AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
bingo.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Who's Better, Flacco or Romo? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sspunisher
- Start date
sspunisher
Footballguy
Football starts in September.
Shawnky
Footballguy
Which is when Romo starts his chokefest. Remember his first Sunday night game this past year? You obviously have the homer glasses on. To say we don't watch the games exposes your ignorance. But hey, we are dealing with a Dallas fan here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pipes
Footballguy
Didn't say you did there chief. Only my first sentence applies to your post as one and only one Cowboy fan seemed to go a little crazy yet you claim a great deal of Cowboy bias. You seem anxious to jump on the first person that overrated Romo. You insinuated the rest of us saying Romo is better the Flacco are demonstrating Cowboy bias.
Shawnky
Footballguy
Sorry, I guess I interpreted your post wrong. But, if you were to pay attention here quite a few Cowboy fans have chimed into this thread. I would argue that Romo has been surrounded by better receivers and a better running game which would account for his inflated stats. But he is not a clutch performer, nor has he ever been. Everyone is entitled to their opion, and mine is Romo isn't a better QB than Flacco. I wouldn't want either leading my team. I'd take Stafford, Ryan, and Schaub over both.ETA: I realize not everyone that says Romo is showing Cowboy bias, but quite a few are.
Last edited by a moderator:
sspunisher
Footballguy
Chokefest...stop man you're overwhelming me with superior football knowledge here. I understand how tempting it must be to link a 4th quarter INT and fumble to the word "choke." I mean just a few minutes left, the game is on the line, everyone in the media is saying it, your friends are saying it, so you go along with it. I get it.But you're completely ignoring the situations that led to those bad turnovers. You are doing what a lot of people are doing, rationalizing something that you already decided is true. It's called confirmation bias. You say I have homer glasses on, logical thought since I am a Cowboys fan, but wrong as I'm a football fan first. I defend Jay Cutler to some of these moron Bears fans just the same and I'm not a particular fan of him or the Bears. I called Rodgers the best QB in the league a couple years ago and everyone wanted to hang me and said it was just b/c I had him on my fantasy team. Again logical thought, but maybe it's just because I watch some of these guys more closely than some other football fans.But back to Romo. If you really did watch the game, you'd remember the turnovers came after a 2nd half collapse by a defense that let Hall of Famer Hotdog Sanchez throw for what probably was his season high in passing yards last year. Don't forget the special teams TD that happened just before the Romo INT.As for the turnovers...No fumble is a good fumble, but that particular one came when the pocket broke down and Romo tried to get in the endzone. That's like a bad beat in poker. You hate that it happened, but you'd play it the exact same way every single time. As for the INT, I'll openly admit that it was a horrible pass. But it was a pass that Romo shouldn't have had to throw in the first place. He came out throwing the ball against the best CB in the game, and held his own until the last minute when he was pretty much in a "swing for the fences or strike out" situation due to forces beyond his control. Just like he was in countless other games in his career, the Eagles blowout game comes to mind.Is Romo clutch? Hell no. But translating the TEAM's monumental last second failures to ROMO is completely ignorant.
Last edited by a moderator:
You must be a teenager and weren't around in the 90's.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Actually I'm 39. I remember the 90s quite well. Don't really see what that has to do with Tony Romo collapsing like a house of cards in big games. Maybe I somehow missed him on the field back then.
houndirish
Footballguy
I'm truly trying to understand the argument you're making here when you state you're judging these players on talent alone. Does decision making factor into the talent equation or are you referring solely to athleticism? If it's the latter, I can maybe see where you'd put Romo over Eli as Romo is more mobile and can make some plays moving around that Eli doesn't. But if that's the evaluation criteria I don't think you could then put Romo over Big Ben as he too can make plays outside the pocket and does it more consistently and with more frequency than Romo does. Big Ben is also tougher and more durable. If decision making does factor in then I think Romo over Eli is a tough sell as Tony makes a lot of bad decisions with the ball. I know we're only two years removed from Eli leading the league in turnovers however Eli seems far superior at reading defenses, making pre-snap adjustments and has demonstrated he can take a team further in the playoffs. Eli also has fared very well in head to head meetings with the Cowboys so you have to give him the nod in the Head to Head category too. If you're going to respond with the argument that Eli has the better team around him, then what of the 2007 campaign when Dallas beat NY twice in the regular season, won the division but went on to lose at home to the Wild Card Giants?Lastly, why does Rivers get dinged for his subpar 2011 season but Romo doesn't lose points for his inconsistencies? Rivers has been the more consistent QB, even if Romo was better last year. Ranking Stafford ahead of Rivers is ludicrous at this point. I'm not a Romo hater and voted for him over Flacco but I don't think Dallas's late season failures can all be swept under the carpet with the "Tony didn't have as good a team around him" defense. Eli and Big Ben have shown the ability to get their teams deep in the playoffs, and it's worth mentioning that the Giants weren't considered a dominant team in either of the season's they won the Super Bowl. Tony is a good QB but the only guy on the list you've mentioned that I could potentially rank him ahead of is Stafford and that's more due to him only having last season to boast about.
sspunisher
Footballguy
Fair points, and I appreciate you being respectful about it don't see too much of that on these forums lately. I definitely put a huge emphasis on pocket awareness and pocket mobility and improv so to speak, and the only person I've seen better than Romo in that regard is Rodgers. They both remind me a lot of Steve Young, and Favre minus the ridiculously high INT numbers.. I don't put very much stock in wins or super bowls.. I think judging a QB by wins is the most ridiculous thing we do nowadays and I don't see the logic in assigning the wins to 1 guy and ignoring what the other 51 players contribute. I understand the need to consider wins, but I personally don't rely on it as much. Eli had an amazing year last year, but his lack of comfort in the pocket still shines through a lot to me. He gets rattled in my opinion and he physically doesn't deal well with it. A lot of people reference his hail mary in his 1st super bowl, but he looked absolutely horrified during that play. I think he made huge strides in his mental game last year however, which helped him deal with the pressure. If he has another year like las year he'd move up my rankings significantly.As for Big Ben, the guy is definitely a franchise QB, but I'll take Romo all day over big Ben's mediocre TD:INT ratio and his guaranteed 50 sack seasons. He's not as skilled in the pocket as people think, but he's definitely way more comfortable in it than Eli. He's just a huge load to bring down and people mistake that for being good in the pocket. Big Ben and Romo both like to extend the play, Romo is much better at it IMO. I don't have access to the stats as I'm writing this but I'm willing to bet Big bens sack numbers are way higher than Romo. Romo secretly had one of the worst olines in football last year and no one noticed because of how good he is at pocket improv.And maybe I'm overreacting to Rivers bad year but that was a helluva lot of INTs that I just couldn't ignore. I saw him regress where everyone else improved.
Last edited by a moderator:
houndirish
Footballguy
Thanks for the clarification. We'll have to agree to disagree on Big Ben versus Romo in the pocket. True BB has high sack numbers but I'm amazed at what that guy does to elude the rush or even simply just to stand in and face it while delivering good throws. Amazing stuff for a big man who doesn't appear mobile but is.I don't disagree with the perceived Eli frazzled look in the face of pressure that many have felt has been with him his entire career. I'll even agree that his prayer pass in Super Bowl version 1 against the Patriots was exceedingly lucky and there wasn't anything pretty about it. Although I'll defend him in his play last season. Eli got a hit a LOT last year, probably moreso than any other year of his career, yet he also turned in his best performance and pretty much took the offense on his shoulders (evidenced by the Giants poor rushing numbers). He really took a big step forward that we Giants fans have been waiting for and expecting. This is where I think Romo falls short in the comparison ... Tony seems not to have taken that extra step where his game is noticeably elevated. He also hasn't shown where he can will the team to win largely based on his efforts. In my opinion, Eli has.
