Skip to content

The forgotten five: Teams with no primetime games

C.Johnson-1 AP

The Lions and their fans are fired up to have their first Monday Night Football game in a decade.

On the other side of things: Fans of the five NFL teams that didn’t get a single primetime game, subject to change if any of them got flexed into a late Sunday night game.

As pointed out by ESPN’s Paul Kuharsky, here’s the list of five teams with no national night games: Tennessee, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Arizona, and Carolina.

The list points out how fleeting success and attention can be in the NFL.  The Titans and Panthers both had byes in the playoffs that started in 2009.  The Cardinals were in the Super Bowl that year, and they were in the playoffs the following year.   The Bengals were the AFC North champs a season ago.

The list of five teams has one more thing in common, with apologies to Ryan Fitzpatrick:  They all have unsettled quarterback situations.

The great thing about the NFL is that you are always only one year away from relevance.  The Rams and Bucs were both forgotten franchises at this time a year ago, and they each have two primetime games this season.

Permalink 68 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers, Cincinnati Bengals, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Titans, Top Stories
68 Responses to “The forgotten five: Teams with no primetime games”
  1. chatham10 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:11 AM

    I would not want a prime time game to show off our replacement players

  2. detroitkitty says: Apr 20, 2011 10:11 AM

    I think Buffalo is actually a pretty decent team and has some potential this year and it’s a shame they won’t be in a game I can watch. Strong running game, decent receivers and say what you want but I think Fitzpatrick is pretty good.

    I think they’re about a year behind my Lions (who on Buffalo’s defense scares anyone?) but I don’t mind watching them.

  3. frogmantm says: Apr 20, 2011 10:12 AM

    “The great thing about the NFL is that you are always only one year away from relevance. The Rams and Bucs were both forgotten franchises at this time a year ago, and they each have two primetime games this season.”

    Unless you are the Cowboys. You get primetime games even when you stink…

  4. Kaz says: Apr 20, 2011 10:18 AM

    Let us fly under the radar. I like it… Looks like Cam won’t be getting no national exposure this year. His entertaining and icon status will have to wait until the nation can see him in 2012.

  5. kratos7002 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:20 AM

    I know this one of this teams will make it to. Conference or super bowl. Write this down on stone.

  6. vikescry1 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:20 AM

    well when these teams start to win some games maybe they’ll get rewarded. coach harder play harder.

  7. stratiscloud says: Apr 20, 2011 10:21 AM

    Fitzmagic to Stevie Styles and David Nelson all day baby.

  8. wiley16350 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:21 AM

    It’s a lock, at least one of those teams will make the playoffs next year. It happens every year. So fans of these teams have something to look forward to.

  9. hoobsher says: Apr 20, 2011 10:22 AM

    except the rams and buccs all had potential….these teams simply have nothing, and whatever they do have is either too old to last or not good enough to improve the team.

  10. krow101 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:25 AM

    Also known as the 5 very lucky teams. I wish my team had no prime time games.

  11. flapjackdaddy says: Apr 20, 2011 10:30 AM

    Yet the whole country has to watch Romo try to choke every week?

  12. nabz034 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:32 AM

    Tennessee, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Arizona, and Carolina.

    They were the most boring teams to watch on prime time anyway so who cares. The NFL finally did something right.

  13. nolanorth says: Apr 20, 2011 10:33 AM

    With criteria like that, I can think of several other teams that shouldn’t be in prime time!!

    Vikings, browns, skins, dolphins etc.. (falcons also, mainly bc they just suck WHO DAT)

    But I say they all should get one game just for fielding a team!

  14. jmorand47 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:35 AM

    ….and the Cowboys have 6. It’s no wonder people hate them so much. They force feed us that crap.

  15. frostbelt says: Apr 20, 2011 10:39 AM

    I thought at least BUFFALO would get a primetime game. This team nearly beat Pittsburgh, Chicago, Baltimore, and New England in 2010

    I hope the Bills shut people up in 2011

  16. superbowlseahawks says: Apr 20, 2011 10:42 AM

    kratos7002 says:
    Apr 20, 2011 10:20 AM
    I know this one of this teams will make it to. Conference or super bowl. Write this down on stone.

