Since NFL network has Luck in the top tier above Romo, a comparison!

[cowboys2233]

Nobody is saying Romo is a bad QB. I personally think Romo is 1 of the best but I don't see why posters here are deciding to undervalue Andrew Luck?

Don't switch this around. I was simply responding to those who feel compelled to say that Luck is better than Romo, or that they would take Luck over Romo. I didn't undervalue Luck, others are undervaluing Romo. Don't get confused.

You know that Romo was in the league for at least a couple of season's before he started right?

Gotcha. So his great numbers in his first season as a starter don't really mean much, because he was holding a clipboard for several years prior. Gotcha. But the fact that Luck is doing this as a three-year starter is way more impressive. Gotcha.

Poster's are waiting for the Steelers to hang 51 points on the Colts to start saying the guy is over hyped? Guess the kid needs to play defense also to prove he's not over hyped.

Why not? Everyone has been extremely quick to cast blame on Romo, when it has clearly been the defense's weaknesses that have hurt this team in the recent past. Listen, if you want to fawn all over Andrew Luck, be my guest. Shame though, you've got a really good quarterback in Dallas, who is clearly playing better than Luck this year.

 

[cowboys2233]

This year is changing my perception of him. He is finally looking like he might be elite to me.

Way to go -- you're about five years too late.

 

[tyke1doe]

In the same sense, I hate when our own fans go out of their own way just to knock down Romo. I mean it's not like Romo dons the star right? Our fans knock Romo more then any other fan base, so it's nice to see Romo getting some love.

I don't think your fans knock Romo more than any other team knocks their quarterback. You're just more sensitive to it because we're here on a Cowboys message board. And on a Cowboys message board who are we supposed to talk about? Jay Cutler, who is getting hammered because of his propensity to make mistakes. Heck even his receiver called him out. Donovan McNabb got WAY more criticism from Philly fans than Romo gets from Cowboys fans. And we'll not even mention Rex Grossman, Michael Vick, Eli Manning (until he started winning Super Bowls), Sam Bradford, Geno Smith, JaMarcus Russell, E.J. Manuel, Matt Cassell and many others.

We talk about Romo because Romo is the quarterback of our favorite team, a team that has spoiled its fan base by winning Super Bowls. I don't see why fans get upset that the franchises has set a standard that we have grown accustomed to, and we react according to that expectation.

 

[AKATheRake]

Then I guess that makes Romo one outright?

FootballOutsiders....Dallas offense rank 3rd, Indy rank 8th...Aikman ratings...Dallas 3rd....Indy 8th...NFL yardage: Indy 1st...Dallas 3rd...

Romo is moving the ball a tad more dramatically than Luck at 8.4 y/att versus 7.9.


Years with >30 TD passes:

Romo: '07 [36], '11 [31] '13 [31]

Luck : NONE


Years with passer rating below 90:

Romo: None

Luck: '12 [76.5], '13 [87]


Years with yards/att greater than 8:

Romo: '06 [8.6], '07 [8.1], '09 [8.2], '11 [8.0], '14 [8.4]

Luck: None


4,000+ yard seasons:

Romo: 4

Luck: 1

Luck will certainly exceed Romo in yards and TD passes (and likely INT's as well) because he is averaging 43.9 att/game...more than Romo's heaviest season [2012], where he averaged 40.5 att/game and had the dismal passer rating to show for it in the end. Currently, Romo is at his lowest att/game as a full season starter (30.6).

Bradshaw has a 4.8 yd/att average as a rusher...they are team rushing at 4 yds/att...I would not classify that as pedestrian. They are simply putting the game more fully in the hands of Luck, evidenced by his average att/ per game [43.9]. Last year he averaged 37.1. They are clearly asking the guy to carry the team more than he did last year.

I'll guarantee no HC in the league is utilizing those sources more than the outright simple ones.

Romo has been in the league for 12 years, Luck 3 and we're going to do a career comparison on stats? Lol!

But you are correct in the passing attempts statistics and Luck has had a better than 2:1 TD to INT ratio. The Colts want to run, they're just mediocre at it. So Luck has to pass and does so on many 3rd and longs.

Romo has the better offensive personnel around him and I'm so happy he does. It's not all on Romo for once as it mostly has been. It's pretty much on Luck.

All I know is these are the facts offensively for the Indianapolis Colts.

They are #1 in yardage, #1 in passing, #2 in scoring, #13 in rushing yardage, #4 in rushing attempts and # 1 in total time of possession.

It's not their offensive line, their running backs or that they have a top 10 defense that's giving them those stats.

It's Andrew Luck moving the chains offensively and keeping his defense off the field that is doing that.

