Never said he was. I said he wasn't a loser. Its not his fault hes been on one of the most mismanaged teams of the last 2 decades.
NFL: 2016 Season
- Thread starter Birdie Num Nums
- Start date
Never said he was. I said he wasn't a loser. Its not his fault hes been on one of the most mismanaged teams of the last 2 decades.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Your post sort of inferred that they were comparable. In the rest of what you said I would agree... he's not a loser and play for a team that never really had its act together... unfortunately, I suspect his career is mostly over... I don't see many teams lining up to pay big bux for a few years... I would rather take a chance on a young gun.
Interesting question... if you were a GM or head coach and had a choice between Garoppolo (for example) or Romo, who would you chose? I'd take Garoppolo.
Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Perhaps.
Bart Starr: 5 Championships in 7 years
Joe Montana: 4 SB victories in 4 trips
Terry Bradshaw: 4 SB victories in 4 trips in 6 years
Tom Brady: 4 SB victories in 6 trips in 14 years
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I'm a Pats fan, and Brady is usually amazing (he sure wasn't last Saturday). But I'd probably call Montana the best QB I've ever seen, and I've never been a 49ers fan (indifferent to me like most teams). Only my opinion.
As for if Romo had been somewhere else, pure speculation, we'll never know. Guessing he'd have a ring is meaningless.
Last edited:
Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Texas Proud
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 17,267
I think there is a fallacy of just looking at the ratings of a QB.... the game has evolved where even a bad QB can have a good rating today... and some of the greats of history just do not show up at the top...
Just a few changes IMO...
The receivers are more protected today... back in the day the safety could give a head shot to a crossing receiver and literally knock him out... I remember them talking about a receiver having 'short arms' knowing they were about to be hit... so more catches (and longer catches also) just on this one item...
The rushers used to be able to crush the QB long after he threw the ball.... QBs knew this and had to adjust to the abuse they got... it probably made them less effective....
The pass today is the major play as opposed to the rush back in time... I would say it started with Montana and the West Coast Offense... a lot of short passes... today there are a number of plays that look like a run but are passes.... the receiver us running by and the QB flicks the ball to him... this used to be a hand off... a very high % pass....
Also remember that a QB might only throw 20 to 25 times in a game and 300 yards was rare.... now you see them passing 50+ and 300 might be considered 'low'....
As a comparison, look at Terry Bradshaw with a 70.9 rating... he won 4 Super Bowls... I would rather have him in his prime than a good number of QBs today that have 80 to 90 rating... BTW, just looked and his passer rating in the Super Bowls was 112.7.... also, to make one of my points, in his first SB his stats were 9-14 for 96 yards and 1 TD.... today if someone passed for under 100 yards we all know that team lost....
dixonge
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I'm a life long Cowboys fan; born & raised (in the early years) in the great state of Texas.
IMO, most of the Romo Hate comes from the fact that he didn't do well in the post-season and never won a Super Bowl. Standards in Dallas are pretty high (as they should be). The same things said about Romo used to be said about Craig Morton and Danny White, both of whom were good QBs. If you look at Romo's record (as posted above) it's clear he's a very talented QB. He's ranked #4 all time. But, he's one of only two QBs in the all time Top 10 who haven't won a SB. The other is Philip Rivers, who doesn't seem to have as many detractors. But, oh yeah, he's from San Diego, where expectations are a bit lower.
PS:As I made clear in an earlier post, I am a Romo fan, FWTW.
I'm *not* a Romo fan, but I think you made many good points re: QB's. I'd definitely put Romo in that category with Morton and White. There are hard stats, then there are results, the intangibles. Some QB's have the ability to pull out close games, or just stay way ahead. Others just don't. The 'clutch' moments. Staubach vs. White is a great example. OTOH, maybe Roger the Dodger just wasn't good at staying ahead, thus requiring a lot of last-minute heart-attack come-from-behind wins. Maybe he needed that pressure to perform. They called 'em the Cardiac Cowboys for a reason.
Without going into too much NFL playoff history, I find it interesting to compare the Cowboys history during and after Landry. For Landry's first six years, no playoff trips. From '67 to '82 he had 20 post-season victories, including two Super Bowl rings. Then his last six years had two post-season games, both losses. So most of his golden years were in the 15-year middle stretch. Not a bad run.
That's 29 years of Landry.
Jerry Jones has now owned the Cowboys for 28 years. After a 2-year rebuild, Jimmy Johnson kicked off a new round of post-season wins, 12 in a 6-year period, including *three* Super Bowl rings. Since 1996 the Cowboys have managed only two wild-card wins, never advancing beyond that. 14 total post-season wins.
For those who were born right after the Cowboys' last Super Bowl win, they are now old enough to drink and have never seen the Cowboys make it to an NFC championship game, never seen them last more than one week in the playoffs. That's just stunning to me!
eytonxav
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
The thing I find interesting, the team seemed to all line up and believe in themselves behind Dak's leadership like I have never seen them do to such an extent behind Romo. Tony's stats have been great, but his demeanor at times, made it appear he unfairly would point blame to someone else when an interception occurred.
That depends on which team Im the coach of. If its Denver, Ill take Romo. They could win the Super Bowl next year with Romo but not Garoppolo.
If it was S.F., I'd take Garoppolo.
Mulligan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,343
I'm *not* a Romo fan, but I think you made many good points re: QB's. I'd definitely put Romo in that category with Morton and White. There are hard stats, then there are results, the intangibles. Some QB's have the ability to pull out close games, or just stay way ahead. Others just don't. The 'clutch' moments. Staubach vs. White is a great example. OTOH, maybe Roger the Dodger just wasn't good at staying ahead, thus requiring a lot of last-minute heart-attack come-from-behind wins. Maybe he needed that pressure to perform. They called 'em the Cardiac Cowboys for a reason.
