The real expectations from Roy Williams as a Wide Receiver
by Raf's on Jun 17, 2009 4:38 PM CDT
123 comments
The question since the acquisition of Roy Williams has been whether or not he can be a number one receiver. The truth is that he had been a number one receiver in Detroit since his arrival until the arrival of Calvin Johnson. Therefore, he can be a number one receiver in Dallas as well.
Why is that answer so hard to accept? Why do writers and fans try to define a number one receiver? Is it somebody who demands double teams? Is it somebody who achieves the 1,000 receiving yard season? Or is it somebody who scores more than a specific number of touchdowns in a season?
How about defining a number one receiver as the best receiver in the team who can be counted on at any time to make a play as well as making his teammates better? Is that too hard to do?
Let me tell you that 1,000 receiving yards and a specific number of touchdowns in a season does not translate into team success in the playoffs. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even translate into a team making the playoffs.
The top ten receivers in yards last season each had over 1,145 receiving yards. Only half of those top ten WRs made the playoffs. There were 21 WRs in the NFL who totaled over 1,000 receiving yards last season. Only eleven of them made the playoffs. One of those five didn't even get a victory last year (Calvin Johnson).
As far as a specific number of touchdowns by a WR, it doesn't make a difference either. Of the top 9 WRs in TD receptions (only counted 9 because there are 8 WRs tied for the tenth spot) last season, only 3 of them made the playoffs. Of those eight tied for tenth spot, only four of them made the playoffs.
Didn't T.O. get over 1,000 yards and over 10 touchdowns each of his three seasons in Dallas? He sure did. Do you think he was a solid number one receiver during those three years? You bet. Did the Cowboys have any success in the playoffs? Nope!
The bottom line is that football is a team sport, and the last time I checked no one player by himself can deliver success. I believe last season the Cowboys had one of the most talented teams in the NFL, but they didn't maximize their talent at all. Who am I kidding? They didn't even play nearly as good as they could have played.
So back to the question, can Roy Williams get 1,000 receiving yards and a specific number of touchdowns in a season and be a number one receiver? I think he can do it, but only time will tell. What I don't understand is why everybody thinks the production will translate into team success. I rather Roy be the best he can be as well as everybody else in the organization (coaching staff included), and it translating into team success.
I think that last year’s missing piece wasn’t a specific position on the roster as it was team chemistry, leadership, the passion and desire to win. In my opinion, those do translate into team success. I rather have those four qualities than any number one receiver stats that don’t win championships, playoff games or even make the playoffs.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
3 recs |
123 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm with ya
I could care less what Roy’s numbers are next year as long as we are winning (especially in the playoffs). As I’ve said all along, if Jason Garrett can prove he’s capable of mixing up our game plans to avoid putting too much pressure on one player, I think the sky is the limit on offense (without injuries). What I look for in Roy- 1. Sure handed receiver that doesn’t drop ANY easy catches like T.O. did. 2. Ability to be a possession receiver and move the chains (run good routes). Even Roy said he considered short and medium routes to be his specialty. 3. Legitimate red zone threat on fades/jumpballs. Put Roy on one side and Bennett on the other and it would create huge mismatches in that area of the field. Roy can straight go up and get it!
If Roy does all the things I’ve mentioned, he should have no problem being a solid part of our offense that won’t be asked to do too much. I feel that Romo will be at his best next year because he will go back to spreading the ball around and finding the open guy. Hopefully we won’t be throwing the ball 30-40 times a game this year and we will have a solid balanced attack.
by jointman13 on Jun 17, 2009 5:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Breaking down the T.O. Myth: Production vs. Production efficiency
in 2008, 27 Wide Receivers in the NFL posted more than 900 yards. I’ll leave TEs Gonzales (1058 yds) and Witten (952 yds) out of the analysis as they are not WRs.
With 1052 yds, T.O. ranked a respectable 12th among all NFL WRs. Given, 08 was not TOs best year in Dallas, but the 1052 yds are not far off his career average in Dallas of 1195 yds, which would have ranked him 9th on the 08 WR list.
So overall production could be considered good. But let’s look at how efficiently that production was achieved.
Reception efficiency: T.O. was targeted 140 times, and turned 69 of those balls into receptions. That’s a 49% reception rate. Rank: 27th, dead last among all top WRs.
By the way, the title of ‘Mr. Sticky Fingers’ goes to Marion Barber, who posted an 85.2% reception efficiency (52 of 61). Witten (67%) and Crayton (56%) were also more efficient than T.O.. Stat based on %Passes Caught/Target with min. 3.125 Targets/Game.
Dropped Balls: T.O. dropped 10 balls. Only Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Marshall (13 & 12) dropped more balls. Of the 140 balls thrown his way, T.O. dropped 7.1%. Rank: 24th
Yards per Game: Over the season, T.O. averaged 65.8 YPG, ranking him a solid 13th on the WR list. Now, if you take out the one 49ers game (7 Rec, 213 yds), that figure drops to a pedestrian 55.9 YPG. that 55.9 would rank 27th, again dead last.
1st down efficiency: Recording 38 1st downs against 69 receptions translates into a 55% 1st down rate. Rank: 24th.
Yards after catch: T.O. produced 4.2 YAC/ reception. Rank: 19th
In summary, T.O. unquestionably produced some nice numbers, but was highly inefficient in producing those numbers. I have no question in my mind that RW will be more efficient, and that will be better for all concerned.
by One.Cool.Customer on Jun 19, 2009 4:29 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
hence why I label him as overrated
and why his loss this year won’t be a big deal.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 19, 2009 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great analysis, OCC
Very well done.
by TCBinNYC on Jun 19, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bravo
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Jun 19, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the football equivalent of
a guy scoring 40 in an NBA game, but taking 60 shots to do it. Big props on this analysis. Wow.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 20, 2009 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where do the games
Romo missed come into your equation.
Stats can be twisted to show anything you want.
I can say we would not have missed the playoffs if Romo did not gt hurt.
Let’s say he was thrown at 30 times in the games Romo missed.
That kind of throws off your stats knowing who the Cowboys had backing up Romo.
So If Romo plays all his games it looks like T.O. was headed to a 1400 yard 12-15 touchdown year.
If that’s overrated wait till you see Roy Williams.
by Sharksbreath on Jun 22, 2009 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent comment.
Great info thanks. You should have made a Fanpost out of this.
by Luke. on Jun 23, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having a legit #1 does not by itself make a team a contender.
But you better have one if you want to contend.
Having one will not make you a contender, but you won’t often contend without one.
WELCOME HOME SEVEN!!
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Jun 17, 2009 7:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
thats just not true
last year, the Giants, Eagles, Cardinals, Vikings, Falcons and Panthers made the playoffs in the nfc. Of those, Id say the Cards, Falcons, Panthers and Giants got to the playoffs in large part because of their #1. Jackson was good for philly, but he wasn’t a complete gamechanging threat. So thats 4 or 5 out of 6, and us and the Saints sat home.
The DOlphins, Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Ravens and Titans made the playoffs. Of those, I’d say ONLY the Colts had a real true legit game changing #1. I guess you could possibly say the steelers had one, but Holmes really isn’t too scary. thats 1 or 2 out of 6. Considering teams like the Pats, Bengals, Browns, Texans, Broncos had much better receivers than most of those teams, and two of those teams didn’t even perform well offensively, I’d say that #1s hardly impacted success in the afc.
by foyesboys on Jun 17, 2009 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol so I guess you are right to some extent
it certainly appears that in the NFC, you do need a #1.
by foyesboys on Jun 17, 2009 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
awesome post
and the money quote was
The bottom line is that football is a team sport, and the last time I checked no one player by himself can deliver success.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 7:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
which is why the Cards lost the SB, right??
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 19, 2009 7:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
but its why they made it to the SB
by aussie_cowboy on Jun 19, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Warner should be given some credit too
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 20, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the running game stepped up in the postseason too.
