At Least Romo does not have 25 INT's

[Clove]

In yardage you mean. I'm sure you are aware of it by now but yardage is considered a poor measurement because it has little to no correlation with winning football games.

2011 they were 16th in passer rating allowed and 10th in ypa allowed.

2007 they were 14th in passer rating allowed and 8th in ypa allowed.

That's just the regular season. During the playoffs in their two superbowl runs they allowed exactly 14.0 points per game with a high water mark of 20.

To put that into context the Seahawks currently allow 14.6 points per game which is the best mark in the NFL.

Keep in mind in no year since 2007 have we finished the season with a passer rating allowed of above or equal to 16th. Also the Giants have the low water mark at least in terms of winning the Superbowl. Every other Superbowl winner finished the season at least top 10.

In the past 10 years 50% of the Superbowl winners have been top 5 in passer rating allowed and 80% have been top 10. The only two exceptions are the Giants and they got an excellent postseason performance from their defense.

The Cowboys are ranked 32nd, and 2011, the Giants were ranked 27th. AND, the Patriots playing the Giants in the SB were 31st. Spin it anyway you want. The fact is, other teams make the playoffs and are successful in the playoffs except Romo and his 108 million excuses.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

If we use the "Romo needs a good defense to carry him" excuse then he is no better than Dilfer or E-Lie. Granted our defense is pretty much horrific this year and most teams arent gonna win anything with a defense this poor.

While we can point to how bad the Giants or Pats defenses were over the course of a season they didnt play that poorly in the postseason when they advanced to the Super Bowl. Once again stats and numbers are valuable but they dont tell the whole story. A perceptive fan watches whats happening during the game and sees WHY things play out the way they do. All of it needs to be taken into consideration.

The pro E-Lie posters here constantly point to 2 rings. That is the only argument they have as they pound the E-Lie is great, or a HOFer drum. Others acknowledge that E-Lie has 2 rings but also look at his entire career and body of work and see a less than stellar overall resume. They see multiple bonehead plays as routine. They see that while E-Lie got his first ring it wasnt so much that E-Lie was great, but rather it was pure luck. The Tyree helmet catch was a 1 out of 500 type play. Sure E-Lie stumbled around and tripped over his own feet to avoid the sack, but that was just as much poor execution on the Pats pass rushers as it was E-Lie's greatness. And anybody knows that play was pure luck.

We can pound the Big Ben has 2 rings drum but we also know ring #1 was a result of officials helping determine a game's outcome. Not a knock on Ruthlessraper, just a fact. Its just the way it is.

Ultimately the results are what matter. We all know that. But part of being a fan is knowing why a certain result happened. And when a team or certain players are rewarded with good results and its partly or mostly due to "circumstances" more than overall quality performance that result while still the result is viewed differently. Its just not all that impressive as compared to those teams and players that made it happen and were clearly the primary reason why they won getting the result that they clearly earned because it wasnt gifted to them.

All rings, or all championships are not equal. Equal result - YES! Equally as impressive - NO! So when it comes to E-Lie the results are acknowledged, but with objective fans the results are also not as impressive because of who he is and how he has played most of his career and how the results were obtained. Its why objective fans laugh at the contrived "spotlight" game and "matters most" games and "big TV audience" games as well as comparing E-Lie to Joe Montana.

 

[Sarge]

I dunno. Obsession about how poorly players are doing (or have done) on other teams, or other teams in general, does not make me feel any better about the state of our own team.

 

[Eddie]

I dunno. Obsession about how poorly players are doing (or have done) on other teams, or other teams in general, does not make me feel any better about the state of our own team.

Yeah, I find it hilarious how we like to compare ourselves with the dregs of society to make us feel better about our own poor existence.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Good lord, it's a waste of time trying to explain logic to the illogical. Done with this thread ( which was done with good intentions but was ruined by people with separate agendas. ).

This thread was made with good intentions?

Aha.. haha... hahahahaha!

 

[85Cowboy85]

The Cowboys are ranked 32nd, and 2011, the Giants were ranked 27th. AND, the Patriots playing the Giants in the SB were 31st. Spin it anyway you want. The fact is, other teams make the playoffs and are successful in the playoffs except Romo and his 108 million excuses.

The team with more passing yards barely wins 50% of the time. The Cold Hard Football Facts website did a survey for the 2011 season. The teams that finished the game with more passing yardage went exactly 129-127. Almost no correlation whatsoever with winning.

This is why the stats you have presented are not a good indicator of how good those defenses were. It would be similar to if I claimed the reason the Cowboys have not won is a low yards per carry average running the football. Using the more relevant descriptors to measure defensive performance is hardly spinning.

 

[DandyDon1722]

[quote="WPBCowboysFan, post: 5367351, member: 34572" While we can point to how bad the Giants or Pats defenses were over the course of a season they didnt play that poorly in the postseason when they advanced to the Super Bowl. Once again stats and All of it needs to be taken into consideration."

