The Great Debate: Romo Vs Manning

[Tovya]

Eli played a great game in the SB, but the Giants got there in spite of their quarterback, not because of him. Papas and Banks (can't stand the latter) were saying the other morning how there's no way they'd trade Eli for Romo because Tony is ofer in the playoffs and Eli "led his team to a Super Bowl win."

Is it just me or does anyone else see it a little differently, like, Eli didn't LEAD anyone anywhere. He kind of got dragged along behind (slight exaggeration for effect).

That was exactly my sentiments... Eli was not the prime factor the Giants success, their D was...

Romo (although surrounded by a great team) is the primary reason we were 13-3.

Throw in Eli on the cowboys, and we are 10-6 (or worse) fighting for a wildcard or losing out all together... throw Romo on the Giants and they're 13-3, but they probablly still win the SB, but probablly have an easier time with it.

 

[AbeBeta]

Sure you can.

You can. But you would have nothing with which to back up that claim aside from the "Eli sucks" meme.

 

[AbeBeta]

Eli was on the verge of being replaced last year. Do people not remember this - at the beginning of last year. He was on the hot seat for a reason.

This is not even up for debate as far as I'm concerned.

So, what is better? Almost being benched or almost winning a playoff game?

 

[VACowboy]

His PR in the playoffs last year was .... 95.8.

You can point to the SB where he had a PR of 87 but you need to recognize that the Pats defense gave up, over the season as PR of 75 and a playoff PR of 76. You take out the game that Manning had against them in the season finale, they had a defensive PR of 72.5 during the regular season. You take out the superbowl and they had a playoff PR of 70.5.

Point blank. Manning performed very well against one of the best pass defenses in the league.

That's an outstanding performance in the games that matter the most. I really could give a crap about year 2 this and year 4 for that.

I'm not saying he's great -- but he did have a great playoff run and anyone who wants to discount that is simply sucking sour grapes.

That's a huge generalization and it doesn't apply to me. I agree that Eli played good football against the Pats, in the SB, no less. He's not the slouch some people make him out to be. I just think saying "Eli led the Giants to the SB" is a pretty fair stretch.

 

[theogt]

You can. But you would have nothing with which to back up that claim aside from the "Eli sucks" meme.

I wouldn't say they won because of him.

Tampa - They would have won the Tampa game with Matt Moore at the helm.

Cowboys and Packers - Both teams pretty much handed the game to them with idiotic, unforced mistakes.

Patriots - Without "The Catch II" they lose and no one thinks twice about Eli Manning.

I guess the best (or worst) you could say about him is that he didn't lose the game for them. If that makes him better than Romo...

 

[AbeBeta]

I wouldn't say they won because of him.

Tampa - They would have won the Tampa game with Matt Moore at the helm.

Cowboys and Packers - Both teams pretty much handed the game to them with idiotic, unforced mistakes.

Patriots - Without "The Catch II" they lose and no one thinks twice about Eli Manning.

I said that saying they won in spite of him was moronic - that would suggest that they overcame poor performances. Which is not true.

 

[VACowboy]

You simply cannot say that a team is there in spite of their QB when the QB drops a 95.8 Passer Rating in the playoffs.

I think you misunderstand my argument. I granted that Eli played great in the playoffs, but how he played in the playoffs had nothing to do with getting him there. He was in the playoffs despite the very mediocre quality of his play to that point.

 

[AbeBeta]

I think you misunderstand my argument. I granted that Eli played great in the playoffs, but how he played in the playoffs had nothing to do with getting him there. He was in the playoffs despite the very mediocre quality of his play to that point.

The Giants certainly won some games where Eli sucked.

However, they also lost, during the regular season, his two best games (both with >110 PRs against Dallas and NE). So at least in those two games you could say that the team LOST in spite of Manning.

 

[VACowboy]

I said that saying they won in spite of him was moronic - that would suggest that they overcame poor performances. Which is not true.

Your inability to read my post is moronic. Allow me to clarify for you:

The Giants made the playoffs, despite Eli...

...not...

The Giants won in the playoffs, despite Eli.

Try comprehension.

 

[theogt]

I said that saying they won in spite of him was moronic - that would suggest that they overcame poor performances. Which is not true.

Well, the theme of the thread is which is better.

And since the team didn't win BECAUSE OF his performance, I don't see that it really matters whether he won the Super Bowl or not.

You can guarantee there's not a GM in the NFL that would choose Eli over Romo if starting a new franchise.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your inability to read my post is moronic. Allow me to clarify for you:

The Giants made the playoffs, despite Eli...

...not...

The Giants won in the playoffs, despite Eli.

Try comprehension.

Let's see...

Eli played a great game in the SB, but the Giants got there in spite of their quarterback, not because of him.

Your "played great in the SB" statement's interpretation is clear to me. You said NOTHING making any distinction between regular season and the playoffs. You simply said the Giants got there -- THERE BEING THE SUPERBOWL -- in spite of him.

You need to write clearly instead of getting all pissy with people. Just admit you weren't clear and/or wrong and go about your day.

 

[AbeBeta]

Well, the theme of the thread is which is better.

And since the team didn't win BECAUSE OF his performance, I don't see that it really matters whether he won the Super Bowl or not.

