Toomer: Romo better than Eli

[bklyn1028]

Don't get carried away. I hate the Giants. I just know that Eli is a good Qb and saying that doesn't diminish how good a Qb Romo is.

I never get carried away. Romo is a good QB, always have eluded to that. Besides he's a paisano!!!

 

[5Stars]

4]I never get carried away. Romo is a good QB, always have eluded to that. Besides he's a paisano!![/B]!

:laugh1:


No he's not! He's Mexican/Spanish, not Italian.

 

[Kingsmith88]

I never get carried away. Romo is a good QB, always have eluded to that. Besides he's a paisano!!!

Yeah he isn't Italian.

 

[Idgit]

Ok, Toomer bit off more than he should have, but if you read between the lines all he said was STATISTICALLY, Romo is the better QB, which mathematically he is, there is no taking that back.
Eli is a very good QB, but his defensive won those games; Romo is a great QB, but his defensive lost those games:
WHO GIVES A RAT'S ***......it's over. Giants beat the Packers, but the packers had a bad game. Giants beat the Falcons, but the Falcons shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway. Giants beat the 49ers, but special teams lost it, Giants got lucky. Giants beat the Patriots, but Brady threw off a little and Welker was thinking about his new contract and got butterfingers:
WHO GIVE A RAT'S ***.

Romo is as good as Eli is period. Look, the pats were 18-0 and lost, had a bad game, and the jints were on, doesn't make the Giants better than the Pats. Toomer is an *** at this point, he knew he would stir a hornet's nest up, and that probably was his goal.

YOu know what I don't know what the hell i'm talking about. Im at work bored to death, trying to make friends with Cowboys fans, so, how's life?

Eli beat a lot of teams with QBs better than he is on the way to two NFL Championships. But there's no denying the Giants were the better teams in every single one of those games. Including the 18-0 Pats in 2007. I hate it, but they were definitely the better team. That's what winning it all means.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Yeah he isn't Italian.

Mexican, German, and Polish

 

[tyke1doe]

: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...

Actually, I was being sarcastic.

Second, with all due respect, it appears people here trying to defend Romo are doing so based on his stats. Meanwhile, they're trying to downplay Eli's contributions in the playoffs saying it's more a matter of his defense.

But ...

When last time I checked, Eli's play in the playoffs were as much a part of the team winning as the Giants defense.

Eli's throws have won Super Bowls. Not once but twice!!!!

Those had nothing to do with the defense.

So what we're saying is that even though statistically Romo has better numbers than Eli, when it matters most, Eli has come up big to win bigger games than Romo. Yes, Eli has had a better defense, but Eli's defense wasn't getting beat up by the 49ers defense yet kept getting up off the ground to pass the Giants to victory. The Giants defense didn't throw that rope to Mario Manningham in the Super Bowl that led NY to victory.

Eli had to make those throws. Eli had to win those games.

When the Giants defense relinquished the lead, Eli had to step up, and he did.

But all I hear is "Eli had a better defense. If Romo had a better defense ... blah, blah, blah."

Well, when Romo gets a better defense, we'll see what he does in the NFC Championship and in the Super Bowl.

But we KNOW what Eli can do when the game is on the line.

I'd rather have the quarterback who gets it done when it counts than the one who gets it done statistically in the regular season.

 

[5Stars]

Actually, I was being sarcastic.


But we KNOW what Eli can do when the game is on the line.

I'd rather have the quarterback who gets it done when it counts then the one who gets it done statistically in the regular season.

Hey, the Giants wouldn't mind another fan...go for it.

 

[tyke1doe]

If and when the Cowboys win it all, I hope - for consistency's sake - I hear "The Cowboys won the Super Bowl less because of Tony Romo and more because they finally had a great defense." rather than "See, I told you how great Tony Romo was. He just needed a better defense."

I'm interested to read who gives the credit to the defense (which so many here seem to think holds Tony Romo back) and who gives it to Romo because based on the arguments herein you'd think Tony Romo was merely an average quarterback just waiting on a great defense like the Giants have.

 

[tyke1doe]

Hey, the Giants wouldn't mind another fan...go for it.

Not the ole' "If you don't support everything about the Cowboys and defend every player on the Cowboys roster, you're not a true fan" card.

Sorry, but being a Cowboys fan doesn't mean I can't acknowledge great players on other teams when compared to Cowboys nor does it mean I have to subscribe to the opinion that any and every Cowboy player is better at his position than a player on another team.

Nice, if not cliche-ish, try, though.

 

[5Stars]

If and when the Cowboys win it all, I hope - for consistency's sake - I hear "The Cowboys won the Super Bowl less because of Tony Romo and more because they finally had a great defense." rather than "See, I told you how great Tony Romo was. He just needed a better defense."

I'm interested to read who gives the credit to the defense (which so many here seem to think holds Tony Romo back) and who gives it to Romo because based on the arguments herein you'd think Tony Romo was merely an average quarterback just waiting on a great defense like the Giants have.

If Romo wins a SB, it was because of the TEAM!

There, I said it, and that is true for every team that wins a SB.

 

[tyke1doe]

If Romo wins a SB, it was because of the TEAM!

There, I said it, and that is true for every team that wins a SB.

You're getting ahead of my scenario. We'll see what people say when/if it happens - and I hope it does.

 

[5Stars]

You're getting ahead of my scenario. We'll see what people say when/if it happens - and I hope it does.

And if he does, are you going to bark at the ones that are saying that Romo will never win a SB.

That door swings both ways...

 

[gimmesix]

If and when the Cowboys win it all, I hope - for consistency's sake - I hear "The Cowboys won the Super Bowl less because of Tony Romo and more because they finally had a great defense." rather than "See, I told you how great Tony Romo was. He just needed a better defense."

I'm interested to read who gives the credit to the defense (which so many here seem to think holds Tony Romo back) and who gives it to Romo because based on the arguments herein you'd think Tony Romo was merely an average quarterback just waiting on a great defense like the Giants have.

If Romo plays well, he'll be given a lot of credit simply because he's the player that gets the bulk of the blame for Dallas' failings.

It won't really be any different, though. Just like he doesn't deserve the blame he gets; he won't deserve all the credit. As I wrote with Eli, he's just part of the process. I believe that's all anybody has been trying to say. The Giants didn't win in spite of Eli, but they didn't win because of him, either. He did his part. Same thing can be said about Aikman. Super Bowl victories don't go to the NFL's best player, but to the NFL's best team.

And that's why a just argument can be made that Romo is a better player than Manning despite Eli's two Super Bowl rings. I don't think stats are everything, but I certainly also don't think rings definie a player.

 

[tyke1doe]

And if he does, are you going to bark at the ones that are saying that Romo will never win a SB.

That door swings both ways...

Yep.

But I'm not of the opinion that Romo isn't a good enough quarterback to lead the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I'm just not of the opinion that he's on the level of T. Brady or P. Manning or Aaron Rodgers.

I think most of the quarterbacks in the NFL, if they have a great defense, can win the Super Bowl. But I would also judge them on their play in that Super Bowl before I would praise them incessantly about their abilities to win the Big One.

I think Big Ben is clutch and has shown his moments of clutchiness, but he stunk in his first Super Bowl.

 

[tyke1doe]

If Romo plays well, he'll be given a lot of credit simply because he's the player that gets the bulk of the blame for Dallas' failings.

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>

It won't really be any different, though. Just like he doesn't deserve the blame he gets; he won't deserve all the credit. As I wrote with Eli, he's just part of the process. I believe that's all anybody has been trying to say. The Giants didn't win in spite of Eli, but they didn't win because of him, either. He did his part. Same thing can be said about Aikman. Super Bowl victories don't go to the NFL's best player, but to the NFL's best team.

Same thing for Montana?

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

But I don't think that will tell us much about Romo should the Cowboys win a Super Bowl with him under center.

And that's why a just argument can be made that Romo is a better player than Manning despite Eli's two Super Bowl rings. I don't think stats are everything, but I certainly also don't think rings definie a player.

How is Romo a better player than Manning?

I find it interesting that Eli's clutch performances when it matters most are dismissed by invoking "his better team, i.e., defense" but Romo's (clearing throat) regular season stats aren't referenced by the same measuring stick.

If Eli is a product of his team, so is Romo.

If Eli is performing poorly in the regular season, then that's a product of his defense not playing over its head, his offensive line not blocking, etc.

If Romo is performing better statistically in the regular season, it's not just him. It's because his line is blocking, his defense is keeping the team in the game, etc.

If that's the measuring stick, then all quarterbacks are merely average and need a great deal in complementary parts to win.

So why compare Eli with Romo anyway if this is the case?

The only comparison I'm making is that Eli has shown what he can do in the NFC Championship Games and Super Bowls. Therefore, we have to say he's better when it matters most.
Romo has not. That doesn't mean Romo can't do the same. But to compare him to Eli at this point and use stats to do so is short-sighted, IMO.

It's like comparing a pilot-in-training who's aced a simulation drill with a veteran pilot who has flown combat missions in the war.

The green pilot may very well do better in combat when given the chance. He may very well have tested better than the veteran when the veteran was a pilot going through flight school.

But to suggest that the young pilot is actually better than the veteran war pilot based on statistics/test scores is an affront to dignity and common sense.

We KNOW what the veteran pilot has done under intense pressure in the biggest fight of his life.

We CAN ONLY GUESS what the young pilot would do under intense pressure in the biggest fight of his life.

I don't have to tell you who the veteran pilot is with respect to Romo and Eli.

 

[gbrittain]

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>



Same thing for Montana?

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

But I don't think that will tell us much about Romo should the Cowboys win a Super Bowl with him under center.



How is Romo a better player than Manning?

I find it interesting that Eli's clutch performances when it matters most are dismissed by invoking "his better team, i.e., defense" but Romo's (clearing throat) regular season stats aren't referenced by the same measuring stick.

If Eli is a product of his team, so is Romo.

If Eli is performing poorly in the regular season, then that's a product of his defense not playing over its head, his offensive line not blocking, etc.

If Romo is performing better statistically in the regular season, it's not just him. It's because his line is blocking, his defense is keeping the team in the game, etc.

If that's the measuring stick, then all quarterbacks are merely average and need a great deal in complementary parts to win.

So why compare Eli with Romo anyway if this is the case?

The only comparison I'm making is that Eli has shown what he can do in the NFC Championship Games and Super Bowls. Therefore, we have to say he's better when it matters most.
Romo has not. That doesn't mean Romo can't do the same. But to compare him to Eli at this point and use stats to do so is short-sighted, IMO.

It's like comparing a pilot-in-training who's aced a simulation drill with a veteran pilot who has flown combat missions in the war.

The green pilot may very well do better in combat when given the chance. He may very well have tested better than the veteran when the veteran was a pilot going through flight school.

But to suggest that the young pilot is actually better than the veteran war pilot based on statistics/test scores is an affront to dignity and common sense.

We KNOW what the veteran pilot has done under intense pressure in the biggest fight of his life.

We CAN ONLY GUESS what the young pilot would do under intense pressure in the biggest fight of his life.

I don't have to tell you who the veteran pilot is with respect to Romo and Eli.

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?

You are making this to difficult. It is not not an either or scenario. If I don't sit here and deny Eli did his part admirably why is it so difficult to understand that the New York defense did their part admirably as well. To the point that I am not sure Eli wins a Super Bowl without the way the defense played, I am not sure the rest of the NY team wins a Super Bowl without Eli. Hmm...team work. Interesting development.

I already know Tony is great (There are different levels of great so don't get all excited now). The Super Bowl would be a nice addition to his resume. Aaron Rodgers is one dumb INT in the endzone by Mike Vick away from being 0-3 in the playoffs. Yep, even if Mike completes that pass to the team with a wing on its helmet, Rodgers is still great in my book.

 

[burmafrd]

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

 

[Idgit]

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

Those Giants teams just got really hot at the right time of year. And they were good enough to start with for that to matter. But that Eli toss in 2007 was a beautiful play on his part, especially in just getting it off under pressure. Last year, he played better than he has in his career, and when it mattered. It's impressive no matter how you look at it. But, yeah, that defense got healthier in the pass rush and then their coverage became opportunistic. It sure helps a QB when that happens.

 

[gbrittain]

Those Giants teams just got really hot at the right time of year. And they were good enough to start with for that to matter. But that Eli toss in 2007 was a beautiful play on his part, especially in just getting it off under pressure. Last year, he played better than he has in his career, and when it mattered. It's impressive no matter how you look at it. But, yeah, that defense got healthier in the pass rush and then their coverage became opportunistic. It sure helps a QB when that happens.

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...

 

[op124]

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...

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.