The absurd underrating of Tony Romo just hit a new low

[DallasEast]

We are still in basic agreement.

You are right about the number of Pro Bowl invitations while taken alone. I was not saying that the number of invites should be solely determinative and I never used a word like "hinges." I was being illustrative, not determinative or exhaustive - I was simply trying to illustrate the point that the Pro Bowl does count in player evaluations as one standard among many more. I used a player with many Pro Bowls as a stronger example of player success vis-a-vis Pro Bowl invitations, that's all.

Let's put that mutual understanding to the test, shall we? The following illustrates the years which Hall of Fame bound Will Shields and Tony Romo have played side-by-side:

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/RomoShieldsCareers.png

The blue shaded years are each player's Pro Bowl seasons. In terms of Pro Bowl selections, there is zero doubt that Shields' 14-year career was much more successful than Romo's has been at this point in time. This has been your point of contention.

Fine. No disagreement there. However, let's look at bit closer at both careers.

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/RomoShieldsProBowls.png

During their first four years seasons, four-year starter Shields and two-year starter Romo were both selected to two Pro Bowls during their third and fourth years in the league.

Question time.

Yes or no, as far as Pro Bowls are only concerned, were both players equally lauded at their respective positions by coaches, fans and their peers during their third and fourth seasons in the league?

By the way, my answer is yes.

 

[Dodger12]

See the bold. Actually one person on CowboysZone did make an argument with regards to a player's being ranked in the top 5 in the NFL at their position while using ONLY Pro Bowl berths as evidence. In my remarks about the Pro Bowl I was responding to this specific argument. I see that we actually agree that someone cannot argue that way.
Someone on Cowboyszone in fact argued that Pro Bowl berths alone are enough to label someone a top five player in the NFL, as described above. All of my comments about the Pro Bowl were in the context of arguing against this person.

If you wanted to continue this, then you could have done so on the previous thread instead of bringing the same argument here and making reference to me and further stating that Pro-Bowl berths are the “ONLY” criteria that I used. By misinterpreting a poster’s stance from a previous thread, that doesn’t make your argument any more valid here. At some point, stats count and at some point, those stats will get you recognized (ie: Pro Bowl). Yes, there are other factors. But when two thirds of the vote comes from your peers and coaches, people that you play against and people that have to game plan for you, then it’s far from the popularity contest and flawed process that you make it out to be.

But I’m arguing with a person who believes that someone can make the Pro-Bowl and still be the 17th best player at his position in the NFL. Can you gives us an example of when this happened?

To me, before he can be considered one of the best starters in the NFL, he has to cut down on his turnovers and win when it counts.

And this from a guy who thinks Aaron Rodgers is a top 5 QB who couldn’t even win in the regular season; the guy finished 6 and 10 as a starter to Romo’s 8 and 4 and you think Romo is a middle of the pack QB? For a guy that minimizes the validity of multiple Pro-Bowls, you sure have a unique set of criteria which you use as a measuring stick.

 

[Dodger12]

Question time.

Yes or no, as far as Pro Bowls are only concerned, were both players equally lauded at their respective positions by coaches, fans and their peers during their third and fourth seasons in the league?

By the way, my answer is yes.

Dallas, you're arguing a point with someone who's painted himself into a corner in a previous thread; he never knew that coaches and players were part of the selection process until you brought it up. The process is such to prevent the very thing he accused the Pro Bowl of being, a popularity contest by fans similar to MLB which, in fact, had become a popularity contest.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Let's put that mutual understanding to the test, shall we? The following illustrates the years which Hall of Fame bound Will Shields and Tony Romo have played side-by-side:

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/RomoShieldsCareers.png

The blue shaded years are each player's Pro Bowl seasons. In terms of Pro Bowl selections, there is zero doubt that Shields' 14-year career was much more successful than Romo's has been at this point in time. This has been your point of contention.

Fine. No disagreement there. However, let's look at bit closer at both careers.

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/RomoShieldsProBowls.png

During their first four years seasons, four-year starter Shields and two-year starter Romo were both selected to two Pro Bowls during their third and fourth years in the league.

Question time.

Yes or no, as far as Pro Bowls are only concerned, were both players equally lauded at their respective positions by coaches, fans and their peers during their third and fourth seasons in the league?

By the way, my answer is yes.

Of course, yes. It is a little beside the point that I was making before, which was an apples to apples comparison at the same position - but sure, both players were "equally lauded." Let me drop what I presume is your other shoe for you: yes, such an analysis indicates that, in terms of Pro Bowl experiences, Tony Romo's career at this point compares favorably to that of Will Shields. That is a positive testament about Romo's play.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Dallas, you're arguing a point with someone who's painted himself into a corner in a previous thread; he never knew that coaches and players were part of the selection process until you brought it up. The process is such to prevent the very thing he accused the Pro Bowl of being, a popularity contest by fans similar to MLB which, in fact, had become a popularity contest.

Dude, three things:
1) I didn't bring the discussion across threads. DallasEast did so by bringing the same diagram into both discussions. DallasEast was helpfully trying to stimulate conversation by doing so.

2) I definitely knew the one-thirds each rule for Pro Bowl selection. However, from your side you have failed to account for the fact that players' votes and coaches' votes could fall prey to a popularity vote, too, not just fan votes. By the way, active players, including some who have made the Pro Bowl, have complained about the "popularity contest" dimension of things. Go and tell them that they are mistaken about their own profession, especially the ones who made the Pro Bowl and still complained. This point is not difficult to understand.

