Who would you take over Eli Manning right now?

[Lubeck]

all the more reason why he is a legit QB, in the dog's opinion. if he can still put up good numbers and win facing "desperation" situations, isn't that a mark of a good QB (the same mark many here use for Manning...)...the fact is, he is a good QB, whether you love the cowboys or hate the cowboys, and if you are truely respectful of the game, and not just a homer, you can admit to that fact (honestly, the dog means no offense with that, but it is true...)...

 

You sir are exactly right. How a QB handles desperation situations is a great way to judge a QB.

 

Romo needs to just hold a snap and set it for his kicker. If he holds it and the kicker gets it through they win. Romo fucks up.

 

Romo needs to get a TD to win the game. He drives his team down into scoring range. Throws a pick into the end zone.

 

Eli needs a TD to win the game. He struggles through 3 near sacks and gets the ball down field to the open guy. Fast foward a couple plays and he tosses an easy TD to Burress.

 

Thanks for pointing out what is so important about QB play, the clutch performance.

[fringe]

i don't know why everyone is being so hard on romo- i think he's a damn good QB- got to give him credit for coming in unheralded, earning parcell's respect, thriving in that atmosphere, dealing with a childlike, clinically depressed receiver who refuses to run a route over the middle and still maintaining dignity and charm. the kid deserves some cred. the big game b.s. used to follow peyton too, unjustly.

 

[Lubeck]

i don't know why everyone is being so hard on romo- i think he's a damn good QB- got to give him credit for coming in unheralded, earning parcell's respect, thriving in that atmosphere, dealing with a childlike, clinically depressed receiver who refuses to run a route over the middle and still maintaining dignity and charm. the kid deserves some cred. the big game b.s. used to follow peyton too, unjustly.

 

1. We are Giants fans. If you are a Cowboy you automatically lose 5 points.

 

2. No one should discount Romo and his rise to fame. But that doesn't mean he is without faults.

 

3. Classic case of media hyping a guy above and beyond his achievements. People are naturally inclined to distrust the media, especially when they are so clearly in the bag for someone.

[fringe]

hey i didn't say i like him. i hated staubach and aikman to but i never doubted their abilities.

[Lubeck]

hey i didn't say i like him. i hated staubach and aikman to but i never doubted their abilities.

 

But you can't discount Romo has had a horrible post-season career. Two trips and two times he had the chance to be the hero. Once was a standard FG play he botched. The other was entirely in his hands.

 

I fully expect Romo to get a post-season victory eventually. And it will be trumpeted as the greatest achievement in the history of the NFL. But to date he is a post-season choke artist. A reputation he has earned, just as Peyton earned prior to the SB victory.

[fringe]

i don't really consider placekicker holding as a necessary skill for judging a QB. fact is, they should've gotten someone else to hold starting qb's have other things on their mind.

[Money]

i don't know why everyone is being so hard on romo- i think he's a damn good QB- got to give him credit for coming in unheralded, earning parcell's respect, thriving in that atmosphere, dealing with a childlike, clinically depressed receiver who refuses to run a route over the middle and still maintaining dignity and charm. the kid deserves some cred. the big game b.s. used to follow peyton too, unjustly.

 

I agree with everything except the comment about T.O. What separates him from the other top receivers is his willingness to go over the middle...like he did yesterday on that 52-yard TD. He's one of the absolute toughest players in the league.

[Virginia Giant]

the dog's not sure why he wouldn't. he has played in a system that preaches the team concept for years with some success. Brady has always been pretty classy, and was always the team leader in offseason workouts (until this past season).

 

Aside from Brady, the dog is hard-pressed to ignore Peyton Manning.

 

After that, there are several QB's that could be considered (Romo, Brees and Cutler)...but this would have to be better assessed as the year progresses...still too young in the season to determine, and Manning is playing at a higher level then ever has...

I wasn't trying to say Brady isn't a classy guy, as much as i hate the guy, I do have some respect for what he has done and how he plays the game. I was more thinking about how the Giants get by on being under the radar, nobody real flashy, nobody always in the spotlight etc. Replace the two teams qb's and i think the spot light is on the Giants and they are the sexy pick and all that, I think it would take away from how they coach, how they get up for games etc.

[fringe]

from way back in his time with SF, i've seen a reluctance for TO to go over the middle and take a hit. in my observation, he prefers the sidelines. but i agree he's very tough and CB's are afraid of him.

[Money]

But you can't discount Romo has had a horrible post-season career. Two trips and two times he had the chance to be the hero. Once was a standard FG play he botched. The other was entirely in his hands.

 

I fully expect Romo to get a post-season victory eventually. And it will be trumpeted as the greatest achievement in the history of the NFL. But to date he is a post-season choke artist. A reputation he has earned, just as Peyton earned prior to the SB victory.

 

Eli lost his first two postseason starts as well. So did a number of really great QBs. It's ok to admit that other teams have good players...

[jranieli]

Eli lost his first two postseason starts as well. So did a number of really great QBs. It's ok to admit that other teams have good players...

 

Very well then, I think Romo is quiet handsome. He has a killer smile and no one wears a hat backwards better than Romo.

[ksm7]

But you can't discount Romo has had a horrible post-season career. Two trips and two times he had the chance to be the hero. Once was a standard FG play he botched. The other was entirely in his hands.

 

I fully expect Romo to get a post-season victory eventually. And it will be trumpeted as the greatest achievement in the history of the NFL. But to date he is a post-season choke artist. A reputation he has earned, just as Peyton earned prior to the SB victory.

 

it's funny, the dog recalls quite a few QB's who struggled in their first few opportunities in the postseason...Peyton Manning, John Elway...Eli Manning...ummmm....

[Virginia Giant]

Eli lost his first two postseason starts as well. So did a number of really great QBs. It's ok to admit that other teams have good players...

True, and I'm not saying Romo isn't a very good qb, but imo you can't compare the 2 players playoff losses. Both times, to the best of my memory, It wasn't completely Eli's play that led to the Giants losing. The Carolina game was a complete fuck up, in every aspect of the game. The Philly game, Eli played well, even coming back in the 4th quarter I think. It was the D that screwed the pooch in that one late in the game.

 

 

Wether it's fair or not, Romo is the sole reason they lost vs the Hawks, and he did throw the INT against us last year to end the game, but it's not just that int, it was his play in the 4th quarter of that game.

[Lubeck]

it's funny, the dog recalls quite a few QB's who struggled in their first few opportunities in the postseason...Peyton Manning, John Elway...Eli Manning...ummmm....

 

Dan Marino......

 

The thing that seperates the QBs you listed and Romo is they overcame it.

 

I am NOT saying is that Romo is not a good QB. What I am saying is he has not shown post-season success yet.

[Lubeck]

Eli lost his first two postseason starts as well. So did a number of really great QBs. It's ok to admit that other teams have good players...

 

But they were not on him. Game one the defense had no-name LBs. Game two he did was Eli does, what this entire topic is about. In the clutch he performed. Against the Eagles the D gave up the score.

 

Romo on the other hand had the game in his hands, quite literally, and twice blew it.

[Lubeck]

i don't really consider placekicker holding as a necessary skill for judging a QB. fact is, they should've gotten someone else to hold starting qb's have other things on their mind.

 

Your memory must be fading blu. You don't remember why Romo was the place holder? I'll give you a shot to recall before I tell you why.

[ksm7]

Dan Marino......

 

The thing that seperates the QBs you listed and Romo is they overcame it.

 

I am NOT saying is that Romo is not a good QB. What I am saying is he has not shown post-season success yet.

 

true, but to be fair, he has only been a starter for two seasons...same as elway before he was able to win a post season game...same as manning...etc...the dog agrees that ultimately you have to win in the post season, but you also have to have opportunities...

