Last night was one of another million examples that everyone will forget the next time he throws a big pick. People will point, and laugh, and engage in errant group think about how much of a "choker" he is, despite the fact that facts make that assertion look ridiculous.
Click the link below. Then under the section "304 quarterbacks" click show all for a list of every qbs numbers since 1998 when the score is within 7 points in the 4th quarter. There is literally not a soul he takes a backseat to. I know his team is light on playoff success, but people need to stop making themselves look stupid with the choker crap
link - (
New Window )
They are seeing Romo throw a pick with a must win game on the line with their own eyes.
They are seeing these things happen on highlights on Sportscenter and then beaten to death on talk radio all week.
It's just just looking at a piece of paper. It's seeing these things unfold and judging them, right, wrong, or indifferent.
and then when confronted with evidence that this truly doesnt happen more regularly with him than most qbs, they arent phased. They just brush it off. They just mumble some nonsense about perception being reality, state his teams playoff record. Rail against stats. State his teams playoff record again. Needlessly inject eli out of a natural desire to favorably compare him to any qb being discussed. State his teams playoff record again. Rinse, repeat
Didn't you just sort of do the same thing to Archie Manning?
I think it is even more pathetic that winners are diminished. If we live by the adage that winning is everything, then rings count and they should.
I think every hard-core fan recognizes Marino as a great QB. They also recognize him as a ringless one. No shame in that - but it is part of what defines him. Great player who never won it all. Ernie Banks is considered a great baseball player - without rings.
Winning defines players, and losing does too, especially if the player is seen as the face of losing.
Bill Buckner was an excellent baseball player - but he is forever in folklore as a buffoon. People still remember Jim Marshall as the guy who ran a TD the other way. Losses on a big stage stick. Look at the way BBI'ers remember Kerry Collins and Jim Fassel.
We may not look at guys like Marino, Kelly, Moon, or Fouts as losers because they never had key fuckups, but we recognize them as guys who never won the big one.
It is all part of perception - perception that you seem to try and argue over and over again that it shouldn't exist.
I think Romo is a great QB, and as Sean said, Dallas will miss him when he's gone. I won't miss him, because he's been a major pain in the ass for the Giants for years. I can't stand him, and that's a sign of respect. He plays through injury and plays hard.
He also has a tendency to make mistakes at the worst possible time and cost his team games. Until he overcomes that reputation and takes his team on a run and shuts everybody up, it will always be there.
Who knows, maybe it will be this year?
Why do you think he started this thread?
Joe's a good poster but this is what he does. It's how he gets his fill.
there are surely outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but the overwhelming majority of guys will produce to their regular season standard if the sample was big enough in the playoffs.
Giant fans pretty consistently argue about perception not being reality in Eli's favor (I tend to think we're right). MoM's just arguing for Romo, where I also think he's right.
It's easy to think about Romo's fumble against the Seahawks or his INT against the Giants in the divisional round - which was on 4th down with no TO's remaining, so it wasn't some terrible risk. But it ignores the larger output of data MoM is pointing to.
And the point about Peyton's playoff stats is much different because the sample size is much larger. Nearly a season and a half of statistics with consistently great offensive weapons.
'Everyone in this room, no one can tell you that you couldn't do it.'
It's just sports. Some things are fair and some aren't. Is it fair that some players get drafted into a shit situation and others don't, There are always some breaks and luck involved, if Brady doesn't get drafted by New England or Drew Bledsoe never gets hurt, his opportunity never even comes.
Romo is NOT a choker, not even close, but people will remember what they remember.
Not all players are going to have a large amount of playoff games to point to. Derek Jeter might have played an entire extra season in the playoffs in his career - other guys play a handful or less.
You can only be judged on what you played. I've heard it theorized that if you play or coach in the postseason long enough, you will eventually get to where you should be. Tell that to Marv Levy who will die before getting a SB win.
You only get so many chances - and what you make or don't make of those chances is what defines you. Joe wants us to not look at it like that, apparently.
