Romo>>>>>>>>Vick
Options
Comments
-
vick only has 2 playoff wins @aneed123. and he does have those playoff ? ups as well.. that pic to end the game vs green bay a couple years back?
-
This idiot right here always talking about statistics except wins and loses.Also you forget the fact that Romo so far in his career has had a much better offense than Vick ever has in his career.If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly.Another stat that you ignore is the fact that Vick is hit and sacked more than Romo.If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has.your stupid ass needs to stop being a blind homer and admit that Romo while descent is no better when i comes to winning percentage than Vick and has not produced when it matters.Romo has 14 game winning drives with none on the play offs.ROFL ? out of here clown.Romo is a better passer,but if I had to pick either of them to have an impact in the play offs it would be Vick doing what he does best compared to what Romo does.
cool I prefer Vicks body of work since he has taken is teams further in the playoffs...
And this is why you just might possibly be a ? .
Romo's statistics top Vick's in just about every single possible passing category.
Vick has a much worse completion percentage. Almost 10 points lower. (55.9 vs. 64.6)
Vick been around since 01, yet has had only 2 years of a 90+ rating. Romo has NEVER had a year of a sub 90 rating.
Vick has started 15 more games than Romo, yet has 19 less TDs.
Romo has 14 game winning drives compared to Vicks 12.
You can go on and on and on...
And you sitting here acting like Vick's playoff success is off the charts. He's 2-3 while Romo is 1-3. Yet you'll take a vastly inferior career body of work statistically, for ONE MORE PLAYOFF WIN. And it's not even a super bowl appearance.
Gtfoher -
? outta here
Schaub >> Romo even though I hate both teams
RG3 is the troof bruh.
I'm a texans fan and I'd take Romo over Schaub in a second.
-
1. Wins and losses are what matter. The point is that despite Romo's stats he can not do what Eli, Brady, manning, Ben, Brees and Rogers all have done. Sanchez, Flacco and Rivers all have won in the play offs and made plays to get their team to the post season while Ryan's stats actually lead to them making the play offs. What good are stats if you can not have a winning record? Brad Johnson and Dilfer did not receive any credit for winning so that comparison is mute. Romo is considered a top QB by Cowboys fans, but he can not even win with a better team than what Sanchez has who has helped his team to two AFC championship games.I it that hard to understand why wins and losses count now? This clown coop keeps bringing up stats,but those stats are void when the Boys can not even make the post seasonBlackxChild wrote: »Why do we even mention wins and losses? Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson hell even Tim Tebow and Tavaris Jackson have won games. What makes anyone believe the Giants are better with Eli than with Romo Eli has lead the league twice in int. Elis career statistically doesnt compete with Romo.
Eli and Vick statistically have much better receivers if you look at their statistics but Romos stats are much better than theirs. Elis got a better oline Vick has a better running game and both have a much better defense. Hell Eli threw 2 picks against the 9ers and both where dropped and Vick on his final drive threw a dropped int so how is that clutch? It still happened they still threw the int the defender just ducked up so what part of clutch is that?
2.Eli unlike Romo has had game winning drives twice in the Super Bowl and leading up to the Super Bowl so you can not compare Romo to Eli when it matters.
3.Romo has had way better receivers and still does. The undersized Jackson is nothing compared to Dez Bryant or what T.O. was when he was still in Dallas and Austin is a top 5 TE much better than the TEs on the Giants and Eagles. So it does not matter how many picks Eli throws as long as he can turn it on when he needs to.
-
1. Wins and losses are what matter. The point is that despite Romo's stats he can not do what Eli, Brady, manning, Ben, Brees and Rogers all have done. Sanchez, Flacco and Rivers all have won in the play offs and made plays to get their team to the post season while Ryan's stats actually lead to them making the play offs. What good are stats if you can not have a winning record? Brad Johnson and Dilfer did not receive any credit for winning so that comparison is mute. Romo is considered a top QB by Cowboys fans, but he can not even win with a better team than what Sanchez has who has helped his team to two AFC championship games.I it that hard to understand why wins and losses count now? This clown coop keeps bringing up stats,but those stats are void when the Boys can not even make the post seasonBlackxChild wrote: »Why do we even mention wins and losses? Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson hell even Tim Tebow and Tavaris Jackson have won games. What makes anyone believe the Giants are better with Eli than with Romo Eli has lead the league twice in int. Elis career statistically doesnt compete with Romo.
Eli and Vick statistically have much better receivers if you look at their statistics but Romos stats are much better than theirs. Elis got a better oline Vick has a better running game and both have a much better defense. Hell Eli threw 2 picks against the 9ers and both where dropped and Vick on his final drive threw a dropped int so how is that clutch? It still happened they still threw the int the defender just ducked up so what part of clutch is that?
