Tony Romo As Super Bowl QB; What Does It Really Mean?

by Dave Halprin on May 19, 2011 3:30 PM CDT in Dallas Cowboys General

A couple of days ago, we wrote about Roger Staubach's comments on Tony Romo, and how Captain Comeback thought Romo was a Super Bowl QB.

"Our quarterback is not our problem in Dallas. We've got a Super Bowl quarterback...I really believe that the league is so close in parity...and Dallas is the kind of team with Jason [Garrett] that they can be right there in the thick of it this year...And they have the quarterback that can do it."

This has stirred up quite the commentary around the Net, and on TV, as pundits and writers trip over themselves in declaring Romo's validity, and concurring with Staubach; or jumping into the fight full-on, doubting why anyone would proclaim that of Romo.

More...

It's fun, I guess, to discuss anything Cowboys-related during the doldrums of the offseason, an offseason made even more dreary by the lockout. But I have to agree with Roger, in this way - Tony Romo certainly has the talent and production to win a Super Bowl. But the NFL is a team game, and although the QB can have a great effect on any given game, or any given play, he can't lift the team to victory on his own. And no, before you misread what I'm saying, it's not all the fault of his team either, he has to take responsibility for not getting there along with everyone else. So I'm not saying Romo has played up to the level of a "Super Bowl QB" all the time, although in stretches he certainly has, and his overall numbers can stack up against most QB's of this era.

Part of the problem with this argument is what is the definition of a Super Bowl QB? There isn't a definitive one, unless, of course, you make it a guy that has guided his team to, and actually played in, a Super Bowl. But that's too narrow, because it only allows for guys who have done it, and no room for conjecture.

So is a Super Bowl QB a Brad Johnson or a Trent Dilfer-like QB, or a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady-like QB? Basically bus drivers have done it, and superstars have done it. So it's not just the QB - although in the new NFL, which has become a passing league, the QB is more important than ever. But to be a Super Bowl QB and guide your team to a Super Bowl, you have to have other things going for you besides your own talent.

Obviously the play of your offense, defense, and special teams plays a major role. Injuries play a role. Coaching is integral. Intangibles like team chemistry play a role. Sometimes luck in a crucial game is a factor. Heck, a blown call by the refs could come at a make-or-break moment. There are just so many things that go into making a Super Bowl champion, that's why it's so hard to repeat. It's never just about the most-talented team. And never just about the most-talented QB.

So when Staubach said Romo is a Super Bowl QB, he's right, if you're saying Romo has the talent and applied-ability to make that happen. But I can think of many QB's in the league who you could say that about. They have the ability, but for whatever reasons, the team and the intangibles haven't come together for them.

So when I look out across the league, I think Tony Romo fits the bill, as do others. Will it all come together for him and the Cowboys? Who knows, that's why we play the games.

But Romo has another high-profile ex-QB backing him and Staubach.

"Look around the league and tell me, of the elite quarterbacks, who would you take above him?" [Kurt] Warner said on "NFL Total Access." "You have Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Philip Rivers and maybe Ben Roethlisberger. But then who else? He’s right below them.

"I think he brings everything to the table. He’s a winner. He can make plays outside of the normal, everyday throws. He has to learn the game a little bit more, and no question he’s going to grow. But I definitely think he’s an elite quarterback and will continue to get better throughout his career."

Tweet Comment 106 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice write up

agree 100%, game is a TEAM sport and it takes a group, not just one guy

He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name"

by BigBad Joe on May 19, 2011 3:38 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

This threads gonna fill up...

A Super Bowl QB is a quarterback who is able to lift his team on his shoulders and come through in clutch situations. Has a team first mentality, is always looking to improve (both himself and his teammates), and has such respect from his teammates that when he says jump, the rest of the team asks how high.

Tony Romo is a Super Bowl quarterback.

by strobman on May 19, 2011 3:40 PM CDT reply actions

by strobman on May 19, 2011 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

oh lol f&*^%&% epic

someone get Thor as Witten and Demarus Ware as hulk

check out my bands nanoSMASH and Day vs Night

by AustonianAggie on May 19, 2011 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions

or maybe that shirtless Tyron Smith photo as Hulk

check out my bands nanoSMASH and Day vs Night

by AustonianAggie on May 19, 2011 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions

awesome...

To this day I have no idea what that woman was singing about. Like, literally no idea. I don’t know what a hollaback girl is. But I have to imagine it is a foul, disease ridden thing that wears too much make-up just to cover up the fact that it is a forty-seven year-old fish dog. – Family guy

by BlueNSilverBlood on May 19, 2011 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions

With all due respect...

While I agree with your partial definition, and that Romo appears to possess said qualities (jury’s still out on some), in order to qualify as a Super Bowl QB a QB must have played in one.

Romo hasn’t. Therefore, he isn’t.

Yet.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

"...and will continue to get better throughout his career"

If this is true, watch out.
As long as he hasn’t peeked yet, this team will be good to go for a few years because of Romo.
Just thinking of him getting better, puts a smile on my face.

Go Cowboys.....Go Bulls.....

by goat3000 on May 19, 2011 4:12 PM CDT reply actions

What's the love affair

with Phillip Rivers all about? He has a couple more playoff wins than Romo, but why is it always just a given that he’s better. I do agree that the rest of those guys are better (except Roethlisberger), but other than Rodgers, would you trade Romo for any of them? Obviously, with age being a factor, I know I wouldn’t.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 19, 2011 4:40 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

are you kidding? he's great

i’m not saying i’m trading romo for rivers but he deserves a lot of respect, he’s elite, he’s better than roethlisberger of course, he might be better than rodgers and brees, he just needs better coaching and a better defense

by ratware on May 19, 2011 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree that he's great.

But I also think Romo is great, and my point is that, why does it always just flow through as “common knowledge” that he’s better than Tony? And if you’re asking me if I’m kidding, then saying you wouldn’t trade Romo for him, then I don’t get your point

by sportsfanatic21 on May 19, 2011 5:58 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

i thought you were desestimating rivers "a priori"

i just wanted to point how good river is without taking into account his relation or difference with romo, the love affair of any people with rivers is because he’s great, the love affair with cowboys who want him on the team, well i don’t know, to me rivers is better but the difference is marginal, rivers wouldn’t be a great upgrade over romo and he would cost much, that’s why i wouldn’t trade for him, plus i like the way romo scrambles, that’s something rivers doesn’t have

by ratware on May 20, 2011 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions

I used to dislike Rivers - still do

But in a fanpost I did early in 2010 I discovered something about Rivers that made me respect him more for what he does on the field.

In the past five years (2005-2009 seasons) only nine Quarterbacks have completed a season with a QB Rating of 99.9 or more. Only one has ever done it without ever having his team rank in the Top 16 in rushing yards.

To my surprise…it is not Payton Manning, but he holds other honors. Manning is the only QB to have 99.9+ rating three times in the past 5 years, and twice he did it with his team ranking in the bottom half in rushing. Yes, Payton is that good.

Philip Rivers holds the distinction of having a QB Rating of 99.9+ twice and neither time did his team provide him a rushing threat. My respect for the whining diva just went up a notch.

