Romo is a top 10 QB

[mldardy]

Originally Posted by Fastphilly

There is only two ways to win a championship. A QB that puts up big numbers and gets things done in the clutch (Rogers) or a QB with a solid team around him that does just enough to get you a first down through the air sometimes but depends on a stellar defence and a running game to get the heat off him (Eli Manning or Rothlesberger).

Romo needs a running game and he would be very effective. Trying to ask him to do it himself won't get it done. I look at Romo like I look at Dan Fouts. A QB thats good enough to put up numbers and win some games but is a heart breaker come crunch time. If those late 70's/early 80's San Diego teams had somewhat of a defence and a halfway decent running game they would have won the big one.

BS. Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Warner with Arizona, Brees didn't need much of running game to be successful. You people are coming up with every excuse in the book for Romo right now. He needs a running game, he needs an oline, he needs a defense, he needs this he needs a punter that kicks it inside the 10, he needs that, he needs a everything freaking handed to him on a silver platter to not screwup. Got it.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by DFWJC

In other words.
Odds are FAR greater if you have a QB that puts up good stats year after year that you will win a SB than having a QB that does not do that.

That, and there just aren't that many QB who turn in that kind of performance on a yearly basis. There only 12 in the history of the NFL besides Romo.

[cowboys#1]

because a running game made him throw 3 awful passes last week

he needs to go.

[gmb85]

Originally Posted by mldardy

BS. Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Warner with Arizona, Brees didn't need much of running game to be successful. You people are coming up with every excuse in the book for Romo right now. He needs a running game, he needs an oline, he needs a defense, he needs this he needs a punter that kicks it inside the 10, he needs that, he needs a everything freaking handed to him on a silver platter to not screwup. Got it.

You're absolutely right. Romo isn't those guys, that much we know.

Romo's a damn good quarterback but my biggest beef with him is, he doesn't know how to be a bus driver. When he's good, he's good. And when he is bad, he is bad.

[DenCWBY]

Originally Posted by rkell87

10th in QB rating

4th in completion %

3rd in yards

3rd in yards per game

6th in TDs

2nd in completions


and btw he tied drew brees for ints

who you gonna get that is gonna take this team any farther? Bet you can't answer that legitimately.

Honestly and with all due respect. I'm soooo tired of ratings for QB's. You hear "top 10" or "top 5" or the word "elite" and anyone can find a set of statistics between a certain # of games or years to justify their arguement but IMHO that does not mean squat. To me a QB's success is measured in Super Bowls. It's not a scientific approach because there are teams that ride to the dance on their defense requiring a QB just to manage the game to win. If your going to rate QB's, it's what they have done in their tenure to consistently make an offense effective beyond the regular season.
That said, it's all a matter of opinion and you really have to watch the games. If a team rides a good QB to a 13-3 record and falls apart in the playoffs, 13-3 doesnt mean squat as does the QB.
I guess that's all I have to say about that.
Forrest Gump

[Fastphilly]

Originally Posted by mldardy

BS. Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Warner with Arizona, Brees didn't need much of running game to be successful. You people are coming up with every excuse in the book for Romo right now. He needs a running game, he needs an oline, he needs a defense, he needs this he needs a punter that kicks it inside the 10, he needs that, he needs a everything freaking handed to him on a silver platter to not screwup. Got it.

I disagree.

Rodgers when he won a couple years ago had an opportunistic defence that was getting turnovers at a high rate. Brady hasn't won nothing since their defence was dismantled after their Super Bowl run. That Peyton Manning Colts team was playing sound defence that year and were ranked inside the top 5.

The only two on that list maybe Kurt Warner in Arizona and Drew Brees but they still lost due to a choke on defence. Drew Brees is the only one and if I remember right they led the league in the turnover ratio that year.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by DenCWBY

Honestly and with all due respect. I'm soooo tired of ratings for QB's. You hear "top 10" or "top 5" or the word "elite" and anyone can find a set of statistics between a certain # of games or years to justify their arguement but IMHO that does not mean squat. To me a QB's success is measured in Super Bowls.

Whether you're tired of it or not, if passer ratings didn't mean squat, there wouldn't be such a high correlation between passer rating differential and championship seasons.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by Fastphilly

Drew Brees is the only one and if I remember right they led the league in the turnover ratio that year.

Saints were #1 in passer rating differential the year they won the Super Bowl. Packers were #1 the following year, when they won the Super Bowl. They're also #1 this year.

This year, Dallas was 9th offensively, but 29th defensively, so the differential put them at 18th.

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Whether you're tired of it or not, if passer ratings didn't mean squat, there wouldn't be such a high correlation between passer rating differential and championship seasons.

And that correlation is enormous.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by rkell87

10th in QB rating

4th in completion %

3rd in yards

3rd in yards per game

6th in TDs

2nd in completions


and btw he tied drew brees for ints

who you gonna get that is gonna take this team any farther? Bet you can't answer that legitimately.

I have to agree with many on here. Who cares at this point? We could have Tom Brady on this team and its not winning any championships. This team isnt going anywhere until it fixes some big issues. So who the QB is or how well he plays when is irrelevant at this point.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Saints were #1 in passer rating differential the year they won the Super Bowl. Packers were #1 the following year, when they won the Super Bowl. They're also #1 this year.

This year, Dallas was 9th offensively, but 29th defensively, so the differential put them at 18th.

This makes sense.

I read somewhere that the passing rate differential was the single best indicator of Super Bowl winning teams over the past 25 years or so.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

This makes sense.

I read somewhere that the passing rate differential was the single best indicator of Super Bowl winning teams over the past 25 years or so.

People look at Romo's six consecutive top 10 seasons in passer rating and conclude that it's an empty stat because we haven't won anything.

They aren't looking at the other side of the stat.

[JackWagon]

Romo is A-Rod ... great regular seasons with fabulous stats ... but comes up empty in big games (Elimination games)

[DFWJC]

Romo has a had the oddity of having almost all of his "elimination" games on the road.
If you look at all the great Qbs from the past, you'll find their records for road elimination games are pretty bad too.

I think Romo has had two home elimination games and is 1-1 in those.

I'm not excusing is crappy game this past weekend, just pointing out some facts.

[TwoDeep3]

Romo-loyalty: The ability to see stats as the end all and to put one player above an entire team.