3) It has never to my mind happened that the 17th best player at a certain position has made the Pro Bowl. But the fact that the 17th best player in an NFL position COULD make the Pro Bowl, if only in theory, showed that your line of argument was mathematically mistaken. You missed the point of my statement: that using Pro Bowl berths alone to establish someone as a top 5 player league-wide is a mathematical fallacy. My point was not a difficult one to understand.

 

[Dodger12]

Dude, three things:
1) I didn't bring the discussion across threads. DallasEast did so by bringing the same diagram into both discussions. DallasEast was helpfully trying to stimulate conversation by doing so.

2) I definitely knew the one-thirds each rule for Pro Bowl selection. However, from your side you have failed to account for the fact that players' votes and coaches' votes could fall prey to a popularity vote, too, not just fan votes. By the way, active players, including some who have made the Pro Bowl, have complained about the "popularity contest" dimension of things. Go and tell them that they are mistaken about their own profession, especially the ones who made the Pro Bowl and still complained. This point is not difficult to understand.

3) It has never to my mind happened that the 17th best player at a certain position has made the Pro Bowl. But the fact that the 17th best player in an NFL position COULD make the Pro Bowl, if only in theory, showed that your line of argument was mathematically mistaken. You missed the point of my statement: that using Pro Bowl berths alone to establish someone as a top 5 player league-wide is a mathematical fallacy. My point was not a difficult one to understand.

You misrepresented my position when you referred to it; Pro-Bowls were not the ONLY criteria I used. Statistics, player comparison, consistency and number of Pro-Bowls had to be taken into account which is why I asked you which player (in this case QB) would you have taken over Romo after I gave you the list of names from both the AFC and NFC and you just glossed over the question and stated that it wasn’t the point. Your criteria places a guy that barely sniffed NFL success in the top 5 while calling a guy that at least led his team to the playoffs twice in three seasons and put up numbers second only to Payton Manning as a middle of the pack QB. Talk about fallacy.....

If you’re going to make the claim that the process is flawed, then tell us who was a better QB and why. It’s easy enough to say “players, even some that made the Pro Bowl,” have made this claim but you don’t mention one by name.

Everything with you is theory and speculation; “the 17th best player at a position could make the Pro-Bowl” but, of course, that’s never happened. Dude, I got news for you. Using an outlandish and asinine theory that has NEVER happened as proof to substantiate your point and prove that I’m “mathematically mistaken” (whatever the heck that means) is one of the weakest things I’ve ever read on this site, bar none (and that’s saying a lot). This is not difficult to understand either.

 

[DallasEast]

Of course, yes. It is a little beside the point that I was making before, which was an apples to apples comparison at the same position - but sure, both players were "equally lauded." Let me drop what I presume is your other shoe for you: yes, such an analysis indicates that, in terms of Pro Bowl experiences, Tony Romo's career at this point compares favorably to that of Will Shields. That is a positive testament about Romo's play.

I'll return to those "experiences" ( ), in a moment, but first, a quick review of your earlier opinions about Romo:

That being said, the person who said that Romo is a middle-of-the-road QB is correct. Until he can learn to take better care of the football and can learn not to melt down in big games, Romo will be middle-of-the-road.

By "middle of the road" I was talking purely about starters. I was referencing the idea that he is not among the best starters in the league but he is not among the worst, either. He is middle of the road.

To me, before he can be considered one of the best starters in the NFL, he has to cut down on his turnovers and win when it counts.

Thus, in your opinion, Romo must -

• Prevent turnovers (e.g. "take better care of the football")
• Become more consistent (e.g. "learn not to melt down in big games")
• Produce as a playmaker (e.g. "win when it counts")

These are your qualifications for Romo being a "middle of the road quarterback"--even though you freely admit that his multiple Pro Bowl selections are a "positive testament about Romo's play". Oh, let me quantify my comment before you denigrate that as well, so I'll rephrase it. These are your criteria for Romo being a "middle of the road quarterback"--even though you freely admit that his multiple Pro Bowl selections are a "positive testament about Romo's play in 2006 and 2007.

Good. Let's get back to those Pro Bowl "experiences".

Out of sixteen NFC viable candidates in 2006 season, coaches, players and fans bestowed Pro Bowl "experiences" on three quarterbacks: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger and...

...Tony Romo.

Of the sixteen non-AFC eligible quarterbacks following the 2007 season, coaches, players and fans bestowed Pro Bowl "experiences" on four quarterbacks: Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck, Jeff Garcia and...

...Tony Romo.

Coaches, players and fans, via Pro Bowl voting, concluded that Tony Romo belonged in the top 25 percentile for NFC quarterbacks both years--even after taking into consideration that he should limit his turnovers, play more consistently and evolve into a better playmaker. Perhaps most Pro Bowl voters who expressed their opinions agreed with your opinion that Romo became a "middle of the road" quarterback in his third year as a starter, but most did not agree with you during his first two years behind center. Personally after taking that data into consideration, I don't believe most Pro Bowl voters agree with you about his last season as well.

So! As Philadelphia Eagles fan Phoenix-Talon would say, "It's been good dialogueing with you!". 'Dialogueing'. Hilarious. :laugh2: Anyway, I respect your opinion of Romo, but I'll respect the opinions of Pro Bowl voting coaches, players and fans much more.