Romo has never surpassed the 100 QB rating mark. Sure, a lot can be said of having a better overall stat for QBs, but surpassing 100QB rating is not some fluke calculation. Rivers has done it twice and with virtually no effective running game to support him. I do think Rivers is a better QB than Romo right now, not by much, but he is. This isn’t the only reason I think so, but some tangible evidence I found interesting.

The chart is below:
QB
Year
QB Rating
Team Rushing Rank

Payton Manning
2005, 2006, 2009
104.1, 101, 99.9
16th, 18th, 32nd

Philip Rivers
2008, 2009
105.5, 104.4
20th, 31st

Ben Roethlisberger
2007, 2009
104.1, 100.5
3rd, 19th

Carson Palmer
2005
101.1
11th

David Garrard
2007
102.2
2nd

Tom Brady
2007
117.2
13th

Drew Brees
2009
109.6
6th

Brett Favre
2009
107.2
13th

Aaron Rodgers
2009
103.2
14th

Side note: Quarterbacks with good seasons (95 to 99 rating) were almost twice as often on a team with above average rushing. 10 to 6. Causation argument (or lack thereof) can be made, but it does seem good QB performance and a strong running attack are often coupled…and could be considered evidence of the strength of a balanced offense that can both run and pass effectively.
-2009 (Schaub 98.6 / 29th, Romo 97.6 / 7th, Brady 96.2 / 12)
-2008 (Pennington 97.4 / 11th, Warner 96.9 / 32nd, Brees 96.2 / 28th, Manning 95 / 31st)
-2007 (Manning 98 / 16th, Romo 97.4 / 15th, Farve 95.7 / 20th)
-2006 (Huard 98 / 9th, Brees 96.2 / 18th, McNabb 95.5 / 11th, Romo 95.1 / 13th)
-2005 (Roethlisberger 98.6 / 9th, Hasselbeck 98.2 / 13th)

"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Leadership is a matter of having people look at you and gain confidence, seeing how you react. If you're in control, they're in control." - Tom Landry

by Kegbearer on May 20, 2011 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Damn them pesky facts getting in the way of a good ol’ emotional bias, eh.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Because he has better stats, a better arm, and more late season and post season success.

What else is there?

by Baked Potato Soup on May 19, 2011 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions

In basically the same length of time

Rivers has a 97.2 career rating to Romo’s 95.5. Both have led their teams to the #1 seed in the playoffs, and neither has been to a Superbowl. Does it sound like a given to you that one is better than the other? Looks like there are VERY similar in my book. The fact that Tony plays for the Cowboys brings MUCH more scrutiny, therefore a perception that he’s not elite. Yet, everyone who opens their traps in the national media fawns all over Rivers. Put those guys on opposite teams, and I think you would see an opposite perception. Thing is, with Rivers being a #4 overall pick, and Tony an UDFA, you would think that there would be a ton more respect for Romo. But again, he plays for the Cowboys, so it is what it is.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 20, 2011 9:39 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Also, the Chargers typically get better at the end of the year

While the Cowboys typically get worse. The Chargers are 22-3 in regular season games in December and January with Rivers, while the Cowboys are 8-10 under Romo. So, as I said, Rivers has better stats, a better arm, and more late season and post season success. So in every aspect, he has been better. To me, yes, it is a given that he has been better. I agree that none of those guys are far superior to Romo, but they have been superior thus far in almost every measurable category.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 20, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions

Ok

But can we agree that the amount of love for Rivers, and the amount of hate for Romo far outdistances the difference between their performances? And the original concept of this post is who is a “Superbowl” QB. I would bet that the national media would FAR AND AWAY proclaim Rivers as such, while it would be a mixed bag for Romo. And while you have made some good points about Rivers being somewhat better, is the difference in their careers to this point, drastic enough for that to be the case? Thats my point. Rivers is revered, Romo is scorned, and in the grand scheme of things, there’s only a negligible difference between the two, other than one playing for the Dallas Cowboys.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 20, 2011 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions

they also play in a terrible division.

The first “up” year for their division, they went 8-8. He is 2-4 in the playoffs (I’m not going to count the Colts game that Volek won for them, history leaves me doubting whether Rivers would’ve led them back in the fourth)

And does late season play matter when the Chargers generally are a nonfactor in the postseason? I know injuries have killed that team, and we certainly don’t have that excuse. Rivers generally has to carry his team a little more than Romo does. But his defense is generally more reliable too. And his offensive line is better in pass protection.

Personally, I’m not thoroughly impressed when I watch Rivers, but maybe I’m just watching the wrong games (they are mostly prime time or playoffs, and SD generally loses while scoring under 21 points. I did see many of their games last year being on the west coast, and again, they didn’t do very well). I’m not saying hes bad, but I don’t think he deserves to be in the discussion of Brees and Rodgers, let alone Brady and Manning. Theres not much separating him from Romo. I would put them on the same level. He seems to maybe trust his receivers more to make tough catches, but then again, Romo has had to deal with RW.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions

Some folks also seem to love his (Rivers)

firey (sp) sideline rants and demener……they make the “thats a real leader” comment because of it.

He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name"

by BigBad Joe on May 20, 2011 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions

Agreed

although some of that makes him look like a punk

by sportsfanatic21 on May 20, 2011 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions

I actually do like him for that,

but when the going gets tough some qbs kind of waver (Peyton, Rivers and Romo come to mind – yes they have their moments, Romo has had some terrific games against the Giants under heavy durress, but overall, they are questionable especially in the playoffs), while some like Ben and Warner and Tom Brady in past years and Rodgers last year seem to will their team to victory. I know I hold an unpopular opinion, but I think qbs have by far the biggest influence on playoff games, when defenses are generally good enough to shut down opposing running games.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that’s fair and valid criticism. To me, that’s the one thing left for Romo to conquer, and the thing that people have trouble defining when they say he’s not a great leader. He hasn’t consistently shown the ability to put the team on his back and take over games.

His biggest fans don’t help his image by constantly using the team vs qb argument to excuse that weakness in his game.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 20, 2011 10:01 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I think the points discussed before this essentially de-bunk the myth

that he has some sort of fatal “weakness” in his game. It is essentially taking a very small sample of games (playoff) and trying to prove ability from results. So Eli is clutch because he and his team had a strong post season. Once. Nearly impossible to buy.

The problem with the whole discussion is that it is defined from the beginning where it has to go – if a QB and his team haven’t won the Super Bowl then they can be conjectured “not to have it” and if they have they automatically “have it” by definition. Any question that is already answered based on how it is asked is pretty useless.

Romo (and Rivers and any number of other very good QBs) have won enough big, important games to demonstrate that they can do it. The only question is whether all the the parts will come together for him to win the whole thing. That takes much more than one player’s clutch play. It takes coaching, offense, defense, good fortune, etc.

Don't believe everything you think.

by dunkman on May 22, 2011 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree with everything you said

my reasoning behind my statementt isn’t wins vs losses in playoff games.Thats a team issue. Its visually how he has played. In the Seattle game, in the Giants game, in some of the December games, he could have done more. Meanwhile, Roethlisberger and Brady always seem to play their best at the end of close games. Rodgers was simply incredible last year, and his line isn’t better than what we had from 07-09.

A championship defense would be nice, and its likely that champinoship caliber Ds help their qbs out because guys like Ben and Rodgers don’t feel the pressure to make something happen. But still – I’ve seen Romo play great football. I’ve seen some flat out amazing games against the Giants in particular.. He hasn’t played his A game in the playoffs yet, and untill he does, I think its hard to put him above some of the other qbs.