2.Eli unlike Romo has had game winning drives twice in the Super Bowl and leading up to the Super Bowl so you can not compare Romo to Eli when it matters.
3.Romo has had way better receivers and still does. The undersized Jackson is nothing compared to Dez Bryant or what T.O. was when he was still in Dallas and Austin is a top 5 TE much better than the TEs on the Giants and Eagles. So it does not matter how many picks Eli throws as long as he can turn it on when he needs to.
Thank you for explaining what people fail to understand.
Its almost like people don't watch games and judge by the box score. -
blakfyahking wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »@aneed
but 4 INTs against the Browns tho?
you can't tell me that doesn't make Vick look kid of suspect now.........Vick gon have to do some amazing ? this season to get past that
plus Vick is injury prone and most likely won't do the entire season
of course it was a bad game.... now if he bounces back with a great game does it cancel it out or does he still suck?
nah he's going to have to do at least 3 good games to make up for it.......and at least 1 of the 3 will have to be on some spectacular ?
otherwise, ? might finally give up cheering for Vick and his antics haha
lol the 3 games to cancel out 1 is funny plus he still won the game vs Cleveland threw the
last td...
Look at the play right before vick threw the game wining td. He almost got picked for the 5th time but the ? dropped the ball. That would've been game over, so be thankful.
-
This idiot right here always talking about statistics except wins and loses.Also you forget the fact that Romo so far in his career has had a much better offense than Vick ever has in his career.If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly.Another stat that you ignore is the fact that Vick is hit and sacked more than Romo.If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has.your stupid ass needs to stop being a blind homer and admit that Romo while descent is no better when i comes to winning percentage than Vick and has not produced when it matters.Romo has 14 game winning drives with none on the play offs.ROFL ? out of here clown.Romo is a better passer,but if I had to pick either of them to have an impact in the play offs it would be Vick doing what he does best compared to what Romo does.
cool I prefer Vicks body of work since he has taken is teams further in the playoffs...
And this is why you just might possibly be a ? .
Romo's statistics top Vick's in just about every single possible passing category.
Vick has a much worse completion percentage. Almost 10 points lower. (55.9 vs. 64.6)
Vick been around since 01, yet has had only 2 years of a 90+ rating. Romo has NEVER had a year of a sub 90 rating.
Vick has started 15 more games than Romo, yet has 19 less TDs.
Romo has 14 game winning drives compared to Vicks 12.
You can go on and on and on...
And you sitting here acting like Vick's playoff success is off the charts. He's 2-3 while Romo is 1-3. Yet you'll take a vastly inferior career body of work statistically, for ONE MORE PLAYOFF WIN. And it's not even a super bowl appearance.
Gtfoher
and what impact has vick ever made in the playoffs...? oh.. 1 more playoff game. and let me turn the tables on you like this.. what if tony romo had the ability to run like vick does..... because those vick-lead atlanta teams always lead the league in rushing.. so lemme get this straight, you mean to tell me that defenses were trying to stop vick's passing ability, or loading up the box to stop the run??? vick's numbers should be waaaaaaaay better than they are. every time he drops back, you have to account for him to run... and yet he can only complete 54% of his passes when he throws...?? aint nobody gettin double teamed (nh) when you gotta bring the safeties up to account for him....
and honestly.... the cowboys offenses havent been that good. during romo's time in dallas... the best running back was who.. marion barber? (up until d murray). yes we had t.o.... but after that.. who? old ass terry glenn? patrick crayton?? miles austin just broke out over the last few years.. dez is new... okay jason witten.. yeah obviously.. but would you say he was so much better than alge crumpler? and wouldnt you have took warrick dunn over barber and juilus jones???? to be honest with you.. romo makes alot of the guys around him alot better... look at laurent robinson.. ?? who? yeah.. crayton even.. ? kevin olgetree... lmao i rest my case.. -
Mad Jack you have to stop coming for me dog, I'm smarter than you.This idiot right here always talking about statistics except wins and loses.
You do know I referenced wins and "losses" in my post right? The other guy was talking about postseason success and I mentioned their postseason records.
So, you're wrong here.Also you forget the fact that Romo so far in his career has had a much better offense than Vick ever has in his career.
I'd love to see how you'd prove this. Because you do know that this is 100% opinion right? Everything I wrote is facts.
Such as last year the Eagles offense was 4th in yards pg, Cowboys offense? 11th.
And the Eagles were 8th in points scored, Cowboys? 15th.