Edge was rocksteady
"Grow where you are planted."
by Aaron Novinger on Jun 20, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your stats somewhat ring true
you mentioned 11 of the 21 teams with 1000 yard recievers made the playoffs. well only 16 teams make it. plus its hard to ahve two 1000 yard recievers on a team. however the other side of the argument is that you do need a 1000 yard type WR, simply because it forces defenses to respect that player, roll coverage and it opens up everybody else. true that a WR is not going to make you into a champion. there are so many other parts that are important. but it does help. and some of those teams that didn’t make it, probably are teams that pick high in the draft year in year out. and there has been a lot of WRs with high grades coming out over the past few years. would I take a calvin johnson? heck yes, because we have the defense, the running game and a good QB and he would help the offense.
but to say he was a good WR and didn’t win a game? lets not forget the detroit defense, awful OL and no Running game and bad bad bad coaching.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 18, 2009 9:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just curious what you guys think...
Just for fun, lets play “What if Jerry Jones had never given up a 1, a 3, a 6, and $45 mil for Roy Williams?”
Assuming the 2008 season still plays out the way it did…
- Terrell Owens is still a Cowboy.
- With the 20th pick, the Cowboys select someone like Michael Oher, Parcy Harvin, Peria Jerry, Hakeem Nicks, etc.
- They trade up from 51 to somewhere around 42-48 to take a guy they really coveted (I think it was Max Unger). Let’s say it costs them their 51st pick, and a 5.
- The rest of the draft pretty much unfolds the way it did.
Would you rather have the above, or Roy Williams? Do you see it playing out differently, and if so, what happens?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 18, 2009 12:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
rather have Williams
as he is proven and those others players aren’t. It’s always better to get a proven player IMO. Also, I wasn’t really excited about any of those players in that 20ish range where they were drafting.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can agree with the proven player philosophy, but is Roy Williams (1 good season, 4 bad/mediocre years) all that proven?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 18, 2009 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rather NOT have T.O.
end of story.
"Well, we didn't block real good but we made up for it by not tackling."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Jun 18, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 cabillion
"Grow where you are planted."
by Aaron Novinger on Jun 20, 2009 1:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely
The guy has been playing for one of the worse teams of all time with mediocre QBs his entire career before the trade.
He has a pro bowl under his belt and just loaded with talent. His best is yet to come and as an Eagles fan you’re going to get to witness it up close and personal.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lions... A bad team?
Of course. However, mediocre QB or not, they were 7th in passing offense (top 1/4 of the NFL) in Williams’ last full season there in 2007, and 9th the year before that (top 1/3 of the NFL). It’s not like he was in a situation where he couldn’t put up monster numbers.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 18, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
believe me
if the Lions had a really good qb during his tenure with the Lions, he would have put up pro bowls numbers routinely.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I understand what you mean, I think we can agree that Williams is much more proven than any WR taken in the first round of the draft. He has a 1300 yard season under his belt and has shown the ability to dominate (against us and you guys no less). Also, I like his youth and the lessened baggage he brings when compared to the guy he replaced. You are right, only time will tell, but I do think he has shown the talent is there. I would also caution you on calling his other four seasons bad. Last year he had a bad foot and Dallas wasn’t a stable situation in the time he came in. As for his other years in Detroit, if memory serves me right he had over 800 yards each season outside of his 1300 year (I could be wrong). While that isn’t great, that can’t be considered bad considering the surrounding talent he had/
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 18, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
top 5 in the league isn't mediocre bub
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 19, 2009 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon Terry...
I’m not gonna go as far as to say he’s mediocre (and I actually think Tony Romo is a really good QB)… but Top 5? Not even close.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's close
I agree he’s not top 5, but he’s top 10. You can’t say he’s “not even close” to being one of the top QBs in the league.
by TCBinNYC on Jun 19, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
He is close in a way, but I would also say that Manning and Brady have a big gap on the field. I guess Brees is close, but doesn’t quite have the pedigree.
by I_miss_Switzer on Jun 19, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
He flashes absolutely incredible top-notch stuff at times, however, he dilutes his overall positive impact with a few avoidable errors.
It just makes the argument to put him in the top 5 a little harder. But when he’s on, no doubt, we’re looking at one the best QBs in the game today.
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Jun 19, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only qbs I see better than Romo are Manning and Brady
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 20, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ones with the better resumes (combo of stats, success, etc)…
Brady
Manning
McNabb
Warner
Rivers
Brees
Roethlisberger
Other QBs that I’d take over Romo if I’m a GM…
Cutler
Rodgers
Palmer
Ryan
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 20, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
but you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong, ;)
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 20, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Decent list
however, I am not sure what Rivers has done to belong in that top list and IMO Cutler, Rodgers, and Ryan haven’t done a whole hell of a lot either to be considered above Romo. I really like Palmer so I can give you that one, but the other three have shown more weakness/inconsistency than Romo (with Ryan not doing anything spectacular yet)
First to six!!!
by sduncan24 on Jun 20, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would probably put my guy 7 or 8
First to six!!!
by sduncan24 on Jun 20, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You, my friend, are clearly suffering from Dan Marino Syndrome
I have taken the following quote from a must-read article at http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2740_Pigskin_Prophet_commands_sports_media_to_act.html
“Broadcasters and reporters continue to stare in starry-eyed wonder at quarterbacks who put up big volume numbers – attempts, completions, yards. This is known as Dan Marino Syndrome. They’re so obsessed by volume numbers that they overlook the most important factor: yards per attempt.
Fans who rely on media for information are similarly misled, and come to put far too much emphasis on volume stats and not enough emphasis on the far more telling yards per attempt. (The mentally disfiguring scourge of fantasy football, which actually values total passing yards, adds to this problem.)”
Here’s how your picks rank in Career Yards Per Attempt.
Romo ……………….8.1
Warner ……………..8.0
Roethlisberger ……7.9
Manning ……………7.7
Rivers ………………7.5
Brady ……………… 7.2
Brees ……………….7.2
McNabb …………….6.8
Cutler ……………….7.4
Rodgers ……………7.3
Palmer ……………..7.2
Ryan ………………..7.9
Now, YPA isn’t everything, and Romo certainly needs some postseason success to ever be considered an elite QB, but right now I wouldn’t trade him for anybody.
by One.Cool.Customer on Jun 20, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I swear this isn't a cheap shot...
But Romo has no playoff wins. McNabb (worst on your yards per attempt list) has 9.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 20, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
since when do qbs win playoff games by themselves?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 20, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since 2000...
Charles Johnson, Torrance Small, Todd Pinkston, Chad Lewis, Na Brown, Jeff Thomason, Stanley Pritchitt, Brian Mitchell, Chris Warren…
That was McNabb’s supporting cast in his first playoff win.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 20, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had Westbrook,
a GREAT o-line and the most devious defensive mind in the game.
Romo has had far worse O-line support than either McNabb or Eli.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 20, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He won 3 playoff games before they drafted Westbrook, and 2 more before he became the full-time starter.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 20, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what you should expect from a guy drafted #5 overall.
"Grow where you are planted."
by Aaron Novinger on Jun 20, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I misread the post
But I think Westy is now the team’s center of gravity, not Donovan.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 21, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you forgot Westbrook..conviently
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 21, 2009 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all...
You asked “since when to QB’s win playoff games by themselves?” So I answered, “Since 2000,” when McNabb had the supportinng cast of Charles Johnson, Torrance Small, Todd Pinkston, Chad Lewis, Na Brown, Jeff Thomason, Stanley Pritchitt, Brian Mitchell, Chris Warren. Here’s the boxscore (no Westbrook)…
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200012310phi.htm
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 5:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what's your point??
That those players didn’t contribute?/ That McNabb played the defenses he faced without receivers catching his passes and his OL not blocking for him??
Give me a break, your argument is nonsense.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 6:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My initial point...
McNabb… 9 playoff wins. Romo… None.
Is there really a comparison?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 7:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
like I said
McNabb didn’t win those games, the eagles did.
Last time I checked, football is a team sport.
To judge a qb on teams wins isn’t reflective on how good he is. Case in point P Manning, it took him 6 years for his team to win a playoff game, Romo hasn’t even even started 3 full seasons yet.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 7:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There it is...
The “it took Peyton Manning a long time” argument. Manning was 27 when he won his first playoff game. Romo is 29.
When he was still 30, Manning had already won 7 playoff games, a Super Bowl, a Super Bowl MVP, 5 Pro Bowl appearances, 2 First Team All-Pro awards, 2 Second Team All Pro awards, and a couple of MVP awards.
