Grossman a Pro Bowler

by Adam T on Dec 21, 2006 9:31 AM CST in News

I believe he is and I more than a lot have spoken out on how Tony Romo is just riding a wave of man crushes by various sports journalists, but I never really looked into any numbers to back me up on not being a complete homer. Here is an article that is down right livid that Romo was selected over Grossman and I think it bears at least pointing out.

The only quarterback in the NFL to have surpassed a passer rating of 100 in seven games this season, Grossman deserved deeper consideration for leading the NFC's most dominant team than a guy who has played half a season as Romo has.

----

Grossman has been in charge of a Bears offense that has scored more than 30 points seven times, the team's highest total in a season in 50 years. He is 16-5 as a starter in his career and 12-2 this season, a statistic that isn't always a good measure of a quarterback but one trotted out often when Romo-maniacs point out the Cowboys are 6-2 under his cool right hand.

----

Oh, Grossman was terrible in victories over Arizona and Minnesota and his poor play contributed to losses to Miami and New England. But he was the NFC's most dominant offensive player during the first month of the season and regained that form last Sunday against Tampa Bay in a performance that earned him NFC player of the week honors.

Not to dismiss Grossman's cover-your-eyes games, but even Pro Bowl quarterbacks lay the occasional egg. San Diego's Phillip Rivers, for instance, is coming off a game where his passer rating was 12.4.

----

"Our defense is going to step up and play," he said. "Those were just a couple of great plays by Tampa but our defense is the best in the league. ... I don't ever go into the game [and say] 'Now we have to score more points or now we have to score fewer points.'"

Yeah, but now Grossman can say so and nobody will question it.

Just as nobody should doubt Grossman being as worthy as Romo for a February vacation to Waikiki Beach once they compare the bodies of work.

"I know he had a couple of games he didn't play as well," Smith said of Grossman. "But he's having an outstanding season."

You could call it a Pro Bowl season. And should.

It is really quite simple, ESPN among others have had it in for the Bears for some unknown reason. Even in the first month of the season when we were destroying people, they all pointed to our record. Then when we trounced other NFC hopefuls in Seattle and the Giants it was because of injuries or bad coaching. They gave insane amounts of airtime to the Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, Giants and Seahawks as best team in the NFC despite the Bears being the only team that was actually winning their games.

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

reposted comment from the diary

I wrote this as a response to your note in my diary. No worries about putting up a post with a similar topic as my diary. Reposting it here.
-----------
You take more of a counterpoint to my arguement by saying Rex deserves to go to the Pro-Bowl, while I think that Rex's inconsistency hurt his pro-bowl chances. It also seemed that Rex saved his worst performances for some of the higher-profile, nationally televised games. At Arizona, at New England, and home against Minnesota (while not national TV, was pretty high-profile since the Bears clinched the division) were his worst performances of the season. It's just his bad luck the rest of the nation saw those games and were left with a lasting impression of his play. That isn't to say that he sucks under the spotlight. Home vs Seattle, at the Giants, and at St. Louis were amongst his best games of the year. The Giants game should've proven that he can bounce back from a bad start to have a solid game, but the world-wide leader didn't see it that way. The 1.3 performance helped bury the news of Romo's less-than-stellar performances, IMHO.

We do agree on one thing, Rex deserved to go to the Pro-Bowl before Romo.

Unleash your inner Grabowski.

by jrm78 on Dec 21, 2006 10:16 AM CST reply actions

one more (long) thing

At least ESPN is unbiased when it comes to their QB rankings. (rolls eyes)

Rank (last week) / Name / Team / Comment
4 (6) Tony Romo Cowboys
Rebounded from Week 14's loss to the Saints with a big road win at Atlanta. His mobility within the pocket bought him extra time to find his receivers and make some excellent throws, including two beautiful TD passes to Terrell Owens.
...
12 (11) Rex Grossman Bears
Against Tampa Bay, he went back to his early recipe for success, which was to manage the game and throw to his tight end. Grossman connected with Desmond Clark for seven receptions for 125 yards and two TDs.

