Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't get over why if you don't sing the Cowboys praises & claim their going to win the Superbowl you are a "hater".

I've loved the Cowboys as long as I can remember. I'm just not going to believe something til I see it. They were loaded last year & didn't make the playoffs. Lost their #1 receiver & they are gonna be better ???? Don't see it. They've still got the same OL and coaches.

 

 

As far as Romo-Manning.......it's a tossup. I'd lean towards Romo. But he's GOT to start protecting ball possessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With me it goes back to being a fan and support. With your job do you automatically feel you can't make a living with what you made last year. No. You learn to budget and do things differently. Maybe you missed some time last year off work. But if you stayed healthy you'd be able to make it a little better. This is my point on the whole Cowboy thing. I don't think someone is a "hater" if they don't think the Cowboys are going to win SB. I just can't stand negative thought processes. That's a sign of losing to me. I do however, recognize my thought process has no bearing on the Cowboys winning. I choose not to look at all the doom and gloom people throw out here.

 

I still say they are "loaded" this year also. There is not one team out there that hasn't made changes from last season. You just never know if some small change will make a big difference. Signing Free-Agents to lopsided contracts is not a contract to winning. It's been proven time and again.

 

The coaching situation is what it is. Besides coordinating things in pre-season The head coach determines countless things that will take place in practice. The coaching is mainly done during the week and on game-day the head coach doesn't coach as much. He usually provides input in certain situations. His other coaches are usually doing most of it. No Dallas does not have the same coaches. There were changes in defense and special teams. Not even close to being the same. You just can't get rid of all the coaches and expect some sort of continuity. It's funny the same people that complain about Wade being too soft are usually the same ones that complained about other coaches being too hard (Parcells?).

 

I myself have problems with T.O. not being here. I thought he was one of the most dynamic weapons we had. But I do understand some of the logic behind what people say about the disruption. It is possible that Romo was intimidated and felt he "had" to get the ball to T.O. If that was truly the case then yes I can see how the team could improve without T.O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get over why if you don't sing the Cowboys praises & claim their going to win the Superbowl you are a "hater".

I've loved the Cowboys as long as I can remember. I'm just not going to believe something til I see it. They were loaded last year & didn't make the playoffs. Lost their #1 receiver & they are gonna be better ???? Don't see it. They've still got the same OL and coaches.

 

 

As far as Romo-Manning.......it's a tossup. I'd lean towards Romo. But he's GOT to start protecting ball possessions.

 

 

Last year was frustrating for Cowboys fans, and I think mostly due to an obscene number of injuries. Despite that, there were other reasons; Brad Johnson tanking, Garrett looking too often for Owens and looking too little at Felix Jones, Corey Proctor, Romo's injury, Brian Stewart's defensive playcalling. Add in the Pacman mess for breaking a mirror and the fact that we were throwing in practice squad guys at the last minute and the whole thing was a mess of a season.

 

I'm not predicting wins and losses; I try to steer clear of that. I am optimistic if we stay healthy. We finished 7th in defense and I think that will improve with Phillips calling the defense all season. I'm hoping we'll be a more run-oriented team; it fits our strengths as an offense and our personnel. We've also tossed anyone that can be deemed a distraction and saved our salary cap dollars for an uncapped 2010 season. We increased depth in the one place I thought we sorely needed it; secondary.

 

I think THS, that you've got your eye on the right things to be negative about. I have no idea if this offense can throttle without Owens; we may have to be an offense that doesn't light up the scoreboard. The offensive line still needs to be healthy and work decently from the shotgun. Sensabaugh, Jenkins and Scandrick will have to take on a bigger role, and we'll have to see if they can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year was frustrating for Cowboys fans, and I think mostly due to an obscene number of injuries. Despite that, there were other reasons; Brad Johnson tanking, Garrett looking too often for Owens and looking too little at Felix Jones, Corey Proctor, Romo's injury, Brian Stewart's defensive playcalling. Add in the Pacman mess for breaking a mirror and the fact that we were throwing in practice squad guys at the last minute and the whole thing was a mess of a season.

 

I'm not predicting wins and losses; I try to steer clear of that. I am optimistic if we stay healthy. We finished 7th in defense and I think that will improve with Phillips calling the defense all season. I'm hoping we'll be a more run-oriented team; it fits our strengths as an offense and our personnel. We've also tossed anyone that can be deemed a distraction and saved our salary cap dollars for an uncapped 2010 season. We increased depth in the one place I thought we sorely needed it; secondary.