Going forward… Let’s just agree to stop short of putting Manning and Romo in the same sentence in any comparison whatsoever, even if you’re only citing Manning to give Romo an excuse for not winning big games.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can't go by age
you have to go by starting experience
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
because it isn't fair or accurate otherwise
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not fair or accurate to just go by starting experience because he couldn’t beat out the other QBs early in his career.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And furthermore...
Yes, McNabb was the offense on those teams. Is football a team sport? Of course. Did that group of players contribute? I guess.
All I’m saying is that McNabb won with a hell of a lot less (I’ll list them again for fun – Charles Johnson, Torrance Small, Todd Pinkston, Chad Lewis, Na Brown, Jeff Thomason, Stanley Pritchitt, Brian Mitchell, Chris Warren). Romo couldn’t get it done with 2 future Hall of Famers, 3 good running backs, and Roy Williams (who Cowboy fans will argue is some kind of stud).
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you're forgetting
about Eagles defenses during those wins.
Guess they had nothing to do with winning those games, huh??
I didn’t notice McNabb playing defense as well.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
(sigh)
Simple question… Has McNabb won with less talent around him than Romo?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, McNabb hasn't won a single game
The Eagles have won, why don’t you get that concept?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my God... I feel like I'm in court or something...
OK, you don’t like the term “won.” Let’s rephrase…
Which QB had a better surrounding cast? McNabb, or Romo?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
overall teamwise, I'd say Eagles
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahahahaha...
OK, well that pretty much goes against every other non-QB debate we’ve ever had, but fine… I’d glad we can finally agree that the Eagles are better.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eagles have definitely been a better team over the past several years
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I think McNabb is way under-appreciated, even by Eagles fans. But Romo has started 2 1/2 seasons, so don’t fall into the MSM trap of worrying about tht crap yet.
By your admission, P Manning and Tom Brady are top-notched. Peyton took longer than Romo to get too the play-offs. It’s an over-rated statistic in my opinion. Every game in the NFL is a playoff game for importance. I just don’t buy the whole line that it somehow separates the men from the boys.
Dan Marino, Dan Pastorino, Marc Bulger and Warren Moon will always be better than Trent Dilfer and Eli Manning.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 20, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Romo just started
McNabb has been playing for years. Romo was an UDFA and McNabb was a top 5 pick. That’s not a fair comparison at all.
by DoomsdayD75 on Jun 21, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not like Romo is some 25 year old kid just getting his career underway. He’s 29. You can’t just punish McNabb because he had more success at a much younger age. And to me, draft position is irrelevant. I’m looking at who is the better player, not what their expectations were when they started. If you want to say that Romo has exceeded expectations, fine… but that’s not the debate here.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 5:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the numbers don't lie, Romo is better than McNabb.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 6:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha...
That depends on what numbers you’re looking at. You can play with numbers until the cows come home. Hell, I can type 5138008 on a calculator, and if I turn it upside down it’ll say “boobies.”
But there’s no argument whatsoever who the more successful, accomplished player is… And you know it.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
McNabb has more experience and that’s about it.
I’d take Romo over McNabb any day and twice on Sundays.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion on who’d you rather have, but regardless of experience, Romo has accomplished FAR less in his career than McNabb.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donovan McNabb is an all-time great
Like it or not, my fellow Cowboy fans. To say that Romo is better than McNabb is pretty dumb. I’d say that McNabb is a borderline NFL Hall of Fame player at this point in his career.
That said, the Eagles have ALWAYS had a great defense, which has contributed just as much to their playoff success as McNabb did.
So long as Romo continues to come up short in December and January, we have no room to talk about him being better than any QB like McNabb.
But I feel pretty good that between these two QBs and these two teams, that Romo and the Cowboys will win a Super Bowl faster. And that will make six for the Cowboys and, uh, how many for the Eagles?
by DavidH22 on Jun 22, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think McNabb is
a great QB. I hold no stock in the “gotta win in December” for an individual player. If a guy can do it in the regular season, he can do it in December and on. The problem is one of team by that point. If your team has any weknesses, they’ll get exposed in the playoffs.