An interesting argument would be whether previous success at the qb position in the playoffs predicts future success. I believe it does and thats why I’m making this post – Ben, Brady, Warner, Rodgers and Brees have some very impressive January games on their resume. They’ve all had at least one great game or clutch game before their SB runs (and I think we’ll see Aaron Rodgers quite a bit from now on).

Meanwhile, it seems like Peyton, Phillip Rivers and Romo generally don’t play their best when it matters most. Romo and Rivers have yet to play their A game, which is a little concerning to me. Manning has had some great games, but hes struggled badly with 3-4 defenses.

by foyesboys on May 22, 2011 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Yours is not a ridiculous theory

my contention is that these games (in terms of pressure) aren’t really that different from other “must-win”, high profile games. If he can beat NO in a must-win, nationally televised game, or the Iggles in the playoffs, he can win anywhere.

Just like any sport, players do better (and worse) against certain schemes, players and weather conditions. Romo probably experiences that, but I really think that he hasn’t had a consistent enough line as a starter to know. They have been far more inconsistent and flawed (and more so the later in the season they went) than any single squad on the team. With other teams you can shift to a running game if the opponent schemes against the pass and vice versa. Garrett (and Sean Peyton before him) had to rely heavily on the pass even when the situation should have called for more running because the Dallas line could not fire off and make first contact. The defense habitually gets into the Dallas line first and controls the gaps. They were inconsistent in pass blocking, but Romo and the scheme could usually compensate. Any team that cannot execute significant parts of its playbook – like run left, run up the middle, pick up short yardage, consistently pass block – will not get far in the playoffs.

Once the line improves, we’ll have a better sense for Romo’s qualities, but I think he is more than enough QB to win a SB.

Don't believe everything you think.

by dunkman on May 22, 2011 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

The Chargers play in hands down the worst division in the NFL.

That’s 6 giftwrapped games to pad stats and Ws every season. Rivers also had LaDanian Tomlinson (06-09), Darren Sproles, Ryan Matthews, Michael Turner (06, 07), Vincent Jackson, Malcolm Floyd and Antonio Gates, and better offensive LT to block him in Marcus McNiel.

Yeah Romo had TO for 3 years, outside of him, Jason Witten has been the only other comparible weapon. From 06-08 Vincent Jackson and Malcolm Floyd were still better than Patrick Crayton, Sam Hurd, and Miles Austin. Austin’s been good since 2009, and now he’s got Dez in the mix. At RB, the Chargers have had SUBSTANTIALLY better players: LT, Michael Turner, Darren Sproles, Ryan Matthews, and even their Full Backs have dwarfed Barber, Felix, Choice, and Julius Jones.

The other advantage Rivers has had. The Chargers Defense has done quite well at forcing turnovers every year also helps playing against crappy AFC West teams 6 times a season. But none the less, they give the Chargers shorter fields, and their defenders have a nose for the endzone. Additionally, until 2010, the Chargers STs has been good at winning the hidden yardage battle in return yardage differential, helps to have Mike Scifres on punts and kick offs, plus Darren Sproles returning kicks. Last year their coverage units failed em. Lastly, having a pro bowl kicker in Nate Kaeding (we until playoff time) helps ensure drives end in points even when a TD can’t get scored by Rivers to Jackson; Rivers to Floyd; Rivers to Gates; Rivers to Sproles; or one of their stable of backs.

But yeah, Rivers is just better than Romo, because he’s taller and has a better arm. Mind you Romo averages more yards per pass attempt than every other QB, so Romo can make throws. You’re very reasoning is what ultimately ran Brees out of San Diego.

I know these details because, living in Ca, I see plenty of Chargers games, and most of my friends are Chargers fans. So I’m well versed in them.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 11:38 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Don't forget

Rivers plays 8 games a year in like 70 degrees, no rain. Not to mention Oaklands weather ain’t that bad in fall early winter either. That will help your passing attack

Just get it done already...

by tommy d. on May 21, 2011 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions

9 games in CA every year definitely will help your offense

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 21, 2011 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions

All I know is...

In a poll with name-bias removed, going on equivalent-period stats alone, BTB members that voted picked Rivers as the active QB they’d trade Romo for. Even over Rodgers. Please don’t make me repost the post and results of the since-deleted Tony Traded posts.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd rather have Romo.

As much as I enjoy watching Rivers, his knees are shot, he lacks mobility. It’s painful to watch him move around the pocket, but damn he’s got a cruze missile for arm. Romo’s got an arm too, maybe not as hard as Rivers, but Romo makes up for it with his ability to move around a pocket and ad lib when shit hits the fan, it’s Favre-like, sure we’ll see some yips, but that’s the price I’m willing to pay to watch him operate, especially he doesn’t act like douchebag.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 21, 2011 2:20 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

As I recall...

the final act of the GM-for-a-day was to patch things up between Owner and QB over the neice incident and the Tiger was retained. That should tell ya where that GM (being yours truly) stands.

What’s your douchebag comment about? You got something other than the competitive trash-mouthing and attitude stuff irking you about Rivers? Something verifiable and credible?

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

I was referringt to Brett Favre, not Rivers.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 21, 2011 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Ahhh, thanks, my mis-reading misinterpretation

See the Favre connection now that you pointed me in the right direction. btw, what you’re saying about Romo’s game up there, yeah, I agree down the line all the way to the the “willing to pay to watch him operate” bit. And the “douchebag” part, well, with Romo, I just don’t worry or even have the thought enter my pea-brain.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 22, 2011 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

It's a QB who's gotten to the SB, how simple can it be?

Either you are one or not, and if you don’t get there, you are not a SB quarterback.

Sure, someone like McNabb can always make excuses and say he took the team as far as the talent would go. But you’re the QB, you have an amazingly high impact on the game.
So once in the playoffs, either you can get the team there or not.

The QB takes way more responsibility than any other player-for about half the plays, they are the ones making playcalls and adjustments, handling the ball basically every offensive snap, and on 55% of those plays bearing responsibility for the most part for the decision of where to throw and then making that throw.

Sure, other players have to do their part too, but Romo is not a SB QB, simply because he’s never gotten through the playoffs and made it there.
After he does that, then he’ll be a SB QB!

He’s a potential SB quarterback, which is still very good, but he has to win more than one playoff game and get much closer to a SB before getting called a SB quarterback. Sorry, Roger.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on May 19, 2011 4:46 PM CDT reply actions

I like the gist of it

is a Superbowl caliber QB. There’s no debate of it’s just who has been there and who hasn’t.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 19, 2011 4:50 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Oh, and sorry Terry.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on May 19, 2011 4:47 PM CDT reply actions

The Way I See It

If you want to go to the superbowl, you have to be set at your QB position. In general, if you had data on the quality of a team’s QB and where they ended up at the end of the year, in general the teams with better QBs end up doing better and teams with worse QBs end up drafting in the top-10.

And things get even more important when you talk about superbowls.

Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Payton Manning, and Kurt Warner.

Those are the QBs that have been in the past 3 superbowls. They are all really exceptional QBs. You can talk about rule changes, you can talk about the evolution of the game, you can talk about the evolution of QB coaching, but the fact is that the QB has become extremely important in post-season wins.

