Clutch QB's (Article from ESPN the Mag) I was suprised...

[skinsscalper]

That is not true. He was inaccurate and made some poor decisions during the game. The Dallas defense did not capitalize on those mistakes by Eli.

He threw a ball that Mike Jenkins should have picked deep in Dallas territory. Jenkins knocked the ball down, but should have had the interception.

Spencer dropped a possible interception. I don't know how Eli missed Spencer just standing in front of his intended target, but he threw it right to him. Again another blown interception by Dallas.

Bradie James was also in a position to get an interception deep in Dallas territory. He made a poor break on the ball.

Ratliff batted a ball that then went straight to the wide receiver. Had Rat not got his hand on the ball who knows where that pass was intended to go.

Eli made some mistakes. Dallas could not make him pay for those mistakes. That happens sometimes. A good defense playing at the top of their game would have made Eli play. Dallas is struggling right now on the defensive side.

Eli, Romo and every QB has had a game where they made some poor decisions, but got lucky bounces or poor defensive play that didn't hurt the team. They have also had games where they make the right reads and throws, but for some reason the ball takes a funny bounce and gets intercepted or the receivers get the dropsies.

Fair enough. I stand corrected, to a point.

 

[DFWJC]

Fantastic response, Adam.

I'll second that.

 

[skinsscalper]

This is why I hate broad, sweeping generalizations and confusing individual play with team play.

Take a moment and try to think of the games where Romo with his fantastic fourth quarter play put us in position to win a game, and we found a way to blow it? The QBs you're talking about play with defenses, who, when the stakes are highest step up and make the plays to end the game. Romo hasn't had that since he started.

His first year, he leads us into FG range against the Skins. Blocked. A return and personal foul later, the Skins are setting up for the game winner. In the Seattle game, he led us into FG range, and while ultimately it was his gaff that lost the game, his QB play got us there - and our defense couldn't keep Seattle from getting a first down.

In the 2007 playoffs, he play well in the first half, we have all the momentum going into halftime, but our defense falls apart and the Giants get back in the game and eventually take the lead despite being dominated.


There are more. Those "successful" QBs you mentioned made plays to put their teams in position to win - but it was their DEFENSES that slammed the door in the opposition's face and said "Hey, thanks for the lead - we'll finish em off."

We and Romo have never had that during his time as starter. So don't confuse wins and losses with individual clutch-time performance.

Which is why I included Romo and the rest of the TEAM in my original post. I'll say it again. Until they prove otherwise, this entire team (including Romo) is a collection of chokers until they prove otherwise.

 

[AdamJT13]

And in the Pittsburgh game that was on full display.

One of his rare failures in the clutch.

No

So winning in the playoffs wouldn't be enough?

Disagree all you wish. All I know is that I watched Eli march his team down the field, in the Super Bowl, to win win the game.

You realize that he had four different plays on that drive that could -- or should -- have been turnovers, right? And that doesn't even count Tyree's miracle catch.

ll Romo has done in similar situations of magnitude is stunk it up.

Romo has never been in a situation of that magnitude.

Well he actually managed to get there. But don't let that little fact get in the way.

Wait, so qualifying for the playoffs is enough, but winning in the playoffs isn't?

And whatever happened to your claim that Eli doesn't put his team "in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy"? It's OK for him to do that in the playoffs, because at least he got there? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[MapleLeaf]

And here's a question I've been asking Romo-bashers all week without getting a single response -- Would you consider Romo to be a better quarterback than he is right now if he had held onto that snap in Seattle and Gramatica had kicked the winning field goal?

...the majority of Cowboy fandom would most certainly view Romo, Parcells and the Cowboys differently had the aborted kick gone a different way and he got the first down or the TD.

That's the basis of sports and fanatics.

I'm not sure if I am a Romo basher because of this, but most Cowboys fans are tired of seeing the team not progressing deeper in the playoffs.

The (2) interceptions last game don't help matters for Romo. I disregard the Witten one due to the odd nature of the play.