McNabb has the resume, one he’s earned the hard way, but I am not ashamed to have Romo QB my team. He’s excellent and still has a bit of upside left. D-Mac is on the downhill side.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 22, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they both have the same # of superbowl wins
So none of these stats really hold water. Losers always throw stats into it. Winners get to shine a new gold ring. Thats what counts.
by mutombo4life on Jun 22, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's so cliche I almost didn't respond
Great players don’t always hoist trophies and “losers” don’t throw stats into it.
Stats are the only way to measure an INDIVIDUAL while championships measure TEAMS.
But hey, if nifty catch-phrases make life easier by not having to think too hard, have at it…
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 22, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nine of those QBs are first round picks
only Brady and Warner weren’t high picks. Romo is fantastic especially considering he was an undrafted free agent.
Give Romo the Pats defense and O-Line, or Faulk, Holt and Bruce in their prime, and he’d have a SB win or two as well.
by DavidH22 on Jun 22, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m failing to understand why it matters where these guys were drafted.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot we had to slow things down for Eagles fans
Let’s say we are having a competition over who can make the most three point shots in basketball. I get to take 10 shots, while you only get to take 2. I make 8 baskets and you make 0. I win, I’m a much better basketball player than you obviously.
Romo’s career is just starting. McNabb’s is winding down due to his injury history. We will check the scoreboard and compare them in a few years. You can have your “victory” for the time being, we will see who ends up with the hardware in the end.
by DoomsdayD75 on Jun 22, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s say we are having a competition over who can make the most three point shots in basketball. I get to take 10 shots, while you only get to take 2. I make 8 baskets and you make 0. I win, I’m a much better basketball player than you obviously.
I know that was supposed to be some kind of sarcastic jab at me, but you kind of proved my point…
If we’re playing pickup basketball and I see 2 guys warming up, and one guy makes 8 of 10 shots, and the other is 0 for 2, I’m drafting the 8 of 10 guy first.
Romo’s career is just starting.
Reality check, brother. Romo is no spring chicken. He’s entering his 7th year, and he’s knocking on 30.
Just did some research… All the 31 other NFL franchises (excluding Dallas), care to guess how many have starting QB’s younger than Romo?
19. Yup, 19. Romo is older than 61% of NFL starting QB’s. That’s gotta hurt.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hate to interrupt the Schadenfreude
But it’s not age that kills QBs as much as the mileage. Romo was way less on the odometer than D-Mac. And yeah, that really matters because most QBs retiring in the mid-30s do so because of nagging injury, not loss of arm strength. That typically happens closer to 40. So Dallas is fine there.
Your question is when does the Kolb era begine (you know, for more than one game?)
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 22, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mileage is a huge factor for a running back, but more of a minor factor for a QB.
Kinda sobering about the 19 younger QB’s thing though, huh? I was surprised there were so many.
I think we see Kolb in 2011. If McNabb gets injured, we see Kolb sooner. If him wins a Super Bowl, we never see him.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not all all
Romo is 29, still young for a qb
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
qbs prime years
are early 30s, it’s true.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 23, 2009 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
Aikman and Staubach to name Dallas QBs both had their careers shortened by injury. Now if you are referring to bottom-of-the-heap, sure. Mediocrity and “churning the bottom” eventually overtakes them. But high performers are generally limited by injury.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 22, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really disagree there
McNabbs had multiple serious injuries throughout his career. Romo has had 1, and who knows if that will even matter. Likewise, qbs like Roethlisberger, Palmer have MUCH more mileage on them than due toinjuries or excessive number of hits, you can bet they’re careers are gonna end quicker. Since McNabb’s greatest strength (mobility) has been…somewhat…neutrailzed since those injuries, he hasn’t been the same top 3 or 4 qb he was before them. Face it. McNabb used to put up good performances week in and week out throwing to garbage. Now he has a significantly more talented team and still played a direct hand in losses to the Redskins, Ravens and tieing the freakin bengals.
Romo may be 29, but a. hes still learning, he still has room to grow. b. He really hasn’t taken many hits or even thrown half as many balls as a 29 year old who had started all his career.