So you need a very solid QB if you want to make it to the superbowl. So when you say “superbowl QB” what you’re saying is that the QB situation is rock-solid in that team.

I think Tony Romo is a rock-solid QB. You can debate where he may rank among the top-10 best in the league, but I think few smart analysis would rank Romo outside of the top-10. I think most people would consider him somewhere between the 4th and 8th best QB in the league.

If you have the 6th best QB in the league you can win a superbowl. Now let’s get a real team around him.

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on May 19, 2011 4:48 PM CDT reply actions

+1

A great QB on a crappy team will never win one. A crappy QB on a good team…same. Unless the team is as GREAT as the Dilfer-led Ravens. I think the point is if a team is solid in all areas, is (insert QB name here) good enough to bring said team to the Superbowl? I may be a homer (well not maybe), but Tony Romo absolutely falls into the “yes” category.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 19, 2011 4:56 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Even last year a couple of NFLN pundits

kept McNabb in the top ten, and excluded Romo… Sad times, smacked of racism. Not so much excluding Tony, but feeling compelled to include McNabb. Anyone with eyes for the game could tell you McNabb wasn’t top ten in ‘09 or ’10 (my personal feelings are not since ’07, but his team made NFC finals in ’08, soooo….).
Meanwhile, Romo has won us, or kept hope alive in a lot of games. He is like a good FS, he covers up his teammates’ faults. I believe he does miss throws sometimes, but he is still a “young” QB, and continues to progress every year. Most importantly, I love to watch him play. He is easily one of the most driven, aware, entertaining players in the game.

by BlueNSilverBlood on May 19, 2011 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions

I think Roger also called tony a "superbowl Qb"

because he has the abilities to take us to the super bowl . he clearly wasn’t talking about playoff wins. now if he has receivers who can make clutch catches and a defense who can also stop the opposite defenses then that’s enough help for him.

D-Ware= sack master
rated as the # 1 pass rusher in the NFL

by salas88 on May 19, 2011 5:04 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

If he has an offensive line that can give him time he can make a SB.

Tony ain’t Roethlisberger he cant just shrug of blitzing safties much less LB’s or DE’s. Tony can move in the pocket and avoid trouble but size wise he’s much closer to Brees than Big Ben, and requires at least a good pass protecting O-line to maximize his south beach errr… I mean talents.

Red means run, son, numbers add up to nothin

by Biph on May 19, 2011 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions

oh my bad yes I forgot to add the Oline

we all know the hudini tricks Romo does on the field but eventually he needs an Oline to give him at least 3 seconds to make his reads.

D-Ware= sack master
rated as the # 1 pass rusher in the NFL

by salas88 on May 19, 2011 6:48 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Tony has the same game as Roger

Roger got the Cowboys to 4 Superbowls. As Blue Eyed Devil stated: Tony is a rock-solid QB. That is good enough to win a Superbowl.

by cowboy1966 on May 19, 2011 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Having to label someone a "Superbowl QB" is absurd.

There is no secret recipe to getting to the Superbowl. Most of the time you need a good offense, and most of the time that requires a good QB.

There is nothing special about “Superbowl QB’s”. Some of them were very special, and some were not.

Just ask Ron Jaworski, Ken Anderson, Jim McMahon, Tony Eason, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Stan Humphries, Neil O’Donnell, Chris Chandler, Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Brad Johnson, Rex Grossman, and Eli Manning.

Is Tony Romo as good as these guys? Yes, actually better. But I think it’s pretty obvious that your QB doesn’t mean everything. There is a great infatiuation today with judging QB’s by how good there team is(winning). It’s a little ridiculous, but it seems to make everyone feel better.

Sometimes you need a dominant offense, sometimes a dominant defense, and sometimes you just get lucky with a decent team.

The ultimate goal is winning. So when you fail, people need to blame someone. And when you succeed, people need someone to exalt. The QB just happens to be the most important position on the field. It’s really just a simplification process that makes a complicated equation seem simple and comfortable to most.

by honkytonkbaseball on May 19, 2011 5:35 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs

I'll add...

Jake Delhomme, Doug Williams, and David Woodley to that list.

by sportsfanatic21 on May 19, 2011 6:02 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Williams was a damn good QB

Tampa was a perennial playoff team when he was their QB when he left the Bucs to play in the USFL Tampa didn’t sniff the playoffs till the 90’s. Williams came back to the NFL and won a superbowl.

Red means run, son, numbers add up to nothin

by Biph on May 19, 2011 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Different Times

I’d say with the added limitations on defenders, having an elite or ‘Superbowl’ QB is pretty important. I don’t think many teams will be able to ride a defense through 2 or 3 playoff wins against the best offenses in the league.

by strobman on May 19, 2011 6:37 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I don't see any difference.

The Jets have done a pretty good job the last two years without a “Superbowl QB” and beat a “Superbowl QB” twice.

by honkytonkbaseball on May 19, 2011 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions

The Jets will never win a Super Bowl with Mark Sanchez.

Sanchez is a poor man’s Joe Flacco. Niether guy will ever be good enough for their coaches to take the training wheels off of them.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 19, 2011 8:12 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

How can you say that?

They are good enough to get to two straight AFC Championship games, but not good enough to win a Superbowl?

If Sanchez isn’t good enough to ever win a Superbowl, then tell me how the guys I listed above won or participated in one.

by honkytonkbaseball on May 19, 2011 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Because times have changed

How many teams have won the SB scoring less than 20 pts in the last 10 years? I can only think of the NYG, and I think many think they were lucky to get the opportunity for the 1 in 50 catch by a 4th string WR. The Jets have heavily relied on their D and running game, and it’s hard to score 20 with just that. I believe they won’t win a SB until (unless) Sanchez is able to develop into more of a gamechanger.

by strobman on May 19, 2011 9:37 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I'll tell you why.

That defense is Conference Championship Material but it’s not Super Bowl material like the 85 Bears, 90 Giants, 2000 Ravens, 2001 Patriots, or 2002 Bucs. The Jets get do get pressure on the QB and they do have a lockdown DB in Revis. Yet their best overall defensive player is Jim Leonard, and that’s not a good thing. They don’t have the ball hock ability (outside of Cromartie), and Bart Scott for all his “I CAN’T WAIT” nonsense, isn’t nearly as good as Mike Singletary, Ray Lewis, Willie McGinest/Teddy Bruschi, Derrick Brooks, or Jonathan Vilma. Unlike the guys I listed, all Scott can do is tackle. Can he force a turnover? Can he cover a tight end? Additionally, no one in that front 7 is a legit pass rusher. They lack a Lawrence Taylor, Warren Sapp, Willie McGinest type. The best the Jets can do is keep rushing Mike Devito, up the middle ans Jim Leonard on some disguised blitz.

Moreover, the Jets don’t have a play maker safety that can take away the middle of the field. Again, their best defensive players are Revis, Cromartie, Leonard, and Scott. They’ve got the field defended well on any pass play thrown 10 yrds or less, any pass play thrown down the sidelines, or any running play designed to be bounced to the perimeter. They can’t take away a RB who can kill you on off-tackle runs (Mendenhall), and they can’t take away tight ends who can beat you over the middle (Clark), yeah they beat San Diego and New England but Gates was not healthy in 2009, and the Patriots TEs haven’t proven themselves yet.

