Underrated and unappreciated

[Mr Haha]

I have no battered pride and don't give a **** what anyone else thinks.

Apparently you do lol.

[Patriot Pride]

I never said that. He did blow it. He played poorly from the start. Against a team that played good defense from the start and has been playing relatively good defense for a few weeks now.

I never argued with any of that. I argued with an interpretation which claims there is so much more to the story than a player playing a poor game and a defense playing a good game or, better yet, a defense beating an opponent. My point is, for an unvalidated reason, that explanation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to give Washington credit. Washington didn't play a good game. They didn't throw good coverages and great blitzes at Romo all night long. They didn't apply such constant pressure as to force a QB to make less-than-desirable decisions.

Of course not. Romo choked. That is all.

You see, I have no problem saying Romo played poorly in a game where he needed to play well. I have problems with the reasoning everyone else wants to give it.

Huge difference.

The defense played well and Romo also choked ... they can both happen.

That last pick was the definition of choke. He could have easily NOT thrown an interception, and did, with the game on the line of the biggest game of the season.

Last season Romo blew plenty games that would have put the Cowboys in the playoffs - its been a bad trend.

I'm no Romo hater either, I actually root for the guy.

[RaiderLakersA's]

Tony Romo is in the same camp as Carlson Palmer at this point. They are both "Yeah, but" men.

[WadeKobe]

Small sample size? How many elimination games do most guys get? I mean, that's 7 years, by many standards, that's an entire career. The 7 games may seem small in comparison to the rest of his bio, but it's also the most telling. He doesn't get it done when needed, period. Does he get too much blame, sure he does. Does he get too little credit, sure he does. It goes both ways. Romo isn't the only one who is faced with it, he's just the most glaring out there currently.

That's my point, in general. In football, we don't get large enough sample sizes for such determinations to be meaningful, ever. There isn't a player who has enough games for it to actually be a meaningful "trend."

And, keep in mind, I'm also not arguing the fact that he hasn't gotten it done and that he needs to. The guy wants to win. He doesn't have the luxury of playing on a team with a great defense and a great O-Line like other QBs... so he's not going to be lucky enough to be in the position other QBs are in where they don't have to face elimination games, because they are 12-4. So, yes, he needs to play better than he generally has in these games.

My problem is the assumption that it is because of the enormity of these games that he has played poorly in them when he has. Also, that we have to find some way to say he played bad if they lose, even if he didn't, such as week 17 last year.

[Pinstripe power]

Tony Romo is in the same camp as Carlson Palmer at this point. They are both "Yeah, but" men.

Carson palmer is the GOAT

[TheVicster]

To be underappreciated you first must have done something to be appreciated for.

What has Romo ever done?

It's like saying Philip Rivers is underappreciated.

[BDawk4Prez]

That's my point, in general. In football, we don't get large enough sample sizes for such determinations to be meaningful, ever. There isn't a player who has enough games for it to actually be a meaningful "trend."

And, keep in mind, I'm also not arguing the fact that he hasn't gotten it done and that he needs to. The guy wants to win. He doesn't have the luxury of playing on a team with a great defense and a great O-Line like other QBs... so he's not going to be lucky enough to be in the position other QBs are in where they don't have to face elimination games, because they are 12-4. So, yes, he needs to play better than he generally has in these games.

My problem is the assumption that it is because of the enormity of these games that he has played poorly in them when he has. Also, that we have to find some way to say he played bad if they lose, even if he didn't, such as week 17 last year.

But it's one of the larger sample sizes you will find. That doesn't discredit it, just because you want it to. Romo has been a BIG reason the team can't finish 12-4. He's also been a BIG reason the team isn't 4-12. The problem is the inconsistency with which he plays. Who shows up, the good Tony or the bad Tony.

All in all, bottom line, he has been terrible in elimination games and more times than not, has been a big contributor to 1-6 in those contests.

[WadeKobe]

But it's one of the larger sample sizes you will find. That doesn't discredit it, just because you want it to. Romo has been a BIG reason the team can't finish 12-4. He's also been a BIG reason the team isn't 4-12. The problem is the inconsistency with which he plays. Who shows up, the good Tony or the bad Tony.

All in all, bottom line, he has been terrible in elimination games and more times than not, has been a big contributor to 1-6 in those contests.

"one of the larger sample sizes" is meaningless. If you were to attempt to use a sample size of 7 in a statistics class to talk about "trends", "correlation", or even "causation" (which is what is going on here), you'd receive a failing grade. It simply isn't illustrative or indicative. It is barely descriptive.

Yes, he's no doubt been a part of the reason they're 1-6. I've said that. I don't think the fact that they're elimination games is meaningful in any real-life sense when discussing the fact of his poor play. It is meaningful when talking about the outcome for the team, but that is all.

[Giants #1 Fan]

Actually, that's precisely the point. 1-6, by itself, says very little. It is too small a sample size and doesn't account for the fact that Romo has lost elimination games where he's played incredibly well.

But you're right, 1-6 speaks for itself. Laziness at its finest.

You're full of ****

1) romo did not perform incredibly well against us, the last game of the season last year he had 3 turnovers 2ints and a fumble and lost. Defense also played well that game

2) he threw 3 ints yesterday and lost. Oh yeah the defense played well enough to give romo a chance to take the lead at the end and what happen... Of yeah int but yeah the team threw that. Let me guess Murray ran the wrong route right.

Although you can soley put the blame in Romo, he is one of the main reason of the cowboys struggle. If you're going to praise him for their success like MTM tried to attempt when starting this thread, why shouldn't he get the blame especially when his ints costs them the game?

If that's the cast lets blame the giants team for Eli's struggle and still proclaim him a top 5 QB. I guess it was the WR fault for Eli 25 int season. It's funny how Eli gets all the blame but you don't want romo to get all the blame. Funny how things works right MTM, Eli's not elite cause he has too many turnovers and the giants aren't winning. It's not having a hobble WR crop, no oline to protect you and absolutely no running game but hey romo should get a pass for having all those problem.

Stop with the ******** romo choke plain and simple, you're right on the part he shouldn't get all the blame but he still choke. He missed a WIDE open Austin to seal the game against the giants last year and had 3 to in the final game, and yesterday threw 3 ints.

[RaiderLakersA's]

Carson palmer is the GOAT

I don't agree and have never said that.

[BDawk4Prez]

"one of the larger sample sizes" is meaningless. If you were to attempt to use a sample size of 7 in a statistics class to talk about "trends", "correlation", or even "causation" (which is what is going on here), you'd receive a failing grade. It simply isn't illustrative or indicative. It is barely descriptive.

Yes, he's no doubt been a part of the reason they're 1-6. I've said that. I don't think the fact that they're elimination games is meaningful in any real-life sense when discussing the fact of his poor play. It is meaningful when talking about the outcome for the team, but that is all.

What the highest number of elimination games that a QB has played in? I would think 7 is right up there near the top. By that alone, it makes the sample size, albeit small by numbers standards, relative by practical standards. Is it the "be all end all", of course not, but it is certainly relevant.

Players are judged on how they perform when it matters most. That's why guys that throw for 200 yards in garbage time of game to propel them over 450 yards aren't discussed as being "true passers". Romo has accumulated a lot of garbage stats, but the one that matters is 1-6. That's how it should be to be honest.

Some payers show they can handle bigger moments, call it what you want, but it does exist.

[BDawk4Prez]

I don't agree and have never said that.

Then you sir just don't appreciate good QB play.

[Pinstripe power]

I don't agree and have never said that.

its a joke man, and one I make a lot if you have seen this site

[BDawk4Prez]

its a joke man, and one I make a lot if you have seen this site

Wait, it is?

I thought it was for real.

[Mr Haha]

What's funnier? When WadeKobe took the > out of his name, or when he will stop being PSD's Tony Romo?