Romo: Retired

Team Discussions regarding games, players, coaches, or anything else related to Buccaneer Football.
post

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby VauntedTampa2 » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:29 am

If a discussion must be had on whether a player should be in the hall or not, then said player shouldn't be in the hall.
VauntedTampa2
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 8:52 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby MJW » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:47 am

VauntedTampa2 wrote:If a discussion must be had on whether a player should be in the hall or not, then said player shouldn't be in the hall.


This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:09 pm

MJW wrote:
VauntedTampa2 wrote:If a discussion must be had on whether a player should be in the hall or not, then said player shouldn't be in the hall.


This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.

This is what is so frustrating. You literally can't explain why a guy deserves to be in or not. It's just 'something you know.' I make my case with statistics and reasoned explanations. You've got gut feelings and 'I know it when I see it.'

I don't care if you disagree. Just please actually engage in debate with something other than nonsensical bullshit.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby sanka » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:29 pm

MJW wrote:
VauntedTampa2 wrote:If a discussion must be had on whether a player should be in the hall or not, then said player shouldn't be in the hall.


This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.


What porn site do you visit?
User avatar
sanka
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:44 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby MJW » Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:08 am

Ken Carson wrote:
MJW wrote:
This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.

This is what is so frustrating. You literally can't explain why a guy deserves to be in or not. It's just 'something you know.' I make my case with statistics and reasoned explanations. You've got gut feelings and 'I know it when I see it.'

I don't care if you disagree. Just please actually engage in debate with something other than nonsensical bullshit.


See, Ken, this is your problem: you're trying to apply the scientific method to what is, at best, an inexact science, and is much better described as an exercise in belief.

Look at the players who've gotten in, and the ones who haven't, and then tell me what your science is worth in understanding why. Tell me why Lynn Swann's ballet grace and blocking-tight-end stats are HOF worthy, but Henry Ellard's 14,000 receiving yards have never even gotten him close. Tell me why Terrell Davis has 5,000 fewer rushing yards than Edge, his contemporary, but TD is in and Edge never will be. Use your "science" to explain.

And enough with the ad hominem crap. Just because you don't understand why you don't understand isn't anyone else's problem, Bootz. It's even more frustrating dealing with someone who thinks his stubbornness is a virtue but everyone else's is a sign of ignorance.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:15 am

The reason that those guys are in is because voters vote for stories and myths, not the greatest players.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:50 am

MJW wrote:And enough with the ad hominem crap. Just because you don't understand why you don't understand isn't anyone else's problem, Bootz. It's even more frustrating dealing with someone who thinks his stubbornness is a virtue but everyone else's is a sign of ignorance.


Wait, how did I get thrown into the mix here?
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:23 am

So the best argument for Romo is that he was really good for one season in 2014 (which was his last) and that his QB rating compares favorably all-time.

I'll agree Romo played like an elite NFL QB in 2014 and that's why he was selected to his lone All-Pro team (2nd team). But when you look at Romo's career and the other QBs of his era (2000 - 2016) I don't think you can say Romo was among the top 5 QBs at any time other than the 2014 season. If Romo could've stayed healthy late in his career and replicated the 2014 season 1x or 2x more along w/ a good postseason run I think his case would be much stronger.

QB rating simply can't used to compare Romo to anyone other than his contemporaries. Here is why, of the TOP 12 all-time in QB rating 11 of them started their career in 1998 or later. IIRC QB Rating goes up to 158.3, Romo (97.1) is just a handful of rating points better than the likes of Kirk Cousins (93.6), Colin Kaepernick (88.9), Andy Dalton (90.1), Matt Schaub (89.1) and Chad Pennington (90.1), and nobody is making a HoF case for those guys.

There are many variables that are weighed/argued when it comes to making a HoF case for a QB. But how they compared to their contemporaries is a big one. For a QB postseason success play a bigger factor than for a non-QB. To me Romo's career doesn't check enough boxes get into the HoF and if he gets in w/ his resume it lowers the bar for entry imo.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Doctor » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:01 pm

MJW wrote:
VauntedTampa2 wrote:If a discussion must be had on whether a player should be in the hall or not, then said player shouldn't be in the hall.


This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.

I think it's a little more complicated that than. There are some guys that make you think, like Kurt Warner. Usually you know right away if you are asking if I guy did enough to make the hall vs if a guy should maybe not be in. Asking the latter, like in Kurts or Edges case, I think is valid. But if you are asking the former, like with guys like Romo. Then you know the answer.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 3671
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:46 pm

DreadNaught wrote:So the best argument for Romo is that he was really good for one season in 2014 (which was his last) and that his QB rating compares favorably all-time.

I'll agree Romo played like an elite NFL QB in 2014 and that's why he was selected to his lone All-Pro team (2nd team). But when you look at Romo's career and the other QBs of his era (2000 - 2016) I don't think you can say Romo was among the top 5 QBs at any time other than the 2014 season. If Romo could've stayed healthy late in his career and replicated the 2014 season 1x or 2x more along w/ a good postseason run I think his case would be much stronger.

QB rating simply can't used to compare Romo to anyone other than his contemporaries. Here is why, of the TOP 12 all-time in QB rating 11 of them started their career in 1998 or later. IIRC QB Rating goes up to 158.3, Romo (97.1) is just a handful of rating points better than the likes of Kirk Cousins (93.6), Colin Kaepernick (88.9), Andy Dalton (90.1), Matt Schaub (89.1) and Chad Pennington (90.1), and nobody is making a HoF case for those guys.

There are many variables that are weighed/argued when it comes to making a HoF case for a QB. But how they compared to their contemporaries is a big one. For a QB postseason success play a bigger factor than for a non-QB. To me Romo's career doesn't check enough boxes get into the HoF and if he gets in w/ his resume it lowers the bar for entry imo.

Romo isn't in the same class as the guys you are mentioning. He has a rating .1 lower than Brady and .8 higher than Drew Brees.

Brees also brings up a good question. Would you consider him a Hall of Famer?
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:49 pm

Brees absolutely.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Teitan » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:51 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:Brees absolutely.



^ record setting, super bowl winning QB.
User avatar
Teitan
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:59 pm

Teitan wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:Brees absolutely.



^ record setting, super bowl winning QB.


Speaking of which, Brees is just 5,830 yards from passing Peyton Manning as the all time leader. For any other QB you'd say maybe 2018. But for Brees who has 5 seasons over 5,000, 2017 is possible. It would take another record setting year but with him anything is possible.

At any rate he's an easy yes for HOF. No question what so ever.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:09 pm

Doctor wrote:
MJW wrote:
This is a perfect example of "stone age thinking" ........ that's really tough to argue with.

Unless we're talking about a guy like TO, who isn't in yet simply because people don't like him, there shouldn't be a discussion.

A Hall Of Famer is like porn: you might not know exactly what the definition is, but you know it when you see it. It's why everyone understands why Aikman was a 1st ballot guy, but Steve McNair is never getting in.

I think it's a little more complicated that than. There are some guys that make you think, like Kurt Warner. Usually you know right away if you are asking if I guy did enough to make the hall vs if a guy should maybe not be in. Asking the latter, like in Kurts or Edges case, I think is valid. But if you are asking the former, like with guys like Romo. Then you know the answer.

Warner is Romo except Warner played with generational offensive talent in Holt, Faulk, and Pace.

25+ TD seasons - Warner - 5, Romo - 7
Career record - Warner 67-49, Romo 78-49
Rating - Warner 93.3, Romo 97.1
TDs/INTs - Warner 208/128, Romo 248/117
Pro Bowls - Warner 5, Romo 5
All-Pro - Warner 2, Romo 1

The argument for Warner to the HoF is based on his team's postseason success. When grading on a curve, of the best 5 guys these two played with, four of them are Warner's teammates (Faulk, Holt, Pace, and Bruce) while Romo gets Owens, who should be a Hall guy already. You have to take that into account when doing individual honors like the Hall of Fame.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:11 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:So the best argument for Romo is that he was really good for one season in 2014 (which was his last) and that his QB rating compares favorably all-time.

I'll agree Romo played like an elite NFL QB in 2014 and that's why he was selected to his lone All-Pro team (2nd team). But when you look at Romo's career and the other QBs of his era (2000 - 2016) I don't think you can say Romo was among the top 5 QBs at any time other than the 2014 season. If Romo could've stayed healthy late in his career and replicated the 2014 season 1x or 2x more along w/ a good postseason run I think his case would be much stronger.

QB rating simply can't used to compare Romo to anyone other than his contemporaries. Here is why, of the TOP 12 all-time in QB rating 11 of them started their career in 1998 or later. IIRC QB Rating goes up to 158.3, Romo (97.1) is just a handful of rating points better than the likes of Kirk Cousins (93.6), Colin Kaepernick (88.9), Andy Dalton (90.1), Matt Schaub (89.1) and Chad Pennington (90.1), and nobody is making a HoF case for those guys.

There are many variables that are weighed/argued when it comes to making a HoF case for a QB. But how they compared to their contemporaries is a big one. For a QB postseason success play a bigger factor than for a non-QB. To me Romo's career doesn't check enough boxes get into the HoF and if he gets in w/ his resume it lowers the bar for entry imo.

Romo isn't in the same class as the guys you are mentioning. He has a rating .1 lower than Brady and .8 higher than Drew Brees.

Brees also brings up a good question. Would you consider him a Hall of Famer?


Same era, so a good comparison if we're using something like QB rating.

Drew Brees is absolutely a HoF QB. Probably first ballot tbh.

Here are some things Brees has that Romo does not;

TWICE as many career TD passes
TWICE as many passing yards
NFL MVP
Super Bowl MVP
Super Bowl Champion
4x All-Pro (Romo does have 1)

Romo threw for over 4,000yds four times, Brees has thrown for 5,000yds four times and has over 4,000yds in 11 consecutive seasons.

In regards to comparing Brees to his contemporaries, imho Bree's has spent the last decade being considered one of the top 3-4 QBs in the NFL year in-year out. Romo has had one year (2014) where that distinction was clear.

The case you're making for Romo is that a QB w/a rating over 95 is deserving of HoF. While that QB rating looks nice right now, in 10 years when Andy Dalton has more career TDs and yards that Romo w/ a similar QB rating and zero postseason success or regular season awards will you be making his HoF case?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:14 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Doctor wrote:I think it's a little more complicated that than. There are some guys that make you think, like Kurt Warner. Usually you know right away if you are asking if I guy did enough to make the hall vs if a guy should maybe not be in. Asking the latter, like in Kurts or Edges case, I think is valid. But if you are asking the former, like with guys like Romo. Then you know the answer.

Warner is Romo except Warner played with generational offensive talent in Holt, Faulk, and Pace.

25+ TD seasons - Warner - 5, Romo - 7
Career record - Warner 67-49, Romo 78-49
Rating - Warner 93.3, Romo 97.1
TDs/INTs - Warner 208/128, Romo 248/117
Pro Bowls - Warner 5, Romo 5
All-Pro - Warner 2, Romo 1

The argument for Warner to the HoF is based on his team's postseason success. When grading on a curve, of the best 5 guys these two played with, four of them are Warner's teammates (Faulk, Holt, Pace, and Bruce) while Romo gets Owens, who should be a Hall guy already. You have to take that into account when doing individual honors like the Hall of Fame.


You left out 2x NFL MVP, SB Champion, SB MVP, 3x SB berth, one of the first QBs to take two different teams to the SB.

Without Warner's postseason accolades he may not have got in. But postseason aside, Warner's case is still better due to the fact he won NFL MVP 2x.

Name one player to win NFL MVP more than once not in the HoF?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Buc2 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:14 pm

For what it's worth, I never thought Warner was a HoF QB either.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:15 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
Teitan wrote:

^ record setting, super bowl winning QB.


Speaking of which, Brees is just 5,830 yards from passing Peyton Manning as the all time leader. For any other QB you'd say maybe 2018. But for Brees who has 5 seasons over 5,000, 2017 is possible. It would take another record setting year but with him anything is possible.

At any rate he's an easy yes for HOF. No question what so ever.

This is where standards are hilarious. Brees has played in 16 NFL seasons and has played in a total of 11 playoff games. Romo gets docked for his postseason play, but Brees won it all once, so it all gets wiped away.

If Brett Favre doesn't throw a horrible pick to blow the NFCCG, Brees would still be a Hall of Fame guy, right? Put another way, when considering a guy's career, it is mind-numbingly short-sighted to use the one game samples as definitive.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:18 pm

I can throw the numbers in the garbage. When teams see the Saints their #1 fear is Drew Brees. They know that no matter who he's throwing to he's going to light your secondary up and keep his foot on your throat. When teams see the Cowboys the fear is Dez Bryant or now Zeke. It's never been "how are we going to stop Romo". The eye test tells me this isn't even close. Brees commands his offense and does whatever he wants. Romo does what's allowed of him but he's not the type to shoot out another defense consistently.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Teitan » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:19 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
Speaking of which, Brees is just 5,830 yards from passing Peyton Manning as the all time leader. For any other QB you'd say maybe 2018. But for Brees who has 5 seasons over 5,000, 2017 is possible. It would take another record setting year but with him anything is possible.

At any rate he's an easy yes for HOF. No question what so ever.

This is where standards are hilarious. Brees has played in 16 NFL seasons and has played in a total of 11 playoff games. Romo gets docked for his postseason play, but Brees won it all once, so it all gets wiped away.

If Brett Favre doesn't throw a horrible pick to blow the NFCCG, Brees would still be a Hall of Fame guy, right? Put another way, when considering a guy's career, it is mind-numbingly short-sighted to use the one game samples as definitive.



I'm not sure what you are arguing. You should be complaining to the HoF committee if you want them to start considering ONLY stats. I guy that's spent his career getting a high QBR by quarterbacking an 8-8 team and has never won anything is not HoF.
User avatar
Teitan
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Ken Carson wrote:Put another way, when considering a guy's career, it is mind-numbingly short-sighted to use the one game samples as definitive.


It's about checking boxes when comparing HoF resumes imo. Postseason success (especially for a QB) is certainly one of those boxes. Brees has a SB ring and SB MVP, Romo is 2-4 in the playoffs having never made it past the Divisional round.

250ish career TDs isn't going to be looked at favorably when compared to his era of QBs who are all going to finish w/ around 350-400 if they are going to be considered for the HoF.

Since he doesn't have the career production we will look at Romo's best run individually, which lasted 1 season (2014) before injuries derailed it. Before that 2014 season Romo was never considered one of the top/elite QBs (in the Brees-Brady-Peyton-Rodgers tier) as he led multiple 8-8 campaigns.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:30 pm

Teitan wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:This is where standards are hilarious. Brees has played in 16 NFL seasons and has played in a total of 11 playoff games. Romo gets docked for his postseason play, but Brees won it all once, so it all gets wiped away.

If Brett Favre doesn't throw a horrible pick to blow the NFCCG, Brees would still be a Hall of Fame guy, right? Put another way, when considering a guy's career, it is mind-numbingly short-sighted to use the one game samples as definitive.



I'm not sure what you are arguing. You should be complaining to the HoF committee if you want them to start considering ONLY stats. I guy that's spent his career getting a high QBR by quarterbacking an 8-8 team and has never won anything is not HoF.


Other than QB rating I don't think Romo has ANY other stat that can be argued is HoF worthy unless it's compared to a different era.

I don't buy the argument that QB rating and ONE 2nd team All-Pro selection are enough to get Romo in the HoF, and he doesn't have anything else on his resume to help him.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:09 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Teitan wrote:

I'm not sure what you are arguing. You should be complaining to the HoF committee if you want them to start considering ONLY stats. I guy that's spent his career getting a high QBR by quarterbacking an 8-8 team and has never won anything is not HoF.


Other than QB rating I don't think Romo has ANY other stat that can be argued is HoF worthy unless it's compared to a different era.

I don't buy the argument that QB rating and ONE 2nd team All-Pro selection are enough to get Romo in the HoF, and he doesn't have anything else on his resume to help him.

You aren't looking at all of his numbers if you are saying that. Just the casual fan stats like yards and TDs, and even in those he had 7 very good-elite years.
He has 25 4th quarter combacks, his yards per attempt are elite (half a yard better than Brees), his TD/INT ratio is elite, and when healthy he was a lock for 26+ TDs (7 times). He has more 26+ TD seasons than Eli or Big Ben, so your contemporary comparisons are probably clouded by those two being a part of better teams.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Teitan » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:13 pm

I don't care about Romo's garbage time stats through all those mediocre seasons.
User avatar
Teitan
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:22 pm

Teitan wrote:I don't care about Romo's garbage time stats through all those mediocre seasons.

But Brees's are relevant.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby MJW » Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:05 am

Ken Carson wrote:
Teitan wrote:I don't care about Romo's garbage time stats through all those mediocre seasons.

But Brees's are relevant.


At a certain point, yes.

Disgusting cumulative stats get you. Brees has them. Dan Fouts had them, too, considering the era he played in. Romo does not. He's thrown for fewer passing yards than Steve DeBerg, fewer passing touchdowns than Dave Krieg, and fewer passing completions than Jim Everett.

The only argument for Romo involves his passing efficiency numbers. Which means we better start talking about Chad Pennington and Matt Schaub also. Here's a fun fact, by the way: 10 of the top 14 quarterbacks in completion % are currently playing. 13 of the top 14 retired in the last ten years. The one exception is Steve Young.

Amazing efficiency stats aren't amazing anymore.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Romo: Retired

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:03 am

MJW wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:But Brees's are relevant.


At a certain point, yes.

Disgusting cumulative stats get you. Brees has them. Dan Fouts had them, too, considering the era he played in. Romo does not. He's thrown for fewer passing yards than Steve DeBerg, fewer passing touchdowns than Dave Krieg, and fewer passing completions than Jim Everett.

The only argument for Romo involves his passing efficiency numbers. Which means we better start talking about Chad Pennington and Matt Schaub also. Here's a fun fact, by the way: 10 of the top 14 quarterbacks in completion % are currently playing. 13 of the top 14 retired in the last ten years. The one exception is Steve Young.

Amazing efficiency stats aren't amazing anymore.

I haven't argued completion percentage. I've argued passer rating, consistent TD numbers in line with the upper echelon of the league, and 4th quarter comebacks.

You cannot use Scaub and Pennington as a comparison statistically when Romo is a percentage point shy of Tom Brady in passer rating. Pennington and Sichuan are barely at a career rating under and over 90. That's not even trying to have a debate.

I don't know why the narrative is too strong for an objective look at Romo's career to move you off this poorly argued position.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Previous

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Mex-Buc, Naismith and 3 guests