Last night was one of another million examples that everyone will forget the next time he throws a big pick. People will point, and laugh, and engage in errant group think about how much of a "choker" he is, despite the fact that facts make that assertion look ridiculous.
Click the link below. Then under the section "304 quarterbacks" click show all for a list of every qbs numbers since 1998 when the score is within 7 points in the 4th quarter. There is literally not a soul he takes a backseat to. I know his team is light on playoff success, but people need to stop making themselves look stupid with the choker crap
link - (
New Window )
Like it or not, a QBs "clutchness" is directly tied to the teams success in it's biggest games (i.e. "win-or-go-home").
now im sure ill read that last nights drive really want a clutch spot. Even though im sure if he threw a pick no one would stop screaming choke. The goalposts are always moving when it comes to him
Would 1 ring with a strong/dominant playoff performance do it?
Also - do you think Witten is a first ballot HOFer? (clearly he is getting in)
Would 1 ring with a strong/dominant playoff performance do it?
Also - do you think Witten is a first ballot HOFer? (clearly he is getting in)
I don't think he's anywhere close to being in the HOF even with a Super Bowl win this year.
now im sure ill read that last nights drive really want a clutch spot. Even though im sure if he threw a pick no one would stop screaming choke. The goalposts are always moving when it comes to him
He has that rep because in big spots, in front of the nation, he has fucked up. He has done very good things too, but if you're a QB for Americas team you are going to have extra attention put on you.
He is a damn good QB, but his mistakes in big spots, have stuck with him as a bad label. If he can win a SB, then I think that erases all. It probably then turns the conversation to, Is Romo a HOFer then?
I don't see yesterdays game has a huge game for them as in playoff, or win and get into the playoffs type game. Sure, if he threw a pick people would laugh. But I think the pressure will be more for the playoffs. If they have to play the Eagles again or another team with the division on the line, then it will be interesting to see.
Tom Coughlin developed a rep as a coach that players hate, so whenever the team hits the skids it always because "Tom Coughlin has lost the locker room!!" Even last week Pierce and Tiki went there - 10 years (and two Super Bowls) after TC's player-friendly adjustments have been well-documented.
Red Sox throw $90 million at Hanley Ramirez, then $90 million more at Pablo Sandoval?? Doesn't matter, they're the underdog "Little Engine That Could" that's always just defending itself against the bullies.
Happens in politics, too. I heard Rudy Giuliani talking about it once. His rep was that he had a temper. Whenever he got angry at a presser, the media pounced on him. If he got his facts wrong about an issue, they didn't say a word because he had never been labeled as stupid.
sports fans in this country are idiots. And tony romo is a top 5 case as to why
It's just hard to overlook the bizarre f*ck-ups in his biggest games. They are the biggest reason he has left such a shallow imprint on the game, and will probably be remembered as more Danny White than Roger Staubach or Troy Aikman - fairly or not.
For what it's worth, I didn't think last night was one of his finer moments. If he had played the way he's capable of playing when fully healthy, the Cowboys might have hung 50 on our sorry defense.
Just more evidence that sports discourse is 98% dumb as shit.
The conversations surrounding this guy are absurd
Just more evidence that sports discourse is 98% dumb as shit.
Don't forget the coaches, too. Even college coaches get raked over the coals - Boeheim, Calipari, Self, Roy Williams - all couldn't win the big one until they won the big one.
The conversations surrounding this guy are absurd
If you're going to give Romo a pass for that loss, you might as well say Kerry Collins deserved another contract from the Giants. Kerry's performance in the Candlestick meltdown closely resembled Romo's 2011 game against NYG (right down to the final, ill-fated FG drive), and Collins was far from the biggest problem in 2003.
Romo was terrific that night. The fact that some continue to crush him for that just shows the conversation around this player will always be silly
Romo was terrific that night. The fact that some continue to crush him for that just shows the conversation around this player will always be silly
Romo is 1-3 in the playoffs. The "he's not clutch" label is evidence of laziness but there are justifiable reasons people are not wow'd by Tony Romo.
Do you just get enjoyment out of playing Mr debate by bringig up pro Romo arguments on BBI or do you really like Romo that much? It's just weird. Not to say that I agree with one side or the other, but my fucking God what is the point of this?
Again, I know no fans outside of BBI who think he's not a good end of game player.
The argument is not whether he is clutch, it's if he is a winner.
He's won a single playoff game in his career and has spent the better part of the decade losing win and in games. He's what 1-6 in do or die football?
The argument of clutch is silly, he's great at the end of games. He's done it to us plenty. But until he wins in January he's not going to get lauded for coming up big.
I agree, most sports fans are idiots.
Dude, you hammered me and another poster for making effectively this same argument about Lebron's second ring and Ray Allen's "miracle" 3 at the end of game 6.
They're judged on what happens not the ifs and would have/should haves. He did drop the passes. Allen did sink the 3. And the rings went to the teams that won those games.
Is that only Romo though? Isn't the same applicable to Eli, and a host of other QBs? Not too long ago, the pundits were writing off Tom Brady and were ready to ship Drew Brees out of town.
Fixed
I get you're trying to point out that Romo is underrated, but just going by the standards that Eli is held to by Giants fans... Romo's 3 playoff seasons with only a 1-3 record is a tough sell, no matter what the statistics say.
Dan Marino was a better pure thrower than anyone that's played since him, and possibly the best passer ever, and he will forever be remembered for never winning a title, fair or not.
Right now the same applies to Romo. Unless things change he is going to be marked forever by the fumbled snap and the crucial interceptions. That's just the way it is...driving the field to beat a dogshit Giants team isn't gonna erase that.
Dan Marino was a better pure thrower than anyone that's played since him, and possibly the best passer ever, and he will forever be remembered for never winning a title, fair or not.
Right now the same applies to Romo. Unless things change he is going to be marked forever by the fumbled snap and the crucial interceptions. That's just the way it is...driving the field to beat a dogshit Giants team isn't gonna erase that.
Ironically, "Mr. Stat" hates the one sport where a players impact can be easily broken down and accurately judged by stats...
Nah. He's does this quite often, especially on Romo and how hockey ratings stink
Joe, my point isn't as much about stats as it is results.
I mean, despite Romo's seemingly outstanding QB performance over the years, where are the results?
3 playoff seasons and a 1-3 record, one and done in two of them, wouldn't exactly endear him to our fanbase if he was our QB, would it?
Quote:
But those who consistently dismiss them outright are the lowest form of sports fans. And they love their stats too, dont get it twisted. theyre just simpler stats to understand, like ring count. Because there is a high correlation between those who shit on numbers and those who are just ring counting cavemen. You rarely need to use more than 1 hand, its easy
Joe, my point isn't as much about stats as it is results.
I mean, despite Romo's seemingly outstanding QB performance over the years, where are the results?
3 playoff seasons and a 1-3 record, one and done in two of them, wouldn't exactly endear him to our fanbase if he was our QB, would it?
Well, shit, all I hear from the Eli Defense Society is how none of the Giants' horrific results are ever his fault because the defense and OL sucks. Romo's played most of his career with terrible OLs and defenses. Does that count for anything?
Quote:
In comment 11998280 MarshallOnMontana said:
Quote:
But those who consistently dismiss them outright are the lowest form of sports fans. And they love their stats too, dont get it twisted. theyre just simpler stats to understand, like ring count. Because there is a high correlation between those who shit on numbers and those who are just ring counting cavemen. You rarely need to use more than 1 hand, its easy
Joe, my point isn't as much about stats as it is results.
I mean, despite Romo's seemingly outstanding QB performance over the years, where are the results?
3 playoff seasons and a 1-3 record, one and done in two of them, wouldn't exactly endear him to our fanbase if he was our QB, would it?
Well, shit, all I hear from the Eli Defense Society is how none of the Giants' horrific results are ever his fault because the defense and OL sucks. Romo's played most of his career with terrible OLs and defenses. Does that count for anything?
I just think it's a weird dynamic that we have a thread on a Giants forum praising Tony Romo for being clutch while we have countless threads that want to trade or cut our guy.
Very strange dynamic.
If Matt Dodge kicks the ball outta bounds... He didn't, the Giants choked, the Packers win the WC instead and win the Super Bowl. The "what if" can be interesting to examine but is completely irrelevant when writing history.
But yeah, you can use this to fuel your Eli agenda, Greg.
If he had Eli's feet he'd be dead or out of the league by now.
some of you....
some of you....
The one thing that I would tie Eli, Romo, and Rivers is that they are all very tough QBs. Romo has missed some games but that was a broken clavicle and a broken back. Eli And Rivers have never missed a start. Thats pretty impressive in today;s game.
some of you....
No, see... You're missing my point. My ONLY reason to bring Eli into this, is to illustrate the expectations we put on our QB.
And so I'm asking... Would Romo's 3 playoff seasons and 1-3 record be enough to appease you, as a fan?
Yeah. Witten, too.
Go back to the first quarter. The Cowboys' first two possessions in that game resulted in a punt and a safety.
You make it sound as though Romo was lights-out all night. He was very, very good on several drives, but it was partly his fault that a teetering Giant team, with a completely demoralized defense, hung around long enough for that fourth-quarter overthrow to matter.
some of you....
No. It's the fact that every time Eli throws a pass, or has a loose stool, there is 100 threads analyzing it. Shit- There are multiple threads wanting him traded. It seems that very few people actually value him. This is a 2x Super Bowl champ, and BTW- Is the best player on the team, and people shit all over him.
Romo hasn't won shit, and up pops a thread stroking him. I think Romo is a very good QB, but you need to win the big game.
It's that simple.
The 1 career playoff win is a huge black mark though, Joe... and disregarding it is an equally bad offense when compared to those who disregard his brilliant statistics in close 4th quarter games.
As of now, it's primarily what keeps him out of Hall of Fame discussions he'd normally be in, and rightfully so.
So Eli is 2nd best. Is that accurate?
The giants don't have cheerleaders. lol
Are you satisfied with the fact that Romo is clutch if he's your QB and that's your team with only three playoff apperances in 8 years, two one and dones?
Does Romo get a pass from you?
Somebody is a closet Romo / Cowboy fan.
That ball was right on the button as far as I'm concerned! :-)
I'd take Eli over Romo everytime. But Romo has talent.
Beat me to it.
His playoff performance actually isn't that bad outside of the Viking game a couple of years back. Wins are a team effort.
Ive watched the overwhelming majority of dallas games since romo became the starter. And if you are of the opinion that romo has held this team back from heights they could have otherwise reached with a replacement level qb instead, we're just going to have to disagree.
he has had some down moments at inopportune times to be sure, but game in game out, season in season out he is one of the best in the game. And that says a lot more about what a guy is than selected small samples prone to randomness. You are what you consistently do
His playoff performance actually isn't that bad outside of the Viking game a couple of years back. Wins are a team effort.
Marion Barber was a freight train in the first half of that game.
People also forget how huge the drive Eli led right before half was to tie it at 14.
71 yard drive in about 35 seconds capped off with a Toomer TD.
That shouldn't undo all of the good he does otherwise, and I agree there's a lot, but he has a history of nationally televised game ending plays.
I know because I've see a bunch of them over the years.
Quote:
Their 2007 team was really good. I actually thought they outplayed us in that Divisional game.
His playoff performance actually isn't that bad outside of the Viking game a couple of years back. Wins are a team effort.
Marion Barber was a freight train in the first half of that game.
People also forget how huge the drive Eli led right before half was to tie it at 14.
71 yard drive in about 35 seconds capped off with a Toomer TD.
Yeah, Barber was amazing. That Dallas team was fucking good.
Eli had some great plays that game.
I felt like we could have beaten Green Bay and New England by 10+ points but got a few unfortunate breaks (namely, the Smith INT and Eli to Burress miss in the SB). The Cowboys played us best IMO.
Like Peyton with Harrison/Wayne, Romo has been fortunate to have an uninterrupted massive security blanket with Witten who will probably go down as a top 10 (5?) TE in NFL history. Witten has missed 0, yes 0, games since his rookie season. At a really physical position. Mind-boggling. Talk about Giant killers players you want out of the division. A 3rd rounder to boot.
Is Romo's notoriety really based on his 4th quarter performance alone? Of course not. It's largely based on his playoff performance and end of season games determining whether or not his team makes the playoffs.
You want to claim the playoff sample size is too small? Tony has had multiple opportunities to increase that sample size.
Tony Romo became the 15th player in NFL history to throw for 500 yards in a game on Sunday, breaking Don Meredith's Cowboys record for a single game. However, a fourth-quarter interception set the Broncos up to pull out an epic 51-48 win.
Despite the late mistake Sunday, Romo had arguably the best game by a quarterback in a loss this season. No quarterback has posted a higher QBR in a defeat this season than his 92.1 yesterday.
Since he entered the league, Romo has consistently put up some of the best numbers in the NFL.
Romo has 19 game-winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime, tied for fifth-most since he took over the starting job in 2006. He has a career 68.7 QBR in the 4th quarter - only Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers are better since 2006.
