Hunkering down with a statistically brilliant QB who's a loser

[GimmeTheBall!]

To all the Romo lovers, I admire your devotion to him year after year after year . . . .
To all the name-callers, I say: "Is dat the best yew can do????"
To all the nay sayers, I say: When Romo wins a Super Bowl (with any team), I will call you geniuses.
To all the ones with one-liners . . . well, I just admire all the strength and creativity that went into your responses, however lacking.
Carry on, mein freunds.

 

[Dodger]

There were 3 other players who put up 100 QB Ratings this year ... Brees, Brady and Rodgers. Look up their teams' records. That's the type of record you should get with a quarterback playing that caliber if you supply them with even an iota of supporting talent.

Just for kicks I looked at all teams that had a QB with a rating of 100+ that have missed the playoffs. Before this year, and since 1990, it's only happened twice. Rivers last year, and Roethlisberger in 2009.

I don't know enough about the Chargers of last year to tell you why that happened, but in 2008, the Steelers led the league in scoring defense. In 2010, they did the same thing, both playoff years. In 2009, they were 10th, giving up almost 100 more points during the season than they did in either 2008 and 2010.

Hmm...

 

[ufcrules1]

One of those wins came with Tony as a starter, one of those wins came in Week 17 with the Eagles resting their entire team for the playoffs. The Cowboys beat a 13-3 team this year thanks to Romo. What signature wins did we have without him last year?

Turn off the Skip Bayless. It turns your brain into mush and makes you think guys like Tim Tebow has magical "winner" voodoo powers that other quarterbacks don't have. Then you say things that turn out to be really embarrassing for yourself in hindsight

Yeah we had 1 win with Romo last year before he got hurt last year. How many losses did we have with him? Funny how you left that part out huh? When we beat the 49'ers this year, they were 1-1 and we barely eeked out a win. Romo played his heart out in that game because he felt bad about GIVING the game away the week before.

What signature wins did we have without Romo last year? For starters how about the win against Giants when we were 13.5 point underdogs? Now who's mind is mush?

 

[ufcrules1]

BTW you can't get rid of a 102.5 QB rating, 31 TDs to 10 INTs, and 4000 yard plus passer and be better at the QB position unless the replacement can duplicate those numbers or beat them.

The chances of that happening. Slim to none.

Statistics are like Bikini's, they reveal a lot, but what they hide is crucial.

 

[DFWJC]

Well, for starters... Marino Started for 17 seasons (Moon 17, Fouts 15, Esiason 14, and Kelly 11) while Romo has only been a starter for 6 seasons. Looking at totals is not a fair assessment of statistics. Yet, with all Marino's greatness (which I watched as an avid football fan & agree with ), consider this...

Completion %: Romo 64.5; Marino 59.4
TD %: Romo 5.7; Marino 5.0
Interception %: Romo 2.8; Marino 3.0
Yards per attempt: Romo 8; Marino 7.3
QB Rating: Romo 96.9; Marino 86.4
Sacked %: Romo 5.2; Marino 3.1

Despite being a QB known for being mobile in the pocket, Romo has been sacked (on average) nearly twice as much as Marino, who was known as a purely pocket passer that couldn't move well. Yet, Romo's production is still on par with (or in most cases better than) the great Dan Marino. The difference is that Marino had protection and Romo does not.

Give Romo a solid line & great things will happen.

I agree with most of this post (even about the line play) but you leave out the obvious with Mariono and his very quick release. Peyton Manning is the same way--hard to sack a guy like that.

 

[Stautner]

Man, I think you are either missing the point, or are just arguing for the sake of argument.

My point, as evidenced by my first post on this thread, is:

The fact are clear. Romo is putting up stats that are on par or better with some of the best QB's to ever play the game. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

The Cowboy's lack of success is not because Romo isn't good enough. It's because he doesn't have the team around him to go any farther than he has. Put Brady, Rodgers, or Eli behind this team's OL & I don't think any of them do any better - that part is my opinion.

As far as the 4000 yards point... you are the one that brought it up, saying that good passers are throwing for 4000+ yards per season now days. I just pointed out that Romo is, too.

I responded directly to what you said, so you can't say I'm missing the point.

The fact is, Romo is putting up great stats compared to a lot of players in the past, I never denied that.

But I also said that for many of those same players to be considered "great" they either had to put up phenominal career stats or have a track record of getting to the postseason and/or some real postseason success. Or some combination thereof. And my point was that as of now it doesn't look like Romo is on that path. Likely too short a time frame left to put up the phenominal career stats, and he has very limited post season exposure and even less postseason success.

And I also said that you can't limit comparisons to players of the past, and have to look at today's players, where 4,000+ yards and 25+ TD's are still very good but not not uncommon, and where there are others who have done that and more AND have had post season success, and where young kids barely out of college are putting up similar or better stats.

As for 4,000, what was the point of saying that Romo also is putting up 4,000 yard seasons. My point was not that others are doing it while Romo is not, it was that by putting up 4,000 yards in today's NFL you are standing out the way Marino and Moon were when they did it. When Marino and Moon were putting up 4,000 yard seasons, 3,000 yard seasons were the standard for top NFL QB's. In other words, Marino and Moon, for their time, were statistically comparable with Brees and Brady today, not Romo and Rivers.

