Toomer: Romo better than Eli

[Stash]

Funny seeing that it's your criteria we're discussing. Oh yeah and Dilfer is still awaiting your answer.:bang2:

I'm not the guy who equated Super Bowl MVP with greatness am I?

And if you're looking to make the case for Dilfer being in the same league as Troy Aikman?

Go for it, I'd love to hear it.

 

[birdwells1]

How many SB MVP's did they win again?
Never use the exception for your argument rather then the rule. Kurt Warner was sacking grocery so that means we should stroll down to the nearest Kroger and work out all the sacker? The rule is if you are a qb that wins the Super Bowl MVP then you're probably more than a bus driver. Out of the 25 qbs that won the SB MVP only four were not considered great, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett (who I personally think was pretty good), Mark Rypien, and Phil Simms.

This was my statement about Super Bowl MVP qbs, meaning 21 out of 25 were considered great. What that stat means is that if you are a superbowl mvp at qb then their is an 80% chance that you're a great qb. It wasn't only for their play in the biggest game of the all but also their play in the regular season.
I'll give you a list of the Super Bowl MVP qbs and you tell me which one of these qbs, in bold, wasn't great.

Starr
Starr
Namath
Dawson
Staubach
Bradshaw
Bradshaw
Plunkett
Montana
Montana
Simms
Williams
Montana
Rypien
Aikman
Young
Elway
Warner
Brady
Brady
P. Manning
E. Manning
Brees
Rogers
E.Manning

The qbs in red bold or either HOFers or imo future HOFers, it's a little early for Rogers but he may get on the list someday. Kurt Warner played at a HOF level but I don't know if he did it long enough but one thing we can say about both those guys is that the are/were great qbs.

That's an example of how you make your argument on the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Stash]

This was my statement about Super Bowl MVP qbs, meaning 21 out of 25 were considered great. What that stat means is that if you are a superbowl mvp at qb then their is an 80% chance that you're a great qb. It wasn't only for their play in the biggest game of the all but also thier play in the regular season.
I'll give you a list of the qbs and you tell me which one of these qbs, in bold, wasn't great.

Starr
Starr
Namath
Dawson
Staubach
Bradshaw
Bradshaw
Plunkett
Montana
Montana
Simms
Williams
Montana
Rypien
Aikman
Young
Elway
Warner
Brady
Brady
P. Manning
E. Manning
Brees
Rogers
E.Manning

The qbs in bold or either HOFers or imo future HOFers, it's a little early for Rogers but he may get on the list someday. Kurt Warner played at a HOF level but I don't know if he did it long enough but one thing we can say about both those guys is that the are/were great qbs.

I appreciate that you took the time to make this list, but I fail to see how it's relevant in any other way other than coincidence?

They're not great because they've been named Super Bowl MVP.

I think you'll find many great quarterbacks who are not on that list.

 

[birdwells1]

I appreciate that you took the time to make this list, but I fail to see how it's relevant in any other way other than coincidence?

They're not great because they've been named Super Bowl MVP.

I think you'll find many great quarterbacks who are not on that list.

No, they're on that list because they were/are great and they were great when it mattered most.

 

[5Stars]

No, they're on that list because they were/are great and they were great when it mattered most.

And Dan Marino is in the HOF. Poor guy never won nothing. So, your list does not mean crap.

 

[birdwells1]

And Dan Marino is in the HOF. Poor guy never won nothing. So, your list does not mean crap.

Yeah and Romo was a UDFA so I guess we should look there first when we look for a replacement huh? Marino is the outlyer.

I rather Romo be on my list than with Marino.:bang2:

 

[Stash]

No, they're on that list because they were/are great and they were great when it mattered most.

Let's circle back around to the subject at hand and Eli Manning.

Was he 'great' in either of those Super Bowls?

2012 - 30 of 40 296 1 TD no INT's. A nice day but hardly an epic performance. He got it because nobody else distinguished themselves.

2008 - 19 of 34 for 255 yards 2 TD's and 1 INT a game remembered for a desperation throw sticking to David Tyree's helmet.

He didn't win either MVP award for being 'great' on that day.

 

[Primetime42]

Amani is explaining his reasoning right now.

He's making sense.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/newyork/play

 

[ufcrules1]

No, they're on that list because they were/are great and they were great when it mattered most.

Bingo!! Give the guy credit, he has earned it!! I personally feel that Eli has reached elite status. I can't stand him but I can't deny what he has turned into.