Romo had a good game against the Falcons (22-29 278yds 2TD 1INT 113.9 Rat), but so did Rex vs Tampa Bay (29-44 339yds 2TD 0INT 104.3 Rat). Yet Romo rises 2 spots, while Rex falls a spot. Even stranger yet is this write-up in the same rankings:

10 (12) Brett Favre Packers
The good news is that the Packers beat Detroit at home and Favre broke Dan Marino's completion record. The bad news is that he didn't throw a TD pass and had three INTs. It wasn't a great day for Favre, but it didn't have to be against the Lions.

So let me get this straight: Rex has a performance that gets him named the offensive player of the week, yet falls a spot in their rankings; Favre has a bad performance against the worst team in the conference (20-37 174yds 0TD 3INT 32.9 Rat), yet moves up two spots while leapfrogging the player of the week.

Sorry about any homerism, but that's bullshite.
My head asplode.

Unleash your inner Grabowski.

by jrm78 on Dec 21, 2006 10:43 AM CST reply actions

agreed

that's pretty messed up. Tono Romo is the ESPN man crush of the moment, and Brett Favre is...Brett Favre. Oh well. If Grossman can play more consistently I have a feeling he may get that trip to Hawaii eventually anyways.

first the Rush...now the Bears.

by mike @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 21, 2006 11:31 AM CST up reply actions

My rankings...

I'll easily agree with Brees and Bulger-duh. But I'd take Vick next. I would actually take Rex, but anytime someone breaks a season record in a major sport, it's noteworthy. Vick will be the first NFL QB EVER to rush for 1000 yards. Plus, Vick doesn't have the yards, but he's still got 19 TD's to 11 INT's with a 77.9 passer rating-compared to Rex's 22/17/77.4. IMO, that's good enough, combined with the rushing record for QB's, to go ahead of Rex. Without the record (200-300 rush yards less) and Rex's "winning team" gets him in. And, despite Romo's 98.4 QB rating, I still don't put him over either.

Brees
Bulger
Vick
Grossman
Romo

by tyger1147 on Dec 21, 2006 11:09 AM CST reply actions

not sure if rex is a pro-bowler, but romo 'ain't

it's an absolute disgrace that romo got a nod...the dude has played pretty well, but he has only played for half the season, and whenever he plays a decent defense, he plays mediocre. rex's inconsistency makes me say he probably shouldn't go this year, but 7 100+ Qb rating games tells you the guy can ball. honestly, i think vick should have made it over romo. if his recievers didn't drop so many easy passes, he'd be having a phenomenal year.

by guy incognito on Dec 21, 2006 12:15 PM CST reply actions

Vick...

How does Vick not get a nod over Romo? The guy has been healthy all year and surpassed 1k rushing yards, that is a phenomonal feat.

by lopey986 on Dec 21, 2006 1:00 PM CST reply actions

Because he sucks...

At the QB position.

by Chad @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 21, 2006 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

Sucks?

"19 TD's to 11 INT's with a 77.9 passer rating" does not suck.

Does Grossman suck too?

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Dec 21, 2006 1:14 PM CST up reply actions

Vick

truly has the worst receiving corp in the league. It's a shame.

Brees, Bulger should have gotten it...

Visit The Cub Reporter (www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter)

by thecubreporter on Dec 21, 2006 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

You know what the prevailing line is

The changed the receivers, the o-line and the coaches. Doesn't leave much left except for Vick.

by Adam T on Dec 21, 2006 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Hmm...

So you think Ashley Lelie, Roddy White and Michael Jenkins are great receivers, huh? Interesting. If they didn't have one of the ten best TE's in the league, they'd have zero passing game. Minnesota and Atlanta have two of the worst WR corps in the game.

by tyger1147 on Dec 21, 2006 2:53 PM CST up reply actions

I;m not saying they are great receivers

but Vick isn't the only to have sub par receivers. Brady, Favre and Garcia are throwing to almost nobody this year and there numbers are good.

My overall point is that Atlanta's mediocrity cannot continue to not be Vick's fault when everything else is changing.

by Adam T on Dec 21, 2006 3:25 PM CST up reply actions

have you watched Atlanta play?

