Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning?

[percyhoward]

Romo's Game Ratings: Dallas W-L Record
Below Avg Game (85.0 or lower): W 6 L 13 (playoffs: W 0 L 2 )
Team winning % when Romo is below average: .316 (.000 in playoffs)

Roethlisberger's Game Ratings: Pittsburgh W-L Record
Below Avg Game (85.0 or lower): W 24 L 21 (playoffs: W 4 L 2 )
Team winning % when Roethlisberger is below average: .533 (.667 in playoffs)

Very few times has the rest of the team bailed Romo out of a bad game. When he's had a below-average rating for a game, Dallas has won a total of 6 games in the 6 seasons that Romo has been a starter.

With Roethlisberger, it's a different story. The Steelers have won 24 of his below-average games--more than they have lost.

Same with the games in which the QB is flat out awful. When Romo's rating is 60 or lower, the Cowboys are 2-7 (.222).

When Roethlisberger's rating is 60 or lower, the Steelers are 7-10 (.412), including 3-0 in the playoffs.

 

[gbrittain]

Roethlisbergers int's didn't come when the game was on the line like Romo's does. Ben's int's didn't put his team in an early hole like the heaves Romo gift wrapped for Ed Reed against the Ravens in 08.

You're dogging Rothlisberger and he just led his team to the SB. :laugh2: He's got 2 SB rings so let's all make excuses why he succeeds and our QB doesn't.

I'm sure it will make us all feel better about Romo. LOL

Romo tossed a pick late against the Steelers in 08 that sealed the Cowboys fate. He had 4 turnovers in that game 3 int's and a fumble. A total MELTDOWN!

While he was melting down Roethlisberger was making play after play with our defense hanging all over him.

Romo had a chance to beat the Giants in the closing seconds in the 07 playoffs but the game ended with a pick in the endzone.

Dude stay on topic. I am not dogging Ben R at all. What I am doing is illustrating your double standard. I think very highly of Ben R the player not so much Ben R the person though, but that is not the topic of debate here.

Again, back on topic. Ben R threw two bad INTs, just like Romo did. Romo came through in the end just like Ben R did. The difference Pitt played D and Dallas D did not.

You can only focus on Romo and take nothing else into account. That is your short coming not mine.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Romo's Game Ratings: Dallas W-L Record
Below Avg Game (85.0 or lower): W 6 L 13 (playoffs: W 0 L 2 )
Team winning % when Romo is below average: .316 (.000 in playoffs)

Roethlisberger's Game Ratings: Pittsburgh W-L Record
Below Avg Game (85.0 or lower): W 24 L 21 (playoffs: W 4 L 2 )
Team winning % when Roethlisberger is below average: .533 (.667 in playoffs)

Very few times has the rest of the team bailed Romo out of a bad game. When he's had a below-average rating for a game, Dallas has won a total of 6 games in the 6 seasons that Romo has been a starter.

With Roethlisberger, it's a different story. The Steelers have won 24 of his below-average games--more than they have lost.

Same with the games in which the QB is flat out awful. When Romo's rating is 60 or lower, the Cowboys are 2-7 (.222).

When Roethlisberger's rating is 60 or lower, the Steelers are 7-10 (.412), including 3-0 in the playoffs.

Thanks Percy, for yet another refreshing dose of statistically and factually driven perspective.

 

[CATCH17]

If Sanchez played for Pitt a Ben played for the Jets I think Sanchez is still playing.

I like Big Ben as a player. He makes timely plays.

But this guy isn't that great of a QB.

Give Romo Pitts defense and we have 2 or 3 rings also.

 

[KJJ]

Roethlisbergers defense hides his ineptness. I can't believe some of you don't see that.

That pick Ben threw Sunday was a great example.

Just a complete impulse throw and his defense just got him the ball back.


Rodgers > Romo

Big Ben < Romo

Yeah Big Ben really looks inept in crunch time making plays to win big games but you'd rather have Romo flinging it around in those situations right?