 

[CowboysFan02]

And here's a question I've been asking Romo-bashers all week without getting a single response -- Would you consider Romo to be a better quarterback than he is right now if he had held onto that snap in Seattle and Gramatica had kicked the winning field goal?

Or what if Fasano catches what might have been a TD on the goalline, or Crayton catches either of the passes to him in the Giants games?

 

[wileedog]

Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to , not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships..

*yawn*

I'm so tired of the "willed their team to win" cliche. Its bulloney.

Hey you know what else Ben, Brady and Manning have?

Outstanding, lead leading, game changing defenses.

Give me a great defense and I'll beat your 'born leader of men' any day.

 

[skinsscalper]

One of his rare failures in the clutch.

And fairly, or not, it's one of the performances that cements in people's minds that Romo chokes

So winning in the playoffs wouldn't be enough?

No. Not in that game. I actually watched the game and Romo was awful. He looked outclassed and Parcells noticed it right off the bat. The game was too big for him and Parcells did everything he could to take the game out of Romo's hands, despite the fact that an insurance salesman was one of the starting CBs. The bobbled snap was just the final snapshot of a guy that couldn't put up when it mattered most. Now, it wasn't all just Romo's fault. Hell, how could it be when the best player on the field that day was Bobby Carpenter?

You realize that he had four different plays on that drive that could -- or should -- have been turnovers, right? And that doesn't even count Tyree's miracle catch.

It doesn't change the fact that Eli still got it done. Holmes' catch at the end of this last Super Bowl was miracle like in it's own sense. The fact is Ben made it happen. Eli has made it happen. Tony, to this point, hasn't. I'll repeat. Not ALL of this is on Tony. But he shoulders a lot of the blame.

Romo has never been in a situation of that magnitude.

Hmmm. I wonder why?

Wait, so qualifying for the playoffs is enough, but winning in the playoffs isn't?

You're the stats guy, so I'll let you double check, but I'm almost positive Eli has won in the playoffs. Tony Romo..........................

And whatever happened to your claim that Eli doesn't put his team "in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy"? It's OK for him to do that in the playoffs, because at least he got there? Sounds like a double standard to me.

I never said Eli doesn't put his team in a bad position with his poor decisions or inaccuracy. I said he didn't this past week. I was also corrected and admitted as much. I know what he also didn't do. He didn't throw three INTs that lead to 21 points (6 of them directly). We ended up losing by 2 points. The difference in the game? One less Tony Romo turnover. Since you're the stats guy go ahead and post the QB numbers for this past game between Eli and Romo. Twist em any way you need to. The end result is the same. Eli was more efficient, and Romo cost his team the game. End of story.

Now you can rant and rave and call me a Romo hater and all the other things that come with not believing that Romo turns water to wine and walks on water if you feel the need to do so. I don't care. I want him to succeed as much as any Romosexual on this entire board. ALL of us (unless they're just an ******* who is more interested in being right than cheering on his team) want to see him succeed. To see the whole TEAM succeed. To see the defense actually step up at crunch time. To see Romo play at his best AGAINST the best. The fact is, it hasn't happened. And fair, or not, Romo is the poster boy for the team's shortcomings as of late. Unfortunately he's done very little to shake that perception to both the experts OR the common fan.

 

[thechosen1n2]

Not much of a surprise. The biggest mistake the Cowboys made on Sunday was giving the ball back to Eli with over 2 minutes left on the clock.

Nope..the biggest mistake was virtually playing a prevent.

 

[gbrittain]

That's your opinion, and plenty of people who have been paying close attention disagree with it, including many people in the NFL.[quote/]

Disagree all you wish. All I know is that I watched Eli march his team down the field, in the Super Bowl, to win win the game. Yes his defense kept the game close. Yes the defense was the #1 reason they were in the game to begin with. But, when it was time for Eli to step up, he stepped up and led his offense and his team to a championship. All Romo has done in similar situations of magnitude is stunk it up. There's not a stat in the world that changes that.






Well he actually managed to get there. But don't let that little fact get in the way.

Give me an honest answer please.

Super Bowl...Dallas is losing down by just a few points. Game is on the line with only a minute to go. Romo is under pressure, scrambles nearly sacked, gets away and just heaves the ball downfield, but instead of Roy Williams making tho most improbable catch ever in a Super Bowl, it gets intercepted!

Are you praising him or talking about his decision making and how we cant win the big one with him?

 

[jay cee]

This is why I hate stats. They prove absolutely nothing. O.K. so Romo has better clutch stats than Brady, Manning, and Rothlesberger. Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to, not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships. Yes, it was a team effort to get the job done. But, when their team needed them most, the aforementioned stepped to the front and LEAD their teams to victory.

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention. Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

This isn't a "bash Tony Romo" post. I was pissed as hell after Sunday's loss and placed a lot of the blame squarely where it belonged. Right atop Romo's shoulders. I won't hide the fact that I thought he should have been benched. I also won't sit here and say he doesn't give THIS team, RIGHT NOW the best chance to win. He does. To think otherwise is ludicrous. But that doesn't change the fact that, unlike the aforementioned counterparts, Romo falls woefully short when it matters most. There's not a stat in the world that changes that. Spin it with all the numbers you want. It doesn't change the fact that over the past 18-20 games Romo AND the team itself has shown a pattern to crumble when it matters most. Spin away. Twist all the numbers into any magic helix shape you wish. It won't change a thing until Romo AND the team stop talking about it and start doing it. Until then, they are what they are. A group of choke artists.

I don't think Eli is a better qb, but I do think he is playing on a better team with better coaches.

 

[AdamJT13]

And fairly, or not, it's one of the performances that cements in people's minds that Romo chokes

Who cares what the perception is if it's unfair?

No. Not in that game. I actually watched the game and Romo was awful. He looked outclassed and Parcells noticed it right off the bat. The game was too big for him and Parcells did everything he could to take the game out of Romo's hands, despite the fact that an insurance salesman was one of the starting CBs. The bobbled snap was just the final snapshot of a guy that couldn't put up when it mattered most. Now, it wasn't all just Romo's fault.

That game is a perfect example of why the critics who say Romo merely has to not turn the ball over in big games and not try to make big plays are almost certainly wrong. He has only one turnover in two playoff games. Turnovers haven't been the problem in the playoffs, it's the lack of making plays, which might be influenced by the people telling him he can't make mistakes. We need him to make his usual big plays and not turn the ball over TOO much. But not making big plays because he doesn't want to make any mistakes isn't what he does best and probably isn't a formula for winning.

It doesn't change the fact that Eli still got it done.

But it matters when you're judging how good he really is.

You're the stats guy, so I'll let you double check, but I'm almost positive Eli has won in the playoffs. Tony Romo....

You just said winning in the playoffs isn't good enough.

I never said Eli doesn't put his team in a bad position with his poor decisions or inaccuracy. I said he didn't this past week.

And the previous time they met, Romo was terrific and Eli was awful. Why does this week's game mean more than last time?

 

[Clove]

*yawn*

I'm so tired of the "willed their team to win" cliche. Its bulloney.

Hey you know what else Ben, Brady and Manning have?

Outstanding, lead leading, game changing defenses.

Give me a great defense and I'll beat your 'born leader of men' any day.

Problem with that argument is that NY's defense did next to nothing for the Giants outside of catching balls thrown right to them.

So someone had to make plays since New York's defense did nothing.

 

[fannypack]

I normally agree that Romo has been the central focus among many of the problems and mistakes we've had.

But Adam is raising some really good points when we're talking about Romo vs Eli.

For one thing they play in different systems with different expectations. Eli is expected to hand the ball off and make sound decisions when called upon. Romo is given far more leeway in terms of the big play and in terms of playcalling.

It's not secret that our team has thrived off the big play up until this season. So let's see how Romo fares when we can put together a more controlled offense that doesn't take quite as many shots; or atleast, when Garrett finally realizes what the hell he has in the backfield.