And does it matter what age most of these qbs are if so so many of them ahve proven nothing? What do i care if romo is older than brady quinn? Cambell?Tavaris Jackson? I’ll take a29 year old romo over a 22 year old whose proven nothing any day of the week
by foyesboys on Jun 22, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha ha
Romo is entering his prime, McNabb is well past his.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’ve seen Romo’s ceiling. And I think deep down inside… you agree.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 22, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you couldn't be more wrong
you haven’t come close to seeing Romo’s ceiling, that just wishful thinking of a scared Eagles fan.
The best is yet to come from #9, you can take that to the bank.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 22, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree w/ Terry here...
Around the age of 31 to 32 is when I expect to see Romo’s ceiling.
Take Steve Young for example (not that I’m saying Romo will be as good as Young was). He didn’t become a regular starter in San Fran until much later in his career. He put up his best numbers in his 30’s.
Demarcus Ware: The Beast of the East.
The L.A. Lakers are 2009 NBA Champions!
by gee-roj on Jun 23, 2009 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think Roy is a proven player
He has not done anything to warrant what Jerry payed for him
by rioplayer7 on Jun 18, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on your definition of "proven"
He’s really only had one great season (2006 – Pro Bowl – 82 for 1310 yards – 16.0 avg and 7 TDs.) But his other seasons havent been bad. 8 TDs each his first two seasons is solid. 838 yards on 64 catches in 2007 in 3/4 of a season. His injuries get overlooked when analyzing his numbers. The only time he’s played a full season was his 2006 campaign. In 2004, 2005, 2007 he only started 12 games. Last year (due to the trade) he only started 11. If you project out his numbers over a full 16 game season, they arent bad.
by TCBinNYC on Jun 19, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he worth what we payed for him????
Nowhere near
by rioplayer7 on Jun 23, 2009 1:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not
But I would hate to think of our receiving corps wihtout him (or substitute a rookie in his place for the 1st round pick.) Now that we got rid of TO, I would make that trade again and give him that salary. If we kept TO, I would not.
by TCBinNYC on Jun 23, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very tough question
I would have preferred keeping the draft picks, whacking TO and trying to get RW or someone else in FA.
A future LT with that first pick would have been very choice.
by I_miss_Switzer on Jun 18, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh.
Ask me in November if I’d rather have it.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 18, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting question, Dawk
At the time of the trade, I must admit I liked it. I would rather have given up less, obviously, but I honestly thought it was the piece of the puzzle that would put us over the top. Then we got hit by the injury bug and RW didnt really pan out and so forth.
Looking back now, I would rather not make that trade and keep TO. That’s just me. I think its entirely possible that Romo steps up and has a better season without him, but time will tell. In yoru scenario, give me TO, Oher and Unger. Our line would be set for years to come. Our passing game would be in better shape than it is now (at least history tells us TO is the better player) and we have $45M more dollars to use between Ware and another 1-2 FAs that we couldnt afford this year.
by TCBinNYC on Jun 18, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tough choice
I love the draft, thus no 1st round pick was a bummer.
But if Roy’s foot injury is not a lingering problem, I’m fine with what Jerry gave up for a guy who’s still young, has proven he can be a 1200 yd WR, and can reasonably be expected to produce at that level for 4 to 5 seasons at least.
I would wait and ask that question until after the 2009 season, to see what any rookies Dallas could have picked up have accomplished, to be fair.
Training Camp '09 = Mega Thunder Dome....80 men enter, 53 men leave.
by APerfectStar on Jun 25, 2009 4:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did have to play for the lions...
Just let the season play out and we’ll see if Jerry made the right move with Roy. If he stays healthy in this offense there’s no way he wont produce. We certainly gave up a lot of draft picks for him, but if we have a good season and win a playoff game nobody is going to be complaining. Especially if Roy and Romo develop a nice chemistry throughout the year that can be carried into the future.
by jointman13 on Jun 18, 2009 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who cares about our wrs
This team will not win because of their wrs
by rioplayer7 on Jun 18, 2009 3:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Roy
I can honestly say I believe Roy will put up number between 70 to 80 and 1,000 with around 10 TD’s which would be great .
by ~~banditwolf~~ on Jun 19, 2009 12:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope he DOESN'T put up big numbers
because that would probably mean we’re behind and/or throwing too much,
and that other guys aren’t getting enough throws.
