NFL Offseason 2021: Ride the QB Carousel of Horror

[AustinFromBoston]

Personally I think the 2014 team was the best team Romo had. 

Patriots vs. Cowboys in Super Bowl XLIX would have been very fun to see. 

 

Unfortunately they both lost to Aaron Rodgers BS (or in 2014's case, The Refs)

[See Red]

Romo was, at worst, a borderline top 5 QB most of his career, which isn't nothing in a league with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning.

 

Dallas has way too much invested in three players and Zeke looks like he already peaked.

[Red Comet]

Jerry has fallen to the same thing Al Davis did: Being stubbornly stuck to what once worked. Jerry wants to find that three-headed monster like he had in the 90s and Al wanted to relive the 70s/early 80s with rocket arm QBs and track star wideouts. Funny how that works when you’re too stubborn to get a GM.

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, See Red said:

Romo was, at worst, a borderline top 5 QB most of his career, which isn't nothing in a league with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning.

 

Dallas has way too much invested in three players and Zeke looks like he already peaked.

 

If that was at worst, what was at best?  Maybe we watched a different Tony Romo.  He was certainly a good QB, but I don't think he was ever a threat to win a playoff game and I don't recall him ever being mentioned in the same breath as those HOFers.  He seemed to wilt when it mattered most, and the team would have been better off not staying attached to him forever.  I'm not trashing him, and I'm not putting him down because he played for the Cowboys (though that's tempting), but as an Eagles fan, I don't recall ever "fearing" Romo, or wishing that we had their QB situation, or really even caring at all.

[shstpt1]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

If that was at worst, what was at best?  Maybe we watched a different Tony Romo.  He was certainly a good QB, but I don't think he was ever a threat to win a playoff game and I don't recall him ever being mentioned in the same breath as those HOFers.  He seemed to wilt when it mattered most, and the team would have been better off not staying attached to him forever.  I'm not trashing him, and I'm not putting him down because he played for the Cowboys (though that's tempting), but as an Eagles fan, I don't recall ever "fearing" Romo, or wishing that we had their QB situation, or really even caring at all.

 

As a WFT fan, I completely agree. I knew that they would win a decent amount of games, but never was concerned with them in the playoffs, and even though there were some annoying QB rooms in Washington, I never said that I wish I had Romo as my QB. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

If nothing else, this paves the way for a great post-playing broadcasting career for Dak. 

[See Red]

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

If that was at worst, what was at best?  Maybe we watched a different Tony Romo.  He was certainly a good QB, but I don't think he was ever a threat to win a playoff game and I don't recall him ever being mentioned in the same breath as those HOFers.  He seemed to wilt when it mattered most, and the team would have been better off not staying attached to him forever.  I'm not trashing him, and I'm not putting him down because he played for the Cowboys (though that's tempting), but as an Eagles fan, I don't recall ever "fearing" Romo, or wishing that we had their QB situation, or really even caring at all.

 

I would rate him as a fringe top 5 guy with years like 2011 and 2014 where he was statistically one of the five best.  Spanning his career, though, who is he being compared to once you get outside of those HOFers?  Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning?  Romo was better than all three of them.  It's not Romo's fault he was the one saddled with Jerry Jones as his GM and Jason Garrett as his coach.

 

While it's not the be-all, end-all of statistics, his career QB efficiency is 97.1 (Brady's is 97.3, Manning's is 96.5).  He was top five in completion percentage, yards per attempts, and touchdowns in the span he was a starter.  He played on Cowboys teams that were consistently in the bottom third (and at best, bottom half) of the league defensively and even at just 8-8, had them over-performing.  If not for the NFL's inane catch rule, he beats the Packers in Lambeau in the playoffs in 2014 on a great fourth down throw.

 

2 hours ago, shstpt1 said:

 

As a WFT fan, I completely agree. I knew that they would win a decent amount of games, but never was concerned with them in the playoffs, and even though there were some annoying QB rooms in Washington, I never said that I wish I had Romo as my QB. 

 

So you were happier with Jason Campbell, Mark Brunell, Rex Grossman, and tail-end-of-his-career Donovan McNabb over that span?

 

 

[BBTV]

You're saying with a straight face that Tony Romo > Ben Roethlisburger?  IDK - there was legitimately never a time that I wish he was the Eagles QB, whether ours was McNabb, Kolb, Vick, or Foles.  

 

Romo benefited from playing on the Cowboys.  If he was the Titans QB, he wouldn't have been nearly the same star.  A very good player - not taking that away from him - but not a "franchise"-type guy or a HOFer.

[Rockstar Matt]

He was also criticized far more often than he should have been because he was the Cowboys' QB. It goes both ways. Watch some of his tape again. He had moments of pure magic while being pretty efficient for most of his career.

 

I distinctly remember that 2013 shootout against Peyton's Broncos where Romo and Manning were putting on a quarterbacking clinic. Romo threw for 500 yards, 5 tuddys, but all anyone remembered from that game was his lone interception he threw in the final two minutes. Not the fact that he kept the Cowboys in the game by putting up 48 points against the eventual AFC Champion while his defense was being utterly obliterated. That was a common theme throughout his career. He'd make a mistake or two that would cost the Cowboys the game, despite playing very well for most of it. The rest of the team wasn't good enough to handle one or two mistakes from their QB. 

 

Unfortunately, that's what people remember from Romo. The costly few mistakes, not the borderline HOF level play he showed.

[See Red]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

You're saying with a straight face that Tony Romo > Ben Roethlisburger?

 

Yes.  The difference is Roethlisberger has played for teams that had elite defenses and could go 9 for 21 for 123 yards, no TDs and 2 INTs and still win the Super Bowl.

 

But the traditional and advanced stats support Romo.  Even with the narrative of Romo not playing well when it counts, his playoff numbers are better than Roethlisberger's.