 

[gbrittain]

Statistics are like Bikini's, they reveal a lot, but what they hide is crucial.

You are correct. They do not reveal wrs that have to be told where to line up, they dont reveal our second rate d and ol.

 

[ufcrules1]

You are correct. They do not reveal wrs that have to be told where to line up, they dont reveal our second rate d and ol.

Yeah, cause let me tell you.. we have the worst receivers in the league in Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Laurant Robinson, and Jason Witten right? Try again pal.

 

[Stautner]

You are correct. They do not reveal wrs that have to be told where to line up, they dont reveal our second rate d and ol.

I'm fair - I agree with that. The reality is there are a lot of things stats don't reveal, both good and bad, and a person can't really quantify or even identify all of it. That's why ultimately results have to be considered. That too isn't foolproof, but it doesn't make any more sense to assume a QB is great but other factors are hiding it than it does to assume a QB lacks the intangibles to be great but he appears that way to some because of misleading stats. A person can look at that either way they want, and the only way to overcome it is by getting results. In the absence of results there is uncertainty.

 

[ufcrules1]

I'm fair - I agree with that. The reality is there are a lot of things stats don't reveal, both good and bad, and a person can't really quantify or even identify all of it. That's why ultimately results have to be considered. That too isn't foolproof, but it doesn't make any more sense to assume a QB is great but other factors are hiding it than it does to assume a QB lacks the intangibles to be great but he appears that way to some because of misleading stats. A person can look at that either way they want, and the only way to overcome it is by getting results. In the absence of results there is uncertainty.

Yup, and at the end of the day, what results do we have?

 

[InmanRoshi]

Statistics are like Bikini's, they reveal a lot, but what they hide is crucial.

These statements generally always occur when the stats refute one's ridiculous and biased premises.

It's amazing how conveniently it always works out like that.

 

[burmafrd]

Yup, and at the end of the day, what results do we have?

a whole lot better then we would with any other QB not in the top 4 or so

only blind haters think we need to change QBs.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Just for kicks I looked at all teams that had a QB with a rating of 100+ that have missed the playoffs. Before this year, and since 1990, it's only happened twice. Rivers last year, and Roethlisberger in 2009.

I don't know enough about the Chargers of last year to tell you why that happened, but in 2008, the Steelers led the league in scoring defense. In 2010, they did the same thing, both playoff years. In 2009, they were 10th, giving up almost 100 more points during the season than they did in either 2008 and 2010.

Hmm...

The 2010 Chargers had historically bad special teams that single highhandedly cost them several wins.

 

[Brooksey]

Laughable thread, Romo is the best player on the team. There is a Romo window to win which is about 4-5 years. There are a lot of pieces in place but time is winding down on Romo, Witten and Ware. Give Romo the rest of the winning pieces, he is more then capable of being a winning SB QB and is one of the best QB's in the league.

 

[Stautner]

a whole lot better then we would with any other QB not in the top 4 or so

only blind haters think we need to change QBs.

Really? You don't think the 12 teams going to the playoffs had better results than us?

 

[ufcrules1]

People generally make these statements when the stats refute their ridiculous and biased premises.

No, they make them when someone pumps up a player based on stats alone. At the end of the day, it comes down to results and what results do we have with Romo? What will Romo be remembered for 20 years from now? I will tell you. A QB who showed signs of being elite at times but who choked when a game REALLY counted, A QB that didn't know how to lead, a QB who could never even take his team deep in the playoffs much less sniff a super bowl.

Oh, but I forgot to mention... a QB that had some good stats.

 

[SDCowboy]

There's 27 other teams in the league (hell maybe all 31 other teams) that would love to have a QB who's the 4th highest rated in the league and throw for 31tds 10ints and 4200yrds be seen as a problem on their team. They'd be in pretty damn good shape if it was actually the case.

 

[Dodger]

No, they make them when someone pumps up a player based on stats alone. At the end of the day, it comes down to results and what results do we have with Romo? What will Romo be remembered for 20 years from now? I will tell you. A QB who showed signs of being elite at times but who choked when a game REALLY counted, A QB that didn't know how to lead, a QB who could never even take his team deep in the playoffs much less sniff a super bowl.

Oh, but I forgot to mention... a QB that had some good stats.

You win the award for most fallacies in one post. Congrats.

 

[ufcrules1]

There's 27 other teams in the league (hell maybe all 31 other teams) that would love to have a QB who's the 4th highest rated in the league and throw for 31tds 10ints and 4200yrds be seen as a problem on their team. They'd be in pretty damn good shape if it was actually the case.

Good point. So since Romo is so "elite" and our team is so bad, let's trade him away to one of those terrible teams for some of their good defensive players and draft picks.

What good is an "Elite" QB on a team that has a bad offensive line, defensive line, and secondary? Let's find an average young QB but shore up our whole team so we can stop talking about Romo's wonderful stats while our team is out of the playoffs.

 

[ufcrules1]

You win the award for most fallacies in one post. Congrats.

Put your Romo Cheerleader pom poms down and step away from the computer.