Maintaining ROMOmentum
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 12:33 PM CDT
127 comments
People have called this Sunday's game against Seattle anything from a potential blowout to a trap game. But for me, it's not about that at all. No sir, I'm sitting here wondering what is going through Tony Romo's head right now as he gets ready to face the team that represents one of the defining moments in Tony's relatively short career.
Since this will be my first visit to Dallas to see a game in the new stadium (I got great seats, so look for me on TV with my Romo jersey on!), you have to wonder what he'll be thinking as he looks across the field and sees many of the same faces that were there when Romo led Dallas down the field toward a playoff-game-winning chip shot field goal try, only to become a national media goat for mishandling the snap.
Last Sunday's game, by all accounts, was simply one of Romo's best in his career. It came on the heels of a bye week in which Romo suffered more zings from the sports media than at any time prior. But in that game, Romo wasn't just good, he was masterful and he upstaged a QB whose been called the best young QB to come out of college in some time. In so doing, he turned the tables on the national media, if only for the moment, and gave them pause as they were forced to re-think their assessments of him.
This weekend, Romo has another golden opportunity to exorcise some of the demons of his past. Another week of good decisions, accurate throws and field leadership could do wonders for him both emotionally and in terms of whatever legacy he leaves once his playing days are over. Also, don't think that people aren't deriding his lack of consistency and expecting his play to regress to what we saw in the Giants game.
Some would say, "he's already forgotten about that game" or "he's moved on" but I wouldn't be so sure. If you've played sports at high levels before, then you know that there are some psychological associations that are more difficult to break than others. Ask Troy Aikman about his games against Rodney Peete at UCLA (hint: I have).
In fact, Romo should have a huge chip on his shoulder going into this game. He should hold the Seattle Seahawks partially accountable for him not having reached the top of the proverbial mountain and then take it out on them with a surgical dismemberment of their defense. While he, like any QB, won't ever fully be validated until he leads his team to a Super Bowl victory, this game...THIS GAME should be a personal watershed moment in Tony Romo's career as he leaves all of what happened on that fateful day against the Seahawks in his rear view mirror.
I know we'll all be rooting hard for him.
GO COWBOYS
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
3 recs |
127 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If Romo hadn't played them last year
and sliced and diced their secondary in the process, I think you would make a valid point.
But this game shouldn’t be any different for #9 than any other game for that reason.
BTW, I’m shocked you own a #9 jersey.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 29, 2009 12:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's called "balance" Terry
I can root hard for my favorite teams and players while still being somewhat objective when it comes to evaluating the body of their work.
As for this game, you’d be right, except for the context that Romo is playing in at this very moment.
More than ever, there are a lot of doubters who have very public podiums from which to criitcize Romo. He needs this to be a big game because it is the Seahawks (who he should never again lose to), because he is coming off of a great game and because whether he has the ability to take the next step and play well on a consistent basis is what everyone wants/needs to know.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
playing well against the Seahawks won't answer that
in the minds of many fans including yourself. Until the Cowboys win in the playoffs, he’ll never get the credit for being a really good qb that he deserves.
He could play great in the next 10 games but if we’re one and done again, the pitch forks will be out for him.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 29, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Terry
Look at Phillip Rivers.
He’s also got a lot of money and no blings to show for it.
He doesn’t suffer the same criticisms as Romo for a number of reasons. One of those is the fact that he is generally a known quantity when he drops back to pass. Romo doesn’t, because of his turnover history, create the same kind of confidence in those who watch him play.
That’s why Seattle is an important test. Did Romo turn a corner last week or will he go back to being the Romo who gets rightfully criticized for making too many mental mistakes?
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you make no sense
because Romo hasn’t made a bad decision or turned the ball over for several weeks. If you can’t see his turnover ratio is greatly improved from prior years you’re either blind or a hater.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 29, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, the Giants game was so long ago we should all just ignore it
It anyone who questions Romo is a hater, than any one who unconditionally defends him is a fellater
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 29, 2009 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
who is ignoring it?? I sure as hell am not
I’m saying it was one game out of 6, and that actually should be reason to be optimistic that he is improving his turnover ratio and he has.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For me, this game is also about continuing the momentum of the Falcons game. I know that seems cliched and obvious, but after the Falcons game in which all three phases of the game played well I would rather not see us fully revert to the Cowboys of old where one or more of the phases has a bad game and drags us down to the level of the people we are playing. The fact is that these next three games will be very key for playoff-positioning, and I would rather not head to Philly with new question marks. This league is all about consistency and that is what this Seahawks game should all be about.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Oct 29, 2009 1:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I generally agree
…but I think you mean that it should be a tour de force for Dallas and that we should dominate in all phases of the game as we did in Atlanta to START showing consistency.
Did I read you right?
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
I simply want a similar performance to the Atlanta one to start building consistency. I know that perhaps that is asking a lot for every phase to play that well, but down the stretch, we are going to need to be able to count on certain things such as Romo and the passing game, the pass rush, and solid special teams coverage. So, I suppose my point is that this week is a great time to start showing consistency as we head into a key stretch.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Oct 29, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Romo has another good game
He really looked great last week. I’ve heard several good explanations as to why. The emergence of Austin as a big play threat, the efficient way the offense got lined up a little quicker giving Romo extra time to read the defense pre-snap, and his increased mobility scrambling out of the pocket (looked like he was the 2007 Romo again,but with better ball security).
Hey, if the bobbled snap from 2006 still motivates him to go out and scorch SEA, then more power to him. I kind of doubt that it does, but who knows except for Romo.
Are you ready for some football???
by APerfectStar on Oct 29, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Romo will be fine.
The reason that the Denver and NYG games were so disturbing was that they bucked his normal trend of early and mid-season greatness. It seems like he’s back on track and playing as well as ever, so I expect that to continue. The true test for him, as usual, will be what happens when the calendar flips to December.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 29, 2009 2:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
As we’ve seen twice this year already, the fate of this team lies with how the QB plays, independent of any other factor. That has been the case for this team since 2006, and has been the case regardless of the the team’s starting QB. When the starting QB doesn’t play poorly (QB rating below 72), the team wins about 8 of every 9 games. When he does, they lose about 8 of every 9. That includes games when the OL plays well and when they play poorly, when the running game is hot and when it’s not, when D is stout and when it’s weak, and when the ST are studs and when they’re duds. For this team, it all comes down to the QB not playing poorly, and for whatever reason, Romo does that much more often when it gets cold. Hopefully this is the year that he bucks that trend.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 29, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes really
It’s like Aikman Sunday, the team only wins when Romo plays really well and the team needs to step up and have his back in some of his off games, thats what really good teams do.
Teams that simply rely on the brilliance of their qb are doomed for failure ultimately.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aikman was wrong.
The numbers don’t support what he was saying. The team doesn’t rely on Romo’s brilliance, they rely on their QB to not make crucial mistakes that gives the game away. Expecting the QB to not play poorly is hardly relying on his brilliance. To me a “good” game by the QB is rating above 90, and a solid game is 80-89.9.
The Cowboys have won every game since 2006 when their starting QB’s rating was between 70 and 89.9. Every single one, including games with Brad Johnson and Drew Bledsoe as the starting QB. Oh, except the Seattle playoff game, but I forget exactly how that one ended.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 30, 2009 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
then you've just contridicted yourself
because in the 2007 playoff game against GMen Romo didn’t make any crucial mistakes that gave the game away.
His qb rating that day was affected greatly by the putrid play of his teammates around him.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Always someone else's fault
I’m sure Jamarcus Russell would appreciate a suppporter like you right about now…
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Russell is horrible any way you look at it
not even remotely close to being in Romo’s league.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless of any other factor...
When this team’s starting QB has a rating below 72, they lose 8 out of 9 games. Regardless of any other factor. When this team’s starting QB has a rating above 72, they win 8 out of 9. Regardless of any other factor.
72 is far from a good or even average QB rating in today’s NFL. The average is usually somewhere from 80-85. I consider 90 and higher to be a good game personally, and there are currently 14 NFL QB’s averaging that rating this year.
The Cowboys have won every game when their starting QB has had a rating between 72 and 89.9 since opening day 2006, except the Seattle playoff game. Which, would actually mean that they have won 8 out of 9 when their starting QB has been in that range. And there are many who actually blame the starting QB for that loss, too.
The game that you cited, the Giants game in the playoffs, Romo’s rating was 64.7. That is below 72. The Cowboys lost. Romo may not have made a crucial mistake, but he didn’t play well, either. In fact, with that rating, I would say he played poorly. I count throwing a potential TD pass about 5 yards behind and 3 yards too high for a wide open receiver as a pretty big mistake, personally, if not crucial. Especially since they lost by 4 points.
Believe it or not, Romo does have poor games on his own, and not just because of everyone else. They usually happen after December 1.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 30, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know Romo has played some pretty bad games
Never have I ever stated otherwise, however, the playoff loss in 2007 was not one of them. I think he played average, not great, but not bad either.
