Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning?

[ringmaster]

Right, just make him a Steeler and he'll make the exact same clutch plays as Roethlisberger. Make him a Packer and he'd be playing in his first SB. :laugh2: If he played for the Pats he'd have multiple SB wins and be on his way to Canton like Tom Brady. LOL I don't think the Steelers and Packers combined for 13 pro bowlers this past season like the team Romo played for in 07 but it's the team Romo plays for that's keeping him from succeeding.

.

 

[KJJ]

Sanchez, Roethlisberger, or any other QB would've been killed behind this o-line Dallas has but this has been posted for the umpteenth time by other posters.

Anyone who posted that doesn't have a clue and I'll conclusively prove it! Roethlisberger played behind the worst OL to ever win a SB in 08.

That's not even debatable based off the number of sacks he was unable to escape that year.

He was sacked 46 times that season and missed parts of at least 2 games with injuries as a result of his lack of protection.

He was carted off with a concussion late that season.

Romo has never played behind as bad an OL as Roethlisberger did that season.

The most sacks Romo ever suffered was 34 in 09. The Cowboys OL this past season was a better than average pass protecting unit and a poor run blocking unit.

Romo AND Kitna were only sacked 27 times combined so that completely blows your statement apart claiming Roethlisberger would have been killed behind this OL. :laugh2:

Try doing some research instead of displaying your incredible Romo bias it makes you look silly!

 

[KJJ]

Yea.. we get it, you think Romo is one of the worst QB's in the league...

what are you trying to prove?

If that's what you've gotten out of my posts then you're not getting anything. I suggest you go back a re read. :toast:

 

[DFWJC]

-------------

 

[birdwells1]

I think you are missing my point. I have never said Romo is the best or that he does not have areas that could use improvement. That would be silly.

I do believe however, that the missing ingredient to a Super Bowl is not our QB. I am not suggesting that Romo has not had fault in any of the games in which Dallas has lost.

Nor as you suggest did I ever say Romo is better than Tom Brady. I am trying however to provide context and it appears to me that you do not care about context. Yes Romo and the Cowboys came up short versus the Giants. Never mind that so did Favre and Brady. Romo actually had better production against the Giants for THAT post season. Sounds much more harsh to say Romo sucked and came up short...but so did Favre and Brady that year. Again context. The Giants were pretty good that post season...

You want to give credit Ben R for an ugly game like last week because ultimately he won and made a 3rd and 6 that helped ice the clock when they already had a lead.

How do you in the same breath downplay the comeback Romo mounted against the Ravens and just point to his ugly game, but yet when it mattered most Tony delivered except that Tony did not have the benefit of a defense that could stop McClain and McGahee for 77 and 82 yard back to back late 4th quarter runs. If Dallas had not given up those two ridiculous runs, does that mean Romo played better? In your world yes, I suppose but I do not want to put words in your mouth. If Ben R goes 10-19 for 133 yards and 2 INTs but his defense does not force a fumble for a TD that is ultimately the difference in the game, does that mean Ben R suddenly played a bad game?

Again, context. To me it appears you only look at the end result and not how they got there. If that is the case, there is no question Ben R is the better QB just based on W and Ls. I happen to think more goes into it than that.

Naw, Big Ben is better than Romo not just because of W's and L's he's just clutch. One of my favorite Romo games was the Buffalo game where he played poorly but percevered to win the game. If you just look at stats Ben's game against Balt. was poor statistically but what you remember is the 50 yard pass at the end. Just like Sunday, that 3rd and 6 was so clutch, it makes you forget that, again statistically it wasn't beautiful. Stats aren't everything.

 

[ringmaster]

Anyone who posted that doesn't have a clue and I'll conclusively prove it! Roethlisberger played behind the worst OL to ever win a SB in 08.

That's not even debatable based off the number of sacks he was unable to escape that year.