We all hate the Steelers but c'mon dude get real you're dogging Roethlisberger for an impulse throw and Romo has made a career out of them. :laugh2:

 

[KJJ]

Dude stay on topic. I am not dogging Ben R at all. What I am doing is illustrating your double standard. I think very highly of Ben R the player not so much Ben R the person though, but that is not the topic of debate here.

Again, back on topic. Ben R threw two bad INTs, just like Romo did. Romo came through in the end just like Ben R did. The difference Pitt played D and Dallas D did not.

You can only focus on Romo and take nothing else into account. That is your short coming not mine.

You're dogging Roethlisberger and all the guy does is make great plays in critical situations to win games.

He makes plays to win games and you spin it that he's being bailed out by his defense like he's some stiff. :laugh2:

He kept his defense off the field in the final couple of minutes Sunday by securing the win with 2 big first down throws. Did you forget that or can you not bring yourself to give the guy some credit?

He may be a Steeler and a rapist but I'm judging him strictly on his ability to play QB.

I didn't see his #1 defense bail him out 2 years ago in the SB when Kurt Warner carved up his #1 defense for 377 yards and 3 TD's.

He ended up bailing out his defense that had been shredded all day by driving his team up the field and throwing the winning TD pass in the final seconds.

I hate the Steelers as much as anyone those 2 SB losses from the the 70's still sting but I can at least put my hatred aside and respect how outstanding a big game QB Roethlisberger is.

You have fans here making excuses why he has rings and Romo doesn't.

If that was Romo making plays to save that game on Sunday you wouldn't have fans saying Romo got bailed out and dogging his play after icing the game with 2 huge 3rd down conversions.

Your short coming is you can't put your bias aside and look at these two QB's OBJECTIVELY. Roethlisberger is an OUTSTANDING big game QB who finds ways to win not ways to lose!

 

[gbrittain]

You're dogging Roethlisberger and all the guy does is make great plays in critical situations to win games.

He makes plays to win games and you spin it that he's being bailed out by his defense like he's some stiff. :laugh2:

He kept his defense off the field in the final couple of minutes Sunday by securing the win with 2 big first down throws. Did you forget that or can you not bring yourself to give the guy some credit?

He may be a Steeler and a rapist but I'm judging him strictly on his ability to play QB.

I didn't see his defense bail him out 2 years ago in the SB when Kurt Warner carved up his #1 defense for 377 yards and 3 TD's.

He ended up bailing out his #1 defense by driving his team up the field and throwing the winning TD pass in the final seconds.

I hate the Steelers as much as anyone those 2 SB losses from the the 70's still sting but I can at least put my hatred aside and respect how outstanding a big game QB Roethlisberger is.

You have fans here making excuses why he has rings and Romo doesn't.

If that was Romo making plays to save that game on Sunday you wouldn't have fans saying Romo got bailed out and dogging his play after icing the game with 2 huge 3rd down conversions.

Your short coming is you can't put your bias aside and look at these two QB's OBJECTIVELY. Roethlisberger is an OUTSTANDING big game QB who finds ways to win not ways to lose!

Haha LOL...never said he sucked. Never said he was a stiff. Just tried to illustrate that he has benefited from a great defense.

Does not make him bad or mean he is not good, just simply pointing out that when he plays bad he has a great defense to bail him out, but keep on saying I said he sucks...if that makes you sleep better at night.

Never said he did not play a good game against Arizona, I did point out though that a 100 yard TD might have helped...

In my words not you putting words in my mouth: Ben R is a very good QB. Has accomplished great things. Future HOFer.

In my words: If Romo had the benefit of a great D to bail him out when he less than stellar kind of like Ben R last week, Romo's rep would be much different than it is.

Can you not acknowledge the greatness of the Pitt D and that when you have a D like that your QB benefits greatly???

It is really that simple. I can't believe it is that hard to understand.

Just like I believe Emmitt Smith benefited greatly from having a great OL. Does not make him any less of RB because he had tools that others did not.

Jerry Rice had Joe Montana. Rice is still great.

But to put blinders on and not acknowledge the SIGNIFICANT impact that a better supporting cast has is just ludicrous.

