Greatest football myth laid to rest...

[DocFord]

Still waiting to see Romo's QB numbers from December to compare to Brady's.

You know, since that was the whole point of this thread.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

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.

But you have to admit that bump rule has been enforced far stronger lately, especially since after that Rams/Pats Superbowl when New England's DBs just mauled the Ram receivers.

Plus all the rules about late hits on the QB and "defenseless" WRs are far different. You can see that even in the replays of the 90s games when Troy got smashed all over the place. Tons of those hits would be personal fouls now.

It's no coincidence that the single-season TD passing record has been broken twice in just the last few years after only changing twice in the last, what 40 years? It stood for a long time until Marino broke it, and Marino's stood for 20 or so years after that.

 

[Alexander]

Still waiting to see Romo's QB numbers from December to compare to Brady's.

You know, since that was the whole point of this thread.

Well, since the OP either can't or won't bother:

Romo
2006 - Dec. (5 games)- 58.1, 113.9, 45.5, 111.6 - 77.6/ Jan. (1 game) - 89.6

2007 - Dec. (4 games) - 110.4, 22.2, 81.2, 34.9 - 62.1/ Jan. (1 game) - 64.7

2008 - Dec. (4 games) - 44.9, 113.7, 66.2, 55.8 - 70.1/ Jan. (no playoffs)

Here are Tom Brady's numbers that were posted:
2001 - 75.4 (January 62.1)
2002 - 67.5 (No Playoffs)

 

[DallasEast]

Still waiting to see Romo's QB numbers from December to compare to Brady's.

You know, since that was the whole point of this thread.

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

* November game

 

[Section446]

Tom Brady > Tony Romo

 

[crazytown41]

LOL@this thread

How about we let Romo win a playoff game 1st before we compare him to the best QB of this decade

 

[Galian Beast]

Again, reading is your friend, assume whatever you want on your own, but reading is your friend.

My real motive is to discredit Tom Brady? From what exactly. My real motive is to show that Romo while he doesn't have any rings in his mere two and half years of starting, has faired much better than Tom Brady has individually. And that much of the hoopla surrounding Tom Brady and his skills deservedly should go to his team, where as much of Tony Romo's blame should go to the cowboys. If you couldn't see that, you don't have any credibility, and thats not even getting to your ability to comprehend. I think thats mistake number two for you.


My contention is that Tom Brady isn't as great a qb as people make him out to be. He is a system quarterback, and the numbers show it. The system improved as did his numbers. That is my second point, once again my first being that Tony Romo is doing more than Tom Brady did in his first two years playing from the QB position.




Where did I say, once again reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I said from the ability to compare players in production. Thats like saying rushing yards can't be used to compare running backs... The QB is tied heavily into wins and losses, but just because a qb wins doesn't make him good, and just because he loses doesn't make him bad. There are 11 men on the field, and then there is offense, defense, and special teams.

By your logic a player like Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino because Brad Johnson has a ring and Dan Marino doesn't. That is flawed logic. You put Dan Marino on that team and he still gets a super bowl ring.

Where are Romo's numbers? I thought everyone was pretty familiar with his course of work, but perhaps thats an assumption on my part.

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


I do believe his first super bowl was most impressive, but more impressive for the defense not necessarily Tom Brady. Since as you can see his number were also not great.

Not saying Tom Brady didn't grow, obviously he did. He had an 85-92 range going right up until he got Randy Moss and Wes Welker. That range was maintained for 6 years of his career.

Randy Moss makes any QB better. Daunte Culpepper's career high for TDs is 39 with Randy Moss.


Note they had an injection of talent on offense, but also note that their defense is getting old and sluggish.


I agree completely I think Romo's numbers will be down drastically, but I believe his interceptions will as well. Depending on what sort of Romo friendly system Garrett can create for Romo will determine how successful he is. Even now we still have a lot more weapons on offense than Brady had year 1. That said our defense is still questionable.

Ill put this in bold so you definitely see it. I mentioned this earlier in another topic about yards for stats, they're misleading. That same defense was 6th in the nfl for point allowed.
​

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).

LOL, terrible Brady? Where did I say he was terrible. I believe I already mentioned that Brady doesn't turn the ball over. Not saying Tom Brady sucks. Simply saying he isn't as amazing as people make him out to be.

Romo has about 8 more picks than Brady had in his first 3 years, but Romo also has 12 more touchdowns. Different system, different type of player.

You've got to be kidding me, i haven't seen any logic from you....

Once again, super bowl rings don't make you a great player, just because you were on a good team. Again not saying Tom Brady is just good, or isn't great (just not as great as people want to believe him to be)

Maybe one day Tony Romo will have a defense that support him like Brady did, when he didn't have the offense weapons he has now.

 

[Galian Beast]

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?

I meant in addition to Roy Williams.

Theogt thanks for restating that this topic is not saying tom brady isn't good.

DocFord I only meant to illustrate that we could have easily been 3-1 just as much as we are in fact 1-3 for that time period.

Sorry Alexander I work for a living. But as I said before I thought we were all familiar with Tony's course of work. Pretty sure people are surprised to see that Tom Brady's was actually worse.

Dreadnought notice however that those numbers are in fact for the exact same year. Tom Brady's been playing for a minute, Romo has not.

 

[casmith07]

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.

so Dan Marino isn't in Ben Roethlisberger's league?

 

[Alexander]

My real motive is to discredit Tom Brady? From what exactly. My real motive is to show that Romo while he doesn't have any rings in his mere two and half years of starting, has faired much better than Tom Brady has individually.

You real motive was to tear down Brady, a player you don't like by your own admission, and assert that Romo is better based off some flimsy statistical basis looking only at his first two seasons, one that isn't even firmly and convincingly supported by the numbers.

And that much of the hoopla surrounding Tom Brady and his skills deservedly should go to his team, where as much of Tony Romo's blame should go to the cowboys. If you couldn't see that, you don't have any credibility, and thats not even getting to your ability to comprehend. I think thats mistake number two for you.

No, I couldn't see it. But since you didn't get into anything close to that level of explanation in your original post, its not a wonder.

My contention is that Tom Brady isn't as great a qb as people make him out to be. He is a system quarterback, and the numbers show it. The system improved as did his numbers. That is my second point, once again my first being that Tony Romo is doing more than Tom Brady did in his first two years playing from the QB position.

So why is Brady a "system" QB and Romo somehow not? I could sit here and say that as well. What you have is a theory, a few percentage points on a QB rating and a whole lot of nothing else.

By your logic a player like Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino because Brad Johnson has a ring and Dan Marino doesn't. That is flawed logic. You put Dan Marino on that team and he still gets a super bowl ring.

No, we aren't talking about a QB with "a" ring. We aren't talking about Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson. Or even Eli Manning.

We are talking about a QB in Brady who has won three Super Bowls (an MVP in two of them), won an NFL MVP title and set numerous NFL passing records and making a futile comparison to a player who has yet to even win a playoff game.

Maybe you should start lower if you want to tear down another player just to make Romo look better. Start with Manning. He seems easier.

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

I don't see anybody claiming he's better for QB rating. He is, but its the rings that most people actually consider meaningful. On both counts, Romo is inferior, despite your assertions.

Note they had an injection of talent on offense, but also note that their defense is getting old and sluggish.

You mean that same defense you said was great but really wasn't?

LOL, terrible Brady? Where did I say he was terrible. I believe I already mentioned that Brady doesn't turn the ball over. Not saying Tom Brady sucks. Simply saying he isn't as amazing as people make him out to be.

Where did you mention Brady not turning the ball over?

Not here. Or here. Or here.

Is there a post you deleted? Should I check another thread?

Romo has about 8 more picks than Brady had in his first 3 years, but Romo also has 12 more touchdowns. Different system, different type of player.

But one's a "system" QB and the other, I guess, isn't? Right?

Once again, super bowl rings don't make you a great player, just because you were on a good team. Again not saying Tom Brady is just good, or isn't great (just not as great as people want to believe him to be)

Again, you said something completely different. I will bold it so you can remember what started this whole abomination of a thread.

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).

Perhaps you should choose your words a little more carefully. That way you can avoid having to say people don't read well when really the problem is you can't articulate yourself very well.

Maybe one day Tony Romo will have a defense that support him like Brady did, when he didn't have the offense weapons he has now.

I sure hope our defense isn't ranked 24th anytime soon, I can't speak for you.

 

[Concord]

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

I think he wishes you hadn't.

:laugh2:

 

[Concord]

Good God thats some ownage.

That's what I thought.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The ridiculousness of showing stats about Brady and somehow suggesting Romo is vindicated made me laugh.

I think some of you young guys may use your cell phones and say

LOL...

The mere fact that Garrett pulled Romo aside and told him he needed to continue squatting throughout the off days of the season suggests this is more than mere stats.

Even Romo spoke about it and has been working on his strength.

From Jen Engle's article this week.

"One was to be the same in September as you are in December as an individual and as a team," Romo said of his conditioning goals. "I know, specifically, it’s hard when your body is beat down on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from the game to continue to do certain things. But I think that cleaning and squatting [in weight room] is a very important side of this and noticed it starts to waver as the season goes on as your body gets hurt — you get a sprained ankle, you have this, your hand is broken, your finger, whatever it is.

Romo wore down because he was not staying in condition.

All your stats in the world won't change the truth. In the past Romo has played differently.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Despite Alex's inane line by line responses which nobody reads, Galian makes a valid point. If you look at the two QBs performances in the respective years of their careers they actually are pretty similar.

I know people want to compare Romo's second year to Brady's fifth but that fails to prove anything other than Brady continued to progress. Tony can do the same.

 

[TwoDeep3]

To further illustrate the absurdity of the original posters ludicrous contention, I give you today's chat questions.

11:06 [Comment From pull the goalie]
How much weight does the coaching staff want Romo to lose?

11:08 My understanding is the concern with Romo's conditioning is more about what he's doing to maintain it during the season. His off-season work ethic, in the weight room and on the field, has never been a worry.

Hence his play declining in December.

Tony Hollywood isn't staying in shape and at the end of the season, those guys he could juke and outrun are catching up with him.

 

[cowboyfreak]

Despite Alex's inane line by line responses which nobody reads, Galian makes a valid point. If you look at the two QBs performances in the respective years of their careers they actually are pretty similar.

I too am in the minority...I see what the OP was saying.

I know people want to compare Romo's second year to Brady's fifth but that fails to prove anything other than Brady continued to progress. Tony can do the same.

I understand where the OP was trying to go with this post. He was just stating that he feels Brady is overhyped and along with that if you comapre the two guys body of work their first two years it may suprise some people to find out that Romo fairs pretty fair to Tom Brady. I don't think his point was that Romo is beter than Brady , he was just illustrating the point that we can have hope that Romo will continue to improve like Brady has and if the rest of the team improves a little as well we are in for good things...

<<Here comes my opinion- read at your own risk>>
I get so tired of posters trying to vilify another poster for his thoughts. Specifically those who attack before trying to understand what the true meaning behind a post was. Once one person jumps in with a rude, condescending tone others will jump on like vultures. Please don't confuse what I am saying, I love banter and good debate, but trying to make someone else look stupid for their opinions is just not cool. I know we are talking about message board etiquette (who cares right?)...just my opinion!
<<end of opinionated rant>>

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

It boggles my mind when people say things like "Aikman wasnt great it was the system" or "Brady wasnt great it was th system"


Aikman was GREAT in the system and most of all made GREAT decisions
Brady is GREAT in the system and most of all makes GREAT decisions

 

[AdamJT13]

Thank you for the typo correction.

That's some typo, and an amazing coincidence.

You wrote, "What QB set the single-game record for highest single quarterback rating of 148.3 on October 21, 2001?"

Brady did, indeed, post a 148.3 rating on October 21, 2001. But it wasn't the single-game record.

He tied the record with a 158.3 rating on October 21, 2007.

I don't think it was a typo.

I see that you too make typos.

Mine wasn't a typo, it was a faulty memory. I saw Romo's 158.3 on two attempts when I looked at his gamelogs, but I didn't go back to check which team it was against before I posted.

It is a record though. 34 QBs have done have done it. Including Brady in 2001

Again, Brady posted a 148.3 in 2001. He posted his 158.3 in 2007.

I know, I know. Typo, right?

in one of the seasons where the original poster tried to prove simply wasn't that great.

The original poster was talking about Brady's rating in December and January of 2001, not October. His ratings in December and January that year were 93.3, 61.3, 63.6, 91.6 and 62.1. He threw two TDs and five interceptions in those games, but the Pats went 5-0. His ratings in the playoffs that year were 70.4, 84.3 and 86.2, with one TD and one interception.

The original poster is completely misguided when he says that Brady isn't a great quarterback, but he does have a point when he says that Brady WASN'T that great of a quarterback late in the season during his first couple of years as a starter.

 

[sonnyboy]

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.

You're paddeling upstream with a straw.

I feel you. I myself believe Romo may be in Brady's class. But you can't make you're arguement by attempting to discredit one of the all-time great QB's. You lose all credibility.

I myself do put a lot of stock in the numbers. QB rating does matter. Is it the end all be all. Of course not.
It's one component.

Those who say Romo is great because of his QB rating are just as foolish as those who give it no meaning because he hasn't won a playoff game.

Forget the stats, forget the SB's. When I see Brady play, I see a great QB.

Why all the hate for Brady? He seems like an OK guy. And if you're a real football fan, you have to appreciate his excellence.

 

[theogt]

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"?

Of course it has meaning. I've already told you why it has meaning. That doesn't mean I would choose QBs based solely on QB rating. But it certainly does carry the most weight among many factors.