Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by dfense, Nov 30, 2012.
Dang Hos that's cold blooded. Lol
It's not even about the rings, just have some success in the playoffs. 1 playoff win will not get you into the elite status regardless of the regular season stats.
Now that smarts!
Peyton because he has a much better match up at home vs. the Bucs right?
You nailed it.
We're done here.
Dilfer has a ring without putting up great numbers
Romo has put up great numbers but does not have a ring
Brees has put up great numbers AND has a ring
See the differences?
You know it's a good day when you see a "skins" fan get owned.
Oh, and LOL.
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding
Don't you just love all of the excuses, and the Dilfer argument. :laugh2:
Brees has always had a stellar O-line in New Orleans. This has enabled him IMO to become the prolific QB he has become. I remember he lost an O-lineman to injury late in the San Fran game last week. He was getting murdered after that and played poorly because of that. Was that O-lineman still out this week?
If so, that would go to show how valuable the O-line is to QB success. Brees with great O-line = stellar. Brees with average/sub-par O-line = Romo at his worst.
Of course, if his O-line was back at full strength ignore this post, lol.
It's a team game last time I checked. The defense contributed. Don't kid yourself.
It's very hard for a team without a great QB to win a Superbowl though it can be done (Dilfer). But it is also very hard to have any kind of success when you have a very good QB but nothing to protect him in the trenches or other glaring flaws.
It amazes me that some people find it so hard to figure out getting to/winning a Superbowl is all about the QB. If he's truly great they expect postseason success regardless of the other 21 starters on the team.
Our team sucks in the most important areas (O-line, defense in crunch time) yet some people think one player out of the 22 starters should be able to overcome this all by himself and take the team to glorious heights because some other QBs have taken their teams (which had lesser and much less lethal flaws) to Superbowls?
They say ignorance is bliss.
I remember Rodgers taking the Packers to the SB and winning despite a lousy running game and a low ranking defense. "See there" some cry and say Rodgers did it so Romo if he was any good should be able to do it as well.
For one, Rodgers had more consistent WRs and the defense got turnovers for him, which Romo never seems to get. For another, even if you could compare the two situations, just because Romo isn't Rodgers (probably the best QB in the game today), so what? Just because he isn't the very BEST, he's trash? Ignorance.
22 starters on the team and people complain about one of the best of them because he couldn't overcome the lousy play of the other 21 (barring a few of course like Witten, Ware, etc). Ugh!
I am going to ask you which playoff game you expected him to have great success in?
Seattle in 2006 - 1st year as a starter
Giants in 2007? 2nd year as a starter
Minnesota in 2009 - PLease - there is not 1 QB in the NFL that could have done anything with that Oline performance and that is not even debateable. Of all these elite guys, which ones won big playoff games in their first 2 years?
The sad thing is, Tony the QB, played well enough in both the Seattle and Giants games to win those games. We should have won those two games. Other players made mistakes that cost us the game but Tony gets the choker label. Tony is one of the best QB's in this league, I say top 5 or 6, but anyone that argues not top 10 is either just being stubborn or don't have a clue about football.
We are lucky to have him, very very lucky!
Again, I'm not a Romo hater but this post is so full of excuses and exaggerations. Brees had no RBs and a soso defense and won a SB. Heck even Brady won with a group of WRs that consisted on not one #1 guy. Just scrubs. You can't cherry pick what you want. Under your theory, David Carr should win a SB with a great line, some good backs, some great WRs and a D to get him the ball. Is that all? Reverse your theory and we might as well not have a HOF because Aikman, Bradshaw and all great QBs seemed to have WRs, an O-line, etc. Wake up. Great QBs and winners become that way because they can make plays when needed. They make those around them better. We have enough talent on at WR and at RB to do well. The line is horrible this year but wasn't as bad in other years comparably. The Lions game and Giants game last year were on his shoulders at times. Same with games in all the other years. It doesn't mean that he isn't a top QB, just that you can't make excuses and not see his flaws and expect to have this Camelot experience around him to succeed. Romo can win a SB but he has to be the one to change. He has to stop trying to do so much some games and just stay within what is needed. Every year we talk about making the next step and he falls into some of his old habits. Its not all on him but he does need to improve.
Alex Smith was a blown special teams play away from playing in the Super Bowl last year.
Now how the hell did he get in that position while Brees an Rodgers were watching from the couch?