Cowherd at it again....

[J24]

(09-15-2020, 11:00 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: You do know Lawrence already won the NCG once before last year... plus it's fun to poke that button.

Look at TD's, yards, INT's they are similar, the differences in wins and PR are more a product of the team around them then the actual player. During his career, Romo had an amazing O-line always, an owner committed to winning, and some of the best weapons around, yet still couldn't win a title. 

I was really hoping Dalton would have ended up with New England this off-season as their starter, I think it would have shown people what he was able to do with a functional team.

In the end, his overall description of what happened was accurate, but if Burrow's ceiling is Romo, we wasted the pick.

If Burrow turns out to be Romo then it was a hell of a pick! 

[Murdock2420]

(09-15-2020, 11:23 AM)J24 Wrote: If Burrow turns out to be Romo then it was a hell of a pick! 

How do you figure?

I thought the point behind Burrow was he was supposed to be a franchise changing guy, the guy who would lead the team to Championships and be consider an MVP.

Romo was never looked at as the MVP was often looked at as the 2nd or 3rd best QB in his own division and won 0 titles. That is what you want from Burrow?? Cause, we just had that here for years.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-15-2020, 11:41 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: How do you figure?

I thought the point behind Burrow was he was supposed to be a franchise changing guy, the guy who would lead the team to Championships and be consider an MVP.

Romo was never looked at as the MVP was often looked at as the 2nd or 3rd best QB in his own division and won 0 titles. That is what you want from Burrow?? Cause, we just had that here for years.

Romo probably wins a couple SB’s if he had the defenses Eli did, and he didn’t have Andy Reid like McNabb. I think you’re seriously selling him short.

You say he had an owner “committed to win” but he’s also known as the most meddling owner in all of sports. Spending money doesn’t guarantee success.

And you can claim “it was the team around him” all you want but 97.1 is a hell of a career PR. Good for 4th all time in fact.

[Nicomo Cosca]

I mean, have you heard Romo call games?He is one smart dude when it comes to his football IQ.

[Murdock2420]

(09-15-2020, 12:02 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Romo probably wins a couple SB’s if he had the defenses Eli did, and he didn’t have Andy Reid like McNabb. I think you’re seriously selling him short.

You say he had an owner “committed to win” but he’s also known as the most meddling owner in all of sports. Spending money doesn’t guarantee success.

And you can claim “it was the team around him” all you want but 97.1 is a hell of a career PR. Good for 4th all time in fact.

And I would say you are overly high on him.

Him being fourth all time is a perfect example of why stats can not be used alone to measure any player in a team game.

Players he ranks ahead of:

Joe Montana (92.3)

Steve Young (96.8)

Peyton Manning (96.5)

Tom Brady (96.9)

Dan Marino (86.4)

Brett Favre (86.0)

Jim Kelly (84.4)

Troy Aikman (81.6)

Romo is not better then any of those above QBs in any universe. If you look at the QBR stat it is formulated in such a way to benefit modern area QBs as Hall of Fame guys from the 80's and 90's are made to look like nobodies. 

According to the QBR stat, Marcus Mariota (89.6) is better than Andrew Luck (89.5)....  just stop... that right there is enough to discredit that a stat can determine if the guy was good or not.

Romo was average to above average, if your the first overall pick and you are average or above average, that is not living up to the hype of the pick.

[Murdock2420]

(09-15-2020, 12:14 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I mean, have you heard Romo call games?He is one smart dude when it comes to his football IQ.

Yes, he has a great football IQ, and knows the game and would probably be a great coach... doesn't mean he was anything more then an average to above average player.

Jon Kitna has an incredible football IQ and another great coaching guy and was a great mentor type but football IQ alone doesn't equal a great player. 

And no, I'm not saying Kitna was as good as Romo, once again saying that you can not take a metric and say this makes him a great player. A great player means he has everything together.

High IQ, great talent (more so then those around him like Brees, Rodgers, they just stand out), excels in the biggest moments, can carry a team to wins and elevate players around him

Romo was a solid guy, solid QB, but he isn't the guy you built around to win a Super Bowl, which is exactly why they never won one with him, and exactly why this team moved on from Dalton.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-15-2020, 12:23 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: And I would say you are overly high on him.

Him being fourth all time is a perfect example of why stats can not be used alone to measure any player in a team game.

Players he ranks ahead of:

Joe Montana (92.3)

Steve Young (96.8)

Peyton Manning (96.5)

Tom Brady (96.9)

Dan Marino (86.4)

Brett Favre (86.0)

Jim Kelly (84.4)

Troy Aikman (81.6)

Romo is not better then any of those above QBs in any universe. If you look at the QBR stat it is formulated in such a way to benefit modern area QBs as Hall of Fame guys from the 80's and 90's are made to look like nobodies. 

According to the QBR stat, Marcus Mariota (89.6) is better than Andrew Luck (89.5)....  just stop... that right there is enough to discredit that a stat can determine if the guy was good or not.

Romo was average to above average, if your the first overall pick and you are average or above average, that is not living up to the hype of the pick.

Romo had better numbers than Aikman in a bunch of categories. Better cmp%, better PR, better Int% etc... Aikman was on way better teams with much better coaching. Seriously, Jason Garrett vs Jimmy Johnson?

But we can just agree to disagree. We don’t need to turn this into a Romo thread. I personally think Burrow’s floor is much higher than Romo. I could see Joe being the 2nd best QB in the league after Mahomes in a few years.

[Murdock2420]

(09-15-2020, 12:37 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Romo had better numbers than Aikman in a bunch of categories. Better cmp%, better PR, better Int% etc... Aikman was on way better teams with much better coaching. Seriously, Jason Garrett vs Jimmy Johnson?

But we can just agree to disagree. We don’t need to turn this into a Romo thread. I personally think Burrow’s floor is much higher than Romo. I could see Joe being the 2nd best QB in the league after Mahomes in a few years.

If he hits that point, the pick was well spent, that was my only argument with the Romo comparison. 

Many posters, yourself included, went on about not passing on Burrow because he was a generational talent. Being second to Mahomes would be an example of reaching that level and the pick was well spent. If he ends up like Romo, that is not a generational talent situation and you have to look at the pick and question it. That's all.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-15-2020, 12:41 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: If he hits that point, the pick was well spent, that was my only argument with the Romo comparison. 

Many posters, yourself included, went on about not passing on Burrow because he was a generational talent. Being second to Mahomes would be an example of reaching that level and the pick was well spent. If he ends up like Romo, that is not a generational talent situation and you have to look at the pick and question it. That's all.

I don’t remember ever using the word “generational” I personally think that word is tossed around too much in sports. Every year in hockey people claim there’s a new generational pick. That can’t be technically true. I think Mahomes is the QB of this generation. Burrow did have a historic college season (not the same thing), and I think there’s massive potential there. If Burrow can be our Peyton to Mahomes Brady (1-2 SB’s vs 6) sign me up.

[J24]

(09-15-2020, 11:41 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: How do you figure?

I thought the point behind Burrow was he was supposed to be a franchise changing guy, the guy who would lead the team to Championships and be consider an MVP.

Romo was never looked at as the MVP was often looked at as the 2nd or 3rd best QB in his own division and won 0 titles. That is what you want from Burrow?? Cause, we just had that here for years.

If Romos back didn't give out on him we would be talking about a Hall of Fame QB. If Burrow ends up like him he would have been worth a 1st overall pick.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-10-2020, 04:47 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If you're paying attention to Cowherd instead of Joy Taylor, you're doing it wrong 

Fair point. That said, I've always been more into Kay Adams of Good Morning Football.

(09-15-2020, 12:23 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: And I would say you are overly high on him.

Him being fourth all time is a perfect example of why stats can not be used alone to measure any player in a team game.

Players he ranks ahead of:

Joe Montana (92.3)

Steve Young (96.8)

Peyton Manning (96.5)

Tom Brady (96.9)

Dan Marino (86.4)

Brett Favre (86.0)

Jim Kelly (84.4)

Troy Aikman (81.6)

Romo is not better then any of those above QBs in any universe. If you look at the QBR stat it is formulated in such a way to benefit modern area QBs as Hall of Fame guys from the 80's and 90's are made to look like nobodies. 

According to the QBR stat, Marcus Mariota (89.6) is better than Andrew Luck (89.5)....  just stop... that right there is enough to discredit that a stat can determine if the guy was good or not.

Romo was average to above average, if your the first overall pick and you are average or above average, that is not living up to the hype of the pick.

Romo was FAR above average. He was a top 5-8 QB all through his prime.

Just because he didn't go far in the playoffs doesn't mean he was "average".

I put that more on the dysfunction of that organization than on Romo.

Swap Romo and Brady, and I'd bet Romo has a fist full of rings and Brady wouldn't be "Tom friggin Brady".

[*ochocincos*]

(09-16-2020, 01:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fair point. That said, I've always been more into Kay Adams of Good Morning Football.


Romo was FAR above average. He was a top 5-8 QB all through his prime.

Just because he didn't go far in the playoffs doesn't mean he was "average".

I put that more on the dysfunction of that organization than on Romo.

Swap Romo and Brady, and I'd bet Romo has a fist full of rings and Brady wouldn't be "Tom friggin Brady".

Oh same, for sure.