Farmer...(Warning: Romo Thread)

[Bullaholic]

Odds of Orton taking Romo's job, and how long will it take for him to do it? Or not....

[Bullaholic]

Maybe I should have "Romo-rolled" everybody and left the warning off. :D

Farmer/TXB debates are one of the few games left in town....still, they do engage in some interesting dialog from time-to-time with a few contributing thread visitors every now and then. Sometimes I feel like the Allstate "Mayhem" guy....:D

[pirate4state]

Odds of Orton taking Romo's job, and how long will it take for him to do it? Or not.... thinking of either of these options makes me a little sick to my stomach...thanks!

[44INAROW]

Maybe I should have "Romo-rolled" everybody and left the warning off. :D

Farmer/TXB debates are one of the few games left in town....still, they do engage in some interesting dialog from time-to-time with a few contributing thread visitors every now and then. Sometimes I feel like the Allstate "Mayhem" guy....:D

:cheerl:

[Bullaholic]

thinking of either of these options makes me a little sick to my stomach...thanks!

lol...

[Farmersfan]

Odds of Orton taking Romo's job, and how long will it take for him to do it? Or not....



I don't think Orton can take Romo's job. but I also don't think the offense will take a big downturn if Romo gets hurt and goes out. Orton is a big improvement over Jon Kitna and the offense didn't lose any steam when he took over for Romo. I guess the BIG question will be how much crow will be eaten on here when Orton shows Romo wasn't the wheel that makes this offense roll? My guess is ZERO!!!! The crow eaters are very skilled at back tracking and double talking. (how's that for helping to get you the desired response?) :wave:

[Bullaholic]

I don't think Orton can take Romo's job. but I also don't think the offense will take a big downturn if Romo gets hurt and goes out. Orton is a big improvement over Jon Kitna and the offense didn't lose any steam when he took over for Romo. I guess the BIG question will be how much crow will be eaten on here when Orton shows Romo wasn't the wheel that makes this offense roll? My guess is ZERO!!!! The crow eaters are very skilled at back tracking and double talking. (how's that for helping to get you the desired response?) :wave:

OK--let me get this paraphrase right---You say the only way Orton replaces Romo is if Romo gets hurt, and if Orton does, he will run the Cowboy offense as well, or better, than Romo?

[GrTigers6]

OK--let me get this paraphrase right---You say the only way Orton replaces Romo is if Romo gets hurt, and if Orton does, he will run the Cowboy offense as well, or better, than Romo?Well first he said that he didnt think he would take his job, Then he went on to say how he would be the same or better.:wave::D

[Farmersfan]

OK--let me get this paraphrase right---You say the only way Orton replaces Romo is if Romo gets hurt, and if Orton does, he will run the Cowboy offense as well, or better, than Romo?



So are you related to Grtigers6 by blood or by marriage? :)

[Farmersfan]

Well first he said that he didnt think he would take his job, Then he went on to say how he would be the same or better.:wave::D



I'm pretty sure you are hallucinating! Please have one of your children read my post to you.

[Bullaholic]

So are you related to Grtigers6 by blood or by marriage? :)

Did I get the gist of your post wrong? I was making an honest attempt to condense it into central thoughts, and GrT sort of echoed my post.

[Farmersfan]

Did I get the gist of your post wrong? I was making an honest attempt to condense it into central thoughts, and GrT sort of echoed my post.


Are you serious? My post stated that the offense would not take a big downturn if Romo goes out and Orton goes in. So how is that interpreted into claiming Orton would play as good or better than Romo? My point was that Romo isn't the main reason this offense rolls. Jon Kitna pretty much proved that. I think the offense will continue to roll (or suck) with Orton just like it was doing with Romo. Orton might not put up Romo numbers but the overall productivity shouldn't change much. Do I think Orton is better than Romo? I would not think so but only time will tell what he can do with the same team that Romo plays with. Will he have more talent to work with than he did in Denver, KC or Chicago? Without question. So we shall see..................

The reason I said Orton could not ever take Romo's job is not because of Romo's greatness but because Jerry Jones would never allow it. If he did it would be a deadblow to his credibility. Romo has been his guy and he has repeatedly overhyped Romo. To do a 180 now would make himself look like the moron he is.

[Bullaholic]

Are you serious? My post stated that the offense would not take a big downturn if Romo goes out and Orton goes in. So how is that interpreted into claiming Orton would play as good or better than Romo? My point was that Romo isn't the main reason this offense rolls. Jon Kitna pretty much proved that. I think the offense will continue to roll (or suck) with Orton just like it was doing with Romo. Orton might not put up Romo numbers but the overall productivity shouldn't change much. Do I think Orton is better than Romo? I would not think so but only time will tell what he can do with the same team that Romo plays with. Will he have more talent to work with than he did in Denver, KC or Chicago? Without question. So we shall see..................

The reason I said Orton could not ever take Romo's job is not because of Romo's greatness but because Jerry Jones would never allow it. If he did it would be a deadblow to his credibility. Romo has been his guy and he has repeatedly overhyped Romo. To do a 180 now would make himself look like the moron he is.

Guess my Farmer-ese ain't so good---but then again who speaks that but you...so I guess I won't try to devine your mind even though that's not what your syntax seems to say...:D We need an experienced interpreter---TXB where are you?????

[Eagle 1]

So are you related to Grtigers6 by blood or by marriage? :)

LOL....

Ok here's something to ponder. With the new cornebacks which should greatly help the defense, will this improve Romo's game? Some of you guys were blaiming the defense for Romo and offense set backs last year.



Do I think Orton is better than Romo? I would not think so but only time will tell what he can do with the same team that Romo plays with. Will he have more talent to work with than he did in Denver, KC or Chicago? Without question. So we shall see..................




I agree.

[GrTigers6]

I'm pretty sure you are hallucinating! Please have one of your children read my post to you.Ahh Come on now FF. I was just poking a little fun at ya. I was bored.:D

[GrTigers6]

now for my serious opinion, Orton is not better than Romo. However he has showed signs of brilance at times just not too many. He is definetly a better backup than Kitna, mostly due to age and mobility. But I do agree with FF in the fact that the offense will not suffer as much with Orton, if we have a good running game.
They both have had bonehead plays, But Romo seems to be moving forward or at the very least staying consistent while Orton has backtracked a little.

[Txbroadcaster]

Orton is a bit more mobile and younger...but also has less of a arm than Kitna..I like the move, but hope he does not have to play more than a game or two

[yellaseeker]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666178]The reason I said Orton could not ever take Romo's job is not because of Romo's greatness but because Jerry Jones would never allow it. If he did it would be a deadblow to his credibility. Romo has been his guy and he has repeatedly overhyped Romo. To do a 180 now would make himself look like the moron he is.

I agree with that statement 100%. Jones reminds me of that kid on a commercial years ago that kept trying to drive a square peg through a round hole. Hell, the only thing Jones isn't lacking is determination. Unfortunately though, he doesn't know how to deal with it so, he keeps hammering away. lol "It will fit, i swear it will go, gotta just keep hammering". Lmao.............. You said it right, what a moron!

[Farmersfan]

now for my serious opinion, Orton is not better than Romo. However he has showed signs of brilance at times just not too many. He is definetly a better backup than Kitna, mostly due to age and mobility. But I do agree with FF in the fact that the offense will not suffer as much with Orton, if we have a good running game.
They both have had bonehead plays, But Romo seems to be moving forward or at the very least staying consistent while Orton has backtracked a little.


I heard a rumor this weekend that Jerry Jones was trying to trade Romo but couldn't get anything in return. One team offered a 5th rounder and a bag of salt water taffy but that is the best offer on the table at this time. More to come! Looks like Jerry might have to sweeten the pot. :)

[Farmersfan]

Orton is a bit more mobile and younger...but also has less of a arm than Kitna..I like the move, but hope he does not have to play more than a game or two



I agree TXB! If Orton has to play more than a game or two this Romo debate might just blow up in your face. If a cast off like Orton has as much success with this team as Romo has will you then concede that maybe Romo was a big stumbling block to begin with? Oh wait! Kitna did and you didn't concede anything..................... never mind. :stirpot:

[buff4ever]

I agree TXB! If Orton has to play more than a game or two this Romo debate might just blow up in your face. If a cast off like Orton has as much success with this team as Romo has will you then concede that maybe Romo was a big stumbling block to begin with? Oh wait! Kitna did and you didn't concede anything..................... never mind. :stirpot:

:clap:

[Eagle 1]

I agree TXB! If Orton has to play more than a game or two this Romo debate might just blow up in your face. If a cast off like Orton has as much success with this team as Romo has will you then concede that maybe Romo was a big stumbling block to begin with? Oh wait! Kitna did and you didn't concede anything..................... never mind. :stirpot:

:1popcorn:

[Txbroadcaster]

I agree TXB! If Orton has to play more than a game or two this Romo debate might just blow up in your face. If a cast off like Orton has as much success with this team as Romo has will you then concede that maybe Romo was a big stumbling block to begin with? Oh wait! Kitna did and you didn't concede anything..................... never mind. :stirpot:

I said Kitna played well for a back up.simple as that..he was not better than Romo or as good as Romo, but played very well for a 2nd string QB

[Farmersfan]

I said Kitna played well for a back up.simple as that..he was not better than Romo or as good as Romo, but played very well for a 2nd string QB


And if Orton comes in and leads the team to a better record than Romo did would you also say he played very well for a back-up???? I'm kidding of course but the fact still remains that regardless of what other influences were involved Jon Kitna was able to get more out of the players around him than Romo did. I've said 1000 times that a lesser QB with more leadership ability could win more with this team than Romo does. Romo is the ultimate underachiever!

[Txbroadcaster]

And if Orton comes in and leads the team to a better record than Romo did would you also say he played very well for a back-up???? I'm kidding of course but the fact still remains that regardless of what other influences were involved Jon Kitna was able to get more out of the players around him than Romo did. I've said 1000 times that a lesser QB with more leadership ability could win more with this team than Romo does. Romo is the ultimate underachiever!

I love the whole..regardless of other influences when those were HUGE friggin influences.

[Txbroadcaster]

I heard a rumor this weekend that Jerry Jones was trying to trade Romo but couldn't get anything in return. One team offered a 5th rounder and a bag of salt water taffy but that is the best offer on the table at this time. More to come! Looks like Jerry might have to sweeten the pot. :)

Wow..just a plain stupid post

[Farmersfan]

I love the whole..regardless of other influences when those were HUGE friggin influences.



Funny how you address the past with excuses and fail to answer the original question.

[Farmersfan]

Wow..just a plain stupid post


I know it is TXB. Everybody knows that another team would NEVER offer a full bag of Salt Water Taffy in a trade for Romo. It was a stupid comment........................:crazy:

[Farmersfan]

I'm sensing a little bit of a pissy attitude from you this morning TXB. Did you have a bad night? Anything I can do to help?

[Txbroadcaster]

Funny how you address the past with excuses and fail to answer the original question.

dude I dont even see the question inside your diatribe..so please what is the question

[Tejastrue]

And if Orton comes in and leads the team to a better record than Romo did would you also say he played very well for a back-up???? I'm kidding of course but the fact still remains that regardless of what other influences were involved Jon Kitna was able to get more out of the players around him than Romo did. I've said 1000 times that a lesser QB with more leadership ability could win more with this team than Romo does. Romo is the ultimate underachiever!


We need to bring in a QB that will actually push Romo for the starting position. He's grown complacent. Heck, let's get Tebow in here. At least we'd know that God is watching his favorite team again.:)

[Txbroadcaster]

We need to bring in a QB that will actually push Romo for the starting position. He's grown complacent. Heck, let's get Tebow in here. At least we'd know that God is watching his favorite team again.:)


He has had his best two full seasons..not sure how that is complacent

[Farmersfan]

He has had his best two full seasons..not sure how that is complacent



And he is 19-19 in the past 3 seasons as a starter! With the exception of the single 13-3 season Tony Romo appears to be 4 games over .500 in 5 seasons in Dallas. Unless my math is off this is NOT a good winning percentage for a NFL QB..........

[Txbroadcaster]

And he is 19-19 in the past 3 seasons as a starter! With the exception of the single 13-3 season Tony Romo appears to be 4 games over .500 in 5 seasons in Dallas. Unless my math is off this is NOT a good winning percentage for a NFL QB..........

yes because the QB is the only reason right?

[Tejastrue]

He has had his best two full seasons..not sure how that is complacent

And yet the results are the same. It's not surprising his numbers are better. We are seeing how QBs are having better stats each year, Drew Brees' crazy numbers for example, because of so many rule changes. Romo is just not the General he needs to be for the Cowboys offense to be better than average. I know the O line has been suspect recently but not for Romo's entire stay with Dallas. Sometimes, for whatever reason, good players need a change of scenery. It's time for Romo and Jerry to move on.

[buff4ever]

He has had his best two full seasons..not sure how that is complacent

Because he is happy with his stats, that is good enough, he can't push everyone to play in a way to help him win, so he has become okay with good stats and whatever happens. Why do you insist on trying to excuse the obvious.

[Txbroadcaster]

Because he is happy with his stats, that is good enough, he can't push everyone to play in a way to help him win, so he has become okay with good stats and whatever happens. Why do you insist on trying to excuse the obvious.

so now the QB is the one who inspires the D? I mean come on..REALLY?

[Farmersfan]

yes because the QB is the only reason right?



About as much as a car race is won or lost by the driver! Or a jockey wins a horse race! Every single other position on the team has been turned over in the past 6 seasons except one. Can you guess which one that is? Yet the results don't improve and in most cases are actually getting worse. I have no doubt the other talented players on the team will (or already have) take on Romo's uninspired and care free attitude towards the game. Competitive fire is very, very contagious on a football team but so is a lack of inspiration.....

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666676]About as much as a car race is won or lost by the driver! Or a jockey wins a horse race! QUOTE]

So you bring up TWO sports that are about ONE person to make your case about a sport that has 22 starters and at least another 15 that play?

[GrTigers6]

About as much as a car race is won or lost by the driver! Or a jockey wins a horse race! Every single other position on the team has been turned over in the past 6 seasons except one. Can you guess which one that is? Yet the results don't improve and in most cases are actually getting worse. I have no doubt the other talented players on the team will (or already have) take on Romo's uninspired and care free attitude towards the game. Competitive fire is very, very contagious on a football team but so is a lack of inspiration.....With those two examples you really made it show that there are other factors than the driver/ jockey. Lets say the car breaksdown, or is taken out of the race by another driver running into it. Not to mention several other factors that show that the driver isnt as important as you might think in winning. As far as the jockey, he needs a good horse, a good trainer and not be taken out by other horses falling. So thanks for that analogy.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666676]About as much as a car race is won or lost by the driver! Or a jockey wins a horse race! QUOTE]

So you bring up TWO sports that are about ONE person to make your case about a sport that has 22 starters and at least another 15 that play?


So are you saying you believe a Jockey runs a horse race by himself? Or a race car driver runs around the track by himself? You missed the entire point TXB. The horse does all the work. But without a decent jockey that work is just a flat out run that ends early and will rarely ever win a race. Tony Romo is a NFL QB which means he is the "jockey" of that team. The team will do all the work but Romo has to put them on the right track and has to keep them there. he does this with leadership, expectations and on field performances. Romo is great at one of these some of the time but NEVER even good at all 3............................. Of course that's my opinion. (backed up with 6 years of Romoality)

[Farmersfan]

With those two examples you really made it show that there are other factors than the driver/ jockey. Lets say the car breaksdown, or is taken out of the race by another driver running into it. Not to mention several other factors that show that the driver isnt as important as you might think in winning. As far as the jockey, he needs a good horse, a good trainer and not be taken out by other horses falling. So thanks for that analogy.



Of course there are other factors! But those other factors don't only apply to Tony Romo. Romo isn't the only QB that has to play with weaknesses at other areas of his team. Every single QB in the NFL go through exactly the same things. The good ones manage to overcome it while the average to bad ones simply flourish in mediocrity.

[buff4ever]

With those two examples you really made it show that there are other factors than the driver/ jockey. Lets say the car breaksdown, or is taken out of the race by another driver running into it. Not to mention several other factors that show that the driver isnt as important as you might think in winning. As far as the jockey, he needs a good horse, a good trainer and not be taken out by other horses falling. So thanks for that analogy.

You guys will argue with anybody just to argue. You don't care how ignorant you may seem from one point to the next you will just argue to argue. What FF might have been implying with his examples was that ROMO the QB is the driver of this car or the jockey of this horse. It is up to him to steer the car and lead the horse. If he doesn't do it in a way that DRIVES the other players to play with a passion to win, then he is ultimately to blame. As was stated earlier, Romo's attitude throughout a entire game or season can be very contagious with his fellow teammates. He is the offensive leader, if they don't think it affects him much to win or lose, then they will fall into the same frame of mind.

Why do you guys ignore this point everytime that it comes up, then you will argue with the craziest arguments any other argument. Quit ignoring the main problem with the cowboys based on Romo's style of leadership.

[GrTigers6]

Of course there are other factors! But those other factors don't only apply to Tony Romo. Romo isn't the only QB that has to play with weaknesses at other areas of his team. Every single QB in the NFL go through exactly the same things. The good ones manage to overcome it while the average to bad ones simply flourish in mediocrity.So what your saying is every other qb does a better job than Romo at working with weaker areas? I wasnt saying you said those were the only factors. But think about the defense as the motor of a racecar. It it fails, It doesnt matter how good your driver is he will not win no matter how good a leader he is. Or how much he complains about it. it doesnt change the fact that it fails.

[GrTigers6]

You guys will argue with anybody just to argue. You don't care how ignorant you may seem from one point to the next you will just argue to argue. What FF might have been implying with his examples was that ROMO the QB is the driver of this car or the jockey of this horse. It is up to him to steer the car and lead the horse. If he doesn't do it in a way that DRIVES the other players to play with a passion to win, then he is ultimately to blame. As was stated earlier, Romo's attitude throughout a entire game or season can be very contagious with his fellow teammates. He is the offensive leader, if they don't think it affects him much to win or lose, then they will fall into the same frame of mind.

Why do you guys ignore this point everytime that it comes up, then you will argue with the craziest arguments any other argument. Quit ignoring the main problem with the cowboys based on Romo's style of leadership.The main problem with the cowboys is key positions in the defense. and a few in the offense. Line, WR etc Not Romo

[Eagle 1]

so now the QB is the one who inspires the D? I mean come on..REALLY?

So I propose my question AGAIN from page one that nobody seemed to answer.


Ok here's something to ponder. With the new cornebacks which should greatly help the defense, will this improve Romo's game? Some of you guys were blaiming the defense for Romo and offense set backs last year.

[GrTigers6]

So I propose my question AGAIN from page one that nobody seemed to answer.


Ok here's something to ponder. With the new cornebacks which should greatly help the defense, will this improve Romo's game? Some of you guys were blaiming the defense for Romo and offense set backs last year.Romo's game is fine. The defense just couldnt stop anyone

[Txbroadcaster]

So I propose my question AGAIN from page one that nobody seemed to answer.


Ok here's something to ponder. With the new cornebacks which should greatly help the defense, will this improve Romo's game? Some of you guys were blaiming the defense for Romo and offense set backs last year.

Again it is not about a better D making Romo play better, it is a better D making the team better

look at 09 and last year...Romo had a better year last year than in 09( not by alot, but better)...Yet 09 Dallas wins division and play-off game.last year 8-8..difference? The D in 09 was better

The 09 Ofense scored 22.3 a game...The 11 offense scored 23 a game

The 09 D gave up 15 a game...the 11 D gave up 22 points a game.

[Eagle 1]

To the two previous post:
Here is just one of many threads where you guys blaimed the offense short comings on the defense.
Go back and read the thread.


http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?116876-Tim-Tebow-Just-Said.../page12



GrTigers6 wrote:

Really? You dont know that answer, Let me give you a big hint
DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clear enough?

:clap:

[Txbroadcaster]

To the two previous post:
Here is just one of many threads where you guys blaimed the offense short comings on the defense.
Go back and read the thread.


http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?116876-Tim-Tebow-Just-Said.../page12





:clap:

Not sure how I am blaming the D for the O..I showed that the difference in 09 when they were division champs and won a play off game and when they were 8-8 is because the defense went from 2nd best in ppg to 17th best, while the offense stayed the same....how is that on Romo?

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666729]Not sure how I am blaming the D for the O..I showed that the difference in 09 when they were division champs and won a play off game and when they were 8-8 is because the defense went from 2nd best in ppg to 17th best, while the offense stayed the same....how is that on Romo?[/QUOT



Even in 09' with the 2nd ranked defense in the league Romo managed a single playoff win! And yet we are still getting constant blame being placed on the weakness of the defense. Even if Jerry spends enough money to field the 2nd rated defense in the NFL AGAIN this next season what is the best we can expect from Romo? Perhaps a single playoff win again? Not good enough in my opinion.