So, you look stupid here.If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly.
Oh. Oh really. You can guarantee a hypothetical statement would happen when there are literally millions of variables involved?
This is how you know when a ? is a ? . "Oh well, if QB A was on QB B's team, he would do better than QB B" "Well if Kobe had been on the bulls instead of MJ he woulda had 6 rings too" "Well the 92 dream team could beat the 12 dream team". Sorry bruh, you can't prove that.
So, you look stupid here.Another stat that you ignore is the fact that Vick is hit and sacked more than Romo.
And this is how I know you don't know ? about ? . One of the major flaws of Vick's passing game, besides not being able to properly read defenses, is holding on to the ball too long. Vick's priority is to extend the play even when it would benefit the team to just throw the ball away. The Eagles have a BETTER OLINE than the cowboys, but Romo gets sacked less because he gets rid of the ball quicker and more accurately. That's inarguable.
So, you look stupid here.If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has.
Hm. So first off, unless this is a typo and you meant O-Line instead of D, you are implying that if Romo had a bad defense he wouldnt have the stats he has now. IM HOPING YOU KNOW that if you have a bad defense that gives up a lot of points, it means you are playing from behind a lot. And if you are playing from behind a lot, you are more than likely going to be throwing MORE rather than running the ball. So in all likelihood, if The Cowboys D was any worse, Romo would be throwing the ball MORE than he is now, and since he's accurate, he'd actually have better stats. ? .
However, it's hilarious you say the Eagles D is worse than our when, just last year:
YPG: Eagles D 8th, Cowboys D 14th
PPG: Eagles D 10th, Cowboys D 16th
Turnovers Forced: Both are tied, however Eagles D scored 4 TDs to Cowboys 1.
The Eagles defense has been better than ours recently.
So, you look stupid here.your stupid ass needs to stop being a blind homer and admit that Romo while descent is no better when i comes to winning percentage than Vick and has not produced when it matters.
Hmmm lets do simple math
Romo has a 61.5 % win rate.
Vick has a 59.1 % win rate.
And neither have even been to a Superbowl, and vick has ONE more playoff win under his belt, so it can be argued neither has produced when it matters.
So, you look stupid here.Romo has 14 game winning drives with none on the play offs.ROFL ? out of here clown.Romo is a better passer,but if I had to pick either of them to have an impact in the play offs it would be Vick doing what he does best compared to what Romo does.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even retards who can barely think for themselves. Doesn't make the opinion right. I can guarantee no real gm would agree with you.
-
WTF @ all the paragraphs in here, and I've only looked at this last page.
anyway...cosign thread title -
1. Wins and losses are what matter. The point is that despite Romo's stats he can not do what Eli, Brady, manning, Ben, Brees and Rogers all have done. Sanchez, Flacco and Rivers all have won in the play offs and made plays to get their team to the post season while Ryan's stats actually lead to them making the play offs. What good are stats if you can not have a winning record? Brad Johnson and Dilfer did not receive any credit for winning so that comparison is mute. Romo is considered a top QB by Cowboys fans, but he can not even win with a better team than what Sanchez has who has helped his team to two AFC championship games.I it that hard to understand why wins and losses count now? This clown coop keeps bringing up stats,but those stats are void when the Boys can not even make the post season
2.Eli unlike Romo has had game winning drives twice in the Super Bowl and leading up to the Super Bowl so you can not compare Romo to Eli when it matters.
3.Romo has had way better receivers and still does. The undersized Jackson is nothing compared to Dez Bryant or what T.O. was when he was still in Dallas and Austin is a top 5 TE much better than the TEs on the Giants and Eagles. So it does not matter how many picks Eli throws as long as he can turn it on when he needs to.
LMAOOO this ? here man.... You can't possibly be older than 16.
Lol he just said Eli plays when it matters and Romo doesn't. So I guess this week 1 game didn't matter huh.
Dumb ? like this don't understand that there are 10 other players on the field at any one time, and not just the QB.
Answer me this AssJack, is the success of a football team 100% determined solely on how well the quarterback does.
-
Any idiot who says wins and loses isnt a statistic is an idiot... Its a team statistic not a qb statistic.
-
Remember according to some idiots on this board if your team loses its the QBs fault 100%.... ? people are ? dumb.
-
Nobody on the Giants matters just Eli that Dline has nothing to do with helping the team win its just Eli. Those blocked fielfgoals and punts for the Cowboys where all Romos fault.
