Tony Romo best Cowboy QB of all time

[KJJ]

You presented no evidence but just opinion.

You have no idea what evidence is or how QBs are judged.

 

[khiladi]

Rodgers maybe. Brady is the most league protected QB I have ever seen. Back in the old rule NFL Brady would be a crying mess.

he threw those 5 INTs against the Chargers in the play-offs when that defense was getting sacks galore with Merrimen... Against the Giants in the SB, the front-line of the defense stifled that record-setting offense. When Manning faced Seattle's CBs that were allowed to play in the SB, that offense looked pedestrian....

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you (bold above) are correct. Does "tougher physically gifted" mean better football players?

Sure, there may be 75 OLBs on the 32 NFL rosters in 2015 that can run a faster 40 or do more reps with 225 than Jack Ham. But, how many of those guys are a better player than Ham?

Is there a better MLB in the NFL than Dick Butkus was? Is there a starting MLB in the league today that can even hold a candle to Butkus? And yet how many MLBs today and how many college MLBs can run a much faster 40 than Butkus could on his best day? Ndamakug Suh can very likely bench press more than Mean Joe Green or Bob Lilly, but does he dominate his level of competition the way those two all-time greats did theirs?

A lot of you guys on this forum are very smart and have a ton of football knowledge, but let's not be so quick to make broad-brushed statements about today's player-athlete versus yesteryear's.

Roger played in an era that featured the likes of Lilly, Greene, Merlin Olsen, Alan Page, Curly Culp, L.C. Greenwood, Deacon Jones, Jack Youngblood, Carl Eller, Harvey Martin, Lyle Alzado, Jim Marshall and Dwight White on the D-line; Butkus, Jack Lambert, Ham, Bobby Bell, Willie Lanier, Tommy Nobis, Randy Gradishar, Ted Hendricks and Nick Buoniconti at LB; Mel Blount, Mike Haynes, Willie Brown, Mel Renfro, Roger Wehrli, Lem Barney, Ken Houston, Jake Scott, Jack Tatum, Cliff Harris, Paul Krause and Dick Anderson at DB.

Tell me those guys wouldn't make NFL rosters today, and of that bunch how many would be starting over guys who can run, say, a 4.4 to their 4.55?

Staubach played in an era when QBs were not protected; when you rarely saw three WRs on the field at the same time (the passing game is much more sophisticated today) and when receivers were hit and pushed and grabbed throughout their entire routes; and when O-linemen were unable to extend their arms in pass protection. Moreover, there was no sliding in that era. A QB past the line of scrimmage was open game. Guys like Staubach and Terry Bradshaw took a heavy pounding, with none of the protections afforded today's QB.

Yes, today's athlete is bigger and faster. And there are players that transcend eras. Jim Brown and Walter Payton would still run over, through and past today's LBs just as they did in the 1960s or 1970s-80s, respectively. Cliff Branch, Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann, Lance Alworth, John Stallworth, John Jefferson, Raymond Berry and Bob Hayes would put up huge numbers versus today's corners. And Staubach, Bradshaw, Bart Starr, Ken Stabler, Dan Fouts, Johnny Unitas, Sonny Jergensen and a few others would post 4000+ yard and 30-35+ TD seasons in today's NFL.

I wonder how Tom Brady, taking seven-step drops, and getting hit late and getting hit high multiple times a game would have fared in the 1960s-70s. He would have been great, no doubt, but his stats would be pedestrian compared to what they are now. Put him on the 1970s Steelers and he probably wins four SBs. But put him on a team that had to face the 1970s Steelers, and he may not have won any.

It doesn't mean better football players but there's a big difference between a 6'4 260 pound guy who who runs a 4.5 coming at you as opposed to one 20-30 pounds less. There are advantages and disadvantages to both arguments. I'm not on the side of either. I think its incredibly unfair to Romo to compare him to Staubach when he hasn't finished his career yet.

And there is absolutely no evidence that guys in the past would dominate today. There just isn't. There's no proof it and never will be.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

So you can't make the blind to see. Just what I thought.

FIFY

 

[SDCowboy]

I'm not going to get into who's better, I think it's definitely debatable that he is the most valuable Cowboys QB ever.

 

[5Stars]

IMO there's no true way to say who was the best. We have been very fortunate to have Roger, Troy, Tony and even Danny suit up at QB for us. So many variables, whether it be NFL adjustments to the league rules and talent on roster etc that a quarterback has to deal with.
I have no issue with having Romo in the same conversation with Aikman and Staubach, but I have no desire to say one was definitely better than the others. All were great in their era.

Perfect answer, bro!

 

[Risen Star]

1. Romo
2. Aikman
3. White
4. Bledsoe
5. Staubach

 

[Venger]

1. Aikman
1A. Staubach
2. Danny White
3. Tony Romo

To paraphrase Mr. Landry, no Danny no...

 

[Tabascocat]

1. Romo
2. Aikman
3. White
4. Bledsoe
5. Staubach

How can you omit this guy........he has to be above Bledsoe!

 

[Risen Star]

How can you omit this guy........he has to be above Bledsoe!

He looks like he could play a game today.

Of solitaire.

 

[Risen Star]

Goodlord

I love Tony Romo ....... but Troy and Roger were both better than him

people just take it too far ....... The only player on this team who is the best of all time on the cowboys at his position is Jason Witten.

Dan Bailey could go down as the best kicker the team's ever had.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

IMO there's no true way to say who was the best. We have been very fortunate to have Roger, Troy, Tony and even Danny suit up at QB for us. So many variables, whether it be NFL adjustments to the league rules and talent on roster etc that a quarterback has to deal with.
I have no issue with having Romo in the same conversation with Aikman and Staubach, but I have no desire to say one was definitely better than the others. All were great in their era.

This is as close to the right answer as you are gonna get.


My thing is this....

Aikman was one game shy of 4 straight super bowl wins. A feat that if accomplished would NEVER be done again. Not even by pats.

Staubach was a break or two away from winning 3 maybe 4 Super Bowls.

Romo, as much as I want him to win a sb or two for us has hurt himself. All by himself.

1. Aikman
2. Staunch
3. Romo

One and two are closer together than Romo is to 1 and 2.
Romo is a distant 3.

 

[Risen Star]

I always get a laugh out of fans who start to shift uncomfortably in their seat when asked to rank former Cowboys.

We should end these threads with everyone ranked #1 and go hug our children.

 

[5Stars]

2 playoff wins. Stats are great, but playoff wins and super bowls are greater. Romo is behind Staubach and Aikman.

Well, that is really not fair to Romo. While I would put Romo behind Staubach and Aikman, it's the teams that Staubach and Aikman were on that won Superbowls.

In their prime, all three of them, you put Romo on the teams Staubach and Aikman had and he wins some SB's. On the flip side of the coin, you put Staubach or Aikman on the teams Romo's had to play on and they don't win SB's just like Romo has not won one.

Staubach had Landry, Aikman had the Jimster...Romo? How many coaches has he had?

Plus, Staubach and Aikman played in an era of no salary cap and the GM's could go out and get the best talent money could by. Romo does not have that luxury. If they would let Jerry go and get any player he wanted to without the salary cap and I would bet he would surround Romo with the best of the best, but he can't .

So, in my mind, all three are phenomenal QB's and it's just unfair to all three to compare who is the best of the three. It's impossible.

 

[Ken]

Yes and it really isn't close IMO. Aikman....to me...is one of the most overated.

And I know I will get toasted for those comments but the truth hurts.

 

[MichaelValentino]

It doesn't mean better football players but there's a big difference between a 6'4 260 pound guy who who runs a 4.5 coming at you as opposed to one 20-30 pounds less. There are advantages and disadvantages to both arguments. I'm not on the side of either. I think its incredibly unfair to Romo to compare him to Staubach when he hasn't finished his career yet.

And there is absolutely no evidence that guys in the past would dominate today. There just isn't. There's no proof it and never will be.