Highest QBR in fourth Quarter - Since 2006
Peyton Manning 86.5
Aaron Rodgers 75.4
Tony Romo 68.7
Drew Brees 67.6
*Minimum 300 action plays
This season, Romo is second in the NFL with 13 touchdown passes. And only Peyton Manning has fewer interceptions among quarterbacks with at least 30 pass attempts per.
Despite his overall success, the other side of the coin for Dr. Romo is that sickening feeling he often leaves Cowboys fans late in games – something we’ll refer to as the Romo-coaster.
Romo's lone interception Sunday was the 23rd fourth-quarter interception of his career. The Cowboys have lost the last eight games in which Romo has thrown a fourth-quarter interception, with six of those losses coming by seven points or fewer.
Since 2010, Romo's Total QBR in the first 12 minutes of the fourth quarter/OT is 80. That's second-best in the NFL behind Peyton Manning. However, his QBR drops to a below-average 44 in the game's final three minutes.
Most INT in 4th Quarter or OT
Score Tied or Leading by 7 or Fewer
Tony Romo 8
Tom Brady 7
Matt Ryan 7
Matt Schaub 6
Chad Henne 6
*Since Tony Romo’s 1st Season (2006)
And he's not only making these mistakes as the Cowboys attempt to rally from late deficits. Eight of Romo's fourth-quarter interceptions have come with the Cowboys tied or leading by one score - that's the most in the NFL in that span. Those give opposing teams life when Dallas should have been icing the win.
Sunday's interception was particularly painful, dropping the chances for a Cowboys win by 26 percentage points. That was the second worst interception of Week 5 in terms of a single play costing a team’s chances at victory behind Blaine Gabbert’s pick-six for Jacksonville, but that play came in the first half so Gabbert’s team still had an opportunity to overcome that drop.
ESPN: The Two Faces of Tony Romo 10/7/13 - ( New Window )
Me too.
ink - ( New Window )
Yes Romo is a good QB who has been a pretty clutch over the course of his career in the regular season but has Beene awful in the post season..in fact would have been run out on a rail by now in NY...
And he has had a tremendous supporting cast over the course of his career..
"since 1998 when the score is within 7 points in the 4th quarter"
seems like a bit of a narrow, artificially manufactured category to put Romo in the best light possible.
He's made some big mistakes in the 3rd quarter, which wouldn't fall into this category.
He's made some bad mistakes when his team was down 7-10 points in the 4th quarter, which also wouldn't fall into this category.
And he's also made some bad plays when his team was protecting a small lead late in games -- those also wouldn't fall into this category.
And if passer rating is the key statistic of focus here, that doesn't account for when he fumbles in a big spot (which he did late in the division title game in 2011).
And why 1998? What's so special about that year?
I just believe that the more parameters you inject into a category, the less meaningful (and reliable) the data become, when it comes to something like gauging a quarterback in football. ESPN has made a bit of a trashy art form out of the "obscure statistical category," and it ends up not telling a reliable story -- just a manufactured narrative for a broadcast (or article).
I didn't write the article, Joe.
One big difference between Eli and Romo "since 2010" is that Eli was 4-0 in the playoffs, which goes back to my original point of....
Is Romo's no shows in the playoffs, since 2010, acceptable to you as a fan despite his statistics. Would you defend him if he was the QB of your team and the results were the same?
and you can compare romo at any point of any game and he would compare favorably among those in his time period. Hes one of the better qbs of the era whether people want to credit him for it or not.
I see a good QB, surrounded by upper echelon talent, who makes a lot of great plays, and a few costly ones.
I think this is it. We love to make fun of him because he's a Cowboy, but I think most knowledgeable fans understand how good Romo is.
the GIANTS went 4-0 in the playoffs. Eli was terrific, but again with tbe conflating of team success with individual greatness
If he had Eli's feet he'd be dead or out of the league by now.
We seem to want everybody fired or cut when we've missed the playoffs every year since 2011.
The casual fan will remember the Seattle muffed snap, the 44-6 blowout at Philly in final game of 2008, losing the final game of the year in 2011 and 2012 (in which he threw a pick late in Washington). They will remember the pick in Metlife late against the Jets to open the 2011 season.
Again, I'm not saying it's right...but that is how the casual fan will view it.
I agree with the original post and I have always been critical of the low IQ 'Romo sucks!' or 'Romo is a choker' commentary.
The casual fan will remember the Seattle muffed snap, the 44-6 blowout at Philly in final game of 2008, losing the final game of the year in 2011 and 2012 (in which he threw a pick late in Washington). They will remember the pick in Metlife late against the Jets to open the 2011 season.
Again, I'm not saying it's right...but that is how the casual fan will view it.
I agree with the original post and I have always been critical of the low IQ 'Romo sucks!' or 'Romo is a choker' commentary.
Good post.
I think Romo is a very good quarterback, but he's got a bunch of brutal moments at the most critical times. That is indisputable.
And that shit will mark any player until they change it. Just the way it is.
Does anybody disagree with that?
i have my favorite athletes through the years. We all do. But eli manning fandom is a religion with some of you, this doesnt even have a thing to do with eli.. This thread has gone exactly the way i expected it to. And it will go the same way tonight during a saints/ ravens game thread the second someone offers up a compliment to either qb, an eli manning comparison will inevitably unfold.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Romo is incredibly clutch. While we talk about all Eli's mistakes.
I agree with those who think Romo is a very good QB and is gutting through some very difficult injuries.
However, Eli 2-time SB-winning MVP.
Romo - nada.
But Romo is clutch!! (against the worst defense on the planet in his latest wowza!)
We need to go over some NYG Dallas guidelines on BBI. Seems some of you are a little lost.
I'll second that, but add this...Of all games to prop him up, why last night? I mean he had forever to throw on most plays all game and our D Sucks? It's and odd time to make this argument. Your timing on this thread is giving the impression that you have an agenda, even if you don't.
I just don't see how Tony is absolved of all blame in any of that.
Re-read what I said. I didn't say you did or didn't have one. I say your timing is very odd and gives the appearance you do have an agenda.
But like I said, I actually agree with the premise that he's underrated and a very good QB. Dallas will miss him when he's gone.
::closes laptop:: Bumping Ether right now full blast. No Ragrets.
The amount of mistakes he's made in huge playoff games and the last three "Nfc east championship" games has earned his rep in my eyes.
He's a great QB and great in the clutch during the regular season but until he goes and wins a playoff game I absolutely will doubt him. Deservedly so.
I just don't see how Tony is absolved of all blame in any of that.
Think Brett Favre and then you'll understand.
