Brees or Romo: One game.. all the marbles.

[Nukleopatra]

Since we're talking about yards, because that's about the only thing Brees does right.

Tony Romo has thrown for 7,659 yards in the last two seasons.
Drew Brees has thrown for 9,492 yards in the last two seasons.

Tony Romo has thrown 300 fewer passes than Drew Brees.
Tony Romo also has a better yards per pass attempt than Drew Brees.

Tony Romo is also better looking, and doesn't have a giant shit stain on his face, but that's beyond the point. I'm just throwing that out there for the female fans, who might vote in this poll.

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

Drew Brees doesnt get distracted by his girlfriend on the football field.

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

lol @ passing records.

I'm sure Drew Brees is pleased with his 16-16 record the last two seasons, as long as he got that fed-ex air player of the year award. If Drew Brees is as simple minded as you are, he's an even bigger loser than I thought. Unfortunately, I know the guy cares about winning. more than anything, at least football wise - He just isn't good enough to do it.

Tony Romo, hands down.

Im sure Drew Brees loves having an often incapable team around him, too.

Put Drew Brees on the Cowboys and he would've won more playoff games in the last 2 years than Tony Romo has.

Put Tony Romo on the Saints and we still dont know who Lance Moore is.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Im sure Drew Brees loves having an often incapable team around him, too.

Put Drew Brees on the Cowboys and he would've won more playoff games in the last 2 years than Tony Romo has..

lmao.

The same sorry ass argument for Drew Brees' incompetence. You know the argument is over when the ''Put Drew Brees here or there'' theory comes into play.

Put Drew Brees in a 6'4 frame, give him Marino's arm, Warner's IQ, and stick his ass in New England, and he'd win more than one playoff game. Unfortunately, we all live in the real world, Bob Kuzzy. And here in the real world, he's a loser.

It's been fun, girls. But the 60+ people who voted for Drew Brees have no reason for doing so, other than disliking Tony Romo, because Drew Brees actually doesn't do ANYTHING better than Tony Romo.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

lmao.

The same sorry ass argument for Drew Brees' incompetence. You know the argument is over when the ''Put Drew Brees here or there'' theory comes into play.

Put Drew Brees in a 6'4 frame, give him Marino's arm, Warner's IQ, and stick his ass in New England, and he'd win more than one playoff game. Unfortunately, we all live in the real world, Bob Kuzzy. And here in the real world, he's a loser.

It's been fun, girls. But the 60+ people who voted for Drew Brees have no reason for doing so, other than disliking Tony Romo, because Drew Brees actually doesn't do ANYTHING better than Tony Romo.

Romo has had better receivers. Romo had TO and Witten, and still couldn't do anything.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Romo has had better receivers. Romo had TO and Witten, and still couldn't do anything.

You push my post on the previous page for this horseshit response?

Are you completely retarded or just part retarded, seriously?

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Drew Brees-5,069 Yards, 65.0%, 7.98 YPA, 34 TD, 17 INT, 13 Sacks, 96.2 Rating

Tony Romo-3448 Yards, 61.3%, 7.66 YPA, 26 TD, 14 INT, 20 Sacks, 91.4 Ratings

Romo had Owens, Witten, and Roy Williams for part of the season.

Brees had Lance Moore, Marques Colston, and Jeremy Shockey.

I rest my case.

 

[Fox1994]

People use that reasoning often.

But let's look at Brees/Warner for a minute. I can use Warner as an example, since 85% of this forum would choose Brees over Warner, as well.

Drew Brees had the 28th ranked rush offense in 2008.

Kurt Warner had the 32nd ranked rush offense in 2008.

Drew Brees had 23rd ranked defense in 2008.

Kurt Warner had the 19th ranked defense, which only gave up 8 fewer yards per game, and gave up over 30 more points total.

Kurt Warner lead one of the worst organizations in NFL history to the superbowl. Even a rookie quarterback in Matt Ryan was able to lead the 24th ranked defense, and arguably the worst team in the NFL going into the 2008 season, to a playoff spot.

My question to you is - If Tony Romo's head is on the chopping block after only 3 seasons, how much longer until you people put Brees' head there, as well?

But, let's give Drew Brees some credit - He did win the Fed Ex air player of the year award.

lol.

Anyway, I concede. Something won't let me say Romo is better than Brees, but he's at least as good.

And I creamed my pants when he did it. You should have seen the look on his face. I have that shit as the background on my computer, and I jerk off to it at least four times a week.

You say the funniest, weirdest shit. I love it.

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

lmao.