It's not really fair but it's exactly how people sum him up.
there are surely outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but the overwhelming majority of guys will produce to their regular season standard if the sample was big enough in the playoffs.
Is this about Eli or Romo? I haven't even mentioned Eli.
No one flips any switches, but there surely are players whose performances change based on the pressure they are under. No one can convince me that Peyton Manning isn't squeezing the air out of the football in the playoffs. And no one can convince me that Romo hasn't made brutal errors at the worst possible times.
I'm not going to attribute Romo's errors to simple randomness, and I doubt you do either.
Here's a thought.
What do Jim Hart, John Hadl, John Brodie, and Roman Gabriel all have in common? They all have more yards passing and a few of them have more TDs than Terry Bradshaw....
Do you think anyone in the world would say they were better Qbs than Bradshaw? Hell, I bet 95% of people under 40 never even heard of those guys.
And when I looked at it, I pretty much reached the same conclusion Joe did. Tony Romo has been a money QB in the 4th quarter for the majority of his QB. Now, the bolded isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
He's absolutely had his share of National TV disasters and his lack of Playoff wins is ultimately why he's labeled unclutch. The Seattle Fumble is still a part of his legacy, and honestly rightfully so. But he's proven over the years that he isn't some epic Choke Artist, he has killed our Giants a handful of times in the 4th quarter.
Tony Romo is a lot better in the clutch than the general public and BBI thinks. It's just true whether you want to believe it or not. Fuck perception when you have reality supporting you.
But it really won't matter until he wins in the playoffs. Playoffs are where legacies are made. And until Romo does anything in the playoffs, no one is going to care about his "better than advertised clutchness" in the regular season. If he does end up winning in the playoffs, I guarantee that people will start talking about how good he's been in the clutch during the regular season. But he hasn't done shit in the playoffs yet and I hope he never does.
And when I looked at it, I pretty much reached the same conclusion Joe did. Tony Romo has been a money QB in the 4th quarter for the majority of his QB. Now, the bolded isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
He's absolutely had his share of National TV disasters and his lack of Playoff wins is ultimately why he's labeled unclutch. The Seattle Fumble is still a part of his legacy, and honestly rightfully so. But he's proven over the years that he isn't some epic Choke Artist, he has killed our Giants a handful of times in the 4th quarter.
Tony Romo is a lot better in the clutch than the general public and BBI thinks. It's just true whether you want to believe it or not. Fuck perception when you have reality supporting you.
But it really won't matter until he wins in the playoffs. Playoffs are where legacies are made. And until Romo does anything in the playoffs, no one is going to care about his "better than advertised clutchness" in the regular season. If he does end up winning in the playoffs, I guarantee that people will start talking about how good he's been in the clutch during the regular season. But he hasn't done shit in the playoffs yet and I hope he never does.
I think the point some peopel are missing is not that he isnt a good 4th QB, its his mistakes (in which every QB makes) are magnified based on the importence of the game.
2013 - against GB. A win would almsot certainly give them a legitimate chance at a wild card. He throws an INT with 2:00 near midfield. GB goes and scores to win the game.
2012 - with the division on the line, throws 3 INTs including a terrible one late in the 4th that seals the game.
2011 - week 13. He is playing a great game, but misses Austin for an easy 80 yard TD on an overthrow. A catch there, and the division was theres.
2009 - made the playoffs. Won his first game. Got shellacked in the 2nd round. Nothing he could do.
2007 - loses as a double digit favorite to the Giants at home. He took some key sacks and really had poor clock management on thier last drive.
2006 - the fumble on the snap.
Again, these are very few games to judge a players career on. I agree 100%, but everytime there is something on the line or a play is needed to be made to move on or clinch a playoff spot.... he fails. Its more of a pattern than most may not realize.
became
"since 1998 when the score is within 7 points in the 4th quarter, not including playoffs when sample size is small"
I can't even begin to decipher meaning in conversations like this. "Since 2003, Joe Schmo's completion % has been better than anyone else on 3rd-and-8 during road games in the month of October following a loss."