 

[Lodeus]

My new(and only) favorite Giant is Amani.

 

[Primetime42]

"I was all set to say Romo's no good. And then I did my job." /argument

 

[Lodeus]

I liked hearing Amani bring up single plays and not just say "but he lost the playoff game".

 

[5Stars]

"I was all set to say Romo's no good. And then I did my job." /argument

Then that radio fool tried to make Amani feel bad by saying that he got thousands of tweets from Giant fans saying they now think Amani is some kind of turncoat. Great reporting...

Amani says it bothers him a little, but, he's just doing his job and feels like he should not just be waving his Giants flag...

:laugh2:

That reporter does not even know that he has Cowboy fans on this board that admire him for sniffing Eli's panties.

 

[zack]

My new(and only) favorite Giant is Amani.

NFL Radio this afternoon was all turned upside down by this topic. I don't know who was hosting this afternoon, but he was pretty clueless. Why the even have Bullock on there is beyond me? The guy has a pea sized brain.

Then it was followed by well placed New Jersey callers complaining about Toomer's comment. The comment statistically speaking, Romo is far superior than Eli really bothered the callers. I think that Toomer is comparing players only in their position, and is highlighting that Eli has the better team.

The host was simple minded, Two rings to none.

 

[5Stars]

NFL Radio this afternoon was all turned upside down by this topic. I don't know who was hosting this afternoon, but he was pretty clueless. Why the even have Bullock on there is beyond me? The guy has a pea sized brain.

Then it was followed by well placed New Jersey callers complaining about Toomer's comment. The comment statistically speaking, Romo is far superior than Eli really bothered the callers. I think that Toomer is comparing players only in their position, and is highlighting that Eli has the better team.

The host was simple minded, Two rings to none.

That is the simple mindset of some posters on this board.

See, Romo is the reason that the team has failed so far...not the TEAM.

But, Eli won two SB's by his bad self...they don't count his TEAM.

 

[zack]

That is the simple mindset of some posters on this board.

See, Romo is the reason that the team has failed so far...not the TEAM.

But, Eli won two SB's by his bad self...they don't count his TEAM.

That is what was so special about Toomer's comments. He looked at the "players" at face value and excluded the team. Something that the Mass Media and the sheep that following it can't do.

 

[Rack]

It's refreshing to have a media member (new one) not "go with the flow" and form his own opinion, leaving his bias out of the equation.


Toomer's alright in my book.


I especially like how he went out of his way to mention how Eli has been on better teams, how there's been plenty of times where Romo "brought them back" only to have the defense turn around and choke as they so often do (he mentioned the Pats game specifically last year), how the perception that Romo is bad at the end of games was complete BS and mentioned how Romo's 4th quarter QB rating was 18 points higher than Eli's, etc...

 

[zack]

If you listened to the morning drive on NFL radio, they already tried to make the argument biased. They started off playing radio clips from last years Lions game and highlighted Romo's INT's. Then they played radio clips of Eli from last year's Super Bowl. Toomer stayed the course, which showed he is a stand up guy.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I like Romo better.

If I were starting a team I'd take Romo over Eli every time.

Which isn't to say that I think Eli is some trash QB, because I don't think he is, but I just like Romo better.

 

[5Stars]

That is what was so special about Toomer's comments. He looked at the "players" at face value and excluded the team. Something that the Mass Media and the sheep that following it can't do.

I think that most of those "sheep" never played a team sport, and some are just young and know everything about absolutely nothing. One poster said he was five years old when the 90's Cowboys won their first SB. :laugh2: But, he knows Eli is the bestest in the whole wide world of football!

Romo has had injuries that would want most QB's to just quit the game! I doubt that Eli would have played through broken ribs and a punctured lung, or a broken collar bone, or a baseball sized swollen hand.

Romo is one tough Son of a Gun. You make Eli play behind the Cowboy Oline that some of these poster complain about and he's not winning anything!

Then, you give Eli the Cowboys defense that they have had the past few years, and Eli does not win crap!

Nope! Eli is so superior because HE won 2 rings. Not his team! He did it all by his bad self. Romo has not won anything because he's not a leader, he golfs, wears his hat backwards, screws blondes, etc.

Amazing...but, consider the sources...it's the same thing with Romo, over, and over, and over. Not the team, mind you. It's all Romo's fault.

Now, Eli...he has 2 rings, and, he did it all by his little lonesome self.




Oh, and the Cowboy fans that I'm talking about, they know who they are!