Now to the Jets offense. They have talent, but Mark Sanchez is no Jim McMahon-Trent Dilfer-2001 Tom Brady-Brad Johnson. Those QBs were smart, confident, and commanded respect from their teammates in the huddle. What was the central theme from last year’s Hard Knocks? Will Mark Sanchez grow up and become a leader? The whole summer all we saw was him act like a typical joker frat boy. His QB coach was always on his ass. How many game situations or practice situations did we see where the coaches were like “fckn Sanchez/Damnit! will someone in the huddle take charge?” The best offense for the Jets is the following plays: LT in space; Shonn Greene between the tackles/power; let Brad Smith run the same qb option run to the perimeter. If none of that works, hold our breath, close our eyes, pray to god, Mark Sanchez doesn’t throw a pick or a poorly timed out route to Santonio Holmes or Braylon Edwards. YOU simply can’t win a Super Bowl like this in today’s NFL.

The 85 Bears, Parcells Giants, 2000 Ravens (with Dilfer), 2001 Patriots, 2002 Bucs all needed the QBs they had to make a few plays every game, and knew that the WTF/AYFKM?!? head scratchers were few and far between.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 2:31 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

nice lengthy reply, but...

I’m still not sure why you think Sanchez can’t win a Superbowl. I don’t like Sanchez either, but that’s not the point. The point is any QB who doesn’t turn the ball over can win a Superbowl if the rest of his team is good enough. If you want to make the argument that the rest of the Jets aren’t quite good enough to compensate for Sanchez, fine, but they’ve been real close. Close enough where they could’ve won a Superbowl by just getting a lucky break or two.

My whole point is that I don’t think you can’t look at a QB and say, “He will never win a SB”. It depends how good the rest of his team is. A good QB isn’t the magic recipe to winning, he’s just a real good ingredient to have.

by honkytonkbaseball on May 20, 2011 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions

they've eventually lost though

because they couldn’t handle the two other elite qbs. They also have a really good defense that allows them to hide average-good qb play.

The Jets seem like an exception to the rule. They look very average in the regular season. Their defense really steps it up in the postseason. No other team has consistently picked up their game in the playoffs without a great qb. They’ve shut down the Chargers, Pats and Colts the last 2 years, which no other team could do. The Giants won for one year with this strategy, but outside of their SB run are 0-3.

The Ravens have won a couple games, but haven’t looked too impressive. They also rely on their D, but Flacco has been even less impressive then Sanchez. They seem to need to generate 10 turnovers and run for 150 yards to win playoff games. Thats just not sustainable, which is why that team needs improved qb play to mount a SB run.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions

The Ravens are too old on Dand lack a great pass rusher like the Jets.

Also, the Ravens have ZERO playmaking talent at WR. Anquan Boldin is perpetually TO circa 1996-1999. Good, but replaceable. Dante Stallworth, eh, the Eagles didn’t think much to keep him after 2006. The Ravens entire offense is Flacco handing off to Rice, McGahee, McClain, or dumping off to one them because the receivers can’t consistently get separation.

The Ravens are the Bullies who still haven’t graduated high school 4years after their friends left for college. They’ll beat up on the Chiefs, or a flawed team with a Marquee QB. But when a legit contender comes in their way, their bravado and pre-game religious sermons, and feaux intimidation doesn’t phase the likes of Indy or Pittsburgh.

The Jets on the other hand, think they are a bully, and they get under your skin just enough to pull off the same trick as Baltimore, but unlike the Ravense who get shredded in the air, the Jets can get beaten up both on the ground and through the air because their beat three defenders: a poor man’s Asante Samuel, a lock down corner, and ball boy playing the role of a blitzing safety on every play (b/c he’s too small for anything else). The teams that lose the Jets lose because they’re too dismissive of them, the teams that beat em just treat em like another opponent.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 7:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I can't believe that I am the only one to rec this.

Make it green!

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass....... and I am all out of bubblegum" - George Nada

by fan since '65 on May 20, 2011 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions

I think you need to view the last 10 years in a vacuum

qb play has become very important. It is no coincidence that top 5 qbs (Brady,Manning,Rodgers,Ben,Brees imo) have won 7 of the last 10 superbowls.

McNabb in the early 2000s was also a top 5 qb, and his team was the most consistently successful in the NFC. Warner may be the best performer in the playoffs I’ve ever witnessed, and his teams generally won.

Even in off years, teams balanced good running games with good qb play – Hassleback,Delhomme, Eli come to mind.

I don’t think a superbowl like Giants-Ravens or Bucs-Raiders again. The elite qbs are too good. You can’t win one if you don’t have one. And that is why I think you call Romo a “Superbowl QB” even if he doesn’t have a ring.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions

In the Super Bowl era, sans the 1980s, it's always been a QB's league

Aikman(3), Young (1), Favre (1), Elway (2), Warner (1), Brady (3), Big Ben (2), Rodgers (1), Peyton (1), Brees (1), Eli (1). 17 of the past 19 Super Bowls have been won by QBs who the media considers to be among the best in their generation. The Brad Johnsons, Trent Dilfers have only won 2 times. In the 1980s Joe Montana was the exception, as he was the only elite QB to win a Super Bowl in that decade. From Super Bowl I through 1980, it was Bart Starr (2), Len Dawson (1), Joe Namath (1), Roger (2), Unitas (1), Stabler (1), Bradshaw (4). In their primes these QBs were considered the best at their position. The numbers back then were different, but that was the consensus. The 1980s outlier lasted until 1991 McMahon, Thiesman, Simms, Williams, Hosttetler, Rypen. With Jim Plunkett (2) being somewhere in between.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 8:10 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Viewing anything in a vacuum is not a great idea.

QB play has always been important, it’s just not a prerequisite to winning. You don’t think we’ll see a Giant’s-Ravens like SB again? We could have had one last year. The Bears and Jets were both one game away.

And the first time Rothlisberger won the SB, he was not a good QB. Defenses carry teams to championships and SB appearances all the time. Saying you can’t win a SB without an elite QB is just false. It’s happened consistently throughout the history of the league.

by honkytonkbaseball on May 20, 2011 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Dan Marino never won a Superbowl

He was pretty good.

by cowboy1966 on May 19, 2011 6:25 PM CDT reply actions

There's 22 men on that field

The other 21 have to play at a high level too.

The QB is a big part of it, but far far far from the only part of it.

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on May 19, 2011 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions

If there is one QB whose legacy is "tarnished" by not ever having won it all...

It’s the great Dan Marino. And he literally carried that team.

by DonMoosavi on May 19, 2011 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions

How about John Elway. He was about ALL that Denver had through the 80s and early 90s.

Until he got Terrell Davis and defense.

by mdlusk on May 20, 2011 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions

Damn, I was just about to mention this.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 10:35 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Put a guy with his ability in today's league

and his teams are going to have 11+ wins every year. Same as Peyton, who has no running game and every other year a decent defense.

He still may not win a superbowl, but odds are good that over 10 years hes going to make at least one deep run.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions

LETS DO IT TONY!

Wagoning since the day I was born.

by Jeterian 2 on May 19, 2011 6:38 PM CDT reply actions

+10000000

Like your new sig, kid. Loud and Proud on your bandwagon…

by BlueNSilverBlood on May 19, 2011 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions

I'll tell you exactly what it means

It’s time this fan base unite behind Tony and stop calling for his head every time the Cowboys lose a game (which has only been 23 times in his 61 regular season starts since mid-2006). Yes, we haven’t won a Super Bowl yet, and we’ve only won one playoff game since thrashing Minnesotta on Wild Card Saturday in 1996, Wild Card Saturday 2009 against Philly. It takes time to win. Not every QB is Joe Montana, Tom Brady, or Ben Roethlisberger (who won their first rings in their second NFL season).

I keep saying this, but it will always be worth mentioning:

a) Peyton Manning had 0 playoff wins from 1998-2002, won his first playoff game in 2003(2), then didn’t win/let alone reach the Super Bowl until 2006!

b) Drew Brees from 2001-2005 was mentally jerked with by San Diego media, the factions in the front office, the coaching staff, and in the locker room. In his first four seasons as a starting QB, Brees had 2 winning seasons, 1 playoff appearance (L), and 1 Pro-Bowl. In New Orleans, they’ve made the playoffs 3 times in his 5 years (06, 09, 10). From 2002-2008, Brees’ record in the playoffs was 1-2, in two trips. The Saints finally won in 2009, his 8th season as a starter.

In both cases of Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, their teams didn’t win the Super Bowl until the defenses stepped up their game to take pressure off the offense to have to win every game. Hell, even the Packers didn’t win a Super Bowl with Aaron Rogers until their defense proved they can be just as good as the offense.

Since Romo’s been the Cowboys starting QB, offense HAS NOT been the problem. The defense has HAS BEEN the problem. It hasn’t gone an entire season where it proved week in and week out it that it can get pressure, force turnovers, and give the offense decent field position to work with. Hell, even if the defense is lucky enough to get a turnover, rarely will it take one back for a score. The defense has lived and died by the mantra, bend but don’t break. Only in the 2007 Packers game, the loss at Pittsburgh in 2008, a 4 week stretch at the end of 2009, and the 2010 Texans game did the defense play at a dominant level.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 19, 2011 8:05 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs

+1

rec

by strobman on May 19, 2011 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I've watched our offense suck at times...

We played a lot of field position ball in the last three years… If defense’s mantra was “bend but don’t break”, our offense’s mantra was “Wound but don’t kill” or “Just wait, it’ll work itself out” haha, second one was a joke, but not really.
Seriously, though, I believe the entire team will be more aggressive and on-point this year. We really do have a lot of talent, if we pick up DE, K, C, FS, CB in FA (or our youth steps up *ahem,) and our coaching staff is what it appears to be, I believe we have the ability to win a SB.
If we can also reduce mental mistakes we will choke the life out of our opposition. That is how much talent our squad has.

by BlueNSilverBlood on May 19, 2011 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Im with you with support of Tony

He gets so much crap from every direction. I glad we have someone like Tony I believe He could get us to the SB. Will he? It is mostly up to the other 52 Cowboys, and Staff. By such a hot topic I´m once again thankful for BTB. The commentary here his top notch and way better analysis of the NFL in General and The only intelligent Choice for True Blue Cowboy Fans.

by meisternance on May 20, 2011 6:08 AM CDT up reply actions

All of this is so true

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 10:33 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

For me the whole discussion of whether Tony is good enough of a leader, QB, etc is just white noise.

The debate will rage endlessly until he wins one, or retires without having one a title. Does anyone really question sheli anymore, why because the rhetoric rules change when you win a championship. Romo is aware that what ever he does in his career will not be looked on favorably without a title under his belt.

Personally, I agree with Roger, I think he has the ability and desire to win a championship, if you agree with that fine, if you do not, fine. I have given up any desire to debate other fans (cowboy and otherwise) about whether romo can win the big one. The perception has taken over the debate and as Grizz has pointed out the only thing people will look at is whether he has won a title.

Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!

by cowboy78 on May 19, 2011 9:57 PM CDT reply actions

Anyone who questions Romo misses the forrest for the trees.

He played at a small school, and went undrafted. He played in a “spread pass happy offense” before NFL coaches and front offices stopped giving that 100% emphasis. Sean Payton and Mike Shannahan both liked him a lot. The reason Romo signed with us, Payton scouted him a ton, and because our QB situation was less stable than Denver.

When Payton took the job with the Saints, his first choice to play QB was Romo not Drew Brees. Yeah in the Saints America’s Game they talk about how Payton needed to convince Brees that the Saints were the team for him. However, they didn’t mention that in the Saints America’s Game, but it is the truth, Jerry wanted no less than a 2nd rd pick, the Saints offered no higher than a 3rd rd pick. It wasn’t until the Saints attempts at trading for Romo proved futile that they turned their attentions to Brees.

Getting back to Romo, for an undrafted small school QB to be able to stick on the roster of America’s Team for his first 3 years without ever seeing regular season action only to finally earn the job and post the 4th best all-time QB Rating (95.5); the 8th best all time completition % (64.1); the active leader/20th all-time in career passing td% (td passes/pass attempt) (5.7); active leader/4th best all-time in yards/pass attempt (8.0). I can keep going with these stats.

The proof is, he definitely has “IT” otherwise he wouldn’t have made it this far or put up the numbers he has to date. You want to argue wins/losses, he’s 39-22 (63%). You want to
talk leadership, how about the fact: he never gets in trouble off the field; he doesn’t throw teammates/o-line under the bus (Peyton Manning); he never engaged TO in his antics (unlike McNabb); he doesn’t throw coaches under the bus (Brett Favre).

Let’s debate his “clutchness”. His career QB rating in the 3rd quarter (103.4); his career QB rating in the 4th quarter (101.4). His career QB rating with 2 mins left in a half (99.0). His QB rating when the game is tied (92.6). His career QB rating when the Cowboys are losing (90.7). Career QB rating on 3rd down (90.9). Career QB rating On 3rd down and 6+ yards to go (91.6). Career QB rating on 4th down (110.7).

How does he perform w/in 10 yards of the opponent’s endzone?

1st&Goal: QB Rating (97.4), Comp% (62.7), TD:INT (18:2).

2nd&Goal: QB Rating (87.9), Comp% (61.4), TD:INT (24:2).

3rd&Goal: QB Rating (57.8), Comp% (45.6), TD:INT (8:2)

Now, let’s compare Peyton Manning’s career “clutch” numbers:
QB Rating in games that are late and close (91.3). QB rating in the 3rd quarter (95.1). QB rating in the 4th quarter (89.6). QB rating when tied (105.5). QB rating when behind (86.1)). QB rating with 2 min left in a half (81.3). QB rating on 3rd down (85.9). QB ratinf on 3rd down and 6+ yards (74.5). QB rating on 4th down (117.3).

QB Rating at the around the goal line:

1st & Goal: QB Rating (89.1), Comp% (50%), TD:INT (40:2).

2nd & Goal: QB Rating (87.5), Comp% (53.8), TD:INT (45:4).

3rd & Goal: QB Rating (86.2), Comp % (51.8), TD:INT (49:3).

Basically Romo’s numbers compare well to Peyton Manning’s. The only significant difference is Peyton Manning’s performance on 3rd and Goal. That’s the only area Romo needs to improve in. It should be noted, that Manning has 100+ pass attempts in that situation, while Romo only has 24 pass attempts there.