He was sacked 46 times that season and missed parts of at least 2 games with injuries as a result of his lack of protection.

He was carted off with a concussion late that season.

Romo has never played behind as bad an OL as Roethlisberger did that season.

The most sacks Romo ever suffered was 34 in 09. The Cowboys OL this past season was a better than average pass protecting unit and a poor run blocking unit.

Romo AND Kitna were only sacked 27 times combined so that completely blows your statement apart claiming Roethlisberger would have been killed behind this OL. :laugh2:

Try doing some research instead of displaying your incredible Romo bias it makes you look silly!

Romo Bias now who looks silly.

Please read and comprehend what I'm saying before you post.

Roethlisberger is what he is and please spare me again with this o-line stuff his defense was better than ours in 2005 try again.

Defenses wins championships.

 

[gbrittain]

Right, just make him a Steeler and he'll make the exact same clutch plays as Roethlisberger. Make him a Packer and he'd be playing in his first SB. :laugh2: If he played for the Pats he'd have multiple SB wins and be on his way to Canton like Tom Brady. LOL I don't think the Steelers and Packers combined for 13 pro bowlers this past season like the team Romo played for in 07 but it's the team Romo plays for that's keeping him from succeeding.

You have referred to Ben Rs "clutchness" in last weeks game and Romo's meltdown against B-more in 2008.

Romo against B-More 2008. The first three quarters Romo did not play well admittedly. With only 2:51 remaining in the third and into the 4th Romo goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs and 2 TDs on three scoring drives to include a field goal. 17 points scored in the 4th quarter.

Would have been "clutch" and enough to win the game except that the defense gave up two back to back runs of 77 and 82 yards

This is not clutch?

That is why I am confused when Ben R plays terrible but makes a play or two in crunch time he gets the clutch label and if Romo plays terrible but goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs 2 TDs, a field goal in less than 18 minutes with the game on the line...you go with the Romo melted down line?

 

[birdwells1]

You have referred to Ben Rs "clutchness" in last weeks game and Romo's meltdown against B-more in 2008.

Romo against B-More 2008. The first three quarters Romo did not play well admittedly. With only 2:51 remaining in the third and into the 4th Romo goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs and 2 TDs on three scoring drives to include a field goal. 17 points scored in the 4th quarter.

Would have been "clutch" and enough to win the game except that the defense gave up two back to back runs of 77 and 82 yards

This is not clutch?

That is why I am confused when Ben R plays terrible but makes a play or two in crunch time he gets the clutch label and if Romo plays terrible but goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs 2 TDs, a field goal in less than 18 minutes with the game on the line...you go with the Romo melted down line?

Which clutch plays are you talking about the playoffs or the Super Bowl?

 

[TNCowboy]

I like Tony Romo. He's a good QB. Regardless, fans don't want to admit it, but he isn't in Roethlisberger's class.

Has Roethlisberger had better defenses playing with him? Of course. By the same token, has Roeth had the supporting cast on offense Romo has? Nope.

But the real difference is that when Roeth has had the chance to make a big play to win the most important games, he's got it done. In the playoff game in Seattle, Romo holds onto the snap, we win (or at least take the lead); or, if he gets it in the endzone, there's no FG attempt anyway. Or in the NYG game, if he plays a good 2nd half, none of us would even remember Crayton's drop. Everyone brings that up from that game but ignores or has forgotten that Romo had a wide open Miles Austin down the middle for a huge gain - and probably a TD - yet threw it 10 feet over his head.

There was probably little Romo, or any QB, could've done to avoid the debacle in Minnesota, but the fact remains that in Romo's limited playoff chances, he's mostly failed. On the other hand, trailing late in the SB, Roeth leads his team down the field to win in the final seconds on the back of some world class throws. Roethlisberger may have had more opportunities, but it's undeniable that Romo had some opportunities. And he blew them. That's not to say that Romo is totally incapable of doing what Roeth did, or that he never will. But to pretend like Roeth hasn't shown himself vastly superior in such situations is just being overly homerish, or perhaps, it's because Roeth is a Steeler, or that he's been accused of rape. Not sure, but it's really a joke to think Roeth hasn't established himself as an elite QB, and/or that Romo has.