I’d like our RB’s to total 80+ catches, Witten to hit 70+, and here’s to hoping Crayton plays well and Austin actually performs, and they make a total 60-70. Add in Bennett and others, and I wouldn’t mind RW getting just 60 or so catches.
(Assuming around 300 receptions.)
by Realist Larry on Jun 19, 2009 11:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I wonder two things
First, is the term “Number 1 Receiver” the same kind of thing as “Shut Down Corner”? In other words, a media invented concept?
The second thing I wonder is why CAN’T teams do receptions by committee like they do with running backs? Sure, you have one lead dog, but he’s not the only one pulling the sled.
I’m just sayin…
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 20, 2009 8:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call "Number 1 Receiver" a media invented concept......
take Michael Irvin and Alvin Harper as examples. Michael Irvin was undoubtedly the #1 Receiver. As most know, when Alvin Harper left and went to Tampa he was supposed to be this great #1 WR. Well, of course, he didn’t have the same offense as Dallas’ but he never was the #1 Receiver there or anywhere else. Truth be told, was because of Irvin, Harper was able to draw single coverage and just go long. It worked didn’t it? Another good example is Peerless Price. He was the #2 receiver in Buffalo-had great numbers there. He left and went to Atlanta to be the go to guy (#1). Didn’t work out there. My definition of #1 Receiver is that he is good enough to make the defense respect him to give him double coverage. This in turn opens it up for your secondary receiver to draw single coverage. Does all my rambling make sense?
by texstar on Jun 20, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I mean is
there is no real definition. If teams used the term, they’d have a real definition for it. That’s pretty much my whole point. In one system a guy might draw double covereage een if he doesn’t fit the bill as a No 1. Jason Witten adn Tony Gonzales come to mind.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jun 21, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a fantacy football fanatic but,...
I found this Mcheal Fabiano opinion encouraging:
Williams’ numbers decreased across the board last year, when his season was split between the Lions and Cowboys. But after Terrell Owens’ offseason release, Williams is once again a top wideout. He is extremely talented and possesses great hands, and an increased role in a productive Cowboys’ offense bodes well for his draft value. In fact, it would be a shock if he didn’t post 70 receptions, 1,000-plus yards and 7-9 TDs in 2009. He has had injury problems and comes with some risk, but it will be hard to pass on him once the truly elite receivers are off the board. Bye: Week 6
by bad knees on Jun 24, 2009 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I gotta get Michael Fabiano in my league so he wastes an early pick on him.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 25, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude, I gotta tell ya
that greenman costume is really gay, I hope that’s not you.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 25, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, brother... Don't be a homophobe.
And no, it’s not me. It’s a character from the best show on TV, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” And note… It’s not just the best show because it’s set in Philly – If it were called “It’s Always Sunny in Dallas,” it would STILL be the best show on TV. Anyway, I wanted the actual character from the show as my pic, but there were no good ones on google images, so I had to settle for this random dude in a greenman costume. I want to change it, but I’m afraid my posts will be less recognizable if I do.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 25, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that show is pretty damn funny
Even if it’s in philly.(friendly jab). i’m not a homophobe, or a homo for that matter, but the picture is pretty gay. how about a pix of mcnabb running around for 30 minutes in the backfield like in the eagle/dallas game. that guys like trying to tackle the greased up deaf guy.
by mutombo4life on Jun 25, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope...
Keeping my controversial, gay pic.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 25, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you catch Danny Devito's "Joe Namath-esque" interview?
Some entertainment correspondent was on “Always Sunny’s” set early in the day and Devito (beer in hand ?) was already 3 sheets to the wind and hitting on the uncomfortable female reporter. Charlie and Mac were trying to politely tell him to take it down a notch.
Training Camp '09 = Mega Thunder Dome....80 men enter, 53 men leave.
by APerfectStar on Jun 25, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No...
But that’s a must see. Where’d you find it?
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 26, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was on "The Soup" last weekend
Training Camp '09 = Mega Thunder Dome....80 men enter, 53 men leave.
by APerfectStar on Jun 27, 2009 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
Related FanShots on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