You can guarantee there's not a GM in the NFL that would choose Eli over Romo if starting a new franchise.

Sure, I wasn't arguing that he was better. Only trying to breathe some fresh air into the "Eli sucks" rants.

 

[VACowboy]

Let's see...



Your "played great in the SB" statement's interpretation is clear to me. You said NOTHING making any distinction between regular season and the playoffs. You simply said the Giants got there -- THERE BEING THE SUPERBOWL -- in spite of him.

You need to write clearly instead of getting all pissy with people. Just admit you weren't clear and/or wrong and go about your day.

"Getting there" includes all football played up until the game itself, and the Giants won more than one time where Eli had a mediocre outing. Had the Giants lost one of those games, despite" Eli's performance, the Giants wouldn't have made the playoffs. And I certainly don't think making such an argument is "moronic."

As far as the Giants losing to the Cowboys, despite one of Eli's best performances, they did so because Romo played better.

You're right. I got pissy, and I hate when I do that. We're all on the same side here. But you're wrong when you say my argument is "moronic." My point isn't that Eli sucks, but that he didn't exactly "lead" his team to the Super Bowl. And maybe I wasn't clear about that.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This is ridiculous. The G-Men made the playoffs in spite of Eli, not because of him. You can't win a Super Bowl if you can't make the playoffs. And it's funny how Eli can start of 0-2 in his playoff career (and look much, much worse than Romo in the playoffs) and that be okay, but when Romo starts off 0-2 in the playoffs, he doesn't get the same opportunities as Eli does. We're not talking about one QB being slightly better than the other, Romo has been significantly, without a doubt, better than Eli Manning. And I hate to tell the world, but in the postseason, Eli had one great game...against the Packers. The other playoff games he was no better than solid (and Coughlin didn't want him throwing many passes against the Cowboys to protect him) and he got extremely lucky against the Patriots.





YAKUZA

 

[Vintage]

So, what is better? Almost being benched or almost winning a playoff game?

I suppose almost winning a playoff game.

But both suck - to be quite frank.

 

[Vintage]

This is ridiculous. The G-Men made the playoffs in spite of Eli, not because of him. You can't win a Super Bowl if you can't make the playoffs. And it's funny how Eli can start of 0-2 in his playoff career (and look much, much worse than Romo in the playoffs) and that be okay, but when Romo starts off 0-2 in the playoffs, he doesn't get the same opportunities as Eli does. We're not talking about one QB being slightly better than the other, Romo has been significantly, without a doubt, better than Eli Manning. And I hate to tell the world, but in the postseason, Eli had one great game...against the Packers. The other playoff games he was no better than solid (and Coughlin didn't want him throwing many passes against the Cowboys to protect him) and he got extremely lucky against the Patriots.





YAKUZA

Yeah. Manning got lucky.

But I'd rather be lucky and win a Super Bowl than good and look for my first playoff win....

I'd take Romo over Manning too.

Most people would.

But I'd rather have Eli's success to date.

 

[Coy]

It´s not even close, Romo is much better than Manning, you can´t measure Romo in the playoffs after 2 games, that´s ridiculous.
Give credit to Manning for last year´s playoffs but that´s about it, I understand when the Giants fans say "the ring says it all" good argument but not good enough, because then you could say that Dilfer was better than Marino.

Give Tony a couple of years if he doesn´t break through in the playoffs by then, then we can argue that Romo can´t do it in the playoffs, till then not even worth the discussion.

 

[AbeBeta]

This is ridiculous. The G-Men made the playoffs in spite of Eli, not because of him. You can't win a Super Bowl if you can't make the playoffs. And it's funny how Eli can start of 0-2 in his playoff career (and look much, much worse than Romo in the playoffs) and that be okay, but when Romo starts off 0-2 in the playoffs, he doesn't get the same opportunities as Eli does. We're not talking about one QB being slightly better than the other, Romo has been significantly, without a doubt, better than Eli Manning. And I hate to tell the world, but in the postseason, Eli had one great game...against the Packers. The other playoff games he was no better than solid (and Coughlin didn't want him throwing many passes against the Cowboys to protect him) and he got extremely lucky against the Patriots.


YAKUZA

I'd like to believe the "got lucky" or "was protected" angle -- but the fact of the matter is that against the toughest competition last year (Cowboys three times, Pats twice, GB twice, the other playoff games), Eli's worst game yielded a 72.3 passer rating. Simply put, he was his best in games against the best teams.

Using the PR metric he was clearly more than solid in many of those games. Particularly the playoff games I pointed to - you don't get to an almost 100 PR with crap performances. And as I said before, when your QB is giving you a near 100 PR, then you certainly aren't winning "despite" him.

Sorry, just the facts.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Put Romo on NY and they probably still win the SB.

Put Eli on Dallas, and I highly doubt the team wins 13 games.

 

[AbeBeta]

Coughlin didn't want him throwing many passes against the Cowboys to protect him

I think you are off here -- He threw 18 passes and was sacked 3 times. That's 21 pass plays - there were also two other pass plays that were negated by penalty.

The Giants ran a total of 44 offensive plays in that game -- and one was a kneel down. That's not protecting, that's not having the ball.