Career QB ratings of 1st round draft picks since 06

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

Here is a list of active QBs with a career QB rating above 80 (not including rookies or first year starters)

#1 Tony Romo - 95.6, undrafted
#2 Matt Schaub - 91.9, third round
#3 Shaun Hill - 85.9, undrafted (started 26 games)
#4 Andy Dalton - 83.9, 2nd round
#5 Matt Hasselbeck - 82.2, 6th round
#6 Matt Cassel - 80.4, 7th round

Curious why you left out Aaron Rodgers who didn't start until 2008. Yes, he was drafted in 2005 but that was still two years after Tony Romo entered the NFL.

By saying you are only comparing Romo to QBs drafted since 2006 is a very odd criteria that seems to be specifically designed to eliminate Aaron Rodgers from your analysis.

[187beatdown]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Tony's playoff record QB Rts are:


2006 Seattle L 89.6
2007 Giants L 64.7
2009 Philly W 104.9
2009 Vikes L 66.1

So two games of really good, and two games of mediocre to bad.

And when you consider the game winning touchdown in 2007 was DROPPED by Crayton then it doesn't look so bad, does it?

[187beatdown]

Originally Posted by noshame

Cherry picking? why don't you put some of Romo's early season passer ratings in your sig?

Career rating stats from Sept. to Nov. (not updated with this year, though)

September 14 10-4 98.6
October 12 6-6 94.4
November 17 15-2 111.0

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

Curious why you left out Aaron Rodgers who didn't start until 2008. Yes, he was drafted in 2005 but that was still two years after Tony Romo entered the NFL.

By saying you are only comparing Romo to QBs drafted since 2006 is a very odd criteria that seems to be specifically designed to eliminate Aaron Rodgers from your analysis.

I started at 2006 because Romo became the starter in 2006. To look for every quarterback who became a starter after 2006 but drafted before 2006 would have taken more work than it's worth. We're all aware of Aaron Rodgers, I don't think his inclusion or exclusion in the OP changes the argument.

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

Curious why you left out Aaron Rodgers who didn't start until 2008. Yes, he was drafted in 2005 but that was still two years after Tony Romo entered the NFL.

By saying you are only comparing Romo to QBs drafted since 2006 is a very odd criteria that seems to be specifically designed to eliminate Aaron Rodgers from your analysis.

Rogers.
What a draft steal.
Brady even moreso.

I think he was looking at everyone since Romo began starting

Rodgers, btw, may be one of the only players in NFL history to have a higher rating in the playoffs (assume at least 10 games or more) than in the regular season.

Maybe Warner, I haven't checked yet. Aikman was close, I'm sure.

[ufcrules1]

More pointless stats I see.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by VACowboy

Why does it matter how or why you got there?

You play 15 games. In the end, if you win the last one, you win the division and go on to the playoffs. If you lose, you sit on the couch and watch.

Football is the ultimate team game, and WAY too many times Tony has played masterfully and either carried the team to victory or not gotten enough help to win. But once in a while he lays an egg, and he seems to do that most often when winning means moving on.

It matters because if I play 12 great games in a year, and we go 8-7, and one of my bad games is the final game, and we ultimately go 8-8, it's pretty ridiculous to put that season on me.

How many QBs have won a super bowl since 2006 by going 9-7?

15-1 2
14-2 7
13-3 7
12-4 9
11-5 3
10-6 2

*Looking only at teams that played a full 16-game regular season which has occured 30 times. 16-game season began in 1978, but the 1982 and 1987 seasons were shortened. The winner of Super Bowl XLIV, the Saints, went 13-3 in the 2009 season.

I don't know how up to date this is.

But the reality is, average teams that don't win games, and put their qb in win or go home games... aren't winning many super bowls..

[craig71]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

Curious why you left out Aaron Rodgers who didn't start until 2008. Yes, he was drafted in 2005 but that was still two years after Tony Romo entered the NFL.

By saying you are only comparing Romo to QBs drafted since 2006 is a very odd criteria that seems to be specifically designed to eliminate Aaron Rodgers from your analysis.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I have often wondered if things would be different if you take Rodgers instead of Spears with that 2nd first round pick.


Craig

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by craig71

Hindsight is 20/20, but I have often wondered if things would be different if you take Rodgers instead of Spears with that 2nd first round pick.


Craig

OMG yes.

hindsight only though.

Almost the whole league passed on him for one round.
Would have been great to have him though. He didn't start for a few years though.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by DFWJC

That's a really tiny sample strectched out over 7 years. What's amazing, it that as bad as it is, it's still in the 80s--which shockingly, is where almost all of the top QBs (say 15 or top 20) are for their careers except for guys like Brees, Brady, and Montana.

