Bleacher Report -Tony Romo Is On Pace To Be Better Than Peyton Manning

[ETex]

With ball security he has, but his accuracy in the end zone and down feed hasn't. In order for him to be Peyton Manning good he has to improve on those two things IMO. He also is not as elusive as he once was.

Could that be a byproduct of him trying to be less careless with the football? If so, I'm all for it as having 9 iNTs is way better than what his past efforts were back when he was more "elusive".

 

[vta]

Romo is a great QB and a real dose of good luck for us.
I couldn't care less how he compares with others, I just hope he gets us there and gets it done.

 

[Rack]

Which is why he didn't use Manning's rookie season In the comparison. He adressed this in the article.

My point still stands. It takes more than 2 seasons (starting as a rookie) for a QB to become what they will become, if they don't get ruined in the process.

 

[hra8700]

Such a ridiculous article. Manning's first 6 years were not remarkable. Outside of his rookie year, he was a top 10 quarterback each of those 5 years. Notably, that is still impressive, but not the reason manning is considered an all time great.

Manning was the best qb in the league between 2004-2006, and the second best qb in the league between 2007-2009.

As of right now, he's the best qb in the league this year.

The 6 year stretch from 2004 to 2009 is remarkable and why he is considered to be as good as he is.

Romo isn't "on pace" for anything until he has a 2004 type year. BTW, Manning's 2004 year is the best in the modern era, probably better than Brady's 2007.

Also, in my opinion, Romo has regressed from 2008-2010. I think he was better in 2006-2007. He was making mistakes, but he was also taking risks that made better plays overall.

 

[zrinkill]

Undeniably one of the dumbest things ever posted in the history of this forum.

You are so dense its useless to argue with you.

Bart Starr
Roger Staubach
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Jim Plunkett
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
John Elway
Tom Brady
Ben Ruthlessraper

Have all been more successful as a QB than Peyton Manning.

 

[Rack]

You are so dense its useless to argue with you.

Bart Starr
Roger Staubach
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
John Elway
Tom Brady
Ben Ruthlessraper

Have all been more successful as a QB than Peyton Manning.

If you're going by superbowls ONLY, then yes. But there's more to a QB's success than just superbowls which - by the way - are not won and lost by QB's. QB's are just a member of the team. If QB's "Won" or "Lost" superbowls there wouldn't be a need for the other 52 guys on the roster.

So when you factor in EVERYTHING, there's no way in hell - for example - Terry Bradshaw was more successful than Peyton Manning. Bradshaw's TEAMS was more successful than Manning's teams, but HE wasn't.

*Note the capitilized words used to stress certain parts of my sentences. Pretty nifty, eh?

 

[TNCowboy]

You are so dense its useless to argue with you.

Bart Starr
Roger Staubach
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
John Elway
Tom Brady
Ben Ruthlessraper

Have all been more successful as a QB than Peyton Manning.

Dense doesn't describe you appropriately enough. Probably nothing that won't get me a PM from brainpaint will.

By your reasoning, Terry Bradshaw was a more successful QB than Roger Staubach. He wasn't anywhere near the player Staubach was. That's no different than saying that whatever backup for the steelers that got 4 rings was more successful than Staubach, because hey, they have more rings.

10 is a "huge number"? Your sole measure of success is evidently Super Bowls. By almost any other measure, few of the above guys were as successful as Manning. SBs are hardly the sole measure of a QB, or any player. Marino is clearly one of the greatest ever, and he had zero. Elway was a shadow of his former self before he won one. Bradshaw would probably admit that he couldn't carry Manning's clip board.

You made a ridiculously stupid statement and this is what you came up with in defense of it? You should've just fessed up to making a stupid statement and moved on.

 

[zrinkill]

there's no way in hell - for example - Terry Bradshaw was more successful than Peyton Manning.

What?

Terry Bradshaw was FAR more successful ..... how can you even deny that?

I did not say better QB ..... I said more successful.

 

[zrinkill]

Terry Bradshaw was a more successful QB than Roger Staubach. He wasn't anywhere near the player Staubach was.

He was more successful ...... and no he was not as good of a player.

Dense .....

 

[percyhoward]

Career
3rd down, 6+ to go
Romo 88.7 rating 12td 9int
PManning 75.9 rating 36td 44int

 

[Rack]

What?

Terry Bradshaw was FAR more successful ..... how can you even deny that?

I did not say better QB ..... I said more successful.

Read my post again. Slowly.


I'll sum it up for ya...

Bradshaw's TEAMS were more successful than Manning's TEAMS, but as players - individually - Manning has been WAY more successful.


Answer me this, who was more successful Lawrence Taylor or Charles Haley (individually).

 

[zrinkill]

10 is a "huge number"? Your sole measure of success is evidently Super Bowls.

Yes ...... Super Bowls are the measure of success. Sorry.

By almost any other measure, few of the above guys were as successful as Manning.

No few of them were as good of QB's as Manning ..... but thats not what I said.

Marino is clearly one of the greatest ever, and he had zero. Elway was a shadow of his former self before he won one. Bradshaw would probably admit that he couldn't carry Manning's clip board.

I see you are still too dense to understand the difference.

You made a ridiculously stupid statement and this is what you came up with in defense of it? You should've just fessed up to making a stupid statement and moved on.

I made a correct statement. You are not smart enough or too stubborn to admit it.

 

[TNCowboy]

He was more successful ...... and no he was not as good of a player.

Dense .....

:laugh1: What an idiotic premise.

Terry Hanratty has 2 SB rings. By your logic, he was just as successful as Roger Staubach.

 

[zrinkill]

Answer me this, who was more successful Lawrence Taylor or Charles Haley (individually).

Charles Haley was more successful

LT was a much better player but was not as successful in his chosen profession as Haley.

 

[zrinkill]

:laugh1: What an idiotic premise.

Terry Hanratty has 2 SB rings. By your logic, he was just as successful as Roger Staubach.

Comparing a backup with a starter is an idiotic premise ..... but that is how you argue.

 

[TNCowboy]

I made a correct statement. You are not smart enough or too stubborn to admit it.

Super Bowls are not the lone measure of success as a QB. It's just plain idiotic to assert that.

You made an embarrassingly stupid comment and now you're going to even more absurd lengths to try to justify it.

 

[TNCowboy]

Comparing a backup with a starter is an idiotic premise ..... but that is how you argue.

Was using your standard. If you want to consider the premise idiotic, look in the mirror.

 

[zrinkill]

You made an embarrassingly stupid comment and now you're going to even more absurd lengths to try to justify it.

I made a correct comment ...... and you are trying to justify your stupid stance by comparing backups with starters.

Dense.

 

[Rack]

Charles Haley was more successful

LT was a much better player but was not as successful in his chosen profession as Haley.

I think you need to post what you think "Success" is based on before they take you away to the looney bin.


Or are you just being selective to suit your agenda?

Again, who was more successful AS A PLAYER (not team stats, w/l's, etc...) just the PLAYERS themselves. It's not that hard.


A players success and the TEAMS' success that the played on are not the same thing.


So Trent Dilfer was more successful than Dan Marino?

 

[zrinkill]

Has Randy Moss or Terrell Owens been as successful in their careers as Michael Irvin ?

Your answer will tell everyone what they need to know about both of you.