do when he had the #2 ranked scoring D at his disposal back in '09? Funny how the Vikings could punk the Cowboys in the playoffs that year, yet Drew Brees and his 20th ranked scoring D found a way to beat the same exact team -- and ultimately go on to win the Super Bowl. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the QBs at the helm, right?
Perhaps if you didn't spend an inordinate amount of time with the stown/galaxy27 conundrum, this would slide into your cranium a little quicker.
<< <i>1985fan, I wish you'd come to Texas and talk that 58-41 noise to some Cowboys fans. It wouldn't take long before you'd run into someone who would lose his/her cool with you. >>
So what would that prove? That fans of the Cowboys are just as irrational and lack objectivity like every other team? Thanks for proving my point.
<< <i> In case you haven't noticed, we're discussing a storied franchise that has won five championships, including three in the early/mid 90's. >>
Again, this has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
<< <i> When you've enjoyed that type of success, nothing in this universe is going to mitigate one playoff victory over the past 16 years. Absolutely, positively nothing. >>
You're not only barking up the wrong tree in blaming Romo for this lack of success, you're in the wrong forest.
<< <i>Moral victories simply do not apply here, and I can guarantee you that no Cowboys fan I know gives two you-know-whats about the random stats you're conjuring up in an attempt to strengthen your case about Tony Romo. >>
But these aren't 'random stats', these are definitive, career-defining stats that prove to anyone caring to listen that Romo is not a choker when the game is on the line. Period. Stats don't lie.
<< <i> It's about one thing and one thing only. Figure it out. If anything, what you continue to bring up is even more damning when you consider that he's never parlayed all of that "success" into (at the very least) a deep run in the playoffs. >>
I am quite content in my knowledge that the Cowboys' lack of playoff success is not Romo's fault, but instead the fault of a team that has had no running game, an abysmal defense, and various other deficiencies in the past years. What's been consistent has been Romo's stellar play. Just because you are easily brainwashed by a media out to get him doesn't mean it's the truth.
<< <i>And you see, that's what truly elite quarterbacks do. They aren't just good in weeks 1-16. They're good then, quite obviously, but then they ratchet it up a few notches in
week 17 (if necessary) and beyond. >>
As skin made mention earlier, if elite players can 'ratchet it up' on command, why don't they play at this level all the time? Because it's not a switch that can be turned on and off.
<< <i>
Perhaps if you didn't spend an inordinate amount of time with the stown/galaxy27 conundrum, this would slide into your cranium a little quicker. >>
What needs to slide into YOUR tiny little brain is the fact that Romo is NOT the problem in Dallas, and, again, anyone who is truly open to some knowledge can easily see it. Until then, stown, keep down. Until the texans can stop throwing pick 6s (five games in a row!), you're the LAST person who should be criticizing QBs.
He ain't worth the time, mini-me. Or am I mini-you? Maybe we're just a collective mini-us. Perhaps we're all mini-Spartacuses!
<< <i>1985fan, I wish you'd come to Texas and talk that 58-41 noise to some Cowboys fans. >>
The best part of this entire post was the first sentence. You're so stuck in your own mind, that you can't even see straight. When did I ever bring up that record? That was skin, in case you forgot, I'll point it out again for you:
<< <i>Also, Romo has a QB record of 58-41. Isn't that winning? You can't just discount that because it doesn't fit your perspective. >>
So why don't you try rephrasing it, but this time address skin?
Finally, this. Talk about uncanny. It's as if Mike Freeman has been reading our one-sided discussion from the inception. There's even a Schaub comparison and a Marino reference to boot! But before you experience a tumescence below the belt when it talks about Dallas' defense and blame pie, do your very best to comprehend the big picture. I actually have faith that you're not as obtuse as you appear to be. I just think you're a dope who tries to be a contrarian every chance you get.
Link-o-rama
I went and looked at that list again....did you notice the names above him "AND" the ones below him??? First every one on the list has at least 1 SB win or more except Romo and Marino. Now Morino in the # 1 guy with 51. And the three below him listed in the 60's with less than Romo all have e few rings each. So to me this stat doesn't really mean squat.
Then there is the winning record of 58-41. 17 over .500 over a 7 year span. WOW! All I can say is WOW!! If it wasn't for the 12-4 year he wouldn't even have that. He had a pretty good team that year and still couldn't get it done.
All this dribble aside.....the main point I have been trying to make in the whole thread(s), which you can't seem to grasp is.....at the end of games Romo finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Manning's the Young's and so on.......
Most people here understand this but you!
I'm sure at the end of his career he will be listed in all the QB stats list with very impressive numbers......BUT....you know what....now pay attention........stats DON'T win SB's or make you an elite QB.
This is my last reply to you 1985fan.......you are not worth arguing with....it's really actually become painful...realizing someone can be so stupid.
So goodbye and have fun with Romo! He's a real keeper.
<< <i>1985fan - you are something....I don't know what....but something. Several others have chimed in and tried to explain what Romo's problem is and all you can do is keep bring up the crap about his come from behind wins and his winning record. >>
Yes, it's called directly refuting the argument that the guy doesn't know how to win games. I'm sure these things called 'facts' and 'reasoning' are difficult for you to process, but it's how normal people debunk myths.
<< <i>I went and looked at that list again....did you notice the names above him "AND" the ones below him??? First every one on the list has at least 1 SB win or more except Romo and Marino. Now Morino in the # 1 guy with 51. And the three below him listed in the 60's with less than Romo all have e few rings each. So to me this stat doesn't really mean squat. >>
It's obvious nothing means anything to you, honestly. You are so hell bent on crushing YOUR OWN TEAM'S QUARTERBACK that you can't even see properly!
<< <i>Then there is the winning record of 58-41. 17 over .500 over a 7 year span. WOW! All I can say is WOW!! If it wasn't for the 12-4 year he wouldn't even have that. He had a pretty good team that year and still couldn't get it done. >>
So you want to take away his best year...to prove a point? Your idea of logic is mind-numbingly stupid.
<< <i>All this dribble aside.....the main point I have been trying to make in the whole thread(s), which you can't seem to grasp is.....at the end of games Romo finds ways to lose games instead of win games like the Manning's the Young's and so on....... >>
Really? Your premise that he finds ways to lose games and not win them is DIRECTLY REFUTED by the 19 game winning drives he's engineered in the fourth quarter, the VERY STAT you want to throw away as useless! You are beyond a fool, dimeman, you are completely and totally lacking in the reasoning department!
<< <i>Most people here understand this but you! >>
The fact that you want to focus on ME when there have been plenty of folks who have defended Romo and his record is obvious.
<< <i>I'm sure at the end of his career he will be listed in all the QB stats list with very impressive numbers......BUT....you know what....now pay attention........stats DON'T win SB's or make you an elite QB. >>
Really? So Marino isn't an elite QB?
<< <i>This is my last reply to you 1985fan.......you are not worth arguing with....it's really actually become painful...realizing someone can be so stupid. >>
But here you are, continuing to post, and what's painful is how willfully IGNORANT you are and you are spending all this time, again, TRASHING YOUR OWN QB!
<< <i>So goodbye and have fun with Romo! He's a real keeper.
I wish he was on my team, just so you'd have to go back to the dregs of the league you had BEFORE Romo, just so I could hear you BEG and PLEAD to get him back!