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666729]Not sure how I am blaming the D for the O..I showed that the difference in 09 when they were division champs and won a play off game and when they were 8-8 is because the defense went from 2nd best in ppg to 17th best, while the offense stayed the same....how is that on Romo?[/QUOT



Even in 09' with the 2nd ranked defense in the league Romo managed a single playoff win! And yet we are still getting constant blame being placed on the weakness of the defense. Even if Jerry spends enough money to field the 2nd rated defense in the NFL AGAIN this next season what is the best we can expect from Romo? Perhaps a single playoff win again? Not good enough in my opinion.

If Romo plays as well as he did last year and Dallas has a D that is not giving up 22 points a game, then expect them to be in the play offs.

[Eagle 1]

Not sure how I am blaming the D for the O..I showed that the difference in 09 when they were division champs and won a play off game and when they were 8-8 is because the defense went from 2nd best in ppg to 17th best, while the offense stayed the same....how is that on Romo?

Your words not mine:


sorry FF..but he is right..If Romo gets trashed for 4th Q meltdowns...then the D has to take the same blame as well. It is not like the D just let the Pats go down and kick the FG but the D allowed them to go 80 yards and score a TD...and it do rather easily as well. You cant have it both ways on 4th Q play

http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?115411-Dallas-ve-NE/page3

I predict the Dallas defense will be much better this year, and the offense will still be mediocre at best with romo behind the reins. Mark it down.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666763]

If Romo plays as well as he did last year and Dallas has a D that is not giving up 22 points a game, then expect them to be in the play offs.



7 out of the 12 playoff teams last season averaged giving up 21 points or more in the regular season. The SB champs gave up 25 a game in the regular season! Giving up 22 points a game in the NFL is average for a defense just as scoring 23 points a game is average for an offense in the NFL. You are placing the vast majority of blame on the defense for a 8-8 season when they were average and not blaming the offense for being average. In 09' the offense was average and the defense was exceptional and now you blame the defense for not being exceptional again. This is Romo excuse making at it's finest.......................

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666765]



7 out of the 12 playoff teams last season averaged giving up 21 points or more in the regular season. The SB champs gave up 25 a game in the regular season! Giving up 22 points a game in the NFL is average for a defense just as scoring 23 points a game is average for an offense in the NFL. You are placing the vast majority of blame on the defense for a 8-8 season when they were average and not blaming the offense for being average. In 09' the offense was average and the defense was exceptional and now you blame the defense for not being exceptional again. This is Romo excuse making at it's finest.......................

yet they never gave up more that 21 in the play offs

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666772]

yet they never gave up more that 21 in the play offs



7 teams made the playoffs by allowing as many or more points per game as the Cowboys in 11'. Only 2 teams made the playoffs that scored what Dallas averaged or less per game. (Denver and Pittsburg-and they played each other). The fact is the offense needs to score more points before this team will EVER be consistently in the running. It is said that defense wins championships but it is just as true that it is offense that gets you there.....

[BEAST]

Hey FF and TXB and really anyone else who is involved on the Love/Hate of Romo. Would you list the top 15 Qbs in your opinion.




BEAST

[Farmersfan]

Hey FF and TXB and really anyone else who is involved on the Love/Hate of Romo. Would you list the top 15 Qbs in your opinion.




BEAST


It's a trap!!!!!! :eek:

[BEAST]

It's a trap!!!!!! :eek:

Not really. I read yalls rants on this Romo subject and I am very curious where yall rank him as well as the other Qbs.




BEAST

[Eagle 1]

Rankings or stats really don't some up how good a qb is in the nfl.
Romo has some of the best stats in the nfl, but......
He throws an interception at inopportune times.
He fumbles the ball at inopportune times.
He over throws wide open receivers when the game is on the line.
He is not known as a come from behind qb.
Most importantly, he is not a leader.
I would rank near the bottom of the league just based on all that. I don't car what records he breaks, or accurate he is at times, because none of the matters if you can't get the win.

BTW, beast I believe I have seen you rag on Romo in the past. :wave:

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Eagle 1;1666866]
He is not known as a come from behind qb.
QUOTE]


yet he had 4 come from behind wins this past year( should have been 6)...again think about that..Dallas had 8 wins..4 of them are come from behind wins...he has one of the best 4th Q ratings OF ALL TIME...14 game game winning/come from behind wins in 77 starts...yet you claim he is not known as a come from behind QB

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Eagle 1;1666866]
He is not known as a come from behind qb.
QUOTE]


yet he had 4 come from behind wins this past year( should have been 6)...again think about that..Dallas had 8 wins..4 of them are come from behind wins...he has one of the best 4th Q ratings OF ALL TIME...14 game game winning/come from behind wins in 77 starts...yet you claim he is not known as a come from behind QB


What constitutes a come from behind win in your examples? If the other team scores first then every win is a come from behind win! I'm thinking a come from behind win must be a score on the last possession of the game when they are behind. I don't think Romo has a reputation for doing this. Rightfully or wrongly, most people who think of Tony Romo think he is more likely to throw a pick 6 or fumble the ball on the last possession when the team needs a score to win.
And Eagle 1's comment was that he "isn't known as a come from behind qb". This has nothing to do with what he actually does. It's a comment on how people view him and I agree 100% that most people wouldn't call Romo a come from behind QB. I think "Choker" or "Choke Artist" would be a more realistic example of the general public opinion of this guy............. He was voted the 2nd most overrated player in the NFL for a reason!

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666931]


What constitutes a come from behind win in your examples? If the other team scores first then every win is a come from behind win! I'm thinking a come from behind win must be a score on the last possession of the game when they are behind. I don't think Romo has a reputation for doing this. Rightfully or wrongly, most people who think of Tony Romo think he is more likely to throw a pick 6 or fumble the ball on the last possession when the team needs a score to win.
And Eagle 1's comment was that he "isn't known as a come from behind qb". This has nothing to do with what he actually does. It's a comment on how people view him and I agree 100% that most people wouldn't call Romo a come from behind QB. I think "Choker" or "Choke Artist" would be a more realistic example of the general public opinion of this guy............. He was voted the 2nd most overrated player in the NFL for a reason!


sorry I dont take what people say about a player to decide my views, I look at stats..and btw the come frm behind stat is pro football reference.com and here is how they decide it http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=3392...real good read IMO

[Macarthur]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666931]


What constitutes a come from behind win in your examples? If the other team scores first then every win is a come from behind win! I'm thinking a come from behind win must be a score on the last possession of the game when they are behind. I don't think Romo has a reputation for doing this. Rightfully or wrongly, most people who think of Tony Romo think he is more likely to throw a pick 6 or fumble the ball on the last possession when the team needs a score to win.
And Eagle 1's comment was that he "isn't known as a come from behind qb". This has nothing to do with what he actually does. It's a comment on how people view him and I agree 100% that most people wouldn't call Romo a come from behind QB. I think "Choker" or "Choke Artist" would be a more realistic example of the general public opinion of this guy............. He was voted the 2nd most overrated player in the NFL for a reason!



Farmer, I'm curious how you spin a comment made by Aikman this week. In an interview he stated that Romo is a better QB than he was. What's your take on Troy's comment?

[Eagle 1]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666940]


sorry I dont take what people say about a player to decide my views, I look at stats..and btw the come frm behind stat is pro football reference.com and here is how they decide it http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=3392...real good read IMO

Thanks for the link and confirming what most people think of Romo.
I went to the link and read names like Marino, Elway, Farve, etc. but I didn't see Romo's name.
Like I said, Romo is not known as a come from behind qb.
Most people think a come from behind qb is somebody who you would want to have the ball in the final drive of the game.
Romo is clearly not one of those people.

I would take a modest Aikman over Romo anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666940]


sorry I dont take what people say about a player to decide my views, I look at stats..and btw the come frm behind stat is pro football reference.com and here is how they decide it http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=3392...real good read IMO


You reference a "Guest Post" by a guy named Doug? Seriously? And in truth all it does is re-enforce what I said. The come from behind victories that QBs are credited with can be so arbitrary or subjective as to render them worthless. Which brings me back to the general overall impression of Tony Romo! Despite how much you might want to deny it there is some truth in perception.

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666941]


You reference a "Guest Post" by a guy named Doug? Seriously? And in truth all it does is re-enforce what I said. The come from behind victories that QBs are credited with can be so arbitrary or subjective as to render them worthless. Which brings me back to the general overall impression of Tony Romo! Despite how much you might want to deny it there is some truth in perception.

So tell me which of the Romo come from behind wins or GW drives are not really that

[buff4ever]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666941]


You reference a "Guest Post" by a guy named Doug? Seriously? And in truth all it does is re-enforce what I said. The come from behind victories that QBs are credited with can be so arbitrary or subjective as to render them worthless. Which brings me back to the general overall impression of Tony Romo! Despite how much you might want to deny it there is some truth in perception.

My perception is romo sux.:)

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666940]



Farmer, I'm curious how you spin a comment made by Aikman this week. In an interview he stated that Romo is a better QB than he was. What's your take on Troy's comment?



I have no idea in what concept he was putting this. I'm not even sure he did say it but if he did i'm pretty sure he had a reason. This is a different age of Pro Football. If you doubt this simply notice that 10 of the top 15 BEST OF ALL TIME QBs are still playing today. Would any reasonable person believe this? Is Romo better than Staubach, Montana, Steve Young and 100 others who played before? Based on current QB rating he is. Enough said......

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

[Eagle 1]

The question is:
Can Romo *bling bling* you?

Nope. :)

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Macarthur;1666954]



I have no idea in what concept he was putting this. I'm not even sure he did say it but if he did i'm pretty sure he had a reason. This is a different age of Pro Football. If you doubt this simply notice that 10 of the top 15 BEST OF ALL TIME QBs are still playing today. Would any reasonable person believe this? Is Romo better than Staubach, Montana, Steve Young and 100 others who played before? Based on current QB rating he is. Enough said......

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm


yes he did say it

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666960]

So tell me which of the Romo come from behind wins or GW drives are not really that



That isn't the point TXB. Romo might very well have that many come from behind wins. I don't know. And the truth is I don't care! My point was that Romo has also had enough game losing blunders and failures to come from behind to win to generate a public opinion that labels him a choker! This just goes back to the basis for this entire Romo debate to begin with. You disagree with everything someone says they hate about Romo as if it is false. That couldn't be further from the truth though. People don't simply decide to hate someone without a basis for it. So the more Romo-hate we see in the world the more we can obviously understand there is at least some substance for that hate. And don't bring up the whole "woe is me-I'm a cowboy and everybody hates me" bullsh** because the vast majority of the Romo haters are Cowboy fans. All the non-fans hate the entire team and not just a single player. Romo has earned all the hate and dislike that people have for him. You can rationalize it but you can't deny it. Period!

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666963]



That isn't the point TXB. Romo might very well have that many come from behind wins. I don't know. And the truth is I don't care! My point was that Romo has also had enough game losing blunders and failures to come from behind to win to generate a public opinion that labels him a choker! This just goes back to the basis for this entire Romo debate to begin with. You disagree with everything someone says they hate about Romo as if it is false. That couldn't be further from the truth though. People don't simply decide to hate someone without a basis for it. So the more Romo-hate we see in the world the more we can obviously understand there is at least some substance for that hate. And don't bring up the whole "woe is me-I'm a cowboy and everybody hates me" bullsh** because the vast majority of the Romo haters are Cowboy fans. All the non-fans hate the entire team and not just a single player. Romo has earned all the hate and dislike that people have for him. You can rationalize it but you can't deny it. Period!


so much wrong in this post..I have never used the we are Cowboy fans so people hate us...I have used the Cowboy fanbase because of the incredible luck of having Staubach and Aikman think ever QB who takes a snap for them will win a SB and if they dont, then it is all on them and nothing else.

Romo is the new Don Meridith and Danny White...he could throw for 400 yards and 6 TDs but if Dallas loses the game, a portion of the fanbase will blame him..simple as that and that was shown this year.

The simple fact is this...he had the same season last year as he did in 09...09 won a division a play off game..the 11 team went 8-8...so explain to me how the difference is the QB and the offense who were the same and not the D who gave up 5 more points a game in 11 compared to 09.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666969]


yes he did say it


And only a real moron would think he seriously believes Tony Romo is better than he was. Like I said, he had a reason for saying it. Nobody with any football knowledge would select Tony Romo over Aikman. NOBODY!

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666974]


And only a real moron would think he seriously believes Tony Romo is better than he was. Like I said, he had a reason for saying it. Nobody with any football knowledge would select Tony Romo over Aikman. NOBODY!


yet if Aikman said Romo was not a good QB you would be posting it and saying see see an expert thinks Romo is bad....Aikman has NO reason to say anything less than what he feels

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666976]


so much wrong in this post..I have never used the we are Cowboy fans so people hate us...I have used the Cowboy fanbase because of the incredible luck of having Staubach and Aikman think ever QB who takes a snap for them will win a SB and if they dont, then it is all on them and nothing else.

Romo is the new Don Meridith and Danny White...he could throw for 400 yards and 6 TDs but if Dallas loses the game, a portion of the fanbase will blame him..simple as that and that was shown this year.

The simple fact is this...he had the same season last year as he did in 09...09 won a division a play off game..the 11 team went 8-8...so explain to me how the difference is the QB and the offense who were the same and not the D who gave up 5 more points a game in 11 compared to 09.



1. You constantly use the Cowboy fans are spoiled crap to explain away any logical thinking TXB. The fact is the Cowboys fans these days are probably the LEAST spoiled fans in the NFL. This is exact same kind of logic Christians use to explain away any rational thinking about their beliefs. If something doesn't jive with your thought process simply blame it on "the spoiled Cowboy fans". You are aware that these Cowboy fans have not had a decent QB in Dallas for over 15 years. I think the truth of the matter is that we would be satisfied with a average QB who proves he can win. You seem to forget that with the exception of a single good season Romo has been barely .500 in Dallas. Don't blame this on the fans expecting great things. They simply expect a winner.

2. You answer your own question on the 09' vs 11' comment. The defense was ranked #2 in 09' and they manage a single playoff win. So these facts prove two things. A). The defense was not as good this season as it was in 09'. B). The offense was exactly the same average offense that it was in 09'. yet you seem transfixed on the idea that the defense should have been #2 again. I say even with a 2nd ranked defense the team will underachieve as long we still have the same offensive leadership. The offense needs to improve just as much as the defense does.

[GrTigers6]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666978]



1. You constantly use the Cowboy fans are spoiled crap to explain away any logical thinking TXB. The fact is the Cowboys fans these days are probably the LEAST spoiled fans in the NFL. This is exact same kind of logic Christians use to explain away any rational thinking about their beliefs. If something doesn't jive with your thought process simply blame it on "the spoiled Cowboy fans". You are aware that these Cowboy fans have not had a decent QB in Dallas for over 15 years. I think the truth of the matter is that we would be satisfied with a average QB who proves he can win. You seem to forget that with the exception of a single good season Romo has been barely .500 in Dallas. Don't blame this on the fans expecting great things. They simply expect a winner.

2. You answer your own question on the 09' vs 11' comment. The defense was ranked #2 in 09' and they manage a single playoff win. So these facts prove two things. A). The defense was not as good this season as it was in 09'. B). The offense was exactly the same average offense that it was in 09'. yet you seem transfixed on the idea that the defense should have been #2 again. I say even with a 2nd ranked defense the team will underachieve as long we still have the same offensive leadership. The offense needs to improve just as much as the defense does.I love how you throw out his 13 win season to make your point. If your gonna do that than throw out his bad season as well.
Thats like saying that Tebow was a great qb if you take out those games where he sucked.
On another note the cowboys have a decent qb NOW. hes not great but consistantly good and you cant argue that. The stats prove it. Yes he needs to fix some issues and overcome some bad decision making.And unless your on the field you dont know what he says in the huddle or on the sidelines so you or I have no idea about his leadership abilities.
The offense will be better with a better blocking offensive line where romo can pick and chose who he wants instead of having to get rid of it as soon as he sets up. Also having a defense that keeps the offensive in good field position on a regular basis will help tremendously.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666981]


yet if Aikman said Romo was not a good QB you would be posting it and saying see see an expert thinks Romo is bad....Aikman has NO reason to say anything less than what he feels



If you polled a 1000 ex QBs or coaches in the NFL you would not find a single one who would chose Tony Romo over Troy Aikman. And yet when Troy Aikman makes an ingratiating gesture towards Tony Romo like this you take it as gospel. Seriously I am amazed at your nieveity sometimes. Troy Aikman knows exactly what he is doing. He built a huge post-football career by cultivating a certain image. Modesty is a big part of that image.

[Txbroadcaster]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666983]



If you polled a 1000 ex QBs or coaches in the NFL you would not find a single one who would chose Tony Romo over Troy Aikman. And yet when Troy Aikman makes an ingratiating gesture towards Tony Romo like this you take it as gospel. Seriously I am amazed at your nieveity sometimes. Troy Aikman knows exactly what he is doing. He built a huge post-football career by cultivating a certain image. Modesty is a big part of that image.


Actually I said nothing of the article, nor did I post it..but I love how you try to decide Aikman has an agenda because he said something you dont believe.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666985]I love how you throw out his 13 win season to make your point. If your gonna do that than throw out his bad season as well.
Thats like saying that Tebow was a great qb if you take out those games where he sucked.
On another note the cowboys have a decent qb NOW. hes not great but consistantly good and you cant argue that. The stats prove it. Yes he needs to fix some issues and overcome some bad decision making.And unless your on the field you dont know what he says in the huddle or on the sidelines so you or I have no idea about his leadership abilities.
The offense will be better with a better blocking offensive line where romo can pick and chose who he wants instead of having to get rid of it as soon as he sets up. Also having a defense that keeps the offensive in good field position on a regular basis will help tremendously.

Removing his single great season in a 6 year career simply illustrates what we have gotten from him 5 out of six years. That's all!


The offense will be better with a better blocking offensive line where romo can pick and chose who he wants instead of having to get rid of it as soon as he sets up. Also having a defense that keeps the offensive in good field position on a regular basis will help tremendously.


Romo played with a top rated offense line and had mediocre success. he played with a top rated defense and had mediocre success. He has played with top rated receivers and top rated running backs and had mediocre success. Can you not see the silliness in saying that if "everything else" was better then Romo would be better. Seriously, if you got a good enough offense line then pretty much any QB would have success. At some point a good QB has to make it happen with the TEAM HE HAS!

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666990]


Actually I said nothing of the article, nor did I post it..but I love how you try to decide Aikman has an agenda because he said something you dont believe.



I decided Aikman had an agenda because he said something NOBODY believes! Even you!

[GrTigers6]

[QUOTE=GrTigers6;1666987]

Removing his single great season in a 6 year career simply illustrates what we have gotten from him 5 out of six years. That's all!




Romo played with a top rated offense line and had mediocre success. he played with a top rated defense and had mediocre success. He has played with top rated receivers and top rated running backs and had mediocre success. Can you not see the silliness in saying that if "everything else" was better then Romo would be better. Seriously, if you got a good enough offense line then pretty much any QB would have success. At some point a good QB has to make it happen with the TEAM HE HAS!And how long did it take Elway?, or Brees, or Peyton? They are all great QB's that took a while to win the superbowl or even more than one playoff game at a time. It has as much to do with supporting cast as it does leadership. No matter how good a leader you are you can make someone a better player than they are. You might can inspire them to play their best, but their best is all they have.
Cowboys records in the 3 seasons where Romo played all 16 games are 13-3 11-5 8-8. Their running game was nonexistent in 09 and fell off last year when Murry went down. Oh and by the way this mediocre offense you talk about was top 10 in passing in those years as well.
Oh and what top rated recievers and running backs did he have. Barber, Get real, Jones. They moved him off and he sti;ll sucks. Now felix is yet to be determined as is Murry. And recievers lets see a washed up overated Owens. young Austin and a washed up Galloway and Johnson.
So you were saying?

[Macarthur]

[QUOTE=Txbroadcaster;1666993]



I decided Aikman had an agenda because he said something NOBODY believes! Even you!

Here's the link.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20120321-troy-aikman-cowboys-tony-romo-already-a-better-quarterback-than-i-was.ece

Here's the deal. I know Aikman was better than Romo, and so does everyone. However, outside of the obvious, which is Troy being somewhat humble, I think there are some nuggets of truth in what Troy says.

As for the athleticism and play making ability, Romo is much better than Troy ever was. There's just no way around that. Troy would not say something like this if he didn't believe it to some extent. I think Aikman was one of the top 5 best pure passers of all time. Having said that, there are certain things that Romo brings to the table that Troy never did, as stated earlier. I think you need to really think about what Aikman is doing here. Aikman is a HOFer and deservedly so; but he is going out of his way to make some points about the type of QB Tony Romo is.

Ask yourself this, if Aikman had played with this type of OL, which he really did frankly late in his career, I do not believe he would have won 3 SBs. You can't acknowledge Troy's part in those 3 SBs and not acknowledge the difference in the level of talent around him and what has been around Romo. There is no doubt in my mind that if you had a time machine and made Romo the QB of those mid-90s teams, he would have won at least one or two SBs.

I'm being very serious when I say, I think you need to really think about what Troy is saying here. There's much more there than what's on the surface.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666995]

Here's the link.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20120321-troy-aikman-cowboys-tony-romo-already-a-better-quarterback-than-i-was.ece

Here's the deal. I know Aikman was better than Romo, and so does everyone. However, outside of the obvious, which is Troy being somewhat humble, I think there are some nuggets of truth in what Troy says.

As for the athleticism and play making ability, Romo is much better than Troy ever was. There's just no way around that. Troy would not say something like this if he didn't believe it to some extent. I think Aikman was one of the top 5 best pure passers of all time. Having said that, there are certain things that Romo brings to the table that Troy never did, as stated earlier. I think you need to really think about what Aikman is doing here. Aikman is a HOFer and deservedly so; but he is going out of his way to make some points about the type of QB Tony Romo is.

Ask yourself this, if Aikman had played with this type of OL, which he really did frankly late in his career, I do not believe he would have won 3 SBs. You can't acknowledge Troy's part in those 3 SBs and not acknowledge the difference in the level of talent around him and what has been around Romo. There is no doubt in my mind that if you had a time machine and made Romo the QB of those mid-90s teams, he would have won at least one or two SBs.

I'm being very serious when I say, I think you need to really think about what Troy is saying here. There's much more there than what's on the surface.


Good post Mac! and it makes a lot of sense. But I don't think Romo would succeed anywhere near as much as Aikman did with that 90's team. A huge part of that team's success came from the fact that Aikman stepped up his game significantly in the playoffs and became a very intense competitor. Romo has not shown he can do this. And the quality of the o-line in the 90's can't really be used as an excuse because Aikman also played against much, much tougher defenses. If you look at all the QB measureables such as sacks, sack yardage lost, QB rushing numbers, QB hits, QB knock downs and some others all show that the "Mobile" QB wasn't really any better than the "not mobile" QB in the mobile categories. I have no doubt that Aikman would have better success with this team than Romo has had. Aikman won a Superbowl with a offense and defense that wasn't any higher ranked against it's peers than the one Romo has played with at times. Yet Romo has managed a single playoff win in 6 seasons. Of course not all Romo's fault but certainly a lot of it is. In my humble opinion the fumbled FG snap against Seattle sealed Romo's legacy and nothing less than a Superbowl win will change it. Period!

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE=Farmersfan;1666994]And how long did it take Elway?, or Brees, or Peyton? They are all great QB's that took a while to win the superbowl or even more than one playoff game at a time. It has as much to do with supporting cast as it does leadership. No matter how good a leader you are you can make someone a better player than they are. You might can inspire them to play their best, but their best is all they have.
Cowboys records in the 3 seasons where Romo played all 16 games are 13-3 11-5 8-8. Their running game was nonexistent in 09 and fell off last year when Murry went down. Oh and by the way this mediocre offense you talk about was top 10 in passing in those years as well.
Oh and what top rated recievers and running backs did he have. Barber, Get real, Jones. They moved him off and he sti;ll sucks. Now felix is yet to be determined as is Murry. And recievers lets see a washed up overated Owens. young Austin and a washed up Galloway and Johnson.
So you were saying?



So Tony Romo is the next Elway, Brees or Peyton? I hope you are right but I don't see any resemblance between these players......... (at any point in their careers)

[buff4ever]

[QUOTE=Macarthur;1667024]


Good post Mac! and it makes a lot of sense. But I don't think Romo would succeed anywhere near as much as Aikman did with that 90's team. A huge part of that team's success came from the fact that Aikman stepped up his game significantly in the playoffs and became a very intense competitor. Romo has not shown he can do this. And the quality of the o-line in the 90's can't really be used as an excuse because Aikman also played against much, much tougher defenses. If you look at all the QB measureables such as sacks, sack yardage lost, QB rushing numbers, QB hits, QB knock downs and some others all show that the "Mobile" QB wasn't really any better than the "not mobile" QB in the mobile categories. I have no doubt that Aikman would have better success with this team than Romo has had. Aikman won a Superbowl with a offense and defense that wasn't any higher ranked against it's peers than the one Romo has played with at times. Yet Romo has managed a single playoff win in 6 seasons. Of course not all Romo's fault but certainly a lot of it is. In my humble opinion the fumbled FG snap against Seattle sealed Romo's legacy and nothing less than a Superbowl win will change it. Period!


Couldn't agree more with this last sentence.

[Macarthur]

I agree with most of what you say here due to diff eras. You just can't compare the Aikman era with the Romo era, just like you can't compare Aikman to Staubach with regards to statistics. Rules have changed too much. That's not really what I'm getting at....



Aikman won a Superbowl with a offense and defense that wasn't any higher ranked against it's peers than the one Romo has played with at times. Yet Romo has managed a single playoff win in 6 seasons.

This is where you could not be more wrong

In 1992 the Dallas defense was ranked #5 and in 93 they were #2. Due to the triplets, most people forget just how freaking great those defenses were.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1992/opp.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1993/opp.htm

In all of Romo's career the best defense he's ever had to work with was a 2nd ranked defense in 2009. They won the division and won a playoff game.

Here's the defensive rankings during Romo's tenure:
2006 - 20
2007 - 13
2008 - 20
2009 - 2
2010 - 31
2011 - 16

So by the numbers, Romo has never had the defensive support that Aikman has had. You could also argue that he hasn't had anywhere close to the offensive talent to work with. Aikman had a HOF WR, HOF RB and what is regarded by many as one of the best offensive lines in the history of the league during that period. Romo has never had a stud RB. He did have TO and had success there and he's had a very good TE. And with regards to the OL, I don't think there's any comparison.

AGain, I'm not saying Romo is better than Aikman, but I do think Aikman's comments deserve to be looked at very closely. Troy doesn't talk just to hear himself.

[BEAST]

I agree with most of what you say here due to diff eras. You just can't compare the Aikman era with the Romo era, just like you can't compare Aikman to Staubach with regards to statistics. Rules have changed too much. That's not really what I'm getting at....



This is where you could not be more wrong

In 1992 the Dallas defense was ranked #5 and in 93 they were #2. Due to the triplets, most people forget just how freaking great those defenses were.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1992/opp.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1993/opp.htm

In all of Romo's career the best defense he's ever had to work with was a 2nd ranked defense in 2009. They won the division and won a playoff game.

Here's the defensive rankings during Romo's tenure:
2006 - 20
2007 - 13
2008 - 20
2009 - 2
2010 - 31
2011 - 16

So by the numbers, Romo has never had the defensive support that Aikman has had. You could also argue that he hasn't had anywhere close to the offensive talent to work with. Aikman had a HOF WR, HOF RB and what is regarded by many as one of the best offensive lines in the history of the league during that period. Romo has never had a stud RB. He did have TO and had success there and he's had a very good TE. And with regards to the OL, I don't think there's any comparison.

AGain, I'm not saying Romo is better than Aikman, but I do think Aikman's comments deserve to be looked at very closely. Troy doesn't talk just to hear himself.

Dead on Mac. I couldnt agree more. The Dallas D of the 90's was very salty.




BEAST

[Eagle 1]

So Aikman throws Romo a bone and suddenly Romo is a better qb. :crazy:

I want some that crap yall are smoking. :eek:

[Txbroadcaster]

I agree with most of what you say here due to diff eras. You just can't compare the Aikman era with the Romo era, just like you can't compare Aikman to Staubach with regards to statistics. Rules have changed too much. That's not really what I'm getting at....



This is where you could not be more wrong

In 1992 the Dallas defense was ranked #5 and in 93 they were #2. Due to the triplets, most people forget just how freaking great those defenses were.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1992/opp.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1993/opp.htm

In all of Romo's career the best defense he's ever had to work with was a 2nd ranked defense in 2009. They won the division and won a playoff game.

Here's the defensive rankings during Romo's tenure:
2006 - 20
2007 - 13
2008 - 20
2009 - 2
2010 - 31
2011 - 16

So by the numbers, Romo has never had the defensive support that Aikman has had. You could also argue that he hasn't had anywhere close to the offensive talent to work with. Aikman had a HOF WR, HOF RB and what is regarded by many as one of the best offensive lines in the history of the league during that period. Romo has never had a stud RB. He did have TO and had success there and he's had a very good TE. And with regards to the OL, I don't think there's any comparison.

AGain, I'm not saying Romo is better than Aikman, but I do think Aikman's comments deserve to be looked at very closely. Troy doesn't talk just to hear himself.

Dont forget the 94 season when Dallas had 3rd ranked D and the 95 season when they again had the 3rd best


In fact the 94 year when they got the NFC title game and lost..Aikman had 13 TD to 12 INT

[Farmersfan]

this is all good information guys. But we can't forget that this is a different NFL that Romo plays in. Having a top ranked defense and a top ranked offense is pretty rare these days. Even having both sides of the ball in the top 10 in the NFL is not a common thing. The biggest factor in these Superbowl winner's success is that the team leaders really stepped up at crunchtime and carried the team. We can't expect Romo to play with a top ranked defense every season. It's not a very likely scenerio.


- Offense rank - Defense rank

2001= Pats. #6 #6
2002=Bucs. #18 #1
2003=Pats #12 #1
2004=Pats #4 #2
2005=Steelers #9 #4
2006=colts #2 #23
2007=Giants #14 #17
2008=Steelers #20 #1
2009=Saints #1 #20
2010=Packers #9 #2
2011=Giants #9 #25

[Txbroadcaster]

this is all good information guys. But we can't forget that this is a different NFL that Romo plays in. Having a top ranked defense and a top ranked offense is pretty rare these days. Even having both sides of the ball in the top 10 in the NFL is not a common thing. The biggest factor in these Superbowl winner's success is that the team leaders really stepped up at crunchtime and carried the team. We can't expect Romo to play with a top ranked defense every season. It's not a very likely scenerio.


- Offense rank - Defense rank

2001= Pats. #6 #6
2002=Bucs. #18 #1
2003=Pats #12 #1
2004=Pats #4 #2
2005=Steelers #9 #4
2006=colts #2 #23
2007=Giants #14 #17
2008=Steelers #20 #1
2009=Saints #1 #20
2010=Packers #9 #2
2011=Giants #9 #25


No one has said Romo can carry the whole team..in fact those that "support Romo" have said he is a top 5-10 QB, not one of the best....He has to have help from his D( like every other QB outside of Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers)....the fact is when he has had help from the D the team won a play off game and a division..when he has not had help he has to be THE GUY and has performed well at times, but has been let down by his team more times than not

[buff4ever]

this is all good information guys. But we can't forget that this is a different NFL that Romo plays in. Having a top ranked defense and a top ranked offense is pretty rare these days. Even having both sides of the ball in the top 10 in the NFL is not a common thing. The biggest factor in these Superbowl winner's success is that the team leaders really stepped up at crunchtime and carried the team. We can't expect Romo to play with a top ranked defense every season. It's not a very likely scenerio.


- Offense rank - Defense rank

2001= Pats. #6 #6
2002=Bucs. #18 #1
2003=Pats #12 #1
2004=Pats #4 #2
2005=Steelers #9 #4
2006=colts #2 #23
2007=Giants #14 #17
2008=Steelers #20 #1
2009=Saints #1 #20
2010=Packers #9 #2
2011=Giants #9 #25


FF can't have a job, but I am glad that he has the time he has to look up this crap. Other than the 04 pats, which is one example, FF has pretty well got a good point.

[Macarthur]

this is all good information guys. But we can't forget that this is a different NFL that Romo plays in. Having a top ranked defense and a top ranked offense is pretty rare these days. Even having both sides of the ball in the top 10 in the NFL is not a common thing. The biggest factor in these Superbowl winner's success is that the team leaders really stepped up at crunchtime and carried the team. We can't expect Romo to play with a top ranked defense every season. It's not a very likely scenerio.


- Offense rank - Defense rank

2001= Pats. #6 #6
2002=Bucs. #18 #1
2003=Pats #12 #1
2004=Pats #4 #2
2005=Steelers #9 #4
2006=colts #2 #23
2007=Giants #14 #17
2008=Steelers #20 #1
2009=Saints #1 #20
2010=Packers #9 #2
2011=Giants #9 #25

And I have said that you certainly have to be careful with comparisons due to different eras.

To your own statistics, that tends to support my point. with the exception of a couple of years (Giants, Colts & Saints) all the teams have had at least both the offense and defense in the top half of the league. Two of those three had Manning and Brees. When you go back and look at the info on Dallas I posted, Romo has only ONCE had a good defense and he won the division and a playoff game. The only other year they were in the top half of the league was the year he got hurt.

[Macarthur]

Ultimately, this goes back to the point I've tried to make millions of times. If a team can get to a SB with guys like Dilfer, Grossman, Hasselbeck, Delhomme & K. Collins, you can certainly get to a SB with Tony Romo.

[buff4ever]

No one has said Romo can carry the whole team..in fact those that "support Romo" have said he is a top 5-10 QB, not one of the best....He has to have help from his D( like every other QB outside of Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers)....the fact is when he has had help from the D the team won a play off game and a division..when he has not had help he has to be THE GUY and has performed well at times, but has been let down by his team more times than not

You almost said it, but you couldn't quite say ROMO sucsk, but you implied it pretty well. You guys sit here and say his stats are all world and that makes him great. You say he makes plays and that makes him great. You say he is a good leader b/c some half arse great potential players that are playing like crap say he is a leader to the media. Now above you almost said he isn't that good, you just fought how to say it so that you could make a point that the defense is still the problem. This is what I enjoy about watching you guys defend romo. You will make a case in the moment that doesn't always agree with your other cases in the other moments. You guys are constantly trying to shoot down every single point that FF makes with some statistical proof, and some pure arse common sense logic, and in doing so you make a argument against each one by usually discrediting a previous argument that you have made. You guys don't even realize you do it I don't think. You are just to stuck in the moment and want to try and prove him wrong in the moment of the current statement.

Romo is not an emotional leader....PERIOD. He isn't the ultimate competitor to set the tone for the team b/c he is okay with good stats and excuses for the rest just like you few that defend him. The team leader needs to be a competitor. Hi is not in the top 10 of current qbs in this league because of the whole picture. Don't just rank him by his qb rating. Rank him by his win/loss stat, rank him by how he plays in pressure moments in big games, rank him as a emotional leader, rank him as a competitor/leader. Once you do this and average them out, if you were honest and impartial, I truly think you would find that he doesn't rank out near as well as you would expect.

On a final note, if you decide that you want to say he is a 9 or 10 instead of 11 or 12, do you not think that after this many years Dallas should try and get a 4 or 5 guy in the works, either by trade or by starting fresh. I know that is easier said than done, but even a 7 or 8 guy with leadership as part of the package would go a long ways with the cowboys.

[Txbroadcaster]

You almost said it, but you couldn't quite say ROMO sucsk, but you implied it pretty well. You guys sit here and say his stats are all world and that makes him great. You say he makes plays and that makes him great. You say he is a good leader b/c some half arse great potential players that are playing like crap say he is a leader to the media. Now avove you almost said he isn't that good, you just fought how to say it so that you could make a point that the defense is still the problem. This is what I enjoy about watching you guys defend romo. You will make a case in the moment that doesn't always agree with your other cases in the other moments. You guys are constantly trying to shoot down every single point that FF makes with some statistical proof, and some pure arse common sense logic, and in doing so you make a argument against each one by usually discrediting a previous argument that you have made. You guys don't even realize you do it I don't think. You are just to stuck in the moment and want to try and prove him wrong in the moment of the current statement.

Romo is not an emotional leader....PERIOD. He isn't the ultimate competitor to set the tone for the team b/c he is okay with good stats and excuses for the rest just like you few that defend him. The team leader needs to be a competitor. Hi is not in the top 10 of current qbs in this league because of the whole picture. Don't just rank him by his qb rating. Rank him by his win/loss stat, rank him by how he plays in pressure moments in big games, rank him as a emotional leader, rank him as a competitor/leader. Once you do this and average them out, if you were honest and impartial, I truly think you would find that he doesn't rank out near as well as you would expect.

On a final note, if you decide that you want to say he is a 9 or 10 instead of 11 or 12, do you not think that after this many years Dallas should try and get a 4 or 5 guy in the works, either by trade or by starting fresh. I know that is easier said than done, but even a 7 or 8 guy with leadership as part of the package would go a long ways with the cowboys.


I did not almost say anything except what I have always said..Romo is just below the great QBs( yet his stats say he is one of the greats of this time). I love how you try to put words into people's mouths.

And explain how Rodgers was an emotional leader? What game or moment can you point to and say..he fired up the D

[Macarthur]

You almost said it, but you couldn't quite say ROMO sucsk, but you implied it pretty well. You guys sit here and say his stats are all world and that makes him great. You say he makes plays and that makes him great. You say he is a good leader b/c some half arse great potential players that are playing like crap say he is a leader to the media. Now above you almost said he isn't that good, you just fought how to say it so that you could make a point that the defense is still the problem. This is what I enjoy about watching you guys defend romo. You will make a case in the moment that doesn't always agree with your other cases in the other moments. You guys are constantly trying to shoot down every single point that FF makes with some statistical proof, and some pure arse common sense logic, and in doing so you make a argument against each one by usually discrediting a previous argument that you have made. You guys don't even realize you do it I don't think. You are just to stuck in the moment and want to try and prove him wrong in the moment of the current statement.

Romo is not an emotional leader....PERIOD. He isn't the ultimate competitor to set the tone for the team b/c he is okay with good stats and excuses for the rest just like you few that defend him. The team leader needs to be a competitor. Hi is not in the top 10 of current qbs in this league because of the whole picture. Don't just rank him by his qb rating. Rank him by his win/loss stat, rank him by how he plays in pressure moments in big games, rank him as a emotional leader, rank him as a competitor/leader. Once you do this and average them out, if you were honest and impartial, I truly think you would find that he doesn't rank out near as well as you would expect.

On a final note, if you decide that you want to say he is a 9 or 10 instead of 11 or 12, do you not think that after this many years Dallas should try and get a 4 or 5 guy in the works, either by trade or by starting fresh. I know that is easier said than done, but even a 7 or 8 guy with leadership as part of the package would go a long ways with the cowboys.

Have you been drinking?

[Txbroadcaster]

You almost said it, but you couldn't quite say ROMO sucsk, but you implied it pretty well. You guys sit here and say his stats are all world and that makes him great. You say he makes plays and that makes him great. You say he is a good leader b/c some half arse great potential players that are playing like crap say he is a leader to the media. Now above you almost said he isn't that good, you just fought how to say it so that you could make a point that the defense is still the problem. This is what I enjoy about watching you guys defend romo. You will make a case in the moment that doesn't always agree with your other cases in the other moments. You guys are constantly trying to shoot down every single point that FF makes with some statistical proof, and some pure arse common sense logic, and in doing so you make a argument against each one by usually discrediting a previous argument that you have made. You guys don't even realize you do it I don't think. You are just to stuck in the moment and want to try and prove him wrong in the moment of the current statement.

Romo is not an emotional leader....PERIOD. He isn't the ultimate competitor to set the tone for the team b/c he is okay with good stats and excuses for the rest just like you few that defend him. The team leader needs to be a competitor. Hi is not in the top 10 of current qbs in this league because of the whole picture. Don't just rank him by his qb rating. Rank him by his win/loss stat, rank him by how he plays in pressure moments in big games, rank him as a emotional leader, rank him as a competitor/leader. Once you do this and average them out, if you were honest and impartial, I truly think you would find that he doesn't rank out near as well as you would expect.

On a final note, if you decide that you want to say he is a 9 or 10 instead of 11 or 12, do you not think that after this many years Dallas should try and get a 4 or 5 guy in the works, either by trade or by starting fresh. I know that is easier said than done, but even a 7 or 8 guy with leadership as part of the package would go a long ways with the cowboys.

You say you want me to rank him by pressure moments..ok

one of the top 4 QB ratings in the 4th Q...4 comeback wins last year alone on a team that won 8 games..so explain where that does not matter

[regaleagle]

Whatever happened to fulfilling the Cowboys glaring immediate needs this upcoming season? Would you place a premium on qb over defensive secondary and 0-line improvements? And the entire reworking of the offense ahead of that just to replace a solid qb like Tony Romo???

[Farmersfan]

Ultimately, this goes back to the point I've tried to make millions of times. If a team can get to a SB with guys like Dilfer, Grossman, Hasselbeck, Delhomme & K. Collins, you can certainly get to a SB with Tony Romo.



so what you are saying is instead of Dallas getting to a Superbowl with great QB play and great QB leadership we should concentrate on putting together a defense that will take the team to a superbowl? Or enough other offensive talent other than the field general to get them there? If that's the case then why do we need Romo? Why don't we dump Romo for Grossman and put the extra saved money into better defensive players? Seriously! Romo is paid like a top QB in the NFL but you are thinking we need to get to the Superbowl like those teams did with "caretakers" like Dilfer, Grossman, Hasselbeck and such...........
I say if Romo is our franchise QB then he better get us there. If he can't then it's time for someone else to give it a try. Could we find someone better? I don't know. What I do know is we will never find someone better if we aren't looking.

