I think both are good QBs if they have a solid OL. Romo has only won one meaningful game in his career, and Eli has a ring, but it's a team sport. I'd lean towards Romo.
Romo with a gutsy performance coming back into the game with a fractured rib and the Cowgirls win in OT.
It would be difficult to win a postseason game with either of the two but I'd rather not have a 12 year old girl as my QB so I went with Romo. Big ears, dumb blondes, late-game interceptions and all.
I'm actually appalled at the amount of people that chose Eli. The answer is Romo and I don't even think its close. Better TD/INT ratio, comp %, scrambler, yards/reception, despite inferior running backs and offensive line than Elis had to work with. The only thing Eli has over Tony is a SB ring. Last I checked, rings are a team accomplishment. Not only that, look at Elis stats, and tell me where he actually won a playoff game in the playoffs. He's had about 6 or 7 playoff starts, and he played well in 2 of them, thats it. Their defense and David Tyree were responsible for the Giants SB run.
Eli looked damn good this week. When was the last time Romo had a performance like that against a good team?
I dunno about that... All three are garbage. Eli had that one fluke of a season. Romo fucks up so many times. Henne seems to be making progress but he blows.
He played excellent yesterday, no question about it. I rather look at the entire body of work than a 1 game sample size.
If you were looking only at stats and ignoring the obvious symptoms of Down's Syndrome, you'd have to pick Romo.
Tony Romo, no doubt about it, they both make poor decisions at times but at least Romo isn't a one dimensional pocket passer. So what if Eli won a super bowl - he rode a stellar defense to that championship. Dilfer and Rypien also won Super Bowls.
I don't understand this logic; based on what? Show me where Eli is better than Romo other than having a SB ring (a team achievement). I get into this argument all the time with my friends and the best argument they can come up with is that he 'wins the big game,' which makes little sense to me. He played well in 2 out of his 4 playoff games in the SB run. The other 3 times he's been to the playoffs its been one and done, and he's played awful. He's also played pretty bad down the stretch the last two seasons contributing to two straight Giants collapses. I'm not saying this to be a dick, I'm just curious where you think Eli is better. I don't see it anywhere, be it a stat sheet or these intangibles like leadership, etc.
I've got a lot of issues with your post, so I'll address it and then put forward my own thoughts. 1. Eli played well in all of those playoff games. The defense for the Giants played at a consistently high level; it was the offense that showed vast statistical improvement during the playoff run. Eli's only turnover was off Steve Smith's hands. He played well in 4 of 4 games and is the reason they won the Super Bowl. I know people will point to him only putting up 17 points in the game, but 2 4th quarter scoring drives is damned impressive. 2. The Giants have an infuriating habit of letting failure be contagious. How many times have you seen that entire team just concedes defeat. Eli has been a part of these downward spirals, but he hasn't been the cause of them. 3 The "wins the big game" argument points to Eli's 4th quarter comebacks. In this area he is FAR better than Romo. Eli can be inconsistent and downright bad during quarters 1-3, but he plays his best football in the 4th quarter. This is not the case for Romo. Indeed, he often does the opposite and loses games late/cracks under pressure. Look at week 1 of this season, the Cowboys all but had that game won and Romo turned it over twice to let the Jets back in it/seal their victory (in that order). I'll give my own arguments on why Eli is better than Romo later....
Most of your arguments aren't backed up by facts, nearly your opinion. 1) No argument there. He played well in the SB run. I should have put 3 instead of 2 in terms of playing well in the playoffs. He posted a QB rating of 100+ in two games. You won that Super Bowl mostly because of your defense though, holding the greatest offense statistically (38 pts per game) to a mere 14 pts coupled with the greatest/luckiest catch in SB history. Eli generated nothing offensively through 3 qtrs of the SB. He absolutely gets credit for leading your team to victory, you wouldn't have won otherwise. But lets not act like he played amazing. He didn't. He also played subpar in the GB game, posting a QB rating below 80, throwing no TDs, and a comp % less than 55. Though to be fair, the weather was brutal that day. I'm not saying Eli is a bad QB, he's not. He's certainly above average. My whole argument was centered around Romo vs Manning. And I've yet to see areas where Eli excels over him. Even if there are that I haven't pointed out, they're few and far between. 2) He's the leader on the offense. He shoulders part of the blame. Absolutely not all of the blame is attributed to him, but don't give me he's merely a part of it. He's one of the causes of the decline over the past 2 years. His stats over the last two years show he's been average to slightly above average at best at his position. 3) Tony Romo has started 65 NFL games in his career and has 11 4th qtr comebacks and 12 game winning drives. Eli Manning has started 110 games, and has 15 4th qtr comebacks and 18 game winning drives. Not only is Eli Manning not a 'FAR better QB' as you so astutely put it in this regard, he's not better PERIOD given the proportion of 4th qtr comebacks/game winning drives to games played as a QB. Combine that with the fact that Romo has always had an inferior offensive line and running backs than Manning, what Romo does is much more impressive than Eli.
I loathe Eli, and he does seem to have regressed. That being said, he did win an SB, and played pretty damn good in doing so. Until Romo does ANYTHTING in big games with some sort of consistency (only 1 playoff win doesn't cut it), I'd begrudgingly go with Eli.