I am ok with Ben R winning ugly games. Does not mean he is bad or anything else. But can you acknowledge you are more likely to win a "ugly" game when your defense is playing quite well? Conversely when another player has an ugly game but no defense to bail him out...the odds are bit more stacked against the player whose supporting cast was not there to pick up the slack?

I mean really...am I saying anything earth shattering here?

 

[Hoofbite]

How is this thread still going?

 

[CATCH17]

Yeah Big Ben really looks inept in crunch time making plays to win big games but you'd rather have Romo flinging it around in those situations right?

We all hate the Steelers but c'mon dude get real you're dogging Roethlisberger for an impulse throw and Romo has made a career out of them. :laugh2:

No in clutch situations I would rather have Big Ben.

But football is played for 4 quarters and if I don't have an absolutely incredible defense I would take the bigger Playmaker which is Romo.

He is a better passer than Big Ben and that's all there is to it.

 

[KJJ]

Haha LOL...never said he sucked. Never said he was a stiff. Just tried to illustrate that he has benefited from a great defense.

Does not make him bad or mean he is not good, just simply pointing out that when he plays bad he has a great defense to bail him out, but keep on saying I said he sucks...if that makes you sleep better at night.

I never accused you of saying he sucks or that he's a stiff but you make it sound he's a Trent Dilfer being carried by his defense. LOL

Of course he gets help from his defense and but they get help from him too by him making plays and keeping drives alive that keep his defense off the field.

Can you not see that?

Never said he did not play a good game against Arizona, I did point out though that a 100 yard TD might have helped..

That was just another knock on Roethlisberger to avoid having to give him any credit. He bailed out his #1 defense after Fitzgerald burned the Steelers for a 64 yard TD with only 2:37 left in the game.

The Steelers defense got abused all day by Warner and it was all on Roethlisbergers shoulders to bring his team back and he did it in Joe Montana fashion.

Go back to that drive and look at how many sacks he avoided to extend plays and keep that drive alive to win the game.

Ben R is a very good QB. Has accomplished great things. Future HOFer.

Man, that must have really killed you to type those words. Better take a knee. :laugh2:

If Romo had the benefit of a great D to bail him out when he less than stellar kind of like Ben R last week, Romo's rep would be much different than it is.

When Romo is less than stellar it sometimes can lead to a train wreck.

How do you bail out a QB who turns the ball over 3-4 times putting your team in a huge hole?

Romo's turnovers are usually very costly because they've come at very inopportune times. Some have cost us points and gave the opposition a short field.

Romo's had a number of strip sacks and several redzone picks. Roethlisbergers doesn't turn the ball over as much as Romo and his turnovers usually don't come at critical stages in games.

Ben only had 5 int's during the regular season. He has had a number of fumbles because he hasn't had good pass protecting OL's and because he holds the ball too long.

He has his faults but he rarely makes mistakes that costs his team games.

Romo's reputation wouldn't be any different behind Roethlisbergers OL I can assure you of that.

God only knows all the fumbles he would have behind that OL. LOL Romo would not be able to withstand the punishment Ben has taken.

Can you not acknowledge the greatness of the Pitt D and that when you have a D like that your QB benefits greatly???

I acknowledge the Steelers have a great defense and it does benefit a QB greatly but in this era winning a SB usually always comes down to your QB's ability to make plays in critical situations.

The Steelers had the #1 defense in 08 but their season came down to Roethlisberger having to win the game. It came down to him having to win the game against the Cowboys that year.

As good as some of these defenses are it's hard to stop teams every week especially lethal passing attacks.

Nothing can give a great defense more fits than a QB with a quick release and weapons on the outside. The 86 Bears lost one game that season not being able to stop Dan Marino.

It is really that simple. I can't believe it is that hard to understand.

I understand perfectly but you refuse to see things for what they are because your Cowboy bias won't allow it.

Just like I believe Emmitt Smith benefited greatly from having a great OL. Does not make him any less of RB because he had tools that others did not.

Roethlisberger doesn't have a great OL he has to side step defenders and run around to make plays.

The Steelers OL lost Pouncey on Sunday who I hear is going to try and play in the SB on a high ankle sprain.

The Steelers managed to get to one of their 8 SB's with an average QB and that turned out to be the only SB they lost.

Safe to say Neil O'Donnell's two gifts to Larry Brown late in that game is the main reason they lost that SB.

But to put blinders on and not acknowledge the SIGNIFICANT impact that a better supporting cast has is just ludicrous.

I don't wear blinders. The Steelers have a great defense but there isn't much around Roethlisberger on offense except for his RB's.

His receiving corp isn't anything special and his OL gets him beat up.

Ben had his nose broken several weeks ago. The Packers and Steelers combined didn't have as many pro bowlers as the Cowboys in 07.

Romo is the main reason that team sputtered out I'm convinced of it.

That was an excellent football team for 13 weeks and Romo's Dec swoon sucked the life right out of that team but at least he enjoyed himself in Cabo.

That trip just prior to the playoffs with Jessica Simpson showed where his priorities were that season.

I've never heard of a QB heading to resort city just prior to the biggest game of the year.

You think he could have waited until the team accomplished their goal. He had the entire freaking offseason to go to Cabo.

This is just part of why Romo gets dumped on. If he ends up never getting a ring this will all be rehashed.

But can you acknowledge you are more likely to win a "ugly" game when your defense is playing quite well?

True, but it's hard to win even in an ugly fashion if your QB is melting down turning the ball over 4 times.

Hard for any defense to overcome turnovers that lead to points for the other team. This is what happened to the Jets against NE during the regular season.

Conversely when another player has an ugly game but no defense to bail him out...the odds are bit more stacked against the player whose supporting cast was not there to pick up the slack?

When Romo has an ugly game it's UGLY! No defense can bail you out when your QB is suffering a complete and total meltdown.

Go see if you can find some games where Roethlisberger turned the ball over 4 times and see how the Steelers D stood up to that.

 

[Q_the_man]

It doesn't matter what I believe, but obviously McCarthy believes the defense was the main reason.

Of course Rodgers had something to with their success, never said he didn't, but he didn't have as much to do with it as the defense did, or as much as you imply.

That defense literally shut down every offense it faced...every single one. Every game they lost was by 4 points or less. Several games they won were because of turnovers forced by the defense, many of those turnovers were scores by the defense.

If the defense didn't get those turnovers, the team loses, no matter how well Rodgers played.

A turnover ended the playoff game in Philadelphia, the defense shut down Matt Ryan, a turnover ended the comeback by the Bears in a playoff game, plus a pick six pick by Raji put the Packers in the lead for good. Turnovers saved many games for the Packers this season, w/o them, and that defense, GB is not in the Super Bowl, or even the playoffs.

What don't you understand about that? :bang2:

what about all the turnovers, against the 49ers in the playoffs or the Bills in the Super Bowl or when we played the Steelers in the SB, does that take away from Aikman..

Rodgers is a great QB, and as of now he has had 3 real good seasons and is only 27, is he better than Romo, yes.

 

[KJJ]

No in clutch situations I would rather have Big Ben.

But football is played for 4 quarters and if I don't have an absolutely incredible defense I would take the bigger Playmaker which is Romo.

He is a better passer than Big Ben and that's all there is to it.

Warren Moon was a better passer than Roethlisberger how many SB wins did that get him? Romo doesn't have the arm that Roethlisberger has. Ben can do some things that Romo can't.

Some QB's have certain intangibles that make them great players.

Ben isn't in a pass happy offense but he's had some huge passing days. I mentioned his 503 yard game in 09.

Roethlisberger is a lot more steady than Romo especially in crunch games.

Romo is an impulse throwing gunslinger who doesn't make the plays in the postseason that he does during the regular season.

Roethlisberger can make plays without a stellar OL or great weapons at WR. Eventually clutch situations are going to arise where your QB is going to have to make some plays for your team to advance.

Romo has kind of a Cutler type demeanor when things aren't going well.

There's just something about his body language that doesn't say LEADER.

Everyone has their own perception or opinion of Romo but I have serious doubts about his ability to lead the Cowboys to a championship based off what I've seen from him in big meaningful games.

I'm hoping for the best like all Cowboys fans are he's a very good QB but he seems to lack certain intangibles that great QB's have.