 

I think THS, that you've got your eye on the right things to be negative about. I have no idea if this offense can throttle without Owens; we may have to be an offense that doesn't light up the scoreboard. The offensive line still needs to be healthy and work decently from the shotgun. Sensabaugh, Jenkins and Scandrick will have to take on a bigger role, and we'll have to see if they can.

HAHA don't forget we still have that notorious fullback rookie trying out for the Cowboys. You know the dangerous "thug" with the Ninja throwing stars!!! WOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did you start playing for the Cowboys?

Get real dude!!! We as in fans...the home team.....your team...... whatever! You would think if you were a STAFF member on Smoaky (a sports website) you would have enough sense to understand the WORD "WE"and how it is used in the context of teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL .... Well see how Romo performs without TO. I think your logic is backwards. If TO had someone who could get the ball to him more often he would have been much more productive.

WOW...go look at his targeted to reception ratio...he was easily the most thrown at player on the team. he was second in the league in dropped passes and first in the league last season. so tell me again which direction my logic is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping we'll be a more run-oriented team;

 

I agree & hope that also. But how long will Romo stay happy in a run-oriented team? It doesn't play to his strength at all. You've got to admit he's at his best when he's on the run & improvising. I'm genuinely worried about how this experiment is going to play out. Romo's been compared by a lot of people as a "Bret Favre" type QB. No way would Favre play on a run-oriented team. I hope Romo embraces it, I really do. But I can't help but be skeptical.

 

I do have great hopes for the defense. If they can play up to potential the Cowboys should be in every game. I think Romo, Wade Phillips, Roy Williams, and Jason Garrett's reputations are on the line this year....and they should be. I hope they come through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homerism aside, there hasn't been one deductive argument in this entire thread that possibly shines light on Eli being the better quarterback. His stats don't compare, he's been the cause of more losses to the tune of more turnovers in the playoffs than Romo, and his own team is balking at giving him 'elite' quarterback money.

 

The only argument in Eli's favor doesn't hold up to any inspection.

I'm sure Eli will gladly inspect the Vince Lombardi trophy he won as the Giants quarterback and let Romo bask in the fact he has the better statistics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Eli will gladly inspect the Vince Lombardi trophy he won as the Giants quarterback and let Romo bask in the fact he has the better statistics.

Goes to show even "Bus-drivers" can win a championship. Romo's much more than that. It'll happen soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goes to show even "Bus-drivers" can win a championship. Romo's much more than that. It'll happen soon enough.

 

 

Hope you're right dude. I've lost a lot of faith in Romo as compared to when he first took over. I hope I'm wrong, but he seems to have possibl lost his edge.

 

As for the running game, and I'm sure I'm going to get crucified for this, but I don't think Barber is the answer. He's too one dimensional and he's simply not big enough to withstand the beating his power running game is built around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get real dude!!! We as in fans...the home team.....your team...... whatever! You would think if you were a STAFF member on Smoaky (a sports website) you would have enough sense to understand the WORD "WE"and how it is used in the context of teams.

 

Missed the joke, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you're right dude. I've lost a lot of faith in Romo as compared to when he first took over. I hope I'm wrong, but he seems to have possibl lost his edge.

 

As for the running game, and I'm sure I'm going to get crucified for this, but I don't think Barber is the answer. He's too one dimensional and he's simply not big enough to withstand the beating his power running game is built around.

Hey there is no doubt Romo pressed too hard last season. He no doubt should have done some things differently. With everything caving around him he tried to improvise in very bad situations. With bad results. He'll hopefully grow from these experiences.

 

I never thought Barber was "the" answer. I believe he needs to be in a situation just like when he started here. Only now, just maybe we'll utilize three running backs consistently through out the games. I would love to see a lot of 2-back sets. Just establish running the ball more and only utilize the pass to offset the run. Not the other way around. Maybe Garrett learned a little more and he'll bring more to the table this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

write this down.

 

by the 2011 season, felix jones will be the face of this team...

 

dallas only runs more if the recieving corp is terrible...they don't have to be great for an O. Coor. (former NFL QB) to want to throw the ball first.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Eli will gladly inspect the Vince Lombardi trophy he won as the Giants quarterback and let Romo bask in the fact he has the better statistics.

 

So, any protest on my part that this is an illogical theorem that allows too many false inferences to be taken as proof of anything can be thrown out the window. Somewhere, Trent Dilfer is laughing.