 

I'd say he's held in a worse regard than he should be because he was the Dallas Cowboys QB, frankly.  The game @Rockstar Matt brought up is the perfect example... he threw for five TDs and 500 yards and still got on for his team losing because his offensive line couldn't block a three man rush and his LT tripped him, forcing an interception.  Every mistake he made was magnified.

[Kramerica Industries]

2 hours ago, See Red said:

If not for the NFL's inane catch rule, he beats the Packers in Lambeau in the playoffs in 2014 on a great fourth down throw.

 

Admittedly, I'm nitpicking, but the Dez Bryant play would've set up 1st-and-goal - it wasn't a touchdown - and there was still over four minutes left in the game when that play happened. We've seen Aaron Rodgers do some much more ridiculous stuff - especially at the expense of the Cowboys - than he would've been charged with trying to do that day, even if the Cowboys do end up scoring a touchdown on that drive.

 

That being said, I agree with the broader point. Romo gets a lot of undue criticism, mostly because he was the Cowboys QB during some mostly average seasons where we still got too many Cowboys games on TV entirely on the basis of "America's Team", but that those teams were even average was mostly a reflection of Romo's performances elevating them to that level.

 

[See Red]

10 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:

Admittedly, I'm nitpicking, but the Dez Bryant play would've set up 1st-and-goal - it wasn't a touchdown - and there was still over four minutes left in the game when that play happened. We've seen Aaron Rodgers do some much more ridiculous stuff - especially at the expense of the Cowboys - than he would've been charged with trying to do that day, even if the Cowboys do end up scoring a touchdown on that drive.

 

I don't know why but I was thinking they were up 21-20 when that happened (still obviously not over even if that was the case but the probability would heavily favor DAL).  But yeah, point taken, they would've still needed a 2 pt conversion to go up 3 and then held off Rodgers.

 

[Rockstar Matt]

I still contend that the Cowboys lost that game because of Bailey's missed field-goal at the end of the half and Murray getting striped by Peppers on what would have been a 50+ yard TD early in the 3rd is what ultimately cost them. The Dez Bryant call certainly did the Cowboys no favor. 

 

Score should have been 17-7 at the half, instead of 14-10, and had not Murray fumbled early in the 3rd and scored on that open touchdown, the score would have been 28-10 mid-way through the 3rd. That would have drastically changed the game.

 

I definitely do not spend a significant amount of time thinking about this game and the potential what-ifs. Nope. No sir. Definitely not.

[Indigo]

25 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

I still contend that the Cowboys lost that game because of Bailey's missed field-goal at the end of the half and Murray getting striped by Peppers on what would have been a 50+ yard TD early in the 3rd is what ultimately cost them. The Dez Bryant call certainly did the Cowboys no favor. 

 

Score should have been 17-7 at the half, instead of 14-10, and had not Murray fumbled early in the 3rd and scored on that open touchdown, the score would have been 28-10 mid-way through the 3rd. That would have drastically changed the game.

 

I definitely do not spend a significant amount of time thinking about this game and the potential what-ifs. Nope. No sir. Definitely not.

As a fellow Cowboys fan, I feel for your mental health.

Nonetheless, Tony Romo was a top 5, top 10 at worst, QB. He received too much of the blame and not enough of the credit. As previously mentioned, his great play often overshadowed Dallas’ roster holes. His teams were not competent to overcome a single mistake(no QB is perfect), and the media painted it as his fault, partially due to the fact that he played for the America’s team.

[AustinFromBoston]

3 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

Unfortunately, that's what people remember from Romo. The costly few mistakes, not the borderline HOF level play he showed.

This is so true. 

 

The 05 botched snap, the pick in 07 against The Giants, and of course the Dez Bryant "catch". He's far more remembered for those than the fact he was the one that put them in a position to win in the first place. 

If any one of those mistakes hadn't happen, The Cowboys probably make the SuperBowl. 

 

He was like Dan Marino, a great QB that was either too injured or snakebitten to make or win a Super Bowl.  

Pretend he won a ring, and is there even an argument he's was top 5 QB?  

[BBTV]

Just now, AustinFromBoston said:

Pretend he won a ring, and is there even an argument he's was top 5 QB?  

 

You can't do that though.  Winning a ring requires performing well in 3 or 4 playoff games, including the biggest stage of all.  You can't simply "pretend" someone did that.

[AustinFromBoston]

Point is, the only thing keeping him out that "top 5" conversation is his lack of a ring. 

When in nearly every other aspect he's been as good if not better than QBs like Roethlisberger or Rodgers.  

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, AustinFromBoston said:

Point is, the only thing keeping him out that "top 5" conversation is his lack of a ring. 

When in nearly every other aspect he's been as good if not better than QBs like Roethlisberger or Rodgers.  

 

Exactly!  To win a ring, one has to demonstrate the skills that usually get one placed in those top 5 discussions.  That's like saying "the only thing keeping him out of the top 5 was that he was 6.  Let's pretend he was 5 instead of 6 and he's top 5 for sure."

 

If he had a ring then we're probably not having this discussion because he probably willed his team to big victories on big stages.  

 

I get that having a ring isn't the ultimate measure, but it is important.  I don't care how great someone is if they wilt when the cameras are at their brightest.  We know who didn't wilt.  We don't know if Romo would have wilted or not, but we know that the other guys didn't.  That matters.

[tBBP]

Okay so, question: Tony Romo was top-5 of...what, exactly? I see "top 5" rhetoric, but nothing specific...

[GDAWG]

Cowboys fans who have bashed Romo tend to forget how much better he was than the also-rans that started at QB for the Dallas Cowboys from 2000 (following the retirement of Troy Aikman) to mid 2006 (when Romo took over).