[Farmersfan]

No one has said Romo can carry the whole team..in fact those that "support Romo" have said he is a top 5-10 QB, not one of the best....He has to have help from his D( like every other QB outside of Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers)....the fact is when he has had help from the D the team won a play off game and a division..when he has not had help he has to be THE GUY and has performed well at times, but has been let down by his team more times than not


So if we spend a ton of money on free agents, hire the right coaches and draft the right people and everything falls into perfect place to allow our defense to be #2 in the NFL we can then expect a single playoff victory from Romo? Wow, I can hardly wait! :crazy:
So basically if the best Tony Romo can do with a #2 ranked defense is a single playoff win then even with the #1 ranked defense we shouldn't expect more than 2 playoff wins? If you expound on this then wouldn't it mean in order to win a Superbowl Romo will need the #1 ranked defense, #1 ranked offense, #1 ranked special teams and the best coach in the NFL? You do know that any QB in the NFL could win a Superbowl with this much talent..............................

[GrTigers6]

So if we spend a ton of money on free agents, hire the right coaches and draft the right people and everything falls into perfect place to allow our defense to be #2 in the NFL we can then expect a single playoff victory from Romo? Wow, I can hardly wait! :crazy:
So basically if the best Tony Romo can do with a #2 ranked defense is a single playoff win then even with the #1 ranked defense we shouldn't expect more than 2 playoff wins? If you expound on this then wouldn't it mean in order to win a Superbowl Romo will need the #1 ranked defense, #1 ranked offense, #1 ranked special teams and the best coach in the NFL? You do know that any QB in the NFL could win a Superbowl with this much talent..............................See this is the whole problem I have with your dislike of Romo. His 2nd ranked Defense in 09 gave up how many points in the Minnesota playoff game?
And yes I know that the offense played bad as well but you cant say it was Romo and that he can only get one win with a good defense. thats just stupid!

[Macarthur]

so what you are saying is instead of Dallas getting to a Superbowl with great QB play and great QB leadership we should concentrate on putting together a defense that will take the team to a superbowl? Or enough other offensive talent other than the field general to get them there? If that's the case then why do we need Romo? Why don't we dump Romo for Grossman and put the extra saved money into better defensive players? Seriously! Romo is paid like a top QB in the NFL but you are thinking we need to get to the Superbowl like those teams did with "caretakers" like Dilfer, Grossman, Hasselbeck and such...........
I say if Romo is our franchise QB then he better get us there. If he can't then it's time for someone else to give it a try. Could we find someone better? I don't know. What I do know is we will never find someone better if we aren't looking.

You're not being rational. You have a huge blindspot with Romo and no amount of reasoning is going to change it.

[zebrablue2]

Bottom line is- Romo will never be in or see a SB unless he has paid his ticket... Do not dislike the guy, its just when its on the line, hes gonna throw it to the other team or in the ground.. Have seen it too many times....

[GrTigers6]

Bottom line is- Romo will never be in or see a SB unless he has paid his ticket... Do not dislike the guy, its just when its on the line, hes gonna throw it to the other team or in the ground.. Have seen it too many times....That has happened 3-4 times out of 77 games, Yeah the odds are really in his favor. WOW!

[Farmersfan]

See this is the whole problem I have with your dislike of Romo. His 2nd ranked Defense in 09 gave up how many points in the Minnesota playoff game?
And yes I know that the offense played bad as well but you cant say it was Romo and that he can only get one win with a good defense. thats just stupid!


Learn how the game is REALLY played Tiger! The defense gave up a lot of points but with the offense going 3 and out every single possession the number of point the defense is going to yeild is going to be much higher. And the failure of the defense in that game was a momentum thing that was caused by the ball rolling downhill on them from the beginning. The very highly rated Vikings offense scored only 17 points through the 1st 3 quarters but eventually the weight of a completely ineffective offense with 4 (FOUR) Tony Romo turnovers became too much for the defense. The Vikings scored 17 in the 4th quarter once the game was decided and the defensive players were in the "Yea, Romo got us again" mode! See, if Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees have proved anything it is that IF the offense can create some momentum and inspiration that even a average defense can step up in the playoffs. All of these guys won a Superbowl with very average defenses that played just well enough for them. Romo has never inspired this defense to step up. In fact I honestly believe it's the exact opposite. The reduced quality of play by some of these players on defense is the result of them being tired of their QB not getting it done..........................Why put out the extra effort when your QB is just going to throw it away in the end?

[Farmersfan]

You're not being rational. You have a huge blindspot with Romo and no amount of reasoning is going to change it.


OK! Let's be rational!

The vast majority of Romo haters are Cowboy fans who want the team to be more successful. So why would so many people with nothing but the best wishes for the team hate a player that according to you is a Superbowl caliber QB and gets it done? Seriously? If it were indeed true that Romo "can get it done" then the existence of so many haters of Tony Romo makes no sense whatsoever. See, I have said it 1000 times that nobody simply DECIDED on a whim to hate Tony Romo. Good, Bad or Ugly it is a fact that Romo earned the opinions that exist about him. I'm not satisfied with what I SEE Tony Romo produce on the football field and in the lockeroom. I see all the other weaknesses and failures by the other players on the team. I see the horrible coaching decisions, terrible draft decisions and the stupid moves by the owner. I see every single thing you see. But I also apparently see something else. Something else that gives me my opinion of Tony Romo. What I see from Romo that makes me hate him is something that you either don't see or chose to ignore. Either way it is only "Rational" to understand that the blindspot is yours!

[Txbroadcaster]

Learn how the game is REALLY played Tiger! The defense gave up a lot of points but with the offense going 3 and out every single possession the number of point the defense is going to yeild is going to be much higher. And the failure of the defense in that game was a momentum thing that was caused by the ball rolling downhill on them from the beginning. The very highly rated Vikings offense scored only 17 points through the 1st 3 quarters but eventually the weight of a completely ineffective offense with 4 (FOUR) Tony Romo turnovers became too much for the defense. The Vikings scored 17 in the 4th quarter once the game was decided and the defensive players were in the "Yea, Romo got us again" mode! See, if Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees have proved anything it is that IF the offense can create some momentum and inspiration that even a average defense can step up in the playoffs. All of these guys won a Superbowl with very average defenses that played just well enough for them. Romo has never inspired this defense to step up. In fact I honestly believe it's the exact opposite. The reduced quality of play by some of these players on defense is the result of them being tired of their QB not getting it done..........................Why put out the extra effort when your QB is just going to throw it away in the end?\

I will be the first to say Romo was not great in that game..of course it did not help that he was sacked 6 times and hit 18 times in 35 drop backs...

Again you bring up Manning, Brady and Brees..those guys are top of the chart QBs..no one is saying Romo is that seeing as your talking about 3 players who might be part of the top 5 QBs of all time


And then once again you go to conjecture..the whole oh I bet the D stopped trying cause of Romo..easy to throw, cannot be proven..there is not ONE verifiable report that any defensive player has ever said her we quit because of Romo

[buff4ever]

Learn how the game is REALLY played Tiger! The defense gave up a lot of points but with the offense going 3 and out every single possession the number of point the defense is going to yeild is going to be much higher. And the failure of the defense in that game was a momentum thing that was caused by the ball rolling downhill on them from the beginning. The very highly rated Vikings offense scored only 17 points through the 1st 3 quarters but eventually the weight of a completely ineffective offense with 4 (FOUR) Tony Romo turnovers became too much for the defense. The Vikings scored 17 in the 4th quarter once the game was decided and the defensive players were in the "Yea, Romo got us again" mode! See, if Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees have proved anything it is that IF the offense can create some momentum and inspiration that even a average defense can step up in the playoffs. All of these guys won a Superbowl with very average defenses that played just well enough for them. Romo has never inspired this defense to step up. In fact I honestly believe it's the exact opposite. The reduced quality of play by some of these players on defense is the result of them being tired of their QB not getting it done..........................Why put out the extra effort when your QB is just going to throw it away in the end?


FF, I know I have chimed back in, but I don't understand why you keep going at it with these guys over this. They will read a perfectly written and justified message like this one of yours and not be able to see the real problem. They just don't get that a player's and quite honestly an entire defense's mind set can be affected by the play of the qb. I am starting to think that they have never played football themselves. Whether you want to think that way or not, I you would never want to admit it, but having a teammate cripple the entire team over and over and over again can be extremely frustrating and then that will affect your play as a whole team and defense.

Now they will say that it wasn't romo's fault that the offense is going 3 and out, it is the coach, it is the line, it is the rb, it is the recievers.........the fact is that romo is the qb of this offense and most teams rely on the qb to lead. I know some teams don't have a leader at qb, it is somewhere else like the rb or the middle lb, but those offenses are not that good, they are just barely good enough to stay in the game if their defense is one of the best in the nfl. As FF has stated already, the cowboys pay romo as if he is our leader and we are counting on him to lead and play at a high level all the time. We aren't getting good leadership out of him and don't always get the high level of play. Because of this the players around him are affected mentally. I know from the outside we think, each of those players gets paid to do his job to the best of his ability, but if you can't understand that the lack of leadership and lack of consistant quality play out of the leader affects the whole team's play and mentally as well, you have more problems than I thought.

[Macarthur]

I'm out.

[buff4ever]

\

I will be the first to say Romo was not great in that game..of course it did not help that he was sacked 6 times and hit 18 times in 35 drop backs...

Again you bring up Manning, Brady and Brees..those guys are top of the chart QBs..no one is saying Romo is that seeing as your talking about 3 players who might be part of the top 5 QBs of all time


And then once again you go to conjecture..the whole oh I bet the D stopped trying cause of Romo..easy to throw, cannot be proven..there is not ONE verifiable report that any defensive player has ever said her we quit because of Romo


ahh, you posted while I was posting my rant. Of course your not going to hear a defensive player admit that. He probably doesn't even admit it to himself. But if he does, he will sure not say it out loud. Then he may be thought of less than his team leader, which I truly think the unspoken is that they don't think much of him. As FF keeps saying, and you guys keep ignoring. Kitna dis better than romo with the same players in the same year. Maybe it was garrett maybe it was kitna, I don't know, but the excitement was there more with kitna, the extra effort was their more with kitna, and quite frankly the defense played with a little more intensity with kitna. I know you guys have your excuses for this, but you have ignored it so much to this point that you must not believe your excuses for this are near legit enough to even bring up.

I played both ways in high school, so it was hard for me to ever admit the offense was stalling and causing frustration, but there were times when the defense would take over and even I would say here we go again...ALREADY. I can't imagine being on the cowboy defense when the offense goes 3 and out almost every 4th qtr every football game, especially when the game is still on the line. That would drive me nuts. I would try like hell to take care of business, but that mental thought of "they went 3 and out AGAIN" wears on you.

[Farmersfan]

\

I will be the first to say Romo was not great in that game..of course it did not help that he was sacked 6 times and hit 18 times in 35 drop backs...



6 sacks and 18 hits are almost impossible for a QB to overcome. But 6 sacks and 18 hits were the result of offensive ineptitude and total effectiveness by Romo. That very same defense attacked Brees the next week with the same reckless abandon and Brees torched them from the Get-Go! That defense was then on it's heels for the rest of the game. Romo can't beat a defense that sacks him 6 times and hits him 18 times but Romo certainly can adjust his play to force that defense to stop bull rushing him. Romo didn't do it. It fact Romo enouraged them by fumbling every time they got close to him.





\And then once again you go to conjecture..the whole oh I bet the D stopped trying cause of Romo..easy to throw, cannot be proven..there is not ONE verifiable report that any defensive player has ever said her we quit because of Romo


I never said they made those statements TXB. I was trying to say that was the defensive mindset that I saw from them on the football field. You have no issues with claiming the team quit on Tony Romo and Wade Philips in 10' yet nobody on the team ever said "We quit on Tony Romo and Wade Philips". So conjecture that is based on a preponderance of the evidence is not always false. I have ZERO doubts that many of the defensive players on this team have quit at times and that defense against the Vikings finally waved the white flag in the 4th quarter. No amount of effort from them was going to get their QB to score points in that game. So I repeat: They stopped playing hard because they realized their offensive leader was not going to get it done!!!!! Is that better?

[BEAST]

FF, you said Brees won his SB with an average D. However, his D was made up of hired hitmen being bribed to hurt players.:wave:




BEAST

[Farmersfan]

FF, I know I have chimed back in, but I don't understand why you keep going at it with these guys over this. They will read a perfectly written and justified message like this one of yours and not be able to see the real problem. They just don't get that a player's and quite honestly an entire defense's mind set can be affected by the play of the qb. I am starting to think that they have never played football themselves. Whether you want to think that way or not, I you would never want to admit it, but having a teammate cripple the entire team over and over and over again can be extremely frustrating and then that will affect your play as a whole team and defense.

Now they will say that it wasn't romo's fault that the offense is going 3 and out, it is the coach, it is the line, it is the rb, it is the recievers.........the fact is that romo is the qb of this offense and most teams rely on the qb to lead. I know some teams don't have a leader at qb, it is somewhere else like the rb or the middle lb, but those offenses are not that good, they are just barely good enough to stay in the game if their defense is one of the best in the nfl. As FF has stated already, the cowboys pay romo as if he is our leader and we are counting on him to lead and play at a high level all the time. We aren't getting good leadership out of him and don't always get the high level of play. Because of this the players around him are affected mentally. I know from the outside we think, each of those players gets paid to do his job to the best of his ability, but if you can't understand that the lack of leadership and lack of consistant quality play out of the leader affects the whole team's play and mentally as well, you have more problems than I thought.


You misunderstand Buff4ever. I enjoy this going back and forth. These brief interchanges with these guys are the only reason I come on this forum. Without this all we (or I anyway) would have to do is read about frickin' Stephenville or Brownwood...........(no offense to those teams). And it's all in good fun. I take none of this serious. At the end of the day if I'm wrong then I still win because my team will win. But if I'm right then I actually lose because the past 6 seasons will just continue to repeat themselves.

[Txbroadcaster]

6 sacks and 18 hits are almost impossible for a QB to overcome. But 6 sacks and 18 hits were the result of offensive ineptitude and total effectiveness by Romo. That very same defense attacked Brees the next week with the same reckless abandon and Brees torched them from the Get-Go! That defense was then on it's heels for the rest of the game. Romo can't beat a defense that sacks him 6 times and hits him 18 times but Romo certainly can adjust his play to force that defense to stop bull rushing him. Romo didn't do it. It fact Romo enouraged them by fumbling every time they got close to him.







I never said they made those statements TXB. I was trying to say that was the defensive mindset that I saw from them on the football field. You have no issues with claiming the team quit on Tony Romo and Wade Philips in 10' yet nobody on the team ever said "We quit on Tony Romo and Wade Philips". So conjecture that is based on a preponderance of the evidence is not always false. I have ZERO doubts that many of the defensive players on this team have quit at times and that defense against the Vikings finally waved the white flag in the 4th quarter. No amount of effort from them was going to get their QB to score points in that game. So I repeat: They stopped playing hard because they realized their offensive leader was not going to get it done!!!!! Is that better?


Brees was sacked 1 time..not 6..and I dont remember him being hit play after play

and if the Dallas D gave up when it was 17-3 then that is on them

[buff4ever]

I'm out.

Ok, mac either didn't play football, or we got him on the ropes finally and he can't dispute the one or two issues with romo that the main 3 supporters always skate around. :):)

[Farmersfan]

Brees was sacked 1 time..not 6..and I dont remember him being hit play after play

and if the Dallas D gave up when it was 17-3 then that is on them


Please go back and re-read my comment. Brees was sacked 1 time and not hit play after play because of what """"BREES"""" did! By the time the Vikes bullrush D-linemen got close to Brees the Saints receivers or RBs were running down the field with the football...................................

[buff4ever]

Please go back and re-read my comment. Brees was sacked 1 time and not hit play after play because of what """"BREES"""" did! By the time the Vikes bullrush D-linemen got close to Brees the Saints receivers or RBs were running down the field with the football...................................

As good as romo may be at making plays by extending the plays at times, he has never been that good at predicting a blitz and getting the ball to the right place due to the blitz. This is just one of the the reasons he is not in the top 10 in the league.

[Txbroadcaster]

As good as romo may be at making plays by extending the plays at times, he has never been that good at predicting a blitz and getting the ball to the right place due to the blitz. This is just one of the the reasons he is not in the top 10 in the league.


Then list your top 10 please

[Farmersfan]

Brees was sacked 1 time..not 6..and I dont remember him being hit play after play

and if the Dallas D gave up when it was 17-3 then that is on them



But to be fair TXB, once the Vikings D-line got the smell of blood it was all over for Romo in that game. The O-line for Dallas appeared to be so overmatched it wasn't even close. But my point has always been that it is up to the QB (and coaches) to call a gameplan that takes that D-line dominance out of play. Romo (or coaches) did nothing to prevent the Vikes domination on the line. On the other hand I think the first quarter of the N.O. vs Vikes game the next week had Brees throwing nothing but 1 step and 2 step quick hitting passes and draw plays that forced the D-line for the vikes to stay in their lanes. The D-line for the Vikes was about half as effective. Not because of talent but because of QB play and gameplan.............................

[Txbroadcaster]

As good as romo may be at making plays by extending the plays at times, he has never been that good at predicting a blitz and getting the ball to the right place due to the blitz. .

in 2010 Romo was 109.1, 5 TDs, INT agianst thr blitz..when the 2011 numbers come out I bet he is near that or better

[Txbroadcaster]

But to be fair TXB, once the Vikings D-line got the smell of blood it was all over for Romo in that game. The O-line for Dallas appeared to be so overmatched it wasn't even close. But my point has always been that it is up to the QB (and coaches) to call a gameplan that takes that D-line dominance out of play. Romo (or coaches) did nothing to prevent the Vikes domination on the line. On the other hand I think the first quarter of the N.O. vs Vikes game the next week had Brees throwing nothing but 1 step and 2 step quick hitting passes and draw plays that forced the D-line for the vikes to stay in their lanes. The D-line for the Vikes was about half as effective. Not because of talent but because of QB play and gameplan.............................


IMO it was the Adams injury that changed the game.

[Farmersfan]

As good as romo may be at making plays by extending the plays at times, he has never been that good at predicting a blitz and getting the ball to the right place due to the blitz. This is just one of the the reasons he is not in the top 10 in the league.


I've always said the weakest part of Romo's game is the mental part of it. This includes reading defenses. Blitizing Romo shuts down this offense. A blitz is supposed to be a great QB's best friend. But that requires that the QB and receiver be on the same page in the blitz read. How often do we see Romo and his receivers not "on the same page"? Even late in the season we see mistakes being blamed on receivers running wrong routes and such. Yet anytime someone mentioned that maybe if our 12 million a year QB spent his offseasons studying tape and working with receivers instead of trying to qualify for the PGA they get roasted. I'm thinking a true leader of the Dallas Cowboys would have Dez Bryant running correct routes after 2 years................ but that's just me. I wonder how many times Dez would run a bad route if Peyton were his QB? I'm predicting not too many.

[Txbroadcaster]

thru October Romo was 2nd best in NFL on blitz plays..i am still trying to find season total

[Farmersfan]

IMO it was the Adams injury that changed the game.



Wouldn't that be exactly the same as saying it was a lack of Dallas (Romo) adjusting to the Adams injury that changed the game?

[Farmersfan]

It's been fun guys. But I have to go do some work. TTL

[Txbroadcaster]

Wouldn't that be exactly the same as saying it was a lack of Dallas (Romo) adjusting to the Adams injury that changed the game?

You cant alter an offense 100% FF..yes you can try to make some changes, but if your offense is built on 5-7 step drops, you cant say ok lets do a whole new game plan with 3 step drops, and that decision would be on the OC...and lets remember.the Vikes were getting pressure without blitzing..it is not like they were sending the house, their 2nd best DE was dominating on simple one on one rushes

[buff4ever]

Then list your top 10 please

Nothing good is to come of this question.....But in sort of order sort of doesn't matter.....below are the qb's that I think would make the cowboys better than they are under romo. Some of them don't have his numbers, but yet have already in someways passed him up in leadership and gamers.

aaron rogers
drew brees
tom brady
eli manning
ben roethlisberger
peyton manning
matt ryan
phillip rivers
mark sanchez
cam newton
matt hasselbeck (has been that could lead better)
alex smith (hard to believe I know, I give head coach a lot of credit here)

[Txbroadcaster]

Nothing good is to come of this question.....But in sort of order sort of doesn't matter.....below are the qb's that I think would make the cowboys better than they are under romo. Some of them don't have his numbers, but yet have already in someways passed him up in leadership and gamers.

aaron rogers
drew brees
tom brady
eli manning
ben roethlisberger
peyton manning
matt ryan
phillip rivers
mark sanchez
cam newton
matt hasselbeck (has been that could lead better)
alex smith (hard to believe I know, I give head coach a lot of credit here)

so you would take..Ryan who is 0-3 in play-offs..or Sanchez who has been the focal point of a locker room collapse...or Cam Newton with one year or Alex Smith who in 7 years has been good once...or hasslebeck who is 5-6 in play offs

again I have to ask..explain why.

[buff4ever]

so you would take..Ryan who is 0-3 in play-offs..or Sanchez who has been the focal point of a locker room collapse...or Cam Newton with one year or Alex Smith who in 7 years has been good once...or hasslebeck who is 5-6 in play offs

again I have to ask..explain why.

I am not saying necessarily that I want to start with them at this point, in each and every case, but I am implying that I think they would make the cowboys better than romo has. Look at your examples and think about what you are saying. Romo has won 1 more playoff game than ryan with more chances and I think better talent. Sanchez is probably causing no worse behind the scene issues as romo with his work ethic and lack of leadership, but sanchez is in NY and they are not covering it up as well. Newton is only one year, and if he continues to get better than this past year, they picked up a good one. Alex Smith has been good once vs romo what good stats that amount to a bunch of almost or should we give him a good once as well (smith may improve again under same coach, may have been what he was lacking). Hasselbeck, 5-6, compared to what romo's playoff success.

Once again. I am not saying that I want the cowboys to employee all of the above just because they would do better than romo, I have higher expectations of the cowboys than just accepting that. However I don't know why, because they have accepted romo for this many years, I should expect anything at this point. The cowboy organization has blamed everyone but romo, including coaches, which is why the team doesn't play to its highest capability, because they feel he is the problem and yet no one will talk about it other than to defend him by calling everyone else out. And he makes the big bucks, this causes bigger internal and playing problems than you apparently could comprehend.

I told you nothing good would come from that question.

[buff4ever]

I refuse to put him on the list because he isn't that good of a qb even though he is a good athlete and leader, but tebow would probalby get more out of the cowboy talent than romo.

That is the problem that we face right now. I don't think that romo gets or demands or even gets close to getting the best out of the athlets around him. His best friend witten is the only player on the field that I would say he connects with mentally during a game. He needs to make sure that everyone on the field has a similar connection with him on every play. That would take spending as much time with them as he probably does witten on game film and scheming. If romo had the mental aspect of the game down, and worked harder on film and connecting with recievers and making sure they understood what to expect in certain cirmcumstances, HE WOULD THEN PROBABLY HAVE THEIR RESPECT A LITTLE MORE AND BE ABLE TO LEAD BETTER THAN HE DOES. I don't THINK that they think much of romo's work ethic and didication to winning.

[Macarthur]

To answer your question, yes, I did play in HS and college.


Nothing good is to come of this question.....But in sort of order sort of doesn't matter.....below are the qb's that I think would make the cowboys better than they are under romo. Some of them don't have his numbers, but yet have already in someways passed him up in leadership and gamers.

aaron rogers
drew brees
tom brady
eli manning
ben roethlisberger
peyton manning

No argument here.


matt ryan

You have lost your freaking mind.


phillip rivers

Debatable, but I won't argue with this.


mark sanchez
cam newton
matt hasselbeck (has been that could lead better)
alex smith (hard to believe I know, I give head coach a lot of credit here)

Now, I'm wondering who on here has never played football.

If you truly believe those guys are better than Romo, you are football clueless.

[buff4ever]

To answer your question, yes, I did play in HS and college.



No argument here.



You have lost your freaking mind.



Debatable, but I won't argue with this.



Now, I'm wondering who on here has never played football.

If you truly believe those guys are better than Romo, you are football clueless.

Other than Mark Sanchez, I think that everyone of them is a better leader. I do think that all of them would get the supporting cast here in Dallas to play better than romo has out of respect alone. That is my biggest issue, Romo has his moments good and bad, but when he has his bad moments everyone around him, arguably both sides of the ball go down with him, or were never at their top to start with. He doesn't demand it and his character doesn't encourage it either. I am a believer that if he were replaced with someone who could lead and rally the team together that the cowboys would be better, even if his replacement wasn't as statistically good as him coming in.

[Bullaholic]

Romo reference material on motivation:

http://www.notable-quotes.com/r/romo_tony.html

[Farmersfan]

Romo reference material on motivation:

http://www.notable-quotes.com/r/romo_tony.html



Bull, if Romo says these things but doesn't do them on the field then this actually works against him in my opinion. Pretty much how people get really, really tired of politicians and their double talk. Who the hell wants a guy around who makes a bunch of punchline cliches' when he fails to live up to them on the field all the time? Leadership is what he does and what he expects. Not what he says!

[Macarthur]

And the last thing on this I will say is questioning your comment about Romo's work ethic. Give me some examples of him not having the proper work ethic. I want examples.

I can post several examples of team mates and those in the organization that say you are flat out lying. It's one thing to not like the way the guy plays, but to question his work ethic when everyone in the organization says that has never been the issue reeks of the fact that you just don't like the guy period.

[Farmersfan]

And the last thing on this I will say is questioning your comment about Romo's work ethic. Give me some examples of him not having the proper work ethic. I want examples.

I can post several examples of team mates and those in the organization that say you are flat out lying. It's one thing to not like the way the guy plays, but to question his work ethic when everyone in the organization says that has never been the issue reeks of the fact that you just don't like the guy period.



Show me an example of another player saying ANYBODY has a bad work ethic Mac! You can't use "Media Talk" from the players as evidence to support your opinion. Anybody who knows anything about professional sports understands there are certain lockeroom rules that don't get broken. Saying something negative about a teammate is frowned on by everyone. Anything a player says that goes against what you see on the field is pretty much useless. I know you weren't directing the question at me but wasn't Tony Romo chastized pretty badly a couple of years ago for showing up to training camp out of shape and fat?

And I just can't help but notice that newspaper articles from all around the NFL seem to convey the same opinion about Tony Romo. Why would the NY media think Romo "Could fill a museum with his awful turnovers"? Why would any other media outlet in the world that had nothing to gain by disrespecting Romo say these exact same things that some of us have been saying? Think about it a moment. Go to any news outlet in the USA and google Romo and you will find referrences to Romo's mistakes and Romo's meltdowns. The entire world isn't functioning with a blindspot!


"Romo, who could fill a museum with awful turnovers, chose this moment — and this player — to unveil his masterpiece of stupidity. The quarterback who played brilliantly for three quarters made his second killer mistake, bookending a fumble near the Jets goal line earlier in the game."

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2011/09/politi_tony_romo_plays_the_foo.html

[Macarthur]

It was buff that said he had a poor work ethic.

[buff4ever]

It was buff that said he had a poor work ethic.

Okay, I said it, that discredits FF's examples. What is that.

I have said it before, if he is working as hard as you want to believe, then it should show between him and his recievers on gameday. Instead it alwasys looks like they are not prepared, which leads me to believe no work ethic or not smart enough to benefit from all the hard work spent during the week. Which is it. So what FF said plus the evidence on gameday.

[Bullaholic]

Bull, if Romo says these things but doesn't do them on the field then this actually works against him in my opinion. Pretty much how people get really, really tired of politicians and their double talk. Who the hell wants a guy around who makes a bunch of punchline cliches' when he fails to live up to them on the field all the time? Leadership is what he does and what he expects. Not what he says!

LOL. Farmer, you remind me of a blind dog in a meat locker--you just bite everything in reach not caring what it is. I am not a Romo apologist--never have been. But after all your diatribes--I just have to ask--If the Cowboys got rid of Romo right now, who would be available which would represent a step up in QB performance for the Cowboys right away this season? The answer, imho---nobody.

[buff4ever]

LOL. Farmer, you remind me of a blind dog in a meat locker--you just bite everything in reach not caring what it is. I am not a Romo apologist--never have been. But after all your diatribes--I just have to ask--If the Cowboys got rid of Romo right now, who would be available which would represent a step up in QB performance for the Cowboys right away this season? The answer, imho---nobody.

IMHO, almost anyone would get better play out of the supporting cast if they had a good repore with them and lead the team with the desire to win. This might would be enough, or if not, atleast it would be easier to swallow rather than watching romo have a meltdown or 4 3 and outs in the 4th qtr.

[Macarthur]

Okay, I said it, that discredits FF's examples. What is that.

I have said it before, if he is working as hard as you want to believe, then it should show between him and his recievers on gameday. Instead it alwasys looks like they are not prepared, which leads me to believe no work ethic or not smart enough to benefit from all the hard work spent during the week. Which is it. So what FF said plus the evidence on gameday.

Just as I suspected.

[Bullaholic]

IMHO, almost anyone would get better play out of the supporting cast if they had a good repore with them and lead the team with the desire to win. This might would be enough, or if not, atleast it would be easier to swallow rather than watching romo have a meltdown or 4 3 and outs in the 4th qtr.

Sorry, buff--I just can't get my arms around the "anybody is better than Romo argument". How many QB's have the Cowboys had since Aikman? How many of them were great QB's? The only answer to the Dallas QB problem will be a multi-year solution, probably thru the draft, unless they are lucky enough to have a shot at a Top 5 NFL QB, which probably will not happen due to the money. Meantime, Tony Romo will be the Cowboys' starting QB for the forseeable future unless injured, or he blows several starts which are attributable to his poor performance alone in several key games.

[Eagle 1]

You guys sit here and say his stats are all world and that makes him great. You say he makes plays and that makes him great. You say he is a good leader b/c some half arse great potential players that are playing like crap say he is a leader to the media. Now above you almost said he isn't that good, you just fought how to say it so that you could make a point that the defense is still the problem. This is what I enjoy about watching you guys defend romo. You will make a case in the moment that doesn't always agree with your other cases in the other moments. You guys are constantly trying to shoot down every single point that FF makes with some statistical proof, and some pure arse common sense logic, and in doing so you make a argument against each one by usually discrediting a previous argument that you have made. You guys don't even realize you do it I don't think. You are just to stuck in the moment and want to try and prove him wrong in the moment of the current statement.

Romo is not an emotional leader....PERIOD. He isn't the ultimate competitor to set the tone for the team b/c he is okay with good stats and excuses for the rest just like you few that defend him. The team leader needs to be a competitor. Hi is not in the top 10 of current qbs in this league because of the whole picture. Don't just rank him by his qb rating. Rank him by his win/loss stat, rank him by how he plays in pressure moments in big games, rank him as a emotional leader, rank him as a competitor/leader. Once you do this and average them out, if you were honest and impartial, I truly think you would find that he doesn't rank out near as well as you would expect.

On a final note, if you decide that you want to say he is a 9 or 10 instead of 11 or 12, do you not think that after this many years Dallas should try and get a 4 or 5 guy in the works, either by trade or by starting fresh. I know that is easier said than done, but even a 7 or 8 guy with leadership as part of the package would go a long ways with the cowboys.
This.

[Txbroadcaster]

Bull, if Romo says these things but doesn't do them on the field then this actually works against him in my opinion. Pretty much how people get really, really tired of politicians and their double talk. Who the hell wants a guy around who makes a bunch of punchline cliches' when he fails to live up to them on the field all the time? Leadership is what he does and what he expects. Not what he says!

Yet you always go back to what he said after Eagles loss in 08 to try to prove your point he is not a leader..so which is it? you cant post a negative thing his says and claim it shows he is not a leader, but then anything he or anyone else says that shows he is a leader, then claim it is just doublespeak, or it other players being nice. Pick which way it will be

[buff4ever]

Yet you always go back to what he said after Eagles loss in 08 to try to prove your point he is not a leader..so which is it? you cant post a negative thing his says and claim it shows he is not a leader, but then anything he or anyone else says that shows he is a leader, then claim it is just doublespeak, or it other players being nice. Pick which way it will be

You are stepping in it again TXB and you don't even realize it. The point to what FF said was find a leader or competitor out there that first of all has this personality, then if you find one see if he was stupid enough to say in to the media. You won't find a good leader or competitor that will slip up and make comments like that to the media, not even by accident, yet our ROMO had a weak moment and said it TO THE MEDIA. That was a poor statement to be made by a leader of the team. FF was just asking you to go find similar comments out there, you won't find many, and if you do I would venture to say that they wouldn't be quality competitors or leaders.

How do you have such narrow tunnel vision when defending this guy. Your argument above is mind numbingly frustrating. You only further supported us in our opinion that he is not a quality team leader and attitude that shows the rest of the team he is a competitor. Because athletes just don't make these comments to the media, and if they do, well, it tells a lot about them in a weak moment.

[Farmersfan]

Yet you always go back to what he said after Eagles loss in 08 to try to prove your point he is not a leader..so which is it? you cant post a negative thing his says and claim it shows he is not a leader, but then anything he or anyone else says that shows he is a leader, then claim it is just doublespeak, or it other players being nice. Pick which way it will be



You can't be serious TXB! When a person speaks in anger or frustration they will usually speak from the heart. When someone is able to speak in a controlled and edited fashion they will give the appearance they have been instructed to give. There is a HUGE difference in the two.......... You should know this!

[Farmersfan]

LOL. Farmer, you remind me of a blind dog in a meat locker--you just bite everything in reach not caring what it is. I am not a Romo apologist--never have been. But after all your diatribes--I just have to ask--If the Cowboys got rid of Romo right now, who would be available which would represent a step up in QB performance for the Cowboys right away this season? The answer, imho---nobody.


I have said that I don't think Dallas could find a more talented QB right away. But if they aren't looking they certainly won't find a better one. The entire team has been turned over in the past 6 years except for the QB spot and the results have remained the same. I have never said I wanted to get rid of Romo just for the sake of getting rid of him. Unless they have someone in the works that can produce as well then it makes no sense. but I will say that if you judge Romo on STATS alone then you will never find a better QB unless you somehow come up with a top 5 draft pick. But in Tony Romo's case I think there is a ton of "addition by substraction" to think about. How much is up for debate. Proper leadership is a huge value at this level of play. Almost all NFL players can play the game or they wouldn't be in the NFL. The difference between the winners and the losers is about 90% between the ears in my opinion. And I think Romo gives very little to the team in the "between the ears" category. But that's just me..............

[Txbroadcaster]

You can't be serious TXB! When a person speaks in anger or frustration they will usually speak from the heart. When someone is able to speak in a controlled and edited fashion they will give the appearance they have been instructed to give. There is a HUGE difference in the two.......... You should know this!

Again your picking and choosing what is "real" and what is not.

[Txbroadcaster]

And I think Romo gives very little to the team in the "between the ears" category. But that's just me..............

even though MULTIPLE players and coaches have said different..but let me guess..that is edited and them playing nice

[buff4ever]

even though MULTIPLE players and coaches have said different..but let me guess..that is edited and them playing nice

So the coaches that don't sign the check and don't have anyone else to go to as a starter are suppose to say dog their qb to the media, make the teammates of romo more down on him, rile up the fans like you and mac who are for now living the dream that we have a top 7 qb; just so they upset the management that is dealing them this hand. Then they lose their job, and what would it serve them to be honest anyway.

I guess you think that everything the media receives and reports is 100% truth huh, I know that that would be your desire with the business you are in, but it isn't exact. You get the jest most of the time, but I just don't see why you think that anyone would dog the competitiveness or the brains of there qb that they are paying mega millions to, so the media can sic' him like blood thirsty sharks. What good would that do in a situation where he already doesn't have the respect of the players around him, it would only get worse, and like you guys have stated many times, who is out there to get to replace him. I think we should be looking or trying something, but agree at the same time it isn't easy. They are doing damage control by acting like he is good at what he does and works harder than most, even if the evidence isn't there all the time on sundays.

[Txbroadcaster]

So the coaches that don't sign the check and don't have anyone else to go to as a starter are suppose to say dog their qb to the media, make the teammates of romo more down on him, rile up the fans like you and mac who are for now living the dream that we have a top 7 qb; just so they upset the management that is dealing them this hand. Then they lose their job, and what would it serve them to be honest anyway.

I guess you think that everything the media receives and reports is 100% truth huh, I know that that would be your desire with the business you are in, but it isn't exact. You get the jest most of the time, but I just don't see why you think that anyone would dog the competitiveness or the brains of there qb that they are paying mega millions to, so the media can sic' him like blood thirsty sharks. What good would that do in a situation where he already doesn't have the respect of the players around him, it would only get worse, and like you guys have stated many times, who is out there to get to replace him. I think we should be looking or trying something, but agree at the same time it isn't easy. They are doing damage control by acting like he is good at what he does and works harder than most, even if the evidence isn't there all the time on sundays.


again.your taking every good thing said about him as damage control and every bad thing said ( even though basically none of have come from anyone inside the team) as gold.

players speak their mind all the time, they cant help it.

[buff4ever]

again.your taking every good thing said about him as damage control and every bad thing said ( even though basically none of have come from anyone inside the team) as gold.

players speak their mind all the time, they cant help it.

They teach you that crap in school?

I know you know better than that. Even high school kids do a DESCENT job of supporting their teammates most of the time, even if they don't like em or agree they are the best at the position. Now you want to talk about PROFESSIONALS, who have to be PROFESSIONAL at their work.

[Farmersfan]

Again your picking and choosing what is "real" and what is not.


Without being in the locker room this is the only choice any of us have TXB. Weigh the evidence, balance the odds, add in a little understanding of how the NFL works and a lot of understanding about how People work and there you go. I know you aren't going to apply the same logic as I do but at some point you do have to make a decision as to what is believable and what isn't. Based on what I have seen for 6 seasons now I don't think Romo has the respect of his team mates and I certainly don't think he is a leader. In my opinion Tony Romo is thought of more like a mascot. I picture the other players getting him in a headlock and giving him nuggies or taping him to the flag pole with Tiger Balm on his tiny testies. In my humblest of opinions Tony Romo is a nerd in the locker room and the other players laugh at him and will NEVER play hard for him. End of story!

[Farmersfan]

again.your taking every good thing said about him as damage control and every bad thing said ( even though basically none of have come from anyone inside the team) as gold.

players speak their mind all the time, they cant help it.


I completely disagree with this TXB! Players very seldom speak their minds. That's why moments of emotional outbursts are so explosive in the media. It's one of the few times the players don't act like the NFL is a Shangri La and the locker room is full of flowers and sugar cane!

[Macarthur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YBziSpG0mlw#!

Broaddus addresses this question.

[Macarthur]

more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JXUz3pZ6rhA#!

[Farmersfan]

more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JXUz3pZ6rhA#!


What's it say Mac? I'm blocked from streaming video here so can't access it......

[Txbroadcaster]

What's it say Mac? I'm blocked from streaming video here so can't access it......

he said Farmer is wrong wrong wrong LOL


It was Broaduss talking about what Galloway said when he claimed Romo would not have won with the team from the 90's and basically saying randy was wrong that the 90's team was not about Aikman, or Smith, but that the team itself was so talented that it was the sum of the team over the parts.

[GrTigers6]

Without being in the locker room this is the only choice any of us have TXB. Weigh the evidence, balance the odds, add in a little understanding of how the NFL works and a lot of understanding about how People work and there you go. I know you aren't going to apply the same logic as I do but at some point you do have to make a decision as to what is believable and what isn't. Based on what I have seen for 6 seasons now I don't think Romo has the respect of his team mates and I certainly don't think he is a leader. In my opinion Tony Romo is thought of more like a mascot. I picture the other players getting him in a headlock and giving him nuggies or taping him to the flag pole with Tiger Balm on his tiny testies. In my humblest of opinions Tony Romo is a nerd in the locker room and the other players laugh at him and will NEVER play hard for him. End of story!Yeah A nerd that gets the hottest chicks!:D

[Farmersfan]

he said Farmer is wrong wrong wrong LOL


It was Broaduss talking about what Galloway said when he claimed Romo would not have won with the team from the 90's and basically saying randy was wrong that the 90's team was not about Aikman, or Smith, but that the team itself was so talented that it was the sum of the team over the parts.


I agree with this partially. But we also have to remember that they played against some very good teams also. The defenses in the NFC East these days can't touch those Philly, Giants and Redskin defenses. Not to mention the other teams in the NFC. The Cowboys were much more talented but so were all the other teams. How much credit is given to those players for being "talented" when in truth they simply had a coach and a on field leader who expected nothing but everyone's best. Some say M. Irvin was the vocal leader of that offense but I can promise you Aikman was the general and when he said something, everybody listened! I don't think Tony Romo could have won the starting spot on that early 90's team. The coach at that time was a very demanding coach and Romo would not have lasted 4 years on the bench. Hell, without Quincy's drug screw up Romo was getting cut on this team. Romo was saved by the skin of his teeth. This discussion is a mute point. And it was the 2008(?) team that put 11 in the Pro Bowl- not the Aikman and Emmitt team! This is a measure against their CURRENT peers. That team was more talented than this team but this team has just as good a chance to succeed against it's peers as that one did. Just minus the leadership!

[Txbroadcaster]

Without being in the locker room this is the only choice any of us have TXB. Weigh the evidence, balance the odds, add in a little understanding of how the NFL works and a lot of understanding about how People work and there you go. I know you aren't going to apply the same logic as I do but at some point you do have to make a decision as to what is believable and what isn't. Based on what I have seen for 6 seasons now I don't think Romo has the respect of his team mates and I certainly don't think he is a leader. In my opinion Tony Romo is thought of more like a mascot. I picture the other players getting him in a headlock and giving him nuggies or taping him to the flag pole with Tiger Balm on his tiny testies. In my humblest of opinions Tony Romo is a nerd in the locker room and the other players laugh at him and will NEVER play hard for him. End of story!