I hate dallas. No loss bothered me since Philly but i really hate losing to Dallas. Last night bothered the shit out of me. I pretty much had one more emotional investment in me and last night was it. I won't really care about this team until next year. Blows.
Romo is a damn good QB who makes players around him better but he's also a gunslinger who is prone to errors, sometimes at the most inopportune times. He's very very good though. You don't amass his numbers and start for ten years by accident. The guy can play. Clearly.
Most INT in 4th Quarter or OT
Score Tied or Leading by 7 or Fewer
Tony Romo 8
Tom Brady 7
Matt Ryan 7
Matt Schaub 6
Chad Henne 6
There was an article on BloggingTheBoys that broke down these numbers and showed that Romo had so many of these situations "score tied or leading by 7 points or fewer" that by percentage he was one of the very best QBs in the NFL in this situation.
If the other QBs in the NFL were put in the same number of situation as Romo, they would have many more then just 8 INTs, many more.
The 3rd and 22 throw to extend the eventual game winning drive against Seattle this season.
You talk about narratives, Joe. Everybody on this thread has agreed that Romo is a very good to great QB.
You're the only one digging your heels in that the biggest knock on him doesn't exist.
Did that notion that he chokes in big spots just get made up from thin air?
I'm not sure anyone is judging his whole career. Romo has been a really good player...saying otherwise would be disingenuous. But you can't tell the story of his career without pointing out the mistakes in critical moments.
But you seem to be picking your spots a little bit, because you've pointed out (correctly, IMO) several times that Peyton Manning's playoff performance takes a drastic dip below his regular season form. Now Peyton Manning has played only 22 playoff games vs. 251 regular season games...is it fair to knock him based on 8% of the total games he's played?
I think it is. Just like I think it's fair with Romo. Not all games are the same. Destroying Jacksonville in October isn't the same as playing in Foxboro in January. The stakes are higher and the competition is better.
Romo is a good quarterback, but no one is going to remember him for lighting up some bad Giants defenses. If he wants to go from good to great, he's going to have to get it done when the stakes are highest. That's just the way it is.
That's not true, Joe. He's directly responsible for some of those. Namely game ending INT's or no shows in must win situations.
You can't just write those off because they don't fit YOU'RE narrative, just like I'm not writing off the fact that the guy is great much more than he is a "choker".
The Cowboys have been 8-8 the past three years. Not sure what determines "clutch" as it is a really overused term, but there had to be some games in there where the job wasn't done for whatever reason.
Some guys get labeled. Jim Kelly and Boomer Esiason couldn't ever win the big game. Didn't really diminish the fact they were very good QB's. Marino never got a ring.
What has sort of plagued Romo is that in places where his team had a chance to win, he's made glaring mistakes that have prevented them from winning. You can't really point that out to some of the other QB's who came close but failed.
so he's saddled with that perception. Just like "The Drive" made Elway (which was just as much of a fuckup by the Browns for turning the ball over), Romo's mistakes make him. Mention Dwight Clark and people think "The Catch". It is what it is.
Until Romo changes that perception, it is what it is.
You really don't seem to pick up on that point very well though. You continue to harp on people who don't watch the NBA as if their perceptions don't matter.
Perceptions are often reality until the perceptions change. But something has to make that change. Beating the hapless Giants isn't the catalyst to do it.
Yeah, he's arguably the greatest of all time, but his postseason reputation is well earned.
Horrible performance in his first Superbowl, threw a game icing pick six in his second.
Many one and done's before ever getting over the hump. Shut out 41-0 in one of them.
It's just as much part of his career as anything else. Same as Romo.
But for an athlete or the die hard fan, what means more? The 92% or the 8%? Do you think Peyton is going to cherish that passing records or the SB trophy?
Marino admits to this day he still thinks about never winning one. Guys like Kelly, Fouts, Moon, etc have all mentioned the missing void in their careers.
I think there is a lot to be said about a guy who plays very year in and year out, but I think a lot of people would agree that the QB position is the most important position in sports. So fair or not, failing in spots where your team needs to win to advance is going to hurt your label. And Romo has made a ton of big mistakes that prohibited his team from advancing.
Stats are great and all, bu sustained success in the playoffs is what matters. Isnt it amazing in his last 10 years, Brady missed an entire year, lost 2 SBs..... and in the time he has gone from very good to a GOAT candidate. WHy? Because he put up great stats, and still won in the playoffs. They didnt get any more rings, but his legacy wasnt tarnished.
Romo has been very good for Dallas and as I said earlier, I will be glad when he is no longer the QB in Dallas.
And the bulk of Romo's career leads him to be a good regular season player and little else.
Of Romo's 122 total games, four have been in the playoffs (3.3%). That's not some incomparable number to Manning's. Is there some threshold between Romo's 3% (4 games) and Manning's 8% (22 games) where we can definitively say, "There, now we can weigh his playoff performances more heavily"?
And we have to remember that we can point to specific errors by Romo that are major reasons he hasn't played in more playoff games.
Again, not all games are created equal. There's a reason that, gun to your head, everyone in their right minds would pick Joe Montana to win them one game over Peyton Manning. It's the same here with Romo. He's a really good player that has had some really bad errors at the worst possible times. You can't just throw those errors out because they are a small sample size...those errors have ended seasons.
I come back to John Elway in "America's Game". He had to have that title to feel complete. Are we really going to give the Broncos' four playoff games in 1997 the same weight as four regular season games against the Seahawks over the years when putting Elway's career in perspective?
Everyone would love to have titles, and play their best in the biggest games. But people are being disingenuous or mistaken if they dont believe there is a good degree of luck and randomness to that, especially in a single elimination league like the nfl.
No more than there is in racking up stats. Peyton Manning had the good fortune of having some great offensive teammates over the years. His father never did and suffered dearly for it.
We can talk about what could be or would be forever. In the end you always come back to what is. Romo IS a really good quarterback who's made some crucial errors at the worst possible times. That's what he's going to be until he doesn't make those errors anymore.
And its silly how much the perception of elway changed overnight after 15 years because he rode in the backseat on a loaded denver team as a 37 and 38 year old.
and theres never existed an athlete who gets more passes than archie. He basically gets a pass for his whole career. It is what it is, and im not saying there isnt some degree of truth to it. But in the 21st century his legacy isnt really possible. "Heres a guy who never did much of anything, but its only because every last one of his teammates absolutely sucked. He was really great though."
and theres never existed an athlete who gets more passes than archie. He basically gets a pass for his whole career. It is what it is, and im not saying there isnt some degree of truth to it. But in the 21st century his legacy isnt really possible. "Heres a guy who never did much of anything, but its only because every last one of his teammates absolutely sucked. He was really great though."