 

[percyhoward]

Thanks Percy, for yet another refreshing dose of statistically and factually driven perspective.

Using the teams' winning percentages, you can actually shrink the Steelers' years of Roethlisberger's below-average games, and the Cowboys' years of Romo's below-average games down to one average (bad) regular season.

Based on results of the below-average games from both QB's careers so far, if both of them played 16 such games, the Cowboys would be 5-11 and the Steelers would be 9-7.

It should be noted that Roethlisberger has "bailed out" his defenses and running games about as often as Romo has bailed out his (at about that same 9-7 rate). The difference is that Romo's defenses and/or running games hardly ever reciprocate.

The six games when Romo was 85.0 or below and we won? Two games against the Skins, the famous Monday night in Buffalo (there's three bad offenses), 08 at Green Bay (when their run D was awful), and 06 in the Meadowlands (Romo threw a couple of picks, Barber averaged 6 ypc and scored a couple of times).

In most of those games, we all remember that Romo provided some late-game heroics--just like Roethlisberger is known for. In fact, over both players' regular season careers, there's no question who has been more clutch. Romo in "late & close" situations has a 101.5 rating, Big Ben's is 86.2. But the point about those six "below average" games is, Romo (like any other QB who's played poorly in a game that's still in reach) OWED his team those late-game heroics because of the way he'd performed up until that time.

 

[DFWJC]

I don't know for sure how would rate them vs each other, but I have always consider both Roethlisberger and Romo to be clutch players.

Ben's obviously stand out more because he has a had a couple fo nice clutch drives in either Super Bowls or AFC title games. You have to tip your hat to that.

But Tony has had so many late game heroics that I don't know how some can still say he is not clutch.

I guess either way you could cherry pick, but overall, they both are more clutch than not.

 

[Stautner]

I don't know for sure how would rate them vs each other, but I have always consider both Roethlisberger and Romo to be clutch players.

Ben's obviously stand out more because he has a had a couple fo nice clutch drives in either Super Bowls or AFC title games. You have to tip your hat to that.

But Tony has had so many late game heroics that I don't know how some can still say he is not clutch.

I guess either way you could cherry pick, but overall, they both are more clutch than not.

Tony will always fall behind in rankings until he performs those heroics in the most meaningful games. Doing it against the Skins in September just isn't going to hold up compared to doing it in the playoffs or Super Bowl.

And face it guys, we would hold other QB's to that same standard. It's not unique to Romo. Fans, media, players and coaches all have a similar standard, and it's kind of laughable that some Cowboy fans take it as uncommon when it comes to Romo.

 

[percyhoward]

Whatever the reasons people have to attribute team success to the quarterback position indiscriminately, I think it's worth pausing for a moment to imagine what this team could accomplish if it had a winning record in Romo's bad games.

It would be worth 1-2 more wins per regular season, for one thing. That affects playoff seedings and turns road playoff games to home games. Even gives your QB a chance to get away with a bad playoff game.

I haven't even mentioned the W/L when the QB's have good games. The Cowboys' record is 34-11 when Romo has a rating above 85. The Steelers are 55-11 in Big Ben's >85 games, which is a winning percentage that would give Dallas one more win per season. (And remember, since Romo's career rating is 3 points higher than Roethlisberger's, the difference in team winning percentage can't be explained by saying that Roethlisberger's bad games aren't as bad as Romo's, or that his good games are better. On average, it's Romo that's better.)

Those 2-3 more wins per regular season, and the extra playoff win every couple of seasons is the difference between a good team and a great one.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Whatever the reasons people have to attribute team success to the quarterback position indiscriminately, I think it's worth pausing for a moment to imagine what this team could accomplish if it had a winning record in Romo's bad games.

It would be worth 1-2 more wins per regular season, for one thing. That affects playoff seedings and turns road playoff games to home games. Even gives your QB a chance to get away with a bad playoff game.

