Theismann says Romo “isn’t that good”

[Hookem Horns]

What hit me last night is, Tony isn’t really that good,” Theismann added. “Just because he wears a star on his helmet — we all think that people who are Dallas Cowboys, ‘Oh they’re wonderful and ooh they’re terrific, ooh they’re the next Roger Staubach’ or whatever the heck they want to say. They’re full of bologna.

I really don't like Joe Theismann but I have to agree with him here.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...snt-that-good/

[jaayteetx]

I, for one, don't think that. "That" being just because they wear the star they're good. He is what he is, very turnover prone, especially in big games.

[jaayteetx]

And judging from the comments, Cowboy fans are still delusional.

[paycheck71]

In a long list of problems with the Cowboys, Romo is nowhere near the top of the list, IMO. He's obviously not perfect, and Monday was one of his worst games, but Dallas is a mismanaged team from top to bottom, and to say that it's Romo's fault is wrong. FWIW, I'd take Romo over at least half the QB's in the NFL.

[Thorn]

The more problems the Cowbutts have the happier I am.

[Double Barrel]

Romo would be a lot better if his receivers would catch the passes he's throwing out there.

Some of his receiver suck so bad that they should be ashamed to take an NFL paycheck.

[TheEastwood]

I'd put Romo on Schaubs's level or maybe a little below. If you put the pieces around him and get a good line, he'll win more then he loses imo. If Jerra just keeps on adding the sexy wr and rb picks, and continues to neglect the oline then this is what you get; A QB that tries to do too much to overcome the pressure the dline puts on him. Leading to a ton of mistakes (ints and fumbles).

Romo and Cutler do more with less protection than anyother QBs in the league imo. That being said, I'd much rather have Schaub with this team. Schaub has gotten better and better at protecting the ball in his career. He's learned that with this team, it's better to just throw the ball away than try to force something. Romo seems to have never learned that. Romo has a good defense and a good running game (when Garret remembers to run). If he'd just learn not to try to force passes he'd be good.

[jaayteetx]

Originally Posted by paycheck71

In a long list of problems with the Cowboys, Romo is nowhere near the top of the list, IMO. He's obviously not perfect, and Monday was one of his worst games, but Dallas is a mismanaged team from top to bottom, and to say that it's Romo's fault is wrong. FWIW, I'd take Romo over at least half the QB's in the NFL.

He didn't say it was all his fault, he said he isn't very good. If you took Romo, you would have a streaky turnover machine. Good luck with that.

[jaayteetx]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

I'd put Romo on Schaubs's level or maybe a little below. If you put the pieces around him and get a good line, he'll win more then he loses imo. If Jerra just keeps on adding the sexy wr and rb picks, and continues to neglect the oline then this is what you get; A QB that tries to do too much to overcome the pressure the dline puts on him. Leading to a ton of mistakes (ints and fumbles).

Romo and Cutler do more with less protection than anyother QBs in the league imo. That being said, I'd much rather have Schaub with this team. Schaub has gotten better and better at protecting the ball in his career. He's learned that with this team, it's better to just throw the ball away than try to force something. Romo seems to have never learned that. Romo has a good defense and a good running game (when Garret remembers to run). If he'd just learn not to try to force passes he'd be good.

I disagree. I think Matt, for the most part, handles pressure very well and makes his line look better by doing so. You put Matt in Dallas, they win more games, IMO. Thankfully, we'll never truly know though.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

Romo would be a lot better if his receivers would catch the passes he's throwing out there.

Some of his receiver suck so bad that they should be ashamed to take an NFL paycheck.

What I see with Romo is that he gets into that "cascade of errors" that Kubiak talked about with HWWNBN back in the early days.

Against the Bears, Romo was playing a pretty good game except for his receivers killing him: dropped balls, missed reads, wrong routes. And then stuff starts to snowball and he starts pushing himself and trying too hard. When he does that, he starts missing throws that he was hitting earlier. Then everything blows up and you've got 5 picks and you're getting your butt kicked. IIRC, he's the only active QB who's got multiple 5+ interception games. That's a helluva stat.

I think one of his big stumbling blocks is that there have been times when he's started pushing like that and it's ended up working out. So now he's got it in his head that it works and the problem is that it's risky. If it works it's great and you're a hero but if it fails, it's utterly horrible and you're the wrong kind of goat.

[paycheck71]

Originally Posted by jaayteetx

He didn't say it was all his fault, he said he isn't very good. If you took Romo, you would have a streaky turnover machine. Good luck with that.

I disagree to some degree. His TO's, IMO, are more a product of the type of offense they play, the crappy line they have, and the boneheaded receivers than Romo himself. If you fall behind early, like they always seem to do, throw away your game plan, and start running the same three plays from the shotgun, turnovers are inevitable against most teams in the NFL.

As mediocre to bad as the Cowboys were last season, Romo had 4100+ yds, 31 td's, and a passer rating of 102. That's better than "not that good."

[paycheck71]

Originally Posted by jaayteetx

I disagree. I think Matt, for the most part, handles pressure very well and makes his line look better by doing so. You put Matt in Dallas, they win more games, IMO. Thankfully, we'll never truly know though.

I think Matt gets killed in Dallas with their line. Romo has more escapability which is the only reason they weren't a 5-6 win team last year.

[Goldensilence]

Originally Posted by jaayteetx

I disagree. I think Matt, for the most part, handles pressure very well and makes his line look better by doing so. You put Matt in Dallas, they win more games, IMO. Thankfully, we'll never truly know though.

I think Matt would get killed in Dallas right now same way he would in Chicago. Both have protection issues and Matt just isn't very mobile.

Far as Romo as a QB, all too often I see this guy running for his life and still managing to make plays in the passing game. I think Garrett needs to be more balanced in his play calling and they need to admit Ryan hasn't come in and cleaned up the defense liked they had hoped.

I'm with paycheck in bottom to top this team just doesn't seem to have the right people in place and yet still have a very talented roster.

[Dutchrudder]

Looks like we have someone to take Matt Schaub's place in the QB hierarchy! Yay, no more "I'd take so-and-so over Schaub" threads! Now they will all migrate to the Cowboys forums! Woot!

[RazorOye]

What an astute observation. Theismann is a regular Norman Einstein.

[Señor Stan]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Looks like we have someone to take Matt Schaub's place in the QB hierarchy! Yay, no more "I'd take so-and-so over Schaub" threads! Now they will all migrate to the Cowboys forums! Woot!

I would point those people to the Cowboys official website at cowboys.com

[The1ApplePie]

Romo is a Brett Favre clone, high-risk, high-reward guy. He will have a lot of turnovers when he's slumping. When he's hot though, he can be damn near impossible to stop.

[chicagotexan2]

Originally Posted by The1ApplePie

Romo is a Brett Favre clone, high-risk, high-reward guy. He will have a lot of turnovers when he's slumping. When he's hot though, he can be damn near impossible to stop.

Maybe? But that doesn't happen consistently and almost always never when it counts the most. I think he's good, but he's not 'that' good.

[gtexan02]

Not a Cowboys fan, but Romo is a good QB. His receivers admitted they were blowing routes and thats what resulted in some of those awful looking turnovers.

He's had multiple 30+ TD seasons. You can't be an average QB and rack up multiple 30+ TD seasons

[gtexan02]

Couple of other statistics:

Top 10 QBs in NFL history by passer rating:

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Steve Young+
3. Tom Brady
4. Tony Romo
5. Philip Rivers
6. Peyton Manning
7. Kurt Warner
8. Drew Brees
9. Matt Schaub
10. Ben Roethlisberger

Not saying that proves anything, but those are some good names he's surrounded by (No all time great QBs on there because the league wasn't so pass happy back then)

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...ing_career.htm