Tony Romo

[flere-imsaho]

OK, based on that cursory reading, that looks like the kind of metric I'd generally use to define "clutch".

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Right, and I showed you the statistics that show that A-Rod has a better than average record in high leverage situations.

Roma,

You haven't responded to this and this is your single problem with regard to "clutch."

Nobody here is arguing Jeter isn't a great player.

You have some major problems no matter how many times you spew "JETER IS CLUTCH, AROD SUCKS, JUST WATCH THE GAMES"

1) The statistics show you're wrong.
2) Without statistics to back you up, you have no other verifiable "proof" of your claim.
3) The harder you argue against the use of statistics, the bigger the hole you dig yourself into.

Baseball is a beautiful game in which to argue "clutch." Unlike football where a guy needs 10 other players to execute the play to a decent level, a hitter simply needs his brains. Yes, there are times where Jeter is going to hit to the right side to move a runner on second over or a hit and run will be called that could skew the stats one way or the other. Thing is, that doesn't happen enough of the time to be relevant. And in the "clutch", Jeter and ARod can both be looked at.

Our eyes can be very deceptive to us. When we "like" a player, we can conveniantly forget when they ground into that double play. We blow off a great "clutch" performence from someone we hate as not being a big enough game or luck.

I think the biggest factor in being "clutch" that a player needs is chances in the postseason. (again, especially for baseball) Michael Young is a 32 year old player who is a 6 time all star. His career averages are close to Jeter's. Yet he's never played in a postseason series. By the time Jeter was 32, he'd played in 24 post season series.

As I posted above, he didn't play all that well in 36% of those series. His teammates were pretty damned good though. They gave him the chances to show how clutch he was. As he was already a damned good player, he the statistics were in his favor to play well.

Young has never had the chance to be in the postseason and show how "clutch" he is in those situations.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Roma,

You haven't responded to this and this is your single problem with regard to "clutch."

Nobody here is arguing Jeter isn't a great player.

You have some major problems no matter how many times you spew "JETER IS CLUTCH, AROD SUCKS, JUST WATCH THE GAMES"

1) The statistics show you're wrong.
2) Without statistics to back you up, you have no other verifiable "proof" of your claim.
3) The harder you argue against the use of statistics, the bigger the hole you dig yourself into.

Baseball is a beautiful game in which to argue "clutch." Unlike football where a guy needs 10 other players to execute the play to a decent level, a hitter simply needs his brains. Yes, there are times where Jeter is going to hit to the right side to move a runner on second over or a hit and run will be called that could skew the stats one way or the other. Thing is, that doesn't happen enough of the time to be relevant. And in the "clutch", Jeter and ARod can both be looked at.

Our eyes can be very deceptive to us. When we "like" a player, we can conveniantly forget when they ground into that double play. We blow off a great "clutch" performence from someone we hate as not being a big enough game or luck.

I think the biggest factor in being "clutch" that a player needs is chances in the postseason. (again, especially for baseball) Michael Young is a 32 year old player who is a 6 time all star. His career averages are close to Jeter's. Yet he's never played in a postseason series. By the time Jeter was 32, he'd played in 24 post season series.

As I posted above, he didn't play all that well in 36% of those series. His teammates were pretty damned good though. They gave him the chances to show how clutch he was. As he was already a damned good player, he the statistics were in his favor to play well.

Young has never had the chance to be in the postseason and show how "clutch" he is in those situations.

My argument is that statistics should not be used to singly determine whether a player is clutch or not. So what if A-Rod's stats are better than Jeter's? My point was that Jeter came through when it mattered, where as Rodriguez did not. Something to think about: how many of A-Rod's statistics came when the moment was meaningless? Like I have said in the past, when he hits a solo home run in a 10-2 game, that is not clutch. It makes his numbers look good, but that does not define clutch. A solo home run when the game is 1-1, or 2-2, now THAT is clutch. At least that is how I perceive clutch.

As for Young not having an opportunity to prove himself, I am not sure what your point is with that. Not getting the opportunity to prove yourself does not make you a non-clutch player, and is really irrelevant. There are a lot of players across all sports that we will probably never know if they are clutch or not. Tony Romo has had a couple of opportunities and failed. He could still turn that around (as could A-Rod), but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

10-2 is not a high leverage situation. I have shown you that his performance does not decline in high leverage situations, in fact it improves MORE than Jeter (though only slightly).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

My argument is that statistics should not be used to singly determine whether a player is clutch or not. So what if A-Rod's stats are better than Jeter's? My point was that Jeter came through when it mattered, where as Rodriguez did not.

How do you determine if a player came through "when it mattered" without statistics? Because your biased, subjective mind comes up with those definitions on a case by case basis? Define "when it matters" (RISP? Close & Late? High Leverage Situations? Win Probablity Added?) and then look at the stats for it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

statistics should not be used to singly determine whether a player is clutch or not.

These "statistics" you speak of are simply a complete list of how the players in question performed in certain situations.

You are arguing with a limited set of results from those circumstances. People are asking you to look at the complete set, and you are refusing.

[Kodos]

I don't see how you guys keep arguing with Roma. His intuitions and feelings are clearly more credible than statistics and facts.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

My argument is that statistics should not be used to singly determine whether a player is clutch or not. So what if A-Rod's stats are better than Jeter's? My point was that Jeter came through when it mattered, where as Rodriguez did not. Something to think about: how many of A-Rod's statistics came when the moment was meaningless? Like I have said in the past, when he hits a solo home run in a 10-2 game, that is not clutch. It makes his numbers look good, but that does not define clutch. A solo home run when the game is 1-1, or 2-2, now THAT is clutch. At least that is how I perceive clutch.

As for Young not having an opportunity to prove himself, I am not sure what your point is with that. Not getting the opportunity to prove yourself does not make you a non-clutch player, and is really irrelevant. There are a lot of players across all sports that we will probably never know if they are clutch or not. Tony Romo has had a couple of opportunities and failed. He could still turn that around (as could A-Rod), but I wouldn't bet on it.

We CAN and HAVE looked at situation involving ARod and Jeter in the "clutch" The numbers are there for you to see, linked in the post. Close and Late, high leverage, playoff series numbers. . . it's all there. If you say AROD isn't clutch because all he does is hit home runs in a a 10-2 game, you MUST prove that statement. The statistics are there to do that.

For example, you can see that when a game has a difference of 4 runs or more, ARod has hit .306 with 85 HR in his career. You can then look and see that with the score tied he's hit .298 with 164 HR, and a much higher slugging% than with the difference at 4 or more runs.

We can also compare ARod to Jeter very well:

Close and Late:

Jeter - 295/390/423, 472 total bases, 232 strikeouts, 33 SB, 30 HR (or 13% of his career total), 1318 plate appearences

ARod - 280/381/541, 589 total bases, 260 strikeouts, 51 SB, 72 HR (or 12% of his career total), 1286 plate appearences.

Those are career regular season numbers. We can even compare that to their overall totals. They are easy to get and fairly easy to analyze. Most of the time is what you see is what you get. The numbers pretty much matched what I'd have guessed for both guys. Jeter hits for a higher average (like he does all the time), the OBP's are close, ARod hits for a lot more power.

With the current players, we can see any damned data you want. We can go at bat by at bat and look at the situation. For example, against the Indians a couple of years ago Jeter came up with 1 out, men on first and third in a game his team was trailing by 4 runs in the sixth inning. Jeter grounded into a double play. ARod came up in the next inning and hit a solo HR to make the game 6-3. By your definition, that just proves ARod hits HR when it doesn't matter and that Jeter is still rock solid in the clutch. I'd argue both of those are wrong sentiments.

So the burden is now on you my man. Go to baseball-reference and start digging through numbers and situations. They are all there for you to look at, including post season box scores and PBP's. You come back with data that proves your point.

If you decide not to do that, and just keep spouting off about how you "watch" the games and that's enough for you, I'm not upset. You have a right to your opinion. Of course, I will choose to solicite opinions on clutch play from people who can show me where I might be wrong with facts rather than feelings.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Samdari

In the last 30 years or so (back far enough to include Elway, Montana and Marino) only one QB with a statistically significant number of starts has a QB rating that is notably better during game winning/tying drives than the rest of the time.

And, its Eli Manning.

Is there a link to this comparison? I'm curious to see how others grade out. I know there are a few QBs in the game today who have better ratings late in games or when trailing by less than 8 points, but this seems like a very specific data set.

[RomaGoth]

Ok.

Regarding the Jeter vs. A-Rod argument. First of all, I have to admit the stats don't lie. I also have to admit that I don't care for A-Rod and believe Jeter to be a much better player.

