PDA

View Full Version : Shaun Hill vs. Tony Romo


abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 08:48 AM
A comparison of Tony Romo and Shaun Hill through their first 10 starts

Romo:

Stats (2006) - 204/310, 2641 yards, 65.8%, 8.5 yards per attempt, 16 TD, 10 INT, 96.2 QB Rating, 6-4 record

Opponents records

8-8 W
5-11 L
5-11 W
12-4 W
4-12 W
8-8 W
10-6 L
7-9 W
10-6 L
3-13 L

72-88

Hill:

Stats (2007-2008) - 198/317, 2193 yards, 62.5%, 6.9 yards per attempt, 21 TD (3 rush), 9 INT, 90.1 QB rating, 7-3 record

Opponents records

9-7 L
2-14 W
9-7 W
7-9 W
9-7 L
11-5 L
2-14 W
8-8 W
7-9 W
9-7 W

73-87

Romo is a better in terms of yards and yards per attempt but he was also throwing to TO while Hill's best receiver has been Isaac Bruce. I don't understand is why everyone was in love with Romo after his first season and yet no one thinks Shaun Hill is worth anything.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-05-2009, 08:54 AM
It's not that easy and cut and dry to compare. Two different systems, with different OL, and different WR, different offensive coaches, so comparing stats is pretty much not accurate. Yeah both can have equal overall production in two different systems, but that means nothing. If you want to compare them stick them on the same team, or in the same system, and then you are comparing apples to apples.

21ST
03-05-2009, 08:55 AM
Well if it makes you feel any better i think they both suck

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 08:59 AM
It's not that easy and cut and dry to compare. Two different systems, with different OL, and different WR, different offensive coaches, so comparing stats is pretty much not accurate. Yeah both can have equal overall production in two different systems, but that means nothing. If you want to compare them stick them on the same team, or in the same system, and then you are comparing apples to apples.

If you want to go that route than it is pretty obvious that Romo had a better team around him and was in a much more quarterback-friendly system and yet Hill still had stats that are just as good.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-05-2009, 09:05 AM
If you want to go that route than it is pretty obvious that Romo had a better team around him and was in a much more quarterback-friendly system and yet Hill still had stats that are just as good.

Didn't hill do well towards the end of the season with Mike Martz at the helm? I thought I remember seeing he did.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 09:08 AM
Didn't hill do well towards the end of the season with Mike Martz at the helm? I thought I remember seeing he did.

He actually did much better in 2007 when Jim Hostler was the OC

NY+Giants=NYG
03-05-2009, 09:12 AM
He actually did much better in 2007 when Jim Hostler was the OC

Well the system with Martz allowed Hill do really come into his own. Not sure about '07 because I don't get 9ers games. But the problem is consistency in a given system. You guys could have build off of the Air Coryell system. Now what system is going to implemented for you guys?

bored of education
03-05-2009, 09:16 AM
The first 10 games as a starting Qb means jack squat. If you break down the film, maybe Tony Romo had more potential and better mechanics or soemthing. It is hard just to throw up those stats for the 1st 10 games and comapre the two. Systems, playing in Dalls as the QB there has alot of pressure I guess, the surrounding talent, 3rd down completion percentage, etc, etc, etc.

You really can't just throw up player x's 1st 10 starts and compare them to player Z's 1st 10 starts. it sounds as if you are reaching for a reason to dislike a guy.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 09:18 AM
Well the system with Martz allowed Hill do really come into his own. Not sure about '07 because I don't get 9ers games. But the problem is consistency in a given system. You guys could have build off of the Air Coryell system. Now what system is going to implemented for you guys?

A run heavy offense where Hill will have to make the occasional play and convert 3rd downs, which he has shown he is more than capable of doing.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 09:20 AM
The first 10 games as a starting Qb means jack squat. If you break down the film, maybe Tony Romo had more potential and better mechanics or soemthing. It is hard just to throw up those stats for the 1st 10 games and comapre the two. Systems, playing in Dalls as the QB there has alot of pressure I guess, the surrounding talent, 3rd down completion percentage, etc, etc, etc.

You really can't just throw up player x's 1st 10 starts and compare them to player Z's 1st 10 starts. it sounds as if you are reaching for a reason to dislike a guy.

This topic isn't about a dislike of Tony Romo because I think he is a good QB. This topic is about why people continuously say Shaun Hill sucks despite having almost identical numbers to Tony Romo through his first 10 starts who everyone said was great after 2006.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-05-2009, 09:23 AM
A run heavy offense where Hill will have to make the occasional play and convert 3rd downs, which he has shown he is more than capable of doing.

That's a good system, hopefully now you guys can get some stability with your OCs now. That actually would be a better fit for a system than in Dallas.

bored of education
03-05-2009, 09:23 AM
This topic isn't about a dislike of Tony Romo because I think he is a good QB. This topic is about why people continuously say Shaun Hill sucks despite having almost identical numbers to Tony Romo through his first 10 starts who everyone said was great after 2006.

Like I said, maybe somethnig in film shows that Hill is SO NOT a franchise QB. But if its a question that he is or is not franchise then you must draft someone who has more potenial and the make up to be a potential franchise QB. Still 10 starts is too small of a window to use.

Give him a chance to prove himself? Thats how I felt about Tyler Thigpen, but obviously I know NOTHING.

gsorace
03-05-2009, 10:29 AM
Stats mean everything.

bored of education
03-05-2009, 10:44 AM
Stats mean everything.

esp the 1st 10 starts of someones career.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 10:46 AM
Like I said, maybe somethnig in film shows that Hill is SO NOT a franchise QB. But if its a question that he is or is not franchise then you must draft someone who has more potenial and the make up to be a potential franchise QB. Still 10 starts is too small of a window to use.

Give him a chance to prove himself? Thats how I felt about Tyler Thigpen, but obviously I know NOTHING.

That is kind of my point. Hill has done enough to deserve a shot at the starting job. I thought the same way about Romo after 2006 and even about Thigpen last year.

D-Unit
03-05-2009, 10:46 AM
I dunno if you want to prove that Shaun Hill is the next Romo or if Romo is the next Shaun Hill. Either way... this doesn't prove a damn thing.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 10:49 AM
I dunno if you want to prove that Shaun Hill is the next Romo or if Romo is the next Shaun Hill. Either way... this doesn't prove a damn thing.

I just want to prove that Shaun Hill doesn't suck.

MasterShake
03-05-2009, 10:54 AM
Shaun Hill is a Franchise QB with a Noodle arm. His arm will always hold him back, but if you watch him play....he makes plays on the field. He is a gamer....it almost always looks ugly, but its almost always effective.

He throws ugly passes that find their mark, but again...his arm will limit him ala' Pennington.

Brent
03-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Why would you start this argument? Now, I have to watch as every one rags on Shaun. Oh well.

D-Unit
03-05-2009, 11:04 AM
I just want to prove that Shaun Hill doesn't suck.
Well... He's the one that's going to have to prove that.

As for what I believe the 9ers will do.... they're gonna address that QB position to replace him. There's a reason they were interested in Warner despite knowing his price tag.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 11:09 AM
Well... He's the one that's going to have to prove that.

He already has and that is the point of the numbers I posted

As for what I believe the 9ers will do.... they're gonna address that QB position to replace him. There's a reason they were interested in Warner despite knowing his price tag.

You are wrong. The 49ers only pursued Warner to raise the price for the Cardinals to sign him.

bored of education
03-05-2009, 11:10 AM
He already has and that is the point of the numbers I posted



You are wrong. The 49ers only pursued Warner to raise the price for the Cardinals to sign him.

Ohh really? That is the only reason? Hmmm.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Ohh really? That is the only reason? Hmmm.

Yeah it is. If you ask people what the two most important things about the QB position are they usually say leadership, and winning games. Hill does both of those, why can't he be the guy?

Arm strength is the most overrated quality in a QB. No he is not the smoothest athlete I have ever seen, but he wins games and at that end of the day that's the most important thing.

BigDawg819
03-05-2009, 11:29 AM
Maryland > Eastern Michigan ;)

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 11:34 AM
/Eastern Illinois same thing though.

CJSchneider
03-05-2009, 12:42 PM
As a 49er fan I've seen enough of Hill for me to say he needs to be the starter for a year while we address far more urgent issues. In that time, my opinion on him may change, but for now he should be the starter, no question. Is his arm strength an issue? Sure, but show me a QB that has no weakness what so ever, to include the team around him.

Is he Joe or Steve - No
Is he a Franchise QB - Potential

princefielder28
03-05-2009, 01:09 PM
Yeah it is. If you ask people what the two most important things about the QB position are they usually say leadership, and winning games. Hill does both of those, why can't he be the guy?

Arm strength is the most overrated quality in a QB. No he is not the smoothest athlete I have ever seen, but he wins games and at that end of the day that's the most important thing.

Arm strength is the most overrated? Do you honestly believe that? Arm strength dictates what throws a QB can make, and the more arm strength you have the more a defense has to prepare for any aspect of the passing game. If you don't have the arm strength then it minimizes what your offensive capabilities are and it shrinks the field, making the offense easier to prepare for.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-05-2009, 01:36 PM
Maybe Shaun Hill can be as good as Romo, but do people actually think Romo is a championship-caliber QB? Romo is probably the most overrated quarterback of the past few years.

phlysac
03-05-2009, 01:48 PM
It's not that easy and cut and dry to compare. Two different systems, with different OL, and different WR, different offensive coaches, so comparing stats is pretty much not accurate. Yeah both can have equal overall production in two different systems, but that means nothing. If you want to compare them stick them on the same team, or in the same system, and then you are comparing apples to apples.

You're completely accurate in what you said, but that basically means you can never compare players unless they are teammates.

Iamcanadian
03-05-2009, 01:53 PM
Using stats to compare players is a complete waste of time. Last I looked 'wins' is what counts in the NFL and Romo has put up more of them, it isn't even close. Is Romo a top franchise QB, no so comparing your QB to Romo = zero. The only thing that counts in the NFL is wins and if you cannot compare him to Brady, Peyton, Eli or Roethlisberger's win totals, you had better start looking for another QB unless you have some reason to hope.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-05-2009, 01:55 PM
Using stats to compare players is a complete waste of time. Last I looked 'wins' is what counts in the NFL and Romo has put up more of them, it isn't even close. Is Romo a top franchise QB, no so comparing your QB to Romo = zero. The only thing that counts in the NFL is wins and if you cannot compare him to Brady, Peyton, Eli or Roethlisberger's win totals, you had better start looking for another QB unless you have some reason to hope.

By your logic, Tony Romo is a better QB than Jay Cutler, and we all know that isn't true.

Iamcanadian
03-05-2009, 02:00 PM
By your logic, Tony Romo is a better QB than Jay Cutler, and we all know that isn't true.


Last I looked Denver was trying to rid itself of Cutler so what does that say about your statement. These QB's are still young enough to accomplish something during their careers, time will establish if either is truly successful.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-05-2009, 02:01 PM
Last I looked Denver was trying to rid itself of Cutler so what does that say about your statement. These QB's are still young enough to accomplish something during their careers, time will establish if either is truly successful.

Riiiiiight.

You do know that football is a team sport? Just ask Dan Marino. No single player can do close to enough to win a football game by themself, let alone a whole season of games.

Drew Brees is garbage also. Couldn't even make the playoffs last year.

Matthew Jones
03-05-2009, 02:04 PM
Is this a joke? Tony Romo is a franchise QB, I can't say the same about Hill at all. Can he become a decent starter? Sure. Does he deserve a shot? Sure. Would I depend on him for the next 5-10 years? Hell no.

Number 10
03-05-2009, 02:04 PM
San Fran made 2 offers that Warner had to reject himself. They wanted him.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-05-2009, 02:15 PM
You're completely accurate in what you said, but that basically means you can never compare players unless they are teammates.

Ahhh there we go.. Yet everyone does, and this has been going on to fuel such things as video games, fantasy football and so on.

But the truth of the matter it is hard to compare the same position for two different players on two different teams. There is a boat load of different variables like I explained above. I am not saying disregard stats altogether, but I wouldn't base arguements on stats or use it as a crutch in debates.

Pro GMs for the most part differ in their approach but don't use stats as a crutch, that's why you get players with a skill set that's good but lack production, so when a GM pays a big contract for the player, fans and media don't understand, because they look for the stats. But the skill set a player has may be just as valuable for that team in that specific given system.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 02:44 PM
Arm strength is the most overrated? Do you honestly believe that? Arm strength dictates what throws a QB can make, and the more arm strength you have the more a defense has to prepare for any aspect of the passing game. If you don't have the arm strength then it minimizes what your offensive capabilities are and it shrinks the field, making the offense easier to prepare for.

That maybe be the case, but you can't say a guy can't be your franchise QB just because he doesn't have a strong arm. In that case it is overrated.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 02:45 PM
Last I looked Denver was trying to rid itself of Cutler so what does that say about your statement. These QB's are still young enough to accomplish something during their careers, time will establish if either is truly successful.

It says Denver is stupid that's what it says.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 03:29 PM
Is this a joke? Tony Romo is a franchise QB, I can't say the same about Hill at all. Can he become a decent starter? Sure. Does he deserve a shot? Sure. Would I depend on him for the next 5-10 years? Hell no.

Can he become a decent starter? Have you missed the last two years?

Matthew Jones
03-05-2009, 04:51 PM
Can he become a decent starter? Have you missed the last two years?

Shaun Hill has never been a starter for a full season, or even the majority of one. Eight starts this year, two the year before. I was referencing a full time starter, which he clearly hasn't been for an entire season yet.

49ersfan_87
03-05-2009, 05:08 PM
I like Shaun Hill but the 49ers activity shows they do not want him as the starter. Singletary has been talking about a competition with Hill and Smith. The 49ers seem to desperately want to re-sign Smith. Heck, Singletary even listed QB as a need in his season ending press conference. And then theres the pursuit of Kurt Warner.

I wouldnt mind Shaun Hill starting for a year or 2 but with their actions this offseason im pretty convinced the 49ers FO doesnt want him to start at all.

princefielder28
03-05-2009, 06:10 PM
That maybe be the case, but you can't say a guy can't be your franchise QB just because he doesn't have a strong arm. In that case it is overrated.