 

[SacredStar]

Flynn played one game you honestly think he could have played that way the entire year and into the postseason leading the Packers to the SB?

Again, with that defense.....yes.

You act as if it was all Rodgers leading the Packers to the SB. Even when their coach says they would not have made the playoffs w/o the stellar play of their defense. He said nothing about Rodgers being the main reason GB made it, yet states the main reason was the defense.

 

[ringmaster]

You have referred to Ben Rs "clutchness" in last weeks game and Romo's meltdown against B-more in 2008.

Romo against B-More 2008. The first three quarters Romo did not play well admittedly. With only 2:51 remaining in the third and into the 4th Romo goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs and 2 TDs on three scoring drives to include a field goal. 17 points scored in the 4th quarter.

Would have been "clutch" and enough to win the game except that the defense gave up two back to back runs of 77 and 82 yards

This is not clutch?

That is why I am confused when Ben R plays terrible but makes a play or two in crunch time he gets the clutch label and if Romo plays terrible but goes 14 of 22 for 177 yards 0 INTs 2 TDs, a field goal in less than 18 minutes with the game on the line...you go with the Romo melted down line?

No need to explain it to him GB he's never going to get it because of his blind hatred for Romo, he really thinks Roethlisberger walks on top of water, and turns it into wine and Romo wouldn't led the Steelers nowhere near a SB because he sucks according to KJJ.

I made a typo when I responded to his ridiculous about 2005 when it was Bledsoe that was the QB, and not Romo when I was relating about the defense and Roethlisberger, would've not won a SB here in Dallas with the way the defense tanked year in and year out until that is fixed regardless who is at QB here in Dallas we will always be on the outside looking in.

But we both know that though but don't waste your time with stat boy.

 

[ringmaster]

I like Tony Romo. He's a good QB. Regardless, fans don't want to admit it, but he isn't in Roethlisberger's class.

Has Roethlisberger had better defenses playing with him? Of course. By the same token, has Roeth had the supporting cast on offense Romo has? Nope.

But the real difference is that when Roeth has had the chance to make a big play to win the most important games, he's got it done. In the playoff game in Seattle, Romo holds onto the snap, we win (or at least take the lead); or, if he gets it in the endzone, there's no FG attempt anyway. Or in the NYG game, if he plays a good 2nd half, none of us would even remember Crayton's drop. Everyone brings that up from that game but ignores or has forgotten that Romo had a wide open Miles Austin down the middle for a huge gain - and probably a TD - yet threw it 10 feet over his head.

There was probably little Romo, or any QB, could've done to avoid the debacle in Minnesota, but the fact remains that in Romo's limited playoff chances, he's mostly failed. On the other hand, trailing late in the SB, Roeth leads his team down the field to win in the final seconds on the back of some world class throws. Roethlisberger may have had more opportunities, but it's undeniable that Romo had some opportunities. And he blew them. That's not to say that Romo is totally incapable of doing what Roeth did, or that he never will. But to pretend like Roeth hasn't shown himself vastly superior in such situations is just being overly homerish, or perhaps, it's because Roeth is a Steeler, or that he's been accused of rape. Not sure, but it's really a joke to think Roeth hasn't established himself as an elite QB, and/or that Romo has.

 

[gbrittain]

Which clutch plays are you talking about the playoffs or the Super Bowl?

Sorry. I am strictly referring to last weeks game.

 

[TNCowboy]

That's Dbair for "I'm a homer, and there's really nothing to dispute what you said, yet I feel obligated to post something for some strange reason, so I'll post this ".

:laugh2:

 

[ringmaster]

Sorry. I am strictly referring to last weeks game.