I looked at the baseball reference site for both Jeter and A-Rod:

Derek Jeter Batting Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com
Alex Rodriguez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

In his playoff career, Jeter is batting .309, while Rodriguez is batting .279. While it is true that Jeter has more playoff at bats and opportunities, I would argue that makes it more impressive for him to have a higher average. I say this because he needs 3 hits out of every 10 at bats in order to maintain that .300 average. Jeter also has a higher OBP (.377 versus .361), while Rodriguez has a higher slugging percentage (.483 versus .469), which is to be expected. Their OPS is almost identical .844 versus .846. One interesting stat is that A-Rod has 38 strikeouts in just 39 playoff games (167 at bats). Jeter has 96 strikeouts in 123 playoff games (562 at bats). A cursory look at this stat tells us that Rodriguez strikes out once every 4 at bats, while Jeter strikes out once every 6 at bats.

For some odd reason, A-Rod has performed better than Jeter in the ALCS, while Jeter has been better than A-Rod in the ALDS and World Series (which obviously A-Rod has not been to yet).

With the above information, I still tend to believe that Jeter is the more clutch player, the strikeout ratio tends to bear that out. A strikeout is the worst possible way to end an at bat, as nothing happens by not putting the ball into play. Even in a double play situation, there is the chance that someone drops the ball, throws it away, etc...

I will say that I gained considerable insight into the statistics part of baseball, something I haven't paid much attention to in the last few years.

[JS19]

There have been a few posts I want to respond to, just been real busy the past few days and whatnot, so maybe I'll get to them later. But for those "anti-clutch" guys here, I'll just ask this:

Your team is trailing 3-2 in the bottom of the 9th of game 7 of the WS, man on 2nd, who would you rather have hitting, Jeter or ARod?

Team trails by 6 with 2 minutes left in the Super Bowl, who would you rather have lead your team down the field, Eli or Romo?

Team trails by 2 with 10 seconds left in the NBA finals, Horry or (insert a well above avg player who has a high career 3 pt FG%, don't know enough about basketball to find one)?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I would take A-Rod, since he is a better hitter than Jeter.

The QB question is very difficult to answer because it's really unclear whether Eli or Romo are better QBs.

The NBA question is pretty impossible to answer.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Is there a link to this comparison? I'm curious to see how others grade out. I know there are a few QBs in the game today who have better ratings late in games or when trailing by less than 8 points, but this seems like a very specific data set.

I could not remember where I had seen this, so I tried to google it. Found a few other studies which separated different subsets of data from the bulk by using different criteria for what determined a "clutch" situation. Other QBs who measured well in other studies included Peyton, Hasselbeck, and Sage Rosenfels. QBs who scored poorly in almost all of them were Brett Favre and Marc Bulger (one of them seemed to indicate he was the worst cltuch QB ever).

The source of my original recollection was football outsiders, published in ESPN the magazine. Here is the full article:

Originally Posted by October 5 issue of ESPN The Magazine

Patriots fans had no fear. Their team trailed Buffalo 24-13 with 5:32 left in the first Monday night game of 2009, but that was a minor obstacle to overcome. After all, Tom Brady was back behind center. And sure enough, Mr. Clutch led two touchdown drives down the stretch to win it 25-24, aided by an improbable kickoff fumble recovery. It was just the latest example of how Brady raises his game when it matters most.

Or does he? Patriots Nation might be surprised to learn that in 2007, Brady's passer rating was 8.3 points lower in the clutch (when the score was within seven points in the fourth quarter, or in overtime) than it was overall. In 2006 it was 21.8 points lower. In 2004 it was 27.4 points lower. This is not to say Brady is a choke artist; his passer rating was higher in the clutch in 2002, 2003 and 2005. It's just to say that over the long haul, Brady in the clutch is pretty much the same quarterback he is the rest of the time: really darn good.

Baseball analysts have generally dispelled the idea of the clutch hitter, a player who routinely raises his game in late and close situations. Now it's time to retire the myth of the clutch quarterback. We looked both at conventional NFL passer rating and our advanced metrics, and there was no year-to-year correlation in the difference between a quarterback's overall performance and his performance when the game was on the line. It apparently matters not that clutch situations in the NFL feature an element that baseball players don't have to worry about: clock management. Bad QBs overall, such as Kyle Orton, are bad in the clutch. Good QBs overall, such as Ben Roethlisberger, are good in the clutch. Same goes for backs and receivers.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and in the NFL that exception is Manning. No, not Peyton -- Eli. He's the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons. The difference is very small in most of those seasons, although Manning was insanely good in the clutch last year (132.6 rating vs. 86.4 overall). But Manning aside, clutch QBs don't exist for the same reason clutch hitters don't: If a player could truly elevate his game at will, why wouldn't he play that way all the time?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

With the above information, I still tend to believe that Jeter is the more clutch player, the strikeout ratio tends to bear that out. A strikeout is the worst possible way to end an at bat, as nothing happens by not putting the ball into play. Even in a double play situation, there is the chance that someone drops the ball, throws it away, etc...