Archie was just an example off the top of my head. Sorry I even brought him up.
Either way, doesn't change anything about Romo.
Then only math geeks and number crunchers would watch.
Peyton is relieved that he won't be viewed as Marino. Tony does not have that. Not even close.
You've said many times that this is the age QB statistics on steroids.
It's also the age where whichever team has the ball last usually wins.
Those numbers will not be all that uncommon. In the end, as has been stated by other posters, it's the memories that will last.
If Romo doesn't doesn't add the playoff resume, he'll just be another "also ran" in history.
Now, his name is brought up regularly, no matter how infamous the reason.
They are seeing Romo throw a pick with a must win game on the line with their own eyes.
They are seeing these things happen on highlights on Sportscenter and then beaten to death on talk radio all week.
It's just just looking at a piece of paper. It's seeing these things unfold and judging them, right, wrong, or indifferent.
And i think peyton is happy he wont go down wkth dan marinos legacy to be sure. But i think it speaks of the pathetic state of the american sports fan that dan marinos legacy is some sort of dirty word.
So Jeff George is a better quarterback than Joe Montana? Because as a pure passer George blew him away. Blew away Peyton Manning too.
All those traits you listed matter a great deal, and are basically what you judge a QB on. But if you think those factors stay the same for every guy during a regular season game in Tampa or the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl, you're kidding yourself.
These guys aren't robots. You can't just assume they perform to their abilities under all circumstances. Romo happens to be a guy that has played below his capabilities in critical circumstances...and that matters because it's those situations that most heavily determine the success or failure of his teams.
They are seeing Romo throw a pick with a must win game on the line with their own eyes.
They are seeing these things happen on highlights on Sportscenter and then beaten to death on talk radio all week.
It's just just looking at a piece of paper. It's seeing these things unfold and judging them, right, wrong, or indifferent.
and then when confronted with evidence that this truly doesnt happen more regularly with him than most qbs, they arent phased. They just brush it off. They just mumble some nonsense about perception being reality, state his teams playoff record. Rail against stats. State his teams playoff record again. Needlessly inject eli out of a natural desire to favorably compare him to any qb being discussed. State his teams playoff record again. Rinse, repeat
They are seeing Romo throw a pick with a must win game on the line with their own eyes.
They are seeing these things happen on highlights on Sportscenter and then beaten to death on talk radio all week.
It's just just looking at a piece of paper. It's seeing these things unfold and judging them, right, wrong, or indifferent.
and then when confronted with evidence that this truly doesnt happen more regularly with him than most qbs, they arent phased. They just brush it off. They just mumble some nonsense about perception being reality, state his teams playoff record. Rail against stats. State his teams playoff record again. Needlessly inject eli out of a natural desire to favorably compare him to any qb being discussed. State his teams playoff record again. Rinse, repeat
Didn't you just sort of do the same thing to Archie Manning?
I think it is even more pathetic that winners are diminished. If we live by the adage that winning is everything, then rings count and they should.
I think every hard-core fan recognizes Marino as a great QB. They also recognize him as a ringless one. No shame in that - but it is part of what defines him. Great player who never won it all. Ernie Banks is considered a great baseball player - without rings.
Winning defines players, and losing does too, especially if the player is seen as the face of losing.
Bill Buckner was an excellent baseball player - but he is forever in folklore as a buffoon. People still remember Jim Marshall as the guy who ran a TD the other way. Losses on a big stage stick. Look at the way BBI'ers remember Kerry Collins and Jim Fassel.
We may not look at guys like Marino, Kelly, Moon, or Fouts as losers because they never had key fuckups, but we recognize them as guys who never won the big one.
It is all part of perception - perception that you seem to try and argue over and over again that it shouldn't exist.
I think Romo is a great QB, and as Sean said, Dallas will miss him when he's gone. I won't miss him, because he's been a major pain in the ass for the Giants for years. I can't stand him, and that's a sign of respect. He plays through injury and plays hard.
He also has a tendency to make mistakes at the worst possible time and cost his team games. Until he overcomes that reputation and takes his team on a run and shuts everybody up, it will always be there.
Who knows, maybe it will be this year?
Why do you think he started this thread?
Joe's a good poster but this is what he does. It's how he gets his fill.
there are surely outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but the overwhelming majority of guys will produce to their regular season standard if the sample was big enough in the playoffs.
Giant fans pretty consistently argue about perception not being reality in Eli's favor (I tend to think we're right). MoM's just arguing for Romo, where I also think he's right.
It's easy to think about Romo's fumble against the Seahawks or his INT against the Giants in the divisional round - which was on 4th down with no TO's remaining, so it wasn't some terrible risk. But it ignores the larger output of data MoM is pointing to.
And the point about Peyton's playoff stats is much different because the sample size is much larger. Nearly a season and a half of statistics with consistently great offensive weapons.
'Everyone in this room, no one can tell you that you couldn't do it.'
It's just sports. Some things are fair and some aren't. Is it fair that some players get drafted into a shit situation and others don't, There are always some breaks and luck involved, if Brady doesn't get drafted by New England or Drew Bledsoe never gets hurt, his opportunity never even comes.
Romo is NOT a choker, not even close, but people will remember what they remember.
Not all players are going to have a large amount of playoff games to point to. Derek Jeter might have played an entire extra season in the playoffs in his career - other guys play a handful or less.
You can only be judged on what you played. I've heard it theorized that if you play or coach in the postseason long enough, you will eventually get to where you should be. Tell that to Marv Levy who will die before getting a SB win.
You only get so many chances - and what you make or don't make of those chances is what defines you. Joe wants us to not look at it like that, apparently.
It's not really fair but it's exactly how people sum him up.
there are surely outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but the overwhelming majority of guys will produce to their regular season standard if the sample was big enough in the playoffs.
Is this about Eli or Romo? I haven't even mentioned Eli.
No one flips any switches, but there surely are players whose performances change based on the pressure they are under. No one can convince me that Peyton Manning isn't squeezing the air out of the football in the playoffs. And no one can convince me that Romo hasn't made brutal errors at the worst possible times.
I'm not going to attribute Romo's errors to simple randomness, and I doubt you do either.
Here's a thought.
What do Jim Hart, John Hadl, John Brodie, and Roman Gabriel all have in common? They all have more yards passing and a few of them have more TDs than Terry Bradshaw....
Do you think anyone in the world would say they were better Qbs than Bradshaw? Hell, I bet 95% of people under 40 never even heard of those guys.
