spkb25

i liked his face after spiller was off to the races.

burningmetal

Colston has always been kind of a system guy. He got old fast. David Thomas was not a weapon, Shockey was no better than Martellus Bennett by the time we got him, and Romo had Bennett. Devery Henderson was fast... That's about it. Lance Moore was good for a time just like Colston, but Romo had Terrell Owens, Roy Williams, Jason Witten (for a lot more than 5 seasons, like us with Graham) and Miles Austin was kind of their Colston. A guy who got hot for a little bit and then fizzled out.

He has Dez Bryant, he had Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when he was healthy and was actually pretty good), he had Demarco Murray... Barber and Murray are certainly more accomplished backs than Mark Ingram. Romo also had Terry Glenn, and even Julius Jones had a couple decent years.

Drew had McCallister for a whole year, and Payton refused to utilize Ivory because he supposedly had a fumbling problem. Sproles and Bush (sometimes Bush) were good players for us, yes. But there have been a lot of plug and play guys to go along with the talent we had. I see no evidence that Romo had any less at his disposal. He doesn't make the other guys better, is the difference.

As far as our line, we used to be good on the interior, but we've struggled at tackle for a long time. Guys like Bushrod, Strief have needed a lot of help to keep Drew from getting killed.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

pinch

To be fair, they did show him pouting after the winning TD.

RailBoss

Romo doesn't bother me for some reason. It's Jerry that totally gets my goat. How many times does the camera have to spotlight his reactions.
I personally don't care what he's doing up there or seeing him on the sidelines.

lsutigerfan

I don't often disagree with you, but I do here. IMO to say Romo would have won a Superbowl here too is crazy. IMO Romo has had as much if not more talent in Dallas and has never won Jack.

I'm not a Romo hater, I think Romo is a very good QB , but he was never elite like Drew.

lynwood

No one ever used the word elite to describe Romo.

Mr.Riaton

I think there's too many variables involved to compare them. They're both good QBs,but I feel the main reason Brees is what he is is mainly because of Sean's system. Don't get me wrong, I think Brees has the edge over Romo because of his game preparation,comeback drives,and football IQ, but it's not like Brees was setting the world on fire in San Diego. I would choose Drew over Tony,but would be fine if Romo took over Brees' spot when Brees retired.

lsutigerfan

No but, if Danno gonna compare the two and say they are close and then say Romo would've won a Superbowl here then IMO he is calling him elite.

lsutigerfan

I would too, if we're talking today, Romo is the Better QB. We can talk about the woulda shoulda coulda, is Joe Montana the great Joe Montana if he was with the dreadful Saints back in the 80's probably not.

Danno

He's not on the same level as Brees. Winning a Superbowl doesn't automatically mean a QB is elite, ie Dilfer, Eli, Roethlisberger, Wilson...

I only meant to say that he's not as bad as many say.

I think he's near the top of that 2nd tier, after Brees, Rodgers and Brady.

That's what I meant by close. Top 10 easily, and probably in the top 5 over the last 5 years.