They're hypocrites the ones that say that Roethlisberger is clutch and dismissing last weeks performances of Rodgers, and Roethlisberger as being an "off" day but Romo would've been hung by the balls if it was him throwing 2 ints in an NFC Championship game by the same people on this forum amazing.

 

[Stautner]

They're hypocrites the ones that say that Roethlisberger is clutch and dismissing last weeks performances of Rodgers, and Roethlisberger as being an "off" day but Romo would've been hung by the balls if it was him throwing 2 ints in an NFC Championship game by the same people on this forum amazing.

The difference is Rothesberger has a history of winning big games in the playoffs and Romo doesn't. You can't just boil it all down to one particular game of your choosing and pretend that tells the story.

 

[ringmaster]

The difference is Rothesberger has a history of winning big games in the playoffs and Romo doesn't. You can't just boil it all down to one particular game of your choosing and pretend that tells the story.

I'm not choosing one game how many SBs did Roethlisberger win again 2 right could possibly win a 3rd but it will take emphasis a team effort not an individual effort to win the big game.

I don't pretend about anything when it comes down to it most of these fans on this forum would've crucified Tony for that performance in a championship game even if his team would've won and this you know.

It's just the constant cherry picking by some of the fans that pisses me off I know what type of player Roethlisberger is what he's done in Pittsburgh he wouldn't have done it here in Dallas and I'm not talking about making plays as a QB but the defense here is nowhere near what he has with the Steelers.

 

[Stautner]

I'm not choosing one game how many SBs did Roethlisberger win again 2 right could possibly win a 3rd but it will take emphasis a team effort not an individual effort to win the big game.

I don't pretend about anything when it comes down to it most of these fans on this forum would've crucified Tony for that performance in a championship game even if his team would've won and this you know.

So, you think there is someting wrong about a QB who has 2 Super Bowls under his belt getting a little more lattitude than a QB with a poor playoff record?

I'm not sure what your point is. Why in the world would anyone think there is anything unusual or out of place about that? Of course Romo would be juded more harshly than a QB who has already acheived what he is attempting.

And of course it's a team thing and not all on one man, but that goes with the territory for the QB. If the roles were reversed and Ben had never won anything and had a poor playoff record, and Romo were the one that had won 2 Super Bowls, the Pittsburgh fans would be harder on Ben for not playing a good game in the playoffs.

 

[KJJ]

I think you are missing my point. I have never said Romo is the best or that he does not have areas that could use improvement. That would be silly.

You're missing the point the quote you're referring to was in response to another poster.

Nor as you suggest did I ever say Romo is better than Tom Brady. I am trying however to provide context and it appears to me that you do not care about context.

I never suggested you did I simply asked if you thought Romo was better than Brady.

You were dissing Brady over the Pats playoff loss.

It's pretty silly dogging Brady when he got his team to the playoffs this season and has won 3 SB's.

It's funny watching some of you dog these QB's who've led their teams farther than Romo has led the Cowboys.

It's always if Romo had their OL, defense, receivers, coaching and blah blah blah he would be just as successful.

Yes Romo and the Cowboys came up short versus the Giants. Never mind that so did Favre and Brady.

Dude, those QB's got their teams farther that year than Romo got his team and they have SB rings so why mention Romo in the same breath with 2 future HOF QB's?

The Cowboys beat the Giants twice in 07 and Green Bay once and both those teams ended up going farther than the Cowboys.

Romo dissected the Giants during the regular season.

He completed almost 63% of his passes in the first game with a passer rating of 128.5.

He completed over 71% of his passes in the second game and finished with a passer rating of 123.1.

In the game that mattered most he laid an egg completing only 50% of his passes and finished with a passer rating of 64.7.

His history shows that he does not play well in the games that matter most. His stats and results back it up!

You want to give credit Ben R for an ugly game like last week because ultimately he won and made a 3rd and 6 that helped ice the clock when they already had a lead.