And when I looked at it, I pretty much reached the same conclusion Joe did. Tony Romo has been a money QB in the 4th quarter for the majority of his QB. Now, the bolded isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
He's absolutely had his share of National TV disasters and his lack of Playoff wins is ultimately why he's labeled unclutch. The Seattle Fumble is still a part of his legacy, and honestly rightfully so. But he's proven over the years that he isn't some epic Choke Artist, he has killed our Giants a handful of times in the 4th quarter.
Tony Romo is a lot better in the clutch than the general public and BBI thinks. It's just true whether you want to believe it or not. Fuck perception when you have reality supporting you.
But it really won't matter until he wins in the playoffs. Playoffs are where legacies are made. And until Romo does anything in the playoffs, no one is going to care about his "better than advertised clutchness" in the regular season. If he does end up winning in the playoffs, I guarantee that people will start talking about how good he's been in the clutch during the regular season. But he hasn't done shit in the playoffs yet and I hope he never does.
And when I looked at it, I pretty much reached the same conclusion Joe did. Tony Romo has been a money QB in the 4th quarter for the majority of his QB. Now, the bolded isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
He's absolutely had his share of National TV disasters and his lack of Playoff wins is ultimately why he's labeled unclutch. The Seattle Fumble is still a part of his legacy, and honestly rightfully so. But he's proven over the years that he isn't some epic Choke Artist, he has killed our Giants a handful of times in the 4th quarter.
Tony Romo is a lot better in the clutch than the general public and BBI thinks. It's just true whether you want to believe it or not. Fuck perception when you have reality supporting you.
But it really won't matter until he wins in the playoffs. Playoffs are where legacies are made. And until Romo does anything in the playoffs, no one is going to care about his "better than advertised clutchness" in the regular season. If he does end up winning in the playoffs, I guarantee that people will start talking about how good he's been in the clutch during the regular season. But he hasn't done shit in the playoffs yet and I hope he never does.
I think the point some peopel are missing is not that he isnt a good 4th QB, its his mistakes (in which every QB makes) are magnified based on the importence of the game.
2013 - against GB. A win would almsot certainly give them a legitimate chance at a wild card. He throws an INT with 2:00 near midfield. GB goes and scores to win the game.
2012 - with the division on the line, throws 3 INTs including a terrible one late in the 4th that seals the game.
2011 - week 13. He is playing a great game, but misses Austin for an easy 80 yard TD on an overthrow. A catch there, and the division was theres.
2009 - made the playoffs. Won his first game. Got shellacked in the 2nd round. Nothing he could do.
2007 - loses as a double digit favorite to the Giants at home. He took some key sacks and really had poor clock management on thier last drive.
2006 - the fumble on the snap.
Again, these are very few games to judge a players career on. I agree 100%, but everytime there is something on the line or a play is needed to be made to move on or clinch a playoff spot.... he fails. Its more of a pattern than most may not realize.
became
"since 1998 when the score is within 7 points in the 4th quarter, not including playoffs when sample size is small"
I can't even begin to decipher meaning in conversations like this. "Since 2003, Joe Schmo's completion % has been better than anyone else on 3rd-and-8 during road games in the month of October following a loss."
You can make numbers do whatever you want.
Opinion isn't based on sample size when it comes to sports, it is based predominently on perception - which is exactly why the list above of QB's like Hadl, Brodie and Hart go fairly unrecognized.
you could add Steve Bartkowski to that list.
Sample size really doesn't mean squat when talking about winners or losers.
3 minutes left, down by three:
Game over. That's what people remember.
I don't need to learn anything about sample sizes. What I do know is that BBI's King of Confirmation Bias started this thread and, as usual, is in no mood to actually discuss relevant data with anyone who doesn't buy into the hypothesis.
But that's completely just a guess.
Good point. The most recent choke was only last season...
So people that disagre, or share another opinion, shouldn't comment?
Would make for a boring thread.
Who is commenting "out of emotion" ?
The majority of the thread are just people expressing their opinions on the subject and backing those opinions up in different ways.
Certainly don't have a statistical basis when they argue it...
My mistake was including everyone getting on Joe when in reality it was only a couple. MAYBE I jumped the gun
But that's completely just a guess.
Wait Arc, that loss to Dallas on Sunday that saw NY blow an 11 pt lead to their most hated rival actually bothered you? Fuck is wrong with you?
So you're arguing his playoff success would almost certainly match that of the regular season if only he played in more post-season games. Okay.
Except that sample isn't "big enough" because he hasn't made the playoffs a whole lot (see the gif Britt posted) and when he does, he hasn't won enough games to increase that sample size beyond, now, 4 games.
Hence why he's judged the way he is: regular season performance which people only value so much (see: Peyton before he started winning in January) and a spotty/bare playoff resume. He'll get a chance to change the latter in about 8 weeks.
Just directly proving my point. No surprise.
Utterly ridiculous to call him anything close to being "clutch"
ELIMINATION GAMES Cmp Att Cmp% TD INT
2006 Playoffs vs SEA 17 29 58.6% 1 0
2007 Playoffs vs NYG 18 36 50.0% 1 1
2008 WK17 vs PHI 21 39 53.9% 0 1
2009 Playoffs vs PHI 23 35 65.7% 2 0
2009 Playoffs vs MIN 22 35 62.9% 0 1
2011 WK17 vs NYG 29 37 78.4% 2 1
2012 WK17 vs WAS 20 37 54.1% 2 3
Totals 150 248 60.5% 8 7
A close score in the 4th quarter of a game in September isn't on equal footing with a do or die game.
A better statistical measure would be Romo's 4th quarter performance in postseason games or regular season games determining whether or not the Cowboys would go to the postseason.
People are pointing out that he has had issues winning critical games and that his mistakes have directly led to those losses. The same could have been said of Donovan McNabb, and often was.
It doesn't mean they aren't/weren't good QB's - it means that they came up short in critical games, for whatever reason.
I have no clue why it is being argued that people are saying romo isn't good - I'm not sure a single poster has said that. Numerous ones have said he has had critical mistakes in big games, however.
this is the nfl. The games are few. The separation is thin. Its clueless to act like big, important, season altering spots dont occur regularly
That is kind of the whole point? Outside of Dallas fans, who cares if he has a comeback against a crappy Giants team in November, when he has all day to throw and the Giants D is rated dead last. Sure in the stat books it will look great, but I don't know how anyone can look at Sunday nights game and call what he did "clutch."
Don't you do the same - that is, tout the important of post-season success (or lack thereof) independent of the regular season - with Peyton Manning? Why do you acknowledge its legitimacy in Peyton's case but not Romo's. It's notable in both instances.
Arod had some of the best regular seasons in the history of baseball, multiple times over. He was always deservedly knocked for not coming through in October...until he did in 09. Maybe Romo will too (in January), but he hasn't yet.
Sometimes people would rather have wins than the fancy stats.
How are "CAREER" stats the same as a single game stats?
And if you actually review Eli's stats last game, they blow out any playoff stats Romo has ever had.
Lets use his regular season stats in non-playoff games, while ignoring his chokes in the games that really count when discussing a player being clutch or not
Any time a football game is up for grabs in the 4th quarter, tony romo is generally not the guy you want to see on the other teams sideline. The fact that he has a reputation to the contrary is a sign of how dumb and gullible people can be when a narrative is incessantly pushed on them
Your criterion for claiming that Romo is "unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" consists of comparing him to all other quarterbacks according to the following:
- since 1998
- passer rating
- in the 4th quarter
- when the score is within 7 points
I challenged those parameters by saying:
- Passer rating doesn't account for fumbles (which he did, for example, late in the division title game in 2011). (Should fumbles factor into this assessment?)
- Big mistakes in the 3rd quarter of close games don't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes while down 8-10 points in the 4th quarter also wouldn't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes when his team was protecting a small lead late in games also didn't seem to fall into this assessment. (I misunderstood the "within 7 points" part, though. I first thought it meant strictly "trailing by less than 7." But I see on that stats page that it could also mean leading by within 7. So this critique no longer holds, it seems, unless I was right the first time.)
You didn't respond to that critique. When, in subsequent discussion, you added that his postseason sample size is too small to be considered relevant data, I challenged that, too. Why not add it in, if there were any playoff games that fit the parameters? It seemed to me that the statistical focus was getting narrower and narrower to manufacture a particular conclusion.
I also said that Romo is "a very good QB who takes some unwarranted shit, partly because he's the Cowboys QB and is under a microscope." I do not believe that Romo is a choke artist, and I never said or even implied it. But that doesn't seem good enough for you. Anything other than "Yes, Joe. You are absolutely right. Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" is unacceptable and must be dismissed, with personal digs, if necessary.
Many people would respond to a critique of their discussion criteria by explaining why they chose the criteria they chose and why they excluded other criteria. Some people might even reconsider their criteria in light of a cogent critique.
But I get "you need to learn something about sample sizes." If you're authentically concerned with objective discussion and analysis of this kind of topic, I'd think you'd welcome critiques of your assessment criteria. But I was clearly wrong.
Okay, so if your point is that "Tony Romo should not be stigmatized as 'unclutch' because it doesn't jive with the facts", then it's a sound one. But that's a separate point from commenting on other parts of his career (like playoff success). Both are realities.
I don't think Peyton is the GOAT. I think Brady & Montana trump him because of post-season success. It matters when evaluating these careers. Peyton's INT in a crucial moment to Tracy Porter, though it doesn't define him, matters when evaluating his overall career.
if you think my definition of "clutch time" is too restrictive (ie 4th quarter action, 1 possession game). Feel free to come up with your own criteria. Ill run it, and I have a feeling not much would change provided your sample is healthy enough
Any time a football game is up for grabs in the 4th quarter, tony romo is generally not the guy you want to see on the other teams sideline. The fact that he has a reputation to the contrary is a sign of how dumb and gullible people can be when a narrative is incessantly pushed on them
Lol..Except you have not done one thing to disprove that rep of his. Look at his key-games record and performances, these are what ultimately determine if a player is truly clutch or not. He has come up small in every game but against us.
Your criterion for claiming that Romo is "unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" consists of comparing him to all other quarterbacks according to the following:
- since 1998
- passer rating
- in the 4th quarter
- when the score is within 7 points
I challenged those parameters by saying:
- Passer rating doesn't account for fumbles (which he did, for example, late in the division title game in 2011). (Should fumbles factor into this assessment?)
- Big mistakes in the 3rd quarter of close games don't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes while down 8-10 points in the 4th quarter also wouldn't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes when his team was protecting a small lead late in games also didn't seem to fall into this assessment. (I misunderstood the "within 7 points" part, though. I first thought it meant strictly "trailing by less than 7." But I see on that stats page that it could also mean leading by within 7. So this critique no longer holds, it seems, unless I was right the first time.)
You didn't respond to that critique. When, in subsequent discussion, you added that his postseason sample size is too small to be considered relevant data, I challenged that, too. Why not add it in, if there were any playoff games that fit the parameters? It seemed to me that the statistical focus was getting narrower and narrower to manufacture a particular conclusion.
What happened Exit is that you blew his argument up and that means in Joe's world you were "a combination of pointless sarcasm with good old fashioned cluelessness".
He can't argue against your points so Joe pulls out the old "Your clueless" smokescreen
this is the nfl. The games are few. The separation is thin. Its clueless to act like big, important, season altering spots dont occur regularly
I don't buy this vague third party you describe that is up in arms over the early season loss as much as Romo's season ending losses. If that's a real group of people, I don't identify with them. Like I said earlier, I happen to think Romo is an excellent quarterback on the whole.
Getting back to what the crux of the argument is, what is clutch and what is not:
From your original post, you claim that clutch is how you perform in the 4th quarter of close games. All I said in my last post is that it matters when that game takes place. You don't know in week 2 of the season if the loss you just sustained was one loss too many. Elimination games are more pressure for that reason, and fans are interested in how guys perform under pressure. It's where reputations are born and Romo is no exception.
And if you think that that doesn't matter, that wins and losses all count the same, then why use aggregate 4th quarter stats as support that Romo is clutch? The (game altering) yards, TDs, and INTs in quarters 1-3 all count as well, right? I think that's acknowledgement on your part that the timing of performance does matter.
In football, sample sizes are going to be relatively small. Acting as if sample size has any impact or effect is pure nonsense.
In a game like football where players have a handful of playoff appearances if they are lucky, you are never going to have an adequate sample size. What you are left with is perception.
I don't know why you continue to ignore this as if it doesn't matter.
Perception is what makes or breaks the legacies of many a player.
This thread operates under one main assumption - that Romo isn't very good. Unfortunately, I don't think a single person thinks that. Anything else is simply manuevering or trying to explain around the lack of success Romo has had in critical games.
Not sure why one goes to such great lengths to try and validate this argument. I, much like arc have a pretty damn good idea, but I'm pretty sure quite a few here have that same idea why too.
It borders on a really strange obsession.
