You Can Win With Tony Romo (But Probably Not in Dallas)

On Sunday night Tony Romo had another fourth quarter meltdown that cost the Cowboys the game, thus giving the news media reason to criticize his play all week, most of which has been unjust.

Does Romo wish he didn't fumble the ball? Sure, but Romo made the right decision. In opting for the safest play call, Romo caused a turnover, but it was a turnover that could have happened to any quarterback in the league. Of course not fumbling would have put the game away, but the fumble itself isn't what cost the Cowboys the game.

Was it probably a bad idea targeting an injured Dez Bryant and picking on the best defensive player in the league? I'd say so, but if the coach is going to put the player on the field you need to utilize him. Some say that Bryant missed the route, but it was still a risk a more cautious quarterback might not have taken. Though Romo had some success against Revis over the course of the game, there is only so much you could do to Revis before you pay for it. Throughout his career, Revis has been the sort of player who gets better as the game goes on, and if you're going to get to him it's going to happen in the first half.

This week summed up Tony Romo's stint with the Cowboys: offensive success, a lot of great plays, but a few costly mistakes. There was no Wade Phillips to blame on Sunday, no T.O, and no grumpy Bill Parcells. This was Romo's loss, with Romo's coach, and it looks like it may very well be time for Tony Romo and Dallas to go their separate ways.

The problem with this is that Dallas are built to win now so they don't have time to wait for a Landry Jones or Matt Barkley. In order to part ways with Romo they would need a better option to go with to win in 2012, and franchise quarterbacks don't come on to the market every year, and when they do it's for a reason. The exception would be Joe Montana to the Chiefs or Brett Favre to the Jets, but it doesn't look like we have any situations like that... Yet.

But let's say we did. Where would Tony Romo go, and who would want him? In a quarterback free agent class led by Carson Palmer, Kyle Orton, Brady Quinn, Chad Henne, Vince Young, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Charlie Whitehurst, it would seem as though Romo would be the blue chip on the market and the first domino to fall. I anticipate Fitzpatrick staying in Buffalo, but those other quarterbacks leaving should open up jobs in Denver, Miami, and Seattle, three potential destinations for Romo.

Miami, like Dallas, are built to win now. Next year they'll probably have a new head coach that is brought in to help sell tickets. The coach's name could be Gruden, it could be Fischer, it could even be Billick. Whoever it may be it'll be a coach who throughout their career has opted toward veteran quarterbacks. Enter Romo the Dolphin, which would likely be the best case scenario for Romo's career and mental health. In the AFC East no one will expect the Dolphins to do much. If he could beat New England and the Jets once each he'd initially be a hero. If he could get the team to the playoffs he'd be a savior. In a city that has embraced LeBron, Tony Romo would no longer have the weight of the world on his shoulders in Miami, and I could see it being a wonderful fit.

Then there's Denver, with head coach John Fox who has a rule against QB's under the age of 28: he hates them. Denver is a mess for any quarterback to step into, but it's really not that bad. The Denver defense should be competitive by this time next year, and the wide receivers and running backs are adequate. Romo in Denver would instantly put Denver back in the race that Kyle Orton has held them out of, but he'd be thrown into a poor situation with the expectations and popularity that Tebow (who would now presumably be gone) thrown onto his shoulders. This situation is not ideal but it could work.

Then there's Pete Carroll and the Seattle Seahawks. Going to the NFC West would be great for Romo, but it might be hard for Jerry Jones to send him there. If this happened though, Romo would instantly have a chance to rebuild his career and his self esteem by picking apart the Cardinals and 49ers. Carroll seems to be looking for a quarterback with some athleticism, and Romo has enough, plus several other intangibles that would instantly turn the Seahawks into divisional favorites. The weapons are poor in Seattle, but who ever thought that Miles Austin would become what Romo has helped him become?

Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert prevent Romo from heading to Minnesota or Jacksonville, and there is an outside chance he could end up a 49er, but again I don't think Jerry Jones wants Romo in the NFC. That leaves Cleveland as the final potential destination for Romo, but they seem like the sort of franchise who would think rookie before they went veteran.

Wherever Tony Romo ends up next year, in this scenario everyone benefits. The Cowboys would have the Montana or Favre type (hint, hint) and Romo would be somewhere in the AFC with less pressure and a decent shot to take his team to the playoffs.

Romo Chokes, Out Favre's Favre

Heading into Sunday's showdown, many people (including myself) viewed the Dallas Cowboys as the favorites to win the NFC. The Vikings were cold, the Saints were cold, and the Cowboys were hot. You couldn't look at the Cowboys and not see a little bit of the 2006 Colts in them.

It seemed as though the most important piece to the puzzle, Tony Romo, had finally gained some late season swagger, but by the beginning of the 4th quarter on Sunday, we realized Romo was still Romo.

The NFL always needs it's goat; the guy who "can't win the big one" who "brings his team down" and "doesn't show up" in the "big spot." These cliches have become part of every mediocre sports talk radio hosts vernacular, and now they're going to be written in Tony Romo's obituary if he doesn't turn it around.

Peyton and Eli got their rings. McNabb has become an afterthought, and Tomlinson is a running back. To Romo's defense, those four players are a lot more talented than him; They were all top five picks while Romo was undrafted, still none of those players are Cowboy's, although the media certainly put pressure on them to win.

Earlier in the season I spoke openly with Cowboys fans about why the team couldn't win a Super Bowl with Romo. The difference between Romo and Eli is that you'd take Romo for the 50 minutes of every NFL game four times out of five, but you'd take Eli for the final ten minutes five times out of five; in other words, Eli may not put up the stats or highlight reel plays that Romo does, but without a doubt he plays better in the "big spot." And say what you will about Manning, but he's developed into the undeniable leader of his team. I'm not sure if the Cowboys have a leader outside of the guy signing the paychecks.

Entering today's game I honestly trusted Tony Romo more than I trusted Brett Favre. It had nothing to do with momentum, and everything to do with the fact that we've seen Favre blow it countless times this decade. I didn't care about Favre "never beating the Cowboys in the playoffs," because there's a big difference between the Cowboys of 2009 and the Cowboys of the mid 1990's. What I didn't like was the match up of the Cowboys defensive line versus Favre.

I was wrong. Dead wrong. The Cowboys defensive line was average at best when it came to rushing the passer on Sunday. The Vikings on the other hand, also known as the team I said looked mediocre against every team besides the Packers, dominated the Cowboys (all be it depleted) offensive line. Favre didn't over quarterback. Favre played like the "efficient" quarterback who let's his defense do the dirty work; the type of player that helped Tom Brady win three bowls.

Romo on the other hand? If there's one thing we know about Tony Romo it's that you can force him into awful decisions easier than you can force any other Pro Bowl level quarterback into mildly bad decisions. Four years into his tenure as Cowboys starter, seven years into his career as a pro, Tony Romo still gets his fix pretending to be Brett Favre. 19 years into his career, and 18 years as a starter, Brett Favre is now getting his fix pretending to be Phil Simms. If Favre pretends to be Simms again next week, we may see him in Miami for the Super Bowl.

As for Romo, I'm not sure he'll ever get the hint. Peyton Manning didn't win a Super Bowl until he stopped trying to put up out-of-this-world numbers. Tom Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since he's tried to become Peyton Manning. Brett Favre's only Super Bowl win came from a balanced offense with a great defensense, and conservative offensive play calling. In other words, Romo needs to look towards his successful peers: Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, and even Joe Flacco. All four of those quarterbacks have tremendous tools, all were first round draft picks and four to five star pro prospects. All protect the football. All have more Simms in them, than they do Fouts.

It's time for Tony Romo to join that fraternity. After all, Fouts may be in the Hall of Fame, but Simms has a ring, and remains far more relevant (almost) twenty years past their playing days.

Give Dallas a Break

Why does everyone keep putting the Dallas Cowboys on a pedestal? When were the 2009 Cowboys ever supposed to be a 12-4 team? As far as I'm concerned they were a 9-7 to 11-5 borderline wild card team all season.

Take a look at how their season has played out; they lost week 2 to the Giants, week 4 to the Broncos, and entered their bye week 3-2. In what world do you live in where a 3-2 team should be expected to go 12-4 and win their division.

Now I understand the Cowboys were 4-1 in November, and 8-3 heading into last weeks game with the Giants, but take a look at their schedule. Outside of a good win over Philadelphia, the Cowboys beat the Seahawks, Redskins (barely), and Raiders, while losing to the Packers in November. What that tells me is that the Cowboys are a good team that can beat the bad teams, and split the games against the good teams.

i.e a 9-7 to 11-5 borderline wild card team.

After their Oakland win, the Cowboys ran into back to back losses against the Giants and Chargers, and now all of a sudden the Cowboys are victims of "December woes" once again.

Let's be fair though. The Cowboys lost to the New York Giants, and San Diego Chargers. The Giants have the NFC's longest playoff appearance streak going, and the Chargers are an elite team in the NFL. Given that the Cowboys had a loss to the Giants in Dallas earlier in the season, it's hard to expect a win in New Jersey later in the season. As for the Chargers, how could you really get on a team for losing to the Chargers who are now the hottest team in the NFL?

The Cowboys have five losses on the season thus far; two to the Giants, and one to the Packers, Broncos, and Chargers respectively. What do all five of those teams have in common? They'll all probably be in the playoffs this January.

The Cowboys eight wins? They were against Tampa, Carolina, Kansas City, Atlanta, Seattle, Philly, Washington,and Oakland. Tampa, KC, Seattle, Washington, and Oakland are all awful. Atlanta and Carolina are good teams trapped in bad years, and the Philly win sits as the Cowboys lone impressive victory of 2009.

i.e the Cowboys are a 9-7 to 11-5 borderline wild card team. They can't beat very good teams, can occasionally beat good teams, and will always beat the bad teams. They're no different than the Jacksonville Jaguars in the AFC.

A lot of people are naturally going to point to Tony Romo and say "he can't win the big game" or "typical FCS QB, never played a meaningful game in his life so he doesn't know how to win one." And while some of that is true (QB's from non-major conference schools traditionally do struggle more than QB's from major conference schools. Though that may have something to do with the fact that QB's from major conference schools are often more talented than those from small conference or FCS schools, hence the recruitment to a major conference school), if you watch how the Cowboys play it's not all Romo's fault. I'm not gonna let number 9 off the hook though, he could be making better plays. Let's be honest, if this were Peyton, Brett, Donovan, or Eli, we'd be throwing every cliche known to Patrick Ewing at them.

Is some of the blame to be thrown Wade Phillips way? Sure. I mean, we don't need to get into all that, it's pretty obvious that Phillips never should have been hired to be the head coach of this team to begin with.

And therein lies the problem. Who is doing the hiring for this team?

That would be Jerry Jones. The guy who let Sean Payton go. The guy who hired Wade Phillips over Tony Sparano. The guy who made the Roy Williams trade. The guy who brought in Tank Williams and Pacman Jones. The guy who couldn't shine Al Davis' shoes in terms of understanding the game and how to win it.

Jerry Jones is the problem. Not December. Not Tony Romo. Not Wade Phillips. Jones has compiled a roster that is pretty talented, but not great. Are the Cowboys a top 15 team talent wise? Yes. Top 10? Probably not. But Jones, the media-whore he is, attracts the attention to this team that puts them on the same level with rosters more talented such as the Chargers, and thus, sets his team up for monumental failure when they don't reach the Super Bowl.

And all this time they lead us to believe it was T.O.

If Dallas lose to New Orleans this week their 2009 season is likely over. They follow that up with @ Washington, and Philadelphia. Meanwhile, the Giants final three are @ Washington, Carolina, and @ Minnesota. An important thing to note about the Giants week 17 game is that the Vikings will likely have the #2 seed wrapped up, therefore Brett Favre will definitely be resting up and not facing Tuck and Osi.

So the Cowboys 2009 is on the line this week in New Orleans. If they lose, they'll finish the season with nothing but losses to playoff teams. If they win, they'll be in the playoffs. But remember one thing, the Cowboys aren't supposed to win this game. They're less talented than the Saints, the Saints have a better coach, the Saints have a better Quarterback, and the Saints are at home.

It has nothing to do with the month of the year.