Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 60
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ****ing Bruges
    Posts
    35,537
    vCash
    1500
    I think without a doubt Romo is first. but here how I rank the 3

    Romo
    Manning
    McNabb

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,846
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    If we're looking at this past year only it's probably:

    1. Romo
    2. Manning
    3. McNabb

    Total yards
    Romo: 4483
    Manning: 4021
    McNabb: 3553*

    *It should be noted that McNabb had 2 fewer games than Romo and Manning, so I will include total YPG next.

    YPG
    Romo: 280.2
    McNabb: 253.8
    Manning: 251.3

    This averages out everyone's performance/game. When this is done (and we factor out the extra games that Romo and Manning had) Romo still comes out ~30 yards higher than both Manning and McNabb, and the other two are nearly identical, with the slight edge going to McNabb.

    TD/INT
    Romo: 26/9
    Manning: 27/14
    McNabb: 22/10

    Romo is clearly the best of the three yet again. McNabb and Manning are again very close. Manning has 5 more TD's and 4 more INT's.

    Completion %
    Romo: 63.1
    Manning: 62.3
    McNabb: 60.3

    By far the closest stat for these three. All very good, and coincidentally the same order that I would rank their performance this year.

    Passer Rating
    Romo: 97.6
    Manning: 93.1
    McNabb: 92.9

    Again, same order I would place these three guys this year.
    But with McNabb playing 2 less games, as you said when talking about season yardage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Giants99 View Post
    Why shouldnt eli be over Romo? he has a ring and puts up similar stats....
    As the quote from Zep above shows, Eli's stats aren't even CLOSE to Romo's. And rings are team efforts, do you really think it was Eli that kept arguably the greatest offense in history to just 14 points on the game? Eli has had 3 one and dones in the playoffs, Romo has had 2. But please, ignore the 3 one dones in which Eli threw for 443 yards (not one game above 170 yards), 2 TDs and 6 INTs, and only focus on the one year when his defense clicked together and could keep the #18 offense (Tampa in the WC), the #3 offense (Dallas in the divisional), #2 offense (GB in the Conference Championship), and #1 offense (NE in the SB) in the leagues that year each from scoring more than 20 points. I guess you can credit that to Eli . . .? And I guess that's why he's better than Romo . . .? But that is definitely why he has his ring.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,065
    vCash
    1500
    Romo, Manning, McNabb. I think McNabb may have fallen off a bit this year, and Manning had a real nice season. Romo is playing at a higher level then both of them right now.
    Jordy Nelson 2014 Stats
    Receptions: 47 | Yards: 712 | TDs: 6 | Avg: 15.1

  4. #19
    Zep's Avatar
    Zep is offline Another Caucasian, Gary.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,784
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ring91013144043 View Post
    But with McNabb playing 2 less games, as you said when talking about season yardage.
    Very true, if you divide McNabb's TD and INT totals by the 14 games he played in, he averaged ~1.5 TD's/game and ~.7 INT's/game, which would have led to a season total of 25 TD's and 11.4 INT's...again, very close (Manning would be +2 TD, and +3.6 INT's), however they are still hypothetical TD's.

    Couple that with the fact that Eli played through plantar fasciitus after the KC game and I'm giving him points for durability. I'm admittedly ignorant as to why McNabb was out for two games (any info on that would be helpful, I don't really feel like googling it), but if it was because of injury then it would lend credence to the argument for Manning getting points for durability.

    I suppose it's pretty subjective, and as I said if you are talking about career stats it's romo/mcnabb/manning.


    Thanks to vick27m for the userbar.

    A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,846
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    Very true, if you divide McNabb's TD and INT totals by the 14 games he played in, he averaged ~1.5 TD's/game and ~.7 INT's/game, which would have led to a season total of 25 TD's and 11.4 INT's...again, very close (Manning would be +2 TD, and +3.6 INT's), however they are still hypothetical TD's.

    Couple that with the fact that Eli played through plantar fasciitus after the KC game and I'm giving him points for durability. I'm admittedly ignorant as to why McNabb was out for two games (any info on that would be helpful, I don't really feel like googling it), but if it was because of injury then it would lend credence to the argument for Manning getting points for durability.

