Best QB in the NFC East???

[DCB/LAL]

No question McNabb has had the better career than Romo to this point Romo has on ly been a starting QB for 3 and a half years where as McNabb has been the starter for what 10 years?

[Zep]

...so you think if both retired today, Romo would have the greater chance of making the HOF?

I don't think there is any point where I've said anything that even comes close to resembling that statement. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[WildWesty]

I don't think there is any point where I've said anything that even comes close to resembling that statement. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't quote you, that was a serious question which was asked to make a point.

[Zep]

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.

That's a fair point to make. Look, as a Giants fan I don't even have a dog in this fight (and all things being equal, my hatred for the cowboys far exceeds my disdain for the eagles ). All I was doing was giving you the numbers and basing my opinion on those; would-haves and should-haves are a bit weak to me, as the results exist only in the world of hypotheticals. I will say that I agree that you'd have to look at receiving cores to get a fairer picture of how they stack up though.

[rawz]

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.

1 name.
Miles austin...

Undrafted free agent reciever, turned allpro. i think tony romo should recieve a big chunk of credit for that.

[Zep]

I didn't quote you, that was a serious question which was asked to make a point.

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur?

[WildWesty]

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur?

No but I googled it and came up with this:

non se⋅qui⋅tur  /nɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər, -ˌtʊər; Lat. noʊn ˈsɛkwɪˌtʊər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [non sek-wi-ter, -toor; Lat. nohn se-kwi-toor] Show IPA
Use non sequitur in a Sentence
See images of non sequitur
Search non sequitur on the Web
–noun 1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

[Zep]

No but I googled it and came up with this:

Correct. Now, all I said was that if you remove counting career stats (because of the disparity between each player's length of career), and left only the other relevant stats based on percentages and stats/game, Tony Romo would have a better record. I even stated that this may be unfair because of McNabb's decline based on age, Tony Romo being in his prime, etc.

For you to take that statement, and ask me which one would be more likely to go to the HOF if their careers ended right now is an example of a non sequitur. The conclusion that you drew had absolutely nothing to do with my original statement.

[WildWesty]

Correct. Now, all I said was that if you remove counting career stats (because of the disparity between each player's length of career), and left only the other relevant stats based on percentages and stats/game, Tony Romo would have a better record. I even stated that this may be unfair because of McNabb's decline based on age, Tony Romo being in his prime, etc.

For you to take that statement, and ask me which one would be more likely to go to the HOF if their careers ended right now is an example of a non sequitur. The conclusion that you drew had absolutely nothing to do with my original statement.

Your wording is terribly contradicting and illogical then, considering you said you were going by career stats even though you excluded the details which would be much more heavily regarded by any normal person. The non sequitur was on your part for assuming I wasn't taking everything as literally as I really am.

[Zep]

Your wording is terribly contradicting and illogical then, considering you said you were going by career stats even though you excluded the details which would be much more heavily regarded by any normal person. The non sequitur was on your part for assuming I wasn't taking everything as literally as I really am.

The non sequitur was the conclusion that you were assuming that I would draw, that being that Donovan McNabb is more likely to be inducted into the HOF at this point over Romo (which I would agree with, obviously).

I think you're getting confused with the difference between who would have the better career vs. who would be considered to have the better career stats at this point (and yes I understand your desire to include counting stats in that equation). I would say certainly that McNabb has the better career (up til now), but to compare counting stats of a player with 10 years in the league vs. a player with 4 years in the league is a bit ridiculous, and that is why I felt that the "efficiency" stats that you mentioned was the only fair way to compare the two at this point.

I agree that career stats are more favorably regarded by a normal person...but only once a career is over, as then you can get a more complete picture of who is better, but in a situation where we are discussing two players whose careers are not over yet, it is unreasonable to say "well X player has 17,825 more yards than Y player" when Y player has 6 fewer years in the league.

[blams1989]

pcht

[Westbrook36]

1 name.
Miles austin...

Undrafted free agent reciever, turned allpro. i think tony romo should recieve a big chunk of credit for that.

Miles Austin's left pinky >>>>> Todd Pinkson/Fred-X/James Thrash

Tony Romo gets him the ball, but Austin has turned himself into something awesome with the help of the coaching staff.

[Zep]

Tony Romo gets him the ball, but Austin has turned himself into something awesome with the help of the coaching staff.

Agreed.

[flea]

1) Romo
2) Eli
3) McNabb
4) Campbell

Eli and Romo are closer than people (read: cowboys fans) think. Campbell is not far behind any of them and I can't wait until the Redskins cut him loose so he may be able to, you know, have the same offensive system 2 years in a row. Or not have to throw to Randle El. Or not have the worst coach in the league. Any of these things would be ideal, and yet in spite of all of it, he had a pretty solid season as an NFL quarterback on a complete mess of a team. I mean, he completed a better percentage of passes than any other NFC East QB.

[WildWesty]

The non sequitur was the conclusion that you were assuming that I would draw, that being that Donovan McNabb is more likely to be inducted into the HOF at this point over Romo (which I would agree with, obviously).

That wasn't a non sequitur... I wasn't drawing conclusions, I was making a point. If you argued the point, I would call you stupid and/or make an argument for my point.

I think you're getting confused with the difference between who would have the better career vs. who would be considered to have the better career stats at this point (and yes I understand your desire to include counting stats in that equation). I would say certainly that McNabb has the better career (up til now), but to compare counting stats of a player with 10 years in the league vs. a player with 4 years in the league is a bit ridiculous, and that is why I felt that the "efficiency" stats that you mentioned was the only fair way to compare the two at this point.

I didn't say he's had a better career, I said he's had better career stats.

That's the claim you made, that's the claim I'm arguing. If you're talking about stats you can't exclude categories, that's just an obvious. It's the exact same thing as saying Tony Romo has had better career stats than Brett Favre and Jeff Garcia, which would also be an ignorant statement to make. Career stats and career efficiency isn't the same thing.

I agree that career stats are more favorably regarded by a normal person...but only once a career is over, as then you can get a more complete picture of who is better, but in a situation where we are discussing two players whose careers are not over yet, it is unreasonable to say "well X player has 17,825 more yards than Y player" when Y player has 6 fewer years in the league.

Then why in the world would you make the comparison? What you're basically doing is a non sequitor! By only suggesting percentages and averages, you're assuming Tony Romo's career finishes around that! Who knows if Tony Romo suffers a sports hernia next year a la Donovan did after his best year of the season, and after that Romo's career becomes a steady slide down to mediocricy because of injuries? Anything can happen. If you're going to compare career stats you have to include and address everything, or else you're just practicing ignorancy.