The reason we lost that game was not poor qb play, our offense self destructed in the 2nd half. My initial point was that really good teams have to have their qb’s back sometimes when they don’t have their “A” game and pick up the slack and neither the offense nor defense did that game.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't Romo's play part of the self destruction of the offense?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 30, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not in the second half
He was running for his life almost every time he went back to pass and the few times he did have time to throw, his receivers were either dropping passes or running poor routes.
MB3 and the running also went stone cold compared to the first half when he was running wild.
Bottom line is that the Cowboys didn’t play their best game and ran into a very hot GMen team who beat every team in the playoffs the same way.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see it that way.
I’m not saying that we lost that game solely because of poor QB play, but it was a contributing factor. The QB does direct the offense, after all. The D could have done better, but they held them to 3 scores and limited them to 3 and out on their last 2 possessions. They gave Romo and the offense the opportunity to win the game.
And when it comes down to it, he had the ball in his hand with 16 seconds left, and threw an interception to a double covered receiver. Earlier in the game he badly missed Owens from about the same position on the field, resulting in a FG instead of a TD.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 30, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't make any crucial mistakes????
You need to watch that game again. Those turnovers were murder!
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson
by Fighter15 on Oct 30, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what turnovers are you refering to?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 4th Qtr INT to McQuarters
But it wasn’t just the pick. He was 50% completion pct, his receivers’ dropped balls, and the lack of presence in the end.
Look, I’m not saying he lost it by himself. I’d pick Jack-ass Reeves or Roy Willy as far more culpable.
But the fact was, Romo came up small in the big game.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson
by Fighter15 on Oct 30, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that INT was a desparation throw on 4th
you can’t possibly blame him for that, he had no choice but to throw it to Glenn, nobody else was even remotely open.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Romo played well enough to win that game. His teammates did not. And the INT at the end of the game was a hail mary with no timeouts on 4th down.
Are you ready for some football???
by APerfectStar on Oct 30, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Hail Mary from the 23?
He threw it to Terry Glenn who was double covered in the end zone. He had time to find another target that could get out of bounds or wait for Glenn to come open.
Romo clearly did not play well enough to win that game, as is reflected in both his passer rating and the results of the game.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 30, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, a desperation heave
He didn’t have much protection up front, the O-line protection had disintegrated by that point.
He played well enough to have won the game before that point. If his teammates had played well, they never would have been in that position in the first place.
Are you ready for some football???
by APerfectStar on Oct 31, 2009 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He really hadn't.
By the same logic, If HE had played well, then they never would have been in that position in the first place. I mean, the whole team didn’t play great. It’s not like he was lighting it up and they still lost. He wasn’t sharp all day and was out of sync with his receivers. It seems odd to blame everyone else but him when he was directly involved in several aspects of what wasn’t working.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he wasn't out of sync with the receivers
they were either running poor routes or dropping passes, how is that his fault?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know that it was solely the fault of the receivers?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 31, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said they were running bad routes
thats not too hard to see
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it not within the realm of possibility that Romo was throwing to the wrong spots?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 31, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you actually saying that it is impossible?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 31, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, highly unlikely
very highly unlikely
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because that doesn't account for every single bad play.
Yes, there were a couple of plays where the receivers made mistakes, but there were just as many plays where Romo made mistakes. He is as much to blame as they are.
Poor routes and dropped passes weren’t the reason that he locked into Terry Glenn and threw it into double coverage. They also weren’t the reason that he overthrew and threw it behind open receivers.
Believe it or not, he can play poorly on his own, and he does it much more often after December 1 than before. I know that is sucks, and I like the guy too and wish that it weren’t true, but it has been, and no amount of excuses in the world is going to change that. Hopefully this is the year that he gets past that.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not denying Romo threw some bad passes
I never claimed that to be the case, but in the seond half, especially the 4th qtr when the game was on the line, his WRs failed him as did his OL.
BTW, Romo didn’t lock into TG, he was the only receiver even remotely open on that play.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BPS
You’re wrong. I know you love to argue, but you’re the one who needs to go back and watch the entire game.
Romo didn’t play a perfect game, but to suggest that he didn’t play well enough to win is totally incorrect. Your logic is faulty. Romo threw a number of catchable passes that were dropped, penalties on other players wiped out gains and dug holes for the offense, guys fumbles, Reeves coverage was a nightmare. I could go on, but I know I’m right and you are wrong. Go back and watch the game tape if you want to learn the truth.