    Y u don’t no how speak no English?!?

  17. whitetail28 says: Apr 20, 2011 10:48 AM

    Not a Lions fan but pretty damn excited to see them on Monday night!! Good for them!!

  18. chapnastier says: Apr 20, 2011 10:53 AM

    Cowboys have been to the most superbowls and have one just one less than the Steelers. What you haters always fail to realize is that they built up their popularity through a history of dominance. I understand that Jerry has squashed them every year but anyone who says Dallas doesn’t deserve prime time games due to the number of viewers is just wrong.

  19. EJ says: Apr 20, 2011 10:54 AM

    detroitkitty says:
    Apr 20, 2011 10:11 AM
    I think Buffalo is actually a pretty decent team and has some potential this year and it’s a shame they won’t be in a game I can watch. Strong running game, decent receivers and say what you want but I think Fitzpatrick is pretty good.

    I think they’re about a year behind my Lions (who on Buffalo’s defense scares anyone?) but I don’t mind watching them.

    Thank You.

  20. whathappenedtovox says: Apr 20, 2011 10:54 AM

    It’s funny how a team like Tennessee, with one of the best players in the entire league (Chris Johnson), that was looking like a serious contender in the AFC around Week 7 last season gets no prime-time games, and Dallas, who was an outright disaster on every level last season gets FIVE. $$$ will always rule.

  21. pheagles says: Apr 20, 2011 10:55 AM

    If any of these teams has a great start they could still play a prime time game. A Sunday night flex game- or making it to the superbowl.
    Or there’s always next year.

  22. bmwaldrop says: Apr 20, 2011 10:58 AM

    As a Dolphins fan, it pains me to say this. But unless we find a running game and a QB(whether it’s Henne or someone else), we will probably be in last place next year. Not that we will be a horrible team, but the Pats and Jets are both good teams. And Buffalo can do some damage.

  23. TxGrown says: Apr 20, 2011 11:09 AM

    frostbelt says:
    I hope the Bills shut people up in 2011
    ——————————————————————
    Not a Bills fan in the least. But I hope they do too.

  24. 4ever19 says: Apr 20, 2011 11:10 AM

    Does Monday night even count as primetime any more since it is on cable? In my mind, it doesn’t.

  25. dolphin80 says: Apr 20, 2011 11:18 AM

    With no season confirmed right now, who cares? The title of this article should just read “The Forgotten 32.”

  26. dickroy says: Apr 20, 2011 11:19 AM

    The Vikings only got prime time because of their rivalry with the Packers. The Browns with the Steelers and the Skins with the Cowboys.

  27. fcmlefty1 says: Apr 20, 2011 11:19 AM

    I’m of the belief that every team should be on prime time at least once per season, just so all 32 clubs get some kind of exposure. Each team has at least one headlining type of player. Just schedule division games for the perceived weaker teams, as divisional games are, for the most part, closer, harder fought games in “mismatch” scenrios than non-division games, and usually carry some kind of storyline.

  28. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 11:22 AM

    Yet the whole country has to watch Romo try to choke every week?

    ————————————————-

    Dude, Romo is .629 as a starter in the NFL! Go pick on some first round picks that haven’t done that well (like Cutler, Boller, Stafford, Carr, E. Manning, Pennington, Sanchez, Vick, and Smith), or something. If you’re going to slam the guy at least come up with something good!

  29. smacklayer says: Apr 20, 2011 11:23 AM

    I hate the Cowboys as much as the rest of you, but the fact is that they get ratings. And this is all about ratings. NFL and networks get much more money from advertisers for a Dallas Giants game compared to a Carolina Tampa Bay game. As usual, just follow the money.

    This is also why they have flex scheduling, so just in case Carolina goes 10-0 and the Bills go 10-0 then they will move that contest to prime time. NFL is not stupid.

  30. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 11:24 AM

    It’s funny how a team like Tennessee, with one of the best players in the entire league (Chris Johnson), that was looking like a serious contender in the AFC around Week 7 last season gets no prime-time games, and Dallas, who was an outright disaster on every level last season gets FIVE. $$$ will always rule.

    —————————————————-

    Just be happy that the Eagles got 5, seems the only time they’re any good is when the Cowboys and Giants are having a down season.

  31. rukiddnme29 says: Apr 20, 2011 11:26 AM

    Every year the NFL schedule makers that be think they are smarter than they are and every year we end up having to watch lopsided games. Also, there is nothing like watching two non-playoff teams battling it out for nothing at the end of the season.

    I say they just do it lottery style.

  32. whathappenedtovox says: Apr 20, 2011 11:27 AM

    chapnastier says: Apr 20, 2011 10:53 AM

    Cowboys have been to the most superbowls and have one just one less than the Steelers. What you haters always fail to realize is that they built up their popularity through a history of dominance.
    _________________________________

    Count me among the folks that like that the Cowboys are on primetime a lot. I’m an Eagles fan, so at the very least it gives me a rooting interest (rooting against the Cowboys, of course). I’d rather watch two garbage teams like Cowboys-Redskins, than say… Jags vs. Titans, but only because they’re division rivals. But if you can’t understand why people are miffed that the Cowboys continually get over-exposure despite only having one freaking playoff win in 13 years and a 6-10 record last season (1-5 WITH ROMO), then I have to question your common sense.

  33. rukiddnme29 says: Apr 20, 2011 11:28 AM

    One more thing. Yes, I think they should keep at least the last 3 weeks open to winning teams.

  34. dickroy says: Apr 20, 2011 11:54 AM

    The rule that exist that a home team in that area has to be shown every game. I would like to see that rule exist that if the home team is not playing or was on at a different time, then a game with a team in their division has to be shown. The fans in that area would have more interest in games within their own division.

    For example if the Bengals were playing a non division team at 1:00. Say the Browns were playing the Ravens at 4:00. That game should be shown in that area, instead of Dallas vs Arizona.

  35. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 11:54 AM

    From Variety.com:

    “They call the Dallas Cowboys “America’s Team” for a reason: Whenever they’re on, America tunes in.”

    ESPN:

    “It’s not about victories and virtues. The subject of debate is which NFL team most captures the country’s fascination. That’s the Dallas Cowboys. That is clear, judging by tangible measures of popularity such as television ratings and franchise values.”

    AP report:

    “Although Jerry Jones calls this season “a huge disappointment” for his Dallas Cowboys, it sure hasn’t hurt the bottom line. Based on attendance, television ratings and merchandise sales, the blue star on the shiny silver helmet remains the gold standard in the NFL and perhaps all of pro sports.
    It’s hardly even close. Love them or hate them, everyone pays attention to the Cowboys, in good times and bad. Their enduring popularity in a season that opened with visions of becoming the first team to play in the Super Bowl at home, then cratered midway through when they were 1-7 and fired their coach, proves that no matter the circumstance this franchise remains “America’s Team.””

    The Cowboys are such a ratings magnet that “60 Minutes” drew its most viewers of the season to that point (17.6 million) the night it featured a segment on Jerry Jones. How many other owners would even get a “60 Minutes” segment? Across all networks, six of the 14 most-watched NFL games this season have involved the Cowboys.

    +++

    “I don’t know of any other team that would’ve gone through what they went through and provided the ratings punch the Cowboys did. Dallas is way on top of the mountain. You can never go wrong having the Dallas Cowboys on. John Madden used to have a saying, ‘When in doubt, the Cowboys.’ I think that still holds true.” – Fred Gaudelli, producer of “Sunday Night Football”

  36. theroc5156 says: Apr 20, 2011 12:06 PM

    The reason the Bengals aren’t on primetime is because Mike Brown is too cheap to pay for the lighting costs.

    Anyway, I love the fact that by 4pm (or in most cases, by 2:30pm around halftime), I know the outcome of the Bengal game and can get on with my misery earlier. Why wait?