For the success and breakdown of any quarterback, whether that's a "franchise" QB or a backup, a quarterback's arm strength is important. It's not a rule that your "franchise" QB, or however you look at Hill, that he has a strong arm, but more times than not a QB with a stronger arm will have more success and be considered far more than one without arm strength.

BandwagonPunditry
03-05-2009, 06:48 PM
Using stats to compare players is a complete waste of time. Last I looked 'wins' is what counts in the NFL and Romo has put up more of them, it isn't even close. Is Romo a top franchise QB, no so comparing your QB to Romo = zero.

Are wins not a stat? Also, over their first 10 games it's 7 wins to 6 in favour of Hill... Interesting if you're basing everything on wins no?

CJSchneider
03-05-2009, 06:59 PM
Look at this though, if you look at his career stats, statistically speaking, the guy rounds out the top 3rd of the leagues QB's. Look at his Comp %, QB rating, etc. Hell, his TD/ INt is beter then Cutler's and there is no doubt that Cutler is a franchise QB (not a knock against Cutler - just using him as an example). I could also explain all the front office reactions and press releases regarding the QB situation as "wagging the dog". Until, the guy gets his shot as a full time starter for a full year, how can you say he can't lead the team for the next 5 - 6 years.

Ness
03-05-2009, 07:09 PM
For the success and breakdown of any quarterback, whether that's a "franchise" QB or a backup, a quarterback's arm strength is important. It's not a rule that your "franchise" QB, or however you look at Hill, that he has a strong arm, but more times than not a QB with a stronger arm will have more success and be considered far more than one without arm strength.
Doesn't matter how strong your arm is if the accuracy isn't there and the instincts too.

RaiderNation
03-05-2009, 07:10 PM
Hill is a decent starting QB. Thats all. He isnt going to get you guys a playoff win. You might have a chance at making the playoffs since your division is week. Id suggest drafting Sanchez

princefielder28
03-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Doesn't matter how strong your arm is if the accuracy isn't there and the instincts too.

It's a two way street. You can say what you have above, but you can be the most accurate passer in the world but if you can't get the ball there in a timely matter then it's useless. But more times than not teams will take a chance on the guy that can get the ball there and hope the accuracy comes around, example Rhett Bomar.

Borat
03-05-2009, 07:36 PM
Dammit Abaddon, why did you bring this up? Hill isn't getting any sexier and that's what it takes to get the "franchise QB" tag from other fans. Let's let him perform well for a full season and that will open some eyes.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 07:45 PM
It's a two way street. You can say what you have above, but you can be the most accurate passer in the world but if you can't get the ball there in a timely matter then it's useless. But more times than not teams will take a chance on the guy that can get the ball there and hope the accuracy comes around, example Rhett Bomar.

I still don't see how that makes arm strength not the most overrated attribute in a QB,

OzTitan
03-05-2009, 07:45 PM
6.9 v 8.5 YPA while the 8.5YPA QB has +3% completion is a pretty big deal statistically. It says the 8+ YPA QB has had far more bigger plays.

Yes, Romo's environment helped that, but nobody thinks about stuff like supporting cast in the midst of it happening, and it's in the midst of it happening where the legend/reputation/impression is formed.

That, and he's a Cowboy throwing to other Cowboys.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 07:50 PM
But Hill has 5 more total touchdowns and 1 less pick.

OzTitan
03-05-2009, 08:02 PM
Right, but looking at those numbers, I'm guessing Romo had more big passes for TDs which make better highlights, particularly after the team wins.

Brent
03-05-2009, 08:10 PM
Right, but looking at those numbers, I'm guessing Romo had more big passes for TDs which make better highlights, particularly after the team wins.
If SportsCenter didnt talk about it, it's obviously not important.

abaddon41_80
03-05-2009, 08:10 PM
Right, but looking at those numbers, I'm guessing Romo had more big passes for TDs which make better highlights, particularly after the team wins.

Did that make him better?

princefielder28
03-05-2009, 08:18 PM
I still don't see how that makes arm strength not the most overrated attribute in a QB,

I don't know what more I can say, but for me personally, I feel that you don't have a grasp on the QB position and what goes into a QB being successful.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 09:11 PM
My grasp on the QB position is fine. I just don't think you can write a guy off entirley because he doesn't have a strong arm.

OzTitan
03-05-2009, 09:13 PM
If SportsCenter didnt talk about it, it's obviously not important.

Did that make him better?

I thought the question was why Romo, at the same point in his career that Hill is now, was already considered a hot QB with a bright future and with a lot of people ready to claim him as the next great QB who came from nowhere. That's what I'm answering, I'm not giving reasons why Romo deserved it, just why it happened.

Playing for a team the media obsesses over with a WR the media obsesses over while providing them the highlights they desire is what did it.

CJSchneider
03-05-2009, 09:15 PM
This from Wikipedia:

Montana was not rated highly by most scouts. At one combine, Montana rated out as six-and-a-half overall with a six in arm strength, used to judge how hard and how far a prospect could throw the ball. By comparison, Jack Thompson of Washington State University rated an eight, the highest grade amongst eligible quarterbacks.

I'm not saying arm strength is not important, but obviously, it's not the clincher.

Menardo75
03-05-2009, 09:35 PM
This from Wikipedia:



I'm not saying arm strength is not important, but obviously, it's not the clincher.

Which is exactly what I am saying.

Brent
03-05-2009, 09:43 PM
I thought the question was why Romo, at the same point in his career that Hill is now, was already considered a hot QB with a bright future and with a lot of people ready to claim him as the next great QB who came from nowhere. That's what I'm answering, I'm not giving reasons why Romo deserved it, just why it happened.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. In fact, I think what you said is fine. I am just taking a shot at ESPN's infatuation with the Cowboys.

Loggerhead
03-05-2009, 09:48 PM
Why are the 9ers trying to replace Hill? From the little bit of him that I saw he is their best QB since Garcia. Hill has proven he deserves a shot and is instead getting collectively ***** on by the organization. People wonder why the 9ers blow it is because of ***** like this. Rant over.

gpngc
03-05-2009, 09:58 PM
But Hill has 5 more total touchdowns and 1 less pick.

How many drives touchdown drives did Romo lead Dallas on that ended in a MB3 TD rush? You're counter-argument will be how many did Gore score? I don't feel like looking up the stats but I'd probably guess the Dallas offense was more potent overall- which is a much better indicator of how "good" a starting QB is rather than how many TDs he had individually.

On the subject of stats- Romo was in the NFCE (arguably the best defensive division in football- probably 2nd best), Hill was in the NFCW (arguably the worst).

CJSchneider
03-05-2009, 10:31 PM
Dallas had 1.4 more (22.6 to 21.2) PPG in 2008.
Hill's time on the field saw a rise of 11 points over the last 8.25 games for the 49ers (164 from O'Sullivan to 175 from Hill)

That ends up being a 2 point difference in season scoring, by averages, over the course of the season, where by Dallas has those two extra points.

That's too close to call.
Now factor in the O-line and T.O.

I'll take Hill.

gpngc
03-05-2009, 10:41 PM
I'll take Hill.

Jerry Jones calls and offers Tony Romo for Shaun Hill straight up.

You either:

a) hope the 49ers accept.
b) hope the 49ers decline.

?

Bengalsrocket
03-05-2009, 10:46 PM
Dallas had 1.4 more (22.6 to 21.2) PPG in 2008.
Hill's time on the field saw a rise of 11 points over the last 8.25 games for the 49ers (164 from O'Sullivan to 175 from Hill)

That ends up being a 2 point difference in season scoring, by averages, over the course of the season, where by Dallas has those two extra points.

That's too close to call.
Now factor in the O-line and T.O.

I'll take Hill.

Didn't Tony have a finger injury this year that left Dallas basically not scoring on offense for a couple of games?

CJSchneider
03-05-2009, 10:49 PM
Romo has a $4.5 million salary

Hill has a $1.7 million salary

With a difference of 2 points over the course of a season?

Jerry: So CJ, what's it gonna be?

CJ: CLICK

Jerry: CJ are you there? hello CJ!

Menardo75
03-06-2009, 01:33 AM
I'll take O'Sullivan again before I take Romo.

jenningsfan85
03-06-2009, 02:40 AM
IM SAYING ARM STRENGTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT

im not only a member but the president of the jeff george and ryan leaf fan club! oh and what the hell, jamarcus russell, the man can throw it 60 yrds on his knees! and he hasent been handed a mvp trophey yet? WTF

niel89
03-06-2009, 03:39 AM
IM SAYING ARM STRENGTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT

im not only a member but the president of the jeff george and ryan leaf fan club! oh and what the hell, jamarcus russell, the man can throw it 60 yrds on his knees! and he hasent been handed a mvp trophey yet? WTF

If youre having a knee throwing competition kyle boller wants in.

no love
03-06-2009, 04:41 AM
Do you want to know why at similar points in their career Tony Romo was seen as a future star and Shaun Hill is not?

Because this noted coach named Bill Parcells made Romo HIS GUY, groomed him, kept him hidden on the roster until he thought he was ready.

Shaun Hill is NOBODY's guy. No coach has ever supported him to go into the season as a starter and even now Singletary is looking for a better option.

We can bicker back and forth about stats and w/l records, but the fact of the matter is that Shaun Hill's coaches don't want to put their eggs in his basket. If Singletary or Nolan had been talking up Hill and supporting him fully, I bet there would be a media buzz about the guy that does more with less, rather than the big question mark at qb.

papa burgundy
03-06-2009, 05:19 AM
The whole arm argument is ridiculous.. you don't need a laser rocket stud arm.. but you do need atleast an average arm. Montana's arm wasn't great compared to guys like Marino and Elway but it was solid enough to call above average. Not to mention he threw beautiful spirals and deep balls. Shaun Hill's arm is BELOW average and his balls wobble and his deep balls rainbow in the air and land 10 yards short of his target. It's a notch below Pennington and a notch above Ken Dorsey. He'll never be a top tier QB. Don't get me wrong though.. I love him and he's fun to watch when your team sucks and they're playing a handful of meaningless games against bad teams.. he's like Tim Tebow with how he wills his team to victory on grit desire and a love for the game with sub par tools and you gotta respect that. I'd take him 99 times before I ever took Alex Smith and his "potential".

BuddyCHRIST
03-06-2009, 06:15 AM
I'll admit I never see the 9'ers as they are about as far away as it gets, and I had no idea Hill's stats were that good. At least for Romo he was just very impressive when he played, I know its cool to trash Romo especially in big moments but throughout most of the season he's a very good QB.

But the simple reason why Romo got so much more pub is because he's a Cowboy.

abaddon41_80
03-06-2009, 06:35 AM
How many drives touchdown drives did Romo lead Dallas on that ended in a MB3 TD rush? You're counter-argument will be how many did Gore score? I don't feel like looking up the stats but I'd probably guess the Dallas offense was more potent overall- which is a much better indicator of how "good" a starting QB is rather than how many TDs he had individually.

And how many more long scoring drives that kept the ball away from the opponent did Hill lead compared to Romo? Obviously Hill did something more for his team because he won 1 more game against slightly better competition with a lower ranked defense.

On the subject of stats- Romo was in the NFCE (arguably the best defensive division in football- probably 2nd best), Hill was in the NFCW (arguably the worst).

In 2006 the Giants had the 24th ranked scoring defense, Redskins were 27th, and the Eagles were 15th. Heck let's look at the rest of the schedule

Giants - 24th
Redskins - 27th
Eagles - 15th
Panthers - 8th
Arizona - 29th
Indianapolis - 23rd
Tampa Bay - 21st
New Orleans - 13th
Atlanta - 15th
Detroit - 30th

comes out to an average rank of 20.5 compared to Hill's competition,

Bengals - 24th
Bucs - 3rd
Arizona - 28th
St. Louis - 30th (x2)
Dallas -20th
Buffalo - 14th
Jets - 18th
Dolphins - 9th
Redskins -6th

Average rank of 18.2. So what were you saying?

CJSchneider
03-06-2009, 08:00 AM
Do you want to know why at similar points in their career Tony Romo was seen as a future star and Shaun Hill is not?

Because this noted coach named Bill Parcells made Romo HIS GUY, groomed him, kept him hidden on the roster until he thought he was ready.

Shaun Hill is NOBODY's guy. No coach has ever supported him to go into the season as a starter and even now Singletary is looking for a better option.

We can bicker back and forth about stats and w/l records, but the fact of the matter is that Shaun Hill's coaches don't want to put their eggs in his basket. If Singletary or Nolan had been talking up Hill and supporting him fully, I bet there would be a media buzz about the guy that does more with less, rather than the big question mark at qb.

OK, well allow me to explain. That my friend is because of internal politics. The Cowboys knew at the on-set of 06 Bledsoe (4.6 mil contract) would not be coming back, so they insert Romo (2.3 mil contract and yes, he had been groomed for the job); half the price for a starter to take over for a guy who was not coming back.

Furthermore, Parcells was an established Coach (he didn't have to worry about a resume) who knew that if it didn't work and he was criticized by the Front Office, he could leave and get picked up elsewhere no problem.

The 49ers have a guy they drafted with the #1 overall pick who they are paying 9 mil (and trying like hell to fix that may I add). If you suddenly switch up now, a lot of people are going to be pissed. Politically, it's better to say we are still working on the 9 million dollar project so all that money does not seem like a waste. Of course Singletary is going to "protect" the investment, if he doesn't his trade value goes to crap if his contract can't get taken care of and they decide to trade him.

no love
03-06-2009, 08:31 AM
OK, well allow me to explain. That my friend is because of internal politics. The Cowboys knew at the on-set of 06 Bledsoe (4.6 mil contract) would not be coming back, so they insert Romo (2.3 mil contract and yes, he had been groomed for the job); half the price for a starter to take over for a guy who was not coming back.

Furthermore, Parcells was an established Coach (he didn't have to worry about a resume) who knew that if it didn't work and he was criticized by the Front Office, he could leave and get picked up elsewhere no problem.

The 49ers have a guy they drafted with the #1 overall pick who they are paying 9 mil (and trying like hell to fix that may I add). If you suddenly switch up now, a lot of people are going to be pissed. Politically, it's better to say we are still working on the 9 million dollar project so all that money does not seem like a waste. Of course Singletary is going to "protect" the investment, if he doesn't his trade value goes to crap if his contract can't get taken care of and they decide to trade him.