The same sorry ass argument for Drew Brees' incompetence. You know the argument is over when the ''Put Drew Brees here or there'' theory comes into play.

Put Drew Brees in a 6'4 frame, give him Marino's arm, Warner's IQ, and stick his ass in New England, and he'd win more than one playoff game. Unfortunately, we all live in the real world, Bob Kuzzy. And here in the real world, he's a loser.

It's been fun, girls. But the 60+ people who voted for Drew Brees have no reason for doing so, other than disliking Tony Romo, because Drew Brees actually doesn't do ANYTHING better than Tony Romo.

You still have given zero reason to pick Romo over Brees. If you wanna say they're both losers, thats fine. But theres no reason to believe Romo is any less a loser than Brees.

You have no reason to believe it other than your hate for Drew Brees, which leaves me with highly entertaining posts from you anyways, so I really dont mind.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Drew Brees-5,069 Yards, 65.0%, 7.98 YPA, 34 TD, 17 INT, 13 Sacks, 96.2 Rating

Tony Romo-3448 Yards, 61.3%, 7.66 YPA, 26 TD, 14 INT, 20 Sacks, 91.4 Ratings

Romo had Owens, Witten, and Roy Williams for part of the season.

Brees had Lance Moore, Marques Colston, and Jeremy Shockey.

I rest my case.

Tony Romo also played 3 less games.

Tony Romo finished with an 8-5 record.
Drew Brees finished 8-8.

You really should rest your case, because you really have no case. Drew Brees is not better than Tony Romo, at anything. If any of you put any actual research into this, you would know that Drew Brees currently holds one of the all-time worst records when trailing after the 3rd quarter. Not only is Drew Brees not a better quarterback, but he's by far one of the worst clutch performers the game has ever seen.

A cookie for whoever knows enough about the NFL to post Drew Brees all-time record, when trailing after the 3rd quarter...

Trust me, it's fucking worth it.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Drew Brees. He's just a better QB and doesn't make the dumb mistakes. Tony Romo makes me :smh: entirely way to much.

''TAMPA, Fla. -- New Orleans put the game in Drew Brees' hands, and Tampa Bay took it right away.

The relentless Buccaneers defense pressured the NFL's leading passer all afternoon, then intercepted him twice in the closing minutes Sunday to stay atop the NFC South with a 23-20 victory over the Saints.''

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Romo has had better receivers. Romo had TO and Witten, and still couldn't do anything.

I think having Tomlinson and Gates is at least as good and IMO easily better.

I guess its an amazing coincidence that Chargers got better after Brees left with essentially the same team , Boys were a disaster before Romo and every outing without him since. 7-9 ,8-8 will give you plenty of chances to throw the ball 900000 times but doesnt mean your winning anything.
If the QB switched teams the only difference would be the poll showingRomo by landslide. Its always fun to hate the guys ESPN loves.

 

[Nukleopatra]

The answer to the trivia question is: 1-21.

That's right - 72 of you dumbasses just voted for a quarterback who has a 1-21 record when trailing after the 3rd quarter, as the Saints quarterback. Tony Romo is something like 5-9.

I rest my case.. This poll is a complete fucking fail, just like Drew Brees in clutch situations. I'd demand a recount from a new poll, but then 80 of you would probably find a reason to vote for Drew Brees' silly ass.

Lol @ 1-21... At least he succeeds at failing.

 

[1ke]

HAHAHAHA You dumbasses!!!

Not me, I voted Romo, all this manlove/mancrush shit for Drew Brees and that Saints strikes me as odd. I will not be fooled.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think having Tomlinson and Gates is at least as good and IMO easily better.

I guess its an amazing coincidence that Chargers got better after Brees left with essentially the same team , Boys were a disaster before Romo and every outing without him since. 7-9 ,8-8 will give you plenty of chances to throw the ball 900000 times but doesnt mean your winning anything.
If the QB switched teams the only difference would be the poll showingRomo by landslide. Its always fun to hate the guys ESPN loves.

I've tried to stay out of this thread, because I get tired of posting the same stats/evidence over and over and over, but I really believe people don't watch Brees play, they just look at the boxscores. Fanatsy football has alot to do with this.

I see nothing has changed since my infamous "Drew Brees-Empty Stats" thread over at MM last year.

The point is bold is one I love to make. In SD, Brees played with the greatest offensive player in his generation, and an All Pro TE. Not to mention a deep, hard hitting defense that has been very good for a bunch of years now. Everyone forgets that.

