Since becoming a full-time starter in 2007, Tony Romo has started 73% of the regular season games the Cowboys have played. As someone that neither has cable or listens to talk radio, I would like to ask you to kindly GFY.
Dependability is a huge factor in the NFL. HUGE. It doesn't matter how much you love your Tony Romo jersey, if he's not on the field he's not a consistently effective NFL quarterback. Good and consistently effective are two different things; maybe you could try wrapping your head around that before throwing tantrums at other posters? If you think that's going to improve as he enters his late-30's, there's nothing anyone can say to help ground you in reality.
Sick burn. I'm gonna go home and cry into my Tony Romo pillow tonight.
Here's the thing, sport. As Stitch mentioned, no one said anything about his longevity going forward. But when you throw out that "73%" stat without any context, you're showing yourself to be incapable of nuanced thought. Prior to the 2015 season, Romo had started 92% of the Cowboys' games (only missing significant time when he - wait for it - broke his collarbone). If you don't agree that counts as dependability and consistency, then we have no point in continuing this conversation.
Now, if you want to argue that his body began to betray him as he entered his late 30s, you'd have no argument from me. But when you ding him for the entirety of his career because of two freak injuries, you're damn right I'm going to push back. This mentality is rooted in the "choker" label - as johnmd just pointed out - because he's now seen to have let his team down in a different way, by getting old when the team finally figured out how to put a decent product on the field.
Finally, he was
good AND
consistently effective for most of his career (I'm conceding on the word most here, because he did have two 19-interception seasons). So what's your argument? That a QB getting old and breaking down somehow tarnishes his legacy? Because that doesn't quite pass the smell test.