Um, did you not read the post I was commenting on? Romo's playoff issues have nothing to do with the 3 Superbowl wins in the 90's. You said that Cowboys fans might not know about life after week 17. My response was in reference to that. I am 37 and I do remember wins in the playoffs.Read carefully. Think. Comment. Thanks.
How people could even consider Romo is hilarious. Physically, Flacco is bigger, stronger and has the better arm. Consider the past year, Romo had Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Laurent Robinson, and Jason Witten to throw to. Joe Flacco had Anquan Boldin and a bunch of rookies. His top three targets left, as did his QB coach. Yet, he still managed to throw all over Pittsburgh after the Ravens blew a 21 point lead in the playoffs last year; lead a final drive for the winning score, twice since Smith dropped a TD pass on that very series, against Pitt later; and he played great in NE. Romo managed a phenomenal comeback against San Fran. What else? What else stands out about the guys game?
The guy has been starting for FOUR years with no real weapons or consistency. Not to mention that he plays for a team that has consistently focused on the run game and has never been able to add strong offensive weapons. Todd Heap has been the best receiver, but he is constantly injured. Romo has played with Owens, Witten, Bryant, Austin, Robinson, the list goes on. He has always been surrounded by strong weapons. And all we have seen him do is consistently succumb to the pressure every year. Whether its been this game or that game, some mistake is always made. This is a guy who got to sit for two years before he became a starter, watch and learn. He's weak mentally. Romo might be a good QB, but he's nothing special. Flacco has been more successful during his first four years than Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, and Tony Romo. This is a guy who was a reach at 17, and was thrown into the fire. I think people don't realize that before Eli there was Warner, before Rivers there was Brees, before Rodgers there was Farve and before Romo there was Bledsoe. Before Flacco there was Kyle Boller.
The guy has been starting for FOUR years with no real weapons or consistency. Not to mention that he plays for a team that has consistently focused on the run game and has never been able to add strong offensive weapons. Todd Heap has been the best receiver, but he is constantly injured. Romo has played with Owens, Witten, Bryant, Austin, Robinson, the list goes on. He has always been surrounded by strong weapons. And all we have seen him do is consistently succumb to the pressure every year. Whether its been this game or that game, some mistake is always made. This is a guy who got to sit for two years before he became a starter, watch and learn. He's weak mentally. Romo might be a good QB, but he's nothing special. Flacco has been more successful during his first four years than Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, and Tony Romo. This is a guy who was a reach at 17, and was thrown into the fire. I think people don't realize that before Eli there was Warner, before Rivers there was Brees, before Rodgers there was Farve and before Romo there was Bledsoe. Before Flacco there was Kyle Boller.
houndirish
Footballguy
Hilarious?
It would seem on the surface there are a lot more arguments that support Romo so to insinuate the majority is completely off base here is perplexing. QB getting thrown to into the fire argument shouldn't apply here. Flacco was drafted onto a very good team that didn't need him to win games for him. Same can't be said for Eli/Brees and Rivers. The simple fact that Flacco doesn't seem a lot better than his rookie year is a big part of the argument on why many feel Flacco is a caretaker. If the Ravens are a run first team isn't that an indictment of the QB? If Flacco is as gifted as you say, why is the team still treating him with kid gloves in gameplanning. I heard Colin Cowherd do a great rant on Flacco where he labelled him the "trust fund kid" ... basically got born into a really good situation.Also, let's not paint a picture of the Ravens offense having no playmakers the entire time Flacco has been there. They've had Boldin a few years, before that it was Derrick Mason ... the cupboard hasn't been bare.
mr roboto
Footballguy
I'm a flacco fan and more optimistic than most. But I think the truth on him is he has the potential to be an above average to top 7 QB. That's his ceiling. As I said before, the book isn't written in him. And Dallas had WAY better weapons. You can't compare those.Hilarious?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
And what exactly have the Ravens accomplished in that time-span, with a very talented team of their own? They've gone one round further into the playoffs in spite of a defense that's regularly among the best in the league? Impressive.All of Flacco's playoff "accomplishments" amount to basically a .500 record in the playoffs while playing with a top defense. That puts him in the elite category of guys like Kordell Stewart, Rex Grossman, and Brad Johnson. Well, not quite in the league of Grossman/Johnson since they took their defenses to the Super Bowl.Obviously Flacco is better than those guys but it goes to show that going .500 in the playoffs with a team that has a good defense isn't really anything special.From a "help on offense" perspective, Romo has better weapons but the gap is not nearly as large as some people make it out to be. Baltimore has continually brought in guys that were solid weapons with other quarterbacks but that Flacco couldn't get the ball to with regularity. I still maintain that if you went back in time two years and put Boldin on the Cowboys and Austin on the Ravens, Boldin would still be considered an elite WR and Austin would be considered nothing more than an example of the kind of dreg Flacco has to work with at WR. The Cowboys have also never had a running game like Baltimore does to take pressure off the QB and Cam Cameron is far from a conservative offensive coordinator.The Ravens committed to Flacco this year both in gameplan (they actually threw more than the Cowboys this year) and in providing him with some pretty good weapons. Flacco answered by not only failing to deliver, but by actually regressing in his 4th year in the league.Flacco didn't lag behind Romo in opportunity or gameplan this year, he just (badly) lagged behind in production. * Attempts: 542 vs 522 * YPA: 6.7 vs 8.0 * Comp Pct: 57.6 vs 66.3 * TDs: 20 vs 31 * Turnovers: 18 vs 13 * QB rtng: 80.9 vs. 102.5
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
As I said earlier, I agree with most that Romo is a better QB right now.
But I also think that Flacco, who just turned 27, has more potential to develop. He's really just now entering what should be the prime of his career. At 27 Romo was heading into his first full season as a starter. Flacco also really impressed me in last year's playoffs.
Granted, as a fan of neither team my opinion is based on limited prime time appearances and playoff games.
But I also think that Flacco, who just turned 27, has more potential to develop. He's really just now entering what should be the prime of his career. At 27 Romo was heading into his first full season as a starter. Flacco also really impressed me in last year's playoffs.
Granted, as a fan of neither team my opinion is based on limited prime time appearances and playoff games.
houndirish
Footballguy
Despite my post, I'd also tell you that I think highly of Flacco and I wholeheartedly agree that his career years are still ahead of him. I just don't agree that so far he's been a better QB than Romo and the argument put forth by Jaruta has a lot of holes in it.I'm a flacco fan and more optimistic than most. But I think the truth on him is he has the potential to be an above average to top 7 QB. That's his ceiling. As I said before, the book isn't written in him. And Dallas had WAY better weapons. You can't compare those.Hilarious?