That was my point. I was trying to show that a coaches support has a huge role in the public perception of whether or not a qb is a potential star.

Also, at 9 million a year Alex Smith's only trade value is if he restructures... which in that case he is the most valuable to us.

CJSchneider
03-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Also, at 9 million a year Alex Smith's only trade value is if he restructures... which in that case he is the most valuable to us.

Isn't that what I said?

Dirk360
03-07-2009, 12:56 PM
Who are they?

Malaka
03-07-2009, 01:06 PM
EDIT: Moved it to the thread

YAYareaRB
03-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Who are they?

You'll get no laughs from me.

Iamcanadian
03-09-2009, 04:59 AM
OK, well allow me to explain. That my friend is because of internal politics. The Cowboys knew at the on-set of 06 Bledsoe (4.6 mil contract) would not be coming back, so they insert Romo (2.3 mil contract and yes, he had been groomed for the job); half the price for a starter to take over for a guy who was not coming back.

Parcells has always preferred experienced QB's over inexperienced ones everywhere he has coached. He was in fact very reluctant to go with Romo until he was forced to. Money had nothing to do with the decision.

Furthermore, Parcells was an established Coach (he didn't have to worry about a resume) who knew that if it didn't work and he was criticized by the Front Office, he could leave and get picked up elsewhere no problem.

This part is quite true. He was in a position where he can get away with things other HC's might not be able to try.

The 49ers have a guy they drafted with the #1 overall pick who they are paying 9 mil (and trying like hell to fix that may I add). If you suddenly switch up now, a lot of people are going to be pissed. Politically, it's better to say we are still working on the 9 million dollar project so all that money does not seem like a waste. Of course Singletary is going to "protect" the investment, if he doesn't his trade value goes to crap if his contract can't get taken care of and they decide to trade him.

While it is very true that GM's/HC's are very reluctant to give up on a high priced rookie, Singletary has no such commitment to Smith since he had nothing to do with bringing Smith on board. In fact he needed to show he could win to even get the job full time which is why he inserted Hill into the lineup.
You cannot protect a flop whose trade value is already nothing and trading him isn't even an option.
Hill doesn't have the talent to be a starter in this league. He is a career backup and nothing more and comparing him to Romo in a year when Romo was injured won't change that. While I disagree with some that Romo has proved himself a franchise QB, he is a lot closer than Hill will ever smell.
All the silly stats in the world are not going to change what Hill is, a career backup. San Fran knows it and are desperately looking for a true starter, apparently you disagree with them, it's your privilege.

YAYareaRB
03-09-2009, 12:29 PM
Hill and Romo have the same amount of playoff wins..

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 01:01 PM
Hill and Romo have the same amount of playoff wins..
That's about as relevant as saying they both have 4 letters in their last name.

YAYareaRB
03-09-2009, 02:14 PM
That's about as relevant as saying they both have 4 letters in their last name.

Not quite.. People are claiming Romo is more of a franchise QB than Hill will ever be. I'm just proving that that statement cannot be based on playoff wins, since both subjects have zero. Now I understand Hill has yet to reach the playoffs and Romo is been in the playoffs every year he's been starting except this past season. But it's interesting to see that no playoff wins can earn you the title of a franchise QB even though he had a 2 pro bowl receivers, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl OL, pro bowl running back.. While Hill has one pro bowler on the offense.

Saints-Tigers
03-09-2009, 02:49 PM
Well if it makes you feel any better i think they both suck

I'm with this guy.

gpngc
03-09-2009, 03:14 PM
That's about as relevant as saying they both have 4 letters in their last name.

But they don't. R-o-m-o has four letters. C-h-r-i-s-t has six.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 04:26 PM
I find it funny how no one in this topic has given any reason why Shaun Hill can't be a good quarterback other than, "Shaun Hill isn't a franchise QB," while his supporters have posted plenty of numbers proving that he can be. Yet the people that think he sucks think they are right for some reason.

MetSox17
03-09-2009, 04:28 PM
I find it funny how no one in this topic has given any reason why Shaun Hill can't be a good quarterback other than, "Shaun Hill isn't a franchise QB," while his supporters have posted plenty of numbers proving that he can be. Yet the people that think he sucks think they are right for some reason.

Because the only people that think Shaun Hill is a franchise quarterback are delusional 49ers fans. Haven't you noticed?

Brent
03-09-2009, 04:38 PM
Because the only people that think Shaun Hill is a franchise quarterback are delusional 49ers fans. Haven't you noticed?

I'll add my two cents:

Someone brought this up in the Niners thread but I think it's worth mentioning here: it might not be that they are "delusional" and think he's great but rather that they want to see him succeed instead of them being certain he's good, given what he did this past season. I can't speak for all the Niners fans here but that's my impression.

Personally, I like the guy for what he did last year. I believe the jury is still out on him and I would love to see him get a chance and to see him succeed, which I am sure would please all the fans.

What I believe sparks a lot of endless and annoying debating comes from many Niners fans (on this forum) who aren't exactly fans of taking another QB so high after Alex Smith, especially after only 16 collegiate starts and a cast of incredible talent surrounding him. Now, if it were someone like Stafford being mocked to the Niners, I am sure they would only be a small number, if any, of Niners fans who wouldn't want Stafford.

If Bradford had come out this year, I think there would be a much greater division among the Niners fans here about taking Bradford. However, that's not the case and not worth debating (please).

gpngc
03-09-2009, 04:50 PM
I find it funny how no one in this topic has given any reason why Shaun Hill can't be a good quarterback other than, "Shaun Hill isn't a franchise QB," while his supporters have posted plenty of numbers proving that he can be. Yet the people that think he sucks think they are right for some reason.

There is no such thing as a reason he "can't". He very well could. There is no proof for us Hill-bashers. The only proof we have will come in due time.

An indicator for me would be that the coaching staff gave the starting job to JTO over Hill to start the season.

phlysac
03-09-2009, 04:58 PM
An indicator for me would be that the coaching staff gave the starting job to JTO over Hill to start the season.

The truth is that Mike Martz gave the #1 QB job to JT O'Sullivan after only 2 practices in training camp. The pressure for both he and Nolan to win "right away" put JTO at the helm because he didn't need time to learn Martz's system. There was no competition for the starter role in 2008. It was simply given to O'Sullivan because of his comfort in the system.

gpngc
03-09-2009, 05:12 PM
The truth is that Mike Martz gave the #1 QB job to JT O'Sullivan after only 2 practices in training camp. The pressure for both he and Nolan to win "right away" put JTO at the helm because he didn't need time to learn Martz's system. There was no competition for the starter role in 2008. It was simply given to O'Sullivan because of his comfort in the system.

Sounds like an excuse.

A true franchise QB transcends this "comfort in the system" stuff and takes the job away from a guy who we can all (hopefully) agree is not a starter-quality NFL QB.

phlysac
03-09-2009, 05:22 PM
You can't make broad generalizations in response to a specific event. Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas... an endless list of QB's who wouldn't fit your most recent description of "franchise". I'm not even defending Shaun Hill. I'm one of the 49er fans that question his ability to make enough throws to keep pressure off the running game. But to say that he obviously isn't a "Franchise" QB because Martz used his boy JTO isn't relevant to this situation. It had NOTHING to do with "comfort in the system". In had to do with the fact that only JTO KNEW the system. The other QBs were forced to learn it from the sidelines.

gpngc
03-09-2009, 05:32 PM
You can't make broad generalizations in response to a specific event. Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas... an endless list of QB's who wouldn't fit your most recent description of "franchise". I'm not even defending Shaun Hill. I'm one of the 49er fans that question his ability to make enough throws to keep pressure off the running game. But to say that he obviously isn't a "Franchise" QB because Martz used his boy JTO isn't relevant to this situation. It had NOTHING to do with "comfort in the system". In had to do with the fact that only JTO KNEW the system. The other QBs were forced to learn it from the sidelines.

The difference in those situations is that they had guys in front of them who were at least adequate QBs.

JTO is an awful starting QB. You've got to beat him out. My point is a simple one. This guy couldn't beat out JTO in preseason. No need to get more in depth than that point.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 05:43 PM
Because the only people that think Shaun Hill is a franchise quarterback are delusional 49ers fans. Haven't you noticed?

No one thinks Hill is a "franchise" quarterback. Most 49er fans believe that he is a very good quarterback that can lead the 49ers to a division title and possibly a playoff win or two in the next couple of years. From what we have seen from him so far there is no reason to think otherwise.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 05:48 PM
What I believe sparks a lot of endless and annoying debating comes from many Niners fans (on this forum) who aren't exactly fans of taking another QB so high after Alex Smith, especially after only 16 collegiate starts and a cast of incredible talent surrounding him. Now, if it were someone like Stafford being mocked to the Niners, I am sure they would only be a small number, if any, of Niners fans who wouldn't want Stafford.

If Bradford had come out this year, I think there would be a much greater division among the Niners fans here about taking Bradford. However, that's not the case and not worth debating (please).

True. If Stafford falls to the 49ers and they don't take him I am going to be highly upset.

phlysac
03-09-2009, 05:50 PM
My point is a simple one. This guy couldn't beat out JTO in preseason. No need to get more in depth than that point.

I'd agree if your point was that simple as applied to the situation in SF last preseason. It was widely reported that Alex Smith and Shawn Hill didn't get any reps with the first team. The job was GIVEN to JTO, not earned. It's not as simple to "beat someone out" when you're not given the opportunity.

Menardo75
03-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Because the only people that think Shaun Hill is a franchise quarterback are delusional 49ers fans. Haven't you noticed?

Sounds like the Cowboy fans are in the same boat then.

Menardo75
03-09-2009, 05:56 PM
The difference in those situations is that they had guys in front of them who were at least adequate QBs.

JTO is an awful starting QB. You've got to beat him out. My point is a simple one. This guy couldn't beat out JTO in preseason. No need to get more in depth than that point.

If a coach decides anything the competition ends there end of story.

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't get how Romo got brought into this of all QBs out there... Why not Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, etc...

I'm not going to defend Romo being a franchise QB. I don't even know what that even means to most people. If it's an NFL QB who doesn't have to worry about losing his job, then yeah, he's that. If it means being the face of the franchise, being a leader and example, then yeah, he's on his way. But if it means some excellent All-Pro, then no, I don't think he's in the upper echelon of NFL QBs. He makes too many careless mistakes to be there. He's still young enough to eventually be that kind of QB, but he'll need more good years. I think his status kind of took a hit this year with him missing 3 games with that hand injury. Cowboys would be in the playoffs if he didn't miss any time. The team was night and day without him.

gpngc
03-09-2009, 05:57 PM
I'd agree if your point was that simple as applied to the situation in SF last preseason. It was widely reported that Alex Smith and Shawn Hill didn't get any reps with the first team. The job was GIVEN to JTO, not earned. It's not as simple to "beat someone out" when you're not given the opportunity.

And you think this was based ONLY on the fact that JTO was more comfortable in the system and had nothing to do with the staff not having a favorable opinion of either Smith or Hill?

My point again is simple: why was Shaun Hill so hamstrung? What was it that made him so easy to simply exclude in favor of J. Turnovers. O?

phlysac
03-09-2009, 06:02 PM
And you think this was based ONLY on the fact that JTO was more comfortable in the system and had nothing to do with the staff not having a favorable opinion of either Smith or Hill?

My point again is simple: why was Shaun Hill so hamstrung? What was it that made him so easy to simply exclude in favor of J. Turnovers. O?

My answer again is simple... MIKE MARTZ wanted HIS GUY because Mike Nolan didn't want to wait for anyone to learn the system.

If you think that a QB, regardless of their skill set, can come in the first week of training camp and play in a COMPLETELY different system without struggling then you have a much higher regard for QBs than I do. Alex Smith was given the opportunity to be "the man" in Martz's new system for 1 1/2 practices. Martz put in O'Sullivan and it remained that way until Singletary's VERY FIRST game as head coach.

Menardo75
03-09-2009, 06:02 PM
And you think this was based ONLY on the fact that JTO was more comfortable in the system and had nothing to do with the staff not having a favorable opinion of either Smith or Hill?

My point again is simple: why was Shaun Hill so hamstrung? What was it that made him so easy to simply exclude in favor of J. Turnovers. O?

I don't know how many more different ways we can tell you the coaching staff automatically made him the starter.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 06:10 PM
I don't get how Romo got brought into this of all QBs out there... Why not Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, etc...

Read the first post

I'm not going to defend Romo being a franchise QB. I don't even know what that even means to most people. If it's an NFL QB who doesn't have to worry about losing his job, then yeah, he's that. If it means being the face of the franchise, being a leader and example, then yeah, he's on his way. But if it means some excellent All-Pro, then no, I don't think he's in the upper echelon of NFL QBs. He makes too many careless mistakes to be there. He's still young enough to eventually be that kind of QB, but he'll need more good years. I think his status kind of took a hit this year with him missing 3 games with that hand injury. Cowboys would be in the playoffs if he didn't miss any time. The team was night and day without him.

2008 49ers: 2-6 w/o Hill, 5-3 w/ Hill

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 07:20 PM
Read the first post



2008 49ers: 2-6 w/o Hill, 5-3 w/ Hill
OK, the simple answer to your question is because Romo took the Cowboys to the playoffs. More people would probably believe in Hill if he took the 9ers to the playoffs. But he didn't.

Secondly, stats/wins don't make for accurate player comparisons, so you were off base to begin with in your logic to compare them as players.

If you're trying to compare them as a players, there is a lot of differences.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 07:28 PM
OK, the simple answer to your question is because Romo took the Cowboys to the playoffs. More people would probably believe in Hill if he took the 9ers to the playoffs. But he didn't.

He had a better record (5-3) than Romo (6-4) but reason the Cowboys made the playoffs in 2006 is because they already had 3 wins in their first 6 games before Romo stepped in while the 49ers only 2 wins in their first 8 games before Hill took over.

Secondly, stats/wins don't make for accurate player comparisons, so you were off base to begin with in your logic to compare them as players.

If you're trying to compare them as a players, there is a lot of differences.

You don't compare players using stats and wins? What are you supposed to compare them off of then? Looks? Popularity?

TimD
03-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Shaun Hill > Tony Romo w/o T.O.

49ersfan_87
03-09-2009, 07:33 PM
Shaun Hill > Tony Romo w/o T.O.

Hill did kill the jets this year :P

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 07:36 PM
He had a better record (5-3) than Romo (6-4) but reason the Cowboys made the playoffs in 2006 is because they already had 3 wins in their first 6 games before Romo stepped in while the 49ers only 2 wins in their first 8 games before Hill took over.



You don't compare players using stats and wins? What are you supposed to compare them off of then? Looks? Popularity?
It doesn't matter that the Cowboys had 3 wins prior... The direction they were heading for was disaster as long as Bledsoe was the QB. Romo literally turned the season around, obvious enough for many to realize. I think if Shaun had taken the Niners to the playoffs, he'd have built more security for himself with his job. Fair or unfair, that's the fact of the matter, imo.

As for the second part of your post... I can't believe you actually said that... but it made me chuckle. Do you think draft prospects are judged based off their collegiate stats? Or is it their looks? Popularity??? :)

There are so many different factors/variables in comparing stats to determine if one player is like another player. You simply cannot use it to make any sort of firm comparison.

papa burgundy
03-09-2009, 07:37 PM
I find it funny how no one in this topic has given any reason why Shaun Hill can't be a good quarterback other than, "Shaun Hill isn't a franchise QB," while his supporters have posted plenty of numbers proving that he can be. Yet the people that think he sucks think they are right for some reason.

I said why he isn't a franchise QB.. I guess you must've missed it so I'll explain it to you again. It IS because his arm is terrible.. and don't give me any of the Montana's arm was weak ********, because it just wasn't true. Montana didn't have a great arm compared to Marino and Elway.. but he still had an above average arm and threw beautiful spirals and deep balls. Shaun Hill's arm is one of the worst in the league.. its a notch above Ken Dorsey and a notch or two below Chad Pennington. His balls wobble no matter where he throws them and his deep balls have the hang time of a punt and land 10 yards short of where they should be. If he ever had to go up against a ball hawking defense in the playoffs he'd get destroyed.. a perfect example of this was Chad Pennington last year who after his great regular season in the playoffs the windows got smaller and the pressure got higher and he turned the ball over in 1 game almost as much as he did in the entire regular season. So to summarize.. Shaun Hill will never be a franchise QB .. at best he's a adequate to good starter and a GREAT back up. If the Niners get a chance at Matt Stafford in the draft they better take him or heads will roll. Not Sanchez though, because QBs who have 1 year starting experience coming out of college still give me nightmares. Alex Smith.. ughhh.

abaddon41_80
03-09-2009, 07:49 PM
It doesn't matter that the Cowboys had 3 wins prior... The direction they were heading for was disaster as long as Bledsoe was the QB. Romo literally turned the season around, obvious enough for many to realize. I think if Shaun had taken the Niners to the playoffs, he'd have built more security for himself with his job. Fair or unfair, that's the fact of the matter, imo.

Because the 49ers were obviously heading in the right direction when Hill took over with 5 straight losses and a mid-season coaching change.

As for the second part of your post... I can't believe you actually said that... but it made me chuckle. Do you think draft prospects are judged based off their collegiate stats? Or is it their looks? Popularity??? :)

You don't use college stats to compare draft prospects because college stats mean nothing in the NFL but NFL stats mean a lot in the NFL.

Shaun Hill will never be a franchise QB .. at best he's a adequate to good starter and a GREAT back up. If the Niners get a chance at Matt Stafford in the draft they better take him or heads will roll. Not Sanchez though, because QBs who have 1 year starting experience coming out of college still give me nightmares. Alex Smith.. ughhh.

I agree with all of those points. I said a couple of pages ago that Hill is a good starter that can lead the 49ers to the playoffs and that if Stafford falls to 10 the 49ers shouldn't hesitate to take him

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Because the 49ers were obviously heading in the right direction when Hill took over with 5 straight losses and a mid-season coaching change.



You don't use college stats to compare draft prospects because college stats mean nothing in the NFL but NFL stats mean a lot in the NFL.



I agree with all of those points. I said a couple of pages ago that Hill is a good starter that can lead the 49ers to the playoffs and that if Stafford falls to 10 the 49ers shouldn't hesitate to take him
I can already tell that you have selective reading. Did you miss the part where I said Romo helped the team make the playoffs and Hill didn't? And that if Hill did take them there, he probably would have had more job security?

And let me get straight to the point of your confusion once and for all.

No. You cannot use stats to compare players in the NFL. If you want to compare players... or QBs in particular, then compare their knowledge, intelligence, understanding of the game, arm strength, mobility, character, vision, athleticism, coordination, playmaking ability, leadership, moxie, flaws, height, weight, will/determination, how they react under pressure, study habits, practice habits, bloodlines, personality, the kind of people they surround themselves with..., blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Then you come to the conclusion that nobody can share the same variables and that everybody is different and then this whole conversation is moot.

I can't believe you're sticking with the basis that two players are the same because of their stat line. They both have different players surrounding them, different offensive systems, different opponents, different time of possession, different, different, different... It's all different. How in the world are you trying to make the claim that they are similar is beyond me.

YAYareaRB
03-09-2009, 08:12 PM
*yawn*

dan marino and shaun hill have the same number of super bowl wins. i guess shaun hill = dan marino. i mean, marino only got there, but he had a much better offense. :rolleyes:

making illogical arguments (yes, i read the support for it) does nothing to further your cause here.

Now there's definitely a difference between being beat in the 1st round of the playoffs every year you started and being beat in super bowl.. :rolleyes:

phlysac
03-09-2009, 08:35 PM
I agree that stats aren't indicative of talent. Interesting then that nearly every person that ever bashed Alex Smith and called him a bust uses his stats as a reason.

YAYareaRB
03-09-2009, 08:35 PM
how? they're completely arbitrary breaking points. so what, if hill got to the playoffs but romo got a first round bye before they both lsot is that different? i mean, there's a pretty big difference in playing in the divisional round and the wild card round. either way it's a ludicrous argument.


As I was saying.. Being called a Franchise QB in this thread obviously isn't based on post season performance. Because one, Hill hasn't made playoffs ever and two, Romo hasn't won in the playoffs but he makes it. If Franchise QBs are expected to perform so well in playoffs why should Romo get the title over so many other starters who have yet to smell the post season?

What makes Romo sooooo great over Shaun Hill. I would like to know. Is Hill's arm that inefficient and weak? Because he's been doing a fine job while "His balls wobble no matter where he throws them and his deep balls have the hang time of a punt and land 10 yards short of where they should be." (Papa Burgundy).

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree that stats aren't indicative of talent. Interesting then that nearly every person that ever bashed Alex Smith and called him a bust uses his stats as a reason.
Haha... No, we use our eyes. His stats just validate our eyes.

GB12
03-09-2009, 08:51 PM
I agree that stats aren't indicative of talent. Interesting then that nearly every person that ever bashed Alex Smith and called him a bust uses his stats as a reason.
So Shaun Hill is a franchise QB and Alex Smith is not a bust.

Damn, the 49ers are in much better shape at QB than I thought. Too bad they lost out on Warner or they could have had 3 good QBs.

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 08:53 PM
As I was saying.. Being called a Franchise QB in this thread obviously isn't based on post season performance. Because one, Hill hasn't made playoffs ever and two, Romo hasn't won in the playoffs but he makes it. If Franchise QBs are expected to perform so well in playoffs why should Romo get the title over so many other starters who have yet to smell the post season?

What makes Romo sooooo great over Shaun Hill. I would like to know. Is Hill's arm that inefficient and weak? Because he's been doing a fine job while "His balls wobble no matter where he throws them and his deep balls have the hang time of a punt and land 10 yards short of where they should be." (Papa Burgundy).
Well by the time Romo finished his partial year as a starter, he had gained the confidence of the team owner/gm, coach, and teammates.

Hill hasn't done that. If he had, then Warner wouldn't have been contacted, QB wouldn't be considered draft talk, and Hill would have a safe job. The people who you should be having this debate with is 49er management. Why do you think they think QB is a need? Or do you think they think QB is NOT a need?

CJSchneider
03-09-2009, 09:05 PM
Well by the time Romo finished his partial year as a starter, he had gained the confidence of the team owner/gm, coach, and teammates.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=staffordsanchezcouldeach&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Thank you Clifton Brown

Even the 49ers would have to think twice about drafting Stafford or Sanchez. They still are smarting from drafting Alex Smith with the No. 1-overall pick in 05. Bringing in Stafford or Sanchez would create an instant quarterback controversy, and Shaun Hill played well for the 49ers in December.

Im very excited about Shaun Hill, the way he ended his season, said 49ers GM Scot McCloughan. The way his teammates believe in him when he steps into the huddle and walks to the line of scrimmage, and the way he proved he can make plays.

Looks like a work in progress if you ask me. You have to start somewhere.

YAYareaRB
03-09-2009, 09:06 PM
Well by the time Romo finished his partial year as a starter, he had gained the confidence of the team owner/gm, coach, and teammates.

Hill hasn't done that. If he had, then Warner wouldn't have been contacted, QB wouldn't be considered draft talk, and Hill would have a safe job. The people who you should be having this debate with is 49er management. Why do you think they think QB is a need? Or do you think they think QB is NOT a need?

The only people that think we need a QB are you guys and people not even affiliated with the organization. Of course if one was there (Stafford or Sanchez) we'd have to think twice, but let's face facts.. there's bigger fish to fry on our team because we have an efficient manager in Shaun Hill.

I think I said it before, maybe in another thread, but I think we were straight up used by Warner. We weren't looking to raise his price and use him to hit the cardnials bank, I think he used us.

The cowboys found confidence in Tony Romo because he was a good game manager with the surrounding players he's got. I honestly do think that's all he is and that's all he will ever be. He's not elite like so many others believe because quite frankly, Elite QBs win in the playoffs.

IMO, I think Singletary intends to start Hill but keeps it open in Training Camp to create competition. We've been burned by average QBs getting complacent before. That could be true, or it couldn't but that's my opinion on the confidence matter.

phlysac
03-09-2009, 09:19 PM
Haha... No, we use our eyes. His stats just validate our eyes.

What did your eyes tell you?

phlysac
03-09-2009, 09:20 PM
So Shaun Hill is a franchise QB and Alex Smith is not a bust.

Damn, the 49ers are in much better shape at QB than I thought. Too bad they lost out on Warner or they could have had 3 good QBs.

Where in this thread has anyone said that of either QB?

LonghornsLegend
03-09-2009, 10:35 PM
The cowboys found confidence in Tony Romo because he was a good game manager with the surrounding players he's got. I honestly do think that's all he is and that's all he will ever be.

He's actually anything but a game manager, never has been anything close to that, so yea...He's been the furthest from it.





What makes Romo sooooo great over Shaun Hill.


Would you rather have Shaun Hill over Tony Romo?

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 10:41 PM
The only people that think we need a QB are you guys and people not even affiliated with the organization. Of course if one was there (Stafford or Sanchez) we'd have to think twice, but let's face facts.. there's bigger fish to fry on our team because we have an efficient manager in Shaun Hill.

I think I said it before, maybe in another thread, but I think we were straight up used by Warner. We weren't looking to raise his price and use him to hit the cardnials bank, I think he used us.

The cowboys found confidence in Tony Romo because he was a good game manager with the surrounding players he's got. I honestly do think that's all he is and that's all he will ever be. He's not elite like so many others believe because quite frankly, Elite QBs win in the playoffs.

IMO, I think Singletary intends to start Hill but keeps it open in Training Camp to create competition. We've been burned by average QBs getting complacent before. That could be true, or it couldn't but that's my opinion on the confidence matter.
Wa what??? The public thinks Romo is elite? Really, are you serious??? I thought everyone makes fun of him. LOL. Who here on the forum thinks he's elite? I for one have already said Romo isn't elite. I don't know if there are any fans out there outside of Cowboys homers who really do believe he is elite. The guy has made so many dumb mistakes that I am convinced, if he stays that way, then the Cowboys will never win the SB.

You seem upset that Romo has the public believing that he's elite. But I don't think the public thinks he's elite. You have the wrong assumption of him if you do.

But the subject started with Romo being a franchise QB... Being a franchise QB is different from being one of the elite QBs of the league. You realize that right? OK, so don't confuse the two and change the subject at hand. Romo IS a franchise QB.

Can Romo ever become an elite QB? Sure. So can Shaun Hill. The future is yet to be told. If Romo never wins a playoff game for the rest of his career, then he will be what you think he is.

If the Niners think Hill is their franchise QB, then that's all that matters. If the fans think he's their franchise QB, then great. Don't worry what the rest of the world thinks. If you want him to have the public perception that Romo has, then I really have to wonder why...

MetSox17
03-09-2009, 10:45 PM
The cowboys found confidence in Tony Romo because he was a good game manager with the surrounding players he's got. I honestly do think that's all he is and that's all he will ever be.


For someone that plays (or will play) football at a collegiate level, this has to be the dumbest thing i've read here in a while. How many games do you sit and watch to know that all Tony Romo is, is a game manager? I mean seriously? He's anything but a game manager. He makes big plays with his ability to move in the pocket, to create time despite shady pass blocking, to make great throws, and he is, despite popular belief, very clutch. It takes more than a quarterback to win in the playoffs, and this Cowboys team has been flawed for many years now. The fact that i'm dignifying this statement with a response is sick.


He's not elite like so many others believe because quite frankly, Elite QBs win in the playoffs.

How long did it take Peyton Manning to win a "big" game?

Borat
03-09-2009, 10:46 PM
This thread sucks.

Primetime21
03-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Wa what??? The public thinks Romo is elite? Really, are you serious??? I thought everyone makes fun of him. LOL. Who here on the forum thinks he's elite? I for one have already said Romo isn't elite. I don't know if there are any fans out there outside of Cowboys homers who really do believe he is elite. The guy has made so many dumb mistakes that I am convinced, if he stays that way, then the Cowboys will never win the SB.

You seem upset that Romo has the public believing that he's elite. But I don't think the public thinks he's elite. You have the wrong assumption of him if you do.

But the subject started with Romo being a franchise QB... Being a franchise QB is different from being one of the elite QBs of the league. You realize that right? OK, so don't confuse the two and change the subject at hand. Romo IS a franchise QB.

Can Romo ever become an elite QB? Sure. So can Shaun Hill. The future is yet to be told. If Romo never wins a playoff game for the rest of his career, then he will be what you think he is.