Even in NO, Reggie Bush, Colston, Shockey, pre-Shaun Alexander'ized Duece, a great o-line...people act as if he's working with Archie Manning esque complimentary players. He's been surrounded by very good to great offensive talent his entire career.

Nuke & KOF are making all the same points i've been making for the last year, but all you really need to know, is for all those pretty stats, Brees has only led his teams to the playoffs twice, the Chargers have been more successful after he left, and his numbers drop off significantly in all of the "clutch" categories....QB rating "late & close", trailing in the 4th, games with final score differential between 1-8, etc.

The Saints are 15-17 the last two years, and finished in last place in 2008. In both 2007 & 2008, the Saints were in position to make the playoffs going into the last month of the season. We know how that worked out. Go look up the game logs. In particular, the Philly & Chicago games from 2007, and the TB game from last season.

He also started the 2007 season with a TD/INT ratio of something like 1/9, and the Saints started off 0-4. Yet people love to blame his inferior teammates for the last two seasons.

Brees is obvioulsy a very good player, and by all accounts a great guy. Nobody is denying that. But he has a history of producing nothing in clutch situations, whether you define that by important games, playoff performance, 4th Q with the game on the line, whatever. He's an odd player, because i've never seen a player that good perform so bad in those types of situations.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Funny.

Not like it wasn't obvious from the get-go why you made this thread, but thanks for confirming either way.

I look forward to the Seattle game almost as much as I do the Giant game. Thanks for that, too.

I wanted to see Nuk get into the regular season mode and you defend Romo until you turned blue in the cheeks.



P.S. Seattle could lose 100-0 to Dallas this season and it still won't change the fact that Matt Hasselbeck has won 4 more playoff games than Tony Romo.. and he's actually shown the ability to win a pivotal game in a season (not in October/November when you pull out your "clutch" wins from Romo).

 

[Rayman]

I wanted to see Nuk get into the regular season mode and you defend Romo until you turned blue in the cheeks.



P.S. Seattle could lose 100-0 to Dallas this season and it still won't change the fact that Matt Hasselbeck has won 4 more playoff games than Tony Romo.. and he's actually shown the ability to win a pivotal game in a season (not in October/November when you pull out your "clutch" wins from Romo).

Funny again, because at the end of the day, Romo's only been a starter for 2 1/2 seasons. I don't have any doubts that the TEAM (with Romo at the helm) will deliver, as is required when a team is to have postseason success. See, unlike you, I've seen my team raise a couple Lombardi's in my lifetime. I'm very aware of what it takes to get one. The QB gets a lot of the glory and the blame, but it's far from his fault crazy shit has happened that was out of his control in 2 measly playoff games. Just like it's not only because of him that the team has a 27-12 record with him under center.

Nice job comparing playoff records to your boy. Let's delve a bit further.

After his 3rd season as a starter, Matt Hasselbeck had a 20-18 record. It was after his 4th season that he had a 27-23 record.

So it took him 4 seasons to accomplish what Romo has in 3. And since you're so fond of pointing out that Romo is 0-2 in postseason play, let's look at Hasselbeck's postseason record at the end of that 4th season.

Oh, what do you know? It was 0-2. Highlighted by the infamous "We'll take the ball and we're gonna score" incident, which to me, is far worse than dropping a wet ball on a FG that would never have occurred if Romo wasn't QB of that team anyway. Hasselbeck is far from a postseason god with the mighty record of 4-5.

Let's boil this down to what it is; It may have been a while since the last one, but my team has won a championship in my lifetime. And at the end of the day, all this BS is about is you're another Cowboy hater. That's nice. It's just like your comparing of Aaron Curry to Patrick Willis; penis envy and nothing more.

Enjoy your 2005 (or whatever year it was) Halas trophy. It's all you and the fraudulent "12th man" will get for the foreseeable future.

:2thumbs:

BTW, the last two times Romo played the Giants in December, he won. If those weren't "pivotal games", we're going to have to find a new definition.

Kindly STFU and get off my and the Cowboys' collective dicks.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Funny again, because at the end of the day, Romo's only been a starter for 2 1/2 seasons. I don't have any doubts that the TEAM (with Romo at the helm) will deliver, as is required when a team is to have postseason success. See, unlike you, I've seen my team raise a couple Lombardi's in my lifetime.

:jonesy:

So based on what happened thirteen years ago.. we can't talk about a QB that can't get it done in the present day?

I'm very aware of what it takes to get one. The QB gets a lot of the glory and the blame, but it's far from his fault crazy shit has happened that was out of his control in 2 measly playoff games. Just like it's not only because of him that the team has a 27-12 record with him under center.