Roethlisberger doesn't win pretty he just gets it done. I don't care how pretty it looks it's the final result that matters.

Too many Cowboy fans get seduced by Romo's numbers and some of the great plays he makes during the regular season but we never see those same numbers or great plays in the postseason.

How do you in the same breath downplay the comeback Romo mounted against the Ravens and just point to his ugly game, but yet when it mattered most Tony delivered except that Tony did not have the benefit of a defense that could stop McClain and McGahee for 77 and 82 yard back to back late 4th quarter runs.

I downplay it because he didn't play well early and dug the team a hole with 2 int's to Ed Reed. Those were two DUMB plays! Romo was missing throws for 3 quarters while Flacco played steady the entire game.

Once Romo got if going it was too little too late. I'm not putting all the blame on him but the fact is he didn't play well and was heavily criticized for the two poor decisions to Ed Reed that got the team off to a bad start.

If Dallas had not given up those two ridiculous runs, does that mean Romo played better? In your world yes, I suppose but I do not want to put words in your mouth.

You are putting words in mouth Romo played bad regardless of those long runs. The team was already in hole before those runs.

The defense was on the field a good portion of the game because Romo was handing out gifts to the Ravens defense and missing throws which led to several 3 and outs.

If Ben R goes 10-19 for 133 yards and 2 INTs but his defense does not force a fumble for a TD that is ultimately the difference in the game, does that mean Ben R suddenly played a bad game?

These "IF's" you keep coming up with don't mean crap. You could play the "IF" game all day it doesn't change anything . The fact is Roethlisberger got it done picking up 2 critical first downs to seal the game.

He never gave the Jets a chance with the ball in the end.

When Romo went head to head with Roethlisberger in Dec of 08 Ben kept doing what he does avoiding the rush and making plays when his team needed him to make plays.

Once he brought the Steelers back and it was now all on Romo to have to respond he responded by choking!

To me it appears you only look at the end result and not how they got there. If that is the case, there is no question Ben R is the better QB just based on W and Ls. I happen to think more goes into it than that.

It doesn't matter how you got there the end result is all that matters.

You're just one of these Romo apologists who simply looks at his regular season numbers and searches for excuses why he keeps faltering.

His regular season numbers say he's a better QB than Roethlisberger but his postseason meltdowns and ZERO SB rings say he's not even close to being the QB Roethlisberger is.

If you go strictly by regular season numbers Staubach and Aikman weren't the QB's Romo is. Roethlisberger does what's asked of him within the framework of the Steelers offense.

He can put up big numbers when he has to. In 09 he passed for 4328 yards completing 66% of his passes which was a higher completion percentage than Romo has ever completed in a "complete" season.

He tossed 27 TD's which was one more than Romo had in 09. He had 32 TD's in 07 which was only 3 TD's behind Romo's career best that same season.

Rothlisberger's had games where he's thrown for 386, 387, 398 and 503 yards which was only 51 yards behind the all time NFL record so he can be just as productive as Romo if called upon.

You can think what you want and make all the excuses you want for why Romo doesn't get it done but until he gets the Cowboys as far as some of these other QB's have gotten their teams and is able to make the great plays they do in critical situations he's not at their level.

 

[ringmaster]

So, you think there is someting wrong about a QB who has 2 Super Bowls under his belt getting a little more lattitude than a QB with a poor playoff record?

I'm not sure what your point is. Why in the world would anyone think there is anything unusual or out of place about that? Of course Romo would be juded more harshly than a QB who has already acheived what he is attempting.

And of course it's a team thing and not all on one man, but that goes with the territory for the QB. If the roles were reversed and Ben had never won anything and had a poor playoff record, and Romo were the one that had won 2 Super Bowls, the Pittsburgh fans would be harder on Ben for not playing a good game in the playoffs.

As obvious Stautner you're missing my point too.