Monday, May 16, 2011

Is It Safe to Call Romo a Leader Now?

With the news that Tony Romo is organizing and running the offseason practices during the lockout there is suddenly renewed talk about Romo's lack of leadership. I would have thought that the 2009 season which resulted in the first Dallas playoff victory in 13 years would have ended all of this leadership talk. I thought watching the team completely implode for a few weeks after he went down with his broken collarbone last season might prove how much his teammates depend and believe in him. It seems as if the leadership questioners will only be satisfied if Romo "leads" the Cowboys to a Super Bowl win and yells at his teammates on the sidelines every step of the way.

I have always hated the ridiculous notion that Tony Romo isn't a leader. There is a perception in many circles that the Romo doesn't inspire his teammates to excel. I completely disagree with that notion. I would love for some of those people to go back and watch Joe Montana play in his prime. Was he a leader? Do you see him constantly screaming on the sidelines? Is it possible that maybe there is more than one way to act as a team leader?

Ever since Romo went down with his broken collarbone there has been talk that Jon Kitna sparked the Cowboys 5-3 finish in the second half of the season. According to those people Kitna somehow inspired his teammates to play better. Of course those same people leave out the fact that in the first two games he started the Cowboys lost 35-17 to the lowly Jaguars and 45-7 to the Packers in the most embarrassing loss in Cowboys history. And, amazingly, he supposedly managed to improve not only the offense, but also the defense a special teams while filling in for Tony Romo. It is hard for me to understand how Kitna changed the entire offensive game plan and the defensive philiosophy because he is such a great leader.

Maybe the coaches just changed things up when Wade Phillips was fired because they realized that the team was going down in flames. The offense recommitted to the running game. The defense stopped blitzing and playing man coverage on every single snap. Could it really be that simple? Maybe Jon Kitna isn't some sort of magician after all. I don't want to sound like I'm slamming Kitna. He is an excellent back up quarterback. But he is a back up for a reason. He is a solid pro. But he has zero playoff wins in 14 years. He doesn't have the arm to scare the defense. And he can't make all the throws that Romo can make. So people hang their hat on this mystical leadership quality.

Again, I'm not trying to bad mouth Kitna here. But he has even led a team to the playoffs in all his years in the league. In fact, he has 50 wins and 74 losses in his career as a starting QB. I realize that he played on some bad teams but if he really possessed these magical leadership qualities that so many want to talk about don't you think he would have willed at least one team in 14 years to a playoff appearance?

So now Romo is organizing team practices during the lockout to insure that the Dallas Cowboys turn things around next season. He is running the practices and acting as the coach of the offense while some of the other veterans are running the defense. And Romo is the guy making sure that 40+ people show up at an undisclosed location and get to work. So Romo is, in essence, the head coach of the workouts. So does that prove he is a leader?

Maybe this will finally convince some of the doubters that Romo has turned the corner on the mystical leadership front. But I have been convinced for a long time that Romo not only possesses enough talent to lead the Cowboys to the Super Bowl but he also has the competitive desire and personality that his teammates will follow. I know those that want to constantly bash Romo won't be convinced by my arguments but I think both sides need to be heard on the topic.


  1. Nice post. I agree with you. I have been upset the last few years that so many people think that Romo is just a wet noodle.

    I am very happy that we have him. It is likely that without Romo, our every other year success would probably have just been more of the same.

    We would also have gone through at least 3 to 4 QBs the last 5 seasons.

    Go Cowboys!

  2. Thank you. Excellent points. There are many who equate not winning a SB (yet) with can't win a SB (ever).

    I've always liked Tony's game overall, and have felt he get's unjustly tagged for certain losses (Like the playoff game against the Giants when their D-Line destroyed our O-line in the 2nd half.

    Plus, if Staubach has faith in Romo, who are any of us to say otherwise?

  3. Ive always kind of seen Romo as a more mobile Danny White. the only thing that kept White from being considered Great was the lack of a SB title. Here's to hoping that one day Romo will be great.

  4. If winning the SB is the only criteria to be "great" how did Marino get into the Hall? Just sayin. Romo will do just fine for us.

  5. Marino is another Dan Fouts. Both were very good QB's, and put up huge numbers but never won the big one. I guess what I mean is that in the future when we talk about Romo I hope that a "but" doesn't follow the "great". For example "Marino was great, but he never won a super bowl".