The kid is on pace to have 5,500 passing yards, 45 TD's passing, 4 TD's running and 18 INT's this season.

The kid has brought his team to the playoffs the last 2 years and probably is going to do so this year to. That means he has always been in the playoffs every year of his career.

When looking at those numbers and the kids 2 1/2 year history I don't know of many other QB's starting their careers off like that. He's taken the worst team in the league and gotten them in the playoffs every year as a pro.

Spin moves or not, those are the facts.

We're talking about an elite talent that is rare. The media is not over hyping the kid. The personnel pro's, current players and ex players are not over hyping the kid.

It's not the kid's fault Romo was bashed through the media throughout the years. The media really has no room to bash Luck.

 

[cowboys2233]

I don't think your fans knock Romo more than any other team knocks their quarterback. You're just more sensitive to it because we're here on a Cowboys message board. And on a Cowboys message board who are we supposed to talk about? Jay Cutler, who is getting hammered because of his propensity to make mistakes. Heck even his receiver called him out. Donovan McNabb got WAY more criticism from Philly fans than Romo gets from Cowboys fans. And we'll not even mention Rex Grossman, Michael Vick, Eli Manning (until he started winning Super Bowls), Sam Bradford, Geno Smith, JaMarcus Russell, E.J. Manuel, Matt Cassell and many others.

We talk about Romo because Romo is the quarterback of our favorite team, a team that has spoiled its fan base by winning Super Bowls. I don't see why fans get upset that the franchises has set a standard that we have grown accustomed to, and we react according to that expectation.

Because anyone who criticizes Romo is just showing how incredibly ignorant they are and how little they know about the game of football. Ignorance and stupidity aggravate me.

 

[AKATheRake]

Don't switch this around. I was simply responding to those who feel compelled to say that Luck is better than Romo, or that they would take Luck over Romo. I didn't undervalue Luck, others are undervaluing Romo. Don't get confused.



Gotcha. So his great numbers in his first season as a starter don't really mean much, because he was holding a clipboard for several years prior. Gotcha. But the fact that Luck is doing this as a three-year starter is way more impressive. Gotcha.



Why not? Everyone has been extremely quick to cast blame on Romo, when it has clearly been the defense's weaknesses that have hurt this team in the recent past. Listen, if you want to fawn all over Andrew Luck, be my guest. Shame though, you've got a really good quarterback in Dallas, who is clearly playing better than Luck this year.

ROlmao! That's all I can say in response to your response of my post.

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course anyone would take Luck only because he's younger. But we're talking right now. I'd take Romo. He's on a hot streak and on top of his game. Stats prove it and also his play on the field.

I like Romo as our quarterback. But I believe if you switched teams and put Romo or the Colts and Luck on the Cowboys, the Cowboys would be 6-1 (possibly 7-0), and the Colts would be probably where they are. The Colts receivers aren't better than the Cowboys' receivers. Luck put T.Y. Hilton on the map. And he elevated the Colts without Reggie Wayne. His running backs aren't better than Murray. Trent Richardson hasn't seen a second-defender tackle he couldn't break. Bradshaw is versatile. But he couldn't carry Murray's jock. And Luck brought the Colts back against the Chiefs in the playoffs.

Youth really has nothing to do with it. Luck, for the most part, is carrying his team despite getting minimal help in the running game. Romo is better because of the running game.

Oh, Romo is good. Very good. But if you put Luck on the current Cowboys, they wouldn't lose a beat.

 

[tyke1doe]

Because anyone who criticizes Romo is just showing how incredibly ignorant they are and how little they know about the game of football. Ignorance and stupidity aggravate me.

Is it criticizing Romo to acknowledge that another quarterback may be better than he?

 

[EST_1986]

you are a blind mentally deficient homer is you would pick Romo over Luck. Romo is an excellent QB but Luck is a different tier and only in year 3.

 

[cowboys2233]

you are a blind mentally deficient homer is you would pick Romo over Luck. Romo is an excellent QB but Luck is a different tier and only in year 3.

Look at you, using the word "tier" just like ESPN did! You are a sheep. You only know how to parrot what somebody else said. Yes, Luck is in a different tier -- he has a 90+ QB rating, while Romo has a 100+ QB rating.

 

[cowboys2233]

Is it criticizing Romo to acknowledge that another quarterback may be better than he?

Yes, when it flies in the face of all statistical data, common sense and the eyeball test, yes. It is insulting -- maybe not to Romo, but to me. Again, ignorance aggravates me.

 

[mahoneybill]

Yeah, I agree...I didn't mean to wax psychotic on the numbers, but it is always funny to throw facts in the face of subjective, biased opinion. I rather enjoy that type of thing. Yes, Luck is da man for the future but the man behind center in Dallas is getting it done...the numbers don't lie.

What that elite business really means (to a degree) is how long you can carry your team while throwing the ball 40 - 50 times, or more [Brees has hit 57 this year] every Sunday. Can you play chuck-ball while limiting mistakes...

Romo started at a 95.1 passer rating...it has taken until the 3rd season for Luck to breach 90 [100.5 currently] he started with a rating of 76.5, then 87 last year...he does seem to have a higher ceiling than Romo, which one would hope, given that he was drafted in the first round.

Very hard for the mediots to come off of their " Romo Rant"... Great point on the first round choice. For a non drafted QB Tony has done quite well. Sure no rings, but that's not all playing the position is about.

 

[EST_1986]

Look at you, using the word "tier" just like ESPN did! You are a sheep. You only know how to parrot what somebody else said. Yes, Luck is in a different tier -- he has a 90+ QB rating, while Romo has a 100+ QB rating.

How about stratosphere? Whatever you call it Luck is beyond Romo. Wow you quoted QB rating like that means ****. Luck is a better QB. Im not anti-Romo Im just not ********.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes, when it flies in the face of all statistical data, common sense and the eyeball test, yes. It is insulting -- maybe not to Romo, but to me. Again, ignorance aggravates me.

I see a few problems with your perspective, though.

1. All statistics are not equal. People tend to quote numbers outside of a context. For example, people will look at quarterback stats and use them as proof. But quarterback stats aren't amassed in a vacuum. The play of the offensive line, the caliber of receivers, your offensive philosophy, the time in the game when passing stats are accrued, etc., all play a factor in stats. But many people just look at stats without analyzing these other factors. And, I often say, if it's just a matter of stats, then Vinny Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe should be candidates for the Hall of Fame because they've passed for more yardage than many of the Hall of Famer quarterbacks.

2. What is common sense in this case? What is the common sense that says Romo is a better quarterback than Luck? Common sense is a quality that is universally recognized. It's common sense not to go outside buck-naked in sub-zero temperatures. It's common sense not to pick a fight with Jon "Bones" Jones with nothing other than your fist. But if there's a spirited debate on who is better between Romo and Luck, how can that be common sense?

3. The eyeball test. I think both Romo and Luck pass the eyeball test. But even then, what does that mean? I like to see Romo execute a spin move. He does it better than any other quarterback. I also like to see Luck intensely leading his team down the field.

I think you're taking this a little too personally, and that's just it. These are personal decisions. Some elevate one factor. Some evaluate other factors. And when most experts, who've played the game of football, would choose Luck over Romo, they all can't be lacking common sense and ignoring the eyeball test and statistical data.

 

[cowboys2233]

I see a few problems with your perspective, though.

1. All statistics are not equal. People tend to quote numbers outside of a context. For example, people will look at quarterback stats and use them as proof. But quarterback stats aren't amassed in a vacuum. The play of the offensive line, the caliber of receivers, your offensive philosophy, the time in the game when passing stats are accrued, etc., all play a factor in stats. But many people just look at stats without analyzing these other factors. And, I often say, if it's just a matter of stats, then Vinny Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe should be candidates for the Hall of Fame because they've passed for more yardage than many of the Hall of Famer quarterbacks.

That's the funny thing about a QB rating, it takes a whole bunch of data into account. But yes, keep using the weakest of those stats ("passing yardage") as your key argument. Yes, quarterback stats aren't amassed in vacuum...but apparently your personal opinion is. Luck is better than Romo...just because. You're right, much better argument.

2. What is common sense in this case? What is the common sense that says Romo is a better quarterback than Luck? Common sense is a quality that is universally recognized. It's common sense not to go outside buck-naked in sub-zero temperatures. It's common sense not to pick a fight with Jon "Bones" Jones with nothing other than your fist. But if there's a spirited debate on who is better between Romo and Luck, how can that be common sense?

Are you suggesting that all people have common sense? What the hey? I think that is a strike against you in the common sense department. No, not everyone has common sense. I thought that was a given. If I need to come up with, oh, a billion examples of where someone didn't use common sense, I'd be happy to. Josh Brent, despite the fact that drinking and driving is universally recognized as a bad thing, did it anyway.

I think you're taking this a little too personally, and that's just it. These are personal decisions. Some elevate one factor. Some evaluate other factors.

No, you're taking it too personally. You ignore statistics, win-loss records, etc. and have simply decided that Luck is a better QB.

And when most experts, who've played the game of football, would choose Luck over Romo, they all can't be lacking common sense and ignoring the eyeball test and statistical data.

Why not? Is Donovan McNabb (who played the game of football) using common sense when he comes up with his Power Rankings? McNabb wouldn't know what to do with data if it was handed to him on a silver platter. And guess what? Most experts thought the Cowboys were going to be terrible this year. But hey, let's ignore all that and buy into whatever they say, hook, line and sinker because hey, someone tagged them with the term "expert."

 

[ConstantReboot]

I like Romo as our quarterback. But I believe if you switched teams and put Romo or the Colts and Luck on the Cowboys, the Cowboys would be 6-1 (possibly 7-0), and the Colts would be probably where they are. The Colts receivers aren't better than the Cowboys' receivers. Luck put T.Y. Hilton on the map. And he elevated the Colts without Reggie Wayne. His running backs aren't better than Murray. Trent Richardson hasn't seen a second-defender tackle he couldn't break. Bradshaw is versatile. But he couldn't carry Murray's jock. And Luck brought the Colts back against the Chiefs in the playoffs.

Youth really has nothing to do with it. Luck, for the most part, is carrying his team despite getting minimal help in the running game. Romo is better because of the running game.

Oh, Romo is good. Very good. But if you put Luck on the current Cowboys, they wouldn't lose a beat.

I don't think I was arguing that Luck WASN'T a good QB. I think he's elite. I don't see there is a drop off with either Luck or Romo. Just some people put him up so high in a pedestal as though he was God.

Like I mentioned before Romo can carry this team and has done so before. Those Romo detractors make it so that Romo ALWAYS had a supporting cast. This is really his first year in having one.

Agree though that we would not miss a beat if we had Luck. Romo and Luck are very good QBs and there really isn't a BIG difference IMO.

 

[Biggems]

You're just a hater. </sarcasm>

man this haterade is so delicious........love the groovy grape flavor. LOL

 

[tyke1doe]

That's the funny thing about a QB rating, it takes a whole bunch of data into account. But yes, keep using the weakest of those stats ("passing yardage") as your key argument. Yes, quarterback stats aren't amassed in vacuum...but apparently your personal opinion is. Luck is better than Romo...just because. You're right, much better argument.

Taking a whole bunch of data into account doesn't mean taking all data into account.
Second, when you're dealing with human behavior and human components, it's not always accurate. Besides, caliber of receivers IS NOT taken into account with QB rating. You can't really measure that.
Third, where did I say that Luck is better than Romo? Are you creating arguments to convenient knock down? That's called a strawman. I did say I don't think the Cowboys would miss a beat if you switched the two for this particular team.

Are you suggesting that all people have common sense? What the hey? I think that is a strike against you in the common sense department. No, not everyone has common sense. I thought that was a given. If I need to come up with, oh, a billion examples of where someone didn't use common sense, I'd be happy to. Josh Brent, despite the fact that drinking and driving is universally recognized as a bad thing, did it anyway.

Uh, saying something is universally recognized is not the same as saying everyone agrees on a particular topic. Mentally handicapped people wouldn't. Crazy people wouldn't. But universally recognized means something holds true in all corners of the universe. Do I really had to explain this to you?

No, you're taking it too personally. You ignore statistics, win-loss records, etc. and have simply decided that Luck is a better QB.

That's not the definition of taking something personally. Your being upset is taking something personally. I really don't care whether you think Romo is better than Luck, and I don't care if another person thinks Luck is better than Romo. Nice try, though.

Why not? Is Donovan McNabb (who played the game of football) using common sense when he comes up with his Power Rankings? McNabb wouldn't know what to do with data if it was handed to him on a silver platter. And guess what? Most experts thought the Cowboys were going to be terrible this year. But hey, let's ignore all that and buy into whatever they say, hook, line and sinker because hey, someone tagged them with the term "expert."

Interestingly you only mention McNabb. Is McNabb considered "most"? And you lectured me about "common sense."
I don't know what McNabb's position on the issue is, but I'm pretty sure if he believes Luck is better than Romo, he's not out of the mainstream.
As to the prediction, predictions are just that, predictions. Most experts also had Dallas not making the playoffs in the previous years too while homer Cowboys fans were predicting they'd get to the playoffs the previous three years. Yeah, so much for the objective abilities of homers. .
Be that as it may, you're getting all worked up over the fact that people think Luck is better than Romo. In the grand scheme of things, it's only an opinion and nothing to lose sleep over.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't think I was arguing that Luck WASN'T a good QB. I think he's elite. I don't see there is a drop off with either Luck or Romo. Just some people put him up so high in a pedestal as though he was God.

Like I mentioned before Romo can carry this team and has done so before. Those Romo detractors make it so that Romo ALWAYS had a supporting cast. This is really his first year in having one.

Agree though that we would not miss a beat if we had Luck. Romo and Luck are very good QBs and there really isn't a BIG difference IMO.

Good post.