Not entirely his fault, but a great deal of the blame goes on Romo.

Nice job comparing playoff records to your boy. Let's delve a bit further.

After his 3rd season as a starter, Matt Hasselbeck had a 20-18 record. It was after his 4th season that he had a 27-23 record.

Romo's a bit like A-Rod (sidenote you must be a glutton for punishment).. he plays fine until the games start building up in importance.

Hasselbeck in December during this 3 year stretch? 8-4. Of which in consecutive seasons Hasselbeck won games to get his team into the playoffs.

Romo in December during his 3 year stretch? 4-8. Of which in 2008.. Romo was part of a free fall.. in 2006.. he was fortunate that his skid at the end of the year didn't knock Dallas out of the playoffs that year as well.. before he dropped the "wet ball" (lol @ that).. he lost to then 2-13 Detroit AT HOME.

So it took him 4 seasons to accomplish what Romo has in 3. And since you're so fond of pointing out that Romo is 0-2 in postseason play, let's look at Hasselbeck's postseason record at the end of that 4th season.

Oh, what do you know? It was 0-2. Highlighted by the infamous "We'll take the ball and we're gonna score" incident, which to me, is far worse than dropping a wet ball on a FG that would never have occurred if Romo wasn't QB of that team anyway. Hasselbeck is far from a postseason god with the mighty record of 4-5.

That ball wasn't wet. It wasn't raining. The weather was clear. He fucked up plain and simple. And it doesn't matter why he was holding .. he messed it up. I could get into specifics and say on that INT pick 6 by Al Harris that Bannister ran the wrong route.. but it really doesn't make a difference does it?

Let's boil this down to what it is; It may have been a while since the last one, but my team has won a championship in my lifetime. And at the end of the day, all this BS is about is you're another Cowboy hater.

Ah the old.. "How many rings does your team have?" argument. Even the Chiefs won one in the 60's.. how's that help them now? Still doesn't reverse the fact Romo is virtually 0-3 in the playoffs (you can count Philly as a playoff game last year because the winner of that was heading to Minneapolis)..

That's nice. It's just like your comparing of Aaron Curry to Patrick Willis; penis envy and nothing more.

LOL. I said he's the most complete defensive player to enter the draft since Willis. He has a 50/50 shot of flopping like every player. The relevance of this in a Tony Romo being clutch debate is funny though.

Enjoy your 2005 (or whatever year it was) Halas trophy. It's all you and the fraudulent "12th man" will get for the foreseeable future.

That's all fine and dandy.. because you'll be right there with us.. watching Super Bowl XLIV from the comfort of your living room. :wave:

BTW, the last two times Romo played the Giants in December, he won. If those weren't "pivotal games", we're going to have to find a new definition.

Oh you mean.. in 2006 where if he lost that game to the Giants you finish 8-8 and last year if you lose that game to the Giants you finish........8-8? I guess if your definition of clutch is preserving a winning season only to piss it away in a do or die game weeks later.. then yes.. Romo is extremely clutch.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

A guy comes in immediately plays at a pro bowl top 5 QB level , brings a team headed nowhere to playoffs and the post season multiple times yet people say hes not clutch or cant win a big game.

Im sorry but some of you people are morons.

Theres several cases one can make that Brees is a better QB but none of them seem to be made here. The best is shattering NFL conventional by judging a QB by what he does as a holder for a place kick.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Tony Romo vs. Drew Brees.

27-12 record as starter.
55-51 record as starter (25-23 as a Saint.)

5-9 record when trailing after the 3rd quarter.
1-21 record when trailing after the 3rd quarter (as the saints starter.)

0 playoff victories in 2 and half seasons.
1 playoff victory in 7 seasons.

94.7 QB rating.
89.4 QB rating.

3 for 3 record over .500
3 for 7 record over .500 (1 for 3 as Saints starter.)

63.6% completion %.
63.9% completion %.

10,562 yards passing in 39 games as a Cowboy.
13,910 yards passing in 48 games as a Saint.

81-46 td/int as a Cowboy.
88-46 td/int as a Saint.

Other than yards passing, 7 more TD passes, Drew Brees really isn't better at anything than Tony Romo. And Tony Romo played in 9 less games, with Brees as a Saint. I'm just curious what made 72 people vote for Drew Brees, because I'm not seeing those several cases that KOF mentioned, that can be argued in Brees' favor.. Is it the 1 playoff victory in 7 seasons? That's more pathetic than anything. Is it Drew Brees 25-23 record as the Saints starter? If so, you guys must really love Jay Cutler's ass.

It baffles me, really.