WP didn't play that poorly? The Giants went on two of the greatest defensive post season runs in NFL history giving up an average of 15 pts per game. A lot of QBs would've found a way to win with that.

And yes QBs are not equal just because they won a a Super Bowl. Montana was equally lucky in a Super Bowl against the Bengals. On his game winning drive the play before the winning TD to Taylor he threw a perfect INT to Louis Billups - right in his hands in the rend zone just a horrible choke throw and he dropped it.

Two QBs who were fortunate -- one was great -- the other is average at best,

 

[TwoDeep3]

But E-Lie does this season! And the rings are a distant memory.

Romo can still guide his team to a division title, but the goofball cant.

Lets see if Romo can pull it off this year.

So what you are saying in this brilliant post is Dallas doesn't have the ugliest wife on the block anymore.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The team with more passing yards barely wins 50% of the time. The Cold Hard Football Facts website did a survey for the 2011 season. The teams that finished the game with more passing yardage went exactly 129-127. Almost no correlation whatsoever with winning.

This is why the stats you have presented are not a good indicator of how good those defenses were. It would be similar to if I claimed the reason the Cowboys have not won is a low yards per carry average running the football. Using the more relevant descriptors to measure defensive performance is hardly spinning.

This is the question I have.

Which is indicative of the Giant's defenses during those two years?

The first part or the last part of the seasons?

This argument, which has a true subtext that Eli isn't a good quarterback has a flaw. That flaw is that Eli still led the offenses to victory by scoring points.

I see most that defend this defense position to slap around Eli do so out of blind homerism of their team, and in this case Dallas, which leads back to Romo and him being better than Eli.

It is a convoluted argument with the intent of bringing down Eli because your boy doesn't have championships.

They are who they are and Eli is a two time Champion.

 

[DandyDon1722]

H

This is the question I have.

Which is indicative of the Giant's defenses during those two years?

The first part or the last part of the seasons?

This argument, which has a true subtext that Eli isn't a good quarterback has a flaw. That flaw is that Eli still led the offenses to victory by scoring points.

I see most that defend this defense position to slap around Eli do so out of blind homerism of their team, and in this case Dallas, which leads back to Romo and him being better than Eli.

It is a convoluted argument with the intent of bringing down Eli because your boy doesn't have championships.

They are who they are and Eli is a two time Champion.

So does Rypien and Dilfer and they were who they were which you can only draw one conclusion from -- the team is the sum of its parts.

BTW - Like it or not he's your boy too for a few more years but don't worry, the next Quincy or Chad will be here soon enough and you can at that time try and convince us how much better off we'll be.

That'll be fun.

 

[TwoDeep3]

H


So does Rypien and Dilfer and they were who they were which you can only draw one conclusion from -- the team is the sum of its parts.

BTW - Like it or not he's your boy too for a few more years but don't worry, the next Quincy or Chad will be here soon enough and you can at that time try and convince us how much better off we'll be.

That'll be fun.

Maybe you should not speak for me. You don't share enough of the same opinions that I do.

The facts are what they are. This thread is another slam of Eli who has two rings and a SB MVP trophy.

Romo has a bunch of yards.

Now in another thread I stated I like Romo. I seem to have to do that for guys like you over and over.

I do not make excuses for Romo when he screws up, nor do I build up his history by belittling another players that succeeded our of jealousy or homerism.

As for what happens when Romo leaves.

Well, as long as Jerry is here it won't matter either way. he negates anything Romo might have done by screwing the team cap wise and decision wise and by his meddling.

 

[85Cowboy85]

This is the question I have.

Which is indicative of the Giant's defenses during those two years?

The first part or the last part of the seasons?

This argument, which has a true subtext that Eli isn't a good quarterback has a flaw. That flaw is that Eli still led the offenses to victory by scoring points.

I see most that defend this defense position to slap around Eli do so out of blind homerism of their team, and in this case Dallas, which leads back to Romo and him being better than Eli.

It is a convoluted argument with the intent of bringing down Eli because your boy doesn't have championships.

They are who they are and Eli is a two time Champion.

The general purpose of my post was not to create a for or against Eli argument but rather to argue that no team wins without good defense.

Clove was arguing that because the Giants were ranked 27th in total yardage allowed it is reasonable to expect Tony Romo to win with our current defense. That's what I took issue with.

No team wins without good defense and it should not count against Eli. He should be judged on his performance alone.

 

[GiantsWorld]

Fixed it for you!

Go look up Eli's stats in those 2 playoff runs and come back when you realize how wrong you are.

Oh and by the way, Eli has still yet to miss a game in his career. Good luck with Orton.

 

[DFWJC]

At least we're not the Bengals ...

?????
I'm confused.
The Bengals are really good.
I'm sure it just went over my head.