Fire Romo!

[CDAGRIZ]

Did I say that White started that Super Bowl at QB? I said that he STARTED it. Mr. T. of all people should have seen that. White started that SB at PUNTER. And won.

So White was 5-5 as a starting QB in the playoffs. That's a better percentage than Romo's got right about now. And one must also factor in that the defense screwed up two of those NFC title games, and the OL got him knocked out of the other, bringing in those numbnuts Gary Hogeboom at QB and Rafael Septien at punter. (Incidentally, it looked like Septien had never punted in his life as he tried to punt with the side of his foot.) Eliminate those screwups that were not White's fault, and he has a fairly decent playoff record as a QB.

So you want White to come back and punt? I'm confused. Are you Danny White's wife or Romo's ex-girlfriend? Don't worry, Jessica seems very whimsical. You can win him back :thumb:

It's funny how you make excuses for White's lackluster record, but it was all Romo's fault.

 

[SuperHornet]

When White didn't do anything wrong individually, while Romo threw a pick into tight coverage while a guy was wide in the end zone and he had ZERO pressure? You bet I'll take White any day of the freaking week.

But it's not just White. I'll take the '80s QB for about 2/3 of today's teams over who they have now. The talent level at the position has REALLY dropped off in recent years.

 

[Lou]

When White didn't do anything wrong individually, while Romo threw a pick into tight coverage while a guy was wide in the end zone and he had ZERO pressure? You bet I'll take White any day of the freaking week.

But it's not just White. I'll take the '80s QB for about 2/3 of today's teams over who they have now. The talent level at the position has REALLY dropped off in recent years.

Somebody lock this chick up in a mental institution. How many records have been beaten this year at the QB position? The 80's QB's got nothing on QB's of today.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

When White didn't do anything wrong individually, while Romo threw a pick into tight coverage while a guy was wide in the end zone and he had ZERO pressure? You bet I'll take White any day of the freaking week.

But it's not just White. I'll take the '80s QB for about 2/3 of today's teams over who they have now. The talent level at the position has REALLY dropped off in recent years.

And I'd take Romo and the QB's of today over the dudes in the 80's. Sure, there were the Hall of Famers, but today the talent level at the position is MCUH better from top to bottom. I respect your "back in my day" sentiments because I'll probably be the same way, but I have to disagree. Let me guess: you think Jack Nicklaus was better than Tiger Woods is today, right?

As an aside, have you ever heard of Brian Kontak?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Well, in case you haven't, I think he is a guy you would like.

Back in 2003 he attempted to penetrate over fifty years of exclusion of men by the LPGA Tour/USGA when he expressed interest in qualifying for and playing in the US Women's Open. Sure, the odds were stacked against him. The rulebook explicitly excluded men from eligibility. But that did not stop Jackie Robinson, did it? Kontak fought and fought, but in the end, he was denied even the chance to qualify due solely to his sex. The argument was that Brian had his own tour/tournaments to play in on the men's side. Coincidentally, this was the same year that Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in the Colonial without even having to qualify. It was an ugly day for equality.

You strike me as the type who loves those who attempt to break down the gender barriers in sport. In the spirit of true equality, I'm sure that you'll agree that it makes no difference from which side these barriers are approached. To that end, I'm sure you will agree that Brian Kontak is a true pioneer.

 

[SuperHornet]

According to Lou, Joey Harrington is better than Joe Montana, simply because he plays TODAY!

:laugh:

Incidentally, I did NOT say that every freaking '80s QB was better than everyone today. Dieter Brock would be a perfect example; when he came down from the CFL, he completely stunk the joint up for the Rams.

What I DID say was that FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TEAM, a comparison for most of them would show that the QB from the '80s was better than their current QB is now. A great example, again, is the Falcons: I don't know many people who would take Joey Harrington over Steve Bartkowski, who got the Falcons into the playoffs several times.

Does that mean that Tom Brady isn't better, than, say Gary Danielsen? [Bleep] no. Of course Brady's better than Danielsen. But Danielsen is emminently better than the numbnuts Detroit has now. That's my point.

Here are my picks. I've highlighted those where I'd take today's QB over yesteryear's.

NFC West

SEA - Zorn over Hasselbeck
SF - Montana over Smith
StL - Bulger over Ferragamo
ARZ - Warner over Pisarkewicz

NFC South

TB - Williams over Garcia
NO - Manning over Brees (This one is close, but Manning did more with less, so he gets the nod.)
CAR - Expansion
ATL - Bartkowski over Harrington

NFC North

MIN - Kramer over Jackson
GB - Favre over Dickey
CHI - McMahon over Grossman
DET - Danielsen over Kitna

NFC East

WAS - Theisman over Brunell/Campbell
PHI - Jaworski over McNabb
NYG - Simms over Manning
DAL - White over Romo (For some this would go the other way.)

