Skins Fans starting to see the light: Romo vs JC

[Tusan_Homichi]

If he can consistently put up good numbers (as opposed to great then horrid numbers), then he'd scare me. But, as of right now, you just don't know which Romo your going to get game to game.

You do realize that even in the supposedly "horrid" last part of the season, he still put up a high 70s QB rating? He really is pretty damn good...

 

[firehawk350]

Even in Romo bad games he gets the team in a position to win.

You can say that about a lot of QBs. The fact is that most games are decided by 7 or fewer points, so just about any QB gets their team in a position to win.

 

[Vintage]

If he can consistently put up good numbers (as opposed to great then horrid numbers), then he'd scare me. But, as of right now, you just don't know which Romo your going to get game to game.

Good against Carolina
Good against Arizona
Good against Washington
Good against Indi
Good against Tampa
Stuggled against NY
Struggled against N.O.
Good against Atlanta
Poor against Philly
Pretty solid against Detroit
Good again; against NY

Of his 11 starts; the Philly game and the N.O. game were bad. Against the Giants where he struggled, he came back and had a nice second half.

 

[Doomsday101]

You can say that about a lot of QBs. The fact is that most games are decided by 7 or fewer points, so just about any QB gets their team in a position to win.

I disagree. I see many QB's who fall apart and who do not get their teams back in position to win after getting off to a bad start. You may have question about Romo I don't I think this guy is the real deal and is has shown great leadership on this team. He has the skill to make every throw out their and a coolness to handle the pressure. You can doubt all you want I don't.

 

[firehawk350]

This is pretty silly. Take the average of Romo's five worst games and it is probably the same or better than the average of Campbell's five best games.

Romo has never put up horrid numbers. Has he had lesser games. Absolutely as all qb's do.

We know which Romo we're going to get. He had a qb rating of 95 last year after playing in ten starts.

That's absurd. He had 4 games in the 40s/50s QB rating. Every other game (excepting 2 or 3) were in the 100s. Like I said, great games and bad games. He knows no middle ground.

 

[1fisher]

If he can consistently put up good numbers (as opposed to great then horrid numbers), then he'd scare me. But, as of right now, you just don't know which Romo your going to get game to game.

Which game was "horrid"?

 

[superpunk]

It's cute seeing firehawk try to convince himself that Campbell (who would kill to just be "mediocre" at this point, or even be able to string together a few mediocre performances) is going to possibly be a good QB.

 

[Vintage]

Which game was "horrid"?

Philly and New Orleans come to mind.

And the Giants at NY, he had a bad first half, but rebounded with a solid second half to lead us to victory.

Other than that, he has been good.

As for "mediocre games.." Seattle; Detroit come to mind. Seattle was a road playoff game. Detroit, he made some careless mistakes.

With Romo, you get a bunch of great games, a few good/mediocre ones, and a couple bad games.

 

[1fisher]

Philly and New Orleans come to mind.

And the Giants at NY, he had a bad first half, but rebounded with a solid second half to lead us to victory.

Other than that, he has been good.

As for "mediocre games.." Seattle; Detroit come to mind. Seattle was a road playoff game. Detroit, he made some careless mistakes.

With Romo, you get a bunch of great games, a few good/mediocre ones, and a couple bad games.

You gotta give Philly and NO defense credit.... they were no pushovers

 

[firehawk350]

Good against Carolina
Good against Arizona
Good against Washington
Good against Indi
Good against Tampa
Stuggled against NY
Struggled against N.O.
Good against Atlanta
Poor against Philly
Pretty solid against Detroit
Good again; against NY

Of his 11 starts; the Philly game and the N.O. game were bad. Against the Giants where he struggled, he came back and had a nice second half.

We debated this all during the offseason, Romo struggles with consistency. He's just not consistent. Most QBs play within 10 points of their average QB rating a good 80% of the time (just a guess). Romo only had 3 games within that bracket.

 

[firehawk350]

It's cute seeing firehawk try to convince himself that Campbell (who would kill to just be "mediocre" at this point, or even be able to string together a few mediocre performances) is going to possibly be a good QB.

That's ******** superpunk, but I guess asking you to make a meaningful contribution to the conversation is like asking a baby not to cry. It may happen, but it's just a coincidence if it does.

 

[1fisher]

That's ******** superpunk, but I guess asking you to make a meaningful contribution to the conversation is like asking a baby not to cry. It may happen, but it's just a coincidence if it does.