Are you ready for some football???
by APerfectStar on Oct 31, 2009 11:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Obviously no one on the team played well enough to win, because they lost. It sort of cracks me up that every time I mention that the fate of this team lies with Romo, people try to pick one game and single out how it wasn’t really his poor performance in that one game that lead to the loss.
My point is this: when he plays poorly, as indicated by passer rating, the team almost always loses. And not just him; that has been the case with every starting QB for this team since 2006. If you want to make excuses for why his rating ended up where it did, that’s fine, but ultimately, it really doesn’t change what I am saying. When Romo plays poorly, they usually lose. When he does not, they usually win.
We’re not going to agree on whether he played poorly in that game or not, but I will add that most analysts have agreed with me – that he didn’t play well. And the only argument to say that he did is the old eyeball test. Yet the results, stats, and different eyeballs all go against him.
If you would like to remove this one game from that analysis, it doesn’t change the results of the analysis. They still lose about 8 of 9 when he plays poorly and win 8 of 9 when he doesn’t. Since this game falls right in line with all of the other ones, it seem odd to remove it. But if it makes you feel better, count this game as one of the few that went the other way, despite statistical evidence to the contrary, and the overall results are still the same.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
usually is the key word
doesn’t happen all the time like in the playoff game.
Romo played good enough to win that game.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not.
Or they would have won.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with you argument
is how many variables go into how a QB plays. And unfortunately, not all of them lay at the QB’s feet (offensive line play, WR play, game situations, etc.). For that reason alone, it is perfectly valid to question your assertion that Romo is the reason that the Cowboys lost that game. By arguing with QB rating as a divider, all you are really saying is that the QB’s efficiency was not high enough to win. Unfortunately, that does not mean that Romo’s play was not good enough to win since they are not perfectly correlated by any stretch of the imagination.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 1, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But that's EXACTLY my point.
Ignoring every other variable, if the QB passes efficiently, that’s how things work out. You can blame whomever you like, but the fact is, the number one person responsible in any game for the passer rating is the passer.
And for this team, when the passer rating is not below 72, they almost always win. If you want to claim that Romo is not responsible for passer rating, then I hope you are making that same argument when anyone points out that he is setting records or otherwise playing well.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All I am saying is that
people objecting to your blaming of Romo have a vaild argument since a QB’s personal game is not the sole determinant of a passing game’s success. And while the QB is the number one determinant of QB play, other factors can certainly snowball a QB one way or the other.
As for the Giants game specifically, can Romo putting up a 64.7 rating (only 7.3 below your 72 line) really be considered that bad when his O-line played terrible and his WR’s were either coming off injury or dropping passes (Witten excluded)?
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 1, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
72 is pretty bad, already.
The average is usually somewhere between 80 and 85, so 72 is already pretty low. I just say 70 because there are no games between 70 and 72, btw. The fact that I have simultaneous arguments going on about different games and different circumstances where the common denominator is his rating leads me to conclude that my theory is likely valid. But, it is ONLY a theory. I’m just saying that no one has actually offered evidence to the contrary, just opinions on why his rating was that low.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
72 is average, I think anything over 80 is a decent game, not great, but good.
90+ is elite
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So then, you agree with me.
I think below 70 is poor, 70-80 is mediocre, 80-90 solid, and 90+ is good. 72 is pretty low without being poor yet. Hence, if the QB doesn’t play poorly…
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no, mediocre is not poor or bad
it’s average
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I agree that so goes Romo, so goes Dallas.
But I don’t agree about blaming him for the playoff loss vs the Midgets.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
by APerfectStar on Nov 1, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not solely blaming him.
I think the whole team was responsible.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he didn't have time to find another reciever, thats BS
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watch the tape.
He had time. I know that you think Romo never does anything wrong, ever, but he played just as bad a game as anyone else on the team. This is a ridiculous argument anyway, because it doesn’t change the FACT that since 2006, when Dallas’ starting QB has a rating below 72, they almost always lose. When he doesn’t, they almost always win. Regardless of any other factor. That means, regardless of whether you admit that he played poorly or you blame everyone else for his poor play.
If the starting QB of this team simply doesn’t play poorly, they win 8 out of 9. Whether he plays great or just mediocre, as long as it’s not poor, they win 8 out of 9. If he plays poorly, they lose 8 out of 9, whether the rest of the team plays well or not. You can try to find individual games and break them down all that you want, but that just underscores the fact that this is a clear pattern where the rest of this team’s play has little bearing.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Check this out.
Here’s a screencap from right after he released the ball on that play:
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see anyone open, did you?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that's a picture of the offensive line.
But you looking there for open receivers does explain why you always blame the receivers when Romo plays poorly.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
qb can only complete passes
to receivers who are open
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That loss is not on Romo
The team had no answer for Spagnuolo’s 2nd half blitzes.
Now, this year’s Giants game? Romo screwed the pooch on that one.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where the heck have you been?
My goodness it’s been boring without you around to conjure up spirited debate.
I felt like Batman after Joker died…empty…without a raison d’etre.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Been moving from Tampa back home to Texas
Seems like your knee’s been jerking a little less of late.
Keep up the positive vibes…good mojo
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson
by Fighter15 on Oct 31, 2009 3:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Like Ben in Pittsburgh, Peyton in Indy and Brady in New England. They are doomed to…Oh wait…crap.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't kid yourself
Those qbs were bailed out by their teams on many occasions, especially Roethlisberger.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've never agreed wth this argument
You ignore the fact that when defenses win position battles against our offense,the qb is the one whose stats take the hit. When you get down big the qb presses and sometimes makes mistakes
Take the new orleans game where we would have had to score on every freakin drive, and a no name cb who everyone thought would get torched pretty much shut down TO. We were forced to score every drive, which meant Romo had to pres and threw some INTs – that the reason his rating was so low. IN a close game, his rating is probably a 80-90.
Take the Eagles game in 2006 – they owned our offense in every regard. We had no run game and our receivers hardly got open against that secondary. Romo threw three INTs. Two of those came in the fourth quarter when he was trying to make something happen. WIthout these INTs, his rating is around an 80.
Same thing goes for the Eagles game last year – he played turnover free football for most of the first half, i don’t think he played awfully, every guy he threw to was completely covered. But we were down 14-0 at that point. One miscommunication with Roy later and a dumb pacman fumble and its 24-0 (the defense really deserved more blame for that game)
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does he HAVE to make mistakes?
Yes, there are games when they have gotten down. There are also games where they gave up the lead. There are games when the defense played well, and games where they played poorly. That’s the whole point of what I am saying.
Regardless of other factors, if the Cowboys’ starting QB plays smart ball, the team wins 8 out of 9. By pointing out games where a variety of different factors occurred but the main similarity is the QB having a rating below 72, that just enforces my point.
Of course if he didn’t throw INTs his rating would be higher, but he did throw them. I mean, if he had thrown a few more TDs, his rating would have been higher, too. But he didn’t.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 31, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was
that your argument that “when the qb plays well, we win, when he doesn’t, we lose” sounds like a cause -effect statement, which has been far from true n a few occasions. Just because Romo played poorly doesn’t mean we would have won had he played well – it doesn’t even mean we would’ve lost by a different score, like the saints and Eagles games.
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, that's a slight tweak on what I'm saying.
I’m not saying when he plays well we win, I’m saying when he doesn’t play poorly. That’s a big difference. Are you saying that if he had played better in those games, they wouldn’t at least have had a better chance of winning? In the 2006 games you cited, he had a completion percentage under 50% and threw 2 picks in each game.
And obviously we can never know what would have happened, we can just look at what has happened in other games where he played poorly and other games where he did not. Results – when he plays poorly, we lose 8 of 9, when he doesn’t, they win 8 of 9. And that includes games where he and Brad Johnson just barely got over the threshold. I mean, a 72 QB rating is not exactly me setting the bar high.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 1:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a 50% completion percentage
that was very much due to a philly defense that a blanketing our wrs. Which is why Romo playing better wouldn’t have made too much of a difference.
I bet if you look at most teams in this league, the same thing would be true. Everyone- when the qb plays well, they win. You say “when the qb doesn’t play poorly”, but since the start of 2007, Romo has had exactly 4 games with a rating between 72 and 90 where we’ve won (hardly a sufficient sample size to make that claim), and they all had specific circumstances – against carolin in 2007, we hardly had to do ANYTHING to win cause carolina is awful, an Romos rating was good because of an early td to TO i believe. Against GB in 2008, they completely sold out to pressure romo and we ran all over them – one of the easiest games romos had to manage in his career, yet without a late (not necessril needed) td pass to austin, he doesn’t get that high rating and we likely still win.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have looked at other teams...
And generally, when the QB plays well, they win. Which is great, except that is NOT what I said.
I said that when the Cowboys’ starting QB doesn’t play poorly, since 2006, they almost always win. That is not true of the other teams that I looked at. For the Cowboys, that is 9 games between 72 and 80, including starts by Brad Johnson and Drew Bledsoe. And they won 8. The same ratio that they win when the starting QB has a rating above 90. And the same ratio that they lose when it is below 72.
The one game they lost when the starting QB was between 72 and 90 was due to the starting QB fumbling on a FG try.
By pointing out different circumstances in different games, it just gives more credibility to my theory that the most important factor is QB play. Despite whatever else may happen, that is the most common similarity in both wins and losses for this team. Regardless of any other factor, if the starting QB doesn’t play poorly, this team almost always wins.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
almost always are the key words
there are exceptions to every rule
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
in those 8 games
what was the defense ppg allowed? I’d bet it was much lower than the other games. In the games I looked at from Romo, all of his wins with that 72-90 qb rating came in games where the defense played abnormally well.
Take the two redskins games last year. IN the first, they moved the ball with ease on us, controlled the TOP and the offense was pressed into making throws downfield. In the second, we shut them down. The offense probably performed WORSE in the second than the first. Yet we had a better result.
I think its just as sound an argument that: when the defense plays well and our offense is either going against a good defense or struggling, we win games with average qb play. When the defense doesn’t play well and the offense is going against a good D or struggling, we are pressed into forcing balls and the qb rating drops as a result.
I’m sorry, football is a team game. There are just to many factors that change on a game by game basis to support that we only need a game manager qb to win many of our games. There are quite a few games where we needed of bit of romo’s brilliance to win.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thnk looking at Romo's game by game performance, the more accurate assesment
would be that Romo generally (85% of the time) plays great or poorly. When he plays great, we almost always win. When he plays poorly, we almost always lose.
I’m not sure 4 games in the last 35 where we’ve won in large part due to particularly solid defensive football shows that we only need romo to be a game manager. Cause in general, our defense has not been solid. IN general, our run game hasn’t been very good. Which means we’ve needed Romo to play great to win.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How is that different than what I said?
Because I didn’t throw in the “plays great” part? Well, it’s unnecessary because we win just as often when he plays not great but not poorly. Hence, when he plays poorly, we almost always lose. Even when he doesn’t play great, love how you eliminated a year to reduce the number and chose not to include the other Cowboys starting QBs, they almost always win, as long as he doesn’t play poorly. I’ve said this before when you argued my point – you aren’t disagreeing with me, you just don’t like the way that I say it.
Is a “Game Manager” someone that doesn’t turn the ball over and make poor decisions? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I don’t subscribe to the belief that the only way a QB can make plays is to also make bad decisions.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In many of our games
We’ve needed the great houdini/ record setting Romo to win. We’ve been in some shootouts, especially in division games, where we wouldn’t win without his great play.
Heck, look at the CHIEFS game. We have two early turnovers, neither of which I put on Romo. We have a half full of crappy oline play that stalls the offense. The oline didn’t play well in general. Little run game. I’m sorry but only top 10 qbs are going to win that game for us.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because I'm saying he shouldn't play poorly doesn't mean he shouldn't play well.
I’m not exactly sure why it has to be one way or the other. But what I am saying is that when he doesn’t flex his spectacular play muscles, they still win at the same rate. Obviously there is no way to know what would have happened in any game other than what did happen.
But if you look at games where he played solid but not spectacular, they have won at the same rate as when he has played spectacular. When he has not even played solid, they have lost at the same rate. If you don’t think that shows that the single biggest factor in whether this team wins or not is poor QB play, then that’s fine. To me, it’s obvious.
by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 1, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would argue
that in games where he was just average for the first 2 or 3 quarters, such as many of our wins+losses Phily in 2006, Philly in 2008, etc, the difference between him ending with a good game and him ending with a bad one is a defense/run game that aren’t playing well, leading to him making mistakes later in the game as we press in trying to come back.
I don’t know, we’ll have to agree to disagree lol. We’re looking at it from different perspectives and I doubt we’ll change our views.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would argue
that in games where he was just average for the first 2 or 3 quarters, such as many of our wins+losses to Phily in 2006, Philly in 2008, etc, the difference between him ending with a good game and him ending with a bad one is a defense/run game that aren’t playing well, leading to him making mistakes later in the game as we press in trying to come back.
I don’t know, we’ll have to agree to disagree lol. We’re looking at it from different perspectives and I doubt we’ll change our views.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the game isn't without human error
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There are games that i think hes been the main culprit in, and they've all come in the last half of his starts.
2007 Eagles game, which i thought was the first regular season loss of his career that was on him mostly. The defense played well. THe run game didn’t, but it should not have mattered – Romo was not hitting anyone that game. He did hurt his thumb the first half to be fair but he was awful.