-
gotdamn... the feelings in here
-
Inglewood_B wrote: »gotdamn... the feelings in here
lol.. i made this ? last year... there's a years worth of feelings in here haha ..b..b..but thats my quarterback -
Inglewood_B wrote: »gotdamn... the feelings in here
pretty much...the craziest part is that ? are still arguing an obvious point. romo is a better qb than vick. that said, neither one of them have done anything significant in their careers when it comes to getting it done in the playoffs -
#swerve
-
Damn Vick look like a lil boy being sonned in that pic
"You'll never be as good as me.... but hey at least you can try....." -
If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly......If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has
cool I prefer Vicks body of work since he has taken is teams further in the playoffs...
And this is why you just might possibly be a ? .
Romo's statistics top Vick's in just about every single possible passing category.
Vick has a much worse completion percentage. Almost 10 points lower. (55.9 vs. 64.6)
Vick been around since 01, yet has had only 2 years of a 90+ rating. Romo has NEVER had a year of a sub 90 rating.
Vick has started 15 more games than Romo, yet has 19 less TDs.
Romo has 14 game winning drives compared to Vicks 12.
You can go on and on and on...
And you sitting here acting like Vick's playoff success is off the charts. He's 2-3 while Romo is 1-3. Yet you'll take a vastly inferior career body of work statistically, for ONE MORE PLAYOFF WIN. And it's not even a super bowl appearance.
Gtfoher
so you're saying Dallas has had a better D than Philly the last couple years?
-
will grimey wrote: »Lol co-sign this thread...Hate to say it but Romo is now better than Vick...
lol how after 1 reg season game? wait til Romo fumbles and throws picks sixes in cruntch time will ur opinion change then? Romo has to take his loaded Dallas team to a nfc title game first
Romo's been better than Vick since he joined the Eagles tho bruh..This thread was made like a yr ago...They're taking away Vick's greatest asset(scrambling on the fly), then make him stay in the pocket with a suspect O-line... -
major pain wrote: »
If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly......If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has
cool I prefer Vicks body of work since he has taken is teams further in the playoffs...
And this is why you just might possibly be a ? .
Romo's statistics top Vick's in just about every single possible passing category.
Vick has a much worse completion percentage. Almost 10 points lower. (55.9 vs. 64.6)
Vick been around since 01, yet has had only 2 years of a 90+ rating. Romo has NEVER had a year of a sub 90 rating.
Vick has started 15 more games than Romo, yet has 19 less TDs.
Romo has 14 game winning drives compared to Vicks 12.
You can go on and on and on...
And you sitting here acting like Vick's playoff success is off the charts. He's 2-3 while Romo is 1-3. Yet you'll take a vastly inferior career body of work statistically, for ONE MORE PLAYOFF WIN. And it's not even a super bowl appearance.
Gtfoher
so you're saying Dallas has had a better D than Philly the last couple years?
thats not a stretch -
major pain wrote: »major pain wrote: »
If Vick was the Boys QB then I can guarantee that he would be in the play offs regularly......If Romo had that sorry ass Eagles D,he would not even have the passing stats that he has
cool I prefer Vicks body of work since he has taken is teams further in the playoffs...
And this is why you just might possibly be a ? .
Romo's statistics top Vick's in just about every single possible passing category.
Vick has a much worse completion percentage. Almost 10 points lower. (55.9 vs. 64.6)
Vick been around since 01, yet has had only 2 years of a 90+ rating. Romo has NEVER had a year of a sub 90 rating.
Vick has started 15 more games than Romo, yet has 19 less TDs.
Romo has 14 game winning drives compared to Vicks 12.
You can go on and on and on...
And you sitting here acting like Vick's playoff success is off the charts. He's 2-3 while Romo is 1-3. Yet you'll take a vastly inferior career body of work statistically, for ONE MORE PLAYOFF WIN. And it's not even a super bowl appearance.
Gtfoher
so you're saying Dallas has had a better D than Philly the last couple years?
yes......do you actually watch football bruh?
how is it even disputable that Dallas has had a better defense than Philly the last couple of years?
-
Dallas defensive ranks 2011 16th in points and 14 in yards
2010 31st in points and 23rd in yards
Eagles- 2011 10th in points and 8th in yards
2010 21st in points and 12th in yards
So yeah......only on the ic can a defense give up more point and yards but still be considered the "better" unit -
Angrius Manus wrote: »Dallas defensive ranks 2011 16th in points and 14 in yards
2010 31st in points and 23rd in yards
Eagles- 2011 10th in points and 8th in yards
2010 21st in points and 12th in yards
So yeah......only on the ic can a defense give up more point and yards but still be considered the "better" unit
did we compare schedules tho? -
Since they are in the same division, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that they damn near had the same schedule
This discussion has been closed.