And no shit sherlock, football is set up in a fashion where playoff samples will always be relatively small. Which is all the more reason why in this sport, with its single elimination format, its pretty silly to make such sweeping declarations.
and while youre at it, tell me your motivation for starting "yay! Dangelo hall tore his achilles, karma strikes" threads and then being forced to delete them once confronted with what a miserable dipshit you are? You want to talk about obsessions? Your giant fanboy obsession is so prominent that youre a middle aged man who finds joy in division rivals going down to injury. Humanity goes out the window never mind objectivity. You cant be seen as an unbiased source in any conversation regarding romo. You have a personal policy of literally never knocking the giants for anything ever and pursuing pissing matches with those who do
In football, sample sizes are going to be relatively small. Acting as if sample size has any impact or effect is pure nonsense.
Haha..It is obvious to everyone but Joe that just the fact he has such a small sample size with regards to playoff games, completely negates his whole days worth of silly arguments.
"Fourth quarter game winning drives" is one of the dumbest, misleading stats in football. Take this 2012 game against the Eagles, for example. Note the score, the quarter, and the time left on the clock...
Let's watch Romo at his 'Captain Comeback' best.
The Cowboys retained the lead for the remaining 13+ minutes of this game, and Romo got credit for a fourth quarter game winning drive. Romo does it again!
And then there was this heroic game winning drive with 14:26 left against the Raiders last season...
And who can forget the time Romo knelt the ball in the center of the field for a game-winning field goal in overtime after this INT return to the one yard line by Brandon Carr.
Watch as Romo sets it up for his kicker to bang in the winning FG.
That's true late game magic.
But yeah, the notion that Tony Romo often finds a way to lose late in games is a "narrative" invented by haters and absorbed like a sponge by half-wits who don't know squat about football.
There are a ton more gifs and visual evidence of Romo's late game heroics at the following link:
Link - ( New Window )
But, if I understand the OP correctly, Romo is being touted as an underrated clutch QB based on his 4thQ regular season QB rating.
To completely disregard his performance in "clutch" games, when a season or post-season is on the line, is a major flaw in reaching this conclusion. And it's not based on perception; it's based in reality. Actual results from plays that occurred in big games.
Romo is a very good QB with a proven track record if the measuring stick is the numbers he puts up. But he has yet to prove he is a clutch QB until he comes through when the SEASON is on the line.
I've explained this many times before. Why should I knock things out of my control? Can I bring home a win by rooting harder? If not, should I wish death on reese, hope TC gets the axe, talk about what lazy SOB's we have here, etc.?
Christ, I've seen a bunch of posters talk about players as if they are pieces of shit. Hakeem Nicks has an injury that will have lingering effects for the rest of his life and people pile on him for "quitting".
Maybe it is having the perspective of being around the training room for many years which has allowed me to see the physical sacrifices players make. Maybe it is dealing with former players who will endure an average of 5 post-career surgeries that keeps me from blasting them.
Some people think simply because they root for a jersey that it is OK to make whatever negative comments they want to. I like to point out the hypocrisy in that. The problem is - most people don't like being told that they are a bunch of whining fucks who simply channel their disappointment into making insults against the organization they supposedly root so hard for.
I don't see any positive in knocking the Giants. Hell, we have a bunch of brain-dead schmucks who are still lamenting that Will Hill is gone.
I root for the Giants because it was what was passed down to me and I embraced it. In the meantime, I've seen low times and I've seen 5 SB's. Overall, I'm pretty happy about it. I see little gained in bitching about the people that I devote a great deal of time pulling for. If I'm going to channel anger, I'd rather direct it towards ungrateful fucks. Same outcome, but I don't root for you or them. I root for the giants and I'm damn proud to point that out everytime you start a thread showing your ignorance on QB play - which pops up regularly these days.
If you think that is representative of what I normally post than either you don't read many of my posts or it just continues the confirmation bias you seem to use over and over again.
I know people don't like when I challenge what they say - I know that doesn't make me popular. But don't make it sound like I have a history of posting glee at people getting injured. If I'm defined by that one thread, then I've done a really shitty job over the years supporting my positions.
Either that, or I've pissed so many people off they will latch onto anything like that to keep calling me out.
Yup its a Joe thread
Maybe it is having the perspective of being around the training room for many years which has allowed me to see the physical sacrifices players make. Maybe it is dealing with former players who will endure an average of 5 post-career surgeries that keeps me from blasting them
you have got to be fucking kidding me. This is absolutely awesome.
I already apologized for making the comment. I admitted it was in poor taste and inappropriate.
While that is fucking hilarious to you, it is still more than I can say about your threads.
Hey, but call me a "fanboy" or some other pithy shit. Like I said - if you think calling me a fanboy of the giants is an insult, it gives a really illustrative glimpse into how you feel about the team.
But then again, you seem to have softer spots for non-Giants than you do the actual players you are supposedly rooting for, so I see where you are coming from.
God help me if I start a thread mocking sanchez, favre, Romo or Cam Newton.
I might get challenged to a fight on the corner of 51st for that faux pas.
He's certainly a top 10 QB thiugh and I don't think he's underrated at all. But I'll think the same about him until he can win a couple playoff games in a row. If he can't do that then what's the point of this thread? Small sample size, sure, but it's the same sample size that we judge all QBs on, especially 10 year veterans.
It always seems that Romo finds himself in shootouts, requiring him to make many big plays over the course of a game. Those big plays are gained by taking risks. Take enough risks, and any player is bound to fail on occasion.
I am thankful the Cowboys with Romo haven't won the big game, But the idea that Romo is incapable or unclutch is based on a few specific plays he's made while ignoring the majority of his work.
One thing on which I agree with Joe as it applies to all sports discussions on clutch is that the nebulous concept of clutch has its advocates constantly shifting the goalposts and changing what is clutch.
Joe laid out the parameters of clutch for the thread. He said that it was a myth that Tony Romo is a choker, or unclutch, whatever you want to call it.
People pointed out that deserved or not, the perception of Tony Romo is that he can't win the big game (meaning any game of importance, end of season or playoffs), and laid out numerous examples of why he's earned that reputation.
I know it's not over yet, but if the Cowboys don't make the playoffs this year, it will be five straight years without a postseason performance.
Romo has played in 2 or 3 in a row "play in" games at the end of the season, for the past couple of years, and failed.
In his ten year career, he has one playoff win.
The thread title is "Tony Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots".
There really wasn't much goalpost moving, to be honest.
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
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.
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 doesnt play his best gsme and dallas loses: another case of romo in the big game!
Morons
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
And expect an argument on sample size to follow....
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.
You can disprove the perception that Tony Romo comes up small in big games?
Please do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.