If Brady can do it without an elite WR Why cant Tony?

[tyke1doe]

Check your facts. You're just plain wrong.

You know what they say about facts and stats?
If you ask anyone knowledge about football who has made the most with less in terms of receivers, 10 out of 10 would say Brady if the comparison is with Romo.

Second, I asked you to define "star". Do you mind providing me a definition, or is this merely a subjective exercise?

 

[Kevinicus]

You know what they say about facts and stats?
If you ask anyone knowledge about football who has made the most with less in terms of receivers, 10 out of 10 would say Brady if the comparison is with Romo.

Second, I asked you to define "star". Do you mind providing me a definition, or is this merely a subjective exercise?

Of course star is subjective. I don't want to base it on popularity though. Austin put up back to back 1,000 yard seasons (including over 1,300 in a season he didn't start until week 5 - and twice as many as Branch/Brown combined), and made pro-bowl. He likely would have had more if he had stayed healthy. And he was the #1 receiver for several years. He got a huge contract out of his time with Romo.

Amendola was known as a quality receiver with the Rams who couldn't stay healthy, and he has done very little since joining the Pats, so Brady has done NOTHING for him. He probably gets less attention now than he did before.

 

[tyke1doe]

Check your facts. You're just plain wrong. Was it Amendola's 200 yards last season that put him over the top into stardom?

Please define "star"?
Is a star based on yardage? If it is, then would it make a difference if a quarterback is passing to seven receivers vs. one or two main receivers?
Wouldn't the fact that a quarterback like Brady who uses seven receivers and utilizes ALL his weapons be better than a quarterback who uses just a few of his weapons?

This is why I ask you to define "star".

 

[Kevinicus]

Please define "star"?
Is a star based on yardage? If it is, then would it make a difference if a quarterback is passing to seven receivers vs. one or two main receivers?
Wouldn't the fact that a quarterback like Brady who uses seven receivers and utilizes ALL his weapons be better than a quarterback who uses just a few of his weapons?

This is why I ask you to define "star".

Seriously? You're getting caught up in semantics, apparently claiming that Romo doesn't use all of his weapons, and ignoring the point which is that Brady hasn't been all that special when he doesn't have top end talent to throw to.

 

[Blackspider214]

So you are telling me Gronk is not elite???

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course star is subjective.

So basically you're saying it's strictly your opinion that Romo makes stars of receivers more than Brady, but you have no facts to show this?

I don't want to base it on popularity though. Austin put up back to back 1,000 yard seasons (including over 1,300 in a season he didn't start until week 5 - and twice as many as Branch/Brown combined), and made pro-bowl. He likely would have had more if he had stayed healthy. And he was the #1 receiver for several years. He got a huge contract out of his time with Romo.

First, it's strange that you would use one receiver to build a case that Romo makes a star out of receivers more than Brady. That's really a poor way of establishing your claim.

Second, I think a better way would be to determine:
a.) the number of receivers a quarterback utilizes and
b.) the yardage the quarterback amasses

a.) One of the reasons people believe Brady is great is because outside of Randy Moss (and now Gronk), he has rarely worked with elite receivers. Yet, he has increased the contributions of the receivers I mentioned before. Wes Welker's stats jumped dramatically when he became a Patriot. So did Troy Brown's when Brady took the starting role from Bledsoe. Brady make Deion Branch such a "star" that Branch won a Super Bowl MVP. And when the Patriots traded Branch to the Seahawks for a first round pick, he really didn't do much with Seattle and eventually returned to New England.
Meanwhile, for the most part, Romo has had Witten and TO and Dez (and, based on your own argument, Miles Austin) to throw to. The first three are elite receivers. Romo has not had to utilize as many "average" receivers (talent wise) as Brady has. And Brady has used those receivers to advance to playoffs, championship games and Super Bowls. Brady has TD passes to 50 different players. The bulk of Romo's TDs have gone to Witten, TO, Dez and Miles. I doubt Romo is anywhere near Brady in this regard.
b.) In head-to-head years, with the exception of 2008 when Brady was injured for the season, six out of eight years Brady had more passing yards than Romo. And with the exception of last year, the Pats and Cowboys basically ran a pass-oriented offense.

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that Brady has done more with less than almost any quarterback in the league. And when he did have an elite receiver, he shattered passing records.

Besides, I would think the fact that a quarterback utilizes more than one receiver and achieves greatness and advances his team into the playoffs and Super Bowls says more than just looking at the number of another quarterback who throws to a single receiver even if that receiver has more receiving yards.

I like Romo, but he has NOT done more to make receivers stars than Brady. And outside of Cowboys homers, I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks so either.

Amendola was known as a quality receiver with the Rams who couldn't stay healthy, and he has done very little since joining the Pats, so Brady has done NOTHING for him. He probably gets less attention now than he did before.

Even if I concede you Amendola, what about the others? I didn't just list one player like you did. I listed several.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Dez is a loss, but I'm not sweating it.

This offense can score points without him.

 

[tyke1doe]

Seriously? You're getting caught up in semantics, apparently claiming that Romo doesn't use all of his weapons, and ignoring the point which is that Brady hasn't been all that special when he doesn't have top end talent to throw to.

I'm getting caught up in semantics?
You're the one who said Romo made more "stars" than Brady.
Is it semantics to ask someone to clarify what he means when he uses terms that maybe ambiguous?

Second, I have to ask are YOU serious now? Brady hasn't been all that special when not throwing to top-end talent? Are you ACTUALLY making this argument?
Brady has been to NINE AFC Championship Games and SIX Super Bowls.
He had Randy Moss available for one of those Super Bowls and Gronk for two (the 2012 Super Bowl Gronk came back from an injury).
He played in three others with subpar talent. And you say he isn't special when he doesn't have top in talent?


Do you even understand what YOU'RE arguing?

 

[tyke1doe]

So you are telling me Gronk is not elite???

Who are you asking this question?

 

[Sarge]

Gronkowski is an elite receiver.

 

[Kevinicus]

So basically you're saying it's strictly your opinion that Romo makes stars of receivers more than Brady, but you have no facts to show this?



First, it's strange that you would use one receiver to build a case that Romo makes a star out of receivers more than Brady. That's really a poor way of establishing your claim.

Second, I think it would be a better way would be to determine:
a.) the number of receivers a quarterback utilizes and
b.) the yardage the quarterback amasses

a.) One of the reasons people believe Brady is great is because outside of Randy Moss (and now Gronk), he has rarely worked with elite receivers. Yet, he has increased the contributions of the receivers I mentioned before. Wes Welker's stats jumped dramatically when he became a Patriot. So did Troy Brown's when Brady took the starting role from Bledsoe. Brady make Deion Branch such a "star" that Branch won a Super Bowl MVP. And when the Patriots traded Branch to the Seahawks for a first round pick, he really didn't do much with Seattle and eventually returned to New England.
Meanwhile, for the most part, Romo has had Witten and TO and Dez (and, based on your own argument, Miles Austin) to throw to. The first three are elite receivers. Romo has not had to utilize as many "average" receivers (talent wise) as Brady has. And Brady has used those receivers to advance to playoffs, championship games and Super Bowls. Brady has TD passes to 50 different players. The bulk of Romo's TDs have gone to Witten, TO, Dez and Miles. I doubt Romo is anywhere near Brady in this regard.
b.) In head-to-head years, with the exception of 2008 when Brady was injured for the season, six out of eight years Brady had more passing yards than Romo. And with the exception of last year, the Pats and Cowboys basically ran a pass-oriented offense.

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that Brady has done more with less than almost any quarterback in the league. And when he did have an elite receiver, he shattered passing records.

Besides, I would think the fact that a quarterback utilizes more than one receiver and achieves greatness and advances his team into the playoffs and Super Bowls says more than just looking at the number of another quarterback who throws to a single receiver even if that receiver has more receiving yards.

I like Romo, but he has NOT done more to make receivers stars than Brady. And outside of Cowboys homers, I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks so either.



Even if I concede you Amendola, what about the others? I didn't just list one player like you did. I listed several.

Did I ever say Romo makes MORE stars than Brady? No. Dude, it was just an off the fly remark about how Brady hasn't done amazing things when he hasn't had top talent.

The number of receivers a QB throws to determines how good they are, or if they make stars? That's just silly. And yards? Really? Big whoop that Brady has thrown for more yards than Romo most years. He also has thrown it a lot more, except for 2012, where Romo had more yards passing. Romo's YPA is at 7.9, Brady's 7.4. YPA is a MUCH better stat to look at.

Of course Welker's stats jumped dramatically. His stats jumped dramatically every year before NE too. He was a young guy just getting going. Going from an offense like Miami's (if you can call it an offense) to one that throws a ton like NE is going to cause a big jump, especially for a player who is making big strides already.

What record did Brady shatter? The TD record that he broke by 1 when he played for almost 2 full games more than Manning?

And I really don't care how many different guys Brady has thrown a TD to. That's the kind of offense they run.

Why don't you just simply look at Brady's stats when he doesn't have someone like Moss, Gronk, or Welker and compare that to how he does when they are there? Why is his rating in the 80's without them? Especially since he's had a pretty good offensive line most of his career.

 

[Blackspider214]

Who are you asking this question?

Whomever made the thread.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Be prepared for arts and crafts Tony Romo.

Hold it down Crownie.

 

[Swanny]

for 4-6 weeks. We need to run and control the clock and not have many dropped balls and turnovers. I believe in number 9 he can do it.

Because Tom Brady is one of the best QBs of all time and Romo is not one of the best QBs of all time

 

[DFWJC]

for 4-6 weeks. We need to run and control the clock and not have many dropped balls and turnovers. I believe in number 9 he can do it.

Don't get me wrong, missing Dez is terrible.

But the two best scoring drives of the game for us last night where with him out of the game.
In other words, although we'd greatly prefer him to be there, Romo has done it many times without him. He spreads it around so well, it makes it more than just possible.

Still, the defense is going to have to help carry us like last night or even moreso.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's not like there are "elite" receivers and everyone else is exactly the same. Brady has done it with a lot of talent spread around the offense and players who perfectly fit the scheme (or a scheme that perfectly fits the players). When you have an offense, like we do, that features one receiver who's head and shoulders above the rest of the talent and is built around that, it's a much larger adjustment. It's not clear to me that either Devin Street or T-Will can consistently beat single coverage on the outside, and our offense is built around that.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Its not about having a "elite" receiver. Its about having solid reliable guys. Amendola, Edleman and Lafell are solid receivers. I have to be honest. After yesterday....I don't see any of our receivers having any of the talent those guys have aside from Dez. Beasley has a similar skill but when he's running due to his size i'm just never confident in him holding on to the ball. And i'm sure he doesn't fumble much or has but i'm still concerned. Terrence Williams is a chest catcher and that scares me as a #1 when he's doubled. Devin Street for whatever reason never gets anything his way and when he does.....bad things happen. I'm confident in our catching from our running backs and tight ends. The receivers are a mystery.

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm getting caught up in semantics?
You're the one who said Romo made more "stars" than Brady.
Is it semantics to ask someone to clarify what he means when he uses terms that maybe ambiguous?

Second, I have to ask are YOU serious now? Brady hasn't been all that special when not throwing to top-end talent? Are you ACTUALLY making this argument?
Brady has been to NINE AFC Championship Games and SIX Super Bowls.
He had Randy Moss available for one of those Super Bowls and Gronk for two (the 2012 Super Bowl Gronk came back from an injury).
He played in three others with subpar talent. And you say he isn't special when he doesn't have top in talent?


Do you even understand what YOU'RE arguing?

You do realize that SBs (and championships) are a team stat right? And You realize a lot of that was with the top talent right?
Nevermind, I forgot who I was talking to.

Without top talent - QB rating in the 80's. Period. That's the only point I was trying to make. And it's a fact. IN THE 80's!

 

[Doomsday101]

Don't get me wrong, missing Dez is terrible.

But the two best scoring drives of the game for us last night where with him out of the game.
In other words, although we'd greatly prefer him to be there, Romo has done it many times without him. He spreads it around so well, it makes it more than just possible.

Still, the defense is going to have to help carry us like last night or even moreso.

Yep and Cowboys did it with ease as they moved the ball down field going 76 yards in 6 plays taking 2:53 to put it in and a drive of 72 yards in 6 plays 1:27 to win it

 

[Zman5]

I have no worries about Romo moving the ball down the field without Dez it's the whole putting the ball into the back of the end zone thing that concerns me now

I expect a few 16-13 type games in our immediate future...

We have Escobar for that. All he does is catch TDs.