Jump to content

Eli Manning or Tony Romo....Who's better?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Any way you look at it Eli is still just an average QB. More to winning Super Bowl than just a QB. It's still about the team. It still doesn't make Eli a good or great QB.

 

What makes Romo a better quarterback than Eli Manning?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any way you look at it Eli is still just an average QB. More to winning Super Bowl than just a QB. It's still about the team. It still doesn't make Eli a good or great QB.

 

Please explain to me how Mr. Romo is a better quarterback than Mr. Manning. I beg you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Tony wins a playoff game, Eli will continue to be a better QB.

 

 

False logic.

 

I could put down in detail what makes Romo a better QB than Manning, just like I could write that Fouts was a better QB than Rypien or Williams. Maybe I will later. It seems like a lot of work on my part.

 

An overly simplistic way to go about it, although it has it's fallacies much like the SB/win argument, is that Manning has only been able to beat Romo one time, in the playoffs, where the major deciding factor was that the refs ignored Manning's delay of game and intentional grounding, and so badly botched an intentional grounding on Romo (who apparently knew the rules better than the refs did) that the NFL had to apologize to the Cowboys afterwards.

 

Any other time the Giants have beaten the Boys, it was when Bledsoe/Brad Johnson was starting.

 

Any notion of Manning's dominance, I imagine, is short of gas in all but one category. A category Manning shares with Trent Dilfer, which doesn't bode well for his argument, and problably why New York balks at giving him at least 100 million in cash money :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manning can't hold a candle to Romo. Eli is an average QB that got lucky his defense ended up being so good.
Passing %-Manning 63.6, Romo 64.4

Yards per pass -Manning 7.7, Romo 8.1

QB rating- Manning 94.7, Romo 94.7

TD's/ INT avg.per season- Manning 33.3/16.5, Romo 27/15.

 

Manning's averages are over 10 seasons, while Romo's are over 3 seasons. How does Manning not hold a candle to Romo?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passing %-Manning 63.6, Romo 64.4

Yards per pass -Manning 7.7, Romo 8.1

QB rating- Manning 94.7, Romo 94.7

TD's/ INT avg.per season- Manning 33.3/16.5, Romo 27/15.

 

Manning's averages are over 10 seasons, while Romo's are over 3 seasons. How does Manning not hold a candle to Romo?

You are mistaken my friend. These are the career for both players. Not even close. I'll leave you to average the comparisons. Clear cut to me.

 

Tony Romo

CMP ATT YDS COMP% YPA TD INT SACK RAT

831 1307 10562 63.6 8.08 81 46 65 94.5

 

Eli Manning

CMP ATT YDS COMP% YPA TD INT SACK RAT

1276 2284 14623 55.9 6.40 98 74 120 76.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passing %-Manning 63.6, Romo 64.4

Yards per pass -Manning 7.7, Romo 8.1

QB rating- Manning 94.7, Romo 94.7

TD's/ INT avg.per season- Manning 33.3/16.5, Romo 27/15.

 

Manning's averages are over 10 seasons, while Romo's are over 3 seasons. How does Manning not hold a candle to Romo?

 

Are you sure you're looking up stats for the right Manning? Both Tony and Eli came into the league in 2004.

 

I have to find my spreadsheet to to judge their yards per attempt, since I don't think the league figures it right to trust their website. I'm still fairly certain that Romo has Eli soundly beaten in this category for every year they can be compared. Coldhardfootballfacts.com has the Giants at 6.121 and the Cowboys at 6.56, but this would have factored in Brad Johnson's horrendous starts.

 

Comp %: Romo 63.6, Manning 55.9

 

TD/INT: Romo 81/46, Manning 96/74

 

QB Rating: Romo 94.7, Manning 76.1

 

Football Outsiders has Romo beating out Manning handily in DVOA and DPAR rankings and Eyards every year their comparable but one (sadly, Romo's injury last year cost him 1 percent in DVOA this year alone).

 

If you're looking at playoffs losses, Manning has been far more the problem than the solution. In comparing 2 games to 3, Romo has 1 turnover to Manning's 7.

 

Manning's rating is best when his team is tied or ahead by 1-8 points. His stats for the last several suffer if he's forced to try and carry his team to victory in behind situations. Under NO circumstances does Manning's rating reach over 100; not when he's behind, nor ahead by multiple touchdowns.

 

Romo in the last several years tops 100 in several categories, and even tops 120 in quite a few. In three straight years, Romo tops 120 rating when he's AHEAD at any point. He also tops 110 when he's behind by 1-8 points.