I haven't even mentioned the W/L when the QB's have good games. The Cowboys' record is 34-11 when Romo has a rating above 85. The Steelers are 55-11 in Big Ben's >85 games, which is a winning percentage that would give Dallas one more win per season. (And remember, since Romo's career rating is 3 points higher than Roethlisberger's, the difference in team winning percentage can't be explained by saying that Roethlisberger's bad games aren't as bad as Romo's, or that his good games are better. On average, it's Romo that's better.)

Those 2-3 more wins per regular season, and the extra playoff win every couple of seasons is the difference between a good team and a great one.

:starspin
Seriously though.

Thats a great way of breaking it down. In those 3.5 years with Romo as our starter, the team's success has rode strictly on his performance.

He wasn't allowed to have a bad game because then we didn't stand a chance. No catalytic plays by the defense, no help from the special teams in terms of starting field position, making clutch field goals, and failing to score any TDs to help out the offense sometime (ditto for the defense).

It's all relative. I always tell my friend thats a Giants fan, if we traded Romo for Eli Dallas would be under .500 each year and the Giants would be a dominant force in the NFC.

Give this man a consistent pocket, a solid running running game, no stupid penalties, less drops from the WRs, a game changing defense, and decent special teams play - and this team will go far.

 

[KJJ]

I don't know for sure how would rate them vs each other, but I have always consider both Roethlisberger and Romo to be clutch players.

Ben's obviously stand out more because he has a had a couple fo nice clutch drives in either Super Bowls or AFC title games. You have to tip your hat to that.

But Tony has had so many late game heroics that I don't know how some can still say he is not clutch.

I guess either way you could cherry pick, but overall, they both are more clutch than not.

You're missing the point Romo's had some clutch games during the "regular season" the argument is he's not clutch in playoff type games.

He had a clutch performance against a bad Detroit team in 07 connecting with Witten in the final seconds to pull that one out.

Pulling one out like that against a 2-14 team isn't going to define a QB's career.

Had it come in a playoff game we wouldn't be having this argument. Roethlisberger has been clutch in playoff games and in a SB there's a difference!

The 49ers would have never won the titles they did if it wasn't for some of the clutch big game performances of Joe Montana.

His legend wasn't built by driving his team the length of the field in the final seconds to pull out wins over a couple of crap teams in week 3 and week 8.

Romo has yet to prove he can make plays in critical situations during a postseason game when his team is facing adversity.

He was doing a great job of driving the Cowboys down the field against Seattle during the playoffs in 06 but all anyone remembers is his fumbled snap that sealed the Cowboys fate.

I'm not saying he can't get it done when it really matters but until he does it when the Cowboys season is on the line he'll always have a lot of doubters.

McNabb won a lot of games for Philly and got them farther than Romo has ever gotten the Cowboys but he couldn't lead them to a championship and they finally gave up on him.

The Cowboys aren't going to be giving up on Romo anytime soon but if the team keeps coming up short every year they will look in another direction eventually.

It's not going to be easy finding a QB who can play as well as Romo is capable of playing but he'll ultimately be judged by how far he gets the team.

Romo has a leadership role he's the QB and will receive most of the blame if the Cowboys never win a SB with him.

Naturally if that happens his apologists will gush over his regular season numbers and point the finger of blame at the team around him for why he never got a ring.

 

[percyhoward]

It's all relative. I always tell my friend thats a Giants fan, if we traded Romo for Eli Dallas would be under .500 each year and the Giants would be a dominant force in the NFC.

Giants went 4-3 this past season, and are 26-29 (.473) when Eli is below an 85 rating since his first full season as a starter. So not quite what the Steelers do for Roethlisberger, but still a far cry from what Romo gets.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Giants went 4-3 this past season, and are 26-29 (.473) when Eli is below an 85 rating since his first full season as a starter. So not quite what the Steelers do for Roethlisberger, but still a far cry from what Romo gets.

Thats a lot of games with a below average rating in the first place.

Taking into consideration draft position and initial expectations - fans and the media sure do expect a lot out of this undrafted guy that's consistently kept this team competitive and brought us up from mediocrity.

People like you make this board very visitable, if that makes any sense. Opinions only go so far, evidence, data, etc - can be practically applied to the game and make some opinions more ignorant/uninformed than others.