Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 You keep bringing up four months ago. What does that have to do with today? He's in the playoffs and 22 other QB's are sitting at home. The thread was created 6 months ago, that's why lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The thread was created 6 months ago, that's why lol... Yes it was, but the discussion has led to his play as of right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Where he choked. So what you're saying is he's better at choking in the big game than Romo sits to pee? Romo sits to pee choked in wildcard games. Brees did not. Brees choked in the NFC Championship game. Romo sits to pee hasn't even made it that far yet. Not all postseason games are equal. Not to mention Romo sits to pee went three straight years losing either his only playoff game that year or losing when one win would get the Cowboys into the playoffs. 3 consecutive years. PLEASE tell me you recongnize the difference and why others do, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I agree with everybody on your list with the exception of McNabb. I honestly think that he's on his last legs, and his accuracy problems seem even more pronounced... Since he was doing well most of the season I'm leaning towards thinking he had just one horrific slump lol...but if he starts off next season like he ended this season, I'm right there with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Romo sits to pee choked in wildcard games. Brees did not. Brees choked in the NFC Championship game. Romo sits to pee hasn't even made it that far yet. Not all postseason games are equal. Not to mention Romo sits to pee went three straight years losing either his only playoff game that year or losing when one win would get the Cowboys into the playoffs. 3 consecutive years. PLEASE tell me you recongnize the difference and why others do, too. Again, that was then. This is now. Your argument would be valid if Romo sits to pee had "choked" last week. Unfortunately, he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Romo sits to pee choked in wildcard games. Brees did not. Brees choked in the NFC Championship game. Romo sits to pee hasn't even made it that far yet. Not all postseason games are equal. Not to mention Romo sits to pee went three straight years losing either his only playoff game that year or losing when one win would get the Cowboys into the playoffs. 3 consecutive years. PLEASE tell me you recongnize the difference and why others do, too. Don't recognize the difference. Both have ZERO Superbowl wins. The end goal, for me, is Superbowl wins. That's why you play the game. Jim Kelly went to, what, four of them? What did that get him? How many has McNabb been to? What did that get him? No difference, buddy... They all have nada, zilch, zip, none... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Don't recognize the difference.Both have ZERO Superbowl wins. The end goal, for me, is Superbowl wins. That's why you play the game. Jim Kelly went to, what, four of them? What did that get him? How many has McNabb been to? What did that get him? No difference, buddy... They all have nada, zilch, zip, none... How many superbowl wins did Dan Marino have? Your argument is worthless. Teams win superbowls. It's infuriating to see so much shallow thinking in the NFL. You see people making the same damn arguments about Kurt Warner concerning the Hall of Fame... he only has one superbowl. Nevermind that he played lights out in all three and his defense let him down. Forget that he had his team with a lead with minutes left on the clock in both superbowls he lost... never mind that the game was never lost with him on the field. Let's just count wins and pretend that makes any sense at all when talking about an individual player. Do we hold running backs to this standard? How many superbowl wins did Barry Sanders have? How many NFC Championships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 How many superbowl wins did Dan Marino have? Your argument is worthless. Teams win superbowls. It's infuriating to see so much shallow thinking in the NFL. You see people making the same damn arguments about Kurt Warner concerning the Hall of Fame... he only has one superbowl. Nevermind that he played lights out in all three and his defense let him down. Forget that he had his team with a lead with minutes left on the clock in both superbowls he lost... never mind that the game was never lost with him on the field. Let's just count wins and pretend that makes any sense at all. Because, whether you like it or not, that's how you're judged in this game. Superbowl wins. Elway is a perfect example. Until he won his first one there was always an * next to his name. Same with Marino. Same with Kelley. That's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Do we hold running backs to this standard? How many superbowl wins did Barry Sanders have? How many NFC Championships? Nope. No they're not. The QB is the one that gets the glory and the goat. Just the way it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 To further drive my point home: Why isn't Jim Kelley ever mentioned in these threads when we're talking about great QB's. Going off the top of my head - he went to four Superbowls - in a row? Think about that. He led his team to FOUR Superbowls, yet no one ever brings his name up in these conversations. Ponder that for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Because, whether you like it or not, that's how you're judged in this game. Superbowl wins.Elway is a perfect example. Until he won his first one there was always an * next to his name. Same with Marino. Same with Kelley. That's just the way it is. Elway was judged that way because his stats sucked. In his first 10 years he cracked a 80 QB rating ONE TIME. His TD/INT totals were horrible (158/157 in his first decade). His completion percentage was never over 60% in that first decade. He needed superbowls to make up for a lot of ugly. Dan Marino by comparion (in the Hall with no superbowls) had 2 season in which he didn't finish over an 80 rating including his final season. That's 2 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 To further drive my point home:Why isn't Jim Kelley ever mentioned in these threads when we're talking about great QB's. Going off the top of my head - he went to four Superbowls - in a row? Think about that. He led his team to FOUR Superbowls, yet no one ever brings his name up in these conversations. Ponder that for a moment. Because simply put he's not in the conversation for best QB ever. I don't think Elway is either to be honest. Just compare their numbers to Joe Montana or Brett Favre. Brett only has one superbowl win... but he has 8 season with 30 TD's or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Manning, Brees, Favre and Rivers are all better than Romo sits to pee imo...and I'd still take Brady over him. Warner and McNabb (when healthy) are just as good as Romo sits to pee... Warner is definitely better than Romo sits to pee you can add Big Ben, and Rodgers this season, Eli when healthy I was looking over the pokes schedule and it was curious how the few times Dallas played a good defense, they struggled and usually lost. Denver D was rolling when they played dallas 17-10 loss The Giants whose defense wasn't that good this year- sweep The Skins defense shut down Romo sits to pee until the end in Dallas, and even though the team had quit on Zorn by game 2, only gave up 17 after being embarrassed by the Giants the week before in a rout. Green Bay dominated them Chargers held them in check, even though their defense isn't that great. the Vikes will arguably be the best defense the poke have played all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Because simply put he's not in the conversation for best QB ever. I don't think Elway is either to be honest. Just compare their numbers to Joe Montana or Brett Favre. Brett only has one superbowl win... but he has 8 season with 30 TD's or more. Okay. Now that we have established that we HAVE to look at numbers and stats - you have to look at Romo sits to pee's stats for what they are. He hasn't won the big one. So, we look at his stats? Once you do that you'll see that this thread is nothing but sour grapes. Q.E.D. That ladies and gentlemen was what my point was all along during this whole convoluted thread. Look at his numbers and tell me he isn't a top tier QB. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Warner is definitely better than Romo sits to pee Meh. you can add Big Ben, and Rodgers this season, Eli when healthy Meh. I was looking over the pokes schedule and it was curious how the few times Dallas played a good defense, they struggled and usually lost. Tell me who the Saints have played, then you'll see your assertion is ridiculous. Denver D was rolling when they played dallas 17-10 loss Totally different team then and now. The Giants whose defense wasn't that good this year- sweep Guess you don't understand the whole division rival thing, huh? Eagles swept Giants, Dallas swept Eagles.Doh! The Skins defense shut down Romo sits to pee until the end in Dallas, and even though the team had quit on Zorn by game 2, only gave up 17 after being embarrassed by the Giants the week before in a rout. Totally different team then from now. Green Bay dominated them More of the same. Chargers held them in check, even though their defense isn't that great. Ditto.the Vikes will arguably be the best defense the poke have played all season.Who have the Vikes played again?You say look at who Dallas played then you say this? EL OH EL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 lolwat?Your post was stating how skin's fans love blue collar hard worker types. Types that were cast aside etc etc. I don't know how much harder you can work going from a practice squad nobody to a top 5 QB. Yes, but you ALSO forgot to say how I mentioned those "blue collar hard worker types" who do NOT get any hype and are sorely unrecognized, and whatever "little hype" they DO get is ONLY after they've accomplished something worth praising. That does NOT define Tony Romo sits to pee. Go back and re-read my post because you skipped over damn near half of it, apparently lol... Well, when you state: 'Cowboys fans' you are pretty much lumping us all together.A more correct term would be some Cowboy fans. It's implicit. Nobody alive thinks I meant every single person who claims to be a fan of the Dallas Cowboys lol... Gotcha now CZ represents all Cowboy fans.See how circular your argument is? You are truly lost, you know that? Point out where I said CZ represents all Cowboys fans. I'll help you out, even: my comment about the posters on CZ was a way of being proactive and countering any possible argument you might give that Romo sits to pee was never considered a "questionable" staring QB...it was NOT in any way, shape or form written or worded as proof that "all Cowboys fans" think the same way. Wouldn't mind if you take a stab at why Brees is better. Good lord, do you really need that explained? lol...if so, it would explain a lot of your, ah, "logic" in your posts. TDs over the last two seasons: Brees - 68 Romo sits to pee - 52 Yards over the last two seasons: Brees - 9,453 Romo sits to pee - 7,931 TD% over the last two seasons: Brees - 5.9% Romo sits to pee - 5.2% Yards per attempt the last two seasons: Brees - 8.2 ypa Romo sits to pee - 7.9 ypa Win/loss records the last two seasons: Brees - 21-11 Romo sits to pee - 20-12 Not much difference, you say?...Well, Brees has won more games while playing with worse (significantly worse) defenses: 2009 defensive rankings: Saints - 25th Cowboys - 9th 2008 defensive rankings: Saints - 23rd Cowboys - 8th Pair Brees up with a top 9 defense and his teams would be unstoppable. Pair Romo sits to pee up with a top 9 defense and you get one wildcard win lol. Is it his playoff record? LOL. Playoff record, no. Playoff success, yes: NFC Championship games: Brees - 1 Romo sits to pee - 0 NFC Divisional round playoff wins: Brees - 1 Romo sits to pee - 0 In other words, who has made it farther in the postseason, Brees or Romo sits to pee. And yes, I'm asking you that question. Would love to hear your answer. Romo sits to pee is playing as well as any of them right now. Isn't now, this year, that counts? Yes, this year counts...and so does last year. The last two years I think would be good indicators of how well a QB should be evaluated overall. Yes, Romo sits to pee is playing very well over the past 5 games...Eli Manning played exceptionally during the 5 game stretch at the end of 2007 (4 of those games in the playoffs), and that was a more impressive performance (the stakes were higher, the pressure was higher, he was on the road the entire time)...but ask people what they thought of his play a year before or this year, and see what type of answer you get. In short, a 4 game stretch is NOT enough to ignore everything else, sorry. Can't argue with that. Although I wouldn't take McNabb (hasn't won crap). Nor, would I take Warner (getting old). If you're talking about who will be the better QB over the next several years, I agree. If you're talking about who WAS the better QB over the LAST several years, I say McNabb and Warner are at LEAST as good as Romo sits to pee, and realistically probably better. Was Brady drafted? Did Brady come from a big program?Romo sits to pee literally came from NO WHERE. And has put up better numbers his first 4 years than many, many other QB's. But, numbers don't matter, right? (BREES) Wait, so it's NOT that Romo sits to pee was an UDFA..it's that he was an UDFA that did not play in a big program? lol....And Brady being drafted in the 6th round to winning THREE Super Bowls trumps Romo sits to pee being undrafted and winning one wildcard game lol...it just does, and by a HUGE amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Warner is definitely better than Romo sits to peeyou can add Big Ben, and Rodgers this season, Eli when healthy True...all three could be said to be at least as good as Romo sits to pee, if not better. Point being, to claim that Romo sits to pee is obviously a top 5 QB based ONLY on these last 5 games, would be a huge mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Don't recognize the difference.Both have ZERO Superbowl wins. The end goal, for me, is Superbowl wins. That's why you play the game. Jim Kelly went to, what, four of them? What did that get him? How many has McNabb been to? What did that get him? No difference, buddy... They all have nada, zilch, zip, none... Ah, the ol' "Didn't win a SB, either" argument to defend Romo sits to pee and prop him up higher than he deserves right now lol...and you guys wonder why Skins fans (and fans of other teams as well) take delight in both his failings and in proving that he doesn't deserve all the hype that accompanied him for the first 3 years of his career as starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Again, that was then. This is now. Your argument would be valid if Romo sits to pee had "choked" last week. Unfortunately, he didn't. Did you even see what I was responding to? lol...I'm guessing you didn't. I was responding to WHY Brees is considered a better QB than Romo sits to pee. NOT why Brees is playing better than Romo sits to pee right now. That's a difference you and a few others seem incapable of understanding. Hell, for a 4 game stretch Campbell was playing pretty damn good, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Did you even see what I was responding to? lol...I'm guessing you didn't.I was responding to WHY Brees is considered a better QB than Romo sits to pee. NOT why Brees is playing better than Romo sits to pee right now. That's a difference you and a few others seem incapable of understanding. Hell, for a 4 game stretch Campbell was playing pretty damn good, too. Umm. I said nothing about Brees, but yes, he is one helluva QB IMO. BTW. I perfectly understand. It seems that being right on this subject is of the utmost importance to you and you won't be able to function until I give in. So as a goodwill gesture, I surrender and you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The end goal, for me, is Superbowl wins. That's why you play the game. Jim Kelly went to, what, four of them? What did that get him? How many has McNabb been to? What did that get him? No difference, buddy... They all have nada, zilch, zip, none... 1. Teams win or lose games, not the QB 2. Kelly, McNabb have played in multiple playoff wins, and Championship games... and made it to the Super Bowl, not to mention their teams success and personal stats over an extended period of time. 3. This is Romo sits to pee first season he's played consistently well beginning to end, out of 3 1/2 as a starter, he has 1 wildcard team win in 3 tries in the playoffs 4. when Romo sits to pee reaches nearly have the accomplishments of the other two then you can at least ask if he's in their league 5. Anyone else find it funny a poke fan talking about only SB wins matter, then argue Romo sits to pee's "greatness" when he hasn't even sniffed a NFC championship game much less a Super Bowl appearance? :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Playoff