It's higher than guys like Flacco--who has a much higher sample size.
It's higher than Matt Ryans--who also has more games.
It's higher than Roger Staubach's as well, btw.

That's true but what does that say about Romo and the Cowboy? He's been in the league 10 years. This is the sample size we have to work with.

With regards to Flacco,

2008:

Mia W 59.1
Ten W 89.4
Pitt L 18.2

2009:

Pat W 10.0
Indy L 48.4


2010:

KC W 115.4
Pitt L 61.1

2011:
Houston W 97.1
Pats L 95.4

2012:

Colts W 125.6
Den W 116.2

Now, with Flacco, I think that you see a maturation process at work. If the two QBs continue to move along the same development curve, it won't be long before Flacco overtakes Romo. In Flacco's last 6 playoff games, his average Rating is 101.8

Mattie Ice

2012:

Sea W 93.8


2011:

Giants L 71.1

2010:

GB L 69.0

2008:

AZ L 72.8

If the sample size for Romo is small, then certainly the same can be said for Ryan. There is also the experience factor involved here. It's hard to say what Ryan might become but at this point, he is on an upward trend so the jury is probably still out here.


Roger Staubach, that's a bit of a disingenuous comparison. The game was too different. Rules were not nearly as slanted towards QBs or the passing game in general. It might be true that the Passer Rating is better for Tony but how do you compare Romo to Roger seriously? I don't think that's an argument you can make.

[DFWJC]

Ryan's playoff QB rating is lower than Romo's.
The sample size is smaller for both Romo and Ryan
Flacco's is lower too, but he has a more reasonable sample size.

Romo 80.8
Flacco 79.7
Ryan 76.6


Most of the better QBs are in the mid-high 80s for career playoff QB rating.
Tom Brady is at 89, for example.
Roethlisberger is at 83

A playoff game with a rating of high 80s is actually pretty good.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by 187beatdown

So two games of really good, and two games of mediocre to bad.

And when you consider the game winning touchdown in 2007 was DROPPED by Crayton then it doesn't look so bad, does it?

I would actually say one really good game, one very average game and two really bad games.

I do think that you have to consider the fact that things could have been different in that game. I mean, he did not have a very good game there but it absolutely could have been different had Crayton caught that ball. Still, he was only 50% on the game. He threw 1 TD and 1 INT, had a Rating of 64.7. He could have had at least two more INTs in that game. It was not his best effort by any stretch and remember, Tony had beaten the Giants twice before that year. The first game with a rating of 128.5 and the second game with a rating of 123.1. I don't know if this helps his case or hurts it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by DFWJC

Ryan's playoff QB rating is lower than Romo's.
The sample size is smaller for both Romo and Ryan
Flacco's is lower too, but he has a more reasonable sample size.

Romo 80.8
Flacco 79.7
Ryan 76.6


Most of the better QBs are in the mid-high 80s for career playoff QB rating.
Even Brady is only 89.

I don't know. Brady's ratings in the playoffs are 2001/77.3, 2003/84.5, 2004/109.4, 2005/92.2, 2006/76.5, 2007/96.0, 2009/49.1, 2010/89.0, 2011/100.4 and 2012(thus far)/115.0

Now, that's with not a lot of weapons to play with over the last few seasons IMO.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

I don't know. Brady's ratings in the playoffs are 2001/77.3, 2003/84.5, 2004/109.4, 2005/92.2, 2006/76.5, 2007/96.0, 2009/49.1, 2010/89.0, 2011/100.4 and 2012(thus far)/115.0

Now, that's with not a lot of weapons to play with over the last few seasons IMO.

The reality is the playoffs are a crap shoot. It depends on who you play, how well you play, and how well your team plays.

These are all factors ignored by you.

You blame Romo for an 8-8 record despite high ranking ratings, because you choose to ignore that other quarterbacks with better teams around them simply have more help.

So please, by all means continue to blame Romo and live in delusion.

[jterrell]

I know how you avoid win or go home games.

Get rid of Tony Romo.

Then we can be out of the playoff chase before the first game.

The fact Romo has to produce 115 QB Rating seasons for us to even go .500 should spark brain activity amongst the fan base.

We've tried to use Romo as a game manager at times. Then all of a sudden we are down 10 points and it's "OMG Tony bring us back with 2 minute offense the entire 2nd half".

This Dallas team trailed every game the last 10 weeks of the season. That's literally insane for a team that finished .500 and went on a hot streak 2nd half.