Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning?

[Trendnet]

Phil Simms was a pretty damned good QB aside from the Super Bowl. Timmy Smith never did much of anything outside of the Super Bowl, and Larry Brown was never more than a solid DB outside of the Super Bowl.



Did anyone actually say "clutchness" was the only factor in determining how good or great a QB is, or is this just more of the typical distortion we see in threads like this.

I don't know that anyone has said "clutchness" is the only factor, just that it's a big factor that needs to be considered along with stats and consistency and other factors. We all know there are some players that have shown a knack for making key plays at key moments in key games - Staubach, Elway, Brady and others.

While that may be true in that no one has directly said it... but it was most certainly implied.

What's the difference between Romo and Roethlisberger again?

oh yea...

It's been the same with Romo and the Cowboys but Romo can't make the critical plays in big games that Roethlisberger has been able to make.

Which is of course absurd...

What's the difference between two quaterbacks who scramble out of pressure and then make a perfect throw that can seal the game?

Nothing really.

But if one quaterbacks WR makes a nice catch, and the other drops the pass...

you get comments like the one quoted.

Clutch? Whatevers.

 

[gbrittain]

While that may be true in that no one has directly said it... but it was most certainly implied.

What's the difference between Romo and Roethlisberger again?

oh yea...



Which is of course absurd...

What's the difference between two quaterbacks who scramble out of pressure and then make a perfect throw that can seal the game?

Nothing really.

But if one quaterbacks WR makes a nice catch, and the other drops the pass...

you get comments like the one quoted.

Clutch? Whatevers.

Besides, if we really want to define measure point to clutch, I am much more willing to look at someone like Troy Aikman than say Ben R.

Troy Aikman regular season QB rating 81.6 in the playoffs 88.3

Joe Montana regular season QB rating 92.3 in the playoffs 95.6

Kurt Warner regular season QB rating 93.7 in the playoffs 102.8

Terry Bradshaw regular season QB rating 70.9 in the playoffs 83.0

Bart Starr regular season QB rating 84.6 in the playoffs 104.8

I think if I wish to waste anymore of my time discussing "Clutch", I will reserve that for the QBs who really did elevate their game in the playoffs as opposed to Ben R and Tony Romo.

Tony Romo regular season QB rating 95.5 in the playoffs 80.8

Ben R regular season QB rating 92.5 in the playoffs 85.4.

 

[birdwells1]

Besides, if we really want to define measure point to clutch, I am much more willing to look at someone like Troy Aikman than say Ben R.

Troy Aikman regular season QB rating 81.6 in the playoffs 88.3

Joe Montana regular season QB rating 92.3 in the playoffs 95.6

Kurt Warner regular season QB rating 93.7 in the playoffs 102.8

Terry Bradshaw regular season QB rating 70.9 in the playoffs 83.0

Bart Starr regular season QB rating 84.6 in the playoffs 104.8

I think if I wish to waste anymore of my time discussing "Clutch", I will reserve that for the QBs who really did elevate their game in the playoffs as opposed to Ben R and Tony Romo.

Tony Romo regular season QB rating 95.5 in the playoffs 80.8

Ben R regular season QB rating 92.5 in the playoffs 85.4.

Of that list I only consider Bradshaw, Montana, and Ben R as clutch (didn't see Starr play). First let me clarify about Aikman, he was a great QB but clutch not so much. If I gave you 1 play to define one these players you would choose a play that would be considered "clutch". Montana, "the catch"
or the SB winning pass to Taylor. Bradshaw, the pass to Swann in the middle of the field. Ben R, the pass to Holmes in the SB for the game winning TD.

Michael Jordan, Montana, and Robert Horry reputations are built on not what they did in the regular season but what they did, when it mattered most, in the Championships. If it weren't for those moments then Montana would be Fouts and Jordan would be Dominique Wilkins but in those pressure packed moments they were at their best. When those moment have happened for Ben R, when his team needed him the most he was and is at his best.

 

[percyhoward]

It's pretty silly trying to compare Romo with a QB who's won 10 playoff games including 2 SB's and is about to make his 3rd SB appearance.

The main reason for this disparity has very little to do with the QB's, and very much to do with the teams.