That is the problem..you pick and choose only the negative and say see see Romo is not a leader, then anything positive you dismiss..there have been at least 5 times more positive from the locker room about Romo being a leader, not all of that is false or just for the media

[Macarthur]

What's it say Mac? I'm blocked from streaming video here so can't access it......

Broaddus basically says that while no one would say Romo is better than Aikman, Romo does have some qualities that are much better than Aikman and would have probably won at least one SB with those 90s teams.

The other point he stresses, which several of us have made, is that the OL Romo has had to work with is no where near what Aikman had and that Aikman would get killed playing behind this OL the last several years.

And they do make the points that Aikman would def be better for this team in the leadership department, which I would agree.

[Farmersfan]

That is the problem..you pick and choose only the negative and say see see Romo is not a leader, then anything positive you dismiss..there have been at least 5 times more positive from the locker room about Romo being a leader, not all of that is false or just for the media



For Pete's Sake TXB!!!!
You do high school football. Do you interview players? And if so have the players ever, ever, ever, ever thrown a team mate under the bus? Seems to me someone who experiences this so much in their life would understand it's a culture in the game. And the higher the level of play the more strict this culture gets. There is racism, sexism and just outright hatred buried in these Pro locker rooms. All for the sake of the public image. You know this so I really can't understand why you can't apply this logic to this subject................. If every single player on the Dallas Cowboys despised Romo with a white hot passion they would still not show it in the media. Jerry Jones would not allow it. There were actually some hints and brief flashes of happiness and player encouragement when Kitna took over for Romo. We all heard rumors. But even that was squashed very quickly by the organization....

[Farmersfan]

Broaddus basically says that while no one would say Romo is better than Aikman, Romo does have some qualities that are much better than Aikman and would have probably won at least one SB with those 90s teams.

The other point he stresses, which several of us have made, is that the OL Romo has had to work with is no where near what Aikman had and that Aikman would get killed playing behind this OL the last several years.

And they do make the points that Aikman would def be better for this team in the leadership department, which I would agree.


My question is WHICH Superbowl would Romo have won? Romo had an opportunity to win a Superbowl with his current team but fumbled the FG snap. Would he have also done the same thing with that 90's team? Seriously, simply comparing this Romo to that Aikman is a exercise in futility. Aikman did play with a better O-line. But he also played against better D-lines. Aikman had better rushing numbers and was sacked few fewer yards per sack than Romo. Aikman was supposed to be the immobile pocket QB yet his mobility numbers are better than Romo's. Aikman had a better running game but who's to say that running game success wasn't the result of Aikman's dead on down field passing attack or his abiltiy to read the defenses and change the call on the line. maybe defenses are way more difficult to read now but nobody doubts that Aikman wasn't a master of the game. Aikman was a field general that is more reminiscneset of Brady or Manning when it comes to altering play calls to benefit the offense. I don't see Romo enforcing his will on the football field in the least. Romo's opponents expect a Romo mistake when things get tight and they need to make a play. When teams got down against Aikman they were already beat. Perhaps this is partially due to Romo's years with Wade Philips and his "We take what the defense gives us" attitude? I don't know. I do know the defenses are gears to give up just enough to make you lose so if you take what they want to give you then guess what? You lose! Whatever the reason, in my opinion Tony Romo is not even half the QB Aikman was. And if Aikman was playing today his level of success would still be much, much higher than Romo's is.

[Txbroadcaster]

My question is WHICH Superbowl would Romo have won? Romo had an opportunity to win a Superbowl with his current team but fumbled the FG snap..

really? you think that team was a SB team?

[Txbroadcaster]

. But he also played against better D-lines. Aikman had better rushing numbers and was sacked few fewer yards per sack than Romo. Aikman was supposed to be the immobile pocket QB yet his mobility numbers are better than Romo's. . Aikman was a field general that is more reminiscneset of Brady or Manning when it comes to altering play calls to benefit the offense. I don't see Romo enforcing his will on the football field in the least. Romo's opponents expect a Romo mistake when things get tight and they need to make a play. .


How do you know Aikman played agianst better D-lines?

And Aikman himself has said he never had the pre reads ALL QBs do now that he had a call and one audible and did not worry about the blitz packages like QBs do now

and you say Aikman's rush is better, again that is on the O-line beause neither Romo or aikman outside of QB sneaks have QB runs in the offense( basically same offense).

[Eagle 1]

really? you think that team was a SB team?


Yall act like it was.

BTW, when Romo wins a SB and is a HOF, CALL me and I will admit I was wrong.
Until then, comparing Aikman and Romo is :crazy:

[Farmersfan]

really? you think that team was a SB team?



Every team is a SB team TXB. 10% talent and 90% mental.......................................

[Farmersfan]

How do you know Aikman played agianst better D-lines?

And Aikman himself has said he never had the pre reads ALL QBs do now that he had a call and one audible and did not worry about the blitz packages like QBs do now

and you say Aikman's rush is better, again that is on the O-line beause neither Romo or aikman outside of QB sneaks have QB runs in the offense( basically same offense).



I watched every single game Troy Aikman ever played for the Cowboys TXB. He torched teams with quick slant audibles with Irvin.................. I don't need Troy to tell me differently. I lived it! I saw Aikman and Irvin meet eyes on the line of scrimmage a 1000 times and both players knew exactly what was going to happen. That is leadership and field awareness. We don't see this with Romo. The difference between Troy Aikman's control of the game and Tony Romo's control of the game is day and night.

[GrTigers6]

I watched every single game Troy Aikman ever played for the Cowboys TXB. He torched teams with quick slant audibles with Irvin.................. I don't need Troy to tell me differently. I lived it! I saw Aikman and Irvin meet eyes on the line of scrimmage a 1000 times and both players knew exactly what was going to happen. That is leadership and field awareness. We don't see this with Romo. The difference between Troy Aikman's control of the game and Tony Romo's control of the game is day and night.The problem with that argument is Michael Irvin was a smart player as well as saw what Troy saw. Romo's recievers cant even run the route that was called let alone audible to something else. And dont tell me that's leadership. No leadership skills can make someone smarter. May help them remember but not think for themselves. Thats why I think Romo would have had more success with Aikmans teams then these teams he has now. Better Oline, smarter recievers, Better running back. And a defense that kept the field position in our favor. Now would he have won 3 superbowls. I dont know but he would definetly had more wins.
Aikman seemed to Pick defenses apart at times with nothing more than threading the needle which helped carry his teams to the championships.
Romo has that capability at times as well just doesnt show it as often.
Now I dont want yall to take this as Romo is better than aikman, I am just saying he would have done better than he is now

[Macarthur]

.................. I don't need Troy to tell me differently.

You're right. You know much more about it than Troy does.

To the point made before, Troy has said many times, with no context related to Romo, that today's QBs have much more to deal with than they did in his day. That doesn't mean Romo is better, but it is truly amazing to me how easily Romo is dismissed.

[Eagle 1]

The problem with that argument is Michael Irvin was a smart player as well as saw what Troy saw. Romo's recievers cant even run the route that was called let alone audible to something else. And dont tell me that's leadership. No leadership skills can make someone smarter. May help them remember but not think for themselves. Thats why I think Romo would have had more success with Aikmans teams then these teams he has now. Better Oline, smarter recievers, Better running back. And a defense that kept the field position in our favor. Now would he have won 3 superbowls. I dont know but he would definetly had more wins.
Aikman seemed to Pick defenses apart at times with nothing more than threading the needle which helped carry his teams to the championships.
Romo has that capability at times as well just doesnt show it as often.
Now I dont want yall to take this as Romo is better than aikman, I am just saying he would have done better than he is now

NONE of that BS changes the FACT that Romo CHOKES when under pressure.
Have a good day. :wave:

[Txbroadcaster]

NONE of that BS changes the FACT that Romo CHOKES when under pressure.
Have a good day. :wave:

yet the numbers say different

[GrTigers6]

NONE of that BS changes the FACT that Romo CHOKES when under pressure.
Have a good day. :wave:Your right 3-4 times out of how many, 50 or so? Give me a break

[MGAR]

My question is WHICH Superbowl would Romo have won?

The one against the Bills.

[Eagle 1]

http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/85e52952104f6e7085073ce433e21c7f.gif

:iagree:

[Farmersfan]

You're right. You know much more about it than Troy does.

To the point made before, Troy has said many times, with no context related to Romo, that today's QBs have much more to deal with than they did in his day. That doesn't mean Romo is better, but it is truly amazing to me how easily Romo is dismissed.


I never said that I knew more than Troy did! I said I know what happened on the field. I can't say what went on in the locker room on in the huddle. but I can say what i saw 1000 times over Troy's career. And I also agree that defenses are much more detailed these days than they were in those days. Buddy Ryan ran a defense that was more akin to today's defenses. I wonder WHO Buddy Ryan ran that defense against? And even if Troy is correct about what QBs have to deal with these days do you for a second imagine that Troy would not adjust if he played today? If he played through this current college system and came into this NFL he would still be just as talented and would still be just as highly thought of.

[Macarthur]

And even if Troy is correct about what QBs have to deal with these days do you for a second imagine that Troy would not adjust if he played today? If he played through this current college system and came into this NFL he would still be just as talented and would still be just as highly thought of.

Which I don't disagree, but we have to deal with the reality that we have. We can't transplant players to diff eras.


So you do not believe the Cowboys would have won a single SB in the 90s w/ Romo? yes or no.

[buff4ever]

Which I don't disagree, but we have to deal with the reality that we have. We can't transplant players to diff eras.


So you do not believe the Cowboys would have won a single SB in the 90s w/ Romo? yes or no.

Since we can't transplant romo back to prove each other right or wrong????

But I will say that I think it is possible that ROMO in the 90's may have still been super bowlless. He would not have the false since of "I AM THE MAN" on that team, because those guys would have kicked his butt. I think that the only reason that Romo rose to the position that he did with the false since of confidence was b/c of his predecessors. They were horrible, he knew that compared to them he could go for it and wouldn't be viewed too poorly. He has talent, way more than the others, and he did well. Then he really got a since of false confidence. He thought he was as good as Jerry Jones thought he was. He didn't have to put in the hard film time, everyone thought he was the man. Oh, the fumble in the playoffs was a fluke, it is tough, but I will get over it one day......we are still waiting, and there have only been a few more instances to prove it wasn't a fluke, and none to really prove he is the man.

[buff4ever]

Giving Romo some credit, I would go out on a limb and say that maybe the terrible predecessors and his what seemed at the time to be magical success so fast was the worst thing that could happen to romo. Maybe, just maybe he would have been better off to have progressed slowly into a successful qb in the cowboys system. Then he would have had to work harder to get better rather than falsely think he has already made it. Maybe Jerry wouldn't have bowed down to him wrongly thinking he was the savior that Jerry had been waiting for ever since Aikman (since some of you are actually putting him in a category with the last great). Maybe the players would have pushed him to be better early on and work harder and study film more, instead he took on the premadonna act and the superstars each year have followed him as the leader in that act and we have a offense that can be great one minute and horrible the next.

I am not saying that romo would have ever been the leader that the cowboys need him to be right now, but maybe everyone wouldn't have assumed him that title and we could have one of the few offenses in the league that is semi-successful with another offensive leader other than the qb. As long as that pressure isn't completely on him with someone else getting his back, he may not would totally choke under the high pressure games. (we talk about high pressure, everyone thought that him losing the game to the jets was atleast blowing a huge win against a great team, they ended up not being that great, and the lions that he blew...come on....these aren't even pressure games comparitively speaking)

[Eagle 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIF1WCMjooI

[Farmersfan]

Which I don't disagree, but we have to deal with the reality that we have. We can't transplant players to diff eras.


So you do not believe the Cowboys would have won a single SB in the 90s w/ Romo? yes or no.



No!

Let me explain! Of course if you took THIS Tony Romo and magically transplanted him into that system with those exact same players. Even Tony Romo would have a great chance of winning a title. But remember those teams played some very, very tough defenses to advance to the Superbowl. A large percentage of those games were won by a QB/receiver combo that completed timing passes that could not be defended. I honestly don't think Romo has that ability.
But if you simply transplanted Romo to that era he never gets the chance to QB the Cowboys. Jimmy Johnson would not have a undrafted free agent QB sitting on the bench for 4 years. As UNTALENTED as the 2003, 2004 and 2005 team was Romo couldn't break into the starting QB spot ahead of such greats as Vinny Testeverde, Quincy Carter and Drew Bledsoe! There is no chance at all Romo ever makes the roster for that team in the early 90's. NONE!

[Farmersfan]

We also cannot disregard the fact that about 50% of the greatness of that O-line in the 90's came from the quality of QB that played behind them. Only a real novice to football would think the QB doesn't have a huge part in how well a O-line plays. The difference between a sack for a loss, incomplete pass or a completed pass most of time is simply the ability of the QB to get rid of the football. Very, very seldom is a sack the result of a blindside shot that the QB could not prevent. Aikman could not run well out of the pocket but took fewer sacks than Romo does because he got rid of the ball quickly and didn't hold it too long. Of course I understand Aikman probably didn't feel he personally had to do it all since he had Emmitt in the backfield and Irvin as a receiver. But both those players owe as much of their success to Aikman as Aikman owes his to them..........

[buff4ever]

We also cannot disregard the fact that about 50% of the greatness of that O-line in the 90's came from the quality of QB that played behind them. Only a real novice to football would think the QB doesn't have a huge part in how well a O-line plays. The difference between a sack for a loss, incomplete pass or a completed pass most of time is simply the ability of the QB to get rid of the football. Very, very seldom is a sack the result of a blindside shot that the QB could not prevent. Aikman could not run well out of the pocket but took fewer sacks than Romo does because he got rid of the ball quickly and didn't hold it too long. Of course I understand Aikman probably didn't feel he personally had to do it all since he had Emmitt in the backfield and Irvin as a receiver. But both those players owe as much of their success to Aikman as Aikman owes his to them..........


Agree

[Macarthur]

No!


Fair enough. I think you're in the minority, but we're all entitled to our opinion.

[Txbroadcaster]

Aikman could not run well out of the pocket but took fewer sacks than Romo does because he got rid of the ball quickly and didn't hold it too long. Of course I understand Aikman probably didn't feel he personally had to do it all since he had Emmitt in the backfield and Irvin as a receiver. But both those players owe as much of their success to Aikman as Aikman owes his to them..........

Aikman's % of time sacked on a PA was 5.2 for his career...Romo right now is 5.2

[Farmersfan]

Aikman's % of time sacked on a PA was 5.2 for his career...Romo right now is 5.2


Over his career Aikman averages 2 fewer sacks per season than Romo does. so my question to you is where does the evidence lie that would have us believe that Romo has a better "play making" ability than Aikman did? Romo has more sacks! More yards lost on those sacks! Fewer yards gained on rushes! And fewer actual rush attempts! The only thing that could be stated that might support Romo in this debate is that perhaps Romo's escape ability is the only reason he hasn't been sacked WAY MORE than Aikman was. But then it looks like to me his yards gained when flushed from the pocket would be more. but it isn't................. And if you look at Aikman's last 4 years with the Cowboys he had a terrible O-line but was still sacked way fewer times than Romo has been. He had 1 season in 97' where he was sacked 33 times but the last 3 seasons he was only sacked 9 times in 98', 19 times in 99' and 13 times in 2000. Even with that horrible single 33 sack season in 97' Aikman was sacked an average of 19 times per season those last 4 years with a line that was worse than Romo's O-line. Romo averages 24 sacks every season he has played. Broken down to sacks per game played: Aikman=1.37 sacks per game the last 4 seasons. Romo=1.84 sacks per game for his career.

[Eagle 1]

No!


But if you simply transplanted Romo to that era he never gets the chance to QB the Cowboys. Jimmy Johnson would not have a undrafted free agent QB sitting on the bench for 4 years.

Good point, I agree.

[Eagle 1]

Fair enough. I think you're in the minority, but we're all entitled to our opinion.

Actually I think your wrong, but neither of us can prove the other wrong on this point.
However, I would wager there are more people who would take a Superbowl winner, Superbowl MVP, and HOF Troy Aikman over Romo anyday. And I'm not just talking Cowboys fans. So that has to count for something.

[Txbroadcaster]

Over his career Aikman averages 2 fewer sacks per season than Romo does. so my question to you is where does the evidence lie that would have us believe that Romo has a better "play making" ability than Aikman did? Romo has more sacks! More yards lost on those sacks! Fewer yards gained on rushes! And fewer actual rush attempts! The only thing that could be stated that might support Romo in this debate is that perhaps Romo's escape ability is the only reason he hasn't been sacked WAY MORE than Aikman was. But then it looks like to me his yards gained when flushed from the pocket would be more. but it isn't................. And if you look at Aikman's last 4 years with the Cowboys he had a terrible O-line but was still sacked way fewer times than Romo has been. He had 1 season in 97' where he was sacked 33 times but the last 3 seasons he was only sacked 9 times in 98', 19 times in 99' and 13 times in 2000. Even with that horrible single 33 sack season in 97' Aikman was sacked an average of 19 times per season those last 4 years with a line that was worse than Romo's O-line. Romo averages 24 sacks every season he has played. Broken down to sacks per game played: Aikman=1.37 sacks per game the last 4 seasons. Romo=1.84 sacks per game for his career.


1.37 and 1.84 is not a huge difference...neither is 3.1 yds per rush and 2.9...neither was about escaping and taking off, especially Romo who is one of the best of escaping and staying alive to find a target.

and Romo also drops back to pass 6 more times a game than Aikman did

[buff4ever]

the national opinion of romo is that he is a choke artist, some homer cowboy fans still hold on to that little hope. But I am not sure what is the minority of the romo discussion amongst cowboy fans or even downlow posters. I think that there are more people on here even that think romo is a chump than a champ.

[Eagle 1]

the national opinion of romo is that he is a choke artist, some homer cowboy fans still hold on to that little hope. But I am not sure what is the minority of the romo discussion amongst cowboy fans or even downlow posters. I think that there are more people on here even that think romo is a chump than a champ.

I know at least one other downlow poster with over 8,000 post who feels that way about romo, but he doesn't say much on here.
Outside the board, I know SEVERAL Cowboys fans who have given up on romo, not to mention the non-cowboy fans.

[buff4ever]

1.37 and 1.84 is not a huge difference...neither is 3.1 yds per rush and 2.9...neither was about escaping and taking off, especially Romo who is one of the best of escaping and staying alive to find a target.

and Romo also drops back to pass 6 more times a game than Aikman did

What are you defending? Romo is not better than aikman at anything. You were trying to say that romo had aikman in this one category of 10, and now you have been statistically shown that aikman in fact was better than romo in all 10 categories.

I think the whole aikman/romo stuff needs to drop, if romo could win a nfc championship much less a super bowl, maybe these discussions would be somewhat relevant. As a longtime cowboy fan, I think we are showing no respect to aikman even mentioning romo in the same sentence.

[Eagle 1]

Like I said before, just because Aikman threw Romo a bone doesn't make Romo any better.

[Txbroadcaster]

What are you defending? Romo is not better than aikman at anything. You were trying to say that romo had aikman in this one category of 10, and now you have been statistically shown that aikman in fact was better than romo in all 10 categories.

.

first off..I never said Romo was better than Aikman at all I showed stats that show he is not that far behind Aikman

I will put it to you this way...Aikman was the perfect QB for that team, but IMO Aikman would be nowhere as good if he had been the starter for the Cowboys in the Romo era.

[buff4ever]

first off..I never said Romo was better than Aikman at all I showed stats that show he is not that far behind Aikman

I will put it to you this way...Aikman was the perfect QB for that team, but IMO Aikman would be nowhere as good if he had been the starter for the Cowboys in the Romo era.

That's crazy talk, okay, he wouldn't have won 3 superbowls like he did in the 90s but he would be way better than romo. I know that you know what's coming here. But he would be a better leader and a more accurate passer and more in tune with his receivers and and and and, we would be better off for sure. I think that we would have had a few deeper runs where as romo has squashed our hopes more than once, and Aikman might have pulled one out.

[Txbroadcaster]

That's crazy talk, okay, he wouldn't have won 3 superbowls like he did in the 90s but he would be way better than romo. I know that you know what's coming here. But he would be a better leader and a more accurate passer and more in tune with his receivers and and and and, we would be better off for sure. I think that we would have had a few deeper runs where as romo has squashed our hopes more than once, and Aikman might have pulled one out.


seeing as Romo is more accurate in his career than Aikman I doubt Aikman would be more accurate now than in the past


We dont know how Aikman would have led in this era, he was part of a group that even he himself said all lead, from him, to Irvin(who many felt was THE leader), to Woodson, to Smith, to Ken Norton jr etc, etc etc

[Bullaholic]

Old guy Cowboy fan post.....

Roger Staubach, aka Captain Comeback, is the epitome of Cowboy QB's in the image and "git er done" categories. He is to the Cowboy QB position what Tom Landry was to the Head Coach position. Gone are the days....