    I suppose it's pretty subjective, and as I said if you are talking about career stats it's romo/mcnabb/manning.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd-Had4jNtY

    Broken ribs I believe.

  6. #21
    Zep's Avatar
    Zep is offline Another Caucasian, Gary.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,784
    vCash
    1500
    Also EBWOP, how anyone puts Manning above Romo based SBXLII is beyond me...


    smh


    Thanks to vick27m for the userbar.

    A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    7,886
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    If we're looking at career stats, then it's:

    1. Romo
    2. McNabb
    3. Manning

    Although this is difficult to justify because of the disparity between the amount of time that these three guys have been in the league. Obviously a clear leader can only really be determined after their careers are over. As a snapshot of right now though, this is the right order when looking at their entire body of work to date.
    Not that career stats should matter that much but how in the world can you say Tony Romo has had a better career than Donovan McNabb?

  8. #23
    Zep's Avatar
    Zep is offline Another Caucasian, Gary.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,784
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by WildWesty View Post
    Not that career stats should matter that much but how in the world can you say Tony Romo has had a better career than Donovan McNabb?
    I didn't say he's had a better career, I said he's had better career stats. When you don't consider counting stats like total career yards/total career TD's etc. (which we can't really compare until they've had the same aount of years under center) his stats are just better.

    Career YPG*
    Romo: 247.5
    McNabb: 222.1

    *-Profootball-reference place Romo's YPG @ 181.3, but it averages in 2004 and 2005 where I don't believe he had any real playing time (other than some preseason snaps). I reached the 247.5 YPG by adding up 2006-2009 abd dividing by 4.

    Career TD%
    Romo: 5.8
    McNabb: 4.6

    Career INT%
    McNabb: 2.1
    Romo: 3.0

    Career Completion %
    Romo: 63.4
    McNabb: 59.0

    Career Passer Rating:
    Romo: 95.6
    McNabb: 86.5

    Again, this is not to say that Romo has had a better career, but up to this point his averaged statistics have been better by just about every metric except for INT %. One could make the argument that McNabb is hindered by the longer career and the fact that a lot of his numbers are a direct result of injuries/his decline as he got older. That's a fair stance to take, and like I said we can't really get a true comparison until both of their careers are over, but as it stands right now the numbers are in Romo's favor, perhaps "unfairly" so.
    Last edited by Zep; 01-16-2010 at 05:07 PM.


    Thanks to vick27m for the userbar.

    A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,761
    vCash
    1500
    Anyone feel like Eli Manning has to win another Super Bowl ring to legitly place him in this argument?

    If we're talking about right now:
    Romo
    McNabb
    Manning

    If we're talking about career:
    McNabb
    Romo
    Manning


    It Begins...

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    7,886
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    I didn't say he's had a better career, I said he's had better career stats. When you don't consider counting stats like total career yards/total career TD's etc. (which we can't really compare until they've had the same aount of years under center) his stats are just better.

    Career YPG*
    Romo: 247.5
    McNabb: 222.1

    *-Profootball-reference place Romo's YPG @ 181.3, but it averages in 2004 and 2005 where I don't believe he had any real playing time (other than some preseason snaps). I reached the 247.5 YPG by adding up 2006-2009 abd dividing by 4.

    Career TD%
    Romo: 5.8
    McNabb: 4.6

    Career INT%
    McNabb: 2.1
    Romo: 3.0

    Career Completion %
    Romo: 63.4
    McNabb: 59.0

    Career Passer Rating:
    Romo: 95.6
    McNabb: 86.5

    Again, this is not to say that Romo has had a better career, but up to this point his averaged statistics have been better by just about every metric except for INT %. One could make the argument that McNabb is hindered by the longer career and the fact that a lot of his numbers are a direct result of injuries/his decline as he got older. That's a fair stance to take, and like I said we can't really get a true comparison until both of their careers are over, but as it stands right now the numbers are in Romo's favor, perhaps "unfairly" so.
    You're definitely confusing career stats with career efficiency. McNabb kills him in career stats, and that's simply because he's played longer. At the rate Romo's playing at right now I'm sure he'll catch up eventually though.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,846
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by WildWesty View Post
    You're definitely confusing career stats with career efficiency. McNabb kills him in career stats, and that's simply because he's played longer. At the rate Romo's playing at right now I'm sure he'll catch up eventually though.
    The stats shown in the post you quoted provide percentages, TDs/INTs per attempt or game, yards per attempt or game game, which have nothing to do with longevity. Two games, 400 yards in those two games, is 200 yards per game. 16 games, 3,200 passing yards in all those games, is still 200 yards per game. The two hypothetical QBs I just made up are equally as effective as the other, yards-wise, even though one played 14 games more than the other.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    7,886
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ring91013144043 View Post
    The stats shown in the post you quoted provide percentages, TDs/INTs per attempt or game, yards per attempt or game game, which have nothing to do with longevity. Two games, 400 yards in those two games, is 200 yards per game. 16 games, 3,200 passing yards in all those games, is still 200 yards per game. The two hypothetical QBs I just made up are equally as effective as the other, yards-wise, even though one played 14 games more than the other.
    Thanks!

  13. #28
    Zep's Avatar
    Zep is offline Another Caucasian, Gary.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,784
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ring91013144043 View Post
    The stats shown in the post you quoted provide percentages, TDs/INTs per attempt or game, yards per attempt or game game, which have nothing to do with longevity. Two games, 400 yards in those two games, is 200 yards per game. 16 games, 3,200 passing yards in all those games, is still 200 yards per game. The two hypothetical QBs I just made up are equally as effective as the other, yards-wise, even though one played 14 games more than the other.
    Exactly, which is precisely why I didn't think it made sense to include counting stats in my comparison. While I agree McNabb's extra years put him at a bit of a disadvantage (decline because of age vs. Romo being in his prime) with regards to averaged stats, I think it would be somewhat ridiculous to use counting stats when comparing a guy who has been in the league for 4 years vs. a guy that has been in the league for about a decade.


    Thanks to vick27m for the userbar.

    A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    7,886
    vCash
    1500
    ...so you think if both retired today, Romo would have the greater chance of making the HOF?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    16,889
    vCash
    2875
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    I didn't say he's had a better career, I said he's had better career stats. When you don't consider counting stats like total career yards/total career TD's etc. (which we can't really compare until they've had the same aount of years under center) his stats are just better.

    Career YPG*
    Romo: 247.5
    McNabb: 222.1

    *-Profootball-reference place Romo's YPG @ 181.3, but it averages in 2004 and 2005 where I don't believe he had any real playing time (other than some preseason snaps). I reached the 247.5 YPG by adding up 2006-2009 abd dividing by 4.

    Career TD%
    Romo: 5.8
    McNabb: 4.6

    Career INT%
    McNabb: 2.1
    Romo: 3.0

    Career Completion %
    Romo: 63.4
    McNabb: 59.0

    Career Passer Rating:
    Romo: 95.6
    McNabb: 86.5

    Again, this is not to say that Romo has had a better career, but up to this point his averaged statistics have been better by just about every metric except for INT %. One could make the argument that McNabb is hindered by the longer career and the fact that a lot of his numbers are a direct result of injuries/his decline as he got older. That's a fair stance to take, and like I said we can't really get a true comparison until both of their careers are over, but as it stands right now the numbers are in Romo's favor, perhaps "unfairly" so.
    Three Names:

    Todd Pinkston, Freddie Mitchell, and James Thrash.

    Which happen to be who McNabb threw to for many years, without counting the one year we brought in Owens. No doubt in my mind that if McNabb had atleast a bit better of a core then he would have much better numbers. Regardless of that his numbers are quite good considering who he had to throw the ball to for a number of years. It's hard to simply compare careers without throwing in surrounding teams, it's like saying Emmit Smith is better then Barry Sanders because he has more rushing yards. When Emmit Smith had one of the best teams and offensive lines in NFL History.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •