NFL Network Top Ten Meltdowns - Romo number 9

[Sammy Baugh]

Boy, do the Commanders have the right QB for you!

Of course, you are screwed if you like throws that go much beyond 3 yards.

So... I am to assume that in your opinion, Jason Campbell is a superior QB to Romo?

This could clear our disagreement on the QB issue, like right now.

No, I am not arguing that, to this point, Campbell has been a better QB than Romo. Your assumption is off the mark.

However, the future MAY (stress: MAY) hold something different. Campbell has changed systems often. With a second year in the WCO, he may go downfield much more this year. It took Favre and Hasselbeck a few years each to master the WCO; Campbell so far has had only one.

Further, Campbell is young and has upside for improvement. The future Campbell therefore may be much better than the past Campbell.

But the argument began over a "top-five qb" distinction. When making that distinction, future hopes do not count, only past performance. In this light I would be hard-pressed to argue that Campbell is better than Romo, so I am not arguing that.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

You can stand by it, but it's still a stupid statement. To your point 1, above, 'deserving' isn't relevant because you aren't arguing what Romo deserves, you're arguing what people consider him. And people outside Cowboyland consider him a top QB as evidenced by this probowl appearances. Those people include his peers and coaches.

2. Are you happier with the idea that he's top 2 in the conference? If you want to reduce your argument to the point that a player considered to be top two in his conference is not likely to be considered top 5 in the league, you're welcome to, but at that point you're splitting hairs that aren't very interesting.

Although I disagree with your perception about how Pro Bowl appearances operate, I never was arguing about Pro Bowls, as I said before. The argument began over who is a top-5 quarterback. The fact remains that one can make a Pro Bowl and still, theoretically, not be even in the top-15 of one's position across the NFL. Arguing about the Pro Bowl simply changes the argument midstream. Logically, arguing about the Pro Bowl has no bearing on my point, since my point explicitly never was about the Pro Bowl.

And no, I don't think that I would put Romo in the top 2 in the NFC. I was simply pointing out a logical fallacy in the argument of another poster, a fallacy which you seem to have not recognized.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

There's no problem with my statement. I'm not a Cowboys homer and have been very critical of this team and it's owner. But you can't write off the Pro Bowl and pass it off to people stuffing ballot boxes.

In 2007, there was Drew Brees, Mark Bulger and Romo for the NFC. The AFC had Peyton Manning, Carlson Palmer, Phillip Rivers, and Vince Young. Just who would you take above Romo out of that bunch? I might take take Manning but I'd have second thoughts because of his age. I think Brees and Romo are similar type QB's, so that would be a wash, IMO. Phillip Rivers? Maybe but that's debateable.

Name me 5 players out of the bunch that you think were better than Romo. At worst, Romo was the 3rd best QB in the NFL.

In 2008, it was Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger and Derek Andersen for the AFC. The NFC had Farve, Romo, Hasselbeck and Garcia. Even a non homer could argue, at worst, Romo's the 4th best QB out of that bunch behind Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisberger. Or do you think Derek Andersen, Hasselbeck, Farve and Garcia are better?

So yes, outside of Cowboy land and even with the most hard core anti-Cowboys fans, there are people that consider Romo a top 5 QB.

You continue to argue that a Pro Bowl berth determines whether you are in the top-5 at you position league-wide. That is logically fallacious, for reasons already indicated.

Further, no one argued about "who you would take," the argument was about "top-5." There is a difference.

But, to slice through all the ADHD which has appeared in recent posts, let me stick to the issue and post a top five:
Brady
Manning
Rivers
Brees
Rodgers

Please note that Rodgers in 2008 had more yards, more TD's, fewer interceptions, and a better QB rating than Romo, despite the fact that Rodgers was in his first year as a starter.

 

[mnky2hvn]

NFL Network is ********.
How about Landry's early 80's Cowboys teams meltdown in the NFC Championship for three years in a row?

As for Romo, I'm so annoyed with these fly by night Cowboy fans who are already willing to give up on the guy after two and a half years (39 games).

Here's a list of Super Bowl winning QB's who didn't win a playoff game until well AFTER their 39th game:
Troy Aikman (52 games - His back-up won a playoff game before HE did)
John Elway (54 games - Can't win a big one)
Peyton Manning (96 regular season games - Will never win the big one)
Eli Manning (55 regular season games - NY was ready to give up on him)

Even Terry Bradshaw didn't win his first playoff game until after his 40th regular season game and that was back during 14 game seasons. (It was also the immaculate reception game he gets credit for 'winning')
If you take that away, (cause god knows if the Cowboys won a playoff game that way, no one would give Romo credit for a playoff win): 57 regular season STARTS before he won a real playoff game.
And that was with 4 less teams in the league.

It takes TIME, man.
Roger Staubach's and Joe Montana's come come along very RARE in sports.