If the Niners think Hill is their franchise QB, then that's all that matters. If the fans think he's their franchise QB, then great. Don't worry what the rest of the world thinks. If you want him to have the public perception that Romo has, then I really have to wonder why...

ESPN treats him as elite and the public would never disagree with ESPN.

CJSchneider
03-09-2009, 10:50 PM
but they were only 5 minutes.

that said, romo had highlights.


i just find it funny now how many 49ers fans are willing to defend a guy that they haven't (as far as i've seen, though i may have missed the post) or won't even call a good quarterback. the closest i've seen is that he "could become a good quarterback". hardly the criteria i wanted the broncos to have post-elway.

That may have been the most intelligent non-49er line here, at least you were honest, so know that the next two comments are made respectfully.

Quincy Carter had high-lights too, but I fail to see him as a Cowboy great. Trust me, Hill has highlights as well, but that would a whole different ESPN argument.

OK, for the record, Hill is a good QB.

D-Unit
03-09-2009, 10:50 PM
For someone that plays (or will play) football at a collegiate level, this has to be the dumbest thing i've read here in a while. How many games do you sit and watch to know that all Tony Romo is, is a game manager? I mean seriously? He's anything but a game manager. He makes big plays with his ability to move in the pocket, to create time despite shady pass blocking, to make great throws, and he is, despite popular belief, very clutch. It takes more than a quarterback to win in the playoffs, and this Cowboys team has been flawed for many years now. The fact that i'm dignifying this statement with a response is sick.




How long did it take Peyton Manning to win a "big" game?
Exactly. Romo is too much of a free lancer to be considered a stiff game manager. It's also the reason for much distraught.

Romo is prone to making his mistakes when he's under pressure. When given time (by credit to the OL or to his own credit), he's got "the look" of an elite QB. I keep saying this on the Cowboys board, but WE NEED TO FIX THAT OL. Then success will be ours.

MetSox17
03-09-2009, 10:59 PM
Exactly. Romo is too much of a free lancer to be considered a stiff game manager. It's also the reason for much distraught.

Romo is prone to making his mistakes when he's under pressure. When given time (by credit to the OL or to his own credit), he's got "the look" of an elite QB. I keep saying this on the Cowboys board, but WE NEED TO FIX THAT OL. Then success will be ours.

But he's also not that horrible a player that you would disregard him as one of the best in the league. Out of everyone here, you're probably the toughest critic of the Cowboys, and with merit, since there has been plenty to be upset over, but i don't think Romo is as bad as some make him out to be either. People that don't think he's clutch should go watch him play against the Giants two years ago, against Buffalo that same season, the drive before the end of regulation against Arizona...

This year i felt he regressed a little as far as decision making late in games, and i think that has to do with the amount of pressure that was created by the media. Again, not making excuses, i know he makes everyone scratch their head a lot, but he's a very, very good quarterback. I definitely agree that the offensive line is a huge problem. Bigger than people give it credit for. What was once our greatest asset, the left side of the line is pretty damn bad right now.

Saints-Tigers
03-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Shaun Hill gives me a better shot at a high draft pick, and a real franchise QB. He's cheaper too.

SHAUN HILL FTW

gpngc
03-10-2009, 12:17 AM
Shaun Hill gives me a better shot at a high draft pick, and a real franchise QB. He's cheaper too.

SHAUN HILL FTW

lol. With Shaun Hill comes a top 10 pick and Sam Bradford/Jevan Snead/Colt McCoy. So essentially, Shaun Hill does indeed = franchise QB. Just indirectly.

With Romo you are doomed to picking 20-29 every year after exiting the playoffs in the first round or right on the cusp of making it.

So I guess I would rather have Hill. :) :p

The dead horse has been beaten. Continue if you wish, but it's clear that the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. If Shaun Hill comes in and has success, all us Hill-bashers will have to give in to the Niners fans who "told us so." If we're right, we won't have to remind them of how wrong they were because they'll remember every time they are reading a Sam Bradford scouting report with feelings of hope.

The only roadblocks to our definitive answer at the conclusion of next season are:
-Hill has subpar-to-mediocre #s and leads them to 8-8 or 9-7, missing the playoffs.
-Alex Smith pulls a Drew Brees and becomes good. (lol)
-They draft Mark Sanchez.

abaddon41_80
03-10-2009, 06:42 AM
I can already tell that you have selective reading. Did you miss the part where I said Romo helped the team make the playoffs and Hill didn't? And that if Hill did take them there, he probably would have had more job security?

And did you miss the part about Hill having a better record than Romo but only not making the playoffs because the 49ers were too far gone? I mean you are basically saying that a QB that takes over a 4-4 team, goes 6-2 and makes the playoffs is better than a QB that takes over a 2-6 team, goes 6-2 and misses the playoffs.

And let me get straight to the point of your confusion once and for all.

No. You cannot use stats to compare players in the NFL. If you want to compare players... or QBs in particular, then compare their knowledge, intelligence, understanding of the game, arm strength, mobility, character, vision, athleticism, coordination, playmaking ability, leadership, moxie, flaws, height, weight, will/determination, how they react under pressure, study habits, practice habits, bloodlines, personality, the kind of people they surround themselves with..., blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Then you come to the conclusion that nobody can share the same variables and that everybody is different and then this whole conversation is moot.

I can't believe you're sticking with the basis that two players are the same because of their stat line. They both have different players surrounding them, different offensive systems, different opponents, different time of possession, different, different, different... It's all different. How in the world are you trying to make the claim that they are similar is beyond me.

So you are saying that you should compare players off of their ability instead of their production?

john elway didn't have great stats, yet he's near universally regarded as a top qb in history

Is that a joke? Almost no one regards Elway as the greatest QB ever. A lot people, myself included, wouldn't put him in the top 5 and I could argue he isn't in the top 10 either.

abaddon41_80
03-10-2009, 08:05 AM
again, i don't understand the defensiveness here. i haven't once posted my opinion either way, solely on the basis of having not seen more than 5 minutes of 49ers football with hill as starter. those 5 minutes did not lead me to believe that he was remotely better than a career backup, but they were only 5 minutes.

that said, romo had highlights. people watched his plays and were, generally, impressed. i haven't heard one person suggest hill is better than adequate and i've yet to see any "special" plays he made. does that alone mean anything? absolutely not (though let's keep out the idiotic "but it's the cowboys" crap, for obvious reasons that's a terrible argument in this case). but it strongly suggests to me that hill may have only been adequate all year, while romo looked like he could be special.

which all hearkens back to the "you have to watch them to make an argument" discussion. i mean, david carr had a decent passer rating his last year in houston for the first half of the season. however, anyone who watched him more than once knew it wasn't because he was a good quarterback. trent dilfer managed a team to a super bowl. does that mean the ravens couldn't have done better? and it's not like the 49ers have a remotely comparable team.

*shrug*

i just find it funny now how many 49ers fans are willing to defend a guy that they haven't (as far as i've seen, though i may have missed the post) or won't even call a good quarterback. the closest i've seen is that he "could become a good quarterback". hardly the criteria i wanted the broncos to have post-elway.

If you have only seen 5 minutes of Hill playing how can you even post in this thread?

NY+Giants=NYG
03-10-2009, 08:33 AM
Exactly. Romo is too much of a free lancer to be considered a stiff game manager. It's also the reason for much distraught.

Romo is prone to making his mistakes when he's under pressure. When given time (by credit to the OL or to his own credit), he's got "the look" of an elite QB. I keep saying this on the Cowboys board, but WE NEED TO FIX THAT OL. Then success will be ours.

Well the problem is he doesn't make his reads for the play. He basically runs plays like he is playing flag football or backyard football. There in lies his success and failures. I was talking to someone close to the organization, and we were talking about QBs, and he said Romo just plays like flag football.

no love
03-10-2009, 09:00 AM
Well the problem is he doesn't make his reads for the play. He basically runs plays like he is playing flag football or backyard football. There in lies his success and failures. I was talking to someone close to the organization, and we were talking about QBs, and he said Romo just plays like flag football.

The funny thing is a former 49er qb used to play just like this... his name was steve young. It wasn't until they finally reeled him in and got his erratic play under control that he finally became a very successful qb.

CJSchneider
03-10-2009, 09:36 AM
OK, as a 49er fan, I can't make that comparison. Young was able to learn from Bill Walsh and watch Joe Montana put that plan into action while he was on the sidelines. Hill has neither of those things.

Going back to the original question:

"I don't understand is why everyone was in love with Romo after his first season and yet no one thinks Shaun Hill is worth anything."

I think we have answered that. Romo had visible support. Hill is in a situation where in trying to protect other interests that same support can not be demonstrated. The test now becomes - " Does the 49er front office realize it. " I will tell you this, and this is just me throwing my thoughts out there, but if SF does draft a QB, and that is possible:
1. If that QB doesn't lead us to a play-off game, well...it will be more fuel for this fire that is for sure.
2. Hill may never recover emotionally from being fully capable, yet never having been given a shot.

Having looked at the numbers, we can clearly see that in their first year, Hill was a comparable QB to Tony Romo. What separates them now, at this pont, is merely public perception. Only future performance can separate them from here on.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-10-2009, 09:54 AM
The funny thing is a former 49er qb used to play just like this... his name was steve young. It wasn't until they finally reeled him in and got his erratic play under control that he finally became a very successful qb.

That's not suprising.. QBs in the WCO offense early on tend to make 1 or 2 reads in their progression and then take off and run the ball. McNabb did this early in his career too. Usually as a QB gets comfortable in a system, especially in making reads, he trusts what he sees, and therefore won't make 2 reads and then run the ball.

abaddon41_80
03-10-2009, 09:54 AM
:rolleyes: please learn how to read before hitting submit reply. "as a top qb" implies "one of a few options". you would be very hard pressed to make a logical argument that he ISN'T top 5, and you'd be utterly insane to argue that he isn't top 10. but, since you think everything revolves solely around stats, to the complete exclusion of any other evidence (please make the argument that shaun hill > elway because he had better numbers as a rookie, PLEASE make that argument), i'd guess it's possible that you've deluded yourself into thinking you have a somewhat intelligent argument. let me end this for you briefly: you don't. period.

I could easily argue that Elway isn't top 10 all-time but that is for another thread. I realize now that there is no point in arguing with you because you don't want facts and statistics to back things up. Instead you have your opinions and no one is going to change them no matter what. That's okay but please don't resort to petty insults because they just make you seem stupid, not me. BTW Your -rep really hurts my feelings.

seriously? you know this inane little post (that i'm sure you REALLY wanted to believe was a gotcha) just demonstrates to me that you completely and utterly lack any reading ability whatsoever, or that you have no idea how to actually comprehend anything you read. have you read ANYTHING i've posted thus far in this thread? anything except for the two one sentence fragments that have absolutely nothing to do with the overall points i was making?

I didn't even have to read the rest of your post, even though I did, to dismiss your argument. I guess maybe I am confused at what you are trying to get across. First you state clearly that you have only seen 5 minutes of Hill and then that you need to watch players play to judge them. It seems kind of contradictory to me but whatever. I mean your opinion of Hill seems to be formed from 1) Romo had more highlights than him and 2) people talked about Romo more.

It seems to me that some people are not even getting the point of this thread. This thread has nothing to do with Tony Romo right now or whether or not Shaun Hill is a franchise QB. The question I am asking is why, despite better numbers and more wins against slightly stronger defenses and teams overall through their first 10 starts, is Shaun Hill dismissed as a "career back-up" while Tony Romo was praised as a "franchise QB"? I have yet to see an answer to that question other than "Hill has a weak arm."

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Wa what??? The public thinks Romo is elite? Really, are you serious??? I thought everyone makes fun of him. LOL. Who here on the forum thinks he's elite? I for one have already said Romo isn't elite. I don't know if there are any fans out there outside of Cowboys homers who really do believe he is elite. The guy has made so many dumb mistakes that I am convinced, if he stays that way, then the Cowboys will never win the SB.

You seem upset that Romo has the public believing that he's elite. But I don't think the public thinks he's elite. You have the wrong assumption of him if you do.

But the subject started with Romo being a franchise QB... Being a franchise QB is different from being one of the elite QBs of the league. You realize that right? OK, so don't confuse the two and change the subject at hand. Romo IS a franchise QB.

Can Romo ever become an elite QB? Sure. So can Shaun Hill. The future is yet to be told. If Romo never wins a playoff game for the rest of his career, then he will be what you think he is.

If the Niners think Hill is their franchise QB, then that's all that matters. If the fans think he's their franchise QB, then great. Don't worry what the rest of the world thinks. If you want him to have the public perception that Romo has, then I really have to wonder why...

The way you guys down play Shaun Hill when Tony Romo isn't not that far off in comparison makes me think you guys think Tony Romo is elite. A franchise QB, IMO, should be elite and it should go hand in hand. Name a franchise QB who isn't elite? Don't try and tell me I changed the subject, its just my opinion that if you're a franchise QB, you should be elite.

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 10:02 AM
lol. With Shaun Hill comes a top 10 pick and Sam Bradford/Jevan Snead/Colt McCoy. So essentially, Shaun Hill does indeed = franchise QB. Just indirectly.

With Romo you are doomed to picking 20-29 every year after exiting the playoffs in the first round or right on the cusp of making it.

So I guess I would rather have Hill. :) :p

The dead horse has been beaten. Continue if you wish, but it's clear that the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. If Shaun Hill comes in and has success, all us Hill-bashers will have to give in to the Niners fans who "told us so." If we're right, we won't have to remind them of how wrong they were because they'll remember every time they are reading a Sam Bradford scouting report with feelings of hope.

The only roadblocks to our definitive answer at the conclusion of next season are:
-Hill has subpar-to-mediocre #s and leads them to 8-8 or 9-7, missing the playoffs.
-Alex Smith pulls a Drew Brees and becomes good. (lol)
-They draft Mark Sanchez.

Why don't you go back to the armpit of the NFL we know as Seattle. All you're doing here is cracking a couple jokes without trying to add to the argument hoping you get +rep but no one is buying your crap. You seem mad that no one on your team is relevant enough to make a thread about. Being sarcastic is not for you because your jokes aren't funny to begin with.

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 10:21 AM
Ok we're getting off subject. But to end my part in this argument let me say this.

