Originally Posted by Galian Beast
Yes, let's completely forgo reality here.
Luck had a 76.5 QB rating. He threw 18 picks on 23 touchdowns. Compared to Romo who threw 19 picks on 28 touchdowns. Romo also threw for 600 more yards, 10% more accurate. Romo was better in every way.
Teams change year in and year out. Just because you played a better team in 2011 doesn't mean that same team is as good in 2012. The AFC South was a joke this year, as was the AFC East.
The redskins weren't horrible in 2011, they just couldn't get things done on offense. Their offense stood up a great deal this year.
Wilson also inherited a great defense. As did Kap.
Romo doesn't have any of that.
You are trying to focus on stats alone to decide if one QB is better than the other. It simply doesn't work that way. Some QB's are smart enough to do exactly what it takes to win and shine when they need to shine and know how to lead a team. Andrew Luck did just that his ROOKIE year. A previous 2-14 team (In a weak division) turned into a 11-5 team? Luck was by far the biggest reason for that. That guy is a winner and a leader.
The Redskins were horrible in 2011..6-10 is horrible. Were the 2010 Cowboys horrible at 6-10? Yes. You are right about their offense getting a LOT better. Why? Ya think RG3 had something to do with that? He was a tremendous leader right out of the gate that rallied his team each and every game and didn't let them give up when they were 3-6 and his team wanted to give up. Something that Romo is still trying to learn 7 years into the league. Redskins had a 27th ranked defense in 2012, so how the heck did they win the division and make the playoffs?