[fringe]

Your memory must be fading blu. You don't remember why Romo was the place holder? I'll give you a shot to recall before I tell you why.

point taken but QB's aren't rated by their PAT holding skills.

[Money]

True, and I'm not saying Romo isn't a very good qb, but imo you can't compare the 2 players playoff losses. Both times, to the best of my memory, It wasn't completely Eli's play that led to the Giants losing. The Carolina game was a complete fuck up, in every aspect of the game. The Philly game, Eli played well, even coming back in the 4th quarter I think. It was the D that screwed the pooch in that one late in the game.

 

 

Wether it's fair or not, Romo is the sole reason they lost vs the Hawks, and he did throw the INT against us last year to end the game, but it's not just that int, it was his play in the 4th quarter of that game.

 

Eli threw thee picks against the Panthers and led the offense to an impressive 0 points. Yeah, I'd say he had a pretty big hand in the outcome. But he wasn't the only reason the Giants lost to the Panthers, just as Romo wasn't the only reason the Cowboys lost to the Seahawks ... 59+ minutes of football were played before the fumbled snap. And, really, that's a strike against Romo the holder, not Romo the QB. Romo the QB is pretty damn good, and obviously played well enough to win in Seattle that day.

 

Of course, the 'Romo the Homo' narrative loves to point to the alleged playoff meltdown against the Giants (although the 'Giants are the Bestest' narrative glorifies a tenacious pass rush ... these two contingents should really get their stories straight). But I seem to recall Patrick Crayton having a fairly critical drop on 3rd down. I also recollect their OL looking extremely sluggish by the end of the game -- the Giants didn't even pressure Romo until the first possession of the 4th quarter, and they didn't register their first sack until 10:26 remaining in the game. Romo didn't play well down the stretch, but the rest of his offensive team wasn't playing winning football either.

[so-cal dub]

Romo the QB is pretty damn good,

Romo sucks. 6 turnovers in 5 games so far this season. I'd say that is awful. Throw in the fact he has, arguably, the best line in football and, arguably, the best receiver in football. No excuses, it's fucking pathetic and I don't want to hear this comparison to Eli in his early years. Eli didn't have as good a line, Eli didn't get to sit back, learn, and chill for 3 years. Eli didn't have a T.O. caliber receiver. Romo flat out sucks in my opinion.

[Storm]

Romo sucks. 6 turnovers in 5 games so far this season. I'd say that is awful. Throw in the fact he has, arguably, the best line in football and, arguably, the best receiver in football. No excuses, it's fucking pathetic and I don't want to hear this comparison to Eli in his early years. Eli didn't have as good a line, Eli didn't get to sit back, learn, and chill for 3 years. Eli didn't have a T.O. caliber receiver. Romo flat out sucks in my opinion.

 

On a side topic, I've always thought the way you get a good franchise starting QB is to throw him to the wolves like we did with Eli....but it happens so often with poor results(see every non-pocket/fleet footed quarterback taken in the draft after 2003...Mike Vick, Jamarcus Russel, Vince Young, Tavaris Jackson, and up until now Jason Campbell along with non-scramblers like JP Losman...with the only exception I can think of being Jay Cutler, though I'm not sure he started within his first year for the Donks) and then you get cases like Aaron Rodgers where he's excellent coming right in whereas I still considered him a rookie coming into this season considering he had playing time in 1 game in 3 years....so I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to formulate in my sad little brain is that alot of it is based upon natural skill level and coaching...and if Tom Brady can win with Troy Brown and Deion Branch as his WRs I'm pretty sure it can be said that great quarterbacks don't necessarily need great wide receivers, too...

[ksm7]

Romo sucks. 6 turnovers in 5 games so far this season. I'd say that is awful. Throw in the fact he has, arguably, the best line in football and, arguably, the best receiver in football. No excuses, it's fucking pathetic and I don't want to hear this comparison to Eli in his early years. Eli didn't have as good a line, Eli didn't get to sit back, learn, and chill for 3 years. Eli didn't have a T.O. caliber receiver. Romo flat out sucks in my opinion.