49er fans don't think Shaun Hill is god. Some don't even think he's our guy or a franchise QB. But the thing about him is is that he is our starter. He is our QB and we all want him to succeed. We know very well where he stands amongst the other league signal callers. So I'm just gonna stop on that.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:14 PM
And did you miss the part about Hill having a better record than Romo but only not making the playoffs because the 49ers were too far gone? I mean you are basically saying that a QB that takes over a 4-4 team, goes 6-2 and makes the playoffs is better than a QB that takes over a 2-6 team, goes 6-2 and misses the playoffs.



So you are saying that you should compare players off of their ability instead of their production?

Believe it or not. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Making the playoffs goes a long way towards building a young quarterback's public perception. Even if they both have similar win/loss records. I told you, if the 49ers made the playoffs under Hill, he'd have more job security. ...and as a byproduct, the public might've given him the same upbeat outlook that Romo had after his first season taking over as starter.

To answer your second question. What I'm saying is that you CAN'T...CANNOT.. CAN NOT make any perfect comparisons between any 2 players. It's impossible. Can you even think of 2 that ARE the same? I'd love to hear that. But if you're going to come close in comparing someone, then you have to factor in the many many many differences and not just base it on a simple stat line. If you don't get that then I'm done talking here.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Well the problem is he doesn't make his reads for the play. He basically runs plays like he is playing flag football or backyard football. There in lies his success and failures. I was talking to someone close to the organization, and we were talking about QBs, and he said Romo just plays like flag football.
Well there are a lot of people "close to the organization" that don't have a lick of credibility. So you'd have to be more specific if you want to try and prove a point. But from the sound of it offhand, I'd say that guy is pretty clueless if he just thinks Romo is a flag football guy.

If you want to tell him that the key is to prevent Romo from having to run around and run away from defenders, then tell him that the problem is his protection and "there in lies his success and failures". When Romo has time to throw, he plays mistake free football. When Romo has to improvise then he can either create magic or disaster. His ability to improvise is actually a skill, but when it fails people call it "flag football follies". So if I'm Romo, I ignore the backseat critics.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:23 PM
The funny thing is a former 49er qb used to play just like this... his name was steve young. It wasn't until they finally reeled him in and got his erratic play under control that he finally became a very successful qb.
I've been saying for a while now that Romo needs to play in a WCO. I'm hoping Mike Shanahan is the next new coach who will bring that system to Dallas. I'm predicting that too. ;)

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:30 PM
The way you guys down play Shaun Hill when Tony Romo isn't not that far off in comparison makes me think you guys think Tony Romo is elite. A franchise QB, IMO, should be elite and it should go hand in hand. Name a franchise QB who isn't elite? Don't try and tell me I changed the subject, its just my opinion that if you're a franchise QB, you should be elite.
Are you comparing Shaun Hill to the current Tony Romo or the Tony Romo after his first year as starter? If it's the prior, then of course Hill is not regarded the same as Romo has proven more.

The franchise QB vs elite QB talk is all symantecs at this point. People have varying definitions. To me a franchise QB is a guy who won't lose his job. Phillip Rivers is a franchise QB, Carson Palmer is a franchise QB, Jay Cutler is a franchise QB, Matt Ryan is a franchise QB, Drew Brees is a franchise QB... and so on and so forth. Are they "elite QBs"? An elite QB has to show consistent accomplishment over time. So none of them are "elite" in my eyes. The terms do not go hand in hand, in my book. Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and other HOFs... they are elite.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:33 PM
Ok we're getting off subject. But to end my part in this argument let me say this.

49er fans don't think Shaun Hill is god. Some don't even think he's our guy or a franchise QB. But the thing about him is is that he is our starter. He is our QB and we all want him to succeed. We know very well where he stands amongst the other league signal callers. So I'm just gonna stop on that.
...and where does he stand exactly... Top 10, Top 20, Top 25...30? Where is the difference that 49er fans have of him and where the general public thinks of him? For me, I don't have him in the Top 18-20.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Well there are a lot of people "close to the organization" that don't have a lick of credibility. So you'd have to be more specific if you want to try and prove a point. But from the sound of it offhand, I'd say that guy is pretty clueless if he just thinks Romo is a flag football guy.

If you want to tell him that the key is to prevent Romo from having to run around and run away from defenders, then tell him that the problem is his protection and "there in lies his success and failures". When Romo has time to throw, he plays mistake free football. When Romo has to improvise then he can either create magic or disaster. His ability to improvise is actually a skill, but when it fails people call it "flag football follies". So if I'm Romo, I ignore the backseat critics.


Well talk to moth or I can PM you but I am not going to post my source just to prove a point. So if you don't believe me, ah well, not big deal. And as for guy being clueless.. No not quite, not even by a long shot.

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 03:38 PM
Well there are a lot of people "close to the organization" that don't have a lick of credibility. So you'd have to be more specific if you want to try and prove a point. But from the sound of it offhand, I'd say that guy is pretty clueless if he just thinks Romo is a flag football guy.

If you want to tell him that the key is to prevent Romo from having to run around and run away from defenders, then tell him that the problem is his protection and "there in lies his success and failures". When Romo has time to throw, he plays mistake free football. When Romo has to improvise then he can either create magic or disaster. His ability to improvise is actually a skill, but when it fails people call it "flag football follies". So if I'm Romo, I ignore the backseat critics.

You could really tell Sparano wasn't there this year that's for sure.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:48 PM
You could really tell Sparano wasn't there this year that's for sure.
If Romo didn't get hurt and miss 3 games and the Cowboys won 1 more game guaranteeing the playoffs, would you say the same thing?

Sparano was always low on the totem pole while he was in Dallas. Miami had a great year, but that doesn't equate to Dallas losing a significant voice.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 03:53 PM
Well talk to moth or I can PM you but I am not going to post my source just to prove a point. So if you don't believe me, ah well, not big deal. And as for guy being clueless.. No not quite, not even by a long shot.
Well then, maybe I haven't figured out the context at which you were talking. Were you just shootin' the breeze? Or was that his actual breakdown analysis of Tony Romo's game?

in simple chit chat.. yeah, I can understand someone saying Tony has a flag football flare to his game meaning that he will improvise when the play breaks down. But to define that his game as a flag football player is not something I would agree with or respect.

Please PM me the name of this contact. I'm curious.... is he Ed Werner? :P

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 03:58 PM
If Romo didn't get hurt and miss 3 games and the Cowboys won 1 more game guaranteeing the playoffs, would you say the same thing?

Sparano was always low on the totem pole while he was in Dallas. Miami had a great year, but that doesn't equate to Dallas losing a significant voice.

No just watching the O-line play made me say that not having Sparano was noticable.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Well then, maybe I haven't figured out the context at which you were talking. Were you just shootin' the breeze? Or was that his actual breakdown analysis of Tony Romo's game?

in simple chit chat.. yeah, I can understand someone saying Tony has a flag football flare to his game meaning that he will improvise when the play breaks down. But to define that his game as a flag football player is not something I would agree with or respect.

Please PM me the name of this contact. I'm curious.... is he Ed Werner? :P

Check your PM..

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 04:00 PM
No just watching the O-line play made me say that not having Sparano was noticable.
Or was it just watching Cory Procter??? He was so pathetic he made me miss Kyle Kosier.

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 04:03 PM
Or was it just watching Cory Procter??? He was so pathetic he made me miss Kyle Kosier.

He was bad but the entire line in general just lacked the dominate attitude that they had the year before, and they just didn't play well all year long. They might have been the best line in football in 07, last year they weren't close to that.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 04:13 PM
He was bad but the entire line in general just lacked the dominate attitude that they had the year before, and they just didn't play well all year long. They might have been the best line in football in 07, last year they weren't close to that.
In '07 they played well, and we had a 12-4 season. But they failed against the pressure the Giants were bringing in the playoffs and Kosier was the main reason.

In '08 Kosier never even played a game and if you know anything about the OL, you rely on chemistry and togetherness more than any other unit. When you're playing with a weak link, it forces others to pick up the slack and the whole line is affected. When the OL is affected, the whole offense is affected... and the defense too because they are on the field longer. OL is so critical it ain't funny. They had a down year because the weak link (Kosier) got weaker (Procter). They brought on Montrae Holland who arrived out of shape, and when he was finally in shape, he started 1 or 2 games and then was lost for the season. McQuistan even got time at LG... so as far as OL chemistry, there was none. It's no wonder why they had a down year. Sparano was a good OL coach, but like I said, losing him wasn't the reason as you may think. Hudson Houck is one of the best OL coaches ever to coach in the NFL so it's not like we lost severe slack.

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 05:46 PM
In '07 they played well, and we had a 12-4 season. But they failed against the pressure the Giants were bringing in the playoffs and Kosier was the main reason.

In '08 Kosier never even played a game and if you know anything about the OL, you rely on chemistry and togetherness more than any other unit. When you're playing with a weak link, it forces others to pick up the slack and the whole line is affected. When the OL is affected, the whole offense is affected... and the defense too because they are on the field longer. OL is so critical it ain't funny. They had a down year because the weak link (Kosier) got weaker (Procter). They brought on Montrae Holland who arrived out of shape, and when he was finally in shape, he started 1 or 2 games and then was lost for the season. McQuistan even got time at LG... so as far as OL chemistry, there was none. It's no wonder why they had a down year. Sparano was a good OL coach, but like I said, losing him wasn't the reason as you may think. Hudson Houck is one of the best OL coaches ever to coach in the NFL so it's not like we lost severe slack.

I am a college offensive lineman I know a little about it.

princefielder28
03-10-2009, 05:53 PM
I am a college offensive lineman I know a little about it.

Where do you play ball?

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 05:57 PM
Where do you play ball?

Am I allowed to tell on here or is that against the rules?

Malaka
03-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Am I allowed to tell on here or is that against the rules?

No, it is allowed.

YayareaRB plays on Idaho State and Hickman plays for Eastern Michigan.

nothing happened to them.

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 06:05 PM
I play at the University of Idaho everybody hold your laughs lol.

Malaka
03-10-2009, 06:08 PM
Thats D-1, thats something to be proud of bro...

gpngc
03-10-2009, 06:08 PM
Thats D-1, thats something to be proud of bro...

Really.......

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 06:09 PM
Yeah I know I still have a really long ways to go, but i'm happy with it. I usually take a lot of crap for going here as crazy as that sounds.

princefielder28
03-10-2009, 06:14 PM
Yeah I know I still have a really long ways to go, but i'm happy with it. I usually take a lot of crap for going here as crazy as that sounds.

You should be proud to be playing a high level of football like that. It may be Idaho, but I guarantee there's thousands of kids wishing they could play at a school like that.

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 06:17 PM
Believe me I am very proud. I have been laughed at before when I have told people that that's why I said it lol.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 06:44 PM
I am a college offensive lineman I know a little about it.
With career aspirations to be a Professional forum thread subject changer? :)

I'm amazed you managed to change this thread into a subject about you.

D-Unit
03-10-2009, 06:45 PM
I play at the University of Idaho everybody hold your laughs lol.
Sweet! Rep the WAC!!!

Menardo75
03-10-2009, 07:12 PM
Sweet! Rep the WAC!!!

Haha for sure WAC power!

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 10:44 PM
...and where does he stand exactly... Top 10, Top 20, Top 25...30? Where is the difference that 49er fans have of him and where the general public thinks of him? For me, I don't have him in the Top 18-20.

I'd probably put him in the top 20.. probably 18th best QB.

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 10:45 PM
I play at the University of Idaho everybody hold your laughs lol.

I think we play you guys next season.

LonghornsLegend
03-10-2009, 10:46 PM
It gets a little old seeing people call Romo some kind of playoff failure, funny how people love to jump to those conclusions with Romo even though he only lost two playoff games, and played pretty well in both, while Peyton Manning can lose his first 3 playoff games while playing like crap and everything is ok.


In fact, other then his super bowl winning season Peyton has only won more then one playoff game one time...Not to say Romo is anywhere near that level, but it just goes to show how people like to get comfortable throwing around terms like "perennial choker" or "playoff choker" with no merit.


Peyton played horrible in his first 3 playoff outings, never had multiple TD's, highest QB rating was an 80, two of those 3 games he never even threw one TD, and it seemed he got worse with his 3rd game with a 31.2 QB rating...How about giving some young QB's a chance to grow to see what they can develop into, but Romo is surely no playoff choker like some people seem to think.

phlysac
03-10-2009, 10:49 PM
Peyton Manning was labeled a "choker" in the playoffs as well. Until he proved otherwise.

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 10:51 PM
How would you compare Peyton's surrounding players to Romo's?

LonghornsLegend
03-10-2009, 11:08 PM
outside of the ludicrous nature of comparing romo to peyton at this point, people DID call manning a choker. regularly. in fact, i think you can find literally hundreds of examples if you look back in the history on this board in the brady/manning threads. selective memory is interesting.

I remember him being labeled that by many people, the point I was trying to make is that I wouldn't be quick to call somebody a "playoff choker" just because they didn't immediately have success in the playoffs, especially seeing as how Romo never really played terrible in either game.




How would you compare Peyton's surrounding players to Romo's?


Very similiar, probably too similiar to say one or the other had clear cut better weapons...Both had/have more then enough weapons, and alot more then Brady had when he was winning playoff games earlier in his career.


I was actually hoping we snuck into the playoffs this year, could win a cheap wild card game and get the monkey off their back going into 09, I just don't want to consider all young QB's who don't win a playoff game in their first few tries a choker just yet.

YAYareaRB
03-10-2009, 11:10 PM
One point I would make is that you said Peyton Manning played horrible in games because he hasn't thrown multiple TDs in his first three games.. But Romo never really played Terrible while doing the same thing.

D-Unit
03-11-2009, 01:11 AM
I'd probably put him in the top 20.. probably 18th best QB.
And where do you have Romo? If you have him in the Top 17, then what is your answer to why Romo is ranked ahead of Hill in your own generated opinion? I'm done trying to convince you why I have him ranked ahead of Hill. If your answer is no, then I want to know why.

YAYareaRB
03-11-2009, 12:21 PM
And where do you have Romo? If you have him in the Top 17, then what is your answer to why Romo is ranked ahead of Hill in your own generated opinion? I'm done trying to convince you why I have him ranked ahead of Hill. If your answer is no, then I want to know why.

I would definitely have Romo in the top 17. Look back to all my posts and see that I never stated that I thought Romo wasn't better than Hill. I was simply trying to prove he's not that far off in comparison and is not much better than Shaun Hill as most of you think he is.

dan77733
03-11-2009, 02:32 PM
Prediction -

ROMO will be a huge disappointment in 2009 without T.O. and now that the scapegoat is gone, Romo will have no one to blame for all his INT's but himself.

And while everyone makes T.O. the bad guy, it was Romo (not T.O.) who decided that going on a sex romp vacation with Jessica Simpson was more important than focusing on what gave him the money and fame to be with her in the first damn place - football.

Everyone blames T.O. but he wasnt the only problem with the Cowboys. It starts with the owner, wimpy head coach, a crappy OC who's overrated, a QB who doesnt even care and who's overrated as well and a team that couldnt come together if their lives depended on it.

Cowboys will be 6-10 in 2009 at best. Book it.

As for the GREATNESS of Shaun Hill, he has a better TD to INT ratio which is probably the most important stat of them all and while I only read the first post and decided to respond, anyone here (49ers fan or not) who thinks we should draft a QB at 10 is a whopping ******* moron and doesnt know ****.

D-Unit
03-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Prediction -

ROMO will be a huge disappointment in 2009 without T.O. and now that the scapegoat is gone, Romo will have no one to blame for all his INT's but himself.

And while everyone makes T.O. the bad guy, it was Romo (not T.O.) who decided that going on a sex romp vacation with Jessica Simpson was more important than focusing on what gave him the money and fame to be with her in the first damn place - football.

Everyone blames T.O. but he wasnt the only problem with the Cowboys. It starts with the owner, wimpy head coach, a crappy OC who's overrated, a QB who doesnt even care and who's overrated as well and a team that couldnt come together if their lives depended on it.

Cowboys will be 6-10 in 2009 at best. Book it.

As for the GREATNESS of Shaun Hill, he has a better TD to INT ratio which is probably the most important stat of them all and while I only read the first post and decided to respond, anyone here (49ers fan or not) who thinks we should draft a QB at 10 is a whopping ******* moron and doesnt know ****.
This is just a rant. Where's the substance?

DHVF
03-11-2009, 02:50 PM
This is just a rant. Where's the substance?
He's hiding it. And you don't wanna know where.

dan77733
03-11-2009, 02:54 PM
This is just a rant. Where's the substance?

Rant??? Somewhat but at the same time, what I said is true.

You cant tell me that you werent pissed when Romo thought that going on a vaction with Simpson was good for the team who just went 13-3 and was EXPECTED to get to the SB and even win it???

Everyone blames T.O. for everything while amazingly, everyone else gets a free pass. Its such crap. Accountabilty has to be for everyone, not just the guy who's the easy target.

TimD
03-11-2009, 02:56 PM
Back up your "truth"

MarioPalmer
03-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Wow, are we really doing this?

This comparison is EPIC FAIL

LonghornsLegend
03-11-2009, 05:36 PM
Rant??? Somewhat but at the same time, what I said is true.

You cant tell me that you werent pissed when Romo thought that going on a vaction with Simpson was good for the team who just went 13-3 and was EXPECTED to get to the SB and even win it???

Everyone blames T.O. for everything while amazingly, everyone else gets a free pass. Its such crap. Accountabilty has to be for everyone, not just the guy who's the easy target.



This post just makes very little sense.


What do you mean everyone else gets a free pass? So what did you expect, the team to release Romo? Should he be traded? Romo catches flack for so much crap that goes on it's not even funny, TO was cut because it was CLEAR his relationship with Garrett was finished and him and Romo are not on the same page anymore, point blank.


TO didn't get cut because it was his fault for everything last year, not one person is even acting like that's the case except for all of you guys claiming that...I'd love to know who other then a few people on this board(like yourself), and ESPN, has made it seem like TO was the entire problem last year with EVERYTHING that went on as you claim.


The rest of your post is just ignorant, we lost Romo for what, 4 games last year and won 9 games, so you want to tell me because we lose TO we win 6 :rolleyes: I usually ignore post like that but yours was just too ignorant to not comment.



Also, who would you rather have for the 49ers, Shaun Hill, or overrated Tony Romo?

D-Unit
03-11-2009, 05:44 PM
Rant??? Somewhat but at the same time, what I said is true.

You cant tell me that you werent pissed when Romo thought that going on a vaction with Simpson was good for the team who just went 13-3 and was EXPECTED to get to the SB and even win it???

Everyone blames T.O. for everything while amazingly, everyone else gets a free pass. Its such crap. Accountabilty has to be for everyone, not just the guy who's the easy target.
Sure it was the worst decision he has made so far in his young career.

But guess what... Did you hear anything at all about Jessica Simpson this last season? Anything at all???

The answer is no, because Tony put the clamps on it and made sure she would no longer be gossiped as part of any problems related to the Cowboys. Boy grew up pretty fast and learned that lesson real quick.

I never blamed TO for ruining the lockerroom. In fact, I did quite the opposite. So I agree with you that he was used as the scapegoat. But now this conversation is so far driven from where it started...

..but I guess that's what happens when people start to lose the debate. ;)

Chief49er
03-11-2009, 06:35 PM
Wow, are we really doing this?

This comparison is EPIC FAIL

Why is this an epic fail?

Brent
03-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Haha, who let Dan out of the Niners forum? Oh Dan, we all love you haha.

abaddon41_80
03-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I really wish I hadn't started this thread now. No one is even talking about what the thread was originally about anymore.

CJSchneider
03-11-2009, 08:13 PM
What would a football forum be without a thread that has 49er and Cowboy fans arguing.

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/magazine/01/09/flashback.49ers.gold/p1_clark.jpg


http://cowboys.beloblog.com/NS_24Boys7.jpg


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/johnfromphilly/Sports_SeahawksVsCowboys2.jpg

/argument

Chucky
03-11-2009, 08:20 PM
What would a football forum be without a thread that has 49er and Cowboy fans arguing.

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/magazine/01/09/flashback.49ers.gold/p1_clark.jpg


http://cowboys.beloblog.com/NS_24Boys7.jpg


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/johnfromphilly/Sports_SeahawksVsCowboys2.jpg

/argument

/trolling (10)

Borat
03-11-2009, 08:47 PM
Dan, get back in your cage. LOL.

D-Unit
03-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Dan, get back in your cage. LOL.
:p hahahahaa... You guys are hilarious. :D

Brent
03-11-2009, 10:59 PM
:p hahahahaa... You guys are hilarious. :D
Those of us in the Niners forum regard Dan with a certain love/hate relationship. He's very opinionated but we like him any way, even if we dont always/ever agree with him.

MetSox17
03-11-2009, 11:31 PM
Those of us in the Niners forum regard Dan with a certain love/hate relationship. He's very opinionated but we like him any way, even if we dont always/ever agree with him.

We have a guy like that in the Cowboys forum. His name is bob. Except everyone always hates him.

Menardo75
03-11-2009, 11:39 PM
Those of us in the Niners forum regard Dan with a certain love/hate relationship. He's very opinionated but we like him any way, even if we dont always/ever agree with him.

I hate him about 98% of the time roughly.

dan77733
03-12-2009, 12:47 AM
This post just makes very little sense.

What do you mean everyone else gets a free pass? So what did you expect, the team to release Romo? Should he be traded? Romo catches flack for so much crap that goes on it's not even funny, TO was cut because it was CLEAR his relationship with Garrett was finished and him and Romo are not on the same page anymore, point blank.

TO didn't get cut because it was his fault for everything last year, not one person is even acting like that's the case except for all of you guys claiming that...I'd love to know who other then a few people on this board(like yourself), and ESPN, has made it seem like TO was the entire problem last year with EVERYTHING that went on as you claim.

The rest of your post is just ignorant, we lost Romo for what, 4 games last year and won 9 games, so you want to tell me because we lose TO we win 6 :rolleyes: I usually ignore post like that but yours was just too ignorant to not comment.

Also, who would you rather have for the 49ers, Shaun Hill, or overrated Tony Romo?

I wouldnt release Romo or T.O. Look at McNabb, his best season in his career came in 2004 when he had T.O. Romo's best season was in 2007 when he had T.O. McNabb is a good QB but no longer great. Romo was on the verge of being great but his horrible play in December and January (which matters more than the previous three months combined) showed that he wasnt very good. Garrett is OVERRATED. He had a great 2007 but teams adjusted to him but he didnt re-adjust which is why the offense wasnt as good as it was in 2007. And Roy Williams??? He's going to be your new number one guy without T.O.??? He didnt do a damn thing with T.O. opposite him but he's expected to do great with Crayton opposite him. Good luck with that.

T.O. wasnt the ENTIRE problem with the Cowboys but he was the only player used as the scapegoat. Thats the difference. You win only 6 games in 2009 because the threat you have on offense is gone. Witten is your biggest threat but without T.O., teams will focus on Witten now and Roy Williams??? Again, good luck with that.

But we'll see, my prediction remains the same at 6 - 10. Copy and paste, print it, photo copy it or whatever you want to do but mark my words, when this happens and I post in less than a year from now, laughing my ass off, you'll all look like the biggest marks ever and to make matters even worse, Shaun Hill will have better stats and more wins than Romo. LOL.

And here's something else that amazingly, no one else realizes - T.O. only gets pissed or goes nuts when he loses. Ever see him get pissed when the team is winning??? No, you dont because unlike Romo and others who only care about getting paid (and laid), T.O. actually wants and plays to win which last time I checked is what everyone is supposed to do except for the Lions of course but thats a different story for a different time. There's too many players, coaches, etc. that just shrug off losing and dont really care because they already have millions of dollars so they figure, no big deal.

As for who I would rather have - thats easy. Shaun Hill and here's why - unlike Romo (who said it himself in a radio interview or some crap like that), Hill watches tape, works hard and actually cares. He shows confidence, poise and determination. Just look at the Rams game where Hill was horrible for 55 minutes but pulled out one hell of a comeback win where as if that was Romo, he would have folded like an idiot playing poker who thought he was playing blackjack. When things are gong great for Romo, he's all smiles but when things go bad, he's a ******* sourpuss who doesnt even try to do anything about it. He basically just goes with the flow and sorry, I would never ever want a QB (or any player for that matter) that just goes with the flow. I rather have a player that creates the flow instead of just going with it but thats just me.

dan77733
03-12-2009, 12:53 AM
Sure it was the worst decision he has made so far in his young career.

But guess what... Did you hear anything at all about Jessica Simpson this last season? Anything at all???

The answer is no, because Tony put the clamps on it and made sure she would no longer be gossiped as part of any problems related to the Cowboys. Boy grew up pretty fast and learned that lesson real quick.

I never blamed TO for ruining the lockerroom. In fact, I did quite the opposite. So I agree with you that he was used as the scapegoat. But now this conversation is so far driven from where it started...

..but I guess that's what happens when people start to lose the debate. ;)

When DAL goes 6-10, we'll see if I still lost this debate. As for not hearing anything about Simpson this season, why would you? DAL was an average team throughout the season limping along and having chance after chance and not doing a damn thing. If I was her, I would have stayed away too.

As far as Romo learning from his mistake, you're supposed to learn BEFORE you make mistakes and thus, avoid them from happening to begin with. A bum on the street could have had the situation explained to him and even he would have said that Romo's first and only priority at the time should have been the playoff game, not Jessica Simpson. Of course, that just common sense at least to me anyway.

Too bad other people in general dont have common sense.

dan77733
03-12-2009, 12:54 AM
I hate him about 98% of the time roughly.

Thats it??? I guess I have to decrease my percentage by 2%. Oh well.

LonghornsLegend
03-12-2009, 12:54 AM
As for who I would rather have - thats easy. Shaun Hill and here's why - unlike Romo (who said it himself in a radio interview or some crap like that), Hill watches tape, works hard and actually cares.


LOL, I should of just stopped reading there, but hey those are 3 great reasons you came up with:rolleyes:



He shows confidence, poise and determination. Just look at the Rams game where Hill was horrible for 55 minutes but pulled out one hell of a comeback win where as if that was Romo, he would have folded like an idiot playing poker who thought he was playing blackjack.


I know right, probably just like the Buffalo game last year, oh wait...Or probably like the Baltimore game this year when our pathetic defense kept giving up 80 yd TD runs and he kept driving us down to put points on the board right?



Oakland, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Denver, Kansas City are all on the schedule next year, so we just win one division game huh and lose the rest of the OOD games? LMAO ok buddy.[

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 01:42 AM
When DAL goes 6-10, we'll see if I still lost this debate. As for not hearing anything about Simpson this season, why would you? DAL was an average team throughout the season limping along and having chance after chance and not doing a damn thing. If I was her, I would have stayed away too.

As far as Romo learning from his mistake, you're supposed to learn BEFORE you make mistakes and thus, avoid them from happening to begin with. A bum on the street could have had the situation explained to him and even he would have said that Romo's first and only priority at the time should have been the playoff game, not Jessica Simpson. Of course, that just common sense at least to me anyway.

Too bad other people in general dont have common sense.
I never would've guessed that this thread had so much potential. I have enjoyed the back and forth conversations.

You know what's so weak about your rant... It's March and you're already predicting the Cowboys record for next year... We all know this conversation is forgettable. I'm not gonna remember this. You're not gonna remember this. Nobody is gonna remember that dan7777 said the Cowboys are going to go 6-10. You're not that memorable buddy. So you can blah blah blah all you want. Like I said earlier... Where's the substance?

Your reasoning for why Jessica wasn't around makes you sound like a child. Do you really believe what you said? That she wasn't around because Dallas was an average team who failed to capitalize on so many damn chances? I'm laughing histerically because you feel that way. You think her tie to Dallas is being a fan. hahahahahahha.

Do you mind if I change your forum name to Mr. Perfect? I mean it's harmless fun, but would you? Since obviously you never make ANY mistakes. You avoid them BEFORE they happen because you're so perfect! This is so great!!! :D

http://thedirtsheet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mr-perfect.jpg

Damn that Tony Romo... what a Mistake Prone Bafoon!!!

El Peefs?????
03-12-2009, 02:54 AM
D, I agree with the part where you posted the mr Perfect picture. Mr Perfect. Indeed.

YAYareaRB
03-12-2009, 09:54 AM
Do you mind if I change your forum name to Mr. Perfect?!!

Can you change my name to Mr. Perfect?

635
03-12-2009, 09:56 AM
Tony Romo is light years ahead of Shaun Hill in terms of Physical capabilities and actual production...Romo has had Excellent seasons throwing the ball these last two years, 35 TDS in 07, and 26 in 13 games this year....

abaddon41_80
03-12-2009, 10:07 AM
Tony Romo is light years ahead of Shaun Hill in terms of Physical capabilities and actual production...Romo has had Excellent seasons throwing the ball these last two years, 35 TDS in 07, and 26 in 13 games this year....

Didn't read the first post, did you?

635
03-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Didn't read the first post, did you?

I did, and It is moot as hell....

Comparing two player's first 10 starts and then saying that they are on teh same level based on that is idiotic. Since those 10 starts, Romo has thrown for 65 TDs in 31 games..


Romo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shaun Hill

abaddon41_80
03-12-2009, 10:18 AM
I did, and It is moot as hell....

Comparing two player's first 10 starts and then saying that they are on teh same level based on that is idiotic. Since those 10 starts, Romo has thrown for 65 TDs in 31 games..


Romo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shaun Hill

*Sigh* No one said they are on the same level. At this point Romo is better than Hill. The point was that through their first 10 starts Hill was better than Romo yet he is written off while Romo was praised as a 'franchise' QB after the 2006 season.

CJSchneider
03-12-2009, 10:37 AM
Romo -

Games
61

TD's
81

INT's
46

TD-INT ratio
1.76 - 1

TD per game
1.32

INT per game
.75

Hill -

Games
13

TD's
18

INT's
9

TD-INT ratio
2 - 1

TD per game
1.38

INT per game
.69


Again, I'm gonna go on record and say statistically, they are fairly comparable. Granted, I'm just looking at numbers, but given the numbers Hill deserves some credit. Can a long term comparison be made off of 10 games? No, it can't. Does Hill deserve to be a starter, yes, he does. Is Hill a Elite or Franchise QB - if you call Romo one, and Hill's eventual numbers stand up to Romo's then yes, you have grounds for calling him one.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-12-2009, 11:15 AM
How is this thread still alive? Who would have thought a comparison between Hill and Romo would get so many pages of answers?

635
03-12-2009, 11:41 AM
Romo has a much larger Sample of games, so his ratios won't be as clean as Shaun Hill's in terms of INTs and TDs ratios....

Menardo75
03-12-2009, 11:45 AM
I am really glad Dan took my advice and when public :)

CJSchneider
03-12-2009, 12:28 PM
Romo has a much larger Sample of games, so his ratios won't be as clean as Shaun Hill's in terms of INTs and TDs ratios....

If anything, Romo's stats are "cleaner" because he has more data-points to examine. That's just something I learned in my Statistics and Data Analysis class while working on my Master's Degree. Thought I'd share.

phlysac
03-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Romo has a much larger Sample of games, so his ratios won't be as clean as Shaun Hill's in terms of INTs and TDs ratios....

That's why the author of this thread is frustrated. His comparison was between Hill and Romo after 10 games.

Everyone seems to ignore that and tries to compare them now which is ridiculous.

IndyColtScout
03-12-2009, 01:42 PM
Romo has weapons.
Shaun Hill has to work with less.
Trent Cole will own them.

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 02:15 PM
Romo has weapons.
Shaun Hill has to work with less.
Trent Cole will own them.
The discussion is relating the 2 QBs after 10 games. God forbid we start comparing them after 11 games... that would throw everything outta wack! LOL.

But that season, I would argue that Hill had better weapons than Romo. Romo had Julius Jones. Hill had Frank Gore. Romo had 2 old farts in Keyshawn and Terry Glenn and Dan Campbell was the starting TE. Hill had Isaac Bruce and a young core of WRs, but Vernon Davis at TE. Hill's OL is definitely better. Dallas had Flozell, a washed up Larry Allen, Al Johnson (Gurode was at Guard) and Rob Petitti at RT. That's a crap OL.

So who really had better weapons???

CJSchneider
03-12-2009, 02:20 PM
55 sacks D-Unit. That number was the bane of my season last year. You really have a tough point to make if you want to argue O-lines. As for the "young corps" of 49ers receivers, all I'm willing to say about them at present is that they are in fact, young.

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 02:37 PM
55 sacks D-Unit. That number was the bane of my season last year. You really have a tough point to make if you want to argue O-lines. As for the "young corps" of 49ers receivers, all I'm willing to say about them at present is that they are in fact, young.
Sacks is a misleading indicator. If Drew Bledsoe remained the QB that season, he would've easily broke that 55 sack mark. Fortunately, Romo has wheels. A credit to him that Hill doesn't have.

Menardo75
03-12-2009, 02:45 PM
Sacks is a misleading indicator. If Drew Bledsoe remained the QB that season, he would've easily broke that 55 sack mark. Fortunately, Romo has wheels. A credit to him that Hill doesn't have.

I watched every game TRUST ME the o-line really struggled.

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 02:51 PM
I watched every game TRUST ME the o-line really struggled.
Well, they couldn't be worse than Dallas at the time. I call it a wash... and thus, the opinion that Romo had more weapons is a weak and inaccurate point.

phlysac
03-12-2009, 02:53 PM
The discussion is relating the 2 QBs after 10 games. God forbid we start comparing them after 11 games... that would throw everything outta wack! LOL.

But that season, I would argue that Hill had better weapons than Romo. Romo had Julius Jones. Hill had Frank Gore. Romo had 2 old farts in Keyshawn and Terry Glenn and Dan Campbell was the starting TE. Hill had Isaac Bruce and a young core of WRs, but Vernon Davis at TE. Hill's OL is definitely better. Dallas had Flozell, a washed up Larry Allen, Al Johnson (Gurode was at Guard) and Rob Petitti at RT. That's a crap OL.
So who really had better weapons???

Huh?

Romo's first 10 starts were in 2006. The Cowboys roster in 2006 included...

QB - Romo
RB - Julius Jones
WR - Terrell Owens, Patrick Crayton, Terry Glenn
TE - Jason Witten
OL - Flozell Adams, Marc Colombo, Andre Gurode, Marco Rivera, Kyle Kosier

Larry Allen wasn't a member of the 2006 Cowboys, he was "washed up" as an OG for Shaun Hill's first 2 games. Al Johnson and Rob Pettiti? Not in 2006. Dan Campbell? Nope, Jason Witten. You neglect to mention TO as a "weapon" but claim that Keyshawn Johnson and Terry Glenn were "old farts". Johnson didn't play for the 2006 Cowboys and Glenn was 4 years younger in 2006 then Bruce was for Hill in SF.

I'm not a fan of this comparison to begin with but if you're going to make the "weapons" argument, at least do it accurately.

dan77733
03-12-2009, 03:09 PM
The discussion is relating the 2 QBs after 10 games. God forbid we start comparing them after 11 games... that would throw everything outta wack! LOL.

But that season, I would argue that Hill had better weapons than Romo. Romo had Julius Jones. Hill had Frank Gore. Romo had 2 old farts in Keyshawn and Terry Glenn and Dan Campbell was the starting TE. Hill had Isaac Bruce and a young core of WRs, but Vernon Davis at TE. Hill's OL is definitely better. Dallas had Flozell, a washed up Larry Allen, Al Johnson (Gurode was at Guard) and Rob Petitti at RT. That's a crap OL.

So who really had better weapons???

WOW!!!

I huge Cowboys fan doesnt even know who the hell the starters were for Romo when he became a starter in mid 2006. Meshawn was long gone, T.O. was pissed with Bledsoe and Campbell was in DET or some crap.

And you're calling me stupid??? You dont even know your own damn team. And Hill didnt get a chance until the end of 2007 and should have been the starter going into 2008 but Martz and Nolan screwed him over in favor Sullivan.

dan77733
03-12-2009, 03:10 PM
Phylsac beat me to it and Cowboys fans are bashing me??? They DONT even know their OWN damn team!!! How ******* sad and pathetic is that??? Answer - VERY.

And compared to you, im definitely perfect but there's no reason to bring in one of the best technical wrestlers of all time and one of my all time favorites in Mr. Perfect Curt Hennig.

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 04:05 PM
Huh?

Romo's first 10 starts were in 2006. The Cowboys roster in 2006 included...

QB - Romo
RB - Julius Jones
WR - Terrell Owens, Patrick Crayton, Terry Glenn
TE - Jason Witten
OL - Flozell Adams, Marc Colombo, Andre Gurode, Marco Rivera, Kyle Kosier

Larry Allen wasn't a member of the 2006 Cowboys, he was "washed up" as an OG for Shaun Hill's first 2 games. Al Johnson and Rob Pettiti? Not in 2006. Dan Campbell? Nope, Jason Witten. You neglect to mention TO as a "weapon" but claim that Keyshawn Johnson and Terry Glenn were "old farts". Johnson didn't play for the 2006 Cowboys and Glenn was 4 years younger in 2006 then Bruce was for Hill in SF.

I'm not a fan of this comparison to begin with but if you're going to make the "weapons" argument, at least do it accurately.
Are you sure? :) Ok, so I was typing off the fly of my pants. I should've looked it up but was too lazy. And no, I don't memorize the yearly rosters, especially the ones 3 years back. Nice retort. Props to ya.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:20 PM
Well, they couldn't be worse than Dallas at the time. I call it a wash... and thus, the opinion that Romo had more weapons is a weak and inaccurate point.

Is it just me or do Cowboys fans always talk about how talented their team is but then when you're talking about a specific player, they always bring up the fact that they have a bad supporting cast?

MetSox17
03-12-2009, 04:28 PM
Is it just me or do Cowboys fans always talk about how talented their team is but then when you're talking about a specific player, they always bring up the fact that they have a bad supporting cast?

Is it just me or do you have a habit of making irrational and dumb generalizations over a certain group of "fans"?

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:29 PM
Is it just me or do you have a habit of making irrational and dumb generalizations over a certain group of "fans"?

Looks like I hit a chord. :rolleyes:

I thought Patrick Crayton was a great WR? Not a good enough target for Romo? Weren't people trying to argue the Cowboys had one of the best receiving corps in the league with Witten, Owens, Crayton, etc?

MetSox17
03-12-2009, 04:33 PM
Looks like I hit a chord. :rolleyes:

I thought Patrick Crayton was a great WR? Not a good enough target for Romo? Weren't people trying to argue the Cowboys had one of the best receiving corps in the league with Witten, Owens, Crayton, etc?

When someone says something as stupid as you did, you're not gonna get very positive responses.

Who said Patrick Crayton was a great WR? If i remember correctly, the only WR discussion we've had in this forum over the past year has been whether we have a better receiving corps in comparison to the Philadelphia Eagles.

Brent
03-12-2009, 04:36 PM
When someone says something as stupid as you did, you're not gonna get very positive responses.

Who said Patrick Crayton was a great WR? If i remember correctly, the only WR discussion we've had in this forum over the past year has been whether we have a better receiving corps in comparison to the Philadelphia Eagles.
I remember at some point people made the argument that the Cowboys didnt need a better #2 because they had Crayton. I think that was going into this past season.

MetSox17
03-12-2009, 04:38 PM
I remember at some point people made the argument that the Cowboys didnt need a better #2 because they had Crayton. I think that was going into this past season.

I do recall that, i wasn't an avid poster at that point though. I'm pretty sure that was DMW that made that thread.

LonghornsLegend
03-12-2009, 04:41 PM
I do recall that, i wasn't an avid poster at that point though. I'm pretty sure that was DMW that made that thread.

Probably, DMW is a great poster but he gets carried away sometimes...I still remember him saying we had potential for the best secondary this decade lol.


You can always count on him making one or 2 Cowboy threads mid-season that basically say "how you like us now", that get bumped up at the end of the season to get flamed lol.

MetSox17
03-12-2009, 04:45 PM
Probably, DMW is a great poster but he gets carried away sometimes...I still remember him saying we had potential for the best secondary this decade lol.


You can always count on him making one or 2 Cowboy threads mid-season that basically say "how you like us now", that get bumped up at the end of the season to get flamed lol.

Lol yeah, that's a pretty good assessment of him. I think as Cowboys fans, we've learned to quietly go about our business, seeing as everyone is out, looking for stuff to throw back in our faces. DMW sometimes doesn't care though, haha.

abaddon41_80
03-12-2009, 05:16 PM
I really can't believe this is still going :eek:

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 05:32 PM
WOW!!!

I huge Cowboys fan doesnt even know who the hell the starters were for Romo when he became a starter in mid 2006. Meshawn was long gone, T.O. was pissed with Bledsoe and Campbell was in DET or some crap.

And you're calling me stupid??? You dont even know your own damn team. And Hill didnt get a chance until the end of 2007 and should have been the starter going into 2008 but Martz and Nolan screwed him over in favor Sullivan.
Haha. Calm down your excitement. You can't even speak/type proper grammar. "I huge Cowboys fan"... lol. You're too easily riled up. If you can recite the 9ers roster from '06 off the top of your head, then you're a better fan than me. ...and good for you.

...and no, I have never called you stupid. Just perfect.

D-Unit
03-12-2009, 05:34 PM
Phylsac beat me to it and Cowboys fans are bashing me??? They DONT even know their OWN damn team!!! How ******* sad and pathetic is that??? Answer - VERY.

And compared to you, im definitely perfect but there's no reason to bring in one of the best technical wrestlers of all time and one of my all time favorites in Mr. Perfect Curt Hennig.
Can I change your name to Mr. Perfect then? If I can, then I won't infract you for the personal attack.

head cowboys fan
03-13-2009, 02:54 PM
Romo is a top 5 quarterback in the league!!!

1. Peyton
2. Brady
3. Brees
4. Big Ben
5. Romo

you guys obviously havent seen romo play if dont think he's top 5!!! the guy dominates every sunday, he's like a younger BRETT FAVRE! media just hates on him cuz hes a cowboy!!

shaun hill sucks. he doesnt even deserve to be a starter in the nfl! how can you even compare them!?!?

YAYareaRB
03-13-2009, 07:00 PM
Romo is a top 5 quarterback in the league!!!

shaun hill sucks.

I think we already established that..