Here's the issue with this whole thing as I see it. It's all about the timing. Let's say that Tony throws that pick late in the 3rd quarter instead and they still go on to lose by a last second field goal; do you really think anyone is going to say that earlier pick is what ultimately decided the game? Or instead, is it going to be about how the Dallas D couldn't force even one punt and ultimately allowed Denver to score too much? I know you're saying that you're commenting on the offense, but it WAS the defense that truly lost them this game. What nobody else seems to have even mentioned yet is that Peyton threw his first interception of the year earlier in the game, which Dallas immediately turned around and scored a TD in less than 90 seconds. That was their only defensive stop of the day. Every other drive resulted in either a Touchdown or a Field Goal. One stop on any of those drives and the game ends tied in regulation or Dallas wins.
We agree to disagree on some points then. On others not so much. Does not matter in regards to Romo, he stinks it up under pressure, period.
I like shitting on the Cowboys as much as the next guy, but stats are stats. Romo isn't as bad as everybody thinks when it's clutch time. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/nfl-myth-busting-tony-romo-and-the-dallas-cowboys-are-americas-chokers/23434/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ers/23434/</a>
The problem is that, if you look at it from a purely statistical standpoint... he doesn't. He's had more 4th quarter comebacks than any other current QB since 2011 with 9, he's got the highest QB rating in the 4th quarter of all active QB's (104.1). The problem is that everyone wants to point out the few times that he does have an ill-timed INT, or in 'Sacks case, a fumbled FG snap that occurred in his 2nd year... Really, he's pretty much Favre without a ring. No matter how many wins he gets he's better know for that occasional 'gunslinger' type throw that ends up being heaped upon him as the ultimate reason for a loss, whether it's justified or not.
Objectively, that is incorrect. This is simply a storyline that people love to parrot. There are only 4 people in the NFL with a higher quarterback rating over 5 seasons under the highest pressure situation: 4th quarter, when within 7 points. Those quarterbacks are Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, and Drew Brees. That's not a bad list.
Your list is fine and all but has one glaring difference, Peyton has 1 ring, Eli has 2, Rodgers has 1 and Brees has 1. The proof is in pudding as they say. Also helps that I cannot stand Jerry Jones. So, there is that. And 'sack it's funny you quoted that part of his post because it had me laughing...so I repped him for it. Quite inventive I thought. EDIT: Yes I knew that.
If we're going by Super Bowl rings, then Marino, Moon, et al weren't clutch either. Never mind the fact that Marino has more game winning drives than everybody ever. Seriously.
The levels of stupid in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence has broke through the ceiling in this thread. Wow.
So... we're going to sum up a quarterback's performance based on his team, winning one game, that's at the end of single-elimination playoffs, despite the amount of randomness and day-to-day variability that goes into every football game. Um, okay. So, Trent Dilfer is a good quarterback. Actually, Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw were both pretty bad quarterbacks, despite them being household names. Terry Bradshaw has about a 1:1 TD:INT ratio in his career and 4 Superbowl rings. That doesn't make him a good quarterback, it makes him a sufficient quarterback to not bring down a very good team. Tony Eason played in a Superbowl and didn't complete a pass. Does that make him a better quarterback than all the other teams that didn't make it to the Superbowl that year?
You all take this shit so seriously with your stats and crap. I pointed out that within the list he posted that was the main difference between them and Romo. That's it. You boys can go back to your stats, rankings and ratings now.
Most of that is called luck, teammates, and circumstance. That's "the difference." Peyton and Brady are better than Romo, but the difference between, say, Big Ben or Eli and Romo is mostly that one got luckier. In fact, Romo has been markedly better than Eli his entire career. Eli might be the luckiest quarterback to ever play the game. The players who win Super Bowls are generally the players who are both good and lucky. Romo has been only one of these. That's all it comes down to. You can win by being lucky without being good (see: Dilfer, Flacco), but the opposite is basically impossible. Since the NFL has a single-game playoff, single big plays change entire games, and injuries are a huge factor, you need everything to come up Milhouse several times in a row. There is no such thing as the "it factor," or at least if it does exist, Romo's remarkable record of game winning performances proves that he has it.
You can't play that card when you've been emphatically proven wrong. You bashed Romo for being a loser with little basis than slanted opinion and general dislike of his team and now you're backpedaling with the "i dont care that much" nonsense.
You guys want to fight about stats and such, my point in breaking the list down was based on one thing and one only and it was accurate "numbers". I don't care who thinks I'm right or wrong and never have in this thread especially. I read it everyday, I read you guys pick fights with each other normally over the numbers. I am well aware of they backlash that comes with this thread. I pointed out one thing that was a difference in the QB's on his list and Romo and once again, that one thing is true. I never said I don't care, although it is true that like I said above, I don't care who thinks I'm right or wrong. The number thing gets old and I choose not to base my opinions on that near as much as the bulk of you do. Which is ok to do. And just for the fuck of it, it's not hard to figure out that no, I don't like Romo, I really dislike Jerry Jones and I think that team is almost the NFL version of The Spoiled Rotten Oregon Ducks.
If you're going to throw this around then at least be accurate. Mouthbreather Manning has 2. Great in the Regular Season but Chokes in the Playoffs Manning only has one. That he beat Rex Grossman to get. SGEDIT: Yes I knew that.
Saying you choose not to base your opinion on statistics is like saying you choose not to base your understanding of history on historical accounts. Sure, you can choose to do it, but you probably shouldn't since they're the best available tool we have at our disposals.
Romo is the best Cowboys QB since Aikman. Trying to draw accurate conclusions from single plays is retarded. That said, I know in my heart that Wes Welker has butterfingers... Speaking of Aikman, you all need to watch this. Documentary about concussions and the NFL's coverup. It's more than a little disturbing. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... of-denial/</a>
Would you guys say that Romo is better or worse than McNabb? I'd give McNabb the edge because of playoff success and having shittier weapons, but their careers look pretty similar.
Spread says The Bears by 7-1/2. At the risk of further scrutiny I have a question, I've never completely understood the 1/2. Anyone wanna PM me?
In addition to simple situations where 7 feels like too few but 8 too many, it's to avoid pushes (where no one wins) and entice betting. If you take the under and it's 7, you win. If it's 8, you lose. Better but I also think McNabb was an underrated player. The main reason being that Romo doesn't have McNabb's accuracy issue.
You need to remember that lines are created with the goal of having equal money on both sides of the bet. If its too heavy either way, then the casinos are at risk due to exposure. Likely the line opened around 7. Plenty of people bet the Bears -7, cause thinking they would win by a TD, the worst that happens is they would push. With the line increasing half a point, suddenly money shifts the other way, cause that potential 7 pt Bears win now favors bettors on Giants +7.5. It just helps to remember that if the spread lands exactly on the number, nobody wins or loses, all money is returned, and that benefits nobody, especially the casino. Hope that makes sense. EDIT: Basically what MCB said.