Eli isn't a bad Quarterback. But he has been the beneficiary of one of the leagues best defenses and best running games. There aren't many QB's you can put on a team like that and have them perform badly. As Adam has said, when you're talking Romo vs Eli or judging QB's in general you MUST consider the "almost" INT's and the "almost" fumbles. Even though in the grand scheme of wins and losses it means nothing, it DOES mean something when you're evaluating talent.

If any of those turnovers happen during the Superbowl Eli goes from a magical drive to the choke artist that NY had been wanting out (Along with Coughlin) earlier in the year.

 

[BourbonBalz]

This is why I hate stats. They prove absolutely nothing. O.K. so Romo has better clutch stats than Brady, Manning, and Rothlesberger. Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to, not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships. Yes, it was a team effort to get the job done. But, when their team needed them most, the aforementioned stepped to the front and LEAD their teams to victory.

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention. Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

This isn't a "bash Tony Romo" post. I was pissed as hell after Sunday's loss and placed a lot of the blame squarely where it belonged. Right atop Romo's shoulders. I won't hide the fact that I thought he should have been benched. I also won't sit here and say he doesn't give THIS team, RIGHT NOW the best chance to win. He does. To think otherwise is ludicrous. But that doesn't change the fact that, unlike the aforementioned counterparts, Romo falls woefully short when it matters most. There's not a stat in the world that changes that. Spin it with all the numbers you want. It doesn't change the fact that over the past 18-20 games Romo AND the team itself has shown a pattern to crumble when it matters most. Spin away. Twist all the numbers into any magic helix shape you wish. It won't change a thing until Romo AND the team stop talking about it and start doing it. Until then, they are what they are. A group of choke artists.

Have you compared Romo and Eli's head-to-head record? Thought not. Yea, Romo had a terrible game. Guess what? Eli's had those too. Romo is now 4-2 as a starter against the Giants. Was Eli clutch in those 4 losses?

 

[theogt]

Large amounts of ownage going on up in here.

 

[rkell87]

adam you are wasting your time this guy will never see it the way it really is you keep showing him and he keeps ignoring he is riding the waves we will win the superbowl and he will be praising romo and thhe next 2-3 pick game romo is in he will suck again to this guy.

btw why arent you a mod? you have some the best and consistantly informative post here.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

adam you are wasting your time this guy will never see it the way it really is you keep showing him and he keeps ignoring he is riding the waves we will win the superbowl and he will be praising romo and thhe next 2-3 pick game romo is in he will suck again to this guy.

btw why arent you a mod? you have some the best and consistantly informative post here.

Why doesn't he have his own radio or TV show??? The guy is a fountain of solid football knowledge. There's a lot of it here, but Adam is one that stands above the rest.

 

[rkell87]

Why doesn't he have his own radio or TV show??? The guy is a fountain of solid football knowledge. There's a lot of it here, but Adam is one that stands above the rest.

lol my guess is that he is in someway affiliated with the league

 

[starfrombirth]

Romo has a 115.4 career rating in the same situations the article was talking about. He has had a rating of at least 105.5 in those situations EVERY season so far. Try to find another QB with a rating of at least 105 in those situations every year for the past three. You can't. Most quarterbacks don't even have one season like that, let alone three straight. (Working on four, given his 127.1 rating in the clutch so far.)

And that little bit about Eli being "the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons"? (Never mind that a lot of quarterbacks haven't even been playing for five seasons yet, including Romo.) In 2007, Eli's rating in the clutch was a whopping 78.3. In 2006, it was 82.9. In 2004, it was 61.7. Boy, what a clutch QB. Congrats, Eli, on improving from abysmal to terrible in the clutch.

Also, as far as Brady's 2007 rating being worse in the clutch than overall? So what? It was 108.9! And don't you think quarterbacks are more likely to spike the ball to kill the clock in those situations? The difference between Brady's rating in the clutch and overall could be no more than a handful of spikes (five such spikes over the course of the season would do it).

That article is complete garbage. A rating of 61.7 is "clutch," but a rating of 108.9 is not? Please.

Your the best. You should change your name to "statmeister".