Without going into too much NFL playoff history, I find it interesting to compare the Cowboys history during and after Landry. For Landry's first six years, no playoff trips. From '67 to '82 he had 20 post-season victories, including two Super Bowl rings. Then his last six years had two post-season games, both losses. So most of his golden years were in the 15-year middle stretch. Not a bad run.
That's 29 years of Landry.
Jerry Jones has now owned the Cowboys for 28 years. After a 2-year rebuild, Jimmy Johnson kicked off a new round of post-season wins, 12 in a 6-year period, including *three* Super Bowl rings. Since 1996 the Cowboys have managed only two wild-card wins, never advancing beyond that. 14 total post-season wins.
For those who were born right after the Cowboys' last Super Bowl win, they are now old enough to drink and have never seen the Cowboys make it to an NFC championship game, never seen them last more than one week in the playoffs. That's just stunning to me!
I was a Morton and Staubach fan as a youngster. Though not a hall of famer, Morton was a survivor. Lasted 17 years in the NFL. AFC player of the year, comeback player of the year, took 2 teams to Super Bowls, and is on the Broncos ring of honor. Oddly enough he is still number 3 all time in Bronco passing yards despite only playing 5 years.
Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Me too!
It's the longest the Cowboys have gone without a SB title since their inception in 1960. It's been a long drought.
However, what's almost as stunning to me is that, even after a 20 yr drought, the Cowboys are still the winningest franchise in NFL history; just barely but, still.
Me too!
It's the longest the Cowboys have gone without a SB title since their inception in 1960. It's been a long drought.
However, what's almost as stunning to me is that, even after a 20 yr drought, the Cowboys are still the winningest franchise in NFL history; just barely but, still.
Winningest by what measure? The Steelers have won more playoff games and more Super Bowls than any team in the NFL.
Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
This measure, which is what you get on Wikipedia if you google "Winningest NFL team."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_win–loss_records
Regarding the playoff game wins & SBs (Championships), we won't go into the whole 83 yr old versus 56 yr old franchise, etc. thing.
Cowboys started their team in 1960. The Steelers have a better won/loss record than the Cowboys since 1960. They also have more playoff wins and Super Bowls wins than the Cowboys since 1960 and so do other teams.
Total win/loss percentage is a bad measurement of "winningest team" unless all thing are equal.
Most NFL records are kept "since the merger" in 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_standings_since_AFL%E2%80%93NFL_merger
Pittsburgh is the winningest team since the merger. More total wins, more playoff wins, more division titles, more Super Bowl wins.
Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Now you're just quibbling.
My point was how stunning it is that, after a 20 yr drought, the Cowboys are still the winningest/one of the winningest franchise(s) in NFL history. That point remains valid; even using your [-]cherry picked[/-] choice of metric, which lists them as #3.
But hey, I get it, if I was a Steelers fan, I'd want to forget the first 37 years too.
Last edited:
Corporateburnout
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,743
Actually #2 in that metric in wins
You can call it cherry picking but there's a reason most records are kept "since the merger". Football was 100% completely different way before that. There were years where teams had to shut down due to lack of money. There were years where 2 teams were merged together during WWII because they didnt have enough players to field two separate teams. Way back in the day most players had real jobs and played football on the side.... ect. Football didnt even resemble what it has since the merger.
There were no " look at me, I did my job" celebrations either. I sure love those.
Murf
I read this in today's LA Times, found it kind of interesting.
Since 2002 the Steelers and the Falcons have played each other four times. Three of those games (in a row) went into overtime, with one of the overtimes ending in a tie, 34-34. The fourth and last time they met, the Steelers demolished the Falcons 27-20.
In the two games before the three overtime games, the Steelers also crushed the Falcons, 13-9 and 20-17.
Interesting (to me), but unfortunately not helpful--especially since there's a real good chance they won't be meeting up in the Super Bowl.
Since 2002 the Steelers and the Falcons have played each other four times. Three of those games (in a row) went into overtime, with one of the overtimes ending in a tie, 34-34. The fourth and last time they met, the Steelers demolished the Falcons 27-20.
In the two games before the three overtime games, the Steelers also crushed the Falcons, 13-9 and 20-17.
Interesting (to me), but unfortunately not helpful--especially since there's a real good chance they won't be meeting up in the Super Bowl.
Last edited:
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Demolished? Crushed?What would be the word for Ravens vs Dolphins 38-6 in 2016? Or better yet, Bears vs Redskins 73-0 in 1940?
Last edited:
What would be the word for Ravens vs Dolphins 38-6 in 2016? Or better yet, Bears vs Redskins 73-0 in 1940?
The Bears squeaked by the Redskins in a 73-0 thriller. Or, if you insist on one word: The Bears edged the Redskins in a 73-0 nail-biter.
Interesting to note: We witness this type of game several times a season: where one team has all the stats greatly in its favor, but, allows the other team to hang on and keep the score close. That's what the Redskins did, let the Bears keep it close, allowing the gritty little Bears to snatch the victory from the Redskins in the waning minutes of the game.
Last edited:
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Looking forward to two good games today. I'm guessing the favored/home teams will have their work cut out for them. Also guessing the offensive and defensive line matchups will be determining factors, as is often the case. Even great QBs can be neutralized if they don't have any time.
ChiliPepr
Full time employment: Posting here.
Looking forward to a good Pat's game.... heading to it in 10 minutes!