2008 – Steelers game was on him, and he didn’t play well in the Ravens game up till the 4th. The Redskins game, they pretty much moved the ball with Ease on our D, TO was completely shut down and it didn’t look like ou other wrs were really getting open. The Cards game, Romo was running for his life throughout. Given that it was his first game where he experienced serious blindside pressure, I’m willing to give him a break.
This year, he is absolutely at fault for the Broncos and Giants losses.
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I cannot for the life of me…
…understand why that Seattle game has ever been made such a big deal of. It was a wild card game between two 9-7 teams that never were going to get beyond the Bears in the 2nd round that year. It’s not as if he bobbled the snap in the Super Bowl. The 2006 Cowboys were a woefully inconsistent team that was never going to put together the 4straight games of excellent play it would have taken to win the Super Bowl that year.
I was far more disappointed in the following year when their 13-3 team, with home field advantage throughout, could not manage to win a single playoff game. But yet the media still brings this one Seattle game up as his defining moment so far.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
by gee-roj on Oct 29, 2009 2:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree about the Bears
I’d have liked the Cowboys’ chances against Chicago that year
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Oct 29, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you never know gee-roj
Who expected the Cards to do anything last year in the playoffs?? I know I sure as hell didn’t.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 29, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a one and done scenario...
ANYTHING can happen.
Look at Big Ben’s first bling where they beat all those higher seeds on the road.
Also, Romo has played well against Peyton Manning (again, who knows why?) and if Dallas had gotten to the big game against Indy, I’d have picked them to win.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with the 3 above me
that Bears team was very beatable – in fact Seattle came very close. While I doubt we beat NO, who knows? the playoffs are honestly a crapshoot nowadays.
We’ve also seen that once qbs get over that playoff hump, they tend to play much better. Ben, Brady were average qbs imo before they got those big playoff wins. Brady was nothing special in 2001 and Ben’s play definitely picked up after his first sb. Recently Eli and Flacco’s games improved massively after their playoff wins, although I still wouldn’t take Eli over Romo.
I think Romo could make the same jump.
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your point would be MUCH stronger if this game was in Seattle, on the very turf of his notorious fumble
Winning takes talent, to repeat takes character. - John Wooden
by BishopWest on Oct 29, 2009 4:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the point is the point
…but having said that, I agree with you that the psychological imagery tied to this game would be even more amplified in Seattle.
Heck, maybe the Seahawks could sign Pete Hunter for Sunday’s contest. You know, just for kicks?
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 29, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I agree with Bishop and Terry
If it were in Seattle and if it were the first time Tony had faced them, it might be a problem. This is a different Tony than we saw earlier in the season. To paraphrase Nicholson " He’s much better now". Tony is just going to roll these guys. Better yet I would like to see our defense attack the same as last week. It’s hard to throw the deep ball from your butt.
by oldboysfan on Oct 29, 2009 7:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Because of one game?
I don’t know if you’d say that in a Monday morning post if he lays an egg on Sunday.
Let’s not bend like a reed in the wind and bash the player/team when things go one way or another and maintain a broader perspective. One game, good or bad, will never sway me that much only because one of anything is not a pattern.
The real question that a game like this (with all of its historical import) is supposed to help us answer is simply, “Is Tony Romo getting better as a QB and as a leader?”
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Romo has had 4 really good games, one medicore and one bad game this season
He has a 94 qb rating which is pretty damn good so I would say it’s safe to say Romo has improved his game this year and will continue to do so.
The answer to your question is an obvious yes.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His rating is about where it usually is this time of year.
I don’t think his rating is an indicator of his improvement, because it’s actually lower than it was after 6 games last year.
But I do think he has shown definite signs of improvement the past couple of games. It’s possible that his rating will be about the same or lower than it has been in previous years but that the results will be better.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 30, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats only because his TD numbers are lower than normal
however his INT % and number of fumbles are at a career low so far for him, so I think that’s the area that Romo needed to improve on the most and he has.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 30, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet you loved Ken Andersen
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Pat McInally WR/P
Are you ready for some football???
by APerfectStar on Oct 31, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually he was a great qb in his day, extremely underrated
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Great job looking good against Tampa (at) Bay.
Seriously, his one impressive outing is last week and that’s because he didn’t start off with his trademark sluggishness, he was on target all day and he took sack instead of throwing INT’s.
