CBS Tony Romo Clown Hire

[BrokenArrow]

He did well, but I think he owes Allison an apology. He was the MVP of the game.

Apology for what?

 

[Einstein McFly]

One could say the only clown would be you for creating three new threads in less than three hours time, just to b**** about stuff.

Anyway, yeah, I liked Romo. I think he's heard how good he is at guessing the play and is trying a bit to hard to do it on occasion, but generally I enjoyed it. A lot better than most.

 

[RRyder]

Is this a serious post?

I thought he was great. Really enjoyed the fact that he was reading and then calling out the defensive coverages/blitz packages PRE SNAP while also doing the same with the offense. Was really a fresh take and now that I think of it suprising that more past players don't do the same.

Also I really liked the "omg he's open" line when Dalton missed his guy running free. It's the same stuff we all say while watching the replays

Not sure what u guys are looking for if you think he did a bad job

 

[kevans74]

Is this a serious post?

I thought he was great. Really enjoyed the fact that he was reading and then calling out the defensive coverages/blitz packages PRE SNAP while also doing the same with the offense. Was really a fresh take and now that I think of it suprising that more past players don't do the same.

Also I really liked the "omg he's open" line when Dalton missed his guy running free. It's the same stuff we all say while watching the replays

Not sure what u guys are looking for if you think he did a bad job

I agree

I thought he was terribly OVERRATED as a qb considering he never won anything lol

But he did an excellent job and I enjoyed his commentary

His pre snap coverage/blitz reads were EXCELLENT as well b/c it showed (or came off) like he knew what reads the players could make in the live action

 

[sschind]

I thought he was very good. What I didn't care for was the way he broadcast partner was gushing over him the entire game.

 

[kevans74]

I thought he was very good. What I didn't care for was the way he broadcast partner was gushing over him the entire game.

that's typical for people whom are new to a job, sort of eases the tension for the new person

...considering Tony is still fairly "new" as a commentator I would say that I can understand it

 

[Dantés]

I thought he was great!

How many red X's does that get me?

 

[GleefulGary]

I thought he was great!

How many red X's does that get me?

At least one.

 

[King of Jeans]

Is this a serious post?

I thought he was great. Really enjoyed the fact that he was reading and then calling out the defensive coverages/blitz packages PRE SNAP while also doing the same with the offense. Was really a fresh take and now that I think of it suprising that more past players don't do the same.

dude. this.

he could see what was gonna happen on pretty much every play. I have never seen a broadcaster do that as accurately as that. especially when that Bengals lineman came crashing unchallenged through the A Gap

 

[Dantés]

At least one.

Thanks for being there for me.

 

[906Fan]

I didn't like Tony Romo cause I thought he was pointing out our deficiencies while we were doing bad. I'm serious and un-serious at the same time I dunno what to think. I don't like people talking bad bout our team, and we were bad longer than we were good this game so I heard more bad than good.

 

[swhitset]

I didn't like Tony Romo cause I thought he was pointing out our deficiencies while we were doing bad. I'm serious and un-serious at the same time I dunno what to think. I don't like people talking bad bout our team, and we were bad longer than we were good this game so I heard more bad than good.

lol So you are freely admitting you would prefer a homer broadcast. That is fine, but is not really a condemnation of Romo.

 

[BrokenArrow]

lol So you are freely admitting you would prefer a homer broadcast. That is fine, but is not really a condemnation of Romo.

Romo is a born and raised Packer fan. But he has to maintain neutral tone. Sometimes guys are over critical to avoid showing any bias. Even so, I thought he was more positive about the Packers than anything.

 

[Gonepackin]

Apology for what?

For being wrong about Allison. The passing play in overtime proved Romo wrong. Quickness and cuts.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Sorry, if we win a game I don`t give a damn what ANY commentator says about my team, homer or otherwise. Why would this even be relevant ?? Even Aikman, who clearly has knowledge of the game. Even if they hate everything about us, what does it matter people ?

Al Davis used to motivate his players by telling them they were hated by everybody outside the Raiders organisation. If a commentator rags on my Packers and we win, let them choke on it !

 

[4Ever4Favre]

For being wrong about Allison. The passing play in overtime proved Romo wrong. Quickness and cuts.

I think you need to go back and listen to his comment on that play again because I don't think you heard what he was saying. He was only comparing him to Cobb on that specific route. I think you heard what you wanted to hear and after many people said as much in previous comments, you still are hearing what you want to hear.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I've actually been enjoying romo's commentary

Agreed. Romo's style is unique with the pre-snap reads, technical terminology and breakdowns, focused game-within-the-game approach. I think if he had his druthers the game would be broadcast in all-22.

I don't think he'll last very long unless he goes more "generic", which is unfortunate.

From the standpoint of "entertainment" for the average fan, there are a few sins in his approach:

- Commenting on stuff he sees as critical that are not on the screen, such as the positioning of the safeties, is not something the producer is likely to appreciate. On one replay of a sideline catch he called for the all-22 replay to highlight how the play developed; what he got was the dramatic close-up. He calls for Rodgers to "throw the fade, throw the fade" to a route developing that we cannot see. It highlights a compromise in the way the game is presented, which has become increasingly problematic as the game has evolved to a high pass:run ratio.

- He finds drama within the chess game of the individual play but doesn't build drama in a "story arc", as bogus as that concept might be. For example, as Rodgers was getting ready to take the first snap of the tying drive, Nantz fed him the line, as a question, "this is what quarterbacks live for". Romo was mute. He was supposed to bring the viewer into the QB's emotion and create that story arch. I don't know if Romo was focusing on the defensive personnel, alignment and play call possibilities, which is actually what Rodgers would be focused on, or if was thinking, "I'd rather be up by 14", but it was a question that did not compute for him as the QB proxy in the booth.

- The overall affect, for the casual fan, is Romo telling them they don't really know what they've been looking at all this time. Sure, most anybody would like a little instruction on what just happened on occasion, but with Romo it's every play using a lot of pro terminology that goes undefined or unillustrated. I don't think the average fan wants to be inside the QBs head.

Frankly, I'd rather see the game broadcast in all-22, with the pre-snap analysis, with the replay giving the closeup on the play making. That ain't gonna happen because that makes the playuers depersonalized dots on the screen; following the ball with the camera will never go away. Maybe one day when we all have 120" screens in our family rooms they'll broadcast both views on a split screen.

 

[AmishMafia]

I didn't like Tony Romo cause I thought he was pointing out our deficiencies while we were doing bad. I'm serious and un-serious at the same time I dunno what to think. I don't like people talking bad bout our team, and we were bad longer than we were good this game so I heard more bad than good.

Now I wonder if Romo is a poster here. There are quite a few who like to point out every deficiency on the Packers, even when we win.

Romo was interesting but has a way to go before being polished and enjoyable. Thought he was sporadic and not composed with his thoughts sometimes. Exactly what one would expect for a rookie. Overall, he did a surpringly good job. I'm fine with getting him again.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Romo is the only announcer that I look forward to listening to. Collinsworth used to be that way as well but being in the booth slowly twists guys until they go from being super-informative to "i'll just mention a famous player's name on this play even if he had nothing to do with it".

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Good ****ing lord what is with this clown calling the game? Is he that stupid? Does he not ****ing see Davante Adams's elbow hit the ground?

CBS what the hell are you doing hiring hacks like this to call your games? Thought he was bad enough as a QB but now he's showing his utter stink as an announcer.

Next time anybody here wants to bag on Troy Aikman, please remember Tony Romo is now calling games. At least Aikman has intelligence in his DNA, not this new hack.

I had no problem with Romo. I didn't think he was great, but he was okay. I've certainly heard worse.

I did think it was funny, though, when the CBS crew was mulling over whether or not the act of jumping up in the air removed you from the filed of play......:>)

 

[Croquet]

Romo really surprised me. I thought he added the insight to the play call, set up and the decision making through the play. I was expecting ho hum but he brought color to the game. He did seem to really enjoy it.

 

[XPack]

Romo is refreshing. He's different to the usual trash the talking heads spout out (and keep repeating). Offers different perspective and actually knows what he's talking about.

I'm not going to discuss a single play call he commented, but in general...I wish we had more commentators like Romo.

 

[gbgary]

romo was great.

 

[weeds]

It was refreshing to have an announcer who WASN'T polished in the traditional sense. We usually **** and moan about those types. The wasn't dealing in cliches and was having fun doing it. Then again, I liked Madden's style too. A guy I could sit down and watch a game with.

 

[Mondio]

He didn't have a script they rehearsed during the week. I liked it. He wasn't perfect but he was in tune with the game being played and was able to quickly comment on the play before the snap and as it was developing.

And on a couple you could actually hear the excitement he felt for how something was unfolding as he saw it.

Zero issues with how he called the game.