 

Judging quarterbacks solely on whether they've been to the SB is based on a fallacy that a quarterback must be great in order to do so. We know from NFL history that this isn't the case. There's too many contradictions in your theorem that you just can't ignore:

 

a) 1 Super Bowl win = great quarterback

 

b) Therefore, Eli Manning = great quarterback

 

c) Jim McMahon/Doug Williams/Mark Rypien/Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer/Jeff Hostetler = great quarterback

 

 

Since there's several contradictions, the system falls apart. We haven't even gone to the next logical step; quarterbacks that have been to Super Bowls must obviously be better than those who have not. We go this far and we're adding Rex Grossman, Rich Gannon, Drew Bledsoe, the guy from New England whose name escapes me.

 

Then we'd have to go down the road of MOST Super Bowl wins. Terry Bradshaw is obviously so much better than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning right? Well, not exactly.

 

Your inference can't be taken seriously by itself. You need an argument that can stand alone, and then use Super Bowl wins as PROOF that your theorem would include success as a basis for this. Has it stands now it's circular reasoning, and it's been trounced in this thread and previous ones like it without so much as an attempt to needle out the contradictions. It's just repeated.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, any protest on my part that this is an illogical theorem that allows too many false inferences to be taken as proof of anything can be thrown out the window. Somewhere, Trent Dilfer is laughing.

 

Judging quarterbacks solely on whether they've been to the SB is based on a fallacy that a quarterback must be great in order to do so. We know from NFL history that this isn't the case. There's too many contradictions in your theorem that you just can't ignore:

 

a) 1 Super Bowl win = great quarterback

 

b) Therefore, Eli Manning = great quarterback

 

c) Jim McMahon/Doug Williams/Mark Rypien/Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer/Jeff Hostetler = great quarterback

 

 

Since there's several contradictions, the system falls apart. We haven't even gone to the next logical step; quarterbacks that have been to Super Bowls must obviously be better than those who have not. We go this far and we're adding Rex Grossman, Rich Gannon, Drew Bledsoe, the guy from New England whose name escapes me.

 

Then we'd have to go down the road of MOST Super Bowl wins. Terry Bradshaw is obviously so much better than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning right? Well, not exactly.

 

Your inference can't be taken seriously by itself. You need an argument that can stand alone, and then use Super Bowl wins as PROOF that your theorem would include success as a basis for this. Has it stands now it's circular reasoning, and it's been trounced in this thread and previous ones like it without so much as an attempt to needle out the contradictions. It's just repeated.

I never said a quarterback had to be great to win a Super Bowl, but even Trent Dilfer can show off a Super Bowl ring while Romo would have to show off his stat sheets. Eli Manning has reached the ultimate goal of any team player, and that is to win a championship. I hope that day comes for Romo, and he has plenty of time to have it happen (barring injury).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some fine players you just named there Badblackcat! LOL! Just the example of Dilfer. What he was so good that out of 14 yrs he played on a team for 11 games that won a Super Bowl. He's just one example of a mediocre QB that played on a team that won. It did not mean he is a elite QB or a winner.

 

Doug Williams? Don't get me started.

 

Just give Romo time to learn what it takes to be an NFL QB. It's gonna be tough to live up to the stats that he set already in the league. That's why it's so important for the team to play and win, not just Romo. They'll win a Super Bowl because of the team not Tony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said a quarterback had to be great to win a Super Bowl, but even Trent Dilfer can show off a Super Bowl ring while Romo would have to show off his stat sheets. Eli Manning has reached the ultimate goal of any team player, and that is to win a championship. I hope that day comes for Romo, and he has plenty of time to have it happen (barring injury).

 

I realize you didn't say it, but that's the focus of this thread, and Dilfer is just a recent example of an average, unwanted quarterback who rode a great defense to the championship. It isn't because Dilfer was a better quarterback than Collins or any other AFC quarterback; his 200 stats were fairly mediocre. His only been over an 80 passer rating once in a full season his entire career, and that was in 1997.

 

So it's actually a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dilfer may not have been a great quarterback, but I for one believe he was a smart quarterback. The jury is out on Romo, but I'd say he doesn't make the greatest decisions.

If you had watched Dilfer from the beginning you would say he was not a smart QB either. Romo has his football smarts and has excelled at it. But just like all QB's they do make wrong decisions sometimes. And just like some of the great ones they are not afraid to take risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the offense becomes more run than pass is that a bad thing? put the ball in your playmakers hands. romo can still play his game if he doesn't force things into stupid mistakes. if eli can win with that crew in ny, why cant romo running nearly the same scheme?

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...