I have to admit that the more Kurt Warner talks about Romo, the more I start to like him. I was an admirer of his when he played the game, but I really like him as an analyst. On Sunday, the GameDay crew went to talking about the Cowboys (again) in it's "Players Only" segment which featured Marshall Faulk, Kurt Warner, Warren Sapp and Michael Irvin. The subject was what do you say to Tony Romo if you're his teammate. Marshall and Warren (unapologetic and still unwilling to admit their hatred) of course said they wouldn't say a word to him.
Warner and Irvin had different answers. Kurt, like many of us, understands that as a team, the Cowboys win because of the way Tony Romo plays and you just have to live it. He also offered that if you're upset with the way he plays, towards the end of the game to run the ball. Like many of you, I too have wondered why JG didn't do his defense any favors by continuing to throw the ball. Running the ball, no matter how effective or ineffective chews up clock and the defense was doing more than containing Stafford, Megatron, et al they were being shut down. It wasn't until Kurt Warner brought up a stat about his career to Marshall Faulk that I thought the segment really got/gets good. With St. Louis up 24-3 against the Saints at halftime, Kurt Warner ended up throwing 3 INTs and the Saints won the game. Marshall offered some ridiculous rebuttal "we were playing from behind Kurt" --- uh sorry, but Faulk you Marshall. Kurt just said that you guys were winning 24-3 at halftime.
Nevertheless, Kurt Warner is completely objective when it comes to his analysis of players, teams, coaches, etc. He definitely put Marshall Faulk in a tough spot with having to eat his words about Romo and his 3 picks and not wanting to say a word to him.
The question really is, can you as a fan accept that what makes Romo great is what makes you frustrated as well?