They drop passes that hit them in their chests. Their receivers are terrible!!!

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Dec 21, 2006 4:14 PM CST up reply actions

Well

Brady's the best QB in the league, no one is saying Vick is.

Vick has a better QB rating than Favre and his team has a better record.

I don't know how to compare Garcia and Vick...

Vick made the playoffs his rookie year and they won a road playoff game in Green Bay, that's impressive. Missed a year with a broken leg and then they made the NFC championship game. The last 2 years his receiving corp has sucked and they're mediocre and their D is bottom 10 the last two years as well.

I don't care for him that much, my biggest complaint is that he rifles every throw and never puts any touch on his passes, but he's proven he can win and win playoff games. But bring in some WR's that can, you know, catch.

Visit The Cub Reporter (www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter)

by thecubreporter on Dec 21, 2006 5:05 PM CST up reply actions

Vick blows at QB...

He is probably the best athlete in the NFL but he's just not a good qb. He relies too much on pure athletic ability and not on quarterbacking skills.

He'll never amount to anything but a highlight reel.

by Chad @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 12:22 AM CST up reply actions

for once

I totally agree with Chad.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 8:11 AM CST up reply actions

It doesn't say anywhere...

you have to be a great "quarterback" whatever that means, to be a pro-bowler.

A lot of people say winning matters for QB's. He's done that. Obviously, I'm not stupid enough to say he's a great, or even good passer.

But he isn't the worst thrower in the league, and he is the best EVER running QB in the history of the NFL. I'm sorry, but even if yo usay he shouldn't be there... he is. And that means something to me. But I understand if it doesn't for you.

by tyger1147 on Dec 23, 2006 12:06 AM CST up reply actions

I've

been a loyal Grossman apologist all year long (actually, going on three seasons). That being said, I'm not as put off that Rex has been left off. He's had easily 2-3 of the worst games by any QB this year. I still think he should be our starter and I believe that he's better than he's performed but six turnovers in a game? That and a 1.3 passer rating will likely exclude you from consideration for the pro-bowl.
As for Romo, I like the few rational people here have not pinned a Tony Romo poster up in my bedroom. I just can't justify the idea that he's the real deal (yet). The guy was behind Drew Bledsoe on the depth chart! Plus, he's played eight games and his star has definitely come back down to earth. But, he hasn't experienced putridity on the scale of Rex-n-Effects this year. If it's between the two, Romo-is-burning probably should get the nod.
As for the anti-Bears conspiracy, i've got a few thoughts (not that anybody cares)...
First, I don't really care. Everybody can trash the Bears and I'm fine with it. It never hurts to have the spotlight off of your team.
Second, I don't think the anti-Bears bandwagon is limited to ESPN. Yahoo's been really rough on them and other prognosticators seem to have ignored the fact that they're 12-2 and clearly the cream of the NFC.
Third, I just hate this rankings system to begin with. It's the same system that claimed the Bears' draft a bust a day after the draft had ended. It's dumb speculation confounded by grown men falling all over themselves to make wacky statements with the hopes that at season's end they can say the predicted some outcome. Nevermind the fact that these predictions change more often than Michael Jackson's facial landscape.
If we were to believe the consensus amongst talking heads, Miami and Carolina would be booking flights for the Super Bowl. Well, at least Carolina would.
I'm content to tune in every week and watch the Bears win. It's been a good season.

by cookding @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 21, 2006 3:31 PM CST reply actions

If Grossman deserved to be a pro bowler

the Bears would be undefeated and easily cruise to a SB championship and obviously that isn't the case. The Bears win inspite of Grossman.

Romo deserves to be a pro bowler because he's the 2nd best qb in the NFC easily, 2nd only to Brees. Without him, the Cowboys would be average, maybe less than .500. With him, they are legitmate SB contenders.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 21, 2006 8:41 PM CST reply actions

You logic is flawed...

you say that without Romo "the Cowboys would be average, maybe less than .500." Either A. you are talking about Drew Bledsoe as your QB or B. you can't say this.

What would the Cowboys be with Donovan McNabb (healty) or Tom Brady.

I am quite convinced that with Brian Griese, the Bears would not be 12 and 2. My guess is 10 - 4.

So what I'm saying this that for you to just say that with out Romo, you'd only be .500, is just untrue.

by Chad @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 12:18 AM CST up reply actions

It isn't flawed

of course I'm talking about Bledsoe or any other average qb in the league, including Grossman. Grossman starts at qb for the Cowboys, they are .500 at best also.

I also disagree that the Bears would be 10-4 with Griese, I still think they would be 12-2 or better. There were definitely games the Bears won in spite of Grossman's horrible play, Arizona and Minnesota are the first to come to mind. If Romo plays bad, the Cowboys lose, no 2 ways around it. We don't have the special teams or defense to wins games like the Bears.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 8:16 AM CST up reply actions

Hate to

break it to you, but Bledsoe does not qualify as an "average" QB. To be average, one's play must not be detrimental to the team and, clearly, Bledsoe does not qualify. His putridity is of epic proportions.
I'd also argue that if your pass-protection plays bad, then you lose. We can talk about Romo's mobility (yes, it is an improvement of the statuesque legwork of Drew) but it's becoming clear, he does not perform with rush pressure. However, when the Cowboy line holds up, then his play improves.
As for Griese, can we put this to rest. Griese is a great SECOND STRING QB!!!!! Jesus. The guy was dropped by TWO teams. He would not have won any more games than Grossman. Where his pass-selection is "safer" his ability to actually affect the offense doesn't approach that of Rex. His longball is nearly as potent meaning teams could stack the box. Furthermore, not one of our blowout victories was the result of anything other than Rex making some tremendous, deep passes, staking us to an early lead and forcing teams into our strength... ...opportunistic defense.
Plus, you can not, for a minute convince me that Romo is better than Hasselback, Vick or even Delhomme. Sure, his team's record looks nice and he had a good run for a few weeks there, but I just haven't hopped on that train yet. The first few weeks are easy, but once teams get a chance to scout and attack weaknesses, things change.

by cookding @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 8:49 AM CST up reply actions

The 2nd best QB in the NFC

Can not be the guy on pace to throw 20 picks in a full season.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 22, 2006 10:11 AM CST up reply actions

That's ROMO btw....

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 22, 2006 10:12 AM CST up reply actions

well

you're wrong because he is. I notice you forgot to mention he is on pace to throw 32 TD's and 3500 yds as well.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 23, 2006 10:48 AM CST up reply actions

sorry

that would be 4500 yds since he's averaging 287 yds per game as a starter.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 23, 2006 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

i'm confused

how can you say that QB X would be better than QB Y for a certain team. There's no way to make that kind of comparison. Personally, I think there are too many intangibles involved to be able to make comparisons like that accurately.

first the Rush...now the Bears.

by mike @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 22, 2006 9:41 AM CST reply actions

I completely agree

Romo has had 6 good games. That's how he made the pro bowl. Grossman has had more than 6 good games and his good games were better.

Frankly, Grossman or Vick both deserved to be there over Romo.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 22, 2006 10:10 AM CST reply actions

I'd go Bulger

myself...

Visit The Cub Reporter (www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter)

by thecubreporter on Dec 22, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions

Bulger's already accounted for

He's #2 to Drew Brees' #1.

The discussion is over who deserves #3 after those two obvious choices.

by Danimal on Dec 22, 2006 12:31 PM CST up reply actions

My bad

I thought there were only two and Bulger missed out. Silly rabbit.

Can they give it to Mcnabb? He was doing better than all of them for 10 games. Otherwise I'd go Vick, the rushing is impressive and his D and receivers suck major ass. Otherwise Grossman, then Romo.