  37. jnbnet says: Apr 20, 2011 12:07 PM

    The great thing about the NFL is that you are always only one year away from relevance.
    ————————————————————
    That is because of the salery cap and the draft order. Also, there is an up-side to teams with no prime time games. They have no short weeks to deal with. Ask any coach and they will tell you that they would like to play every game on sunday afternoon.

  38. thefiesty1 says: Apr 20, 2011 12:11 PM

    Prime time games are to showcase talent. Those five teams have very little to showcase. It’s about TV ratings and the powers that be don’t want those teams dropping the ratings.

    But, Detroit on MNF? Why? It’s bad enough they are on Thanksgiving every year.

  39. rudedog36 says: Apr 20, 2011 12:35 PM

    Americas Team…. The team America loves to hate!

  40. realdeal12 says: Apr 20, 2011 12:39 PM

    frogmantm says: Apr 20, 2011 10:12 AM

    “Unless you are the Cowboys. You get primetime games even when you stink…”

    And the sooner you get used to it the sooner you and all the haters will stop whining about it!

    Keep on Hatin Haters!!

  41. ggeden says: Apr 20, 2011 12:42 PM

    RaiderNation is bigger than America’s Team. Bigger international following too.

  42. imongo says: Apr 20, 2011 12:54 PM

    Can’t wait to watch “Family Guy” reruns next year!

  43. darthhitman says: Apr 20, 2011 1:00 PM

    Dude, Romo is .629 as a starter in the NFL! Go pick on some first round picks that haven’t done that well (like Cutler, Boller, Stafford, Carr, E. Manning, Pennington, Sanchez, Vick, and Smith), or something. If you’re going to slam the guy at least come up with something good!

    ———————————————–

    E. Manning has a ring, you should remember moron, he whooped up on Romo IN DALLAS on his way to getting it. Stafford will be fine, Sanchez has had more success in 2 years than Romo has had since birth and Vick only won comeback player of the year, has played in a championship game and has been called “The Michael Jordan of Football”. Tony Romo is the martha Stewart of football. Shut your mouth and just admit Dallas rules primetime because they’re Dallas and Jerruh Jones lives under the commish’s desk

  44. darthhitman says: Apr 20, 2011 1:04 PM

    The only 2 reasons people watch the Cryboys even when they absolutely SUCK is because 1. Football fans watch football, regardless of who is playing that night. We have 16 of em, not gonna let one slip. 2. Because you either love em, or ya hate em. If you live in Dallas, are a fair weather fan, a mexican or simply a complete, all around short bus riding, slow chjecking receiving MORON then you cheer them Cryboys with all ya including both teeth in your head. If you don’t fall under that category, then you love watching them get owned. Don’t they have a top 10 pick in 8 days?

  45. dwoofer says: Apr 20, 2011 1:18 PM

    Not Arizona? Oh, yeah? Derek Anderson will show them. You’ll see. They’ll be sorry.

  46. ninerdynasty says: Apr 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    smacklayer says: Apr 20, 2011 11:23 AM

    I hate the Cowboys as much as the rest of you, but the fact is that they get ratings. And this is all about ratings. NFL and networks get much more money from advertisers for a Dallas Giants

    ———————————————–

    Totally agree. is all about the ratings.. just how it happened for Jerry Rice’s on the hof ceremony.. They headlined E Smith over the best WR and arguably the best player ever.. isnt that a bunch of bs? I do think E smith was a great RB and player.. but do you see him in the top 5 ever? answer is NOPE!! that was a slap on the face to Rice.

  47. bobhk says: Apr 20, 2011 2:57 PM

    melonnhead says:
    Apr 20, 2011 11:22 AM
    Yet the whole country has to watch Romo try to choke every week?

    ————————————————-

    Dude, Romo is .629 as a starter in the NFL! Go pick on some first round picks that haven’t done that well (like Cutler, Boller, Stafford, Carr, E. Manning, Pennington, Sanchez, Vick, and Smith), or something. If you’re going to slam the guy at least come up with something good!
    ———————-
    I’ll give you something: a choker is a guy who’s supposed to win in crunch time but fails. Romo: how many times has he botched up in crunch time. See the seahawks game, then against Philly with playoffs on the line, etc. He’s a choker. How’s that for good!

  48. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 5:00 PM

    E. Manning has a ring, you should remember moron, he whooped up on Romo IN DALLAS on his way to getting it. Stafford will be fine, Sanchez has had more success in 2 years than Romo has had since birth and Vick only won comeback player of the year, has played in a championship game and has been called “The Michael Jordan of Football”.

    ————————————————–

    Wow, live in the past much? That’s what you tell Cowboys fans, isn’t it? “Michael Jordan of Football”? His career passer rating is 80.2 and he’s a convicted felon! That makes him the Fast Eddie Johnson of Football, at best.

  49. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 5:05 PM

    Romo: how many times has he botched up in crunch time. See the seahawks game, then against Philly with playoffs on the line, etc.

    —————————————————

    Do you mean when he beat the crap out of the Eagles 24-0 to win the division, then beat the crap out of them in the playoffs the following week by a score of 34-14 and ended McNabb’s career as an Eagle?

  50. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 5:15 PM

    Jerruh Jones lives under the commish’s desk

    ————————————————–

    You should remember that the networks decide the prime time games and that the commish works for the team owners.

  51. bobhk says: Apr 20, 2011 5:48 PM

    melonnhead says:
    —————————————————
    Do you mean when he beat the crap out of the Eagles 24-0 to win the division, then beat the crap out of them in the playoffs the following week by a score of 34-14 and ended McNabb’s career as an Eagle?
    —————————————
    No, I mean when he was at home for a playoff game against the Giants in 2007 and he threw for 50% completion and 1 TD and 1 INT and lost to a lower seed at home. I also mean when he was the holder for a kick that would have won against the Hawks and he choked (bobbled) it away. How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. He did beat them twice in 2009 (before he got crunched by the Vikes). So, that would be 3 choke jobs and 2 times he came through. That would qualify him as a choker.

  52. bobhk says: Apr 20, 2011 6:05 PM

    Final comment for melonnhead:
    From http://www.pro-football-reference.com:

    Eli Manning: 14 fourth quarter comebacks, 17 game-winning drives
    Romo: 9 fourth quarter comebacks, 10 game-winning drives
    Vick: 10 fourth quarter comebacks, 11 game-winning drives
    Cutler: 11 fourth quarter comebacks, 15 game-winning drives
    Mark Sanchez: 5 fourth quarter comebacks, 7 game-winning drives (in two seasons)

    Most of the other QBs are considered busts or not that good.
    All the other guys that you trashed have been better than Romo in clutch. He has been a choker compared to the other guys.

  53. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 8:20 PM

    Eli Manning: 14 fourth quarter comebacks, 17 game-winning drives
    Romo: 9 fourth quarter comebacks, 10 game-winning drives
    Vick: 10 fourth quarter comebacks, 11 game-winning drives
    Cutler: 11 fourth quarter comebacks, 15 game-winning drives
    Mark Sanchez: 5 fourth quarter comebacks, 7 game-winning drives (in two seasons)

    Most of the other QBs are considered busts or not that good. All the other guys that you trashed have been better than Romo in clutch. He has been a choker compared to the other guys.

    ————————————————–

    You kind if prove my point. In addition to having worse W/L records and career passer ratings:

    Romo = 65 starts/9 4th qtr comebacks = 1 comeback every 7.2 games
    Manning = 103 starts = 7.35
    Vick = 79 starts = 7.9
    Cutler = 68 starts = 6.18
    Sanchez = 31 starts = 6.2

    Of course these numbers are highly dependent on how often a team is behind in the 4th quarter in the first place, and how many times these guys DIDN’T make the comeback. Only Sanchez had has fewer starts than Romo, and that needs to be mentioned for proper context. And all were drafted in the first round.

  54. melonnhead says: Apr 20, 2011 8:21 PM

    How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. He did beat them twice in 2009

    —————————————————

    Three times, actually.

  55. bringbacktheflex says: Apr 20, 2011 8:50 PM

    “The great thing about the NFL is that you are always only one year away from relevance.”

    Really? Is that a great thing? I don’t think so. The fact that free agency and salary cap have created a “any team can win” situation is ridiculous and, IMO, bad for the game I love.

    Instead of teams that work hard, do their draft research, out scheme, and out think other teams in order to win games, you have the opposite situation. There is little relevance to coaching and scheming any more. Just look at the coaching turn-over. Gruden, and Shanahan win SBs and both end up fired. That tells me that they aren’t good coaches – it was just luck that they won. Same with QBs.

    I hate the fact that the good management teams get screwed by bad teams that are just hoping for a miracle. There’s no more greatness – just luck.

  56. bringbacktheflex says: Apr 20, 2011 8:58 PM

    bobhk says (re: Romo):
    “How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. ”

    This is what I hate about football these days – fans that know so little. The Dallas defense gave up 44 points that day. And YOU blame the QB for choking.

    Football is not a sport where a Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretski can win championships by themselves. It is the consumate TEAM game.

  57. bobhk says: Apr 20, 2011 9:24 PM

    melonnhead says:
    Apr 20, 2011 8:21 PM
    How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. He did beat them twice in 2009

    —————————————————

    Three times, actually.
    ———————-
    Ok, so I lied. That was not my last post :-)
    But really. Talk about putting stats out of context. Out of the 3 Dallas wins against Philly in 2009, only 2 were with the season on the line. To perform, with the season on the line, is being a winner (not a choker). With that in mind. Romo has choked 3 times, and won 2 times. In other words, he’s more a choker than a winner.

    Also, with the season 4th quarter come backs stats, he’s worse than Vick and Manning (his fellow NFC East QBs). Others being first rounders (and him being an undrafted FA) has nothing to do with whether or not he’s a choker.

  58. bobhk says: Apr 20, 2011 9:27 PM

    Sorry Romo is not worse in 4th quarter comebacks. I misread it. They are fairly comparable in 4th quarter comebacks/start.

  59. bobhk says: Apr 21, 2011 4:07 AM

    bringbacktheflex says:
    Apr 20, 2011 8:58 PM
    bobhk says (re: Romo):
    “How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. ”

    This is what I hate about football these days – fans that know so little. The Dallas defense gave up 44 points that day. And YOU blame the QB for choking.

    Football is not a sport where a Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretski can win championships by themselves. It is the consumate TEAM game.
    ———————-
    While you are correct that football is a team sport, let’s not absolve Romo of the blame. His performance in a “lose and you go home” game was putrid (21 of 39 for 183 yards 0 TD, and 1 INT). He is supposed to be a leader of his team and he laid an egg. So, get off the high horse. I do know about football. You, on the other hand, know nothing about being a leader or performing in clutch.

  60. bringbacktheflex says: Apr 21, 2011 12:56 PM

    And this is the other thing I hate about our education system – turning out high school students who don’t understand about ‘leadership’. A QB who is a great leader doesn’t make up for an offensive line that was a seive that day. Or WRs that dropped the ball when it was on target.

    The best QB in NFL history (Otto Graham) couldn’t have won that game with the crappy D and the poor O-line. Yes, Romo did not play well, but no one does when they are running for their life all day. To say HE choked is to absolve the whole team. If he missed open WRs when he had all day to pass, and the D was holding them to 14 points THEN you have an argument.

  61. bobhk says: Apr 21, 2011 3:02 PM

    bringbacktheflex says:
    Apr 21, 2011 12:56 PM
    And this is the other thing I hate about our education system – turning out high school students who don’t understand about ‘leadership’. A QB who is a great leader doesn’t make up for an offensive line that was a seive that day. Or WRs that dropped the ball when it was on target.

    The best QB in NFL history (Otto Graham) couldn’t have won that game with the crappy D and the poor O-line. Yes, Romo did not play well, but no one does when they are running for their life all day. To say HE choked is to absolve the whole team. If he missed open WRs when he had all day to pass, and the D was holding them to 14 points THEN you have an argument.
    ——————–
    This is what I can’t stand about our society today. People ready to assign/shift blame elsewhere. All the claims/alibis made about how everyone dropped the ball or the OL was a sieve, etc, etc. Can this be substantiated or just a bunch of BS. You have no idea how Graham (who, in my opinion, was not the best QB in history) would have done.

    Firstly, I am way beyond high school (this is so typical of losers: make personal attacks) Secondly, you are absolutely clueless about leadership. A leader (which a QB is supposed to be) does not assign the blame to the WR or the RB or other team mates. It stops with him. If you got Romo to talk he’d be the first to admit that he played horribly in a must win game (if he was a leader).

    Talk about a juvenile belief system. Ok, if it makes you happy: Romo AND the Dallas team choked with the season on the line. I’m sure you are not going to come back and say Romo played awesome but the rest of the team let him down. If you do, you are a bigger loser than I thought.

  62. bobhk says: Apr 21, 2011 5:29 PM

    bringbacktheflex says:
    Apr 20, 2011 8:58 PM
    bobhk says (re: Romo):
    “How about when the playoffs were on the line in Philly in 2008 and he choked it away. ”

    This is what I hate about football these days – fans that know so little. The Dallas defense gave up 44 points that day. And YOU blame the QB for choking.
    ———————–
    BTW, Dallas D did give up 44 points but that D was not the reason Romo and the offense score 6 (Six!!!) points. Most likely it’s the opposite, the offense did nothing to keep that Dallas D off the field (hence the 44 points allowed).

  63. bringbacktheflex says: Apr 21, 2011 8:09 PM

    “You have no idea how Graham (who, in my opinion, was not the best QB in history) would have done.” Check the stats on Graham. By any objective reasoning he has to be considered the best ever. Ten seasons, ten championship games, seven wins, five MVPs, Pro Bowl MVP.

    No other QBs legacy comes close. Talk about a leader, eh.

    Final thoughts regarding Romo – he never blamed any one else for any loss. But an objective observer has to acknowledge that the defense and the O-line let him down big time. It’s not like he threw 4 INTs and lost 3 fumbles.

  64. bobhk says: Apr 22, 2011 4:16 AM

    bringbacktheflex says:
    Apr 21, 2011 8:09 PM
    “You have no idea how Graham (who, in my opinion, was not the best QB in history) would have done.” Check the stats on Graham. By any objective reasoning he has to be considered the best ever. Ten seasons, ten championship games, seven wins, five MVPs, Pro Bowl MVP.

    No other QBs legacy comes close. Talk about a leader, eh.

    Final thoughts regarding Romo – he never blamed any one else for any loss. But an objective observer has to acknowledge that the defense and the O-line let him down big time. It’s not like he threw 4 INTs and lost 3 fumbles.
    ———————–
    This is not a disrespect of Graham, but plenty of people in the know have ranked Montana and Unitas ahead of him.
    For reference: NFL.com had a list of top 100 players in history. They ranked Montana at 4, Unitas at 6, Manning at 8, Baugh at 14 and Graham at 16. ESPN:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2152421 (Montana #3, Unitas #6, Elway #7, and Baugh at #10) and I can cite other lists.

    In any case, this was not about Baugh. An objective observer (and I watched that game) would say that Romo (along with the rest of the team) embarrassed themselves on national TV with playoffs on the line. A clutch player would raise the game. I don’t know in which universe anyone would consider Romo as a clutch player. There is no “Drive” associated with his name, or any other heroic effort. At least Eli Manning has that clutch game against the Pats in superbowl (I’m not a fan of Eli either). Romo, at best, is ordinary and at worst a choker.

  65. bobhk says: Apr 22, 2011 4:18 AM

    I meant this is not about Graham.

  66. anthonyfromstatenisland says: Apr 23, 2011 6:56 AM

    Hopefully when they do 18 games – and have 20 weeks with every team getting a second bye week – they can add a provision under which every team is GUARANTEED at least one nationally-televised game (which can be a Thanksgiving Day game at either Detroit or Dallas, which would count toward the requirement).

  67. hystoracle says: Apr 29, 2011 2:00 PM
  68. hystoracle says: Apr 29, 2011 2:02 PM

    Cam Newton

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!