Ok, now let's look at ESPN's top ten (+ 4 additional considerations) BEST ROOKIE QB season's and see what maybe Matt Ryan has in store for his career:
10. Bob Griese - Can't go wrong there
9. Joe Namath - Took him a whopping 4 years to win the big one
8. Johnny Unitas - If he has a career like Unitas, he can't complain.
7. Rick Mirer - This is the QB on the list Ryan most resembles. Zero Super Bowl's. Flash out of the gate, many years of frustration.
6. Peyton Manning - Long slow road.
5. Charlie Conerly - 8 years to win a championship. Good solid career.
4. Fran Tarkenton - Zero Championships
3. Dan Marino - Zero Championships. Got that early playoff win though!
2. Bob Waterfield - THAT already hasn't happened.
1. Greg Cook - One season. Injured and never really came back.

Dennis Shaw - nope.
Steve Bartkowski - nope.
Jim Plunkett - a decade later.
Jim McMahon - another whopping 4 years.

To dismiss a QB with as much talent as Romo has, after two and a half seasons is more than irresponsible, it's just plain stupid.
QB's who can play at that level in the NFL are hard to find.
And after having to suffer with Quincy Carter, Drew Henson, Ryan Leaf, etc. etc., I don't have the confidence in this ownership finding someone with more talent and ability; especially after the investment we've made in Romo.
This isn't fantasy football, it's the real world.

 

[Dodger]

Please note that Rodgers in 2008 had more yards, more TD's, fewer interceptions, and a better QB rating than Romo, despite the fact that Rodgers was in his first year as a starter.

Romo missed 3 games. Had he played 16 games, he likely would have had more yards and TDs than Rodgers. That, and his QB rating was 2 points less than that of Rodgers, so I'm not sure this means all that much, especially since Romo has proven that he can maintain this level of play over the course of more than one season.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Romo missed 3 games. Had he played 16 games, he likely would have had more yards and TDs than Rodgers. That, and his QB rating was 2 points less than that of Rodgers, so I'm not sure this means all that much, especially since Romo has proven that he can maintain this level of play over the course of more than one season.

Maybe Romo would have thrown for more yards, maybe not. But two things are certain:
1) Rodgers had a better qb rating, which is independent of games missed
2) Romo threw more interceptions than Rodgers despite the fact that Romo missed those games. This is not favorable to Romo.

You are correct that Romo has a track record and Rodgers does not. Perhaps Rodgers will fall apart this year. However, it is more realistic to think that Rodgers would be even better in his second year as a starter. It is also true that Rodgers lacks some of the dubious elements of Romo's track record.

I'm not trying to put down Romo, who has talent and has won some games. From the beginning of this thread-discussion I simply have argued that he is not top 5 in the NFL.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

He was a rookie. What the hell is wrong with you? You Romo defenders are going to all time lows now, seriously.

LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sammy Baugh]

As for Romo, I'm so annoyed with these fly by night Cowboy fans who are already willing to give up on the guy after two and a half years (39 games).

Excellent point. A good quarterback is hard to find and Romo's track record may improve.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There are two problems with your statement:
1) the Pro Bowl is notorious for undeserving players, as fans can and do stuff ballot boxes
2) the question was not whether or not Romo has gone to the Pro Bowl. The question was whether he was a top five qb, and this is a different claim. For example, if the 5 best qb's all play in the AFC, then Romo could make the Pro Bowl and not make the top 5.

I stand by my statement that, outside of Cowboys homers, not many consider Romo to be a top 5 qb.

Romo is the highest rated passer in the NFL over the past two years.

You're free to question the reliability and validity of the current quarterback rating system; however, if you do so, the onus falls on you to provide a more reliable ranking methodology and the reasoning behind it.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Romo is the highest rated passer in the NFL over the past two years.

You're free to question the reliability and validity of the current quarterback rating system; however, if you do so, the onus falls on you to provide a more reliable ranking methodology and the reasoning behind it.

Do you have a source for that stat? Peyton Manning had a higher qb rating in both 2007 and 2008, making it difficult for Romo to have a higher rating over both years.

According to NFL.com:
Manning 2007: 98.0, 2008: 95.0
Romo 2007:97.4, 2008: 91.4

Besides, don't forget that Tom Brady missed the whole year last year, so he cannot statistically enter this discussion despite the fact that he may be a better QB.

 

[Dodger]

Maybe Romo would have thrown for more yards, maybe not. But two things are certain:
1) Rodgers had a better qb rating, which is independent of games missed
2) Romo threw more interceptions than Rodgers despite the fact that Romo missed those games. This is not favorable to Romo.

You are correct that Romo has a track record and Rodgers does not. Perhaps Rodgers will fall apart this year. However, it is more realistic to think that Rodgers would be even better in his second year as a starter. It is also true that Rodgers lacks some of the dubious elements of Romo's track record.

I'm not trying to put down Romo, who has talent and has won some games. From the beginning of this thread-discussion I simply have argued that he is not top 5 in the NFL.

A couple of things in response:

1. Had Romo played those 3 games, it is possible that his QB rating would have been higher than Rodgers', though they're both so close that it's not really that big of a deal.

2. I respect your opinion that Romo isn't a top-5 NFL QB, and perhaps he isn't. It's all somewhat subjective, anyway. You think he isn't, and that's fine. Myself...eh...I think he's somewhere in the range of top 5-8. Sometimes I'd swear he's the best in the league, and then there's other times he makes me want to pull my hair out.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

A couple of things in response:

1. Had Romo played those 3 games, it is possible that his QB rating would have been higher than Rodgers', though they're both so close that it's not really that big of a deal.

2. I respect your opinion that Romo isn't a top-5 NFL QB, and perhaps he isn't. It's all somewhat subjective, anyway. You think he isn't, and that's fine. Myself...eh...I think he's somewhere in the range of top 5-8. Sometimes I'd swear he's the best in the league, and then there's other times he makes me want to pull my hair out.

Fair enough. I respect your opinions on the subject.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Do you have a source for that stat? Peyton Manning had a higher qb rating in both 2007 and 2008, making it difficult for Romo to have a higher rating over both years.

Besides, don't forget that Tom Brady missed the whole year last year, so he cannot statistically enter this discussion despite the fact that he may be a better QB.

Let me rephrase that.

Romo has a career rating of 94.7, which ties Manning for the highest active career passer rating.

I agree that Manning and Brady are better quarterbacks than Tony Romo, but it's a fallacious notion that only Cowboy "homers" could possibly rank Romo among the top 5 NFL quarterbacks. Romo's career passer rating provides ample evidence for this assertion, and reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the debate.

 

[Dodger]

Do you have a source for that stat? Peyton Manning had a higher qb rating in both 2007 and 2008, making it difficult for Romo to have a higher rating over both years.

According to NFL.com:
Manning 2007: 98.0, 2008: 95.0
Romo 2007:97.4, 2008: 91.4

Besides, don't forget that Tom Brady missed the whole year last year, so he cannot statistically enter this discussion despite the fact that he may be a better QB.

I think Spagnola mentioned in his article the other day that, over the past 3 seasons (39 games), Romo's QB rating is a combined 95. Manning's is probably a bit higher over the same time span, but does anyone really care? 95 sounds pretty good to me.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I think Spagnola mentioned in his article the other day that, over the past 3 seasons (39 games), Romo's QB rating is a combined 95. Manning's is probably a bit higher over the same time span, but does anyone really care? 95 sounds pretty good to me.

I agree with you.

But my statement as I originally made it was wrong. I was referring to career passer ratings.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

here's something I found interesting:

taking Peyton's 3 season totals after his 1st 3 years, and compare them to Romo's career (it's only fair since the argument against Romo is that he was allowed to sit on the bench for 2 and half years) and his rating is 90.6 compared to Romo's 94.7 rating

 

[Sammy Baugh]

I think Spagnola mentioned in his article the other day that, over the past 3 seasons (39 games), Romo's QB rating is a combined 95. Manning's is probably a bit higher over the same time span, but does anyone really care? 95 sounds pretty good to me.

95 is good.

 

[Idgit]

Although I disagree with your perception about how Pro Bowl appearances operate, I never was arguing about Pro Bowls, as I said before. The argument began over who is a top-5 quarterback. The fact remains that one can make a Pro Bowl and still, theoretically, not be even in the top-15 of one's position across the NFL. Arguing about the Pro Bowl simply changes the argument midstream. Logically, arguing about the Pro Bowl has no bearing on my point, since my point explicitly never was about the Pro Bowl.

And no, I don't think that I would put Romo in the top 2 in the NFC. I was simply pointing out a logical fallacy in the argument of another poster, a fallacy which you seem to have not recognized.

You're not pointing out any fallacies. You're missing the point of the argument you got yourself into. The debate isn't about merit (though we could have that debate, too), it's about how the player is perceived.

Nobody's changing the argument on you by bringing up probowls. The fact is, whether you like it or not probowl appearances measure how a player is perceived outside of Cowboyland. You may disregard that estimation, and that's fine. But that's not the point you were debating, Sammy.

 

[PBJTime]

95 is good.

Top 5 good, objectively speaking?

 

[PBJTime]

You're not pointing out any fallacies. You're missing the point that the argument you got yourself into. The debate isn't about merit (though we could have that debate, too), it's about how the player is perceived.

Nobody's changing the argument on you by bringing up probowls. The fact is, whether you like it or not probowl appearances measure how a player is perceived outside of Cowboyland. You may disregard that estimation, and that's fine. But that's not the point you were debating, Sammy.

/debate