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

[Rack]

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.

As PLAYERS they were both more successful than Irvin.


You didn't mention anything about the TEAMS they played on so I'm assuming you're talking about their individual success, not their teams.



You're reluctance to post what you think success is based on tells me everything I need to know about you.

 

[rgcowboys]

Stats can be misleading. I like Romo, but he is no where near P. Manning.

 

[Hoofbite]

Someone run and tell Dan Marino he wasn't as successful as Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer.

 

[zrinkill]

As PLAYERS they were both more successful than Irvin.

Ridiculous ...... Michael Irvin had far more success in his career than either of those two clowns.

You're reluctance to post what you think success is based on tells me everything I need to know about you.

I have posted it many times ..... you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Success is what it is ..... success.

Barry Sanders was not as successful in his career as Emmitt Smith
T.O. and Moss were not as successful as Michael Irvin
Tony Romo has not been as successful in his career as Eli or Peyton.

Defining success is simple .... and you boys are making it hard to prove your silly points.

 

[zrinkill]

Someone run and tell Dan Marino he wasn't as successful as Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer.

He already knows that ...... he was just a much better player.


You are confusing success with how well of a player ...... its not the same thing.

Look at Earl Campbell and Barry Sanders.

 

[TNCowboy]

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 you.

Everyone that reads the thread tells everyone what they need to know about you.

No, they haven't been. Neither has been as good a WR as Irvin was at the peak of his career. More talented, yes, but successful, no. Just like SB rings, yards and catches are not the full measure of a WRs success. Irvin didn't play in pass happy offenses like those 2 often did. He played on a running team. There's no way that he's going to keep up with them statistically. Which is why he doesn't get his due when people talk about the greatest ever.

But at his peak, Irvin was the greatest WR other than Jerry Rice that I've ever seen. I can't say that about the other two. I would make the same comment if, say, the Cowboys' D had melted down in those SBs and they'd lost all 3, while at the same time Moss wins a ring in NE. I'd still say Irvin was the more successful WR. IMO, "successful" means a whole lot more than SBs. No player can singlehandedly win a SB, which makes trying to use SBs as the single measure of success silly.

Regardless, you came up with 10, out of the hundreds of QBs that have played in the SB era. 10. I guess we also have a different view of what "huge number" means.

 

[zrinkill]

No, they haven't been. Neither has been as good a WR as Irvin was at the peak of his career. More talented, yes, but successful, no.

You just proved my point ...... thanks.

 

[TNCowboy]

He already knows that ...... he was just a much better player.


You are confusing success with how well of a player ...... its not the same thing.

Look at Earl Campbell and Barry Sanders.

Yeah, look at those two. By your logic, Tim Smith was a more successful RB than Barry Sanders and Earl Campbell.

 

[zrinkill]

Regardless, you came up with 10. I guess we also have a different view of what "huge number" means.

10 out of 27 SB winning QB's ...... which is what determines success in the NFL.

 

[davidb257]

You just proved my point ...... thanks.

I'm sorry but Irvin was just as physical and talented as both of those WR's.

The fact he has not one, but three rings, puts him as a better WR.

 

[TNCowboy]

10 out of 27 SB winning QB's ...... which is what determines success in the NFL.

Tim Smith = more successful than Barry Sanders. Got it. Thanks.

 

[zrinkill]

Tim Smith = more successful than Barry Sanders. Got it. Thanks.

Was he a starter all year?

Got it thanks .....

 

[morasp]

There is a big difference between regular season stats and post season. In post season things get a lot harder and one mistake can kill you. For a quarterback to run up stats during the regular season is impressive but I don't think it's the true measure.

 

[zrinkill]

I'm sorry but Irvin was just as physical and talented as both of those WR's.

The fact he has not one, but three rings, puts him as a better WR.

I agree ...... that was my point ..... stats do not define success like Rack and Double "trouble" would have you think.

 

[skicat1898]

Too early to compare Romo to P. Manning... Better to wait until the careers are completed. Until they have played a equal number of years the comparison is skewed.

Just like comparing Romo to retired QBs who played 10 or more years. Romo could have some really bad years or really great years over the next 5 or 6 years, the stats will change.

 

[zrinkill]

Lunch time ......

 

[dooomsday]

For all you Romo haters out there, here is an article compairing Manning and Romo stats.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-than-peyton-manning-a-statistical-comparison



Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts has not only been called the best Quarterback of this era, but the best Quarterback of all time. How does the Quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, Tony Romo, stack up when compared to this football icon?

Stats? LOL. Stats dont mean better. If so put Vinny and Drew B in the HoF now!

Romo and Eli are the closer comparison.

 

[dooomsday]

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.

Agree on all points.

 

[Hoofbite]

He already knows that ...... he was just a much better player.

You are confusing success with how well of a player ...... its not the same thing.

Look at Earl Campbell and Barry Sanders.

I think you're confusing team success with personal success.

Being successful as a team doesn't make any single person on that team "successful".

The fact that Trent Dilfer was a ride-along with that ridiculous Baltimore defense does not make Trent Dilfer more successful than Marino.

It just doesn't.

 

[zrinkill]

I think you're confusing team success with personal success.

I think you are confusing talent and stats with success.

Lebron James is far more talented than Manu Ginobli ..... but Manu has had more success in his career.

I am not talking about talent or stats ..... I am talking about success in the NFL.