Apparently the WSJ reviewed all Tony’s broadcast and determined that when he predicts a play presnap on the broadcast he’s right about 68% of the time.
I know there’s a lot of people here who like this aspect of Romo’s calls. Me? I think predicting plays before they happen isn’t very useful to someone watching the game. In fact, I think calling a play before it happens kind of takes some of the fun out of watching. Romos right rate
- ( New Window
Love getting a qbs point of view on what he’s seeing before the play. I think romo is a great listen for the game. I will take Tony Romo over any broadcaster right now.
I want broadcasters to get out of the way, provide some insight, but let the game do the talking. Romo just doesn’t stop, it’s incredibly annoying.
But I like his insights and his way of communicating what’s happening as they come to the line. The fact he is that accurate adds to the broadcast IMO.
To say they’ll pass to Gronk when he’s split wide in the red zone.
Although if you ever watched the Coaches Room broadcast of the national title game on ESPN in recent years they are often able to do the same thing. They all see football in a totally different way, makes you realize how little fans understand what they are seeing.
Romo is a good broadcaster though. I am a big believer that former team affiliation goes out the window when these guys retire and go on TV. I like Romo and Aikman as broadcasters and don’t like Simms. Eli would be terrible at it but he’ll never do it I don’t think. Tiki is bad at it. Strahan is good in the studio.
reason his voice bothers me.
And having him predict the plays actually helps the viewer see what the QB is looking at, imho. But to each his own.
Absolutely hate ESPN baseball team yapping it up all the time, for example because they rarely talk baseball.
Is he calling the play when the team is in the huddle? Or, is he calling the play when he sees the defense at the line of scrimmage? Those are very different
In comment 14285365
| But I like his insights and his way of communicating what’s happening as they come to the line. The fact he is that accurate adds to the broadcast IMO.
He's probably the best of the bunch. However, his enthusiasm sometimes is a little over the top.
There was a time when they were called “color commentators”. His knowledge and insight ADDS to the game. He’s still at times a little rough but he clearly works at it, his diction and clarity have improved. He’s a competitive guy. He wants to be good at it. I know he’s a Cowboy but he’s a good dude. He comes across as genuine NOT a shill.
know exactly what play should be called is that it makes you realize just how unsophisticated you are about football.
He's simply the best analyst in the game.
He doesn't try to dumb things down.
I never have one of those moments with him where I'm screaming at the tv wondering how the broadcasters aren't mentioning something.
No one better.
He has found his calling, no pun intended.
he talks way too much.
A color analyst should add insight to the game/play, not overwhelm the broadcast.
team I don't have on mute about 75% of the time. Not only does Romo provide insight but does so in a likable way. Seems like he really enjoys the game. Aikman seems like he's mailing it in half the time. Collinsworth is on top of things but reeks of arrogance.
In comment 14285703
| know exactly what play should be called is that it makes you realize just how unsophisticated you are about football.
The opposite actually.
I like the pre snap calls
In comment 14285761
Tom in NY said:
| he talks way too much.
A color analyst should add insight to the game/play, not overwhelm the broadcast.
Old school thinking...most of the time I'd say you are right. But Romo is just good. I'm trying to follow what he is saying compared to what I see.
He called those three straight plays that led to the Patriots TD.
Its like I'm stuck in hell. We finally get rid of him from the Cowboys, and yet I still have to deal with him every week anyway
He is a startlingly great broadcaster.
It isn't how much you talk - it's how much of what you say is relevant.
I want to hear his commentary - it adds to the broadcast.
Other guys chatter simply to burn nervous energy.
Romo is for real.
One other point.
Other ex-Cowboy announcers keep mentioning their affiliation with that evil team from Texas.
Romo doesn't go there.
Good on you, Tony.
that he'd botch the hold for the kick in the playoffs..
I bet that 68% accuracy number goes way the fuck up.
being an analyst is to sound decent. Romo often sounds like a teenage girl screeching. I picture old footage of front row swooning and passing out at the sight of the Beatles when he starts yapping.
And the guy won't shut up.
I do like that he reads the play, but he's talking so much, that it seemingly gets lost in the shuffle.
When he first started broadcasting, before he felt the need to talk the entire broadcast and comment on every single statement made by the other broadcasters
I WAS impressed with his observation of how McVay wouldn't line up to the LOS so as to keep Belichick from adjusting his defense with the communication systems (turned off with 15 seconds remaining in play clock).
And he was adamant about the Rams needing to decline both penalties. I was like “what is he talking about? They’re in FG range.” I’m not sure if he’s right or wrong. Yes, the Rams saved time and a defensive down, but (hindsight) if the Pats were pushed back the 10 yards (and subsequently didn’t gain a yard, which is a big assumption), the FG might had drifted left, as it was headed before sneaking in.
game that the best discussion is on the TV analyst. He is either the greatest or he is a screeching girl that talks too much.
He's not the greatest (Madden was) and he is far from a screeching girl. While talking too much is subjective, he is far closer to Madden than he is to screeching girl. Clearly talking too much is the biggest complaint, but I actually don't "hear" him. (FWIW, I read lots of writers praising him - all most universal. Cannot remember a negative article). I think Aikman is the next best and he is pretty quiet, but I just don't get the insight from Aikman I get from Romo.
Let's compare him to the Baseball Tonight ESPN crew - now that is talking too much, and talking about little that pertains to the game.
collinsworth is the best and second place is pretty far off.
I'd rather a guy sound smug and talk only when needed than talking more than the play-by-play guy.
And Romo has too much Dick Enberg in him in getting overly excited about pedestrian plays. and Enberg was a play-by-play guy which is doubly bad for Romo.
When he starts getting high pitched about a stutter step move that nets an additional 2 yards, I just can't take him too seriously.
Isn't for everyone with his style. I like Romo in the booth. To each their own.
after a Rams defensive holding call on a missed 1st down (ref hadn't made the call, although he had made the signal, so everyone, including Romo, knew what was coming), Romo was talking about options on 2nd down. I was thinking, isn't a def holding an automatic first down?, when the ref announces the first down. Guess I'm smarter than Romo!!
I did notice on a few plays, he was calling for player X at such and such a spot, and when the play went elsewhere, he would claim credit for being right because the play came out of the same setup presnap. I'm guessing that most people who play or coach the game (and with a full view of the field) know a majority of the likely outcomes based on a set up. it's getting the last few percent of the play predictions right that separate the men from the boys in the pros.
I don't pretend to know X's and O's, but 60% should be child's play for a professional, high caliber, QB. He's making his mark going with this angle, while other announcers try to make their mark in other angles. As noted above, some like it, some don't. If enough people like it, he'll keep doing it, and other ex pros will think 'why the hell didn't I do that?'. If they don't, the producers will tell him to knock it off.
BBI'er who actually claimed he could predict the Giants plays 90% of the time!
When he was challenged to do so, he pretty much shut up.
Can't remember who that was.
I thought that him noticing how they were snapping it so close to the end of the play clock to keep Belichick from radioing the defense was a genuine insight into some of the gamesmanship that I would never have been aware of.
The game stunk though.
or people like Aikman are so bad? In any case, I'll take Romo every day over Aikman, Collinsworth, etc.
the guy next to me wouldn't shut up and would call every play before the snap and was wrong almost every time. It was so annoying we left our seats at halftime. (Told an usher in the 100's we walked away from guys trying to pick a fight and we just wanted to stand and watch. He gave us seats like 10 rows off the field for the 2nd half)
So maybe Romo reminds me of that guy. It's ok occasionally to predict a play but gets annoying every down. And save the excitement for big plays.
The times when Tony is wrong though makes me think "well maybe that's why you never won anything".
broadcasting booth. rooms changing of plays and decision making as a qb was borderline, it wasn’t his physical skills that made him a so so or above average qb. as a predictor