Tony Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots

!?

Yesterday was only defined as a clutch spot by some of you because its convienient. If romo lit it up and dallas won, its just a november game. More goal post moving whenever it comes to him. Im sure if he was great yesterday youd all be crediting him for a big game in a big spot. And anyone who watched that game and boils it down to romo needs to find a new interest

the point of this thread is that when games are on the line and in the balance late, romo is most often incredible. This is not arguable. I have support for my position. And its pretty air tight. All you guys seem to have is an errant narrative shoved into your brain and a lack of objectivity

i dont expect dallas to win a playoff game this year, they are a flawed football team and romo is playing with 2 broken bones in his back. But its a lot easier to just chalk it all up to romo being some choker

What makes you think they're a flawed football team?

If Romo were healthy, I'd think they'd be able to go deep. The defense isn't great, but it's been good enough to win outside of a couple games.

calling Romo a "choker"? Most are saying he's a good QB who hasn't come up very big in critical games.

Yesterday is yet another example of that.

Nobody is saying he's choking - they are saying he isn't winning the games he needs to. He can be both a good QB and a QB who fails to win in the big spots more often than not, so I'm not really sure why you are driving this argument so hard.

Bottom line - is he winning the critical games more often than not? If not, then, however "clutch" he is doesn't mean shit.

Romo lights it up yesterday, the takeaway: there goes mr november!

romo doesnt play his best gsme and dallas loses: another case of romo in the big game!

Morons

Yesterday was definitely a big game. They didn't lose because of him (and it was obvious he was injured), but yesterday was definitely a big game. He can make it up again in two weeks.

Good QB. And seems like a good dude. It just sucks he's on Dallas.

Quote:

just so we are straight here MarshallOnMontana : 10:04 am : link : reply Romo lights it up yesterday, the takeaway: there goes mr november! romo doesnt play his best gsme and dallas loses: another case of romo in the big game! Morons

That is how you argue? A great example of confirmation bias right there. Any thing that happened yesterday apparently can't be a reflection of Romo, just moronic statements about him? Ridiculous.

Like I said above - the stance that Romo is a good QB who has failed to come up big in critical games just reared its head again.

Take the really ambiguous "clutch" out of it. Take the people calling him "choker" out of it (by the way, where are these people?), and you are left with a guy who has had a team at 8-8 the past three years, has won something like 1 playoff game ever, and somehow, a post was created on BBI to regale us of his greatness.

I wouldn't say idiocy is at hand, but the timing and topic is a strange one.

Looks like an "aggressive decision" to start this doozy.

In comment 12004351 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

What makes you think they're a flawed football team? If Romo were healthy, I'd think they'd be able to go deep. The defense isn't great, but it's been good enough to win outside of a couple games.

I dont think the head coach is a leader of men. I think the organizational dynamics remain poisonous. Their defense personnel wise is dogshit, literally as bad as it gets. Theyre playing way over their head just to be mediocre defensively, and i dont believe its sustainable. And for all the hype regarding their offensive line they can be extremely vulnerable in pass protection, which was on display once again yesterday.

Specifically to what was outlined in the o.p., regarding romos extremely high level of effectiveness in most instances with the game in the balance late? Of course not. So what we are left with is to to change the parameters of the argument. I never said that was the only marker of clutch. I have no issue with someone going after romo for yesterdays game because it was a big game. My issue with that is the very obvious fact that if we had a different result yesterday, most of these same people would absolutely be minimizing the situation snd writing it off as mr. November doing his thing. Anyone who doesnt think im right about that is willfully dense

Is fmic hanging around for more after being made to look nothing short of laughably foolish before this latest thread bump. An attempt to salvage some sort of pride.

In comment 12004383 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

In comment 12004351 BrettNYG10 said: Quote: What makes you think they're a flawed football team? If Romo were healthy, I'd think they'd be able to go deep. The defense isn't great, but it's been good enough to win outside of a couple games. I dont think the head coach is a leader of men. I think the organizational dynamics remain poisonous. Their defense personnel wise is dogshit, literally as bad as it gets. Theyre playing way over their head just to be mediocre defensively, and i dont believe its sustainable. And for all the hype regarding their offensive line they can be extremely vulnerable in pass protection, which was on display once again yesterday.

Fair points. I think most teams have some pretty severe flaws, though. Seattle seems to be rounding into shape. I tend to agree that they are a second tier playoff team so to speak - and with Romo playing injured they might not make it.

The 2011 Giants were pretty seriously flawed I'd say.

It's a pretty bullshit crutch to be handing Romo. He has two of the best skill position players in the sport and a dominant OL. His defensive personnel may be crappy but they've at least kept the ship from sinking somewhat.

He wasn't good yesterday in a big game. Period.

Romo is a very good qb who hasn't had a win to hang his hat on yet in his career, his fault or not. As far as game winning drives, come from behind type situations he is more than capable in my view.

calling Romo a choker? I think most everyone here realizes he is a very good QB. Of course you will have your Twitter idiots who label him a choker, but I think that ship has sailed for the most part. My issue is, Dallas never wins the if game and yesterday was absolutely a big game at home.

The 2011 giants played near flawless football in every single aspect imaginable from the jet game onward. It continues to be a bit disingenuous the way some continue to act like there werent 2 very distinct seasons that year with that team. There was 7-7 with a bad defense and non existent running game. And then there is 6-0 with the most complete team in football

Is it a romo excuse to also mention hes 34 off back surgery with 2 broken bones in his back as i type this? Hes past his peak at this point.

Every team is flawed to some degree, thats true. Which gets back to the point ive made a million times. There is a high degree of randomness when it comes to the playoffs. The 2011 giants peaking when they did isnt some exact science. It was a well timed confluence of events. And even when you get that you need breaks on top of it, which they also got. A lot goes into winning a sb and it goes so much deeper than the relative clutchness of your qb that its not even funny

Get on romo for yesterday if you want (although dallas was collectively awful), i dont have an issue with that. My issue is i know for a fact that if he lit it up the conversation absolutely would not be "look at romo getting it done in a big game", it would be "there goes mr november, wake me up when the real games get here. " much in the same way the denver pick last year (which i believe you brought up on this thread) is an example of romo choking with the game on the line, but if he leads a successful drive there it doesnt alter the conversation at all.

Im not even a big romo fan. Its the conversation around the player that annoys me more than a soft spot for the player himself. Same way it has for other athletes before. The way he is dealt with is foolish

and easily could have a record around .500. Their defense is weak, I don't think they are well coached, and (here it comes) although I think Romo puts up stats he is erratic.

without a threatening running game all year, including after the jets game. The run game was quite inconsistent in an offense that tried to establish balance. Defense was great, pass protection was better than the season, although early in the falcon game it was spotty, and of course the niner game eli was crushed all game. The 2011 Giants had a difficult path going on the road again and without a real running game.

Quote:

the only aggressive decision here MarshallOnMontana : 10:36 am : link : reply Is fmic hanging around for more after being made to look nothing short of laughably foolish before this latest thread bump. An attempt to salvage some sort of pride.

Almost everyone on this thread has said that Romo is a good QB who has consistently failed to win critical games. It was on display yesterday.

Pointing that out is "hanging around"? Was I supposed to disappear or something? If being made look foolish was a parameter to leave, I'd have assumed, you'd have left after the several of these types of threads you've started.

Looks like we share a trait, big guy, of hanging around even when we look like idiots.

On a board like this, most people do think Romo is a good QB. The type of fan you're going after in the OP is much fewer and farther in between than it is amongst the more common/casual football fan.

Fair or not, the general / average fan doesn't go digging for these numbers and they don't think of Romo as a guy who has made plenty of plays in late game situations with the score within one TD. They remember the flubbed hold, they remember the overthrow, they remember the backbreaking INT's, .. because when a guy has been a starter for 8 years in this league and plays for the Dallas Cowboys, who are always in the spotlight, and has only won a grand total of 1 playoff game, that's what they'll always go back to.

Of course there are a billion factors at play throughout the course of an NFL game and there's randomness and chance and everything that go along with those things but you can't expect fans to just chalk everything up to those things.

Narratives get written one way or another and when you're a guy like Romo who has had all the fanfare and hype surrounding him all these years and just have not been able to deliver, the narratives turn into "he couldn't win the big game"

Is it always fair? It's not. But most people's judgments are results based rather than statistic based.

watch it. That's bordering on perception being reality, and Joe claims perception is bullshit. That fans don't use perception, even though it is on display all the time.

And expect an argument on sample size to follow....

You can find a game in there during the 6 game run where everyone was far from great. The jet game was a must win and eli himself played pretty poorly. The pass protection and the running game were not there in the nfc title game (which was made up for by special teams having a once-every-few-years type of day). But on the whole, every single facet of the team pulled their weight in that stretch run. They were incredibly balanced.

I was just pointing out your comment that the Giants were playing near flawless football. I don't quite agree with that since the running game has always been a big part of this team and it was pretty much a no show in the post season. So while the rest of the team were doing their parts, a big part, the running game was not.

play many games when the outcome is on the line where Romo succeeds, or else they would be in the playoffs occasionally.

The average fan doesn't spend hours on play finders or situational numbers.

The reason fans call Tony Romo a choker is because the gaffes in big games are far more memorable to them than a big 4th quarter in October against the Redskins.

Like I said. It's not "fair" but expecting the opinion of all fans to be completely reasonable, unbiased and not simply results based is just not realistic.

It's a battle that is basically impossible to win.

Ive had to explain this to fmic before. Like when you hide behind perception being reality to go off on a misinformed rant about ft attempts in the nba being higher than ever. When shown that the opposite is true you dont change your perception, but just claim its reality because thats what your misinformed ass perceives. The problem is your perception sucks. That seems to consistently be an issue.

In comment 12004592 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Ive had to explain this to fmic before. Like when you hide behind perception being reality to go off on a misinformed rant about ft attempts in the nba being higher than ever. When shown that the opposite is true you dont change your perception, but just claim its reality because thats what your misinformed ass perceives. The problem is your perception sucks. That seems to consistently be an issue.

You can disprove the perception that Tony Romo comes up small in big games?

Please do.

The last 6 games (starting with nyj) were all basically playoff games. And the team ran for an average of 115 yards per game with a ypc in the mid 4s. Im not painting them out to be some dominant attack but they certainly pulled their weight for the majority of that run. We werent the one dimensional offense we were for the majority of the year

But perception is perception.

Is anyone on this thread of the hardened stance that Romo is a "choker" and nothing more?

I haven't seen it.

I think most assessments of Romo around here are probably more fair than anything else. He's not above criticism. He's also a pretty good player. I don't see many opinions of him that I personally feel are way off. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places or don't care enough.

If you want to keep changing the subject from the op, go ahead, youve done it all thread and tried to refute points never made by offering counterpoints that have no connection to anything ive said

can you disprove the notion that tony romo has mostly been terrific in late/close situations in his career? Of course you cant.

My issue with the big game argument is that the sample is too small. Im not saying he has most often come up big in those spots and never did.

is that most people correlate "clutch" to big game situations, and therefore label Romo a choker because he comes up small in those games.

People are not going to buy that he's "unbelievably clutch" when the only highlights of him they see or remember are of him coming up small in big games.

"disprove" perception, it still has an effect. You can argue that the NBA game is better than ever, but tell that to the 35-50 age group who has their attendance and viewership numbers drop.

come out at 4.06 ypc, the giants had three games where they rushed for over 4 ypc, with the highest being 5.5 vs atlanta which they rushed for a season high 172 yards, a season high by far. They also had the three games where they failed to reach 4 ypc. Just not a consistent running game. When I talk about balance i am speaking both about the rushing attempts and success. The Giants had the rushing attempts, but not much success.

there have been a lot of times teams have come up small. Look at the Bills and Vikings in Super Bowl runs.

But most fans don't pin those losses on a single player because there weren't any glaring errors made. Do people look at Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Fran Tarkenton or Alan Page as chokers or losers? No.

People associate it with Romo because he's made several high-profile errors to lose games for his teams in critical games. It isn't fair, but it is perception. You can argue that perception doesn't matter, but then why are famous losers like the Bills known individually for it, but Romo is?

You could have made this same thread about McNabb. Very good QB who never came up big.

Most fans don't pin everything on stats. I couldn't tell you anything about Garo Yepremian's kicking stats, but I can tell you he threw the most horrific pass in NFL history on a big stage.

On the flip side, most people don't know shit about the 72' Dolphins from a stats standpoint, but we all know they are Champions.

Which is quite different. And clutch has always been defined by most of us as something that covers a bit more ground than your above listed parameters. We certainly see that when the opportunity presents itself to take a shot at him for being anti clutch, then there are all sorts of situations that fall under the clutch umbrella. One score games in the 4th quarter can certainly be described as clutch time. Its not the only definition that applies and i never said it was. But i think clutch as a concept itself is overrated

Those are crappy comparisons. You cant compare the climate of today to that of 25-40 years ago. We live in an internet, social media, tv coverage out the ass era with 8 espns, an nfl network and every city in america having sports talk radio. That has had a tangible impact on how players are dealt with. If jim kelley played today he would sadly be a punch line for his performance in some of those games, as would fran tarkenton be for his sb performances. And lets be real about the fact that time passing as it has is also something that helps. Because people do view the bills and kelly a bit differently now than they did when it was unfolding. Nostalgia works wonders.

think of Jim Kelly as a loser? Or Thurman Thomas?

How about a modern-day comparison - Philip Rivers. He's not been able to win the big games, but not many people think of him as a loser. It is all about making the critical errors on a big stage. That's why the PERCEPTION is there with Romo and not with other players who haven't won, but are good players. None of the Jets from a few years ago or the Niners are thought of as losers. They are thought of as a collective team of players who came close and didn't win the big game.

We don't think of the Cowboys like that - we think of Romo. Again - if he doesn't make the errors, that perception doesn't exist.

Plenfy of people did view the bills and their faces as losers in the moment, dumb as it was. And again those are pretty pointless comparisons because the landscape has completely changed and made the conversation surrounding these players far more critical than it ever has been. The book on rivers is basically that hes romo west in a lot of peoples eyes, an empty stats qb. Just a hunch, but you think maybe playing for the cowboys has a bit to do with the heavier scrutiny of romo? And anyone who thinks of him as a loser is an idiot.

"We don't think of the Cowboys like that - we think of Romo. Again - if he doesn't make the errors, that perception doesn't exist."

is why we will never find any sort of common ground on this topic. Because it appears to me you view tony romo as someone holding the cowboys of this era back. I fundamentally disagree with that. I think tony romo is the single biggest reason dallas has been relevant at all for a long time. If you consider in the playoff mix and .500 or better every year relevant, and i do. I look forward to the post romo years

get over yourself man and stick to LeBron threads.

Most if not all posters on this thread acknowledge Romo being a very good QB. I certainly put him I my top 10 which I posted earlier. But the masses judge QBs by their big game and playoff wins and Romo has almost none of those. You called that a small sample, I call it how you judge every QB in this league.

Oh that hit right where it hurts

Stick to rooting for nba lockouts, talking about how much the league blows but still maintaining a damn near daily presence on nba threads because you are desperate for people to talk to.

I hope everyone has a very nice holiday weekend.

you simply can't handle possibly being wrong about something. It's on display whenever you post. I actually don't disagree with a few of your points but many I do.

Haven't posted on the NBA thread all week I don't think. Thanks for monitoring my BBI activity, I'll make sure to check in before I do anything further.

And thanks for taking the high road and calling people who disagree with you "morons". Top notch arguing right there.

and now liberally dropping invective (a sign that your argument has stumbled). You're also arguing points that no one has made, e.g.:

"And anyone who thinks of him as a loser is an idiot."

Who is classifying him as a loser? Most everyone is explicitly pointing out that he's a great QB.

The problem with your thread is as follows: you are attempting to emphatically assert how things "really are" yet are doing so via a subjective avenue. In other words, you're defining "clutch" in one (rather parochial) manner, while (most?) others believe "clutch" means something else. So while you're not wrong with your statistical assertions, they speak only in a certain context which you have deemed unimpugnable but which others find of secondary importance.

Read fmic 12:31 for where the loser stuff comes in. Thats not something i pulled out of thin air

strong to call him a loser, but overwhelmingly people on this thread are acknowledging that he's a quality starting QB. However, their definition of "clutch" (obviously different from yours) includes some notable play in the post-season, which he doesn't have. You half acknowledge the importance of this yourself in your OP.

Quote:

I know his team is light on playoff success

I was responding to that specific post though when i wrote that, not directing it toward "the overwhelming majority of people on the thread"

Of course the parameters i laid out in the o.p. are not the end all be all of someones clutchness, never claimed it was. I think its disingenuous to dismiss them though. I said he was underrated in clutch moments given where the perception of him is at the moment (which is that of a punchline), not that hes the goat clutch qb. And above all, my main point as i said to armsteadeatslittlekids earlier is not even that romo is clutch as much as it is that clutch itself is an overrated concept (not going as far as to say it doesnt exist as some do). Tony romo plays well with the game on the line in the 4th quarter not because hes clutch, but because hes a terrific qb. And hes likely to play well in any selected sample. Hes probably a terrific 2nd quarter qb too, pick any random slice of the game.

people think of Romo as a loser all thread long. That's the exact reason the thread took hold.

Look above at how many times I've said Romo is a good QB who has come up small in critical games.

When I'm calling him a loser in the post above, I'm doing so as a reflection of the supposed masses you are arguing against.

I said the PERCEPTION is that Romo (and I also referenced McNabb) is a "choker" is because they have made glaring errors on a big stage. People don't look at other "losers" that way because they didn't have the errors magnified. Kelly never appeared to make terrible errors. Thurman Thomas never did. Nor has Rivers.

I wasn't calling Romo a loser from my standpoint - but from the standpoint of those you have created as a strawman - the supposed masses who are calling him unclutch.

Look above - the majority of posters, including myself, are saying Romo is a good QB, but that he hasn't won the big game, often from his own errors, and that's where the PERCEPTION comes in.

Romo. Do you think our other divisonal rivals have threads this fucking long talking about Eli and how clutch he is or the fact that he is a very good QB? Probably not.