What in the Hell? Double Play is far worse than a K, and the "chance" someone drops the ball is not the same as someone actually dropping the ball.

Power hitters usually tend to strike out more.

Personally, I'd rather take A-Rod as he is not only the better hitter, but also the better fielder.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I would take A-Rod, since he is a better hitter than Jeter.

The QB question is very difficult to answer because it's really unclear whether Eli or Romo are better QBs.

The NBA question is pretty impossible to answer.

How is A-Rod a better hitter than Jeter? Jeter holds the all-time Yankees hits record. Oh, and some stats: Rodriguez lifetime average is .305, Jeter's is .317.

I agree with your QB answer.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If batting average and number of hits with the Yankees were what determined a good hitter, I would agree with you.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

If batting average and number of hits with the Yankees were what determined a good hitter, I would agree with you.

Ok, what else determines a good hitter more than batting average, the one stat that indicates how well someone hits?

A-Rod has almost 300 more strikeouts than Jeter (1737 to 1465), and only 11 less double plays than Jeter (202 to 213). Granted, A-Rod has a much higher OPS than Jeter, but a lot of that is because of his slugging, which is much higher than Jeter's.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You have answered your own question. A-Rod might hit (slightly) fewer hits than Jeter, but those hits do much more damage (SLG).

[ISiddiqui]

Haven't you heard? Singles and HRs do exactly the same thing

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

a lot of that is because of his slugging, which is much higher than Jeter's.

That's why people call A-Rod a better hitter. Singles are wimpy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Haven't you heard? Singles and HRs do exactly the same thing

Slugging % seems like it has its own flaws.

It assumes that a double is twice as good as a single, that a triple is 3 times as good, and that a home run is 4 times as good.

I think in reality, singles are underrated in that equation, because runners can take extra bases, players can steal bases, errors can be made in the field, etc. (and for those same reasons, a single is clearly superior to a walk, which is why a single is also underrated in OBS/OPS calcuations). And a single saves you from making an out, which is pretty big - that "bonus" makes it more similar to other hits, and less similar to outs (to the extent where its really worth more than 1/2 a double)

I can't back that up statistically, but I wonder - with the variables unknown, is it better for a player to go 3-4 with 3 singles, or 1-4 with a triple? I'd think the former would would help produce more runs over the long run.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

molson, good points for sure. These stats aren't perfect, and I think everyone in the sabermetric community (or at least the sane ones) can appreciate that.

As for your 3-4 and 1-4 comparison, this is where OPS comes in. The OPS of the 1-4 guy is 1.000 whereas the OPS of the 3-4 guy is 1.500 showing the added value. Very few people use slugging in a vacuum - the only reason I used it above was because the OBP/BA of A-Rod and Jeter are very close while the SLG difference is huge.

A single is better than a walk in the way you described, but what about a ground ball that could be a single or a putout depending on where its hit, the strength of the defense, etc? A walk is always one base, whereas these types of singles are not.

[TroyF]

Here are their 162 game averages:

Jeter - 119 runs, 81 RBI, 33 doubles, 4 triples, 17 HR, 67 BB, 23 SB, 111 K, 16 GDP, 3 IBB

ARod - 126 runs, 127 RBI, 33 doubles, 2 triples, 43 HR, 79 BB, 22 SB, 130 K, 15 GDP, 6 IBB

So you have a middle of the order power hitter with a higher OBP, scores more runs and steals the same number of bases as a #2 hitter. This isn't rocket science. These guys are close to even in AVG and OBP. . . those extra 26 HR mean something.

(just an FYI, the difference between .317 and .305 over the course of 656 at bats would be 8 hits. You give me a choice, I'll gladly give you the 8 hits if I'm going to come out ahead 26 HR on the rest of the numbers. . . and the clutch numbers show little/no difference as has been noted.)

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Here are their 162 game averages:

Jeter - 119 runs, 81 RBI, 33 doubles, 4 triples, 17 HR, 67 BB, 23 SB, 111 K, 16 GDP, 3 IBB

ARod - 126 runs, 127 RBI, 33 doubles, 2 triples, 43 HR, 79 BB, 22 SB, 130 K, 15 GDP, 6 IBB

So you have a middle of the order power hitter with a higher OBP, scores more runs and steals the same number of bases as a #2 hitter. This isn't rocket science. These guys are close to even in AVG and OBP. . . those extra 26 HR mean something.

