The Official NFL Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

...I more willing to believe in Romo than Favre. Call me biased, but I just don't think a "gunslinger" like Favre can keep up his early success throughout the season.

---

Basically the only comparison I have EVER heard comparing Romo to any other QB has always been Favre. They're very similar in a lot of ways. Owens + Whitten + a running game opens up the field a lot more for Romo, so he doesn't need to force as many things as Favre does, but put them on the same team and imo you practically couldn't even tell a difference.

As far as Favre keeping up success throughout a season, I kind of see the point you're making, but you do realize he's been to two Super Bowls and won one, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monroeski

Basically the only comparison I have EVER heard comparing Romo to any other QB has always been Favre. They're very similar in a lot of ways. Owens + Whitten + a running game opens up the field a lot more for Romo, so he doesn't need to force as many things as Favre does, but put them on the same team and imo you practically couldn't even tell a difference.

As far as Favre keeping up success throughout a season, I kind of see the point you're making, but you do realize he's been to two Super Bowls and won one, right?

---

Yes they are very similar but Romo 1) has much better mobility 2) is entering his prime whereas Favre is declining. Favre won a super bowl yes, in 1997. Ten years ago. The last two years Favre has had a QB rating of 70.9 and 72.7. Now he stands at 96.2. IN 2005 he had 20 TDs & 29 INTs, in 2006, 18 TDs and 18 INTs. This year 16 TDs and 8 INTs. I'm more inclined to believe this is a fluke and his rating and TD/INT ratio will return to lower, expected levels given his age, than believe he is having a mini-breakout year at the age of 38. My point is not that he hasn't played well, but that I think it is more of a fluke and while he will still be an above-average QB, I think his performance will slip some as the year goes on.

See what I'm saying?

It's true that Favre went through a very sharp decline over the last few years. How he's doing so well right now is well, inexplicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r'aggro

It's true that Favre went through a very sharp decline over the last few years. How he's doing so well right now is well, inexplicable.

---

They actually have talent now, and Favre is healthy. Since Favre never misses any games and the Packers have had 1 losing season since he's been here, he's been the QB on teams while they rebuild. Romo's been doing this for a year, and has TO...Favre's been doing this for over 15 years with mostly pedestrian receivers. If Favre's numbers were out of the ordinary(with the exception of the past two years), with his career numbers I'd agree with you, but since they are mostly the same as what he always done I'll atribute it to not knowing the Packers very well. What you see of Favre on highlight shows is vastly different than what you see when you watch the games in their entirety. I like Romo...he went to HS not too far from here, but he's got to do it for MUCH longer than a year to prove he's for real. Warner, Culpepper, Brooks, are examples of QB's who looked great for a period of time...longevity of greatness eluded them however.

Personally, I think that the most important things for a QB have nothing to do with physical abilities.

The ability to read a defence quickly, poise under pressure, and leadership I would say rank far higher than arm strength or scrambling ability.

The only physical ability that I think is very important for a QB is accuracy. And that is more precision based... not strength based.

Thus... even at the age of 38, a guy like Favre can be effective.

I also think that too many people put too much value on what a QB does on his own.

Football is the ULTIMATE *TEAM* game... and if a QB has no supporting defence, running game, blocking, or wideouts that can get open... then no matter how "good" he may be... he's really a sitting duck.

And Favre has been stuck on a pretty bad team up unto this year I think.

And in their hayday... Green Bay was loaded with talent.

It does indeed take more than one year to prove you belong, so Romo could still just be a flash in the pan. I'd also like to thank him personally for bobbling the snap in the playoffs last year that sent dallas home for golf season. :thumbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

Personally, I think that the most important things for a QB have nothing to do with physical abilities.

The ability to read a defence quickly, poise under pressure, and leadership I would say rank far higher than arm strength or scrambling ability.

The only physical ability that I think is very important for a QB is accuracy. And that is more precision based... not strength based.

Thus... even at the age of 38, a guy like Favre can be effective.

I also think that too many people put too much value on what a QB does on his own.

Football is the ULTIMATE *TEAM* game... and if a QB has no supporting defence, running game, blocking, or wideouts that can get open... then no matter how "good" he may be... he's really a sitting duck.

And Favre has been stuck on a pretty bad team up unto this year I think.

And in their hayday... Green Bay was loaded with talent.

---

Well that's a big part of my point with Green Bay, Favre has played very well but their running game stinks and eventually that will catch up with him.

I'm not going to argue about careers or Romo's potential / future, I'm simply talking this season. And while yes, Favre's numbers so far this year are closer to his career averages, QBs don't typically regress for two seasons and then bounce back at 38. My argument is that from a statistical point of view, based on the trends before this season and the trends you would expect from a QB his age, I believe his numbers will decrease later in the year. Not to bad levels per se, but closer to good than great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

Well that's a big part of my point with Green Bay, Favre has played very well but their running game stinks and eventually that will catch up with him.

I'm not going to argue about careers or Romo's potential / future, I'm simply talking this season. And while yes, Favre's numbers so far this year are closer to his career averages, QBs don't typically regress for two seasons and then bounce back at 38. My argument is that from a statistical point of view, based on the trends before this season and the trends you would expect from a QB his age, I believe his numbers will decrease later in the year. Not to bad levels per se, but closer to good than great.

---

Once again, GB was in full blown rebuild mode the past couple years. He didn't really regress, there was literally NOTHING on the offensive side of the ball. Stick Brady or Manning on those teams and watch their numbers "regress". Favre is doing the same thing Rich Gannon and Elway did...have success at an older age.

Favre will be the jerry rice of QB's - play forever...oh oops, I guess interceptaverde beat him to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

Yes they are very similar but Romo 1) has much better mobility 2) is entering his prime whereas Favre is declining. Favre won a super bowl yes, in 1997. Ten years ago. The last two years Favre has had a QB rating of 70.9 and 72.7. Now he stands at 96.2. IN 2005 he had 20 TDs & 29 INTs, in 2006, 18 TDs and 18 INTs. This year 16 TDs and 8 INTs. I'm more inclined to believe this is a fluke and his rating and TD/INT ratio will return to lower, expected levels given his age, than believe he is having a mini-breakout year at the age of 38. My point is not that he hasn't played well, but that I think it is more of a fluke and while he will still be an above-average QB, I think his performance will slip some as the year goes on.

See what I'm saying?

---

You're more inclined to believe that a guy that has won a Super Bowl and gone to two and is a sure-fire hall of famer is a fluke, but a guy that has barely started over one full season (something like 20 games) is a better bet?

Out of what he did last year, Romo did well in the first half and not very good in the second. He has obviously done well so far this year, but out of the just over one season that he has played, he has definitely had his share of bad games.

I'm not guaranteeing Favre will have a better half or anything, but if you look at it objectively Romo hasn't really done anything that would guarantee he will have a better year, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monroeski

You're more inclined to believe that a guy that has won a Super Bowl and gone to two and is a sure-fire hall of famer is a fluke, but a guy that has barely started over one full season (something like 20 games) is a better bet?

Out of what he did last year, Romo did well in the first half and not very good in the second. He has obviously done well so far this year, but out of the just over one season that he has played, he has definitely had his share of bad games.

I'm not guaranteeing Favre will have a better half or anything, but if you look at it objectively Romo hasn't really done anything that would guarantee he will have a better year, either.

---

Well put. Believe me, I'm a fan of the guy, but until he shows he can play at a high level for a little longer I don't see how anyone can compare him the Favre, sure he might have a better year, but even that doesn't mean much.

Sharky Pick 'em For Week 11

San Diego
Indianapolis
Minnesota
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Tampa Bay
Cincinnati
Miami
New England
Dallas
New Orleans
Green Bay
Detroit
San Francisco
Seattle
Denver

why is romo even being mentioned in the same paragraph as favre? so he plays similarly... dwyane wade plays like MJ, doesn't mean he is. romo is a fun guy to watch, favre is a fun guy to watch, that's about it.... when romo wins a superbowl, goes to 8 pro bowls, plays 250 consecutive games without absence, and has 60,000 yards then we can start talking romo/favre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

I'm more inclined to believe this is a fluke and his rating and TD/INT ratio will return to lower, expected levels given his age, than believe he is having a mini-breakout year at the age of 38. My point is not that he hasn't played well, but that I think it is more of a fluke and while he will still be an above-average QB, I think his performance will slip some as the year goes on.

See what I'm saying?

---

Favre's having another "flukey" day. 3 TD's, another perfect bomb, and the packers have opened up a 28-3 lead. Yep, Dallas sure looks better than this team. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

Yes they are very similar but Romo 1) has much better mobility 2) is entering his prime whereas Favre is declining. Favre won a super bowl yes, in 1997. Ten years ago. The last two years Favre has had a QB rating of 70.9 and 72.7. Now he stands at 96.2. IN 2005 he had 20 TDs & 29 INTs, in 2006, 18 TDs and 18 INTs. This year 16 TDs and 8 INTs. I'm more inclined to believe this is a fluke and his rating and TD/INT ratio will return to lower, expected levels given his age, than believe he is having a mini-breakout year at the age of 38. My point is not that he hasn't played well, but that I think it is more of a fluke and while he will still be an above-average QB, I think his performance will slip some as the year goes on.

See what I'm saying?

---

Just cant accept that Favre is having his best year since the SB season of '96/'97 huh? Favre has done a complete 360 from his performances in the past few years. Hes stopped his "gunslinging", averaging less than 1 int a game. The Packers have finally found their run game and I expect Grant to push 100 yards/game for the rest of the year. GB will be Dallas in a few weeks and take NFC and go back to the SB, on the shoulders of a 38 year old QB.