 

the dog is hard pressed to say that a QB that is capable of putting up the numbers he has, the wins he has, and makes the plays he has is far from "sucking". the dog does not have an issue watching cowboys lose, but you have to be able to step back and recognize good talent when you see it...manning had issues with turnovers (right up to the playoffs last season), manning had issues with winning in the postseason (right up to last season), manning had a strong receiving core, top notch backfield, and a solid line that has gotten better...and a better defense to work with...when you say an oppossing QB sucks when there is all evidence to the contrary, it reduces you as a fan to nothing more then a homer, which is fine, but limited...

[fishgutmartyr]

You know what? Fuck Tony Romo--I really don't care what kind of QB he is.

 

We have a guy that just won the SB, has awesome chemistry with the offensive players around him, and has actually improved over last year. By every statistical measure so far this year, we really have nothing to complain about--and no other quarterback in the league could get a better record than 4-0 with what we've played (if we can get a guy that can get a 5-0 record after 4 games, then yeah, go for it ); so even if Montana was available, I wouldn't trade for him.

 

In a nutshell, it's not broken.

 

 

[Virginia Giant]

Eli threw thee picks against the Panthers and led the offense to an impressive 0 points. Yeah, I'd say he had a pretty big hand in the outcome. But he wasn't the only reason the Giants lost to the Panthers, just as Romo wasn't the only reason the Cowboys lost to the Seahawks ... 59+ minutes of football were played before the fumbled snap. And, really, that's a strike against Romo the holder, not Romo the QB. Romo the QB is pretty damn good, and obviously played almost well enough to win in Seattle that day.

 

Did I say Eli played brilliantly?

 

Of course, the 'Romo the Homo' narrative loves to point to the alleged playoff meltdown against the Giants (although the 'Giants are the Bestest' narrative glorifies a tenacious pass rush ... these two contingents should really get their stories straight). But I seem to recall Patrick Crayton having a fairly critical drop on 3rd down. I also recollect their OL looking extremely sluggish by the end of the game -- the Giants didn't even pressure Romo until the first possession of the 4th quarter, and they didn't register their first sack until 10:26 remaining in the game. Romo didn't play well down the stretch, but the rest of his offensive team wasn't playing winning football either.

 

Lumping me in with the blind Romo haters here are we? Is it not possible to be critical of an opponents play without being considered a homer?

 

Or is it more fun to try to be considered the most open minded Giants fan?

 

 

[Money]

On a side topic, I've always thought the way you get a good franchise starting QB is to throw him to the wolves like we did with Eli....but it happens so often with poor results(see every non-pocket/fleet footed quarterback taken in the draft after 2003...Mike Vick, Jamarcus Russel, Vince Young, Tavaris Jackson, and up until now Jason Campbell along with non-scramblers like JP Losman...with the only exception I can think of being Jay Cutler, though I'm not sure he started within his first year for the Donks) and then you get cases like Aaron Rodgers where he's excellent coming right in whereas I still considered him a rookie coming into this season considering he had playing time in 1 game in 3 years....so I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to formulate in my sad little brain is that alot of it is based upon natural skill level and coaching...and if Tom Brady can win with Troy Brown and Deion Branch as his WRs I'm pretty sure it can be said that great quarterbacks don't necessarily need great wide receivers, too...

 

You can make a case for letting a QB learn on the bench (Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer) or starting him from Day 1 (McNabb, Peyton) or getting in midway through the rookie season (Eli, Cutler, Vick). The truth is, there's no preferred method...it just depends on the QB himself and the team that surrounds him.

 

Aarom Rodgers is also much more fleet of foot than JaMarcus Russell, who's more of a traditional pocket passer than anything else. Rodgers is also a little more athletic than Campbell as well...