I understand that some turnovers are worse than others, but low passer ratings give you a better idea of any particular passing performance because they show not just the interceptions (negative plays), but also the fact that the QB is not making positive plays. Low completion %, low yardage totals, low TD totals--all lower your odds of winning a game. That's why passer rating usually has as high or higher correlation to winning than turnover ratio.

It's also why Rothlisberger's low completion % against the Jets last week doesn't exactly make up for his two interceptions. 35.5 is awful. Somebody earlier tried to blame the 35.5 on the weather, but Sanchez had over a 100 rating in the same game. The Steelers just shut down the Jets' running game. If you're talking about QB's--and we are--which QB played well enough (from start to finish) to "lead" his team to the Super Bowl in that game: Roethlisberger or Sanchez?

And it's the third time in his playoff career that his team has WON when he's had that type of game. You'd rather look at turnovers. Pittsburgh lost the turnover battle in all three games as well. Those three games are aberrations, but in the case of the Steeler defense, these aberrations are the norm!

I've already shown how passer ratings can be deceiving by the number of average QB's who have career passer ratings higher than some HOF QB's.

You're not adjusting for era. That's why they're "deceiving."

Ignore this:
Career Passer Rating
Romo 95.5
Roethlisberger 92.5
Staubach 83.4

Focus on this:
Yearly Rank in Passer Rating (Avg)
Staubach 1st, 1st, 13th, 6th, 6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st (4th)
Romo 5th, 5th, 8th, 8th (6th)
Roethlisberger 5th, 3rd, 21st, 2nd, 24th, 5th, 5th (8th)

The problem isn't in the passer rating, it's in the way you were looking at it. Passer rating is one of the best stats out there.

You went on about how Brees won a SB with a 20th ranked defense in 2009. That defense was 3rd in defensive passer rating. You pointed out that Romo should have been able to do more in 2009 with his 2nd ranked defense. That defense was 16th in defensive passer rating.

This year's two Super Bowl teams finished the season ranked 1st and 2nd in defensive passer rating. They got to the Super Bowl by beating the teams that finished 3rd and 6th in defensive passer rating.

Thinking Romo could get it done if he were on another team probably makes some fans feel better about him.

Nobody cares how "thinking about it" makes them feel, but I guarantee you there are many who wonder about whether it's true. And there are ways to figure it out.

Could Romo win with the Steelers?

Let's assume he'd have more bad games (below 85 rating) than he does with Dallas. Let's assume he'd have as many bad games as Roethlisberger does. You see that the Steelers are 24-21 in Ben's bad games. There's no reason to believe that record would be any different in Romo's bad games. And there's no reason to believe that wouldn't include the playoffs.

Because it certainly does for Roethlisberger.

 

[Stautner]

While that may be true in that no one has directly said it... but it was most certainly implied.

What's the difference between Romo and Roethlisberger again?

oh yea...



Which is of course absurd...

What's the difference between two quaterbacks who scramble out of pressure and then make a perfect throw that can seal the game?

Nothing really.

But if one quaterbacks WR makes a nice catch, and the other drops the pass...

you get comments like the one quoted.

Clutch? Whatevers.

No they haven't implied it. Saying that "clutchness" is the difference between them is no way the same as saying nothing Romo has done matters because he hasn't won anything in the playoffs. It's simply saying that you can make a case for both QB's, but the "clutchness" (not my word) puts Roetlesberger ahead.

You may disagre with that reasoning, but it's certainly more logical reasoning than jumping to the conclusion that anyone here is saying Romos stats are meaningless in a QB discussion.

I don't think anyone here would say Trent Dilfer or Rich Gannon were better QB's than Romo because they won a Super Bowl, or that Rex Grossman or Matt Hasselback are better QB's than Romo because they have been to a Super Bowl.

 

[percyhoward]

Phil Simms was a pretty damned good QB aside from the Super Bowl. Timmy Smith never did much of anything outside of the Super Bowl, and Larry Brown was never more than a solid DB outside of the Super Bowl.

Simms was good. He went to two Pro Bowls. He wasn't elite. IOW, he wouldn't be in any HOF discussions.

He almost certainly would have been the winning QB in two Super Bowls if he hadn't gotten injured one year. Would that have put him into a HOF discussion?

For me, absolutely not.

 

[percyhoward]

It's my understanding "clutchness" makes the player.

Irrespective of anything else, basically.

 

[Trendnet]

If I gave you 1 play to define one these players you would choose a play that would be considered "clutch". Montana, "the catch"
or the SB winning pass to Taylor. Bradshaw, the pass to Swann in the middle of the field. Ben R, the pass to Holmes in the SB for the game winning TD.

And all great catches by the receivers on what was desperation throws.

As opposed to basketball... quarterbacks 'clutchness' is usually defined by other plays actions.

Clutch is overrated.

 

[TNCowboy]

I think if I wish to waste anymore of my time discussing "Clutch", I will reserve that for the QBs who really did elevate their game in the playoffs as opposed to Ben R and Tony Romo.

Tony Romo regular season QB rating 95.5 in the playoffs 80.8

Ben R regular season QB rating 92.5 in the playoffs 85.4.

Using QB rating to make any point like this is absurd. Roethlisberger plays in bad weather against teams like the Ravens, Chargers, and Pats in the playoffs. The guys makes plays when the chips are all on the table. Just like last weekend. He gets hurt, he's playing against a great defense, yet he was the most dominant player on the field. When his team's lead was shrinking in the 4th, he put the game away.

Stat geeks have no other ammo against Ben R than his QB rating? :laugh2: They certainly won't be able to use his W/L record against him. It reminds me of Patrick Roy chiding Jeremy Roenich when they were verbally sparring in the Stanley Cup playoffs in the 90s, something like "Tell Jeremy I couldn't hear him. My stanley cup rings were plugging my ears."

Using Romo's qb rating is foolish as well. One bad game would make his #s bad from that perspective. A more appropriate look at TR is that he's had a chance to step it up in a couple of close games and failed.

 

[percyhoward]

Using QB rating to make any point like this is absurd. Roethlisberger plays in bad weather against teams like the Ravens, Chargers, and Pats in the playoffs. The guys makes plays when the chips are all on the table. Just like last weekend. He gets hurt, he's playing against a great defense, yet he was the most dominant player on the field.

The chips were on the table from the opening kickoff and he laid a 35.5 egg in a playoff game.

 

[Stautner]

Simms was good. He went to two Pro Bowls. He wasn't elite. IOW, he wouldn't be in any HOF discussions.

He almost certainly would have been the winning QB in two Super Bowls if he hadn't gotten injured one year. Would that have put him into a HOF discussion?

For me, absolutely not.

Elite is a word to use sparingly, and I don't know that I would use it with Simms, but his stats are very comparable with Aikman's, so had gotten a 2nd Super Bowl victory I think he would have had to get strong consideration for the HOF.

Of course, being HOF worthy was never the point anyway. We were just talking about ranking players, and I was pointing out that the guy who lumped Simms in with Timmy Smith and Larry Brown was using a bogus comparison because Simms status is based on much more than a single Super Bowl performance.

 

[KJJ]

You didn't see any pictures of Brady, Elway, Warner, Favre, Aikman, Montana, Staubach, or Bradshaw (who developed into an elite QB after the first two SB wins). Those were just some of the elite QB's who won Super Bowls with top 5 defenses.

And Phil Simms' out-of-this-world performance in a Super Bowl didn't make him an elite quarterback any more than Timmy Smith or Larry Brown were elite at their positions.

You didn't picture all those other QB's because most of them put up big numbers and are Hall of Famers.

Lumping in Phil Simms who was a good QB and had a decent career with a couple of one game wonders like Timmy Smith and Larry Brown is ridiculous!

You'll lose all credibility here you keep that up.

I don't even agree with putting Eli amongst Dilfer, McMahon and Brad Johnson. Eli makes a lot of mistakes like Romo but he's still a good QB.

He's coming off back to back 4000 yard seasons. He tossed 31 TD's this past season.

He's had some outstanding games during his career and a few have come against the Cowboys where he outplayed Romo.

Eli is 6-4 against Romo including a playoff win against him.

Eli was apart of one of the greatest game winning drives in SB history.

Eli played well throughout the playoffs in 07 totally outperforming Romo who you've been defending in this thread. LOL

Eli helped win that SB for the Giants in the end with some clutch plays. The game was on his shoulders in the end and he came through.

