Romo-Mania not about Romo?

by Philosopher on Nov 29, 2006 4:03 PM CST Comment 10 comments

Interesting debate on CBS Sportsline between Pete Prisco and Clark Judge.

The question asked is: Is Tony Romo-mania premature or is this guy going to be the next great QB?. Pete Prisco says that it is not premature. However, Clark Judge says it is and then chimes in with this tidbit:

But a scout I trust told me that what's going on with the Cowboys is more about who surrounds Romo than it is the QB -- and he compared the situation to what Ben Roethlisberger fell into at Pittsburgh. That's not a knock on Romo. He's a perfect fit for this offense, much as Big Ben is in Pittsburgh. "But," said the scout, "if he played for Arizona we wouldn't be talking about what a great quarterback he is."

I think the scout's logic is too simplistic. Taken to its logical extension, one could say that all great QB's were great because of the personnel around them (Aikman, Bradshaw, Montana, etc.) Certainly, great QB's benefit from great talent, but there is more to it than that. You can't write Romo off and attribute his success to his supporting cast. After all, Bledsoe had the same supporting cast and couldn't rise above mediocrity.

5 games may be to early to crown any player. But, I don't think the Romo-mania is entirely premature.

What do you all think? Is Romo good only because of the personnel around him?

Link to the comments: http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9836833

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great topic

I think Romo is great because of who he is (and how he has been prepared by BP and Sean Payton, and because of his own psychological make-up). I think he's successful because of the people surrounding him.

by dunkman on Nov 29, 2006 4:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Judge is wrong

Philospher is correct, all great qb's have to have some talent to surround them. I guarantee that Tom Brady and Payton Manning wouldn't be the qb's they are without their offenses.

Brady and Manning both have great lines that protect them as well as solid running games and Manning of course has really great receivers.

Elway, Aikman, Montana, Bradshaw all had great offensive talent. However, Bledsoe proved this year that even with great offensive talent, you still need a very good qb to win.

Staubach and Aikman have endorsed Romo as the real deal, I think they know a little bit more about the position than Clark Judge.

"They're going to leave me over here by myself and thats when I'm gonna sink my fangs into them." - Terry Glenn

by Terry on Nov 29, 2006 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I can remember Archie Manning playing for New Orleans( yeah I am an old guy). Archie was a great quarterback, but he played for a sorry team with poor pass protection and he really got sacked a lot, he was a better scrambler than his son Peyton, and a good thing to, because the guy was always running for his life. Back then the Saints had poor pass protection and a poor running game. I bring this up to point out what you said about quarterbacks being only as good as their offenses. It's a shame old Archie did not play for a good team like his son does today.

by memphiscat on Nov 29, 2006 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Scout is wrong

Great QB's are about offensive success. That occurs, however, when everyone believes that if he executes well, they will be rewarded with that success. When they have that faith, receivers don't let up on their routes, OLinemen hold their blocks just a little longer, RB's fight just a little harder and so on. When they don't believe the opposite happens. The Cowboys believe and Romo is the only change in the equation. Why? Because he is making good decisions and is executing well. That is the key--execution. Most players have a specific assignment on every play. Except the QB who has to make split second decisions among options on nay passing play and then execute. Romo is doing that and deserves credit for it. We'll see if he can sustain it, but I'm not betting against him after the last 6 weeks. This week will be a big test but I'm optimistic.

by swj010 on Nov 29, 2006 7:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think you nailed it

Talent, coaching, schemes, all of those play a role, but a team believing, and executing based on that belief is a big deal, especially in this era of relative parity.

Romo is better in all the ways we've chronicled, but the confidence of his team, after seeing his ability, has made the rest of the difference. Crayton talked about receivers running every route as if they are the first or second read tells you that you have three, four or five people out in patterns giving it everything knowing the ball will end up in their hands if they get open. The line kows that they can succeed without being perfect. The defense knows that offense will exploit the turnovers they cause or the three and outs they force.

by dunkman on Nov 30, 2006 8:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

there's more to it

than just judge being wrong.

I brought up roethlisberger to cheer people up right at the time of the switch but everybody realized it wasn't the same situation because pittsburgh had a much better established running game on o-line.

well, maybe we were quick to judge on the o-line, but its not like romo has a one reed, 10 page playbook. This is a pass heavy offense and he's asked to do a lot, on par with all the great qb's in the league. So far, execution has been pretty good.

Now lets see it against a good defense.

by ab03 on Nov 30, 2006 8:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You are correct

that Romo has been asked to do more than just drive the bus. I was pleasantly surprised that he came out throwing in his first start.

On the matter of a "good defense", the Giants are rated as decent, but for the record they are behind Indy and Carolina, so he has been tested by a couple quality defenses.

by dunkman on Nov 30, 2006 9:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Kind of Ironic

That out of all these QB's (Aikman, Montana, Manning, Big Ben, etc), Romo is the main one that is in a situation that actually PROVES his legitimacy. The same team was 3-3, insert Tony Romo and you go 4-1.

Kinda like Steve Young PROVED that San Fran was so good they didn't even need Montana anymore. Young being awesome certainly helped.

Still too soon the bronze his bust, but there is some proof in the pudding here with Tony Romo.

by hubcityraider on Nov 30, 2006 10:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Of course he's

not "great" solely because of the talent around him. But, it's a valid question. Same as it was for Aikman.

Is he AS GOOD without the people around him? No way. Does Emmitt set all those records without that O-line and passing offense? Not a chance.

This is why I hate "romomania". Who is catching the passes? Who is blocking for him? How does the rushing game threat factor into it all?

Football is a TEAM sport. Aikman is in the HOF yet Irvin isn't. That's a damn shame because without Irvin, Aikman has no chance of making it. Emmitt will make it easy, yet without Larry Allen and Moose Johnston he'd have been a completely different back.

On romo, 6 games in, I'm caustiously optomisitic. OK, VERY optomisitic, yet cautious.

by CowboyMike on Dec 4, 2006 12:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs