Who's Better, Flacco or Romo? (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

As for receivers putting up significantly worse numbers with Flacco over the years, consider that those receivers were all outside their prime

Boldin was 29 when he came to the Ravens. That's right in the center of a WR's prime. That's how old Larry Fitzgerald is right now.Lee Evans was 30, Housh was 32.Terrell Owens, who you continue to harp on about, was 33 when he started with the Cowboys and as old as a whopping 36 in one of his seasons there.

 

[houndirish]

There's a lot of backtracking going on in an attempt to save face here.

The original post asked who's better? It didn't ask who will be better, who will have the better career, which QB most NFL GM's would prefer moving forward or which winds up as a better fantasy option. It simply asked, who's better.

 

[mr roboto]

Romo is better. Flacco will be better IMO.

 

[Jaruta]

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.

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.

Watched the play again. Nothing to see. His footwork was ok, until he turned and almost ran into pressure, that was being pushed away, and he ran into his lineman before turning around and almost running into another player. All this against the Bucs defense. I'm not talking about his footwork per se, or his progressions. I am talking about the fact that he was all over the place with where he moved in the pocket. I guess he must feel fortunate playing so many sub-standard defenses last year. A better defense would not have allowed that play to even get that far. I definitely agree that highlight scouting is a poor reference, but don't kid yourself that its so bad. I find it funny that for the criticism I offered, you only focused on one play out of 30, and then criticize my ability to understand football. I may not know much about the nuances of the game such as different releases or what not, but I do know enough to actually make a significant portion of my income from betting on football. And I know what I see: A QB that benefits significantly from his supporting cast, i.e. a QB that benefits from more than half of his touchdowns passes being thrown to wide open players... Again, I implore you to put forth some of your guru insight from a direct reference before criticizing me.

 

[JPeso]

Romo is better now. Further, Flacco will not be as good as Romo is now.

 

[sspunisher]

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.

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.

Watched the play again. Nothing to see. His footwork was ok, until he turned and almost ran into pressure, that was being pushed away, and he ran into his lineman before turning around and almost running into another player. All this against the Bucs defense. I'm not talking about his footwork per se, or his progressions. I am talking about the fact that he was all over the place with where he moved in the pocket. I guess he must feel fortunate playing so many sub-standard defenses last year. A better defense would not have allowed that play to even get that far. I definitely agree that highlight scouting is a poor reference, but don't kid yourself that its so bad. I find it funny that for the criticism I offered, you only focused on one play out of 30, and then criticize my ability to understand football. I may not know much about the nuances of the game such as different releases or what not, but I do know enough to actually make a significant portion of my income from betting on football. And I know what I see: A QB that benefits significantly from his supporting cast, i.e. a QB that benefits from more than half of his touchdowns passes being thrown to wide open players... Again, I implore you to put forth some of your guru insight from a direct reference before criticizing me.

Call it what you will, but I can't sit here and spend hours trying to reason football with someone who already has his mind made up. Maybe if you offered some logical arguments I'd be more willing to dig into this deeper with you, I do enjoy a good football debate. But you don't use football evidence to form your opinions. Your opinions are already formed, you just mold the football evidence into something you want to see. You not understanding what is happening in that one particular play leads me to believe you don't understand other plays as well. Is that an unfounded assumption? Maybe, but probability is on my side. I don't care to get into this much deeper with you, but as I've said 100 times before, if you watched more Cowboys games, you'd realize that Romo's great footwork and pocket improv was not only limited to that single play against the Bucs that you saw. I've seen similar plays against the Rams, Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Steelers, Packers and Falcons just off the top of my head. His Houdini acts in the pocket are not a rare occurrence and you chalking that one play up to a bad Bucs D is proof that you are just grasping at straws on this subject. As for your betting, most of my gambling goes into my numerous fantasy teams but if you have a DraftStreet account I'll be more than willing to take some money from you.

 

[houndirish]

That was the sound of the gauntlet being thrown!

 

[Jaruta]

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.

I'm not talking about his footwork per se, or his progressions. I am talking about the fact that he was all over the place with where he moved in the pocket.

Call it what you will, but I can't sit here and spend hours trying to reason football with someone who already has his mind made up. Maybe if you offered some logical arguments I'd be more willing to dig into this deeper with you, I do enjoy a good football debate. But you don't use football evidence to form your opinions. Your opinions are already formed, you just mold the football evidence into something you want to see. You not understanding what is happening in that one particular play leads me to believe you don't understand other plays as well. Is that an unfounded assumption? Maybe, but probability is on my side. I don't care to get into this much deeper with you, but as I've said 100 times before, if you watched more Cowboys games, you'd realize that Romo's great footwork and pocket improv was not only limited to that single play against the Bucs that you saw. I've seen similar plays against the Rams, Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Steelers, Packers and Falcons just off the top of my head. His Houdini acts in the pocket are not a rare occurrence and you chalking that one play up to a bad Bucs D is proof that you are just grasping at straws on this subject.

Show me some plays. I can bet that you watch a whole lot more Cowboys' games demonstrating Romo's "Houdini acts" than you have Ravens' games featuring Joe Cool. Tony Romo is a good quarterback, that is why he is starting for a fine organization that definitely knows how to win. After all, a monkey head coach could have won with some rosters that the organization put together. What I believe to be stronger deficiencies in Romo's game are masked by the otherwise strong foundation he is a part of. (Like the OL, WR, RBs, playcalling, ...) That is, I am making the argument that, essentially, his team chokes with him playing at the most important position. Moreover, I think that Romo has a relatively weak arm. (Relative to Flacco, of course.) I have shown video that demonstrates a tendency to under throw his receivers on touchdown passes. I have also posted a video showing that Romo over threw a receiver for a touchdown in the fourth quarter in a game that the Cowboys' needed to win and were ahead but lost. That was one of the few times I have seen Romo over throw a receiver. Remember that it is also true that Tony Romo has a notably strong fourth quarter passer rating, yet he has only 14 game winning drives through the age of 31. Joe Flacco has 11 through age 26. Romo had 3 at that age. My references to touchdown 27 have nothing to do with "Romo's footwork in the first 4-5 seconds." Nor do they have anything to do with his footwork. I'm referencing "Everything after those first few seconds ... internal clock, pocket awareness and pocket mobility at work." As the DT was repositioning, after he was shoved to the ground and effectively neutralized, there was pressure coming from the back that was covered. Romo tried to loop around that DT for what? To bump into his lineman, kill time? He just finished watching that side of the field, so he knew the guy was there. This was against a three man rush. As he bumped his offensive lineman, he turned and ran right into the third rusher. He threw right into double coverage. Does it really make no difference that the Tamba Bay Bucs leaked touchdowns out of their cipkas for a league high 30 ppg? His internal clock was off because he had more time that he made it seem, his pocket awareness was deficient. He set his feet well but not impeccably. I'm a huge Ravens homer. I believe that they had the best roster last year, and matched up well against every team. (I also think that it was not Billy Cundiff's fault for losing that game, nor was it Lee Evans. It was exactly when the coaching staff decided to kick a field goal on a fourth down at approx. the 3 yard line. Notice that Tom Brady dived over the pack during a similar situation during that game.) But that does not preclude me from making a decent evaluation. Which of these players is better, you ask? Define better? In my opinion, Flacco is better than Romo because he offers better value. Flacco has the better arm, and the athletic ability. He's bigger, stronger, faster. More can be done with him. He's in the final year of a rookie contract. The same year in which Eli Manning and Tony Romo and countless other quarterbacks saw significant increases in their own statistical production. There is a cap hit differential of $10 million between them and $3 million in salary differential. Flacco has shown that he does not choke. He performed exceptionally well in crucial moments against relatively stronger defenses. Relative, of course, to the defenses that the Cowboys faced. Moreover, I think the Ravens offensive foundation is relatively weaker than the Cowboys, although the Ravens' own is improving. What I mean is that I think that the Dallas Cowboys have more talent at their skill positions than the Ravens. At least in receiving talent. The team has not gelled well with Romo leading them. Maybe they're hating he gets all that fine poon. Maybe he is choking under pressure. Or, maybe, his defense sucks. (Talk about someone needing to rely on their defense.) Whatever it is is not working. QB is the superstar and most important player. How many teams with quarterbacks that have the highest historic QB ratings have only one or so playoff victory to their credit?

As for your betting, most of my gambling goes into my numerous fantasy teams but if you have a DraftStreet account I'll be more than willing to take some money from you.

Well, I don't do fantasy football. That's a different beast that I find not particularly alluring since it focuses on a different aspect of football, namely the measured aspect; what I find alluring is the business aspect of football and how organizations can win the game. Hence, I tend to focus on betting with a spread, not straight up. From what I understand, DraftStreet is a fantasy football related site? For example, does one join a 12 team league, have a draft and play some particular week? PM some details, please. Everyone is more than welcome to join a simple football pool from the Niagara area. I believe this years number is projected to be 700 or so participants with a $35 entry fee. Last year paid out max $4600; however, most of the top earners got $1000. One is approx. %90 likely to at least receive $35.

 

[Jaruta]

Flacco

Your making it seem like I'm the fanatic...

 

[sspunisher]

Show me some plays. I can bet that you watch a whole lot more Cowboys' games demonstrating Romo's "Houdini acts" than you have Ravens' games featuring Joe Cool.

Tony Romo is a good quarterback, that is why he is starting for a fine organization that definitely knows how to win. After all, a monkey head coach could have won with some rosters that the organization put together. What I believe to be stronger deficiencies in Romo's game are masked by the otherwise strong foundation he is a part of. (Like the OL, WR, RBs, playcalling, ...) That is, I am making the argument that, essentially, his team chokes with him playing at the most important position. Moreover, I think that Romo has a relatively weak arm. (Relative to Flacco, of course.)

I have shown video that demonstrates a tendency to under throw his receivers on touchdown passes. I have also posted a video showing that Romo over threw a receiver for a touchdown in the fourth quarter in a game that the Cowboys' needed to win and were ahead but lost. That was one of the few times I have seen Romo over throw a receiver. Remember that it is also true that Tony Romo has a notably strong fourth quarter passer rating, yet he has only 14 game winning drives through the age of 31. Joe Flacco has 11 through age 26. Romo had 3 at that age.

My references to touchdown 27 have nothing to do with "Romo's footwork in the first 4-5 seconds." Nor do they have anything to do with his footwork. I'm referencing "Everything after those first few seconds ... internal clock, pocket awareness and pocket mobility at work." As the DT was repositioning, after he was shoved to the ground and effectively neutralized, there was pressure coming from the back that was covered. Romo tried to loop around that DT for what? To bump into his lineman, kill time? He just finished watching that side of the field, so he knew the guy was there. This was against a three man rush. As he bumped his offensive lineman, he turned and ran right into the third rusher. He threw right into double coverage. Does it really make no difference that the Tamba Bay Bucs leaked touchdowns out of their cipkas for a league high 30 ppg? His internal clock was off because he had more time that he made it seem, his pocket awareness was deficient. He set his feet well but not impeccably.

I'm a huge Ravens homer. I believe that they had the best roster last year, and matched up well against every team. (I also think that it was not Billy Cundiff's fault for losing that game, nor was it Lee Evans. It was exactly when the coaching staff decided to kick a field goal on a fourth down at approx. the 3 yard line. Notice that Tom Brady dived over the pack during a similar situation during that game.) But that does not preclude me from making a decent evaluation.

Which of these players is better, you ask? Define better? In my opinion, Flacco is better than Romo because he offers better value. Flacco has the better arm, and the athletic ability. He's bigger, stronger, faster. More can be done with him. He's in the final year of a rookie contract. The same year in which Eli Manning and Tony Romo and countless other quarterbacks saw significant increases in their own statistical production. There is a cap hit differential of $10 million between them and $3 million in salary differential. Flacco has shown that he does not choke. He performed exceptionally well in crucial moments against relatively stronger defenses. Relative, of course, to the defenses that the Cowboys faced. Moreover, I think the Ravens offensive foundation is relatively weaker than the Cowboys, although the Ravens' own is improving. What I mean is that I think that the Dallas Cowboys have more talent at their skill positions than the Ravens. At least in receiving talent. The team has not gelled well with Romo leading them. Maybe they're hating he gets all that fine poon. Maybe he is choking under pressure. Or, maybe, his defense sucks. (Talk about someone needing to rely on their defense.) Whatever it is is not working. QB is the superstar and most important player. How many teams with quarterbacks that have the highest historic QB ratings have only one or so playoff victory to their credit?

As for your betting, most of my gambling goes into my numerous fantasy teams but if you have a DraftStreet account I'll be more than willing to take some money from you.

Well, I don't do fantasy football. That's a different beast that I find not particularly alluring since it focuses on a different aspect of football, namely the measured aspect; what I find alluring is the business aspect of football and how organizations can win the game. Hence, I tend to focus on betting with a spread, not straight up. From what I understand, DraftStreet is a fantasy football related site? For example, does one join a 12 team league, have a draft and play some particular week? PM some details, please. Everyone is more than welcome to join a simple football pool from the Niagara area. I believe this years number is projected to be 700 or so participants with a $35 entry fee. Last year paid out max $4600; however, most of the top earners got $1000. One is approx. %90 likely to at least receive $35.

Hold up, let's not jump into the tape any further for now. Before I start looking for clips and spend hours trying to break them down for this thread, let's first focus on "perception." I talked a lot about perception in terms of how the media portrays Romo and how it influences you. And I already know you're influenced by this based on how you analyze tape, but let me show you how it also influences the way you look at simple football numbers. How you analyze football stats:

Joe Flacco:

Age: 27

Career Comebacks: 11

Tony Romo

Age: 32

Career Comebacks: 14

Your analysis: Romo has 5 more years on Flacco, but only 3 more career comebacks. Flacco is 27 years YOUNG so he has a lot of room for growth. Romo is 32 years OLD, doesn't have much room for growth and will be declining while Flacco gets better. Flacco is easily outpacing Romo and should have more career comebacks by the time both players retire.

How I analyze football stats:

Joe Flacco:

Career Starts: 64

Career Comebacks: 11

Comeback/Career Starts Ratio: 17.2%

Tony Romo

Career Starts: 77

Career Comebacks: 14

Comeback/Career Starts Ratio: 18.2%

My Analysis: Both players are relatively inexperienced at QB when compared to their peers, though Romo has 13 games more experience on Flacco. Even though I don't put too much stock into comebacks b/c all it means is that your TEAM is playing from behind...statistically, Romo is actually outpacing Flacco.

But judging from all of your responses so far, you won'taccept these numbers portrayed to you in a way that indicates Romo might actually be better than you think he is. The idea that Romo is a choke artist is so INGRAINED in your mind that I'm sure you feel there is something illogical about the way I'm showing you these numbers. Again, it comes down to perception and your mind is already made up. You're unwilling to take a step back and seriously consider that Romo might be better than you give him credit for. You might say you're open minded to it, but the way you broke down that play told me everything I needed to know.

 

[Jaruta]

Reading comprehension down? That number is used only for comparative purposes. What it shows is a problem. Even though Romo has the highest fourth quarter passer rating, I can find at least 2 videos of him botching a play that cost his team the game. Moreover, one of those plays likely cost them the division. The plays are HIS fault, and are not the faults of any other players. Choke artist is not ingrained in my mind. It is a fact. It is no coincidence that Romo has all these flashy numbers to his name, but for some reason wins are not among them. For some reason, GWDs are not among them. The touchdown pass the we keep referencing, look at the way he is moving. He is so nervous that it is blatant.

I don't think I'm the biased one hear, buddy.

I am just posting comparable numbers. Your looking at starts. What about the three years Romo sat on the bench watching and waiting to play? Why can't that be factored into the analysis? You'd think you would be more clever and say that through age 26, Tony Romo had 3 game winning drives and 10 starts to his credit. Hence, the rate is roughly 30%, instead of being a meager 1% greater, a number that is not statistically relevant.

My analysis suggests that because his numbers are great, especially in the fourth quarter, and because I have video of him losing games on his own, and because his numbers such as wins and comebacks do not stack up, I conclude he is a choke artist.

Consider the NYG. During the regular season, by most statistical measures, the Giants defense was worse than the Cowboys defense. Moreover, they play in the same division, so they played similar teams. Observe that Eli Manning participated in 8 GWD last season alone while setting a record for most fourth quarter touchdown passes. His team won 9 games. I hope that that elucidates, even slightly, some nuances related to Romo's numbers. Something is missing. But you can't see past that.

I like your take on my analysis. You seem to be putting words at the tips of my fingers so much. That's all you do, lol. And then you attack my logic.

Since we are on the topic, Eli Manning and Joe Flacco have the same number of GWDs through age 26, FWIW.

 

[Mustang Man]

Dallas has had a pretty talented team throughout Romo's career and accomplished zero

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

Please stop this. Romo AND IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE. Damn people. Flacco is so over ratted, the Raven defense is the reason anyone thinks he is half as good as he is. Flacco has to make one or two throws a game to look like a hero and Romo has to do it the whole game. That will change this year as the Dallas defense will not be thrown on in the 4th quarter like a high school team playing in the NFL. DALLAS WON'T LOSE ALL THEM 4TH QUARTER LEADS ROMO GOT THEM LAST YEAR. THAT #### WILL BE ON LOCKDOWN THIS YEAR. CARR CLAIBORNE JENKINS SACANDRICK. BOOK IT.

 

[sspunisher]

Reading comprehension down? That number is used only for comparative purposes. What it shows is a problem. Even though Romo has the highest fourth quarter passer rating, I can find at least 2 videos of him botching a play that cost his team the game. Moreover, one of those plays likely cost them the division. The plays are HIS fault, and are not the faults of any other players. Choke artist is not ingrained in my mind. It is a fact. It is no coincidence that Romo has all these flashy numbers to his name, but for some reason wins are not among them. For some reason, GWDs are not among them. The touchdown pass the we keep referencing, look at the way he is moving. He is so nervous that it is blatant.I don't think I'm the biased one hear, buddy.I am just posting comparable numbers. Your looking at starts. What about the three years Romo sat on the bench watching and waiting to play? Why can't that be factored into the analysis? You'd think you would be more clever and say that through age 26, Tony Romo had 3 game winning drives and 10 starts to his credit. Hence, the rate is roughly 30%, instead of being a meager 1% greater, a number that is not statistically relevant. My analysis suggests that because his numbers are great, especially in the fourth quarter, and because I have video of him losing games on his own, and because his numbers such as wins and comebacks do not stack up, I conclude he is a choke artist. Consider the NYG. During the regular season, by most statistical measures, the Giants defense was worse than the Cowboys defense. Moreover, they play in the same division, so they played similar teams. Observe that Eli Manning participated in 8 GWD last season alone while setting a record for most fourth quarter touchdown passes. His team won 9 games. I hope that that elucidates, even slightly, some nuances related to Romo's numbers. Something is missing. But you can't see past that.I like your take on my analysis. You seem to be putting words at the tips of my fingers so much. That's all you do, lol. And then you attack my logic. Since we are on the topic, Eli Manning and Joe Flacco have the same number of GWDs through age 26, FWIW.

Lol man whenever I first see one of your posts it's like I'm opening up a surprise box of stupid. I don't even know where to start or what part of the stupid to acknowledge. Your mindset is all over the place. First of all, you are truly convinced that comebacks are legitimately a stat that should be ONLY attributed to a QB. You ignore every single event in every single game leading to comebacks (or lack thereof), all you care about is the bottom line. A comeback comes from a win. If a QB has a scoring drive to put his team up with 1:30 seconds left, and his defense gives up a score in those last 90 seconds to lose the lead, you don't get that "comeback" that you value so highly. How is that ANY QB's fault? Don't be so ignorant, the game is bigger than just a QB and it's deeper than the stats you see. But that involves you know, watching games to understand.You constantly refer to age as if it's an indicator of who will be better or who is better. You've referenced (and I've ignored) many times how Romo sat on the bench for 3 years while Flacco got the starting gig right away. Flacco achieved X at Y years of age while Romo was sitting on the bench at Y years of age. As far as I remember, Troy Smith was dying in the hospital and the Ravens needed someone to you know, stand behind the center. But either way, what do all of these things have to do with who is better? Does sitting on the bench for 3 years actually somehow influence who you think is a better QB? Wow man, you've pretty much fessed up to the fact that you don't understand many of the nuances of watching game tape. The argument should have ended right there.I will say that I had a fortune cookie the other day. The fortune was pretty interesting: "Don't argue with ignorance. People from afar can't tell who is who."

 

[houndirish]

The reason Joe Flacco started pretty much immediately and Romo sat and watched is because Flacco was a first round QB who was drafted to be the franchise QB. Whereas Romo was undrafted, worked his ### off, and supplanted the franchise QB when opportunity arose. In my opinion, this is a condemnation, not a defense of Flacco, as he hasn't played like a franchise QB despite being drafted to be one, whereas Romo, a league afterthought, has developed his game to the point he's a consistent performer.

Regardless, this shouldn't weigh into comparison based on accomplishment in terms of years of experience. The players should be measured based on what they've produced when given the chance to play. Using Jaruta logic Tom Brady isn't as good as Flacco because he didn't start immediately.

 

[Fensalk]

This is one of those threads where you wind up with Cowboys-Ravens in the next super bowl and everyone comes back in here to bump stuff.

 

[sspunisher]

This is one of those threads where you wind up with Cowboys-Ravens in the next super bowl and everyone comes back in here to bump stuff.

I believe they play week 3 or 4, it'll probably get bumped regardless haha

 

[MTskibum]

Joe flaccos numbers are comparable to drew brees first 4 years, and are clearly better than both ben roethlisberger and eli mannings first 4 years.

I think joe flacco can still be an elite QB.

 

[krsone21]

Right now Romo, in the near future, Flacco.

 

[houndirish]

Joe flaccos numbers are comparable to drew brees first 4 years, and are clearly better than both ben roethlisberger and eli mannings first 4 years.I think joe flacco can still be an elite QB.

That's not what's being debated. I think Flacco could still develop into an elite QB too but at this point in their careers it's hard to say Flacco has been better (which is what the original question is asking)