Greatest football myth laid to rest...

[AdamJT13]

And here's something to really blow your mind. Are you ready? What QB set the single-game record for highest single quarterback rating of 148.3 on October 21, 2001? That not so good Tom Brady.

The maximum passer rating is 158.3, not 148.3. And Brady didn't set the NFL record with a 148.3. Lots of quarterbacks have had a 158.3 in a game (Romo did it against Baltimore in 2006, although for only two attempts). Romo did have a 148.9 game on Thanksgiving Day 2006, though, against Tampa Bay.

 

[viman96]

STATS never the whole story. Or even half the story really.

 

[Hoofbite]

The maximum passer rating is 158.3, not 148.3. And Brady didn't set the NFL record with a 148.3. Lots of quarterbacks have had a 158.3 in a game (Romo did it against Baltimore in 2006, although for only two attempts). Romo did have a 148.9 game on Thanksgiving Day 2006, though, against Tampa Bay.

I think Brady has a game with a perfect rating too.

 

[HoosierCowboy]

Tom Brady has the rings.

Until Romo gets some ...... he is not in Brady's league.

It may not be fair ...... but that is the way it is.

The "he's got rings" rationale is illogical--the fact that Brady has rings could just mean he played on better teams. Is Faulk a better runner than Tomlinson? faulk has rings with the Pats and Tomlinson has not won one. Same logic. And the only reason I don't love Brady is that i hate the Cheatriots.

 

[Hoofbite]

The "he's got rings" rationale is illogical--the fact that Brady has rings could just mean he played on better teams. Is Faulk a better runner than Tomlinson? faulk has rings with the Pats and Tomlinson has not won one. Same logic. And the only reason I don't love Brady is that i hate the Cheatriots.

Not when you actually watch the games.

 

[TNCowboy]

Brady's one of the greatest QBs to ever play. The Pats became a totally different team the moment he took over. They've been a perennial contender ever since. He's also one of the highest-rated QBs ever, in spite of playing in a bad weather city, and playing most of that time without an elite offensive weapon.

He's also got an unbelievable playoff record with impressive stats, in spite of, once more, playing in some atrocious weather and depending on guys like Troy Brown to be his main threat.

When he retires, he's in the discussion with Montana, Unitas, etc for the best ever. At this stage, comparing anything Romo's done to Brady is just silly. Brady's just outstanding.

 

[DallasEast]

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/adamsbfistpump.png

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

Tom Brady has the rings.

Until Romo gets some ...... he is not in Brady's league.

It may not be fair ...... but that is the way it is.

First and last thing you have ever been right on.

 

[Alexander]

The "he's got rings" rationale is illogical--the fact that Brady has rings could just mean he played on better teams. Is Faulk a better runner than Tomlinson? faulk has rings with the Pats and Tomlinson has not won one. Same logic.

Hardly. First, you are talking about a running back. Not the most important position on the football field. You are also referring to their backup/3rd down back and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Nobody in their right mind would use this try to legitimize Faulk being better.

QBs do get an excessive amount of credit for both success and failure. But I think by the time you have three rings, the debate about whether or not you are any good should be put to rest.

For most normal people, it is.

 

[lqmac1]

Everyone knows how I love my stats, but my biggest pet peeve is people hating Tony Romo, actually my biggest pet peeve is people anointing Tom Brady as a great quarterback. He isn't...

Tom Brady isn't all that great, in fact I believe Romo as a player is MUCH better compared to Tom brady during the same time in his career (that might have a lot to do with T.O. though).

Tom Brady's december stats for 2001 and 2002.
QB Rating
2001 - 75.4 (January 62.1)
2002 - 67.5 (No Playoffs)

Tom Brady CERTAINLY wasn't Mr. December.

Tom brady didn't win another super bowl until the Patriots upgraded that offense, by making it multidimensional with Corey Dillon. Which was the first year tom brady had a qb rating above a 90.

It wasn't even until the patriots got Randy Moss did he become a 100+ quarterback. 2007 is so completely beyond anything he had ever done as a quarterback.

Tom Brady is a system quarterback, and that system got injected with Randy Moss, and he exploded to a 50 td season.

Romo has had the luxury of having T.O. his entire career so I don't want to praise him too much, but his production has certainly been better than Tom Brady's for an equivalent period of time.

Fact of the matter is the Patriots won their first championship based of a great defense, and an offense that was good or decent, and didn't turn the ball over often.

Romo hasn't had that defense to help him.

.



woooooow I think he's the best of all time, I hope you got your bullet proof on for this one.

 

[theogt]

Hardly. First, you are talking about a running back. Not the most important position on the football field. You are also referring to their backup/3rd down back and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Nobody in their right mind would use this try to legitimize Faulk being better.

QBs do get an excessive amount of credit for both success and failure. But I think by the time you have three rings, the debate about whether or not you are any good should be put to rest.

For most normal people, it is.

I don't think this is a debate about whether Brady is any good or not. Everyone acknowledges, at the least, that Tom Brady is "good." So, if that's the position you're attacking, obviously you win. There's just no one on the other side to "win" against.

 

[lqmac1]

I read it. It still was complete nonsense. I can explain why if you like.



Mistake number one.


This is where basically you have zero credibility. You hate people hating Romo, but your real motive is discredit Tom Brady. That's a brilliant basis for making a comparison. Very analytical, impartial and convincing.

You could have stopped here and saved everyone the time.



So your contention right now is that Brady isn't a great QB because of what? His "inferior" play in 2001 and 2002?



Okay. So QB rating distinguishes what makes a QB "great"? Got you. Utter nonsense but I can see where you are going. Winning the game doesn't matter. But that QB rating, that's key. BTW, where is your hard-hitting Romo numbers during his first two Decembers and Januarys? I don't see them. And here's something to really blow your mind. Are you ready? What QB set the single-game record for highest single quarterback rating of 148.3 on October 21, 2001? That not so good Tom Brady.



Is that why everyone thinks he's good? Interesting. I thought it was the three rings he has.


So wouldn't that first Super Bowl be even more impressive since he was shackled by an offense that wasn't "multi-dimensional" and featured Antowain Smith?



Oh, there's that all important QB rating again. Nice to know, but irrelevant.



It is called progression and growth. That tends to happen as QBs mature and get better. And yes, I would hope adding an All World WR makes someone better. That 50 TD season was an NFL record, but that darn Brady just isn't all that great. All-Time Records just happen to be broken by players like that.



And coincidentally, he didn't win a Super Bowl with that injection of talent. Hmmm.



Give Romo the WR talent that Brady had in his first few seasons. I'd love to see how he does. The way things are looking this year, we might get to find out how he operates without upper echelon WRs.



Since you love statistics so much, I hope you do realize the 2001 Patriots defense was so great it ranked 24th out of 32 teams overall (19th against the run, 24th against the pass). I am guessing you don't.

And as for that decent offense that didn't turn the ball over, who do you think contributed to that? Couldn't it be that Brady avoids turning the ball over? He's never had a season with more than 14 interceptions. Romo in his three seasons has notched 14 in 13 games (last year), 19 in 16 games and 13 in nine starts. I'll leave out the eleven fumbles over three seasons just to keep it simple for you (terrible Brady has 17 in 7 seasons).

Did you intentionally not use any logic whatsoever in your post?

Or is your point that we should appreciate gaudy stats over things that matter, like Super Bowl rings? If that's the case, you probably hated Aikman and would have thought Staubach was terrible as neither were TD throwing machines.

One day, Romo might get all the praise you apparently crave when he starts winning more. But he has a long ways to go until he's considered great or compares favorably to Tom Brady, unless you simply scan QB ratings after their first couple of seasons which apparently is your thing.

awsome post your just locked everydoor possible to this guys argument.
great great post my freind

 

[ArmyCowboy]

qb rating is an almost perfect description of a qb's personal production.

He didn't have great receivers, and his production reflects that, yet he is still considered a genius qb for that time. He succeeded without a running game? Not really. After their first super bowl, they didn't get back there until they got Corey Dillon. They won games... but look at the AFC East... it has not been a strong division this decade. Thats really a good 6 wins per year right of the tip. But I digress.

Deion branch was a wr drafted in the 2nd round.

wish we had a wr from the 2nd round right now...

Brady never put up huge numbers until Randy Moss. His numbers got better when he got a running game as well. But they were damn near pedestrian when he had his little fleet of receivers.

Roy Williams was drafted in the first.

Also, QB rankings are a terrible way to guage a QB's performance.

Tony Romo has a better career QB rating than Joe Montana, Dan marino and Roger Staubach.

Think he's better?

 

[Alexander]

The maximum passer rating is 158.3, not 148.3. And Brady didn't set the NFL record with a 148.3.

Thank you for the typo correction.

Lots of quarterbacks have had a 158.3 in a game (Romo did it against Baltimore in 2006, although for only two attempts).

That would have been a neat trick as Romo didn't play Baltimore in 2006. I see that you too make typos. For the record, that was Houston.

Romo did have a 148.9 game on Thanksgiving Day 2006, though, against Tampa Bay.

It is a record though. 34 QBs have done have done it. Including Brady in 2001, in one of the seasons where the original poster tried to prove simply wasn't that great.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Row Williams was drafted in the first.

Also, QB rankings are a terrible way to guage a QB's performance.

Tony Romo has a better career QB rating than Joe Montana, Dan marino and Roger Staubach.

Think he's better?

In fairness, though, I think if those guys had gotten the benefit of the pansy rules protecting the passing game of today, those guys' ratings would've been a lot higher.

At this rate QBs and WRs will be wearing flags in a few years.

Anyway...

 

[ArmyCowboy]

In fairness, though, I think if those guys had gotten the benefit of the pansy rules protecting the passing game of today, those guys' ratings would've been a lot higher.

At this rate QBs and WRs will be wearing flags in a few years.

Anyway...

The rules were changed in 1978 permitted a defender to maintain contact with a receiver within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but restricted contact beyond that point. The pass-blocking rule was interpreted to permit the extending of arms and open hands.

So, both Montana and Marino played with these same rules as Romo does now.

 

[DocFord]

We went 1-3, playing 4 of the best defenses in the nfl. And we were 16 points (14 + 1 + 1) from being 3-1.

So if we can just get them to change that stupid rule about the winning team being the one with the most points at the end of a game we are set.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

It's the single most predictive stat of any official stat. Other than actual wins and losses, it has the most "meaning" of any stat.

So, I'm sure you must hate all stats and not just QB ratings in particular.

So, that means you would rather have Jim Kelly, Rich Gannon, Neil O'Donnell or Bernie Kosar than Troy Aikman, since they all have higher QB ratings than Troy and they all played around the same time, right?

This stat has NO meaning, and I'll tell you why.

Troy had fewer TDs per attempt than these other QBs because of a guy named Emmitt Smith. We ran the ball in far more than these other guys' teams because we had a running back that could do it.

So where does a QB rating take in "skill of a running back to score TDs"?

 

[bayeslife]

So, that means you would rather have Jim Kelly, Rich Gannon, Neil O'Donnell or Bernie Kosar than Troy Aikman, since they all have higher QB ratings than Troy and they all played around the same time, right?

Jim Kelly could've done as good a job here as well.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I agree. Tom Brady had the advantage of being able to cheat for several years.

And the bull**** tuck rule. Great players shouldn't get so much help.