Toomer: Romo better than Eli

[Idgit]

I'm not sure that's true. I have seen a lot of people blame the Cowboys' lack of success this season on their defense, even though it was better than the Giants'.

He means the knock on Romo from fans who aren't very sophisticated about QB play.

And your Giants defense was a lot better than ours at the end of the year, when it counted.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ta hell with rings. Romo has Eli beat in every statistical category. Thats what matters...now a days.

Well, when it's all said and done and Eli retires with three Super Bowl rings, at least we can say that Romo (with no rings) was statistically the better quarterback.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm sorry, but it is just flat out moronic to call a 100.1 Passer Rating over those two post seasons "playing a role"

So Eli single-handedly won the San Francisco game for the Giants? So Eli caused the punt returner to fumble leading to the winning FG in overtime?

Eli played a role. The Giants' D played a role. The Giants' special teams played a role.

Is that really hard to understand?

Some act like Eli picked the Giants up and carried them on his back through the playoffs and expect the same from Romo. Eli played his role and as I've said, he played it well enough to do his part as the QB. That's all.

Would Dallas have lost to New York in the 2007 playoffs if some of Romo's teammates did a better job of playing their roles? I absolutely do not believe it would have happened, and that's what it comes down to. The difference isn't the quarterbacks, because they both can play well. The difference is the Giants elevated their game as a team and Dallas did not.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Well, when it's all said and done and Eli retires with three Super Bowl rings, at least we can say that Romo (with no rings) was statistically the better quarterback.

Nobody will remember how many rings Eli got, its all about our QB, the STAT STUD.

 

[gbrittain]

Well, when it's all said and done and Eli retires with three Super Bowl rings, at least we can say that Romo (with no rings) was statistically the better quarterback.

:bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

You know good and well NO ONE cares more about stats than rings. The facts is we do not have any rings here lately and we would like to have rings.

They do not hand out Super Bowl rings in the bubble gum machine. It takes a good organization, coaching and players.

So no need to be disingenuous, and pretend that unsophisticated Cowboy fans care more about stats than championships. The stats are used simply to point out that for all the reasons the Cowboys don't have a Super Bowl, Romo is far from the biggest reason they do not.

I will wait while you guys show me one person who personally said they would not trade Romo's stats for a championship ring...

 

[Nav22]

I'm not sure that's true. I have seen a lot of people blame the Cowboys' lack of success this season on their defense, even though it was better than the Giants'.

The Giants D shut out the Falcons, then made Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady look downright mediocre. Makes no difference what their regular season rankings were.

Eli's a solid QB who has had the great fortune of having a dominant D in two playoff runs. That's all. Romo's clearly the better QB, and the numbers back it up.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Nobody will remember how many rings Eli got, its all about our QB, the STAT STUD.

You're the same person who ran Meredith into retirement...the same person who thought Danny White was a loser...the same person who booed Troy Aikman at the end...and the same person who rips on one of ten people on this planet who play the position of QB well.

Your evaluation of the position is so myopic it's laughable, but not surprising. You're a drive by sniper who loves to nip at the heels but offers no solution, same with all the usual suspects.

It's disgraceful.

 

[KB1122]

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!

OK, there's things you can say about Eli, but saying he isn't tough? Did you miss the San Francisco playoff game? Did you miss the blood?

 

[Big Blue Joe]

The Giants D shut out the Falcons, then made Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady look downright mediocre. Makes no difference what their regular season rankings were.

Since the Giants and the Cowboys only competed during the regular season, why wouldn't it make a difference what their regular season rankings were?

Eli's a solid QB who has had the great fortune of having a dominant D in two playoff runs. That's all. Romo's clearly the better QB, and the numbers back it up.

Also, Eli has the better playoff passing numbers.

 

[KB1122]

By the way, if it's all luck, and quarterbacks just luck into mulitiple championships, and it doesn't mean anything, and even Trent Dilfer wins championships, then what does it matter if the Cowboys have such a great quarterback? Why bother?

 

[Nav22]

Since the Giants and the Cowboys only competed during the regular season, why wouldn't it make a difference what their regular season rankings were?

Also, Eli has the better playoff passing numbers.

1) Who cares about when they played each other? Football is a team sport. Is Alex Smith better than Drew Brees because the 49ers beat the Saints in the playoffs?

2) Eli's played well in two playoff runs, no doubt. But it sure helps his chances when the Giants D absolutely dominates, like they did in both the 2008 and 2012 postseasons.

Tony Romo has NEVER had a D like that in the playoffs. The best D the Cowboys have had since he's been our QB was in the 2010 playoffs... but then Brett Favre scorched us in Minnesota to the tune of 4 TDs and a 134.4 QB rating.

Did Eli have to deal with that in 2008 or 2012? No... in 2008, the Giants D held arguably the best O of our era (Patriots) to just FOURTEEN points, so the Giants won while scoring just seventeen points themselves.

Seventeen points? You're telling me Tony Romo couldn't have led his offense to seventeen points in that game? Actually, the Cowboys played the Patriots that same season (in the regular season). Romo led the offense to twenty points. Our D also scored 7 points on a defensive touchdown.

But our D also allowed 48 points by the Pats... not 14.

 

[Afigueroa22]

1) Who cares about when they played each other? Football is a team sport. Is Alex Smith better than Drew Brees because the 49ers beat the Saints in the playoffs?

2) Eli's played well in two playoff runs, no doubt. But it sure helps his chances when the Giants D absolutely dominates, like they did in both the 2008 and 2012 postseasons.

Tony Romo has NEVER had a D like that in the playoffs. The best D the Cowboys have had since he's been our QB was in the 2010 playoffs... but then Brett Favre scorched us in Minnesota to the tune of 4 TDs and a 134.4 QB rating.

Did Eli have to deal with that in 2008 or 2012? No... in 2008, the Giants D held arguably the best O of our era (Patriots) to just FOURTEEN points, so the Giants won while scoring just seventeen points themselves.

Seventeen points? You're telling me Tony Romo couldn't have led his offense to seventeen points in that game? Actually, the Cowboys played the Patriots that same season (in the regular season). Romo led the offense to twenty points. Our D also scored 7 points on a defensive touchdown.

But our D also allowed 48 points by the Pats... not 14.

/endthread

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

They played Toomer's comments on SC. Then the idiot ESPN analyst was acting like it was blasphemy. Idiots.

 

[Big Blue Joe]

1) Who cares about when they played each other? Football is a team sport. Is Alex Smith better than Drew Brees because the 49ers beat the Saints in the playoffs?

I've seen on this thread a couple times that the difference between Romo and Eli is that Eli has had the better D. I was pointing out that Romo had the better D this regular season.

Did Eli have to deal with that in 2008 or 2012? No... in 2008, the Giants D held arguably the best O of our era (Patriots) to just FOURTEEN points, so the Giants won while scoring just seventeen points themselves.

The Patriots offense was excellent over the first part of the 2010 season. But over their last 8 games (including the playoffs), Brady had a QBR under 83 five times. They were still good, but they had to some extent already been figured out.

Seventeen points? You're telling me Tony Romo couldn't have led his offense to seventeen points in that game?

Maybe not. The Patriots' D was outstanding that season. They were 4th in the league in scoring defense. And they continued their quality play in the postseason, holding teams to 20, 12, and 17 points.

Actually, the Cowboys played the Patriots that same season (in the regular season). Romo led the offense to twenty points. Our D also scored 7 points on a defensive touchdown.

The Giants also played the Patriots earlier that season. And Eli lead the offense to 28 points. Special teams also scored 7 points on a kick return. But that didn't matter in the Super Bowl, because the Patriots' defense was dominant during the playoffs.