(just an FYI, the difference between .317 and .305 over the course of 656 at bats would be 8 hits. You give me a choice, I'll gladly give you the 8 hits if I'm going to come out ahead 26 HR on the rest of the numbers. . . and the clutch numbers show little/no difference as has been noted.)

Well, I looked at the stats and basically conceded that they don't lie. I would still take Jeter in a one run game until I see something more from A-Rod, but that is my opinion.

Any one of those 8 hits could be the difference in a winnable game, and yes you could say the same about the homeruns. The one big difference here is that A-Rod has 19 more strikeouts than Jeter, and to me that is huge.

Also, these stats are based upon the regular season, while I consider a clutch moment to be in the playoffs. Either way, you could do worse than either of these guys in a tight game.

[stevew]

Mark Reynolds has struck out about 215 times. I guarantee I'd rather have him hitting than Jeter this season(though not by that much)

[larrymcg421]

Um, I would take a guy with 19 more strikeouts but 26 more home runs every day of the week. I can't believe anyone could possibly think otherwise. Even without the HR's, A-Rod almost makes up for the K's with 12 more walks!

[ISiddiqui]

Some people just have an irrational hatred of A-Rod is what I conclude.

[larrymcg421]

Well, I love Chad Pennington and have an irrational hatred of Tom Brady, but I would never claim Chad was better because he has a higher completion % and ignore every other statistic. That's basically the equivalent of what Roma is doing.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I would take a guy with 19 more strikeouts but 26 more home runs every day of the week. I can't believe anyone could possibly think otherwise. Even without the HR's, A-Rod almost makes up for the K's with 12 more walks!

Yep. I give up.

Thanks for the good discussion on the Romo topic everyone. I had fun.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JS19

There have been a few posts I want to respond to, just been real busy the past few days and whatnot, so maybe I'll get to them later. But for those "anti-clutch" guys here, I'll just ask this:

Your team is trailing 3-2 in the bottom of the 9th of game 7 of the WS, man on 2nd, who would you rather have hitting, Jeter or ARod?

Team trails by 6 with 2 minutes left in the Super Bowl, who would you rather have lead your team down the field, Eli or Romo?

Team trails by 2 with 10 seconds left in the NBA finals, Horry or (insert a well above avg player who has a high career 3 pt FG%, don't know enough about basketball to find one)?

Jeter because with 2 outs the odds are better of him tying the game than they are of Arod tieing the game. If the Yankees were down 2 or more Id take ARod. Also, Arod would be more likely to be pitched around and swing at a bad pitch where as Jeter has a better chance to hit pitchers pitches IMO.

Depends on how well Romo had played until that point. TO be safe Id probably go Eli if I had to choose before hand.
Well above avg player Id take. Horry gets credit for all these clutch shots yet Ive seen some of them bank in and Ive seen him fail as well. Ray Allen work for this question? Id take him

They are all very good questions and tough ones to decide however.

[flere-imsaho]

From the column Samdari posted, talking about QBs:

Now it's time to retire the myth of the clutch quarterback. We looked both at conventional NFL passer rating and our advanced metrics, and there was no year-to-year correlation in the difference between a quarterback's overall performance and his performance when the game was on the line.

This is one of the trouble spots with using stats to define "clutch" in football. One could argue that the reason QBs' stats overall suffer in tough situations is that they need the participation of a number of other players who may not be able to raise their game in those instances. WRs dropping passes, linemen false starting, RBs wetting their pants, etc....

[Lathum]

*cough cough*

*choke choke*

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Romo looked terrible out there yesterday. I think it's becoming apparent to me that this isn't a case of clutch/unclutch, but rather a case that Eli Manning is a better quarterback than Tony Romo.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Romo looked terrible out there yesterday. I think it's becoming apparent to me that this isn't a case of clutch/unclutch, but rather a case that Eli Manning is a better quarterback than Tony Romo.

+1 and I'm a Cowboy fan.

And dare I say, TO made him a better QB?

[albionmoonlight]

I think that basketball may be an interesting place to discuss "clutch" because the defense is so much more engaged with the offense.

That didn't come out quite right. What I mean is that I think that if, say, Jordan has the ball with ten seconds left, the defender will play him differently than if joe blow has the ball. Some of Jordan's (or Bird's or Kobe's or whoever's) "clutch" may be real because it involves convincing the defender that you are clutch, which then really does affect your performance.

While defense matters in baseball and football, you don't really see quite the same involvement as you do in basketball.

All that said, I am firmly in the camp of "if you cannot find a stat to prove X, then X is probably a product of selection bias."

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and when I drafted Romo in my fantasy league earlier than his ADP, people in the room gave me lots of props and lots of "I was going to take him next if he was on the board."

When I picked up Shaub later than his ADP because he had too much value to pass up (I didn't really want him), I got lots of "you know, our league does not have a spot for IR" mocking.

Which goes to show two things--Tony Romo isn't that good. And no one knows anything about fantasy football. Including me.

[Lathum]

Even Eli knows not to throw at Champ Bailey twice in a row on the goalline.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Even Eli knows not to throw at Champ Bailey twice in a row on the goalline.

yeah really - that was just the world's biggest WTF moment

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Romo looked terrible out there yesterday. I think it's becoming apparent to me that this isn't a case of clutch/unclutch, but rather a case that Eli Manning is a better quarterback than Tony Romo.

Originally Posted by lungs

+1 and I'm a Cowboy fan.

And dare I say, TO made him a better QB?

I would also say that perhaps Roy Williams is not who we thought he was, at least in Detroit? Or maybe he is...

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah really - that was just the world's biggest WTF moment

if you have a big, good receiver maybe not the world's biggest. if you are throwing to sam hurd, pretty much

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Romo looked terrible out there yesterday. I think it's becoming apparent to me that this isn't a case of clutch/unclutch, but rather a case that Eli Manning is a better quarterback than Tony Romo.

Perhaps, but Manning has a superior offensive line, better running game, and better receivers.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I would also say that perhaps Roy Williams is not who we thought he was, at least in Detroit? Or maybe he is...

Might help if his QB wasn't trying to get him killed with the high throws leading to Williams getting blown up.

Not saying Williams is a true #1 in the league, but wow was Romo putting his receivers in vulnerable positions late in the game.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Travis

Might help if his QB wasn't trying to get him killed with the high throws leading to Williams getting blown up.

Not saying Williams is a true #1 in the league, but wow was Romo putting his receivers in vulnerable positions late in the game.

This is true, but what about the rest of the games he has played since coming to Dallas? Williams is waaaay overrated imho.

[Logan]

Dallas paying a 1st and 3rd (and maybe a 5th?) for Williams, AND paying him, when someone like Boldin was available for a 2nd a couple months later was such a joke.

Even worse when everyone knew it at the time.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Logan

Dallas paying a 1st and 3rd (and maybe a 5th?) for Williams, AND paying him, when someone like Boldin was available for a 2nd a couple months later was such a joke.

Even worse when everyone knew it at the time.

Martin Mayhew FTW!

But seriously, it's totally a stupid reason for not being sold on Romo, but let's be honest; every time they show him on the sideline with his helmet on and a "WTF is going on face" is absolutely awesome. It happens all the time too, not just every few games. To me it seems like he is just a terrible leader who folds when the chips are down. You don't see the truly great QB's in this league by themselves on the bench with their helmet on all befuddled all the fucking time.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

But seriously, it's totally a stupid reason for not being sold on Romo, but let's be honest; every time they show him on the sideline with his helmet on and a "WTF is going on face" is absolutely awesome. You don't see the truly great QB's in this league by themselves on the bench with their helmet on all befuddled all the fucking time.

This.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Martin Mayhew FTW!

Seriously. That Pettigrew guy the Lions drafted with that pick is looking pretty good. Though, Derek Williams (the 3rd round pick) is looking like poop. Aaron Brown (the 6th round pick) has shown some flashes here and there, but not so much in the return game.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Martin Mayhew FTW!

But seriously, it's totally a stupid reason for not being sold on Romo, but let's be honest; every time they show him on the sideline with his helmet on and a "WTF is going on face" is absolutely awesome. It happens all the time too, not just every few games. To me it seems like he is just a terrible leader who folds when the chips are down. You don't see the truly great QB's in this league by themselves on the bench with their helmet on all befuddled all the fucking time.

You're way off.

He wears the backwards hat whilst sitting alone on the bench all befuddled all the fucking time.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Logan

You're way off.

He wears the backwards hat whilst sitting alone on the bench all befuddled all the fucking time.

Dude. Backwards hats are COOL though!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Logan

You're way off.

He wears the backwards hat whilst sitting alone on the bench all befuddled all the fucking time.

Shit, he wears that thing when he is doing post-game interviews too.