If you go back earlier that season when Eli was repeatedly turning the ball over and wasn't playing well the Giants struggled. Their D gave up 41 points to the Cowboys on opening day.

The Giants made the playoffs as a wildcard. Eli had 6 TD's and only one turnover throughout the playoffs and SB.

In 07 the Giants defense was ranked 7th so that wasn't the 86 Bears D.

Heck the Cowboys defense was ranked 9th in 07 but that's not stopping a few of you from claiming Romo gets no help from his defense.

His defense doesn't get any help from him because of all his ill timed turnovers. Romo's had defenses the Cowboys could win SB's with if only he played well in the BIG games and stopped turning the ball over.

When Romo plays his best football the defense rises to the occasion.

Just go back to last 3 games of the 09 season and the playoff game against Philly the defense was playing lights out and there wasn't a team in the entire NFL playing any better than the Cowboys.

Romo was brilliant during those games.

The 09 season came crashing down and Romo was a big part of the reason with his 3 turnovers in Minn. He reverted right back to making mistakes.

When he starts turning the ball over multiple times it sucks the life out of the entire team.

 

[gbrittain]

His defense doesn't get any help from him because of all his ill timed turnovers. Romo's had defenses the Cowboys could win SB's with if only he played well in the BIG games and stopped turning the ball over.

You want to talk about Percy losing credibility and then you post the above???

Romo had zero turnovers in the Seattle game.

Romo had 1 turnover in the NY Giant game (last offensive play of the game).

Romo had 0 turnovers in Philly game.

Romo had 1 INT and two fumbles in the Minnesota game.

In the Minnesota game the INT led to a Minnesota punt. One fumble turned into a FG in the 2nd and the other fumble led to a FG in the 4th.

So in four games his four turnovers have led directly to a grand total of 6 points.

Ben Rs fumble against the Ravens in the first quarter led to the Ravens scoring a TD and taking a 14-7 lead in the first quarter.

So in one game alone THIS YEAR Ben R put his team in a worse hole to start a game than Romo ever has.

Just keep making stuff up...

 

[KJJ]

I'm saying football is a team sport and if you put another HOF QB on the 90's Cowboys you're still getting a Superbowl.

If that snubs Aikman somehow than so be it.

22 was the reason for the seasons anyways.

There's HOF QB's who were inducted strictly off their regular season numbers.

The Cowboys would have never won a SB in the 90's with a Warren Moon or a Fran Tarkenton just to name a couple of Hall of Famers.

Tarkenton SUCKED in his 3 SB appearances. In the SB against the Steelers in 74 Tarkenton only completed 42% of his passes for 102 yards and finished the game with a passer rating of 14.1.

The previous year against Miami in the SB he tossed 3 int's and only passed for 182 yards.

In the SB against the Raiders in 76 he turned the ball over twice including a pick 6. He only passed for 205 yards and finished the game with a 52.7 passer rating.

If they had a HOF for postseason play he wouldn't have received a single a vote. In those 3 SB years Tarkenton had 14 int's during the postseason and never threw for more than 222 yards in a game.

Troy Aikman was a clutch player who played his best football in the big games.

Aikman's career numbers aren't close to Tarkenton's but his SB numbers would blow Tarkentons away.

The offense may have revolved around Emmitt and the running game during the 90's but Aikman was clutch and played his best games in the games that mattered most and not all HOF QB's were capable of that.

They were HOF QB's during the regular season not the postseason. When it mattered most they folded!

You're just a typical armchair fan who thinks you could stick any talented QB on a great team and you'll get the same result.

The fact you think Romo is a better QB than Roethlisberger shows where your heads at. LOL

 

[KJJ]

You want to talk about Percy losing credibility and then you post the above???

Are you telling me the Cowboys defense wasn't capable of winning the SB the way that unit was performing the final few games of the 09 season?

The Cowboys defense was ranked 9th that season and was playing better than its ranking the final few games.

The Cowboys had back to back shutouts to close out the regular season.

Spencer had come on and Jenkins was playing at a pro bowl level.