No, one cannot state with 100% certainty (God alone is omniscient), but based on the careers of the players I mentioned, one can make a reasonable extrapolation based on their level of production and physical skill sets (e.g., Branch ran a 4.2, Hayes probably ran a 4.1; Allworth had fly paper hands and ran precision routes to go with very good speed; Jim Brown was a 230 lb bulldozer with sub 4.5 speed; Payton was just flat out great by any metric other than 40-time you can use in evaluating a football player, etc.). Of the WRs I mentioned, only John Jefferson (four-time All Pro) is not in Canton; of the QBs, only Ken Stabler is not in Canton, despite having a fine career, making the all-decade team of the 70s (behind Staubach, Bradshaw) and having a statistically dominant year in 1976 and leading Oakland to a world championship that year.

But I am not here to argue extrapolations. I saw those guys play and they were each great in their eras. I believe, FWIW, those WRs - and I didn't even mention James Lofton, Art Monk or Steve Largent, three more HOFers - would use their respective skill sets to post big numbers in a much more wide open game today. We can agree to disagree, but I think a Lance Alworth in the slot in a West Coast offense would torch DBs, or a Bob Hayes, running free 5 yds past the LOS, would still post 20 ypc today.

And yes, a 260 lb LBer who can run a 4.5 coming at you is going to hit you harder - all things being equal, such as tackling technique, target area, angle of impact - than a guy who weighs 220 and runs a 4.8. I mean, KE = 1/2 m*v^2 and F = m*a, no matter if it's 1960 or 2015.

But my entire point was that Staubach played in an era of great players and particularly dominant defensive front fours - it was an era of iconic defensive lines: the Purple People Eaters, the Steel Curtain, Doomsday, and perhaps the best of them all, the Fearsome Foursome, not to mention other great defensive teams like the No Name Defense and Orange Crush and the late 70s Raiders. And Staubach's era was equally violent - if not so much in the average player size and collision due to increased size/speed ratios, then in the no holds bar nature of the game then versus now.

 

[RS12]

How can you omit this guy........he has to be above Bledsoe!

Bernie looks like he swallowed all on the list above him.

 

[Wayne02]

Well, that is really not fair to Romo. While I would put Romo behind Staubach and Aikman, it's the teams that Staubach and Aikman were on that won Superbowls.

In their prime, all three of them, you put Romo on the teams Staubach and Aikman had and he wins some SB's. On the flip side of the coin, you put Staubach or Aikman on the teams Romo's had to play on and they don't win SB's just like Romo has not won one.

Staubach had Landry, Aikman had the Jimster...Romo? How many coaches has he had?

Plus, Staubach and Aikman played in an era of no salary cap and the GM's could go out and get the best talent money could by. Romo does not have that luxury. If they would let Jerry go and get any player he wanted to without the salary cap and I would bet he would surround Romo with the best of the best, but he can't .

So, in my mind, all three are phenomenal QB's and it's just unfair to all three to compare who is the best of the three. It's impossible.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Being behind two HOF's is not a slight to Romo, he would be the best QB in team history for many teams, but the Cowboys are not one of them. True, the Cowboys had better teams with Aikman and Staubach, but they were also part of the reason why those teams were great. There is no way that I can put Romo above those two guys no matter what the teams were for them. 3 rings for Aikman with a Hall of Fame jacket and two for Staubach with a Hall of Fame jacket, that's just the way it is. I'm not putting Romo ahead of those two guys without more playoff success.

 

[MichaelValentino]

Yes and it really isn't close IMO. Aikman....to me...is one of the most overated.

And I know I will get toasted for those comments but the truth hurts.

Ken, that is your personal opinion (hence, your words "to me" in your post). If it were absolute truth that cannot be disputed, this thread would not need to be nine pages long and this discussion would not be necessary. So, while your "opinion" may or may not hurt, that does not mean anyone is hurt by the truth in this case.

I hope my comment is not overly pedantic.

 

[Wayne02]

Yes and it really isn't close IMO. Aikman....to me...is one of the most overated.

And I know I will get toasted for those comments but the truth hurts.

But that's not the truth, it's your opinion.