- 06/28/2012, 10:25PM ET
JimJ77 Can't make it up said 06/28, 10:25 PM
What if Romo played for the Cowboys in the 90's?
If Tony Romo was the QB of the Dallas teams of the 90's they would've still won 3 SB's and won more games overall.
There is no doubt that Tony Romo is the more talented QB than Aikman was. Romo has a better rating, 96.9 to 81.6, higher completion%, 64.5 to 61.5, higher TD to INT ratio, 2.07 to 1 compared to 1.17 to 1 for Aikman.
This with lesser talent surrounding him. Especially at the running back and offensive line positions.
The biggest knock on Romo is his ineffictiveness in the clutch. Consider his 14-22 record for a .389 win% when his team is in a close game. Close game is defined by being up or down 1-8 points with the ball in the 4th quarter.
By comparison, Aikman was 21-35 for a .375 win%. Also consider Brett Favre was 45-75 for a win% of .375, and the new golden boy of the NFL Aaron Rodgers stand at 8-18 for a meager .307 win%.
I believe while Romo might not be the most clutch QB in the NFL, there are other considered good to great QB's with the same issue. Romo just happens to play on the biggest stage with the Dallas Cowboys.
I'm not sure Dallas wins 4 SB's with Romo, but they still win 3.
Marlins Fan said 06/29, 09:59 PM
There are two reason why I believe the Cowboys would NOT have won all three of those Super Bowls Antonio Ramiro Romo had been the starting QB in that era. I'm going to list my reasons first and then I'll expand on them.
Reason 1: Romo wasn't a good fit for those Cowboys teams. The 90's Cowboys were a run-first team and featured a HEAVY dose of Emmitt Smith and LITTLE bit of Aikman doing what he did best - game management.
Romo is a gunslinger, ala Brett Favre. A gunslinger can't do a game manager's job effectively. A gunslinger's mentality is just too different. QBs like Romo or Favre want to throw the ball all day; they want to go deep frequently; they want to take chances with the football.
The 90's Cowboys weren't built for that. They were built for clock management and a punishing run game. It's why Michael Irvin was so successful in that system; he wasn't a deep threat at all, but he knew how to go over the middle and make short catches for first downs.
Romo would've aired it out and turned the ball over enough that the Cowboys would've had a very hard time playing catch up with other teams.
Reason 2: Romo falls apart in the postseason. Much more on that later.
JimJ77 Can't make it up said 06/30, 02:47 PM
What if Peyton Manning played for the Patriots instead of Tom Brady?
The Pats would not have won 3 SB's with Manning as their QB. Why?
Manning is not as good a QB outdoors, especially in cold weather games as Tom Brady is.
Manning's win percentage outdoors drops each month .700 in Sep, .680 in Oct, .655 in Nov and .565 in Dec/Jan. In comparison Brady has a win% of .814 in Dec/Jan. Brady is also 38-5 in games where the temp is under 40 degrees.
Manning defenders will point to the defense Tom has had in NE. Well, they have been one of the worst defenses in the NFL the last two seasons and Brady has led them to a 29-7 record and 12-2 in Dec/Jan games.
In 2003 Indy had the 11th ranked defense, while NE had the 7th. NE beat the Colts in the AFC championship game that year, a game in which Manning threw 4 Ints. A game outdoors in the snow.
In 2003 and 2004 Indy was favored to beat NE. They lost both games and averaged 8.5 pts led by Manning.
Manning has always been surrounded by tremendously talented teams but could not consistently win like Brady has.
Brady is simply a more clutch and better outdoor QB than Manning, and as a result NE wouldn't have won 3 SB's.
Marlins Fan said 07/01, 02:21 AM
I happen to see this topic completely differently than you do, so that works out very well. In my opinion the Patriots would've been just as successful with Peyton, meaning the NE organization would still have those three SB trophies on display in their facilities.
Let's talk about why. The NE Patriots are as good a system as you will find in the NFL. Granted they've also been slessed with smart talent evaluators and wise waiver moves, but beyond that the real strength of the Patriots is in Belichick's flawless offensive system. Take, for example, the 2008 season. The Pats lost Tom Brady, the reigning MVP, to a season-ending injury. Some teams, like the 2011 Colts for example, fall apart when their MVP/QB misses the year. Not the Pats. Backup/unknown QB Matt Cassel stepped in and guided the Pats to an 11 win season in Brady's absence.
The previously mentioned 2011 Colts, on the other hand, floundered when Peyton went down for the year, finishing the season with a record of 2-14 after coming off a 10 win season the previous year.
The reason for this disparity in handling adversity is the respective systems.
Peyton would've won 3 SBs in NE's system, guaranteed.
JimJ77 Can't make it up said 07/01, 09:14 PM
I disagree that Romo is a gunslinger. For his career he's only average 1 INT for ever 36 attempts. Aiman was 1 INT for every 33. Also, Romo has never played with a great O line or RB. A lot of his plays are ad-lib because of lack of protection, defenses keying in on the passing game, and Romo's targets not running proper routes.
Aikan never had these concerns. Even still he turned the ball over more than Romo. Romo is a better QB than Aikman ever was. You're telling me Dallas wouldn't have won 3 SB's with a superior QB? I don't buy it.
I don't know what you mean by the Pats "system". Belichick is 53-61 without Brady. Brady has played in offenses where he threw short with WR and RB screens, has played in offenses that aired it out with Moss, and recently has played with an offense that targets TE's.
He's proven he can play in any system. Manning on the other hand, played in one system his entire career.
Your Cassell angle is flawed. The reason why the Pats won 11 games without Brady is because the Pats developed a backup QB. The Colts simply didn't.
I've proven Manning couldn't get it done outdoors and in the cold. And thats what it takes to win in NE.
Marlins Fan said 07/02, 01:26 AM
Romo's career INT percentage is low because Jason Garrett's scheme plays to Romo's strengths. They pass like crazy and they use multiple WR/TEs on virtually every play. That's exactly the problem... if you put Romo in Jimmie Johnson's run-heavy scheme, the margin for error is significantly lower because they relied on consistency over big plays. Romo always tried to make something out of nothing, and in a big play offense, it works. In a clock-managing, mistake-free, run-for-three-yards-at-a-crack offense, the risk is greatly increased and the penalty for mistakes is much more severe.
Your stat about Belichick's record without Brady is misleading. It involves games long before Belichick's system was perfected. The Pats' 2008 season (without Brady) is a much more current and accurate measuring stick of the success of Belichick's system.
And if we're led to believe that the 2008 Pats' success was due to the Pats developing Cassel, then explain why Cassel turned into a complete scrub once he left NE. He wasn't developed in NE; he had a great SYSTEM in NE.
Manning is talented/smart enough that he would've fit right in to Belichick's system and won 3 SBs.
- Fantasy baseball Weekend Primer: Stream Axelrod, Colon
- Fantasy baseball Prospect Watch: Miller looks like an ace
- Fantasy baseball Stat Focus: Cabrera's wOBA proves dominance
- Fantasy baseball Trade Tips: It's time to sell Rickie Weeks
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Is Cardinals' pitching slowing?
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia