Tony Romo would either be the worst NFL playcaller ever, or he’s some sort of savant who sees the game differently from everyone else.
Romo and Jim Nantz were stuck in Las Vegas Sunday afternoon, calling a rather lackluster matchup between the Raiders and New England Patriots as preparation for their Super Bowl LVIII broadcast from that location in February. Perhaps trying to make something out of nothing, Romo attempted to add some intrigue to the game with a bizarre fourth-quarter play call suggestion.
Trailing 19-10 in the fourth quarter, the Patriots scored a touchdown with 3:33 left on the clock, bringing them within three points. Kicking the extra point to make it 19-17 seemed like the obvious call for Bill Belichick, considering it gives New England an opportunity to win the game with a field goal, if they get the ball back. Romo, however, saw the game differently.
Just Tony Romo trying to twist people’s brains into a pretzel pic.twitter.com/f2EGu5Eazj
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) October 16, 2023
“I always wondered in this situation right here, you can go for one and obviously you make it where a field goal wins the game,” Romo said to first acknowledge the obvious. “But I always thought, if you go for two and you get it, Jim, then you can be really aggressive on defense and if they score you’re still down eight points and you got a chance with the ball.”
Wut.
You can almost hear Nantz roll his eyes at Romo’s suggestion through the tone of his response. “I like this play right here,” Nantz said of New England opting for the extra point. “Cause now you win it with a field goal.”
“It’s true,” Romo said, sounding disappointed that Nantz wasn’t impressed with his ability to view the game from a different, albeit bizarre, lens.
Romo was trying to extend the game should the Patriots give up another touchdown. Trailing 19-18 would allow New England to give up a touchdown, but still tie the game with a touchdown of their own and a second two-point conversion. That’s extremely overcomplicating the game situation.
And that doesn’t even touch on the scenario where they fail on the two-point conversion. Now a potential field goal is game-tying instead of game-winning.
There were just over three minutes left. What seems more likely, the Patriots get a stop, decent field position and drive 40 yards to kick a game-winning field goal? Or the Patriots give up a long touchdown drive and their largely defunct offense goes the length of the field with little time on the clock to score a touchdown and a two-point conversion? The latter scenario was seemingly implausible.
Maybe this is just Romo’s way of evolving as an analyst. He went from being an energetic prophet in the booth to an overzealous fan who states the obvious in recent years. But as Romo keeps working to grow as an analyst, maybe presenting antithetical ideas are part of his next stage.
[CBS]