Stats can be found at yahoo sports, in the players’ profiles under situational and split stats; as well as pro-football-reference.com

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 4:32 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Seriously what is up with the outlier at 3rd and goal?

by mdlusk on May 20, 2011 5:41 AM CDT up reply actions

Has to be Kerri Underwood, Jessica Simpson, and Golf

If he would just concentrate on football more. He needs to be like Peyton Manning and watch coaches tape when gf/wife wants to see a movie. Instead of trying to qualify for the US Open, he should be bed buddies with Miles, Dez, and Jason and get together every week to throw the route tree. If ever a non-football related plan activity is suggested in the offseason, he needs to put his foot down or slap himself and get back to practice. Because, gosh darnit, Dandy Don, Rodger, and Troy were always all football all the time. Tom Landry and Jimmy Johnson would never tolerate how he handles him, they would yank him out for Kitna on every other play, or every other week, OR insist on more running plays! Honestly, I blame Jerry, he fired Landry, he fired Jimmy, and an over the hill stale Tuna wouldn’t tolerate such performance on the field and life style off the field.

And no, I will not look at the overwhelming body evidence and consider Tony Romo to be a top 10 qb. Bleeding Green Nation rips him, so they must be correct. Jamie Dukes is loud and talks with confidence, but he rips Romo, so Romo must suck. The Proletariat blogging community on Pro Football Talk and Kissing Suzy Kolber always make Tony Homo jokes, so he must be garbage.

Note, If you can’t tell this is a joke, then I don’t know what to tell you.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 10:28 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

ummmm bed buddies ?

he should be bed buddies with Miles, Dez, and Jason and get together every week to throw the route tre

Think i would rather be bed buddies with Jessica or Carrie LOL

He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name"

by BigBad Joe on May 20, 2011 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions

Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison

were always getting together in the off seasons and playing 2 on air football: Marvin go run this route against no body, all throw you the ball while not having anyone come and pressure me.

Peyton Manning has no time for the opposite sex. He spends his time with men! Even his commercials involve Jim Nantz and Justin Timberlake.

Romo needs to be like him, otherwise we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 11:00 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

all=I'll*

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 11:01 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I disagree that Romo should be graded on a curve for not being drafted.

If the question is whether he is as good as the other guys or not, then I don’t really care where they were drafted or not drafted. It’s not about how far above or below expectations they are, it’s how good they are right now.

Manning is not a fair comparison, because he started as a rookie, while Romo, Rodgers, Rivers, and Brady were able to learn the position for a couple years before being thrust into the fire.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 20, 2011 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Isn't Manning the Gold Standard for this Generation?

Also, I’m not grading him on a curve, I’m giving context plus #s to my analysis of Romo. I use context for those who don’t like just looking at stats.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 10:53 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Currently, perhaps.

But certainly not at the beginning of his career when he was thrust into action as a rookie. The other QBs mentioned were given the opportunity to learn behind an experienced player before being asked to step in. Of course their career numbers will be better. Rodgers and Rivers have similar career arcs as Romo as far as their timeline in becoming the team’s starter, so they are better comparisons. If you toss Manning’s 3 lowest rated years to compensate for the 3 years Romo and Rodgers sat around watching, I’m guessing his numbers would be better.

It’s similar for Brady who only sat for a year. His 3 lowest rated seasons were years 2-4. Obviously there is an advantage to not playing early as far as career stats.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 22, 2011 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions

For comparison (per yahoo):

Rating in losses: Romo 78.5,Rivers 86.1, Rodgers 85.8,

1st and Goal: Romo 97.4, Rivers 75.6, Rodgers 97.1

2nd and Goal: Romo 87.9, Rivers 91.7, Rodgers 91.8

3rd and Goal: Romo 57.6, Rivers 100.5, Rodgers 103.5

In 109 career attempts in goal to go situations, he has 5 interceptions and 2 lost fumbles. Rivers has 1 INT and 1 FL in 123 Att., and Rodgers has 1 INT and 1 FL in 100 Att. For his career, Peyton Manning has 9 INT and 1 FL in 386 Att.

As you said, Romo definitely needs to improve on 3rd and goal, and that could be all the difference in him being viewed as elite. The other guys get better as the situation gets more intense, but he not only gets worse, he completely wilts.

His 3 areas that need the most improvement, in my opinion: slow starts (74.6 career 1st Quarter rating), rise to the occasion in clutch situations such as 3rd and goal (57.6 career rating) and 4th and short (56.3 career rating), and cut down on red zone turnovers (theirs and ours).

by Baked Potato Soup on May 22, 2011 3:13 AM CDT up reply actions

He wilts? Wow. What an interpretation

My interpretation – but from watching the games – is that when teams know Romo has to throw, they have had little diffieculty generating pressure with the Dallas offensive line. Dallas play calling has had to rely on deception, mis-direction and Romo’s escapability to have the success it’s had.

I don’t watch Romo play and see the wilting you are trying to rationalize form the numbers. I see a flawed offensive line that can’t play deep into games and deep into seasons.

Don't believe everything you think.

by dunkman on May 22, 2011 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't see how it's rationalizing.

His numbers decrease drastically in the highest pressure situations, 3rd and goal and 4th and short. To me, trying to come up with excuses in those situations when he is excellent with the same teammates in virtually every other situation is rationalizing. He has the same guys on 1st and goal as 3rd and goal, yet his rating is 40 points lower.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 22, 2011 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Because on third down, it's much simpler to predict what will happen

First, I put very little stock in the ‘choke" theories for most players. I’m sure you’ve witnessed Romo play extremely well in big games. Second, I base my opinion on what I see. I don’t see wilting. I see a team hamstrung by inconsistent line play. When you can’t control the line of scrimmage and then also can’t exeucte whole portions of the playbook, that’s about as predictable as it gets.

If they fix the line, I guess we’ll see. If the line is as bad as it’s been, we’ll probably never know.

Don't believe everything you think.

by dunkman on May 23, 2011 5:28 AM CDT up reply actions

My point is that all of the other great quarterbacks are in the same situation, and they are either consistent (Brady’s ratings were 99,99,99) or get better. Romo not only gets worse, he gets terrible. I was really shocked at how much worse he was in those situations, actually. This isn’t just comparing him to the other guys, but to himself. It’s the same line and skill position players on 3rd down as on 1st and 2nd, so the dropoff should not be that drastic.

by Baked Potato Soup on May 23, 2011 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions

3rd and goal is awfully specific and thats a small sample size..

The 5 INTs likely make the entire difference in that argument.

And lets think about these ints.

1. Woodson INT in GB. This was a desparation play down 17-0 with 5 minutes left. Not sure this says anything at all about Romo.

2. GB int in 2007 – this ball hit TO square in the chest. He was wide open. It popped straight up in the air and was picked. It was one of the most comical drops I think I’ve ever seen.

3. Philly in December of 2009 – ball was tipped at the line and picked.

If you extend this to the red zone, his numbers look worse I think but hes also been victimized by some bad luck (Miles’ INT against denver). I don’t think Romo’s red zone INT problems are nearly as bad as they were a few years ago. Its not much of a weakness anymore

by foyesboys on May 23, 2011 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I understand the basic reasons that this comes up every year

but does it even matter currently? Is there a better option out there or an alternative to look towards?

I sure as hell don’t see one. Tony Romo is the Dallas Cowboys QB. Despite these opinions (I am of the idea that he is more than good enough to win a Super Bowl), there is no real choice but to rally behind him and try to fix all the gaping holes on this team (and there are several to choose from) going forward. If we are able to successfully do that, we should be fine.