 

In the last 3 years does Manning only ever beats Romo heads up twice over the last 3 years; his rating is better when TIED in 2008, and it's better when BEHIND 1-8 points in 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take the quarterback who beat what would have been the greatest team in NFL history in the Super Bowl.

 

But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

The defense who led the league in sacks don't add up to much here?

 

I would just say that It's contentious that the 2007 Pats would be the best team ever. That still might be the 1948 Bears. Technically it could be the 1969 Vikings (the only team I think can claim they had the no.1 offense and the no. 1 defense in the same season). To top it off, I recorded and broke down several of these Patriots games; I've never seen a more blatant attempt by refs to usher a team into the endzone has often as possible.

 

That's a whole different argument that might need to be debated another day.

 

I don't think you can draw a reasonable conclusion Manning, entirely based on 1 postseason in 4, and including another season where he didn't even get his team to the playoffs, somehow earns a status has a "crunchtime" quarterback. His statistics don't show it. His awful 3 postseason losses outside of the 2007 season warn against it. Even in the 2007 season, he badly needed help in 2 of those games to win; once from the refs in the Dallas game, and once from Brett Favre, who basically threw the Giants to victory.

 

Even with all this in mind, It's been a pretty common trait in NFL history that average quarterbacks can win the Super Bowl or even upset the 'unbeatable' teams. This lone avenue in Manning's favor is also the one that crumbles like a deck of cards when scrutinized.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you.

 

Well, well, well, here's another ex-Dallas Cowboy quarterback in trouble : http://www.fanhouse.com/news/nfl/ryan-leaf...harges%2F495049

 

Why can't Jerry Jones hired Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks stay out of trouble ? Why do I have a feeling Jerry is going to bring Matt Jones to Dallas, or for that matter Michael Vick ?

 

 

Back on topic, Quincy had the chance of a lifetime. I sort of feel sorry for him, but in other ways, I don't. Ryan Leaf was the same way. Maybe they can be bunkmates, if Leaf comes back to Texas.

 

I don't think Vick will end up in Dallas. I kinda look for him to go to the 49'ers or the Vikings. I would take Eli for the simple fact that he has proved more than Romo and has had a lot of success. I don't have anything against Romo, but IMO Manning is a better QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Someone nudged me and pointed something out to me that I had missed completely; I didn't compare Romo and Manning to the same number of starts. So here are the adjusted stats:

 

Romo per 39 starts:

 

27-12 Overall Record

 

10562 Total Passing Yards

 

81 td's

 

46 ints

 

63.6% comp

 

Playoff Wins 0-2

 

 

E. Manning per 39 starts:

 

20-19 Overall Record

 

8049 Total Passing Yards

 

54 td's

 

39 Int

 

52.9% comp

 

Playoff Wins 0-2

 

 

P. Manning per 39 starts:

 

21-18 Overall record

 

10024 Total Passing Yards

 

67 td's

 

50 int

 

59.9% comp

 

Playoff Wins 0-1

 

 

D. McNabb per 39 starts:

 

24-15 Overall record

 

7727 Total Passing Yards

 

33 td's

 

34 int

 

54.8 % comp

 

Playoff Wins 1-1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense who led the league in sacks don't add up to much here?

 

I would just say that It's contentious that the 2007 Pats would be the best team ever. That still might be the 1948 Bears. Technically it could be the 1969 Vikings (the only team I think can claim they had the no.1 offense and the no. 1 defense in the same season). To top it off, I recorded and broke down several of these Patriots games; I've never seen a more blatant attempt by refs to usher a team into the endzone has often as possible.

 

That's a whole different argument that might need to be debated another day.

 

I don't think you can draw a reasonable conclusion Manning, entirely based on 1 postseason in 4, and including another season where he didn't even get his team to the playoffs, somehow earns a status has a "crunchtime" quarterback. His statistics don't show it. His awful 3 postseason losses outside of the 2007 season warn against it. Even in the 2007 season, he badly needed help in 2 of those games to win; once from the refs in the Dallas game, and once from Brett Favre, who basically threw the Giants to victory.

 

Even with all this in mind, It's been a pretty common trait in NFL history that average quarterbacks can win the Super Bowl or even upset the 'unbeatable' teams. This lone avenue in Manning's favor is also the one that crumbles like a deck of cards when scrutinized.

 

First of all, yes, the Giants had a great defense. But someone had to beat that team on a final drive. Winning the Super Bowl is how quarterbacks are measured. Remember all the flak against Peyton Manning until he won a Super Bowl? The same goes for Romo.

 

Secondly, you can't compare a team in the modern area to ones 40 and 60 years ago. Those teams couldn't hold the jockstrap of teams nowadays.

 

Third, if you really "broke down" film on the Patriots, you need something else to do.

 

Fourth, anyone who blames the refs is a loser.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, yes, the Giants had a great defense. But someone had to beat that team on a final drive. Winning the Super Bowl is how quarterbacks are measured. Remember all the flak against Peyton Manning until he won a Super Bowl? The same goes for Romo.

 

Secondly, you can't compare a team in the modern area to ones 40 and 60 years ago. Those teams couldn't hold the jockstrap of teams nowadays.

 

Third, if you really "broke down" film on the Patriots, you need something else to do.

 

Fourth, anyone who blames the refs is a loser.

 

 

1) I think you're making my point for me: Peyton was unfairly criticized. He's largely lackluster playoff career obviously doesn't define then, nor now, how good he is as a quarterback. I've made this case statistically on several occasions; Manning is a great quarterback regardless if he won a Super Bowl or not; his statistics and ability would have shown he was still a great quarterback. A Super Bowl doesn't mask that guys like Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Jim McMahon, and Jeff Hostetler were never great.

 

2) I understand the differences in eras may skew comparisons, but statistically their all part of the same book; we don't know what that 1948 Bears team could have done given had they been realized this decade and had the same advantages as the Pats team.

 

3) In 2007 I didn't have enough to do. I was stuck at home with a diabetic infant and problably spent too much time watching football, period. It became a sad hobby left over from when I actually broke down film for local teams that actually served a purpose.

 

Doesn't take away from the fact that if Antwan Barnes rips around Matt Light, and Light struggles to drag him down from behind by his collar while he sacks Brady, and the camera just sits on this image of Light tackling Barnes while a ref stares right at them, and the announcers go silent, there's very little else that can be taken from seeing about 5 of these plays every Pats game shown nationally.

 

4) If the NFL comes out a day after the game, and publicly apologizes to the Cowboys and rips their own officials for blowing an admitted 4 calls that resulted in a 10-14 point swing, then you can hardly blame me for pointing it out or even if suggesting that it might have been the difference in the game. It was already suggested. I don't even think the NFL went this far when the refs fumbled the Pats/Raiders AFC title game or the Steelers/Seahawks UnSuper Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes Tony Romo a great quarterback? And a quarterback who is capable of leading this team to a Super Bowl?

 

 

What makes any quarterback a great quarterback or capable of a Super Bowl? If you looked at a young Brett Favre, and all he had done was lose to the Cowboys in the playoffs, what could be pointed to and suggested, "this is why he has a good chance to win a SB before he retires".

 

A more recent example of Peyton Manning. What about Peyton led many to believe he'd win a SB?

 

My answer would be statistics. Several of Romo's statistics certainly suggests he's in good company if he stays to form. Same could be said for a baseball player or a race horse.

 

1) Yards per Attempt Tony Romo - 8.1

Otto Graham - 8.63

Sid Luckman - 8.42

Big Ben - 8.13

Kurt Warner - 8.11

Steve Young - 7.98

Peyton Manning - 7.70

Bart Starr - 7.84

Johnny Unitas - 7.76

 

Looking at the YPA top 20 all-time, and it's littered with great quarterbacks that played in multiple title games and Super Bowls. Joe Montana and Roger Staubach are on this list. So are guys that didn't win, like Dan Fouts, YA Tittle, and Bob Berry.

 

Passer Rating Tony Romo - 94.7

Steve Young - 96.81

Peyton Manning - 94.72

Kurt Warner - 93.17

Tom Brady - 92.93

Joe Montana - 92.26

 

Tony Romo is right at home with the top guys in Passer Rating, mainly because it's filled with modern era quarterbacks do to rules favoring offensive scoring compared to previous eras. Guys like Carson Palmer (90.12), Chad Pennington (88.19), and Dan Marino (86.38) are also on this list.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes Tony Romo a great quarterback? And a quarterback who is capable of leading this team to a Super Bowl?

He has already shown the intangibles it takes to be one. He has a very high drive to succeed on the field. His only problem is his experience to know when to give the ball up and throw it away. That'll change with experience. He does try to do too much when there is not much to do. Even then his turnover stats are not bad in comparison to other elite QB's. Eli did start a couple years earlier than Romo. Peyton was a great QB before he won a Super Bowl. Romo has blown away almost everyone in recent years if you compare stats early in their careers. The championships will come. The fact he hasn't got one yet does not make him a bad QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...