record, no. Playoff success, yes: What? I mean, what? Record = success What? In other words, who has made it farther in the postseason, Brees or Romo sits to pee. And yes, I'm asking you that question. Would love to hear your answer. Now I see. Jim Kelley is leaps and bounds better than Marino! He made it further!Yahtzee! Yes, Romo sits to pee is playing very well over the past 5 games...Eli Manning played exceptionally during the 5 game stretch at the end of 2007 (4 of those games in the playoffs), and that was a more impressive performance (the stakes were higher, the pressure was higher, he was on the road the entire time)...but ask people what they thought of his play a year before or this year, and see what type of answer you get. In short, a 4 game stretch is NOT enough to ignore everything else, sorry. I would counter Romo sits to pee has played exceptional this year. Especially after you all said "wait until he can't play with TO."Look at people's record/stats after TO left. I would say he had an exceptional year. If you're talking about who will be the better QB over the next several years, I agree. If you're talking about who WAS the better QB over the LAST several years, I say McNabb and Warner are at LEAST as good as Romo sits to pee, and realistically probably better. McNabb last 4 years - 95.5 89.9 86.4 92.9Warner - 89.3 89.8 96.9 93.2 Brees - 96.2 89.4 96.2 109.6 Romo sits to pee - 95.1 97.4 91.4 97.6 McNabb not even close. Warner getting closer. Brees going by rating would get the nod, although still pretty close. But let's look deeper and see how Brees fared his first 4 seasons like Romo sits to pee: Brees - 94.8 76.9 67.5 104.8 So, Romo sits to pee is starting off better (waiting for your argument analysis about D and whatnot). Wait, so it's NOT that Romo sits to pee was an UDFA..it's that he was an UDFA that did not play in a big program? lol....And Brady being drafted in the 6th round to winning THREE Super Bowls trumps Romo sits to pee being undrafted and winning one wildcard game lol...it just does, and by a HUGE amount.And that's what you would expect if you subscribe to the notion that QB's from big programs SHOULD do better than UDFA. Therefore I would have to say that Romo sits to pee is doing pretty damn good for a nobody.Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Ah, the ol' "Didn't win a SB, either" argument to defend Romo sits to pee and prop him up higher than he deserves right now lol...and you guys wonder why Skins fans (and fans of other teams as well) take delight in both his failings and in proving that he doesn't deserve all the hype that accompanied him for the first 3 years of his career as starter. Whether it's fair or not that's how QB's are judged. Are you saying you've never heard this metric used when determining QB success? The QB is the general. The QB is the one most responsible for determining the outcome of the game. The QB is the one that is looked to for leadership and to lead them to the promised land. Why do you think it's so IMPORTANT to hit on drafting a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 1. Teams win or lose games, not the QB Agreed. But that's not how QB's are judged. Or, are you completely ignorant to this metric? 2. Kelly, McNabb have played in multiple playoff wins, and Championship games... and made it to the Super Bowl, not to mention their teams success and personal stats over an extended period of time. And never won a damn thing. That's why McNabb is referred to McChoke. Or have you not noticed this time of year rumblings in Philly that McNabb can't win the big one. 3. This is Romo sits to pee first season he's played consistently well beginning to end, out of 3 1/2 as a starter, he has 1 wildcard team win in 3 tries in the playoffs And has the highest rating for a QB in his FIRST FOUR years in the league.You may have heard about that. 4. when Romo sits to pee reaches nearly have the accomplishments of the other two then you can at least ask if he's in their league He has time.History lesson. How many tries did it take Peyton Manning to win his first playoff game? I'll wait. /rolling smiley 5. Anyone else find it funny a poke fan talking about only SB wins matter, then argue Romo sits to pee's "greatness" when he hasn't even sniffed a NFC championship game much less a Super Bowl appearance? :hysterical:Anyone find it funny when a misinformed skin's fan completely misses the point of your assertion and then tries and pass it off as something special?:hysterical: Also, anyone find it funny when people put words in your mouth then try to pass it off as fact? Never once did I say he was great. I did, however, claim that he belongs up there if we are going by stats and stats alone. /rolling smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff in D.C. Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Whether it's fair or not that's how QB's are judged.Are you saying you've never heard this metric used when determining QB success? The QB is the general. The QB is the one most responsible for determining the outcome of the game. The QB is the one that is looked to for leadership and to lead them to the promised land. Why do you think it's so IMPORTANT to hit on drafting a QB. I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge a QB by Super Bowl wins (Marino & Kelly each have fewer rings than Trent Dilfer & Mark Rypien) but judging a QB by PLAYOFF wins is fair imo. Career playoff wins: Montana - 16 Brady - 14 Elway - 14 Bradshaw - 14 Favre - 12 Kelly - 9 McNabb - 9 Big Ben - 8 Marino - 8 P. Manning - 7 Dilfer - 5 E. Manning - 4 Rypien - 4 Flacco - 3 David Woodley - 3 Romo sits to pee - ONE I'd say Tony has a long way to go before he's in any elite QB argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.