If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels

Dirk Nowitzki is absolutely the most underrated basketball player in the league right now. He is one of four players all-time to average 25+ points and 10+ rebounds in the playoffs.

by Creasy729 on May 20, 2011 2:46 AM CDT reply actions

But that is why the debate matters

Dallas could go out and draft or trade up for a qb in the 1st round. Depending on how you feel about Romo, this may be a worthy cause. Of course they have alternatives.

If someone thinks Romo is NOT a top 10 qb, then I would expect that person to be all for drafting a qb in the 1st. Because it looks like its getting harder and harder to win a superbowl without an elite qb. The last 6 qbs to play in the superbowl are are Ben and Warner, Manning and Brees, Ben and Rodgers.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions

I can't add much to this thread

I’ve heard people talk about Danny White as some kind tragic loser-figure. Danny White was an incredible QB and with any sort of help might have eclipsed Roger and Troy. Gil Brandt still blames himself today for not getting White the team he needed to win Super Bowls.

We should also note what the Colts did after P Manning’s awful season. They didn’t waste time on wondering if Manning actually sucked or was just a “stats guy”. They spent a crap load of valuable picks to protect him. I’m happy to see Jerry apparently listen to JG and take a similar approach in trying to enhance what Romo could do it he were better protected and supported.

Don't believe everything you think.

by dunkman on May 20, 2011 9:02 AM CDT reply actions

Well said

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on May 20, 2011 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Agreed. The 2010 and 2011 drafts should start to pay dividends.

Your additions to the discussion, are astute.

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 20, 2011 11:44 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Ahhh, dunk, sometimes ya just talk so much sense...

even playing devil’s advocate becomes nonsensical.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Tony is SB quality with a good team.

Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Payton Manning, and Kurt Warner.
Those are the QBs that have been in the past 3 superbowls.

Take any of those guys plus Rivers and put them on the Cowboys the last 4 seasons, and I say none of them get to a SB either. Throw in Brady too, for that matter.

All of them would have gotten injured or beaten playing behind our OL and with our defense, just like Romo.

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass....... and I am all out of bubblegum" - George Nada

by fan since '65 on May 20, 2011 2:57 PM CDT reply actions

maybe

those qbs get the ball out very fast. Rodgers is tough to blitz because of those quick slants that he excels at. I’ve seen Ben take multiple big hits on one play, keep it alive, and throw a killer td. I’ve never been too impressed with Peyton’s line, but hes just so precise that he doesn’t need much time. I’ve seen Warner play otherworldly football (like the SB against Pitt) even with his line getting hammered.

I don’t mean this to diss Romo, but each of those 4 guys has played really impressive playoff games against tough competiton. I don’t think anyone could win championships with this team in 2008 or 2010, but in 2009 and especially 2007 there was potential. What happens if we score early against Minnesota? What happens if the qb makes just one or two better plays against the Giants? (ie overthrowing TO). The QBs you listed have all played nearly flawlessly in a playoff game, while Romo hasn’t as of yet.

I don’t think our teams in 2007 or 2009 were worse than the 2007 Giants, 2007 Pats (with Brady on a bum ankle), 2009 Saints (we beat them) or 2009 Colts.

by foyesboys on May 20, 2011 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions

also since 2006...

this has been a playoff team… but we had an undrafted QB, a players coach, a lot of strong players who wanted to win and very few holes… there’s a reason we didn’t win some key games.

Leadership at QB, leadership at ILB and leadership in coaching/front office. You can blame Tony Romo, Bradie James, Wade Phillips and Jerry Jones, but not Jason Garrett. Phillips is still responsible for the play calling and the Head Coach can always call off a play that the OC calls.

by scraig on May 21, 2011 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Great debate here guys... especially like the discussion on 100 QB Rating...

Staubach – he’s no analyst but you gotta like the confidence in Romo.
Warner – he’s pro-Romo, maybe a bit because he has had a similar career, undrafted QBs who took a while to get a start.
My opinion – I don’t disagree that he’s an elite QB or 1 good season away from a great playoff run. The problem is he needs a supporting cast… and that has more to do with his character. He’s very emotional but will not let his emotions get negative especially in front of the media or a gameday situation.

Romo disappeared last year, a 1-4 start and when the team failed miserably he was nowhere to be found. He has leadership skills, they come out when they win and lose.

Analysis? Can be successful… needs a strong supporting cast, including an “Iron Fist Coach”. His problem has been with consistency and you can blame that on a number of factors but most importantly he can blame himself, and will blame himself. Maybe that’s the problem… needs someone to pull him out of it, like Jason Garrett.

It’s possible with Garrett, not Phillips. Top 5 talent? Yes, but in the right system. He’s been successful in the past, but the clock is ticking…

by scraig on May 20, 2011 9:47 PM CDT reply actions

You're kidding me, right?! Super Bowl?!

Staubach – 83.4 rating – 2 rings
Montana – 92.3 rating – 4 rings
Bradshaw – 70.9 rating – 4 rings
Aikman – 81.6 rating – 3 rings
Brady – 95.2 rating – 3 rings
P. Manning – 94.9 rating – 1 ring
E. Manning – 80.2 rating – 1 ring
Dilfer – 70.2 rating – 1 ring
Brees – 91.7 rating – 1 ring
Williams – 69.4 rating – 1 ring
McMahon – 78.2 rating – 1 ring

What’d they all have in common? They QB’d SB-winning teams.

Marino (86.4), Fouts (80.2), Moon (80.9), Esiason (81.1), Kelly (84.4), Meredith (74.8), Rivers (97.2) and Romo (95.5)? Do I dare include one Danny White (81.7), whose 1 ring… – well, we’d have to ask him about that, so I’ll leave it alone. Ever wonder if any’d trade their rating or stats or being considered Super Bowl QB‘s (caliber or otherwise) for Dilfer’s ring? Or Williams’? Or one of Bradshaw’s?

All in context. It’s a team sport, regardless of era. Talking an individual, stats or otherwise, in context of getting to or appearing in, much less winning, a Super Bowl, hoisting a Lombardi, is ridiculous. As in open to ridicule.

I just hope on the 2 yet active in that “ever wonder” group we’re not asking the question when all’s said and done.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 21, 2011 2:35 PM CDT reply actions

Tan, all those QBs with Super Bowl Rings also had another thing in common

An equally capable defense that got sacks, forced turnovers, got off the field on 3rd down, gave their offenses good field position, and dominated their opponent’s. How many of these things can we check off for the Defense since 2006?

"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."

by Rohpuri on May 21, 2011 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Some more, some less

Not every one of those D’s you mention were equivalent. I’d hazard saying none were, relative to each other and their teams’ relative success. You ’re merely making the argument, though in a more narrowly-focused agenda-persepectived manner, singling out the D side of the ball.

My use of the QB rating stat nonsense was merely to point out individual stats were all over the map, over eras, in eras, illustrate the individual is not the winner of a SB, a game or the single reason a team wins or loses.

I’ll stick with team, thank you vey much.

But you’re right, our D does need to do precisely those things in contributing to our chances of winning.

Gentlemen, we’re 0-16. Let’s change that.

by tanstaafl on May 22, 2011 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions