I’ve noted that Tony Romo has been the target of far greater criticism, over the past decade, than just about any other recent Cowboys quarterback, and also many other quarterbacks in the NFL who are arguably of lower caliber than him, with many critics pointing to his 2-4 record in the playoffs.
The puzzling logic seems to go like this: It is worse for a player to be good enough to take his team to the playoffs, but not any further, than it is for him to be simply bad and not even get his team anywhere to begin with.
Or another way to put it would be that “good” gets more criticism than either “bad” or “great.”
Some of this logic seems to be applied to Lionel Messi with regards to Argentina’s performance in international tournaments (Messi’s Argentine squads lost in the final of the 2014 World Cup, 2015 and 2016 Copa Americas.)
The Cowboys have had numerous quarterbacks over the past two decades who were significantly worse than Romo: Clint Stoerner, Chad Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, Ryan Leaf, Brandon Weeden, etc. None of them got anything close to Romo’s criticism, despite the fact that they were probably all objectively worse QBs than Romo.
Phillip Rivers of the Chargers seems to have gotten similar treatment in San Diego; he was taking them to the playoffs often, but not very far. Peyton Manning also took a lot of heat, especially for his 0-3 record in the playoffs through the 2002 season, all the way up to prior to the 2006 season, when he led the Colts to the championship.
Anyway, am I just imagining this, or is there indeed a *“If you take your team far, but not all the way, you’ll take more flak than if you never took them anywhere at all” *phenomenon going on?