Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 115
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    17,949
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100



    I'm sure Romo will be much higher on this list than Flacco and it's for good reason.

    But look at last year when they won four straight games then lost four of their last five games - can you pin any of those losses on Romo?

    defense lets them down against AZ
    would be winning FG kick blocked
    Romo didn't play
    Giants rout them in the final game

    Everyone has their own opinion but IMO and I'm sure the opinion of the list makers, Romo is much better at this point in their careers.
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    It seems your missing a simple point.

    Whether you throw 500 yards and 8 TDs or not, if you throw the interception or fumble the ball, and that leads to a game winning pick six or game winning field goal, your play resulted in your team losing the game. Period. Tony Romo has a habit of doing both of those things.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  3. #63

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    I'm sure Romo will be much higher on this list than Flacco and it's for good reason.

    But look at last year when they won four straight games then lost four of their last five games - can you pin any of those losses on Romo?

    defense lets them down against AZ
    would be winning FG kick blocked
    Romo didn't play
    Giants rout them in the final game

    Everyone has their own opinion but IMO and I'm sure the opinion of the list makers, Romo is much better at this point in their careers.
    Top 100 of 2012

    you must have missed what spurred this discussion. Romo ranked 91 Flacco 74. The list makers in this case are current NFL players only, and they feel Flacco is better than last year and better than Romo.
    -JAB




  4. #64

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    It seems your missing a simple point.

    Whether you throw 500 yards and 8 TDs or not, if you throw the interception or fumble the ball, and that leads to a game winning pick six or game winning field goal, your play resulted in your team losing the game. Period. Tony Romo has a habit of doing both of those things.
    You don't make one mistake and lose in football when you are throwing for 500 yards and 8 TDs unless the other team plays that well. Romo has played well enough for the Cowboys to win most of the time.




  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    2,366
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    Yeah he wasn't the only one who played like ass in those losses.
    But he was THE reason they lost.
    "What would you give for the man beside you?"




  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    You don't make one mistake and lose in football when you are throwing for 500 yards and 8 TDs unless the other team plays that well. Romo has played well enough for the Cowboys to win most of the time.
    Great Romo stats are good but they still lose. I'll take the wins, they're what matters.




  7. #67

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Great Romo stats are good but they still lose. I'll take the wins, they're what matters.
    Good stats means you play well which is a great indicator of good football instead of fraudulent football.




  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    17,949
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Top 100 of 2012

    you must have missed what spurred this discussion. Romo ranked 91 Flacco 74. The list makers in this case are current NFL players only, and they feel Flacco is better than last year and better than Romo.
    LOL - OK then. A guy with an unprecedent 102 passer rating, 31 TDs, 10 INTs and 5 fumbles can't be as good as a guy who had 20 TDs, 12 INTs and 11 fumbles I guess.

    Somewhat like power rankings; they're meaningless but something to talk about...
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    Good stats means you play well which is a great indicator of good football instead of fraudulent football.
    They are not that great.
    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/...29?q=tony-romo

    And stats can be made to fit what ever argument you want to make.




  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    You don't make one mistake and lose in football when you are throwing for 500 yards and 8 TDs unless the other team plays that well.
    State the obvious and answer your own question, nice.

    Romo has played well enough for the Cowboys to win most of the time.
    So? What kind of qualifier is that?
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    section 132
    Posts
    2,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    LOL - OK then. A guy with an unprecedent 102 passer rating, 31 TDs, 10 INTs and 5 fumbles can't be as good as a guy who had 20 TDs, 12 INTs and 11 fumbles I guess.

    Somewhat like power rankings; they're meaningless but something to talk about...
    Unlike power rankings, this list is voted on by the players. Sure its just another meaningless list...but a little more interesting nonetheless.

    Unless Romo wins a SB, he will always be seen as a choke artist...and rightfully so.




  12. #72

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by ballhawk View Post
    Unlike power rankings, this list is voted on by the players. Sure its just another meaningless list...but a little more interesting nonetheless.

    Unless Romo wins a SB, he will always be seen as a choke artist...and rightfully so.
    and until flacco throws for 4500+ yards and 30+ TDs some fans will still point to him as the problem. Superbowls make people forget things quickly. Like how eli didnt even complet 60% of his passes until his 6 th year, now hes a champion and talked about as being "elite". The day will come for flacco.
    -JAB




  13. #73

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    No, I'm saying that one of the biggest reasons - or most logical reason - for Laurent Robinson's production was because he wasn't (A) the #1 receiver on an offense that favors the pass over the run and (B) he was healthy for the entire season, which is something that IIRC he hasn't been EVER in his career to date.

    I don't use stats at all to argue a good receiver vs a bad receiver. It's symbiotic, so obviously a receiver with Peyton Manning on the other end of the ball is going to have a higher probability of putting up "good numbers" versus a receiver who has John Beck throwing him the ball. However, I'm looking at it from the other end of the spectrum. The Ravens' receivers have historically just not been very good. It's not that they're bad players, per se, but they don't necessarily fit the scheme and the Ravens have historically not been very good at developing receivers and/or drafting talented receivers. To date, Torrey Smith is the only receiver the Ravens have drafted that looks the part. Derrick Mason and Anquan Boldin were seasoned vets before even putting on a Ravens uniform. I think a lot of it has to do with scheme and if Jason Garrett were the offensive coordinator here in Baltimore, then maybe we'd likely see the receivers putting up better numbers, but right now they're not and I don't think there is any fan who would say no to trading Boldin for Dez Bryant or Miles Austin straight up. Why? Because they're better players. They're younger, bigger, & faster. It's pretty plain and simple from my perspective.
    Robinson's health was not what was keeping him from 850+ yards and 11 TDs. It is as simple as that. If Robinson were on the Ravens you would be calling him "not very good."

    The Ravens WR history pre-2008 isn't relevant to the debate. Unless you are defending Boller from criticism, and it seems you are, which is fine. I am not saying that the Cowboys have worse receivers than us, I am saying the difference and therefore the value of the excuse is not as great as people claim. This is because people make the claims by starting with their favorite assumption, then dismissing or highlighting the facts depending on that assumption. Boldin stats only good with Cardinals because of X,Y,Z, but he is "not very good" when he gets here. Robinson stats only bad with Rams and Falcons because injuries and/or X,Y,Z, but he is "very good" when he goes to Dallas.

    The problem with using stats in this case is that there are only two possible conclusions that have any leg to stand on, rationally: A) stats have meaning and their results tell us something (even if we dispute how much), or B) they have no meaning, in which case nothing can be concluded. The problem around here (a lot of times) is people are attempting C) they not only do not mean what they show, but somehow they mean the opposite of what they show. I am partial to A), though think their worth is limited, and could accept B) (and not argue about it), it is C) that gets me to enter the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    You're right. What was I thinking? Who cares if a guy can't find ways to win games as long as he throws for 5000 yards and 30 TD's in a season, right? What do people have to say about Dan Marino? "He's the best QB to never win a Super Bowl". What do people say about Trent Dilfer? "Super Bowl QB." I've even heard Marino say that he'd give up all of his stats for a title.
    And by "can't find ways to win games" you mean "can't get on a team where the defense carries mediocre QB play/passing game." Yes, Romo is unable to get on a team where the defense can carry the team to a win with mediocre play from the passing game. As evidenced by the Cowboys 1-4 record when Romo throws less than 2 TD passes last year; compared to Flacco's 7-3 record in such games. Not sure where Marino or Dilfer come in here, except to bolster the point that QB play and team/playoff wins do not always perfectly match.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    The Ravens defense allowed the Texans back into that playoff game by letting Arian Foster run all over them. If the Texans had Matt Schaub instead of a late round developmental rookie, I think it would have been an entirely different game. Even against a defense that had ridiculous pressure and had 5 sacks on the day, Flacco still found ways to put points on the board and not make costly turnovers. Who led the Ravens back to a W in Pittsburgh after that vaunted Ravens defense let the Steelers take the lead?
    Trying to argue the defense/STs contributed less than the offense in the Houston playoff game is simply nuts, no offense. We scored 2 TDs that game, on drives that started at their 2 yard line and their 34 yardline after turnovers. We forced 4 turnovers total. Our offense after going up 17-3 (the FG was a long one after a drive that started on our 40), proceeded to go: punt, punt, punt, punt, downs (at their 1), punt, punt, FG, punt including six three-and-outs.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Who had their team up 27-3 in the 3rd quarter and threw pick-6's on back-to-back drives to let the Lions back into the game heading into the 4th quarter?
    Romo did, but what does it mean (and the 2nd pick was a poor effort by his WR)? We know he threw 10 INTs all frickin' year. That game he threw 3 (the two you mention and a 3rd that really lost them the game even later). He had a bad game. The only reason they weren't blown out is because he had already thrown 3 TD passes. In essence you are saying he had a worse game because he played well for half the game and poorly the second half rather than poorly the whole game (i.e. he choked away his lead which is worse than having a bad game).

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    If you put Joe Flacco on the Cowboys of last year I bet they're a playoff team and Flacco probably throws for well over 4000 yards. Not even necessarily because of the receivers, but the offensive philosophy is so geared towards the pass and in Baltimore it's not.
    The problem with this is it is pure speculation. And specifically it assumes that throwing more (and actually Flacco had more attempts than Romo last year) or relying more on your passing game means your QB benefits. This is what Joe himself implies when he compares himself and his stats to Rodgers and Brees, etc. This isn't necessarily the case. If you ask a QB to carry the team, then two things could happen, a) his stats look better because he gets the chance to put up more good stats and he is up to the task, or b) his stats look worse because he is forced to take more risks or do more and is not up to the task. It is easier to finish with a 97.1 rating by going 14/27 for 176, with 2 TDs/0 Ints than it is to finish with a 97.1 QB rating by going 28/54 for 352, with 4TDs/0 Ints. It is easier to keep to your Int total low when you are told/allowed/mandated to not take any risks, check it down, throw it away or even take a sack. If Flacco were asked to throw all game because his defense couldn't keep them in games, he could excel or look worse. We don't know, we can guess or have opinions, but it isn't a given that more responsibility/opportunity means more stats and the same success.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it at all.

    I'll take a guy who finds ways to win over a guy with pretty numbers any day of the week.
    My opinion on the Flacco/Romo comparison hasn't really been given, but let's just say I don't think your opinion has been supported by much; I am really addressing the leaps of logic that occur around here. I am addressing people choosing C) when arguing about stats.

    And to prove my point, "finds a way to win" rears its ugly head. Like when Romo found a way to go 21/31 for 321, 4 TDs/0 Ints and a 141.3 QR rating against the eventual SB champs only to lose the game 37-34 because his defense is horrendous. Like that "finding a way to win?"




  14. #74

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    It seems your missing a simple point.

    Whether you throw 500 yards and 8 TDs or not, if you throw the interception or fumble the ball, and that leads to a game winning pick six or game winning field goal, your play resulted in your team losing the game. Period. Tony Romo has a habit of doing both of those things.
    Romo's "habit" is much exaggerated. And you are missing the point that while committing a mistake that is the last mistake to be made by your team and therefore "loses" the game is a negative, making positive plays in the game up until that point to put your team in a position where the game can be "lost" at all (i.e. you are winning) are positives. By assigning way too much weight to the former while way too little weight to the latter, you imply that it is a better result to play relatively poorly all game so that you are never in a position to win or choke, than it is to play very well all game to be ahead before making a rare mistake costing you the game. I completely disagree.




  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    At the end of the day the Cowboys have a talented team, but consistently under perform with Romo at the helm. Yes the Ravens are stacked, and I'm sure if Flacco was drafted by the Browns back in 08 he wouldn't have had the success he has today, but on a talented team Joe wins. The Cowboys have a more talented offense with more receivers, play in a dome, play no one special on defense (apart from the Giants pass rush), don't have to play in cold and rough Ohio, Baltimore, or Pittsburgh, where four of these defenses where in the top 10 in 2011, and are always rough when playing each other regardless. Romo as it stands has only made the play offs once on a talented team and has cost his team in key games, where as Flacco has helped his team to the play offs in every year he's been in the league so far.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland