Toomer: Romo better than Eli

[gbrittain]

The First post was discrediting everything Eli did in 2007 and sort of dismissing how significant he was in 2011, the person you are replying to is saying he played a part. Not that the D didn't do anything.

I was concurring with Idgit. My post was not meant to be critical of him. As a general rule Idgit and I are pretty much in agreement when it comes to Romo and Eli.

 

[Idgit]

You know I really don't have a problem if someone thinks Eli is the best since thing since slice bread. Who knows maybe he is. When it is all said and done maybe he surpasses Joe Montana and becomes the first QB to win 5 Super Bowls.

For the life of me though, I cannot figure out why some can so easily acknowledge how good Eli was in the playoffs but cannot / refuse or both admit the NY defense was equally good in the playoffs.

Actually I know why but oh well...

I don't fully understand the psychology behind it myself. I think QBs become the de facto faces of the franchise, and so, as a result, it becomes chic to think there's something wrong with ours and that the guy with the Giants, or the Stealers or whoever is better. Because acknowledging we get better play at that one position is tantamount to saying our team is better overall somehow. As I said, I don't get it.

There are a bunch of teams who have guys good enough to win if the team around them is good enough. We're one of those. The Giants are, too, obviously. Then there are borderline cases like the one in Philly, or with the Jets, or with the Ravens. But overall, it's not that hard to evaluate QB play when you see it on the field.

At the end of the day, though, you have to pass effectively and make it hard for the other guy to pass effectively. You do that, you win more often than not. It takes both sides of the ball to get there, and that's fact, not a matter of opinion.

 

[gbrittain]

I don't fully understand the psychology behind it myself. I think QBs become the de facto faces of the franchise, and so, as a result, it becomes chic to think there's something wrong with ours and that the guy with the Giants, or the Stealers or whoever is better. Because acknowledging we get better play at that one position is tantamount to saying our team is better overall somehow. As I said, I don't get it.

There are a bunch of teams who have guys good enough to win if the team around them is good enough. We're one of those. The Giants are, too, obviously. Then there are borderline cases like the one in Philly, or with the Jets, or with the Ravens. But overall, it's not that hard to evaluate QB play when you see it on the field.

At the end of the day, though, you have to pass effectively and make it hard for the other guy to pass effectively. You do that, you win more often than not. It takes both sides of the ball to get there, and that's fact, not a matter of opinion.

LOL. You are correct...up in here when it comes to the Romo haters you have to pass effectively but stopping the pass is irrelevant or stopping the other team from scoring period for that matter! :laugh2:

 

[DFWJC]

I'm looking forward to seeing how both QBs do this year. Can't wait!

 

[gimmesix]

That may be true, but if that's the case, then he should be getting much of the blame now.

If the argument is that we can't measure his true greatness until he has a team around him worthy of his greatness, will it be that he's really great (if he wins a Super Bowl) or that he has a great team?

If it's going to take a great team, then, to me, that means he's average. I mean, Trent Dilfer won the Super Bowl with an astonishing, stifling defense. <shrug>

If you're saying every Super Bowl winning quarterback is an "average Joe" who just did his part, that's one thing.

For some reason, we're on a disconnect with this, so I'm going to quit.

 

[tyke1doe]

You know I really don't have a problem if someone thinks Eli is the best since thing since slice bread. Who knows maybe he is. When it is all said and done maybe he surpasses Joe Montana and becomes the first QB to win 5 Super Bowls.

For the life of me though, I cannot figure out why some can so easily acknowledge how good Eli was in the playoffs but cannot / refuse or both admit the NY defense was equally good in the playoffs.

Actually I know why but oh well...

Who says Eli's defense wasn't equaly good in the playoffs?

For what it's worth, I think the defense, and not Eli, should have gotten the MVP in the Super Bowl against the 18-0 Patriots. Holding that offense to 14 points was nothing short of outstanding.

But Eli did make the plays when he had to. And, mind you, the Patriots defense wasn't that bad either.

 

[tyke1doe]

For some reason, we're on a disconnect with this, so I'm going to quit.

Fair enough.

I think we can basically agree that we want to see Romo win a Super Bowl with this Cowboys team. And I think he can.

 

[gimmesix]

Let me say one last thing about Eli, and his Hall of Fame chances: Right now, I can't see his two Super Bowl victories/MVPs being enough.

His career 58.4 completion percentage isn't good enough.

His 82.1 career passer rating isn't enough.

His 185 TDs-to-129 ints. (less than 2-1) isn't enough.

At least not in this age of prolific passers.

Now, if he adds a few more years like the ones he had in 2009 (93.1 passer rating) and 2011 (92.9), including keeping his completion percent in the 60s, he'll have the statistical evidence to support the Super Bowls.

In contrast, Romo's numbers (64.5, 96.9, 149-72) are there, but he's going to at least have to add more playoff victories to get real consideration.

NOTE Not sure where the storm cloud came from.

 

[AbeBeta]

the First SB win was mostly the D and Eli throwing up a prayer that a player caught against his helmet

That same player never caught another pass in his career

So anyone giving eli real credit for 2007 is a giant homer
(not to mention that dropped INT in Samuels hands that would have sealed the Pat win)

Now last year he did make plays. still more on his D then him but he stepped up.

Of course he also had a better D, O line and running game then Romo has had since 2007

A better running game? The Giants had one of the worst running games of all teams in 2011. There was a thread a few months back that exploded that myth. The Giants sucked as a running team

 

[KB1122]

There are a bunch of teams who have guys good enough to win if the team around them is good enough. We're one of those. The Giants are, too, obviously. Then there are borderline cases like the one in Philly, or with the Jets, or with the Ravens. But overall, it's not that hard to evaluate QB play when you see it on the field.

If there are a bunch of teams with quarterbacks good enough, then why do four or so quarterbacks, mostly considered among the game's very best, win 7-9 Super Bowls every decade or thereabouts?

 

[Idgit]

If there are a bunch of teams with quarterbacks good enough, then why do four or so quarterbacks, mostly considered among the game's very best, win 7-9 Super Bowls every decade or thereabouts?

Well, I could go one of two ways here. 1. Because factors other than who's at QB obviously matter, or 2. They don't. 7 different starting QBs won the last 10 championships. (Brad Johnson, Tom Brady, Tom Brady, Roethlisberger, Good Manning, ******** Manning, Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and ******** Manning again). That doesn't include the losing QBs of those Superbowl games who, you'll have to admit, were pretty close. And it doesn't take into account the fact that each year one of those seven guys won, the other six did not. It also doesn't include the players like Romo or Phillip Rivers who are good enough if the teams around them were better.

So, as I said, there are bunch of guys capable of winning a Superbowl in any given year. And, more often than not, the guy that wins it is not necessarily the best player at his position in the league that year.

 

[DanteEXT]

A better running game? The Giants had one of the worst running games of all teams in 2011. There was a thread a few months back that exploded that myth. The Giants sucked as a running team

While they did rank dead last in total yards and yards/a, they did drop 12 more TD's and 2 less fumbles lost than the Cowboys. I wouldn't say they sucked.

 

[Lonestar94]

We had 400 more rushing yards than the Giants, but guess what?? We were the second to last team with the least amount of rushing touchdowns - with 5. That is awful. The Giants had 17, imagine how good we would of been if we scored even close to that amount.

 

[Tio]

Ok, no matter what stance you have, can we agree on one thing?

If you say Romo is better than Eli then you have to agree that Barry is better than Emmitt. Or vice versa.

 

[DanteEXT]

Ok, no matter what stance you have, can we agree on one thing?

If you say Romo is better than Eli then you have to agree that Barry is better than Emmitt. Or vice versa.

Not sure I quite understand the relationship here?

 

[Tio]

Not sure I quite understand the relationship here?

By saying Eli is better than Romo is to give the player credit for his team's success and not take the stats of said player into account. Which is what happens when people here say that Emmitt is better then Barry.

 

[DFWJC]

The Giants got healthy and turned the corner last year in late November with the Green bay game. They were mostly very good from that point on.

Any reference to 2011 stats does not remotely measure the team they had down the stretch. I guess if someone wished to run the numbers beginning in the Green Bay game they may get the true measure (stats wise anyway).

Total 2011 stats don't tell us how good the defense or even the run game was for the last part of their season.....and we all know the passing game was working.

 

[burmafrd]

A better running game? The Giants had one of the worst running games of all teams in 2011. There was a thread a few months back that exploded that myth. The Giants sucked as a running team

reading comprehension is your friend

Since 2007 you say the Boys have had a Better O line, D and running game then the Giants?

And by the way in the 2011 playoffs the Giant Running Game was a lot better then it was for much of the season.

 

[AbeBeta]

reading comprehension is your friend

Since 2007 you say the Boys have had a Better O line, D and running game then the Giants?

And by the way in the 2011 playoffs the Giant Running Game was a lot better then it was for much of the season.

Statistical comprehension eludes you. Overall they were better -- 4.2 YPC and 116.5 YPG in the playoffs vs. 3.5 YPC and 89.2 YPG in the regular season.

However, that is completely driven by the ATL game where they went 31-172. In the other three game they went 81-294 for 3.6 YPC and 98 YPG. That's a little better but still lame. If those were regular season #s, it would reflect 27th overall in the league.

So their running game wasn't really much better. They had a game where they blew ATL out that drove all of your running game perceptions.

Funny how clear things are when you actually look at them correctly.

 

[DFWJC]

If there are a bunch of teams with quarterbacks good enough, then why do four or so quarterbacks, mostly considered among the game's very best, win 7-9 Super Bowls every decade or thereabouts?

Could it be that they have better teams?
Just a guess