The Saints defense was ranked 25th that season and ended up winning the SB. LOL

You think Romo helps his defense by turning the ball over 3-4 times? I've given example after example of what happens to great defensive teams when their QB is suffering a meltdown.

Romo had zero turnovers in the Seattle game.

He had 2 fumbles against Seattle that the Cowboys got back and one of them cost us the game....NEXT!

Romo had 1 turnover in the NY Giant game (last offensive play of the game).

Right, and it sealed the game for the Giants. It proved what we've been arguing in this thread that he's not clutch....NEXT!

Romo had 0 turnovers in Philly game.

The Cowboys had that game from the start. Romo never faced any adversity the entire day or had to be clutch in the closing seconds it was an easy game. The Cowboys owned Philly in 09.

In the season finale in 08 in a do or die game against Philly Romo turned the ball over 3 times when facing adversity.

He coughed up a fumble that was returned 96 yards for a TD when the Cowboys were on the verge of scoring.

Romo had 1 INT and two fumbles in the Minnesota game.

In the Minnesota game the INT led to a Minnesota punt. One fumble turned into a FG in the 2nd and the other fumble led to a FG in the 4th.

Each one of his 3 turnovers got our offense off the field and put our defense back on the field. Each turnover gave the Vikings momentum and it led to some points.

While they were kicking a couple of FG's off those turnovers the Cowboys could have been converting those possessions into points had they not given the ball up.

So in four games his four turnovers have led directly to a grand total of 6 points.

Right just blow his turnovers off like they didn't cost the team. Romo's pick in the endzone against the Giants sealed the game for them. That could have been a game winning drive and you're acting like it didn't affect anything.

You're saying he didn't have a turnover against Seattle when his fumbled snap ended up costing the Cowboys the game.

If Romo was on trial and you were part of his defense team he'd be done with the crap you're presenting. :laugh2:

Ben Rs fumble against the Ravens in the first quarter led to the Ravens scoring a TD and taking a 14-7 lead in the first quarter.

So in one game alone THIS YEAR Ben R put his team in a worse hole to start a game than Romo ever has.

Yeah, Roethlisberger has really put his team in a hole he has them in position to win their 3rd SB with him at QB.

You've just lost more credibility than Percy. LOL

Just keep making stuff up...

Right! Keep pretending Roethlisberger is killing the Steelers and that Romo is the better QB eventually maybe even you'll start to believe that. :laugh2:

 

[KJJ]

Which is of course absurd...

If it's absurd then point out the clutch plays Romo had made in BIG games in critical situations?

What's the difference between two quaterbacks who scramble out of pressure and then make a perfect throw that can seal the game?

The difference is one has proven he can do it in huge postseason games and the other one has only proven he can do it against crap teams during the regular season.

But if one quaterbacks WR makes a nice catch, and the other drops the pass...

Here's a new spin we haven't seen now Roethlisbergers receivers are bailing him out.

 

[CATCH17]

Lol who cares about Frank Tarkenton?

You're trying to paint a black and white picture in a gray discussion.

Big Ben is good... But the guy isn't good enough to will his team to victory without that defense.


I do think Romo is better. I think Rodgers is better. I think Aikman is better. I think Warren Moon is better.

He's got a team that can carry him. All he has to do is drive the bus.

He's a good player but put him in Cincy and let's see how many titles he wins and let's see him out produce a Romo who plays for Seattle.

No way could he do it.

What seperates Romo and Big Ben is better coaching + the 21 guys surrounding them.

Dude completed 10 passes against the Jets and 3 passes in the 2nd half.

He can do that and win there. Romo can't. If he could we would be New England South.

 

[KJJ]

Lol who cares about Frank Tarkenton?

You're trying to paint a black and white picture in a grey discussion.

Frank Tarkenton? Boy you really are lost! :laugh2: You said the 90's Cowboys would have been okay without Aikman just bring in another HOF QB.

You completely slighted Aikman's contributions to those great teams.

Some HOF QB's weren't as accurate or as clutch as Aikman and Takenton who you obviously never heard of (lol) and Moon were 2 QB's who weren't.

Big Ben is good... But the guy isn't good enough to will his team to victory without that defense.

He did it in the SB after his defense got thrashed all day and gave up the go ahead TD on a 64 yard play with just over 2 minutes to play. LOL

I do think Romo is better. I think Rodgers is better. I think Aikman is better. I think Warren Moon is better.