AFC West

SD - Fouts over Rivers
OAK - Plunkett over Russell
KC - Croyle over Fuller (Another close one)
DEN - Elway over Cutler

AFC South

TEN - Stabler over Young (This may change over the years.)
JAX - Expansion
IND - Manning over Schliester (By a mile)
HOU - Expansion

AFC North

PIT - Bradshaw over Roethlisberger (On basis of SBs; could change)
CLE - Sipe over Anderson
CIN - Anderson over Palmer
BAL - Expansion

AFC East

NYJ - Pennington/Clemens over Todd
NE - Brady over Grogan
MIA - Marino over Lemon
BUF - Ferguson over Losman

 

[Bozgriz]

A couple of things: Neil Lomax was probably a better QB choice for the Cardinals...Not even sure who the hell you listed. Of course, you co-mingle the 70s and 80s thus leaving out such quality QBs like David Krieg for Seattle, Manning was a 70s Qb for the Saints which is fine but if you use him than I suggest you include a Staubach, Joe Namath over Richard Todd, maybe a Dan Pastorini over a Ken Stabler with the Oilers/Titans,...

Otherwise, your point is pretty darn valid, IMHO...

 

[MrTitleist]

Wasn't there a guy named Jim Kelly in Buffalo in the 80s?

And again, White over Romo? Seriously? White was hardly the Dallas QB in the 80's with Staubach, Palluer, Aikman.

There's a whole spectrum of QBs you're missing here.. Majkowski (sp?), Beuerlein, DeBerg, Warren Moon, etc.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Super Hornet: Lou never said you said that. I think he meant what I meant, that the QB;'s today are better as a whole. You still disagree, but at least get it straight what you disagree with!

This is all stupid because there is no way of knowing if a guy from 1981 could even make it a whole season today. Yes, he may have been good in the context of his era, but to say that would transfer perfectly almost thirty years later is just silly. It's like saying that Bill Russell would be a force down low today in the NBA. Yes, he WAS a force, but it's probably unlikely that he could be as effective at center today.

Yes, I think there are QB's from the 1980s who would be almost just as good today (Montana, Elway, Kelly, Marino, etc.) but we cannot say they would be the same caliber of player in today's league. For one thing, a lot of them would be sacked a lot more often. Trees don't fare as well in the pocket these days.

Kind of picky, but Baltimore is not an expansion team, Cleveland is.

BTW- you didn't answer my other questions......

 

[Lou]

According to Lou, Joey Harrington is better than Joe Montana, simply because he plays TODAY!

:laugh:

Incidentally, I did NOT say that every freaking '80s QB was better than everyone today. Dieter Brock would be a perfect example; when he came down from the CFL, he completely stunk the joint up for the Rams.

What I DID say was that FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TEAM, a comparison for most of them would show that the QB from the '80s was better than their current QB is now. A great example, again, is the Falcons: I don't know many people who would take Joey Harrington over Steve Bartkowski, who got the Falcons into the playoffs several times.

Does that mean that Tom Brady isn't better, than, say Gary Danielsen? [Bleep] no. Of course Brady's better than Danielsen. But Danielsen is emminently better than the numbnuts Detroit has now. That's my point.

Here are my picks. I've highlighted those where I'd take today's QB over yesteryear's.

NFC West

SEA - Zorn over Hasselbeck
SF - Montana over Smith
StL - Bulger over Ferragamo
ARZ - Warner over Pisarkewicz

NFC South

TB - Williams over Garcia
NO - Manning over Brees (This one is close, but Manning did more with less, so he gets the nod.)
CAR - Expansion
ATL - Bartkowski over Harrington

NFC North

MIN - Kramer over Jackson
GB - Favre over Dickey
CHI - McMahon over Grossman
DET - Danielsen over Kitna

NFC East

WAS - Theisman over Brunell/Campbell
PHI - Jaworski over McNabb
NYG - Simms over Manning
DAL - White over Romo (For some this would go the other way.)

AFC West

SD - Fouts over Rivers
OAK - Plunkett over Russell
KC - Croyle over Fuller (Another close one)
DEN - Elway over Cutler

AFC South

TEN - Stabler over Young (This may change over the years.)
JAX - Expansion
IND - Manning over Schliester (By a mile)
HOU - Expansion

AFC North

PIT - Bradshaw over Roethlisberger (On basis of SBs; could change)
CLE - Sipe over Anderson
CIN - Anderson over Palmer
BAL - Expansion

AFC East

NYJ - Pennington/Clemens over Todd
NE - Brady over Grogan
MIA - Marino over Lemon
BUF - Ferguson over Losman

And conversely, I DID NOT say that every QB of today is better than every freaking QB of the 80's.

By the way you are dreaming about some of those comparisons. Anderson over Palmer? Zorn over Hasselbeck? Sipe over Anderson? Manning over Brees? Get real.

And when you use a specific year-2007 against a whole decade where you pick and choose which QB you want to use; of course the decade will win overall. Try to do the same comparison with 1985 vs. the 2000's. There would be WAY more from this decade that even you would agree are much better.