 

[wittenacious]

WoodysGirl posted the PFT blog in the News Zone. Thought it would be good to add into the discussion here, in case anyone missed it:

Amani Toomer has had some time to think about what he said on SiriusXM NFL Radio's Movin' the Chains. After sleeping on it...

Toomer stands by his Romo-Eli remarks

Toomer said that he was ready to declare Eli as superior to the Cowboys’ signal-caller, until looking at the numbers.

“I was all set — Romo’s no good, he’s a fourth-quarter choker — and then I started doing my job,” Toomer said. “I started looking at the numbers. I started looking at the statistics. I started looking at the quarterback rating. And I was shocked. I was shocked at how good Tony Romo’s statistics really were. This guy is really impressive.

“Then when I was on [SiriusXM NFL Radio's Movin' the Chains] and we were going over the NFC East, Tim Ryan, my co-host, said [Manning] is the best quarterback in the NFC East and the Giants were going to win the division. And I was like, wait a minute. All this information I had just gathered about Tony Romo, I couldn’t let him get away with it.

“So I said, ‘You know what? Tony Romo, statistically, he’s the better quarterback.’”

Read more: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/06/toomer-stands-by-his-romo-eli-remarks/​

 

[wittenacious]

My take on it (for what little that's worth) after also having had further time to think about it...

Stats aren't everything, not by a long shot. But they do have their place in trying to determine one player's skill level... one player's strengths and weaknesses... versus another's. They don't tell the whole story.

Winning Super Bowls is about t-e-a-m effort. Always has been. Always will be.

Any individually dominant player on a team can help keep their team in the hunt and even help them get to the Super Bowl, but it takes an entire team effort to win it all, especially throughout the Playoffs and on through the Super Bowl.

I believe Tony Romo is the better overall quarterback — head-to-head, all outside influences being equal... which is never the case — when compared to Eli Manning, up to this point. Such an opinion is near impossible to prove, especially to anybody who has an opposing opinion on the matter.

Still, neither QB's entire body of work has been turned in yet, assuming each of their careers continues for a few more years. When all is said and done, maybe the picture of who was the best will be much clearer. IDK.

But would I rather see the Cowboys have more Super Bowl rings, like Eli has, or Tony Romo's studly stats (as I think someone put it) at quarterback? Well, that's a distinctly different discussion point than the one raised in this thread, IMO. To that question my answer would be, I'd rather have the SB rings, but I can't disrespect Romo's efforts in having tried to get us there, mistakes and all.

And like I said — still hoping for SB successes in future w/ Tony at the 'Boys helm — the whole story hasn't been written on Tony or Eli just yet.

For now, I think Tony Romo > Eli Manning. That's just my opinion. I'm unapologetically stickin' to it.

 

[IAMKING]

Stats vs Rings

/end

 

[IAMKING]

They played Toomer's comments on SC. Then the idiot ESPN analyst was acting like it was blasphemy. Idiots.

You mean how CZ acted when Bennett didnt say Romo was playing favorites

 

[bklyn1028]

My humble opinion:

Romo (I keep repeating myself) is an excellent QB, it just isn't working for him there. Listen, I'm in the car business here is sunny fla....you can take a 20 car a month salesman and if he switches stores (God know why), he might suck. And I've seen poor salespeople move and kill it. Romo so far isn't doing it in Dallas, and I don't give a rats's *** about stats, it isn't how you start, it's how you finish, and he can't finish on that team, nothing against him or the team, it just isn't working for him there. On another team he will (might) get to the SB, but in Jerry's world so far nada!

So is Eli the better QB, no, neither is Rodgers, Brady or that scumbag you know who in voodoo land. Just because Eli has two rings ( I love that kid....lol), doesn't make him better, but he does have em, and that is what judges a QB it today's time. I mean ONE playoff win in 6 yrs doesn't cut it.

 

[Ren]

This reminds me of the old Young vs Aikman debates only back then Cowboys fans where making the same arguments Giants fans are now :laugh1:



Stats didn't matter so much with Aikman but now with Romo who's nothing but stats it's the only thing that matters