Here's Grossman's games log for fun with the teams pass rank is in parenthesis (as of now):

@ Pack (17th) 98.6
Lions (20th) 148
@ Vikes (31st) 64.9
Seattle (16th) 100.5
Buffalo (8th) 101.2
@ Arizona (29th) 10.2
49ers (27th) 137.4
Dolphins (3rd) 36.8
@ Giants (28th) 105.7
@ Jets (19th) 81.4
@ Pats ( 13th) 23.6
Vikes (31st) 1.3
@ Rams (9th) 114.4
Bucs (24th) 104.3

Breakdown:
vs Top 10 Pass Pass Defenses: 3 G, 2-1, AVG RATING: 84.1
vs Middle 10 Pass Defenses: 5 G, 4-1, AVG RATING: 90.4
vs Bottom 12 Pass Defenses: 6 G, 6-0, AVG RATING: 70.6

and I just added up the QB ratings and averaged them, it's the not the right way to do it, but you get the picture.

How does he do against teams that bring pressure? I used sacks since I don't know a better way.

Miami (3rd) 36.8
Green Bay (4th) 98.6
Seattle (5th) 100.5
Buffalo (5th) 101.2
Pats (8th) 23.6
Arizona (14th) 10.2
Rams (18th) 114.4
Jets (18th) 81.4
Vikes( (18th) 64.9, 1.3
Giants (18th) 105.7
Detroit (27th) 148
Bucs (30th) 104.3

Visit The Cub Reporter (www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter)

by thecubreporter on Dec 22, 2006 1:15 PM CST up reply actions

boy, that makes sense

give to a player who can't play in the game, thats real intelligent.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 23, 2006 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

it was a joke,

Homer.

Visit The Cub Reporter (www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter)

by thecubreporter on Dec 23, 2006 4:17 PM CST up reply actions

Grossman's good games weren't better

How can any qb ever be considered as a pro bowl qb when his worst game of the year he had a 1.3 rating and almost every Bear fan wanted him benched. Any argument that Grossman deserves pro bowl consideration is just laughable. Romo is better than Grossman on his worse day.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 23, 2006 10:51 AM CST up reply actions

wow

if a player can't be a pro bowler becasue of a bad game then I am not sure a guy who wasn't good enough to take the job at the beginning of the season should be either.

Your boy aikman just said romo doesn't have a great arm, try not to lose it.

by mike b on Dec 23, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

Some room to improve?

Bobby: Irvin's looking good this year, huh, Dad?
Hank: Yep. I'm giving him an A minus.
Bobby: I'm giving him a B plus. That gives him some room to improve.
Hank: Good thinking, son.
Bobby: And I'm giving Troy Aikman a B plus, too.
Hank: That's not funny, Bobby.

by Danimal on Dec 23, 2006 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

he was good enough

actually our record would be at 12-2 as well if Romo would have started to begin the season. Parcell's loyalty to Bledsoe the was the only reason it didn't happen.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 23, 2006 5:04 PM CST up reply actions

actually

you have no idea what your record would have been. he could have sucked in every game.

by mike b on Dec 23, 2006 7:06 PM CST up reply actions

wouldn't have happened

based on his first 8 games.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 24, 2006 12:01 PM CST up reply actions

Really?

He sucked in a few of those?

Based on Rex's first five games, he should be a hall of famer!

You can't assume that because Romo has played well for his first eight games he will always play well. That is just foolish.

Odds would say that Romo will have more bad games. You better hope it isn't in the playoffs.

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Dec 25, 2006 8:23 AM CST up reply actions

thats not what I assumed

read the posts next time. I was responding to someone who said Romo could have sucked his first 6 games, I just said based on his start, thats not a logical assumption. If he played well his first 6 games, logic tells me he would have played well if he would have started the season. I never said, he would always play well.

by Terry @ Windy City Gridiron on Dec 25, 2006 8:43 AM CST up reply actions

yes, you are quite the voice of logic

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/comments/2006/12/7/91043/7470/21#21

by mike b on Dec 25, 2006 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

That promise of "a good ribbing"...

...still operational, particularly after Romo's 45.5 passer rating XMAS Day.

Though I've gathered that WCG and SBN frown on the personal attacks, I'll work up some snappy Sinbad-esque material momentarily. (Is "poopoo" one word or two?)

by Danimal on Dec 26, 2006 12:04 PM CST up reply actions