Sometimes he talks a little too much, but the man knows his stuff.

I did not like Romo as a player, only because he was a Cowboy.

 

I love listening to him call a game though.

For me, it seemed like Romo was sitting on Brady's shoulder all night telling us exactly what Brady was thinking and doing. I loved it.

I’d also like to hear him call a game with Gus Johnson. The enthusiasm would be off the charts.

Tony Romo will grace the football hall of fame one day and not as a player. He’s the best in the business without a doubt.

Was at a party tonight and all agreed he's the best--Love his insight "before" the play!!

Also remember he is still only two seasons into this gig. He will continue to grow.

Not only is he already in a class by himself in football, he's in a class by himself in all of sports broadcasting. Now, this is specific to him being an ANALYST because maybe he is a little goofy and maybe it's not a smooth delivery all the time but to me that is fine.

 

As a side note, THIS is what I want from someone in college basketball but they're all to worried about getting their catch phrases in. Actually ananlyze the game and tell me what is happening. Jay Bilas does a decent job. Someone like Seth Greenberg could be that guy but he's in studio too much.

His ability to comes from exhaustive film study as a player. It really makes you appreciate just how much a NFL QB has to know in today's game.

I admit I wasn't a big fan of him or his delivery when he first started. Looking back, much of that was likely had more to do with my intense dislike of the Cowboys. But he blows me away every week with his insight, how he breaks down defenses, and how often he is on the money with predicting play calls or how an offense will attack. Plus his passion for the game is clear, and really makes watching the game more enjoyable.

I guess at this point the only question left is does he want to coach?

Not only is he already in a class by himself in football, he's in a class by himself in all of sports broadcasting. Now, this is specific to him being an ANALYST because maybe he is a little goofy and maybe it's not a smooth delivery all the time but to me that is fine.

 

As a side note, THIS is what I want from someone in college basketball but they're all to worried about getting their catch phrases in. Actually ananlyze the game and tell me what is happening. Jay Bilas does a decent job. Someone like Seth Greenberg could be that guy but he's in studio too much.

 

I agree totally with you on the broadcasting part but not sure at all about the football part. What did he ever achieve in football one or two playoff wins, heck he could not even get his job back from Prescott. He was the starting QB for 8 years he only made the playoffs in 4 of those 8 and had a playoff record of 2-4.

Here's the thing with Romo in a nutshell...he's talking when most analysts aren't. And by that, I mean the typical hierachy of the broadcast has always been having the play-by-play guy "set the stage" (Brady comes to the line facing a 3rd and 6. He's got two receivers flanked to his right. Gronkowski is all alone out to the left.) Then he actually calls the action. (Brady, fakes it to White, then looking for Gronkowski down the sideline...CAUGHT for a 12 yard gain before being pushed out of bounds by Berry. A first down for the Patriots.) Only then do most analysts come in. They may talk about the play call (passing on an obvious run down), or they may talk about the line excuting their blocks, or they may talk about the corner biting on the play action, etc. Whatever it is...they're talking about it AFTER THE FACT.

 

What CBS has allowed Romo to do is to talk in place of Nantz setting the stage. So, he's getting a chance to talk (a lot) when most analysts are not. Which means he's able to "predict" (call the plays) a lot better because he's actually seeing the personnel and alignment for both teams. Most other color guys are limited to a quick "here they come" or "Brady's changing the play" or something similar that they can drop in between sentences of the play by play guy.

 

I have no doubt Romo is a smart football guy. None whatsoever. Most QB's are, if you think about it. They need it to play the position. I think part of his "goofiness" (to use someone else's term) is his exuberance in trying to relay a lot of information to the viewer. So, what you get is a little bit of chaos in the broadcast.

 

I guess it all comes down to what you're looking for in a broadcast. For me, if I was at the game and had a friend next to me doing what Romo does (predicting the play), I'd want to punch him in the face before halftime, even if he was right. It's just not my cup of tea.

I agree totally with you on the broadcasting part but not sure at all about the football part. What did he ever achieve in football one or two playoff wins, heck he could not even get his job back from Prescott. He was the starting QB for 8 years he only made the playoffs in 4 of those 8 and had a playoff record of 2-4.

 

I meant broadcasting football. Who would think he's in a class by himself as a quarterback?

Here's the thing with Romo in a nutshell...he's talking when most analysts aren't. And by that, I mean the typical hierachy of the broadcast has always been having the play-by-play guy "set the stage" (Brady comes to the line facing a 3rd and 6. He's got two receivers flanked to his right. Gronkowski is all alone out to the left.) Then he actually calls the action. (Brady, fakes it to White, then looking for Gronkowski down the sideline...CAUGHT for a 12 yard gain before being pushed out of bounds by Berry. A first down for the Patriots.) Only then do most analysts come in. They may talk about the play call (passing on an obvious run down), or they may talk about the line excuting their blocks, or they may talk about the corner biting on the play action, etc. Whatever it is...they're talking about it AFTER THE FACT.

 

What CBS has allowed Romo to do is to talk in place of Nantz setting the stage. So, he's getting a chance to talk (a lot) when most analysts are not. Which means he's able to "predict" (call the plays) a lot better because he's actually seeing the personnel and alignment for both teams. Most other color guys are limited to a quick "here they come" or "Brady's changing the play" or something similar that they can drop in between sentences of the play by play guy.

 

I have no doubt Romo is a smart football guy. None whatsoever. Most QB's are, if you think about it. They need it to play the position. I think part of his "goofiness" (to use someone else's term) is his exuberance in trying to relay a lot of information to the viewer. So, what you get is a little bit of chaos in the broadcast.

 

I guess it all comes down to what you're looking for in a broadcast. For me, if I was at the game and had a friend next to me doing what Romo does (predicting the play), I'd want to punch him in the face before halftime, even if he was right. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

You're right about the Nance/Romo dynamics. So, kudos to CBS and the two of them for figuring it out. If others could do it, they would. Or, they're figuring it out now that it works and we'll see if anyone else can do.

 

Most QB's are smart but nobody has done what he does or has done it as well. Even if Nance wasn't onboard and it was a "typical" booth duo, Romo is still better than most others at telling what happened after the fact, too.

 

I don't understand your last comparison. If I had a friend doing ANY play-by-play next to me, it would be annoying. It's not just predicting the play, it's telling you what is happening. Seeing Brady's signal to kill the play and change it from a QB sneak to a run off tackle and knowing that is what happening and then see it happening is interesting to me. No changing your opinion if you don't like him but most people find it better than just about anything else.