I wrote back in January after the Broncos lost that heartbreaking playoff game to Baltimore that it astounded me that while sports analysis is by-and-large a lot smarter are more analytical today than it ever has been, but when discussing QBs in the NFL, that love of advanced analysis and numbers is pushed aside for the same tropes that were developed in the 40's and should have been left behind in the 70's. Rings are not what defines a QB. Not being able to score more than 48 points in a game and losing because your defense is totally overwhelmed is not what defines a QB. Anecdotal evidence to fullfill some narrative is not what defines a QB. They are what defines Peyton Manning in the eyes of many, but at least everyone readily accepts that Peyton Manning is a Top-5 QB of All Time, and Peyton has his one ring. Tony Romo doesn't, Tony Romo will most likely not get to the Hall of Fame, and because of this, he has it even worse.
It really all goes back to that bobbled snap. Tony Romo at that point was one of the most beloved QBs in the NFL. He started for the Cowboys when they were 3-3 that year, replacing Drew Bledsoe, and much like the other guy who is famous for replacing Drew Bledsoe, he started out playing great. Romo did have a bad end to the 2006 regular season, but no one really cared about that. He did catch some flak for having four turnovers in Week 17 in a loss against the 3-13 Detroit Lions. A win there would have given the Cowboys the NFC East title (and the #3 seed), but instead they got the #5 seed and a trip to Seattle. At that point Romo was viewed as one of the most exciting players in the NFL. Little did Tony know that 60 minutes of game time later, the way people would view his career would be irrevocably changed forever.
 |
| Where it all started, on a fateful January night in Seattle |
A bobbled snap. Forget the fact that Tony Romo didn't really play that well all game anyway, but if he gets a snap down, either the Cowboys win 23-21, or the Seahawks drive down the field in the remaining ~1:30 and retake the lead and win. Either way, Romo is viewed exactly like he was before the game, and he has a clutch drive, though one that didn't end up winning the game. Had they won, chances are they would have lost to Chicago the next week, and just say they lose a routine game to Chicago (something like their loss to Minnesota in 2009 following the only playoff win of Romo's career) the way people view him isn't really changed. After the bobbled snap happened, that is how people started to view Romo, as a sad choker lying down on the ground, hands in his face, while the Seahawks celebrated around him.
That image has never escaped Romo, that memory has never escaped Romo. Sure, Tony has had some other high profile failures in big moments. He did not play well in his Divisional Round loss to the Giants in 2007 (oddly, a failure that has been forgotten over the years, despite him throwing a game ending interception as time expired). He has three times been on the losing side of Week 17 games that would have given the Cowboys a playoff spot. Twice his team was blown out (44-6 to the Eagles in 2008 and 31-14 to the Giants in 2011), and the other time Romo threw two 4th-Quarter interceptions. Yes, these are bad games, but ask yourself? How did they get there in the first place?
The 2008 Cowboys are different. They, as a team, choked away that season. Take their Week 16 game that year against Baltimore, in the last game in Texas Stadium. Romo drove the Cowboys for a TD to cut the Ravens lead to 19-17, and the Cowboys gave up a 77-yard TD on the first play. Romo then drove the Cowboys again to make it 26-24, and the Cowboys gave up an 81-yard TD on the first play. This happened. Not only did the Cowboys not give Romo the ball back, but they allowed long TD runs on the first play both times. If they won that game, the Week 17 game against the Eagles becomes meaningless.
In 2011, Tony Romo played another amazing game in their Week 14 tilt against the Giants. Both teams were 7-7 entering that game. Like he did last Sunday, Romo had a passer rating above 140. They lost because Eli Manning was basically as good, and Jason Pierre-Paul bloked a potential game-tying field goal. Tony Romo is the only player ever to lose a game with at least 300 yards and a passer rating above 140. He has a record of 1-2 in such games. The rest of the NFL history has a record of 159-0-3. In 2012, Tony Romo had five 4th-Quarter comebacks in the middle of that season to even make the Week 17 game meaningful. He had great games in Cincinnati, against Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Philadelphia. All of those comebacks. He played great for a long stretch of that season, and all everyone wants to focus on is his last throw.
 |
| Reinforcing the Narrative: Romo's three picks against Washington in Week 17 |
There is a bad selection bias fallacy in the way people view clutch QBs. Tony Romo is only viewed as unclutch because he has failed to win in those high leverage situations. Of course, just to make those high leverage situations possible, Romo had to play great previously. The 2011-12 Cowboys were not all that talented. The Cowboys stopped being an underachieving talented team in 2010. The past two years they were an aging, top-heavy team, and Romo played well enough to get them to playoff contention. The same thing happens with Peyton in the playoffs. Yes, he has a 9-11 record, but that means he's made the playoffs 12 times in 14 seasons. You can't lose a playoff game if you don't get there. Take Eli Manning, that 8-3 playoff record is nice, but he's missed the playoffs four times and soon to be five in his 10 seasons. Drew Brees has made the playoffs just 5 times in 11 seasons (he'll make it 6 out of 12 this year). You can't lose a playoff game when you don't get there. In Romo's case, you can't make a bad mistake in a do-or-die game unless you won a bunch of games before that.
Is choking real? Maybe. Psychologically speaking, it probably is. One of the common rejections to the 'Player X is a Choker' theory is that most athletes who are chokers, who fail under pressure, who can't come up in the clutch are most likely weeded out in high school, college, minor leagues, etc. The ones that make it all the way to the pros are mentally tough enough that they wouldn't choke. I believe this, but I also think players can put too much pressure on themselves. I saw Peyton Manning do this when he threw 11 interceptions in a three week span in 2010. I think Romo does this to. Sure, it is a failing, but it is a small one compared to so many other QBs who's failings are so much larger.
I absolutely think Tony Romo can win a Super Bowl. I absolutely don't think he can with the Cowboys the way they are currently built. Is he enough to drag an average team to a great record like Peyton, or Brady/Brees/Rodgers? No, but could he have taken the Ravens over the past five years to a Super Bowl win? I'm sure he could have. Tony Romo does not deserve the reputation he has gotten. Sure, he has earned it with his mistakes, but he's also earned the reputation of a great QB, one who can make any throw, who is incredibly elusive in the pocket, who can read defenses, and throws a pretty downfield ball. He earned all those other labels as well. No one wants to give them to him because they love to focus on the 3% of his game where he makes mistakes. That is unfair when people did it (and continue to do so) to Peyton Manning, and it is still unfair now. Tony Romo is a great QB. One interception after throwing for 500 yards and 5 TDs and leading an offense that scored 48 points doesn't change that.