Where's 5Stars?:laugh2:

 

[superpunk]

Most QBs play within 10 points of their average QB rating a good 80% of the time (just a guess).

96% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Seriously -you don't think your positions through at all, or do any research.

Last year Carson Palmer had QB ratings of 52, 79, 69, and 63 while he posted a 93 rating for the year. He had 4 games where he was over 10 points higher than his average, for a total of 50% of his games falling outside the range you specified.

Tom Brady posted an 86 average, and had games where he posted ratings of 79, 58, 102, 107, 97, 108, 55, 128, 34, 115, 112, and 74 - that's 12 out of 16 games where he wasn't within your specified range.

Peyton Manning had 11 of his 16 games fall outside that range, including lows of 71, 61, 68, 80 and 79.

Looks like Tony Romo is just your average NFL Superstar QB.

That is, if we use your criteria, which I'm sure you'll feebly attempt to qualify.

EDIT: And these percentages were done by me reading your position as - The QB would be within his average rating in EITHER direction, which makes them more generous than what you actually said.

i.e. your criteria means that Tony Romo's individual game ratings would have had to range from 90-100. I did 85-105.

That's ******** superpunk, but I guess asking you to make a meaningful contribution to the conversation is like asking a baby not to cry. It may happen, but it's just a coincidence if it does.

I guess you would rather me just yank moronic statements out of my behind.

Like....I don't know.....you?

 

[Idgit]

We debated this all during the offseason, Romo struggles with consistency. He's just not consistent. Most QBs play within 10 points of their average QB rating a good 80% of the time (just a guess). Romo only had 3 games within that bracket.

Well, as long as you're just guessing, it's hard to find fault with your analysis.
Are you saying that Romo's generally not within 10 points of an average QB rating 80% of the time, or not withing 10 points of his own average rating 80% of the time? It's a huge difference since those two rating numbers are so very different.

But, hey, if consisitently mediocre is a plus to you, by all means, revel in your current situation. We're all very happy for you.

 

[riggo]

It looks to me like all of Brown's 34 receptions in 2004 came from Campbell.

no, but close

Anyway, I watched most of the games, so I feel like I know what I am talking about.

sort of :

 

[kmd24]

Most QBs play within 10 points of their average QB rating a good 80% of the time (just a guess).

You clearly do not understand how QB ratings work. This is no indictment of a QB.

In 11 starts, Romo had only 3 games with a rating below 85. By comparison, Peyton Manning had 8 of 20 starts with a rating below 85.

This is just crap. I challenge you to find one full time starter that meets this criterion.

 

[LowTech]

firehawk350 = owned

 

[5Stars]

Where's 5Stars?:laugh2:

Right here! Just listening in...:laugh2:

Actually, I absoutely love Campbell as the RedStinks QB...I absoutely love it! They deserve him...I hope Campbell stays there for ALONG TIME...yes I do!!

 

[firehawk350]

Yeah, your right, I did just make up that statistic (like I said). It's wrong, but I said I didn't do any research, so it's going to be wrong. You have the time to do research, good job. Okay, let's look at it this way. Romo had 4 games below 60 which is 35 points from his average, which in turn works out to be 36% of the time, he played WELL below his average.

Manning had 3 games that fall that far below his average (19% of the time). Brady had two games that far below his average (13%), Palmer had 1 game (6%). These QBs, while they are the cream of the crop, don't struggle with consistency nearly as much as Romo does.

Using the examples you gave, Romo has about twice as many games where he struggles as does any other QB. Of course, that means he has to counterbalance them with equally better games as his bad games, so like I said, he knows no middle ground.

 

[gbrittain]

Romo has had:

1 game in the 40s QB Rating
2 games in the 50s QB Rating
1 game in the 70s QB Rating
3 games in the 80s QB Rating
6 games in the 100s QB Rating

Campbell has had:
3 games in the 50s QB Rating
1 game in the 70s QB Rating
2 games in the 80s QB Rating
2 games in th 90s QB Rating


Romo still has to prove that he can consistently be a Pro Bowl caliber QB.

Campbell still has to prove that he can consistently be an average QB.

Both still have a lot of proving to do, but right now what each of them is trying to prove is totally different.

Things can change. Thirteen games and eight games do not make a career, but right now these QBs are playing at entirely different levels from each other.