Well, characterizing the arguments posted above as hilarious is definitely douchey on my part. Let me rephrase, please. I don't think it's hilarious so much as it is absurd. Romo has been in the league a lot longer, has played with much better offensive players and has had the benefit of not starting from day one and actually getting to learn from a team that has had very good offensive capabilities in the past a la Aikmen, Irvin and Smith, and he had the benefit of learning from a former #1 overall in Bledsoe. What I'm trying to say is that Flacco is physically and mentally stronger than Romo. Moreover, if we only consider the numbers, Flacco has been significantly more successful during his first four years than Romo has because Romo didn't even start until his fourth year, and Flacco has posted a better year than Romo did in his first year starting.I guess that is why I find the argument absurd.Derrick Mason was no slouch, but let's be honest, are we going to compare him to Terrel Owens? Can we compare Heap to Witten? Heck, Dez Bryant just had a better year in Dallas than Boldin ever had in BLT. If anything, Romo is the trust fund kid coming to a team that has consistently brought in strong offensive weapons. The glass, I think, has been half empty whereas in Dallas it has been half full. Moreover, Eli was definitely thrown into a better situation. He got to learn from a two time MVP, superbowl winning QB, and he had an explosive running game, with some decent receivers to boot. (Burress was better at that time than any Ravens receiver, ever.) As for Brees and Rivers, they had Gates, and Tomlinson, two potential hall of famers on offense.Now, the fact that the Ravens are a run first team is not an indication of Flacco's talents. It's more an indication of how the Ravens have played since '96. The infrastructure to move towards a pass oriented offense has never been there. First, they need to build a core. Second, they must improve their talent evaluation, which has been sub-par at best even with Flacco, Rice, Jamal Lewis being drafted by the team. Give it some time on this front. Clearly its true that Flacco has had the benefit of playing with a great defense since he came into the league, but defense is not offense. BLT is a team that has always been strong on that side of the ball, but it has never been capable of putting together a decent offense. At this point in time, it definitely looks like this is the first time in franchise history that a solid top ten offense could come to fruition. And it really starts with Flacco. Now he has a decent recieving core, depending on how Pitta and Dickson develop and he has an improved o-line. Lets see what he does with that in a contract year. Obviously Romo had better numbers than Flacco in the past; especially last year. But I think that does not consider the offensive schemes and playmakers each team employs, not to mention that Flacco played significantly better teams and defenses during the regular season. It is almost like comparing quantities in different units, so to speak.'houndirish said:Despite my post, I'd also tell you that I think highly of Flacco and I wholeheartedly agree that his career years are still ahead of him. I just don't agree that so far he's been a better QB than Romo and the argument put forth by Jaruta has a lot of holes in it.I'm a flacco fan and more optimistic than most. But I think the truth on him is he has the potential to be an above average to top 7 QB. That's his ceiling. As I said before, the book isn't written in him. And Dallas had WAY better weapons. You can't compare those.Hilarious?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
This seems like backward logic here. Mark Sanchez just had a much better 3rd season than Drew Brees did in his 3rd season, does that mean he's a better quarterback? Tony Romo took a huge, unusual step in his 5th season (his 2nd as a starter) and projecting that same unnatural leap for Flacco is basically predicting a breakout as if it were just natural progression. It's like saying that anyone that beats 400 yards and 3 TDs as a rookie running back is going to go for 2200 yards and 18 TDs in year two because that's what Arian Foster did.The real bottom line is that Flacco regressed this year, so the trend isn't even heading in the right direction. His numbers weren't good enough for a 4th year starter to maintain the starting role in today's NFL, and if he were on a lesser team he'd be battling for his starting job right now. His numbers this year were extremely similar to Mark Sanchez's, and like Sanchez that only shines through as a major issue when the defense goes sour.
What the Cowboys did in 1990 has no bearing on this, just like what the Ravens did in '96 has no bearing. You say that the Ravens didn't play run first because of Flacco, yet this year when they tried playing as a pass first team (again, Flacco had as many attempts as Romo's ever had) Flacco regressed and had his worst year.
Last edited by a moderator:
First, what a team did before has absolute bearing on what it does in the future. Organizations grow, they learn, improve and sometimes regress. There is a reason, I think, why the Steelers, Green Bay and Patriots are consistently good. Its organizational growth and improvement. Some teams take steps backwards like the Cowboys have the last decade. Some teams grow from their foundation like the Bengals. It's no fluke that the Ravens have consistently had one of the better Ds in the league. No fluke that Green Bay has consistently had success, especially in developing quarterbacks. It's no fluke that Baltimore and Pittsburgh always produce the best linebackers. Sure there are rebuilding seasons, but look at the Browns to see what a bad organization is. There is no growth there.
What I mean is that Baltimore has never put together a decent, let alone good offense. That definitely has a bearing on Flacco's success and future with the team.
I'm not saying that Flacco is a better quarterback because he has statistically been better than Romo in a comparison of their first four years. I'm saying that he is physically superior as an athlete. He has the better arm, has better size. Joe Flacco is generally more athletic and durable than Tony Romo. In addition, he is mentally stronger in comparison. There are no December regressions with Flacco, there are no game winning field goal fumbles with Flacco and the like. The only real knock on Flacco is that he is a late bloomer. He was, in fact, beat out by Tyler Palko at Pittsburgh. He has taken some time to really come on in the NFL. But he has come on every time at every level.
The idea that Flacco regressed last year is ludicrous. The guy played the best defenses in football. He has three top 10 passing defenses in his division. He lost his quarterbacks coach, and didn't have one last year. He lost Derrick Mason, Todd Heap, and Housmanzadeh. They were 3 of his top four receivers in 2010. His offensive line continues to get shuffled. Those were, I think, the biggest problems he had going into last year. Now, he led game winning drives against Pittsburgh twice, Arizona, New England. He played very well against Houston twice. In the first game he threw for 300 yards and his running backs had 3 touchdowns. Same thing in Arizona. He had 300 yards and no touchdown passes, while Rice had 3 TDs. His numbers were somewhat deceptive and, in general, not indicative of Flacco's contribution to the Raven's success.
I'm not considering the numbers he had last year. I'm considering the aspects of his game that had him significantly improve his play when it counted most. I'm considering his development and production when it was necessary for him to produce. In contrast, although Tony Romo plays very well when the stakes are low, he significantly regresses in the exact situations where Flacco significantly improves. Please, do me a favor and watch the final drive of the second Pittsburgh game. I will look for it today. The numbers are not what determines whether you start. It is the contribution to winning that is relevant.
BTW, speaking of numbers:
Advanced NFL stats showing cumulative win probability of last four starting quarterbacks in playoffs 2011
Last years expected points added for starting QBs
Your notion that Flacco's numbers were not good enough to "start on a lesser team" are frivolous and untenable.
As for Joe Flacco taking an abnormally large statistical step forwards in the next year, maybe we can get Terrel Owens to come out of retirement. Perhaps he can do in Baltimore what he did in Dallas and Philly. Nevertheless, that is not what I am predicting. What I will predict, though, is that Flacco will improve. Again.
As for Mark Sanchez, why even bring him into the conversation? People are way too hard on him considering that he did take a step, if not leap, forwards last year. He has played decent, but he has not played well enough when it has counted. That's his problem. But he is just beginning his career. The fact you digress into that area shows that you criticize my logic without following it. My logic is not that one QB did better in some year than another did in some other year and therefore he is a better QB overall. My logic is derived from my belief that the only way to compare quarterbacks from different classes, at best, is to consider their production and development through their nth year in the league, and to consider the corresponding starters on the team as well. For example, we must consider what Tony Romo and Joe Flacco did through their 4th year in the league. We must also consider how their team is built and how successful they were. If one follows that criteria, then Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco have been more successful than Drew Brees and Tony Romo through their 3rd and 4th years, respectively.
What I mean is that Baltimore has never put together a decent, let alone good offense. That definitely has a bearing on Flacco's success and future with the team.
I'm not saying that Flacco is a better quarterback because he has statistically been better than Romo in a comparison of their first four years. I'm saying that he is physically superior as an athlete. He has the better arm, has better size. Joe Flacco is generally more athletic and durable than Tony Romo. In addition, he is mentally stronger in comparison. There are no December regressions with Flacco, there are no game winning field goal fumbles with Flacco and the like. The only real knock on Flacco is that he is a late bloomer. He was, in fact, beat out by Tyler Palko at Pittsburgh. He has taken some time to really come on in the NFL. But he has come on every time at every level.
The idea that Flacco regressed last year is ludicrous. The guy played the best defenses in football. He has three top 10 passing defenses in his division. He lost his quarterbacks coach, and didn't have one last year. He lost Derrick Mason, Todd Heap, and Housmanzadeh. They were 3 of his top four receivers in 2010. His offensive line continues to get shuffled. Those were, I think, the biggest problems he had going into last year. Now, he led game winning drives against Pittsburgh twice, Arizona, New England. He played very well against Houston twice. In the first game he threw for 300 yards and his running backs had 3 touchdowns. Same thing in Arizona. He had 300 yards and no touchdown passes, while Rice had 3 TDs. His numbers were somewhat deceptive and, in general, not indicative of Flacco's contribution to the Raven's success.
I'm not considering the numbers he had last year. I'm considering the aspects of his game that had him significantly improve his play when it counted most. I'm considering his development and production when it was necessary for him to produce. In contrast, although Tony Romo plays very well when the stakes are low, he significantly regresses in the exact situations where Flacco significantly improves. Please, do me a favor and watch the final drive of the second Pittsburgh game. I will look for it today. The numbers are not what determines whether you start. It is the contribution to winning that is relevant.
BTW, speaking of numbers:
Advanced NFL stats showing cumulative win probability of last four starting quarterbacks in playoffs 2011
Last years expected points added for starting QBs
Your notion that Flacco's numbers were not good enough to "start on a lesser team" are frivolous and untenable.
As for Joe Flacco taking an abnormally large statistical step forwards in the next year, maybe we can get Terrel Owens to come out of retirement. Perhaps he can do in Baltimore what he did in Dallas and Philly. Nevertheless, that is not what I am predicting. What I will predict, though, is that Flacco will improve. Again.
As for Mark Sanchez, why even bring him into the conversation? People are way too hard on him considering that he did take a step, if not leap, forwards last year. He has played decent, but he has not played well enough when it has counted. That's his problem. But he is just beginning his career. The fact you digress into that area shows that you criticize my logic without following it. My logic is not that one QB did better in some year than another did in some other year and therefore he is a better QB overall. My logic is derived from my belief that the only way to compare quarterbacks from different classes, at best, is to consider their production and development through their nth year in the league, and to consider the corresponding starters on the team as well. For example, we must consider what Tony Romo and Joe Flacco did through their 4th year in the league. We must also consider how their team is built and how successful they were. If one follows that criteria, then Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco have been more successful than Drew Brees and Tony Romo through their 3rd and 4th years, respectively.
Texasmouth
Footballguy
LMAO that Big Ben gets credit for half the crap his team did around him.LMAO at Tony Romo even being in the same league as Ben and Eli.
Synesthesia
Footballguy
To everyone accusing the Romo supporters of having Cowboy bias: have you ever met a Cowboys fan? Have you ever listened to sports talk radio in Texas? Cowboy fans appreciate Romo about as much as Eagles fans appreciated McNabb. Despite the near-unanimous agreement that Romo is the better QB, I guarantee you that Ravens fans like their guy more than Cowboys fans like theirs.
sspunisher
Footballguy
Dude now you're just rambling. How was Flacco's first season statistically better than Romo's?Flacco in 2008: 16 games started, 60% completion, 2,971 Yards, 14 TD, 12 INT
Romo in 2006: 10 games started, 65.3% Completion, 2,903 Yards, 19 TDs, 13 INT
First of all, you're giving Romo's surrounding cast way too much credit. For every T.O (free agent Superstar), there's a Laurent Robinson (free agent castoff). For every Dez Bryant (1st rounder), there's a Miles Austin (undrafted). You can't say T.O. and Dez make Romo better without saying Romo makes Laurent Robinson and Miles Austin better. What about Jason Witten? You consider him a superstar now, but he never broke 90 Receptions or 1,000 yards before Romo came along. He's done one or the other 6 times since Romo was the QB. What about Patrick Crayton? His Cowboys numbers were WAY higher than his SD numbers, and he was the 4th option in Dallas. What about bum ### Roy Williams? His numbers in Dallas weren't great, they were much better than they were in Chicago. And while we all know Robinson is probably going to bomb in Jax with Gabbert, Rivers and Cutler are more than capable QBs. Point is you can't just sit there and throw out name after name as if these guys are ALL superstars who make Tony great. You have to consider that the opposite can be true as well.
But hey even if you are absolutely convinced that Romo's surrounding cast on offense makes him better instead of the other way around, you can't also ignore the fact that Romo's defense is worse.
You're underestimating how bad a horrible defense can make a QB look. If the Cowboys had a decent defense, Romo wouldn't be throwing passes late in the game against the Jets and Lions. He wouldn't be down 20-3 in the 1st quarter and then start forcing passes in the 2nd against Philly. You wouldn't see those last second interceptions on SportsCenter. You wouldn't build this little image that he's not "mentally tough." What does that even mean man? Are you a psychologist? Psychiatrist? The only thing worse than the media saying it is you believing it and then regurgitating it as if it's fact.
I mean look at the things Romo's bounced back from. The field goal botch? I don't care that he was a holder and not a QB, you can't underestimate how devastating something like that can be to someone's psyche. Making his biggest mistake as a professional on national television and knowing he'll be mocked for it the rest of his life. Don't tell me that wasn't adversity, and don't tell me he didn't bounce back from it. If anything, Flacco's the one I worry about mentally. Romo gets 100x more media exposure and criticism than Flacco and he just ignores the criticism and stays professional. Flacco on the other hand seems to really care what people say about him and gets extremely defensive about it. He whines about how good everyone should think he is all the time. That's not professional, mature or "mentally tough," is it? The funny part is, that's all coming from the tiny bit of spotlight that the Raven on his helmet gets him. Imagine if Flacco had a star on his helmet, the spotlight is 100x bigger in Dallas because nobody "doesn't like" the Cowboys. You love them or you hate them and you see it every day with how the media covers them and how much heat Cowboys arguments generate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, first, Flacco is physically a better QB. He has a better arm, that is unquestionable. He is bigger, stronger and faster. You can argue that all you want, but there is a reason Romo was undrafted.Obviously, you made it clear that Romo is statistically better than Flacco. But during their first four years in the league, Flacco was more productive. He has never thrown more than 13 ints, he threw for more touchdowns in 3 of those 4 seasons. It's a fact, if only because Romo was sitting and watching for his first three.
I don't think you realize how much it benefits a quarterback to sit and watch a player like Bledsoe, who through all his faults was still a good QB. Flacco had no one to watch except Boller.
I find it funny that you take away from his supporting cast. Witten had 87 receptions in his second year. He is a significantly better player than Heap ever was. The fact is that TO, Bryant, Austin, and Witten are better receivers that any receiver to EVER play in Baltimore. Sure, Romo definitely plays a role in their success, but your silly if you think that they don't help him significantly. The players don't Romo good, they make the entire offense good. That entire supporting cast has always been significantly better than in Baltimore.
And Dallas does have a good defense. It's no where near what Baltimore has, but it can more than hold it's own.
We're not just talking about one botched field goal. We're talking about throwing three interceptions against Detroit. Sure the team should have tackled Bobby Carpenter or whatever, but he still threw the picks; He still posted 4 TDs and no INTs against the Giants and lost; he still did nothing against Philly in a divisional game, twice; in the second game against he Giants he threw a stinker in the season's most important game. The fact of the matter is that he wilts under pressure. Blame it on the team, blame it on whatever. When he plays his best his team doesn't always win and when he melts down he really melts down. Sure, he bounced back from the botched field goal. All he did was continue posting big numbers that simply didn't translate to winning. You wanna talk mental toughness? Try having a 40 yard bomb dropped by a wide open receiver on a last minute drive for the division title, only to march down the field again and deliver a perfect throw for a 30 yarder 30 seconds later against what was statistically the best defense in the league last year. Romo is 32 and has 14 game winning drives to his credit. Flacco is 26 and has 11. Not to mention that that doesn't count what happened in NE. All that Flacco has done in Baltimore is help his team win games.
When I say Romo is mentally weak I mean his head is up some diva's ### instead of winning ball games. I don't fault him for that, congrats. But it seems the guy is constantly in the spotlight for putting up big numbers and banging hot broads, and not for winning football games. If your biggest attack on Flacco's mental toughness is because he thinks he's the best QB in the league, then have fun with that. Because I have never heard Romo say that. Heck, Aikmen came out and said Romo is better than I was, and all he did was put the ball right back in Aikmen's court. Romo's not a champion, and he never will be.
sspunisher
Footballguy
Haha wow, physical ability isn't limited to arm strength, man. Height and weight? What's that have to do with anything? And this isn't Madden, why are you even mentioning speed when we're talking about quarterbacks? Both of these guys make their living throwing the ball and it seems like you don't even know how to physically judge a quarterback.
Why are you ignoring quick release? Is it because Romo arguably has the quickest release in the NFL? Why are you ignoring the QB's physical ability to throw from different angles? Over release, 3/4 release, sidearm release, one handed shuttle pass, etc. A QB's ability to improvise and throw from different angles is very much a physical ability, and one that Romo is again, one of the best in the league at. What about footwork? Have you even seen Flacco's footwork when he gets pressured in the pocket? The guy's feet are all over the place and it absolutely makes him struggle when the pocket breaks down. Romo on the other hand has solid footwork, and when the pocket and his mechanics break down is when he's at his absolute best. He has a very nice ability to complete a pass without his feet completely under him.
And last but not least, the most important and most obvious physical ability of them all: Why the heck are you ignoring accuracy?
Maybe it's because:
Flacco and Company Completion %:
28. Grossman: 57.9%
29. Kolb: 57.7%
30. Flacco: 57.6%
31, McCoy: 57.2%
32. Sanchez: 56.7%
33. Skelton: 54.9%
34T. Ponder: 54.3%
34T. Painter: 54.3%
36. Bradford: 53.4%
37. Gabbert: 50.8%
38. Tim Tebow: 46.5%
Romo and Company Completion %
1. Brees: 71.2%
2. Rodgers: 68.3%
3. Romo: 66.3%
4. Brady: 65.6%
And please don't tell me you're seriously going to respond to these stats with some nonsense about drops. Ray Rice is on my dynasty team, I've watched more than enough Ravens and Cowboys games to know that both QBs definitely had a very similar number of drops last year.
How can you say who's better between Romo and Flacco when you don't even know how to scout a quarterback? Watch some Cowboys games at least man, it's obvious most of your "knowledge" about Romo comes from SportsCenter.
Why are you ignoring quick release? Is it because Romo arguably has the quickest release in the NFL? Why are you ignoring the QB's physical ability to throw from different angles? Over release, 3/4 release, sidearm release, one handed shuttle pass, etc. A QB's ability to improvise and throw from different angles is very much a physical ability, and one that Romo is again, one of the best in the league at. What about footwork? Have you even seen Flacco's footwork when he gets pressured in the pocket? The guy's feet are all over the place and it absolutely makes him struggle when the pocket breaks down. Romo on the other hand has solid footwork, and when the pocket and his mechanics break down is when he's at his absolute best. He has a very nice ability to complete a pass without his feet completely under him.
And last but not least, the most important and most obvious physical ability of them all: Why the heck are you ignoring accuracy?
Maybe it's because:
Flacco and Company Completion %:
28. Grossman: 57.9%
29. Kolb: 57.7%
30. Flacco: 57.6%
31, McCoy: 57.2%
32. Sanchez: 56.7%
33. Skelton: 54.9%
34T. Ponder: 54.3%
34T. Painter: 54.3%
36. Bradford: 53.4%
37. Gabbert: 50.8%
38. Tim Tebow: 46.5%
Romo and Company Completion %
1. Brees: 71.2%
2. Rodgers: 68.3%
3. Romo: 66.3%
4. Brady: 65.6%
And please don't tell me you're seriously going to respond to these stats with some nonsense about drops. Ray Rice is on my dynasty team, I've watched more than enough Ravens and Cowboys games to know that both QBs definitely had a very similar number of drops last year.
How can you say who's better between Romo and Flacco when you don't even know how to scout a quarterback? Watch some Cowboys games at least man, it's obvious most of your "knowledge" about Romo comes from SportsCenter.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think if you're going to post stats, you need to be fair about it. The completion % stats above seem to cherry-pick, because they put Romo in the company of Brees, even though Brees has far better numbers than Romo. Also, they put Flacco in the company of several QBs that have far worse completion %s. Below is a revised stat list that more accurately depicts reality.
I totally agree with you that Romo has had better stats than Flacco throughout his career, so far. But I don't think you need to skew the stats to make that point. Also, the difference between the two is not nearly as extreme as you suggest. Neither consistently perform at an elite level; both are in that broad group of middle-range QBs who generally perform about the same, and are relatively interchangeable. I'm sure someone out there has the upper-level stats skills to convert all these numbers from Pro-Football-Reference to a nice bell curve model, which would clearly show where Romo/Flacco fit on the continuum of QBs over the past several years.)
Flacco career completion %: 60.8%
Romo career competion %: 64.5%
Flacco and Company Completion % for 2011
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco's %):
16-23. Moore, Jackson, Newton, Vick, Cassel, Orton, Dalton, Cutler: 60.5-58.0%
24. Grossman: 57.9%
25. Kolb: 57.7%
26. Flacco: 57.6%
27-31. McCoy, Sanchez, Skelton, Ponder, Painter: 57.2-54.3%
Romo and Company Completion % for 2011
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Romo's %)
2. Rodgers: 68.3%
3. Romo: 66.3%
4. Brady: 65.6%
5. Stafford: 63.5%
6. Roethlisberger: 63.2%
7. Rivers: 62.9%
Flacco and Company Completion % for 2010
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco's %):
5-9. Rodgers, Kitna, Garrard, Schaub, Manning: 67.5-62.9%
10. Flacco: 62.6%
11-22. Vick, Ryan, Palmer, Hill, Roethlisberger, Henne, Freeman, Favre, Cutler: 62.6-60.4%
Romo and Company Completion % for 2010
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Romo's %)
n/a. Romo: DNP enough games
Flacco/Romo and Company Completion % for 2009
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco/Romo's %)
6-10. Warner, Brady, Rivers, Rodgers, Campbell: 66.1-64.5%
11. Romo: 63.1%
12. Flacco: 63.1%
13-21. Manning, Orton, Garrard, Henne, Cutler, Palmer, Smith, McNabb, Hass: 62.3-60.0%
I totally agree with you that Romo has had better stats than Flacco throughout his career, so far. But I don't think you need to skew the stats to make that point. Also, the difference between the two is not nearly as extreme as you suggest. Neither consistently perform at an elite level; both are in that broad group of middle-range QBs who generally perform about the same, and are relatively interchangeable. I'm sure someone out there has the upper-level stats skills to convert all these numbers from Pro-Football-Reference to a nice bell curve model, which would clearly show where Romo/Flacco fit on the continuum of QBs over the past several years.)
Flacco career completion %: 60.8%
Romo career competion %: 64.5%
Flacco and Company Completion % for 2011
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco's %):
16-23. Moore, Jackson, Newton, Vick, Cassel, Orton, Dalton, Cutler: 60.5-58.0%
24. Grossman: 57.9%
25. Kolb: 57.7%
26. Flacco: 57.6%
27-31. McCoy, Sanchez, Skelton, Ponder, Painter: 57.2-54.3%
Romo and Company Completion % for 2011
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Romo's %)
2. Rodgers: 68.3%
3. Romo: 66.3%
4. Brady: 65.6%
5. Stafford: 63.5%
6. Roethlisberger: 63.2%
7. Rivers: 62.9%
Flacco and Company Completion % for 2010
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco's %):
5-9. Rodgers, Kitna, Garrard, Schaub, Manning: 67.5-62.9%
10. Flacco: 62.6%
11-22. Vick, Ryan, Palmer, Hill, Roethlisberger, Henne, Freeman, Favre, Cutler: 62.6-60.4%
Romo and Company Completion % for 2010
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Romo's %)
n/a. Romo: DNP enough games
Flacco/Romo and Company Completion % for 2009
(defined as QBs who are +/-5% of Flacco/Romo's %)
6-10. Warner, Brady, Rivers, Rodgers, Campbell: 66.1-64.5%
11. Romo: 63.1%
12. Flacco: 63.1%
13-21. Manning, Orton, Garrard, Henne, Cutler, Palmer, Smith, McNabb, Hass: 62.3-60.0%
Last edited by a moderator:
houndirish
Footballguy
If your biggest attack on Flacco's mental toughness is because he thinks he's the best QB in the league, then have fun with that.
Pretty sure Punisher is referring to Flacco getting frustrated with his perception by the media and fans on his ability as a QB. If memory serves this was the week leading up to the AFC title game last season when Flacco unleashed a rant defending himself as a QB and his stature among his peers.
I agree with Punisher here in that I wouldn't tout Flacco's mental toughness based on him sounding pretty thin skinned regarding how he's perceived.
Pretty sure Punisher is referring to Flacco getting frustrated with his perception by the media and fans on his ability as a QB. If memory serves this was the week leading up to the AFC title game last season when Flacco unleashed a rant defending himself as a QB and his stature among his peers.
I agree with Punisher here in that I wouldn't tout Flacco's mental toughness based on him sounding pretty thin skinned regarding how he's perceived.
I believe he said something along the lines of "[the media is always giving credit to the defense and not to me ... yada yada ... If we win, then I'm sure not credit will be given to me.]" Now that you mention it, it seems funny that I've been accused of only judging Romo on sportsnet highlights, whereas a lot of the arguments here and that comment suggest many other people are doing exactly that. My take on it is simple. If Eli Manning can be vindicated by winning a Superbowl, then it seems perfectly fine for Flacco to think he is the best QB in the league since he holds the following records:
First rookie quarterback to start all sixteen games and make the playoffs (along with Matt Ryan)
First rookie quarterback to win two playoff games[18]
Most starts by a quarterback in first season: 19
Most starts by a quarterback in first two seasons: 37
Most starts by a quarterback in first three seasons: 55
Most wins by a quarterback in first 60 consecutive starts: 40
First quarterback to start and win a playoff game in each of his first four seasons
Most combined regular and postseason wins in first three years as a quarterback: 36 (tied with Dan Marino)[19]
First quarterback to start and win a playoff game in each of his first four seasons [20]
Most regular season wins by a quarterback in his first four seasons: 44 [20]
He definitely was a little ##### when complaining about the attention he gets, but it really wasn't that bad from what I remember. It was right after he posted a 97 QB rating 2-0 TD/INT ratio against a top 5 pass defense, and Ed Reed called him out and the media was saying all this crap... Tom Brady got an MVP for a similar performance in the Superbowl.
Let's have a look. I'm by no means a professional, or anything close, but bear with me, please, since this is the only way I feel this debate can really progress.
Everything herein refers to a collection of posted Youtube videos. That's all I can find at 2:00am...
Tony Romo:
My link
Notice the last game against the Giants. The Cowboys are down, and score two touchdowns through the air to make it a one possession game. At this point we are told that Romo has the highest quarterback rating in the fourth quarter among active QBs. Here is another clip of Tony Romo in the fourth quarter, but this time his team has the lead: My link, of course, the Giants won.
In my opinion, I see several plays where Romo under threw his receiver, or look rattled in the pocket. Consider the second TD in the first video. Austin had plenty of room in the endzone, and separation, yet he wasn't led by Romo for a longer reception. Indeed, he fought for that ball. Moreover, notice that the majority of TDs are to wide open receivers. On the 11th TD, Romo was took several stutter steps, and never really set his feet before really under throwing the receiver. There was a play later that Romo literally was spinning in circles and he ended up bumping into his lineman, before throwing a touchdown.
18 is really the first throw that stands out, IMO. Romo buys lots of time, and throws the ball of balance and on the run into Robinson's chest perfectly.
There is a touchdown pass to Robinson that is pretty much a toss that the receiver needs to go to the ground to get. What a catch by Robinson for TD 21.
Maybe its just me, but up until number 28, most of the TDs are to wide open receivers. And for TD 27, that definitely does not look like solid pocket movement. IMO.
Notice the last game against the Giants. The Cowboys are down, and score two touchdowns through the air to make it a one possession game. At this point we are told that Romo has the highest quarterback rating in the fourth quarter among active QBs. Here is another clip of Tony Romo in the fourth quarter, but this time his team has the lead: My link, of course, the Giants won.
Joe Flacco:
On the first play we see Flacco roll out, and deliver a bomb that only the receiver could catch. If anything is was slightly overthrown, but placed perfectly in the endzone. On the second we see exactly why speed matters. The throw in the third clip is behind, but look at how Flacco steps into the pocket, and sets his feet, still hitting the receiver in stride. The next ball is thrown right to Smith, how is positioned perfectly and with his feet down in the endzone. The next TD to Smith is right on the sideline, where only Smith can get it, and a great throw that leads him right into the endzone. That's how you throw a deep ball, btw.
The throw that is really interesting, is the one where Pitta needs to hop over the defender to reach behind his back to catch the throw. The ball, I think, could have been thrown right to the sideline, and it could have been intercepted.
Look at how he leads the receiver. He steps into all his throws, and definitely looks good in the pocket. That dash through the Browns defense showcases why speed is not only important in Madden (God I can't wait to play again), but also in the NFL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CvSI1gBsOg
This video, however, is exactly what defined Flacco's season in 2011, and demonstrated that he did, in fact, significantly improve over 2010. Unfortunately, that game should have ended about 20 seconds earlier as Smith dropped a TD pass on a good pass that was right in the face of pressure. Smith also negated a 70yd TD with a hold on the first play. For him to catch that final pass, where it looked like he pushed off a little is something.
This is what happened last year when the division was on the line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhiaW0B6Ow&feature=related
Talk all you want about physical ability or whatever, I've seen both guys play and its not even close. Even if Romo has the fastest release in the NFL, which I have heard before. Flacco, to me, looks better in the pocket, definitely throws better and with more accuracy and his release is perfectly fine. And he seems to improve when it counts.
Hopefully some more people will contribute some videos to really see the difference in play.
oukurt
Footballguy
this
Coming from the guy who thinks Demarcus Ware is the best 3-4 OLB in the league. I can name at least two that are strictly better.
oukurt
Footballguy
Yes my opinion of Ware being the best OLB in the league is just so far fetched. Don't go through your life being butthurt so easily.
The point is that I am trying to get people to consider the actual play based off of film and you seem to just spout fluff. I've conceded that Romo is statistically a superior player, in general. However, he is not in terms of 4th quarter comebacks, winning percentage. Moreover, Flacco is statistically superior in the playoffs. Moreover, you seem focused on the fact that Flacco's defense is significantly better, but no one wants to concede that Romo's offense has significantly better skill position players and a better set of offensive talent evaluators in general.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your opinions are fluff. Don't go through your life being ignorant. Unless, of course, you believe that ignorance is bliss.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your opinions are fluff. Don't go through your life being ignorant. Unless, of course, you believe that ignorance is bliss.
sspunisher
Footballguy
You going straight to YouTube after that long post I had about how to scout a QB tells me that you are admitting you've watched very little of Romo.First of all, LOL at YouTube scouting. I mean at least you're trying to back up your opinions with evidence, which is more than I can say for most people on these forums. And to be honest there's nothing wrong with YouTube in itself, but there's DEFINITELY something wrong with HIGHLIGHT scouting, which is mostly what you find on YouTube and what you were using. It's the plays that don't make the highlight reel that really tell you about a player. With that said, I won't dwell too deep into your "scouting" but I got curious about Romo's TD #27 so I watched it, and you finding something negative to say about that play pretty much tells me that you really have no idea how to break down what you see on the football field. I don't mean to come off as rude, but it's obvious to me you've never broken down a game to understand how and why everything happened. Watch that play again. Click on settings in the YouTube window (next to CC), and click on .5x to slow the play down. Watch it a good 10 or 20 times in slow motion to understand what happened in that play. Romo's footwork in the first 4-5 seconds is impeccable as he goes through his reads, so you are absolutely wrong to criticize it. Everything after those first few seconds isn't footwork anymore, it's his internal clock, pocket awareness and pocket mobility at work. Watch the Tampa Bay DT after he falls down and then watch the way Romo reacts to him once he gets back up and tries to loop around. Do all that and then come back here and tell me Romo has bad footwork because he bumped into his own lineman. You don't understand what you are watching at all.Forget about Romo's offense. Forget about Flacco's defense. Forget about stats. First thing you gotta do is understand how to break down football. I'll admit, it wasn't so long ago that I wouldn't really understand the games the way I do now, I'd just cheer for my teams and my fantasy players. But once I started actually recording games and watching a play over and over and over and trying to understand how and why everything was happening, the game slowed down for me a lot on Sundays. You pick up on the tiniest things and kind of understand the story behind the stats. Watching Romo ball out on Sundays and then listen to the media blow "his" failures completely out of proportion is bad enough, but when people like you actually believe it and think you are proving it by referencing some nonsense is just out of control.'Jaruta said:
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
People make their opinions about a player's "clutchness" based off an extremely limited sample size early in their career and then apply that to the rest of it. Every quarterback has times where they need to step up and they do, and times where they need to step up and they don't. A big well publicized flub early in a guy's career means that people will ignore the times he does step and focus on the times he doesn't. Meanwhile, a QB with a big publicized "clutch" moment early in his career gets carte blanche to flub it up as many times as he wants going forward.It's interesting that you bring up Romo not stepping up in a few important games. Especially because of this...
9-23 39.1% 135yds 5.9ypa 0td 0int 59.1 rating
13-30 43.3% 141yds 4.7ypa 0td 3int 18.2 rating
20-35 57.1% 189yds 5.4ypa 0td 2int 48.4 rating
16-30 53.3% 125yds 4.2ypa 1td 1int 61.1 rating
Those are some of Joe Flacco's playoff games, 3 of them being losses. Romo, even in his first year as a starter, has never had a game as poor as any of those in the playoffs or in an important game. Heck, even Rex Grossman never flubbed up a playoff game that badly.
Like I said, these things are what we make of them. The last two Super Bowls have ended up with the ball in Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady's hands and them coming up short.
Actually, Brady's 2011 season is a great example. I'm sure if I asked you how Brady played in 2011 you'd say he played fantastic. Yet, Brady's 2011 season was basically a microcosm of everything you're describing against Romo. Big stats, big let downs.
Romo had a 3 INT game against Detroit to let them come back? Brady did one better and threw 4 against Buffalo, including 3 in the second half while giving up a multi-score lead.
Then there's the 4th quarter of the playoff games. In the AFC Championship game his defense gives him the ball at midfield with a chance to ice the game and what does he do? On the first pass he throws a really bad interception.
In the Super Bowl he has a chance to ice the game and he makes that errant pass to Welker. It could have been caught, but it was a really bad pass as well. If Romo had made that pass he would have been lambasted for it.
Really, by the standards set forth for Romo, the whole 4th quarter of each of those games was a miserable chokejob.
Brady's 4th quarter stats in the AFC Championship game and Super Bowl:
8/18 82yds 4.5ypa 0td 2int
Sometimes, bad things sometimes happen at bad times. The problem is that blinded football fans form a pre-conceived notion about a guy and use that to either ignore those bad things or harp on those bad things based on that notion. I bet you've never seen those 4th quarter stats for Brady listed right above. If it were Romo instead of Brady, can you imagine how many times you would have seen them by now? But because it's a guy who's preconceived notion is "good", it's completely ignored.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
This is actually an interesting debate.
Not quite like Barry Sanders vs. Emmitt Smith, but I can see the basis for comparing them.
Flacco has the playoff edge. Romo has the stats and fantasy edge.
If I could pick and choose, I'd want the Dallas wide receivers and TE and Baltimore's defense and tailback, and their O-line - but you can't do that. I'd also take Romo for Weeks 1-13 and Flacco from that point forward... but that also doesn't fly.
Flacco should have won the game against NE last year in the AFCCG. They didn't win, so that's how it went.
Does Romo get a bad rap for being clutch? Maybe and probably.
Does Flacco get too much praise for his playoff record? Maybe and probably.
Who would I want if I was to start a franchise and had one pick to choose between the two? I'd take Flacco personally, but it is very close. I want the guy with more raw talent in his arm and a chip on his shoulder. I feel Romo could go 8-8 the rest of his life and be perfectly content. Flacco would be angry with that future.
Not quite like Barry Sanders vs. Emmitt Smith, but I can see the basis for comparing them.
Flacco has the playoff edge. Romo has the stats and fantasy edge.
If I could pick and choose, I'd want the Dallas wide receivers and TE and Baltimore's defense and tailback, and their O-line - but you can't do that. I'd also take Romo for Weeks 1-13 and Flacco from that point forward... but that also doesn't fly.
Flacco should have won the game against NE last year in the AFCCG. They didn't win, so that's how it went.
Does Romo get a bad rap for being clutch? Maybe and probably.
Does Flacco get too much praise for his playoff record? Maybe and probably.
Who would I want if I was to start a franchise and had one pick to choose between the two? I'd take Flacco personally, but it is very close. I want the guy with more raw talent in his arm and a chip on his shoulder. I feel Romo could go 8-8 the rest of his life and be perfectly content. Flacco would be angry with that future.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I have mostly stayed out of this thread, but I had to jump in about Flacco's post season performance. In short, it has been nothing to write home about.He's played in 9 playoff games:- He's had 2 games where he complete 60% of his passes- He's had 2 games where he went over 200 yards- He's had 5 games where his QB rating was under 65 (including games with a rating of 10 and 18).Bottom line, he has been less than specatular and the rest of his team bailed him out to make both his regular season and post season winning percentage inflated.As far as the teams go, the Ravens defense has allowed 86 fewer points and 485 fewer yards per year compared to the Cowboys defense. I don't think that the QBs in question had that big an impact on those numbers. That alone is a sizeable advantage that will make Flacco look better and Romo look worse.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Agreed. Also important to remember where each guy is on his career timeline. Romo is 32, and IMO at the "what you see is what you get" stage. Flacco is 27, and personally I don't think we've seen his best football yet. Alot of QBs really hit their stride in their late 20s...
Mark Wimer
Moderator
David Yudkin
Footballguy
That's not a fair fight, as Flacco has many more years ahead of him than Romo does. A better question would be, if a franchise had to pick between the two for THIS YEAR, which guy would they pick? To make it interesting, let's say the team in question is a serious playoff contender. For example, if the Niners could have either of those two this year, which would they pick? How about the Pats? The Packers? The Steelers? Etc.?I suspect teams with high octane passing attacks would be more inclined to side with Romo. Flacco might get a few more votes from teams with top defenses, but I still think the majority would side with Romo.
Bankerguy
Footballguy
I honestly cant say that I haven't watched a ton of Raven's game, but I have seen every second of NFL action for Romo. Ths guy was nothing short of outstanding last year minus the 2nd half of the Lions game. I don't think the average fan understands exactly how bad the Oline was for Dallas. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW9a0DQ9YTk
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Agreed. Romo is a better QB right now, which is pretty much what you'd expect from a 32 year old vs. a 27 year old at a pretty tough position to fully master.
But I think it's also closer than most do. Romo has played with MUCH better receivers and in a friendlier system, which IMO inflates his statistical output. He's also a much higher profile player and plays for one of the NFL's highest profile franchises. I think he's pretty over-rated, particularly by the stats-happy fantasy community. Aaron Brooks was a good fantasy QB, too. He had some nice statistical years. He had a good arm, and was a great athlete. No way in hell I'd want him QBing my NFL team, though.
But I think it's also closer than most do. Romo has played with MUCH better receivers and in a friendlier system, which IMO inflates his statistical output. He's also a much higher profile player and plays for one of the NFL's highest profile franchises. I think he's pretty over-rated, particularly by the stats-happy fantasy community. Aaron Brooks was a good fantasy QB, too. He had some nice statistical years. He had a good arm, and was a great athlete. No way in hell I'd want him QBing my NFL team, though.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Being "only" 27 is not an excuse for a QB, especially when he's a 4 year starter. That is not young, even for a quarterback, and most QBs have their fates in the league decided long before then. It's not an excuse anymore, and Romo was a pro-bowl caliber player in his 2nd year as a starter. Flacco is entering his 5th.
Romo has played with better people around him and in a better system, sure, but to nowhere near the extent that makes up for the vast difference in their output. If Miles Austin and Anquan Boldin switched places you would be saying it's not fair because Romo plays with great WRs like Boldin whereas Flacco has to settle for guys like Austin.Every WR that's played under Flacco has put up significantly worse numbers with him than they did previously with a different QB.
Let's drop the opportunity act as well. Baltimore threw as much as Dallas did this year, and since when has Cam Cameron not had a friendly system?
This is a poor comparison.Aaron Brook's BEST ypa, completion percentage, and QB rating as a starter is worse than Romo's WORST year in all those categories.
Romo is a 65% completion, 8.0 ypa, 98.0 QB rating player
Brooks is a 55% completion, 6.8 ypa, 79.0 QB rating player
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
On my phone so it's hard to multi-quote, but
1.) Re: Flacco's age, we'll just have to disagree. I expect him to continue to improve. On my phone so I'm not gonna look it up, but I'm guessing that more QBs peak statistically in their late 20s through early 30s vs any other age. We'll see with Flacco, I guess. And he doesn't need any excuses. He's a solid young starting QB. Not a top tier guy (but neither is Tony Romo), but plenty of NFL franchises would be thrilled to have him.
2.) Regarding the WRs, come on. Miles Austin, TO, Dez, and Witten are all WAY better than any receiver that Flacco has ever had, including Anquan Boldin, who is nowhere near the player he was three or four years ago.
3.) Of course Romo is a better player than Aaron Brooks, but he's closer to Brooks (or Flacco) than he is to say, Eli Manning.
1.) Re: Flacco's age, we'll just have to disagree. I expect him to continue to improve. On my phone so I'm not gonna look it up, but I'm guessing that more QBs peak statistically in their late 20s through early 30s vs any other age. We'll see with Flacco, I guess. And he doesn't need any excuses. He's a solid young starting QB. Not a top tier guy (but neither is Tony Romo), but plenty of NFL franchises would be thrilled to have him.
2.) Regarding the WRs, come on. Miles Austin, TO, Dez, and Witten are all WAY better than any receiver that Flacco has ever had, including Anquan Boldin, who is nowhere near the player he was three or four years ago.
3.) Of course Romo is a better player than Aaron Brooks, but he's closer to Brooks (or Flacco) than he is to say, Eli Manning.
sspunisher
Footballguy
Aaron Brooks!? Holy hell man at least compare him to someone like Jeff Garcia, something like that I could at least understand. Aaron Brooks!? Do you even watch football?
Last edited by a moderator:
I will definitely watch the play again, under the circumstances you mention. However, I honestly believe Flacco looks much more impressive in those highlights. If you could, please break down some more in depth games, if you have access to them because I don't.I think more teams would pick Flacco than Romo when considering franchise type play. The guy is younger and is definitely physically gifted. Plus, I think he has shown more in his early career. Consider the improvement he has actually undergone in the playoffs. It's huge in the last two years. The guy will step up this year and people will really look back on this thread and change their opinions. In last years playoffs both games went over 95 QB rating with one defense being very strong, and the PAts defense was no slouch down the stretch. As for receivers putting up significantly worse numbers with Flacco over the years, consider that those receivers were all outside their prime and came to an offense where they were really the only option outside of Heap, who has had serious injury issues. I don't think people are really seeing how much discontinuity this guy has had in the offense. The only constant is Ray Rice. This year, both TEs are entering a contract year, their 3rd, there are plenty of receivers who could step up, and I honestly believe that Osemele can be an improvement over Grubbs. It is, after all, the fifth and fourth years that QBs take the next step.
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
LMAO that Big Ben gets credit for half the crap his team did around him.
Really?Similar threads