The theme of the post is all about whether it was a one-game wonder or not.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was impressive against the Chiefs and Panthers
Against Carolina, we got a ridiculous number off offensive penalties and three or 4 oline gaffes completely stalled the game in the first half. We’ve seen this time and time again for years even with bledsoe – how does this get put on Romo? Romo played very conservatively in the first half. In the second half, he made the 3 or 4 throws into good coverage to get us downfield that we needed to win that game. It was pretty much the prototypical eli manning game, except Eli would’ve won 34-7 with his run game(at least last year…we’re seeing some struggles now without the dominant run game).
Against KC, pretty much the same thing happened. The fumble was more on the ol than him I thought. Crayton fumbled a punt and we were down 10-0. A poor first half in terms of penalties really hurt us. In general, he was very accurate that game too – a couple of Miles catches were perfect throws by Romo.
He played great in the ATL game, but keep in mind that Atlanta plays a cover 2 that Romo as a nfl vet has seen quite a lot of. Hes steadily improved, and i think its fair to say between the TB and Atlanta games that hes pretty much mastered that defense. Personally, as as judge of his play and maturation as a qb i thought the Panthers win said more about him.
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
qb rating
REALLY needs to take fumbles into account. Its a totally incomplete judge of play without that.
His qb rating may be the same, but hes holding the ball much better and aside from one game, has protected the ball much better.
by foyesboys on Oct 31, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, most qb fumbles aren't a qbs fault
when a qb is blindsided trying to throw which is when most qbs fumble can’t be put on the qb
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not wth Romo
MANY of his fumbles (ie this seattle game) come when a guy is on him or within arms reach and Romo can see him and still tries to make the play and the ball gets stripped.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no, Romo isn't looking at defenders
he’s looking down field looking to throw which is what he’s supposed to do.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The point being that Romo loses fumbles without being blindsided
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Nov 1, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not this year
he’s vastly improved in that area. The fumble today was the result of him being blindsided trying to throw
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I’ll agree with that, although he was not “blindsided” today – maybe i managed to forget the play in the last 2 hours but i could swear Romo was hit by a guy who was coming at him from his right.
Generally though, this year, hes been much better at that, i agree. You said that most fumbles aren’t the qbs fault but I’d argue that last year, 5-6 fumbles were on Romo, which is a lot.
by foyesboys on Nov 1, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it looked like he got hit from behind to me
i’d have to watch it again
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Nov 1, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Only a few people could take what is universally considered to be a great trait in a QB
and make it a negative…
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 1, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So he can't be judged as good off of two consecutive games this year?
But you can say he sucks because he had a bad game against the Giants? OK
I can’t believe you own a Romo jersey.
by ChrisRichey on Oct 30, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Context?
I say Romo has not proven himself to be the QB Dallas needs him to be. Namely, he hasn’t been clutch in late season games, he hasn’t consistently made good decisions and he hasn’t displayed emoptional maturity and leadership in times of duress.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think he’s displayed all those qualities in spades.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Oct 31, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Disagree
Romo has demonstrated repeatedly he has the talent and leadership to be a championship QB in the NFL. He is still young in his career – but he must continue to progress – and his time is now. Dallas needs to build a team around him; the pieces are there – mostly. I doubt if Dallas fails to get to the next level, it will be because of Romo’s failures. Instead, failures at o-line or defensive lapses such as seconday problems are more likely to be the cause.
by Iowacowboy on Oct 31, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just go off what Romo has said
He admitted throughout the season, and especially this week, that he was “thinking” too much (about not turning the ball over) and finally just let it go.
His play has certainly shown that.
I’m still with most critics that he hasn’t shown me anything yet in “big games”…i.e., December and January games that get you into the playoffs and particularly in the playoffs. I believe that when he presses, or intentionally tries to “manage” the game, he doesn’t play as well.
I, like most other critics, won’t see him as anything but a Danny White until he does. Which makes all interim analysis moot.
Don’t get me wrong, I still believe he can (more to the point…the team can) but nothing until then is meaningful other than setting the table. We feast after the dinner’s been made.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson
by Fighter15 on Oct 30, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moot?
Hardly.
It just isn’t the full story.
But waiting to analyze someone’s work until after they hang up their cleats isn’t any fun, now is it?
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Oct 30, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither is banging your head against the wall
Nothing until then will change their opinion…nor mine.
But I enjoy seeing and discussing the obvious growth that is occuring in Romo’s game. He is more careful with the ball in the pocket (reducing fumbles) and a little better at making decisions (fewer INTs), though he has had lapses. I also believe he’s taken a bigger leadership role.
We’ll see if it pays off in December.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson
by Fighter15 on Oct 31, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ROMOmentum maintained
At least for another week.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
by APerfectStar on Nov 1, 2009 8:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
Related FanShots on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