You can make numbers do whatever you want.
Opinion isn't based on sample size when it comes to sports, it is based predominently on perception - which is exactly why the list above of QB's like Hadl, Brodie and Hart go fairly unrecognized.
you could add Steve Bartkowski to that list.
Sample size really doesn't mean squat when talking about winners or losers.
3 minutes left, down by three:
Game over. That's what people remember.
I don't need to learn anything about sample sizes. What I do know is that BBI's King of Confirmation Bias started this thread and, as usual, is in no mood to actually discuss relevant data with anyone who doesn't buy into the hypothesis.
But that's completely just a guess.
Good point. The most recent choke was only last season...
So people that disagre, or share another opinion, shouldn't comment?
Would make for a boring thread.
Who is commenting "out of emotion" ?
The majority of the thread are just people expressing their opinions on the subject and backing those opinions up in different ways.
Certainly don't have a statistical basis when they argue it...
My mistake was including everyone getting on Joe when in reality it was only a couple. MAYBE I jumped the gun
But that's completely just a guess.
Wait Arc, that loss to Dallas on Sunday that saw NY blow an 11 pt lead to their most hated rival actually bothered you? Fuck is wrong with you?
So you're arguing his playoff success would almost certainly match that of the regular season if only he played in more post-season games. Okay.
Except that sample isn't "big enough" because he hasn't made the playoffs a whole lot (see the gif Britt posted) and when he does, he hasn't won enough games to increase that sample size beyond, now, 4 games.
Hence why he's judged the way he is: regular season performance which people only value so much (see: Peyton before he started winning in January) and a spotty/bare playoff resume. He'll get a chance to change the latter in about 8 weeks.
Just directly proving my point. No surprise.
Utterly ridiculous to call him anything close to being "clutch"
ELIMINATION GAMES Cmp Att Cmp% TD INT
2006 Playoffs vs SEA 17 29 58.6% 1 0
2007 Playoffs vs NYG 18 36 50.0% 1 1
2008 WK17 vs PHI 21 39 53.9% 0 1
2009 Playoffs vs PHI 23 35 65.7% 2 0
2009 Playoffs vs MIN 22 35 62.9% 0 1
2011 WK17 vs NYG 29 37 78.4% 2 1
2012 WK17 vs WAS 20 37 54.1% 2 3
Totals 150 248 60.5% 8 7
A close score in the 4th quarter of a game in September isn't on equal footing with a do or die game.
A better statistical measure would be Romo's 4th quarter performance in postseason games or regular season games determining whether or not the Cowboys would go to the postseason.
People are pointing out that he has had issues winning critical games and that his mistakes have directly led to those losses. The same could have been said of Donovan McNabb, and often was.
It doesn't mean they aren't/weren't good QB's - it means that they came up short in critical games, for whatever reason.
I have no clue why it is being argued that people are saying romo isn't good - I'm not sure a single poster has said that. Numerous ones have said he has had critical mistakes in big games, however.
this is the nfl. The games are few. The separation is thin. Its clueless to act like big, important, season altering spots dont occur regularly
That is kind of the whole point? Outside of Dallas fans, who cares if he has a comeback against a crappy Giants team in November, when he has all day to throw and the Giants D is rated dead last. Sure in the stat books it will look great, but I don't know how anyone can look at Sunday nights game and call what he did "clutch."
Don't you do the same - that is, tout the important of post-season success (or lack thereof) independent of the regular season - with Peyton Manning? Why do you acknowledge its legitimacy in Peyton's case but not Romo's. It's notable in both instances.
Arod had some of the best regular seasons in the history of baseball, multiple times over. He was always deservedly knocked for not coming through in October...until he did in 09. Maybe Romo will too (in January), but he hasn't yet.
Sometimes people would rather have wins than the fancy stats.