Staubach on Tony Romo:

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4689860/staubach-tony-romo-is-not-the-problem

Not trying to support the pro Romo argument---just adding something to the discussion.

[Macarthur]

Actually I think your wrong, but neither of us can prove the other wrong on this point.
However, I would wager there are more people who would take a Superbowl winner, Superbowl MVP, and HOF Troy Aikman over Romo anyday. And I'm not just talking Cowboys fans. So that has to count for something.

Of course, this is not what I was saying, but it always helps you make a better argument when you construct a strawman.

[Macarthur]

and Romo also drops back to pass 6 more times a game than Aikman did

This is a critical point, Farmer. Their sack numbers are irrelevant unless you consider the number of times they drop back. As said above, the Romo era Cowboys throw the ball at a greater clip than they did in the 90s.

So the stat we would need is sacks per attempt.

Romo has 2592 career attempts and 142 sacks. That equates to 5.2%

Aikman had 4715 career attempts and 259 sacks. That equates to 5.2%

So basically, they have the same sack rate and we've all admitted that Aikman had a better OL. Aikman himself said Romo is more athletic and so did Irvin and Woodson, BTW. I think it's safe to say that Romo is better at avoiding sacks. That doesn't mean he's better for those of you that have a tough time with reading comprehension.

[Eagle 1]

I think it's safe to say that Romo is better at avoiding sacks. That doesn't mean he's better for those of you that have a tough time with reading comprehension.

I'll give you the "Romo is better at avoiding sacks" probably because he has to with this line.
I don't anybody has a problem with reading comprehension. I think some may have a problem with facing reality.
The reality is that Romo will not win a superbowl with this team or any other NFL team, past or present.
That's keeping it real.

[Macarthur]

I'll give you the "Romo is better at avoiding sacks" probably because he has to with this line.
I don't anybody has a problem with reading comprehension. I think some may have a problem with facing reality.
The reality is that Romo will not win a superbowl with this team or any other NFL team, past or present.
That's keeping it real.

But that's kinda been the crux of this whole discussion. There's a huge difference is saying someone will never win a SB and saying someone is capable of winning a SB. I have no idea if he will ever win one. My argument has always been that if teams can get to SBs with guys like Dilfer, Collins, Grossman, etc., then Romo is certainly capable of getting a team to the SB.

[Txbroadcaster]

But that's kinda been the crux of this whole discussion. There's a huge difference is saying someone will never win a SB and saying someone is capable of winning a SB. I have no idea if he will ever win one. My argument has always been that if teams can get to SBs with guys like Dilfer, Collins, Grossman, etc., then Romo is certainly capable of getting a team to the SB.

same issue I have..people act like they know the career path of players..at one time elway was never gonna win a SB, Peyton was never gonna win a SB..hell it was even questioned at one time if Tom Landry as a coach would ever win a SB

[GrTigers6]

I'll give you the "Romo is better at avoiding sacks" probably because he has to with this line.
I don't anybody has a problem with reading comprehension. I think some may have a problem with facing reality.
The reality is that Romo will not win a superbowl with this team or any other NFL team, past or present.
That's keeping it real.Not really, because you cant say thatas a fact. Because you or I or anyone for that matter knows that for a fact. Stranger things happen every day

[Bullaholic]

same issue I have..people act like they know the career path of players..at one time elway was never gonna win a SB, Peyton was never gonna win a SB..hell it was even questioned at one time if Tom Landry as a coach would ever win a SB

Romo's and Elway's situation are somewhat similar---neither will/would receive full validation until they have a defining moment such as a SB win. If Romo could manage to have a heroic game-winning effort deep in the NFL playoffs, or even a couple during December against good teams, I think it would go a long ways towards quieting a lot of the dissent. Until then the jury will still be out on Romo. Such is a player's life in the "what have you done for me lately" modern sports world.

[Txbroadcaster]

Romo's and Elway's situation are somewhat similar---neither will/would receive full validation until they have a defining moment such as a SB win. If Romo could manage to have a heroic game-winning effort deep in the NFL playoffs, or even a couple during December against good teams, I think it would go a long ways towards quieting a lot of the dissent. Until then the jury will still be out on Romo. Such is a player's life in the "what have you done for me lately" modern sports world.

totally agree..Romo did beat a great team in 09 in Dec agianst the Saints, that was a season saving win on the road..yet people forget that

[Bullaholic]

How many of you are honest enough to admit to being "heat of the moment" Cowboy fans? I will admit it---I'm willing to ride with Romo a while longer, but if he makes another game-changing mistake that is all on him---I'm yelling for his job, again.

[Macarthur]

How many of you are honest enough to admit to being "heat of the moment" Cowboy fans? I will admit it---I'm willing to ride with Romo a while longer, but if he makes another game-changing mistake that is all on him---I'm yelling for his job, again.

Odds are that playing the QB position, he will make a mistake that costs his team the game. People that like to pile on Romo have tunnel vision when it comes to other QBs mistakes.

[Farmersfan]

This is a critical point, Farmer. Their sack numbers are irrelevant unless you consider the number of times they drop back. As said above, the Romo era Cowboys throw the ball at a greater clip than they did in the 90s.

So the stat we would need is sacks per attempt.

Romo has 2592 career attempts and 142 sacks. That equates to 5.2%

Aikman had 4715 career attempts and 259 sacks. That equates to 5.2%

So basically, they have the same sack rate and we've all admitted that Aikman had a better OL. Aikman himself said Romo is more athletic and so did Irvin and Woodson, BTW. I think it's safe to say that Romo is better at avoiding sacks. That doesn't mean he's better for those of you that have a tough time with reading comprehension.


Very valid points Mac. But the truth of the matter is that Aikman had a better OL for about half of his 12 seasons with the Dallas Cowboys. The numbers you posted were inclusive of all seasons. Would you agree that the O-lines Romo has played with are as good as the 90', 91', 97', 98', 99' and 2000 lines were? Aikmans adjusted number is 4.81% for those last 4 seasons. This is compared to Romo's 5.2%. What does this mean? Seems to me when you compare both QBs with bad offensive lines then the avoiding sacks category also goes to Aikman.

But here's the icing on this cake! Troy Aikman was a 1st ballot Hall of Famer! Does anybody think Romo will even get in the Hall of Fame? I doubt it...................

[Bullaholic]

Odds are that playing the QB position, he will make a mistake that costs his team the game. People that like to pile on Romo have tunnel vision when it comes to other QBs mistakes.

Big diff when you are the QB of the Dallas Cowboys in a long dry spell, Mac. Most Cowboys fans were spoiled by the good old days, plus Texas football fans are among the most demanding in sports by virtue of their heritage in native HS and college teams.

[Farmersfan]

totally agree..Romo did beat a great team in 09 in Dec agianst the Saints, that was a season saving win on the road..yet people forget that


That's one game in 9 seasons in the league!!!! :) I don't think people have forgetten it. I just think it is pretty insignificant in the overall scheme of things..............

[Macarthur]

I would say that the OL late in Troy's career was pretty comperable to what Romo's had. Overall pretty decent, but peppered with areas of inconsistency.

However, your numbers are good one's but let's dig down another layer. Because JG is a Norv disciple, many think they're running the same offense, but there's a notable difference. Norv's offense uses a ton of slants and quicker routes. JG's route tree is significantly deeper as evidenced by Romo's very high yards per attempt number (one of the higest EVER). Romo's Y/A is 8.0 and never a season below 7.5. Aikman only got above 7.5 3 times in his career - mostly around 7.0. A full yard per attempt difference is pretty significant, especially given that they run essentially the same offensive system, JG just pushes the ball downfield more than Norv did/does. Logically, that tells you that Romo's is going to be in more 5 and 7 step drop situations.

Good stuff though.

[Farmersfan]

I would say that the OL late in Troy's career was pretty comperable to what Romo's had. Overall pretty decent, but peppered with areas of inconsistency.

However, your numbers are good one's but let's dig down another layer. Because JG is a Norv disciple, many think they're running the same offense, but there's a notable difference. Norv's offense uses a ton of slants and quicker routes. JG's route tree is significantly deeper as evidenced by Romo's very high yards per attempt number (one of the higest EVER). Romo's Y/A is 8.0 and never a season below 7.5. Aikman only got above 7.5 3 times in his career - mostly around 7.0. A full yard per attempt difference is pretty significant, especially given that they run essentially the same offensive system, JG just pushes the ball downfield more than Norv did/does. Logically, that tells you that Romo's is going to be in more 5 and 7 step drop situations.

Good stuff though.


I agree with this! Not just Jason Garrett but even before him. Romo's 6 seasons numbers of 20+yard completions and 40+yard completions blows away Aikmans 12 years worth. Romo certainly throws downfield a lot more than Aikman did. This would mean by design Romo has to hold the ball longer. Either that or Aikman had the downfield routes but was able to quickly progress through his reads instead of locking on a single down field receiver..................

[Txbroadcaster]

That's one game in 9 seasons in the league!!!! :) I don't think people have forgetten it. I just think it is pretty insignificant in the overall scheme of things..............

ok how about beating a 11-3 giants team in 08 with the season on the line..or beating a 10-1 Packer team in 07..or beating the Eagle back to back weeks in 09 to get homefield for the play off game and then eliminate the Eagles

again for every time Romo supposedly choked you can show a big game where he got the win

[Farmersfan]

I would say that the OL late in Troy's career was pretty comperable to what Romo's had. Overall pretty decent, but peppered with areas of inconsistency.

However, your numbers are good one's but let's dig down another layer. Because JG is a Norv disciple, many think they're running the same offense, but there's a notable difference. Norv's offense uses a ton of slants and quicker routes. JG's route tree is significantly deeper as evidenced by Romo's very high yards per attempt number (one of the higest EVER). Romo's Y/A is 8.0 and never a season below 7.5. Aikman only got above 7.5 3 times in his career - mostly around 7.0. A full yard per attempt difference is pretty significant, especially given that they run essentially the same offensive system, JG just pushes the ball downfield more than Norv did/does. Logically, that tells you that Romo's is going to be in more 5 and 7 step drop situations.

Good stuff though.



Here is some more interesting numbers:

Troy Aikman completed 10.80% if his completions for 20 yards or more. Romo completes 16.92% fir 20+ yards. Troy completed 2.07% for over 40 yards and Romo completes 3.65% for over 40.

How much of this is more athletic catch and run receivers, different rules for D-backs or simply longer throws? Good debate...........

[Farmersfan]

ok how about beating a 11-3 giants team in 08 with the season on the line..or beating a 10-1 Packer team in 07..or beating the Eagle back to back weeks in 09 to get homefield for the play off game and then eliminate the Eagles

again for every time Romo supposedly choked you can show a big game where he got the win


this ratio is supposed to be way lopsided TXB. 1 to 1 is not good.............

[Txbroadcaster]

this ratio is supposed to be way lopsided TXB. 1 to 1 is not good.............

only when your talking about greatest of greats..most realy good QBs will win some and lose some in big games...hell look at Manning and Brady who both have had big wins, but also have had soul crushing losses in big games.

[Txbroadcaster]

Here is some more interesting numbers:

Troy Aikman completed 10.80% if his completions for 20 yards or more. Romo completes 16.92% fir 20+ yards. Troy completed 2.07% for over 40 yards and Romo completes 3.65% for over 40.

How much of this is more athletic catch and run receivers, different rules for D-backs or simply longer throws? Good debate...........

who will play with a HOF WR longer..Aikman or Romo?...who will play with a HOF RB and a couple of HOF OL longer...Aikman or Romo?

[Macarthur]

Here is some more interesting numbers:

Troy Aikman completed 10.80% if his completions for 20 yards or more. Romo completes 16.92% fir 20+ yards. Troy completed 2.07% for over 40 yards and Romo completes 3.65% for over 40.

How much of this is more athletic catch and run receivers, different rules for D-backs or simply longer throws? Good debate...........

Interesting question. As was pointed out, Aikman did play with a HOF WR, HOF RB and a better OL. Romo did have the benefit of TO whose numbers would suggest that he is deserving of the HOF. I think the biggest thing is that Romo has never had a dominate running game like Troy did. The Cowboys have run the ball well at times, under Romo, but never with any real consistency or longevity. These types of talks are interesting and always somewhat of a chicken and egg. I mean Romo made a star out of an UFA in Miles Austin. Babe Laufenberg made the point the other night that Montana had the benefit of throwing to the best WR to ever play the game...does that mean Montana wasn't great? No, but all of those things have to really be given a great deal of thought when making these determinations.

I just hate this mindless drivel of 'Romo sucks' and Romo's a choker'. There's a lot more to the game than what can be said or typed in one sound byte.

[GrTigers6]

this ratio is supposed to be way lopsided TXB. 1 to 1 is not good.............Most games are not either big win or big loss. Most games are average teams where there is not the oppurtunity to succeed or fail in "big" games. So I will take 1-1 over a negative.
But he named 3 in 09 to 1 loss, so that 3-1 ratio

[Farmersfan]

Interesting question. As was pointed out, Aikman did play with a HOF WR, HOF RB and a better OL. Romo did have the benefit of TO whose numbers would suggest that he is deserving of the HOF. I think the biggest thing is that Romo has never had a dominate running game like Troy did. The Cowboys have run the ball well at times, under Romo, but never with any real consistency or longevity. These types of talks are interesting and always somewhat of a chicken and egg. I mean Romo made a star out of an UFA in Miles Austin. Babe Laufenberg made the point the other night that Montana had the benefit of throwing to the best WR to ever play the game...does that mean Montana wasn't great? No, but all of those things have to really be given a great deal of thought when making these determinations.

I just hate this mindless drivel of 'Romo sucks' and Romo's a choker'. There's a lot more to the game than what can be said or typed in one sound byte.


This debate would probably completely disappear in all corners of the world if people would stop calling the hater's opinions "mindless drivel"! this is the only reason this subject is even debated. It's because so many people feel the need to defend Tony Romo from his own attributes. For some reason the two sides of this debate are completely polarized. But in truth nothing said is anything other than speculation and opinion. Nobody can honestly deny that Romo has good numbers and puts up good stats. That can't be argued. What can be argued is why he is able to do so and if it's enough to offset the things he doesn't do well. But I hardly think just because you disagree with the point then it is "mindless drivel"!

[Farmersfan]

Most games are not either big win or big loss. Most games are average teams where there is not the oppurtunity to succeed or fail in "big" games. So I will take 1-1 over a negative.
But he named 3 in 09 to 1 loss, so that 3-1 ratio


The ratio is out of balance enough that at least half the world thinks Tony Romo is a choke artist!!! Even media in other cities and players on other teams have admitted they are never out of it when playing Romo because he will eventually make the mind numbing mistake that gets them back in the game. Google the subject and you will be really surprised at how many times Romo is referred to as a choker, mistake prone and other non-complimentary adjectives. And let's not forget that he was voted the second most overrated player in the entire NFL. I guess maybe all the other players should really pay more attention to you guys and less attention to what they see when they actually play the guy.
Where there is smoke-there is fire. and Tony Romo has created way, way, way too much smoke in his brief career. At least give some thought to how this subject has become such a nationwide debate that even Troy Aikman is asked to comment on the qualities of Tony Romo. If Romo were truly better than Troy then his worth and talent would be self evident.

[buff4ever]

Interesting question. As was pointed out, Aikman did play with a HOF WR, HOF RB and a better OL. Romo did have the benefit of TO whose numbers would suggest that he is deserving of the HOF. I think the biggest thing is that Romo has never had a dominate running game like Troy did. The Cowboys have run the ball well at times, under Romo, but never with any real consistency or longevity. These types of talks are interesting and always somewhat of a chicken and egg. I mean Romo made a star out of an UFA in Miles Austin. Babe Laufenberg made the point the other night that Montana had the benefit of throwing to the best WR to ever play the game...does that mean Montana wasn't great? No, but all of those things have to really be given a great deal of thought when making these determinations.

I just hate this mindless drivel of 'Romo sucks' and Romo's a choker'. There's a lot more to the game than what can be said or typed in one sound byte.

I am hearing what you are saying, and every year I hope that Romo can surprise me and hold it together for a full year, and everyone around him will play up to their fullest capability, and we all enjoy being cowboy fans a couple rounds into the playoffs. What would have to happen is for them to keep winning and not blow an early win like last year. I think the slips that this team makes affects it more than well lead teams. Especially if the slip is a blown win.

[Macarthur]

This debate would probably completely disappear in all corners of the world if people would stop calling the hater's opinions "mindless drivel"! this is the only reason this subject is even debated. It's because so many people feel the need to defend Tony Romo from his own attributes. For some reason the two sides of this debate are completely polarized. But in truth nothing said is anything other than speculation and opinion. Nobody can honestly deny that Romo has good numbers and puts up good stats. That can't be argued. What can be argued is why he is able to do so and if it's enough to offset the things he doesn't do well. But I hardly think just because you disagree with the point then it is "mindless drivel"!

No need for you to take offense. My discussions with you, for the most part, have been logical and based on a certain line of thinking. I'm referrencing different folks on here and just casual football fans in general that care nothing about looking deeper into something than saying 'Romo sucks and is a choker'.

[GrTigers6]

The ratio is out of balance enough that at least half the world thinks Tony Romo is a choke artist!!! Even media in other cities and players on other teams have admitted they are never out of it when playing Romo because he will eventually make the mind numbing mistake that gets them back in the game. Google the subject and you will be really surprised at how many times Romo is referred to as a choker, mistake prone and other non-complimentary adjectives. And let's not forget that he was voted the second most overrated player in the entire NFL. I guess maybe all the other players should really pay more attention to you guys and less attention to what they see when they actually play the guy.
Where there is smoke-there is fire. and Tony Romo has created way, way, way too much smoke in his brief career. At least give some thought to how this subject has become such a nationwide debate that even Troy Aikman is asked to comment on the qualities of Tony Romo. If Romo were truly better than Troy then his worth and talent would be self evident.I in no way am saying he is better than troy. However he is the best we have seen since troy and probably top five all time in cowboy QB's.

[GrTigers6]

I am hearing what you are saying, and every year I hope that Romo can surprise me and hold it together for a full year, and everyone around him will play up to their fullest capability, and we all enjoy being cowboy fans a couple rounds into the playoffs. What would have to happen is for them to keep winning and not blow an early win like last year. I think the slips that this team makes affects it more than well lead teams. Especially if the slip is a blown win.But that is the problem. So many people thought after the Jets game that romo was done, and being his typical self when in reality he had one of his best seasons. Now I know that he has done several things to be given that crown but at some time people need to let him take it off.

[Eagle 1]

No need for you to take offense. My discussions with you, for the most part, have been logical and based on a certain line of thinking. I'm referrencing different folks on here and just casual football fans in general that care nothing about looking deeper into something than saying 'Romo sucks and is a choker'.

If your referring to me, I'll have you know I was born just a couple of miles away from Texas stadium and I have been a Cowboy fan probably longer than you are old. In fact, I have Cowboy memorabilia from the 60's and 70's that collected when I was kid. So no I'm not some casual football fan, I bleed true blue. I too took up for romo until I came to realize he is not the messiah that we Cowboy fans were hoping for. His flash of greatness is just enough to keep you guys hanging on, and thats the bottom line. Myself and a majority of true fans have moved on. We don't make excuses for Romo like blaiming the lineman, receivers, and the defense. We face facts. The sooner JJ does this, the better.

[Saggy Aggie]

If your referring to me, I'll have you know I was born just a couple of miles away from Texas stadium and I have been a Cowboy fan probably longer than you are old. In fact, I have Cowboy memorabilia from the 60's and 70's that collected when I was kid. So no I'm not some casual football fan, I bleed true blue. I too took up for romo until I came to realize he is not the messiah that we Cowboy fans were hoping for. His flash of greatness is just enough to keep you guys hanging on, and thats the bottom line. Myself and a majority of true fans have moved on. We don't make excuses for Romo like blaiming the lineman, receivers, and the defense. We face facts. The sooner JJ does this, the better. Weird how i'd say 95% of people would take Romo over Schaub, yet us Texans fans are content with our QB and believe he can win a SB with this team. I'd say the Texans would be the favorite to win the SB if they had Romo.

JMO, but I dont think Romo is the Cowboys problem. I think he's more than capable of leading a team to a SB. Do i think he do it alone like Peyton? No. But that seems to be what Farmer and a few others want. A qb that can take the Cowboys to the SB and win it with average to slightly above average players around him.

Simplest way to put it i think is, Romo is not keeping you guys from winning a SB. There are MAYBE 3-4 QBs in the NFL that could come to Dallas and significantly improve their team. Everybody else would be a wash or a down grade. There are, however, tons of lineman and defensive players that could come to dallas and significantly improve the cowboys.

Just an outsiders opinion though.


not to mention, Dallas was probably the 2nd most injury ridden team in the NFL last year next to the Texans. Sometimes luck just doesnt go your way.

[Farmersfan]

Weird how i'd say 95% of people would take Romo over Schaub, yet us Texans fans are content with our QB and believe he can win a SB with this team. I'd say the Texans would be the favorite to win the SB if they had Romo.

JMO, but I dont think Romo is the Cowboys problem. I think he's more than capable of leading a team to a SB. Do i think he do it alone like Peyton? No. But that seems to be what Farmer and a few others want. A qb that can take the Cowboys to the SB and win it with average to slightly above average players around him.

Simplest way to put it i think is, Romo is not keeping you guys from winning a SB. There are MAYBE 3-4 QBs in the NFL that could come to Dallas and significantly improve their team. Everybody else would be a wash or a down grade. There are, however, tons of lineman and defensive players that could come to dallas and significantly improve the cowboys.

Just an outsiders opinion though.


not to mention, Dallas was probably the 2nd most injury ridden team in the NFL last year next to the Texans. Sometimes luck just doesnt go your way.


All very good points aggie. But only if look at simple stats and don't look between the lines. The talent for this Cowboy's team over Romo's tenure can't be denied even though some will try. They set a NFL record in 08' (?) with 11 Pro Bowlers. Even the 90's team that won 3 SBs in 4 years cannot say that. This doesn't mean the team with 11 Pro Bowlers was better than the 90's team. What it means is that team with 11 Pro Bowlers was considered better than the other teams in the NFL at that time. So the X factor in getting even average talent to perform at a high level is leadership. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and so many others have physical skills but their success is more the result of their mental approach to the game. Of course it's nothing but speculation at this point but I am 100% positive that those QB's would have Dez Bryant playing at a level way, way higher than he currrently is. This team has had so many underacheivers sleepwalk through their stay here it isn't even funny. In my opinion Tony Romo (or at least the lack of leadership) is the single biggest reason so many are able to underacheive on this team and still maintain a air of arrogance. Can you imagine for 1 second that Brady or Manning wouldn't put Dez in his place like RIGHT NOW? Say what you want but if Romo demands something from a offensive player it would also be expected by the coaching staff and ownership. They aren't going to risk their franchise QB for a childish attitude like Dez. But based on his history here Romo is not an Alpha personality in the locker room even though he was spoon fed the leadership role. With the personalities on this team the QB needs to be a Alpha personality. Again, in my opinion Romo is viewed in the locker room as a mascot rather than as a leader. At this point if Romo were to demand anything from a player i'm thinking they would simply laugh at him. After 9 years on the team and 6 years as the franchise QB this should be Tony Romo's team! Without question! I don't see this from this team! In fact they played harder for Jon Kitna than they did for Romo.
So to address your point: Yes Romo puts up good numbers but only has a success rate that is average in the NFL. He is doing it with a team that NOBODY doubts has underchieved significantly since he took over. So the question is would you prefer a top 5-10 QB that doesn't inspire good play from his teammates and will end his career as a .500 winner or would you prefer a bottom 5-10 QB that inspires the rest of the team to play at a very high level? I personally would wish for something in the middle. Based on how the other players have performed on this team with Romo as the QB it can be said that Romo is a main reason for what limited success they have had. But based on what a great QB could get out of the other players what Romo inspires is very, very lacking. So essentually Romo's numbers are pretty much only offsetting his lack of leadership and his lack of ability to step up his game when things get tough. This is why I have always said if we want a .500 football team in Dallas we could easily do it with a lot of other QBs that aren't earning 12 million a year......

[Txbroadcaster]

All very good points aggie. But only if look at simple stats and don't look between the lines. The talent for this Cowboy's team over Romo's tenure can't be denied even though some will try. They set a NFL record in 08' (?) with 11 Pro Bowlers. Even the 90's team that won 3 SBs in 4 years cannot say that. This doesn't mean the team with 11 Pro Bowlers was better than the 90's team. What it means is that team with 11 Pro Bowlers was considered better than the other teams in the NFL at that time. So the X factor in getting even average talent to perform at a high level is leadership. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and so many others have physical skills but their success is more the result of their mental approach to the game. Of course it's nothing but speculation at this point but I am 100% positive that those QB's would have Dez Bryant playing at a level way, way higher than he currrently is. This team has had so many underacheivers sleepwalk through their stay here it isn't even funny. In my opinion Tony Romo (or at least the lack of leadership) is the single biggest reason so many are able to underacheive on this team and still maintain a air of arrogance. Can you imagine for 1 second that Brady or Manning wouldn't put Dez in his place like RIGHT NOW? Say what you want but if Romo demands something from a offensive player it would also be expected by the coaching staff and ownership. They aren't going to risk their franchise QB for a childish attitude like Dez. But based on his history here Romo is not an Alpha personality in the locker room even though he was spoon fed the leadership role. With the personalities on this team the QB needs to be a Alpha personality. Again, in my opinion Romo is viewed in the locker room as a mascot rather than as a leader. At this point if Romo were to demand anything from a player i'm thinking they would simply laugh at him. After 9 years on the team and 6 years as the franchise QB this should be Tony Romo's team! Without question! I don't see this from this team! In fact they played harder for Jon Kitna than they did for Romo.
So to address your point: Yes Romo puts up good numbers but only has a success rate that is average in the NFL. He is doing it with a team that NOBODY doubts has underchieved significantly since he took over. So the question is would you prefer a top 5-10 QB that doesn't inspire good play from his teammates and will end his career as a .500 winner or would you prefer a bottom 5-10 QB that inspires the rest of the team to play at a very high level? I personally would wish for something in the middle. Based on how the other players have performed on this team with Romo as the QB it can be said that Romo is a main reason for what limited success they have had. But based on what a great QB could get out of the other players what Romo inspires is very, very lacking. So essentually Romo's numbers are pretty much only offsetting his lack of leadership and his lack of ability to step up his game when things get tough. This is why I have always said if we want a .500 football team in Dallas we could easily do it with a lot of other QBs that aren't earning 12 million a year......


Again you keep bringing up Manning and Brady..NO ONE says Romo is Manning or Brady...and if your going to judge a QB by those standards them every other QB fails.

Bryant had over 900 yards and 9 TDs in 14 and half games..IMO it shows Romo is starting to get something out of him...The WR position is known for being a position that takes 2-3 years to truly become great (outside of the freak Randy Moss).

[Macarthur]

If your referring to me, I'll have you know I was born just a couple of miles away from Texas stadium and I have been a Cowboy fan probably longer than you are old. In fact, I have Cowboy memorabilia from the 60's and 70's that collected when I was kid. So no I'm not some casual football fan, I bleed true blue. I too took up for romo until I came to realize he is not the messiah that we Cowboy fans were hoping for. His flash of greatness is just enough to keep you guys hanging on, and thats the bottom line. Myself and a majority of true fans have moved on. We don't make excuses for Romo like blaiming the lineman, receivers, and the defense. We face facts. The sooner JJ does this, the better.

FRankly, I don't remember who I was referring to, but maybe you have a guilty conscience. :)

However, I think there is a critical point to be made here.


...until I came to realize he is not the messiah that we Cowboy fans were hoping for

This is not a Tony Romo problem. This is a problem with your expectations. The Cowboys have been very fortunate to have two HOF QBs. Many franchises would kill for one. NOw, we have folks that rip Romo because he can't live up to something that most franchises would kill for. Most of the franchises in the league would absolutely love to have Tony Romo as their QB.

[buff4ever]

All very good points aggie. But only if look at simple stats and don't look between the lines. The talent for this Cowboy's team over Romo's tenure can't be denied even though some will try. They set a NFL record in 08' (?) with 11 Pro Bowlers. Even the 90's team that won 3 SBs in 4 years cannot say that. This doesn't mean the team with 11 Pro Bowlers was better than the 90's team. What it means is that team with 11 Pro Bowlers was considered better than the other teams in the NFL at that time. So the X factor in getting even average talent to perform at a high level is leadership. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and so many others have physical skills but their success is more the result of their mental approach to the game. Of course it's nothing but speculation at this point but I am 100% positive that those QB's would have Dez Bryant playing at a level way, way higher than he currrently is. This team has had so many underacheivers sleepwalk through their stay here it isn't even funny. In my opinion Tony Romo (or at least the lack of leadership) is the single biggest reason so many are able to underacheive on this team and still maintain a air of arrogance. Can you imagine for 1 second that Brady or Manning wouldn't put Dez in his place like RIGHT NOW? Say what you want but if Romo demands something from a offensive player it would also be expected by the coaching staff and ownership. They aren't going to risk their franchise QB for a childish attitude like Dez. But based on his history here Romo is not an Alpha personality in the locker room even though he was spoon fed the leadership role. With the personalities on this team the QB needs to be a Alpha personality. Again, in my opinion Romo is viewed in the locker room as a mascot rather than as a leader. At this point if Romo were to demand anything from a player i'm thinking they would simply laugh at him. After 9 years on the team and 6 years as the franchise QB this should be Tony Romo's team! Without question! I don't see this from this team! In fact they played harder for Jon Kitna than they did for Romo.
So to address your point: Yes Romo puts up good numbers but only has a success rate that is average in the NFL. He is doing it with a team that NOBODY doubts has underchieved significantly since he took over. So the question is would you prefer a top 5-10 QB that doesn't inspire good play from his teammates and will end his career as a .500 winner or would you prefer a bottom 5-10 QB that inspires the rest of the team to play at a very high level? I personally would wish for something in the middle. Based on how the other players have performed on this team with Romo as the QB it can be said that Romo is a main reason for what limited success they have had. But based on what a great QB could get out of the other players what Romo inspires is very, very lacking. So essentually Romo's numbers are pretty much only offsetting his lack of leadership and his lack of ability to step up his game when things get tough. This is why I have always said if we want a .500 football team in Dallas we could easily do it with a lot of other QBs that aren't earning 12 million a year......

FF you have said this 3 different ways to 4 different posters, and I have as well (but Mac doesn't like how I say it b/c I don't spend the time to look up the stats to prove why I agree with you on this 100% (even though there isn't a single stat required in our issue)), and they refuse to address or even acknowledge this issue is out there. B/c players and coaches don't lie to the media and the nation wide media then lies and tells america he is overrated and a choke artist. So we can totally rely on the media when they report on interviews with players and coaches that don't lie. But then we can't rely on the media when they make up these fantasy storys that romo has blown several wins and allows his opponents to stay in a game or take it over.

I don't get how these 3 or 4 don't understand that they are the minority on this issue even in the state, not to mention nation wide. Other players have said this about romo around the league, we know from TXB that they can't lie, so why do we ignore them when they say the same thing you and I keep saying. I think that these 3 have a touch of narcisist in them.

[Macarthur]

All very good points aggie. But only if look at simple stats and don't look between the lines. The talent for this Cowboy's team over Romo's tenure can't be denied even though some will try. They set a NFL record in 08' (?) with 11 Pro Bowlers. Even the 90's team that won 3 SBs in 4 years cannot say that. This doesn't mean the team with 11 Pro Bowlers was better than the 90's team. What it means is that team with 11 Pro Bowlers was considered better than the other teams in the NFL at that time. So the X factor in getting even average talent to perform at a high level is leadership. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and so many others have physical skills but their success is more the result of their mental approach to the game. Of course it's nothing but speculation at this point but I am 100% positive that those QB's would have Dez Bryant playing at a level way, way higher than he currrently is. This team has had so many underacheivers sleepwalk through their stay here it isn't even funny. In my opinion Tony Romo (or at least the lack of leadership) is the single biggest reason so many are able to underacheive on this team and still maintain a air of arrogance. Can you imagine for 1 second that Brady or Manning wouldn't put Dez in his place like RIGHT NOW? Say what you want but if Romo demands something from a offensive player it would also be expected by the coaching staff and ownership. They aren't going to risk their franchise QB for a childish attitude like Dez. But based on his history here Romo is not an Alpha personality in the locker room even though he was spoon fed the leadership role. With the personalities on this team the QB needs to be a Alpha personality. Again, in my opinion Romo is viewed in the locker room as a mascot rather than as a leader. At this point if Romo were to demand anything from a player i'm thinking they would simply laugh at him. After 9 years on the team and 6 years as the franchise QB this should be Tony Romo's team! Without question! I don't see this from this team! In fact they played harder for Jon Kitna than they did for Romo.
So to address your point: Yes Romo puts up good numbers but only has a success rate that is average in the NFL. He is doing it with a team that NOBODY doubts has underchieved significantly since he took over. So the question is would you prefer a top 5-10 QB that doesn't inspire good play from his teammates and will end his career as a .500 winner or would you prefer a bottom 5-10 QB that inspires the rest of the team to play at a very high level? I personally would wish for something in the middle. Based on how the other players have performed on this team with Romo as the QB it can be said that Romo is a main reason for what limited success they have had. But based on what a great QB could get out of the other players what Romo inspires is very, very lacking. So essentually Romo's numbers are pretty much only offsetting his lack of leadership and his lack of ability to step up his game when things get tough. This is why I have always said if we want a .500 football team in Dallas we could easily do it with a lot of other QBs that aren't earning 12 million a year......

As Broadcaster said, if you keep using the names of Brady and Manning, most QBs that have ever played will suffer by comparison. Geez.

And let me reinforce the point on Dez. Everyone keeps hammering on this kid. Go look at TO's numbers for his 2nd season. They are almost identical. Now, I have no idea if he will be that good, but he's headed in the right direction. Frankly, I think his numbers were great when you consider the kid was out of football for essentially a full year in college. Got injured and missed all of his rookie training camp and them got hurt at the end of the season. With the amount of actual time he's had on the field and practicing, I think he's doing very well.

[Txbroadcaster]

I don't get how these 3 or 4 don't understand that they are the minority on this issue even in the state, not to mention nation wide. Other players have said this about romo around the league, we know from TXB that they can't lie, so why do we ignore them when they say the same thing you and I keep saying. I think that these 3 have a touch of narcisist in them.

so you believe guys who are not in the Dallas locker room over guys in it?

[GrTigers6]

FF you have said this 3 different ways to 4 different posters, and I have as well (but Mac doesn't like how I say it b/c I don't spend the time to look up the stats to prove why I agree with you on this 100% (even though there isn't a single stat required in our issue)), and they refuse to address or even acknowledge this issue is out there. B/c players and coaches don't lie to the media and the nation wide media then lies and tells america he is overrated and a choke artist. So we can totally rely on the media when they report on interviews with players and coaches that don't lie. But then we can't rely on the media when they make up these fantasy storys that romo has blown several wins and allows his opponents to stay in a game or take it over.

I don't get how these 3 or 4 don't understand that they are the minority on this issue even in the state, not to mention nation wide. Other players have said this about romo around the league, we know from TXB that they can't lie, so why do we ignore them when they say the same thing you and I keep saying. I think that these 3 have a touch of narcisist in them.You are obviously one of those people who watch Romo just waiting for him to make the smallest mistake so you can keep talking about how bad he is. when in reality his mistake didnt amount to anything in the game and in fact he actually made up for it on many occasions. Yet all you want to talk about is that one mistake.
We tend to see all the positives and weigh in the few negatives and see that Romo overall is a very good QB. Like I said before is the Best QB since Aikman. So we might as well face the fact that he isnt going anywhere.

[buff4ever]

You are obviously one of those people who watch Romo just waiting for him to make the smallest mistake so you can keep talking about how bad he is. when in reality his mistake didnt amount to anything in the game and in fact he actually made up for it on many occasions. Yet all you want to talk about is that one mistake.
We tend to see all the positives and weigh in the few negatives and see that Romo overall is a very good QB. Like I said before is the Best QB since Aikman. So we might as well face the fact that he isnt going anywhere.

I will agree with you that he is the best SINCE AIKMAN, what does that really say?

You still missed the whole point, that it isn't the mistake here and there that we point out, it isn't the blown lead due to turnovers, it isn't the 3 and outs throughout each 4th qtr, it isn't that he is a bone head. The MAJORITY of his problem is that he doesn't get everything out of the guys around him, due to lack of leadership, lack of between the ears, lack of maybe working with them enough to be on the same page as them.

[buff4ever]

so you believe guys who are not in the Dallas locker room over guys in it?

I think the point I would make to support that would be the guys in the Dallas locker room would not throw their teammate under the bus due to 1000 reasons, versus the guys outside of the organization have no penalty in telling it how it is.

Do you really not get that when FF says it? That has been my question more than once. You guys ask us these tedious ridiculous questions and we answer them with logic. You then fail to ever completely answer why you don't get what we are saying or even defend your case against our biggest concern.

[Txbroadcaster]

I will agree with you that he is the best SINCE AIKMAN, what does that really say?

You still missed the whole point, that it isn't the mistake here and there that we point out, it isn't the blown lead due to turnovers, it isn't the 3 and outs throughout each 4th qtr, it isn't that he is a bone head. The MAJORITY of his problem is that he doesn't get everything out of the guys around him, due to lack of leadership, lack of between the ears, lack of maybe working with them enough to be on the same page as them.

So he has help make Austin who was a UFA into a #1 WR...he help make Robinson a guy who was a scrap pile WR into a guy that was signed for #1 or #2 money ..je helped make a 7th round pick in Patrick Crayton into a viable WR....so again he does not get the best out of the guys around him?..dont forget the likes of Jesse Holley either

[Txbroadcaster]

I think the point I would make to support that would be the guys in the Dallas locker room would not throw their teammate under the bus due to 1000 reasons, versus the guys outside of the organization have no penalty in telling it how it is.

Do you really not get that when FF says it? That has been my question more than once. You guys ask us these tedious ridiculous questions and we answer them with logic. You then fail to ever completely answer why you don't get what we are saying or even defend your case against our biggest concern.

please I beg you..show me what question I have not answered

[Farmersfan]

Again you keep bringing up Manning and Brady..NO ONE says Romo is Manning or Brady...and if your going to judge a QB by those standards them every other QB fails.

Bryant had over 900 yards and 9 TDs in 14 and half games..IMO it shows Romo is starting to get something out of him...The WR position is known for being a position that takes 2-3 years to truly become great (outside of the freak Randy Moss).



Dez Bryant was the Dallas Cowboy's #1 last season. He was ranked #38 in the NFL in catches. Certainly not something to be proud of. A passing offense with their #1 wide receiver ranked below 37 other receivers in the league is not going to get far. So that makes your Romo influence on Dez a mute point. And Dez's problems were directly related to running bad routes and quiting on plays. The QB should address that............

[Txbroadcaster]

Dez Bryant was the Dallas Cowboy's #1 last season. He was ranked #38 in the NFL in catches. Certainly not something to be proud of. A passing offense with their #1 wide receiver ranked below 37 other receivers in the league is not going to get far. So that makes your Romo influence on Dez a mute point. And Dez's problems were directly related to running bad routes and quiting on plays. The QB should address that............

he was number 1 what? He did not lead the team in catches, or REC yards or TDs..he was a number #2 at best on a team with the #1 WR out for 6 games..kinda shows my point..Romo had Austin for only 10 games..Bryant for 14 1/2 games yet still threw 31 TDs( with the leading TD Wr being a scrap pile guy)..career high QB rating..career high passer rating, 4 come from behind wins( and two more that should have been) yet lets blame Romo?

[GrTigers6]

Dez Bryant was the Dallas Cowboy's #1 last season. He was ranked #38 in the NFL in catches. Certainly not something to be proud of. A passing offense with their #1 wide receiver ranked below 37 other receivers in the league is not going to get far. So that makes your Romo influence on Dez a mute point. And Dez's problems were directly related to running bad routes and quiting on plays. The QB should address that............Thats his entire point. He has very little experience in two years of work. He was injured first off season and then there was no off season last year. So he is Gonna really break out this year i believe. With Romo's help of course:D

[buff4ever]

You guys.

Are a piece of work???

[Eagle 1]

FRankly, I don't remember who I was referring to, but maybe you have a guilty conscience. :)

However, I think there is a critical point to be made here.



This is not a Tony Romo problem. This is a problem with your expectations. The Cowboys have been very fortunate to have two HOF QBs. Many franchises would kill for one. NOw, we have folks that rip Romo because he can't live up to something that most franchises would kill for. Most of the franchises in the league would absolutely love to have Tony Romo as their QB.


I'm sorry I set my expectations and standards higher than you.
You may not have been refering to me, but you certainly remember who you were talking about.
I would be happy for any other team in the league to have Tony, but NOBODY is interested in him.
That should tell you something.

[Txbroadcaster]

I'm sorry I set my expectations and standards higher than you.
You may not have been refering to me, but you certainly remember who you were talking about.
I would be happy for any other team in the league to have Tony, but NOBODY is interested in him.
That should tell you something.


yea they would be..dont kid yourself to think if Romo was put on the trade market that he would not draw interest.

[buff4ever]

yea they would be..dont kid yourself to think if Romo was put on the trade market that he would not draw interest.

Don't kid yourself too much.

Since you are famous for wanting to know who. Who do you think would show interest for Romo?

You might be referring to teams that pretty well don't have a qb. And on top of that they would have to already have a team leader and just need someone to take snaps and not lead.

[Eagle 1]

yea they would be..dont kid yourself to think if Romo was put on the trade market that he would not draw interest.

Tony is 32 and playing his final years in the nfl, so no team in their right mind would trade for him.

[Eagle 1]

http://oi44.tinypic.com/300dyyv.jpg