After some of the comments you've made who cares what you think. You can't find anything that supports your opinion. You're bias!

He's got a team that can carry him. All he has to do is drive the bus.

Bottom line is you don't like Roethlisberger and are totally incapable of judging his game objectively.

You've made some ridiculous comments during this discussion which makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.

Some fans are very clued up on this board and some don't have the slightest idea and you fall right smack in that category.

 

[birdwells1]

And all great catches by the receivers on what was desperation throws.

As opposed to basketball... quarterbacks 'clutchness' is usually defined by other plays actions.

Clutch is overrated.

:bang2:

 

[gbrittain]

Are you telling me the Cowboys defense wasn't capable of winning the SB the way that unit was performing the final few games of the 09 season?

The way they played in the regular season yes. The way the ended the season at Minnesota...NO, NO and NO. You already don't think highly of Favre and he put up 4 TDs on us.

The Cowboys defense was ranked 9th that season and was playing better than its ranking the final few games.

The Cowboys had back to back shutouts to close out the regular season.

This is relevant to the Minnesota game how?

You think Romo helps his defense by turning the ball over 3-4 times? I've given example after example of what happens to great defensive teams when their QB is suffering a meltdown.

I have yet to see a turnover that was beneficial. Unlinke Ben Rs "clutch" fumble for a TD against B-More two weeks ago or Ben Rs two INTs last week.

The Saints defense was ranked 25th that season and ended up winning the SB. LOL

Hilarious. Not sure what the point is though. In yardage they were 25th. In points allowed they were 13th. LOL at stats don't mean jack until you want to use them to make a point. Haha LOL consistency try it one day.

Right, and it sealed the game for the Giants. It proved what we've been arguing in this thread that he's not clutch....NEXT!

You said ALL his turnovers were putting the defense in the "hole" There were 9 seconds remaining when he committed his first turnover of the game and Dallas was already losing at that point. We had less points than the Giants at that point...OUR defense had put Romo in the HOLE evidently because Romo had zero turnovers up until then...:laugh2:

The Cowboys had that game from the start. Romo never faced any adversity the entire day or had to be clutch in the closing seconds it was an easy game. The Cowboys owned Philly in 09.

I will send Romo a memo to stink up the game from the beginning so he can come back to save the day at the end. Kind of like he did in the B-More game, but maybe he will get lucky and the defense won't screw up his clutchness. Another example of you agenda pushing. He did EXPERIENCE adversity...did do enough to come back and win but the DEFENSE screwed it all up. Again try some consistency, it will do you a world of good.

Right just blow his turnovers off like they didn't cost the team. Romo's pick in the endzone against the Giants sealed the game for them. That could have been a game winning drive and you're acting like it didn't affect anything.

Again truth problem on your end. I never said it did not have an effect. You said his turnovers were putting the defense in the hole and that is why Dallas can't win. As I already mentioned they were ALREADY losing...his turnover did not put the defense in a hole. DO YOU REALLY NOT COMPREHEND THAT OR ARE YOU JUST BEING DIFFICULT???

You're saying he didn't have a turnover against Seattle when his fumbled snap ended up costing the Cowboys the game.

I am talking about our QB not our field goal holder and again...his fumble did not put the Dallas defense in a "hole". We were already losing and it was at the very end of the game. Looks like our defense had put Romo in a hole.

If Romo was on trial and you were part of his defense team he'd be done with the crap you're presenting

First of all, I am convinced you are Ben Rs lawyer. Fortunately we are not in a court of law because you would be charged with perjury.

Yeah, Roethlisberger has really put his team in a hole he has them in position to win their 3rd SB with him at QB.

You've just lost more credibility than Percy. LOL

Percy has already schooled you. Percy's typos have more credibility than your best thought out post to date. So you talking about credibility...well you have none.

Right! Keep pretending Roethlisberger is killing the Steelers and that Romo is the better QB eventually maybe even you'll start to believe that.

Another problem with the Truth KJJ. Never said Ben R was killing the Steelers. I did say I wish Romo had a defense like Ben Rs to bail him out like Ben R has when he is not up to par.