12/26/24
July 11, 2011
Kurt Warner: Tony Romo Can Win Super Bowl: "I believe Tony Romo's a Top-10 quarterback in this league. I believe he has all the tangibles to be able take that team to the Super Bowl. I just think they need to figure out the pieces within the organization. You look at them -- all kinds of talent -- but they haven't been able to put everything together." -- Kurt Warner
I thought one of the intended advantages of the lockout would be that we wouldn't have to think about or talk about Romo.
If Romo wants to get where Warner got, he has to get the sequence right.
You have to start by partnering with a woman who fancies a spiky, combat-ready night patrol hairstyle. Once that look is firmly cemented in the visual memory of the entire country, THEN she lets it grow out.
The flowing blond locks are where you end up, not where you begin.
posted by beaverboard at 12:00 PM on July 11, 2011
I can come up with 8 in the NFC alone that I would put ahead of him.
Name them. Romo's 2010 season was shortened by injury, but in 2009 he had 4,483 passing yards, 26 touchdowns and only 9 interceptions. Only three NFC quarterbacks had a QBR higher than his 97.6.
posted by rcade at 12:04 PM on July 11, 2011
The only thing Romo has to do to get where Warner got is to focus more on being a successful quarterback and team leader for a (high-profile) NFL team instead of focusing on dating famous chicks.
Sure the dating of famous chicks is nice, but it don't get you a hell of a lot when you're looking ridiculous on the field in front of millions. Warner was talented, but also focused and had his life situated. He was/is mature. Romo falls short in that category.
posted by dyams at 12:30 PM on July 11, 2011
The only thing Romo has to do to get where Warner got is to focus more on being a successful quarterback and team leader for a (high-profile) NFL team instead of focusing on dating famous chicks.
Tom Brady's proof that one's ability to score famous chicks has absolutely nothing to do with your on-field performance.
People have this inane idea that if you don't win a Superbowl, it's because of X flaw or Y characteristic. Super Bowls are a rare thing, which is what makes them so special, and as few as 43 (your starters plus the other teams, ignoring the variety of role players) other players' successes and failures have a much more direct impact on whether you win them than whether or not he's dating a famous chick.
posted by dfleming at 02:06 PM on July 11, 2011
I can come up with 8 in the NFC alone that I would put ahead of him.
Name them. Romo's 2010 season was shortened by injury, but in 2009 he had 4,483 passing yards, 26 touchdowns and only 9 interceptions. Only three NFC quarterbacks had a QBR higher than his 97.6.
While everyone knows that QBR is a bullshit stat my eight in the NFC alone are: Rodgers, Brees, Vick, Ryan, Cutler, Freeman, Eli, and McNabb. It may be close with Eli and McNabb, but they both have gotten a lot further in the playoffs a lot more times than Romo has so I would take them before Romo.
All that excludes the AFC where you can add to the list with Brady, Rivers, Peyton and Rothlisberger while Flaaco and Schaub come close as well.
posted by Demophon at 02:10 PM on July 11, 2011
I'll grant you Rodgers, Brees and Ryan, and possibly Vick because of his rushing prowess, but I don't see how Cutler, Freeman, McNabb or Eli Manning rate better than Romo. Cutler's completion percentage is 5 percent lower and he throws a lot of picks. McNabb threw more picks than TDs last year and has never thrown for 4,000 yards. Manning threw 25 picks last season. Freeman's good, but has only one great season to his name so far.
posted by rcade at 02:43 PM on July 11, 2011
It may be close with Eli and McNabb, but they both have gotten a lot further in the playoffs a lot more times than Romo has so I would take them before Romo.
I would love to be a GM in your league.
posted by tron7 at 03:09 PM on July 11, 2011
I will give you that Cutler's completion percentage is lower than it should be, he was also playing with a far inferior wideout collection than Romo. Also while Cutler does throw too many picks, his TD to INT ratio (23/16) is pretty much exactly the same as what Romo was on pace for last year (11/7) before getting hurt. Cutler is also a more mobile QB than Romo, averaging a yard more per carry in nearly twice as many attempts. Not to say either is ever going to be Vick-like at the position. Given the choice I would not want to see either one of them under center for my team because of Cutler's poor body language and personality and Romo being Romo, but head to head I will take Cutler every time.
Even though McNabb is on the other side of his career, I would still rather have him because of his post season experience (9-7 as a starter compared to Romo's 1-3, and 4 of those McNabb losses game in Conference championship games while Romo only has been out of the first round once), better record in close games (35-34 to 18-20 in games decided by 7 or less) and much better when closing out the season and playoff chances are on the line (22-11 vs 10-13 in December/January games).
Eli gets the nod for having the better record in all the same categories as McNabb (4-3 to 1-3 in post season, 23-16 to 18-20 in close games, and 16-18 to 10-13 in Dec/Jan games). Plus Eli gets a tie breaker by already having a ring.
For Freeman I know it was just one season but it was also only his second in the league. His making the list is more of an eyeball test than a statistical reason. I watched three games for the Bucs last year and in all 3 he seemed to be cool and collected under center and in the pocket. By comparison Romo always seems to flying by the seat of his pants and seems to lack the field general qualities that Freeman is showing in only his second season. It may have been a small sample that I watched, but I was impressed in that time which is why I would take him over Romo.
posted by Demophon at 03:13 PM on July 11, 2011
From story: Warner "putting an onus on the Cowboys to do more to help" Romo
I thought that is what the Cowboys have been doing the last few years, trying to make the team more "Romo-friendly." And where has that gotten them? It really sounds like, "Hey, if you get the right players that are good enough in the right scheme that is good enough and they play against the right teams that are not good enough, then this quarterback can win a Super Bowl." Wasn't that Dilfer?
posted by graymatters at 03:26 PM on July 11, 2011
Tom Brady's proof that one's ability to score famous chicks has absolutely nothing to do with your on-field performance.
Or maybe Tom Brady is just far better a football player/quarterback than Tony Romo and isn't distracted by those types of things.
posted by dyams at 03:44 PM on July 11, 2011
Rodgers, Brees, Vick, Ryan, Cutler, Freeman, Eli, and McNabb
I'd agree with that listing. Romo puts up good stats against weak opponents and has never been a huge bust in the playoffs and big games. McNabb has disappointed often but has had some big time playoff performances.
posted by cixelsyd at 03:46 PM on July 11, 2011
Football is a team game and that is why Brad Johnson won a superbowl and Dan Marino did not. This type of discussion when it comes to football is pretty tough to reconcile.
My personal opinion of Romo is that he is an average QB on an exceptionally talented team that is in total disarray. Whether or not the Cowboys win a superbowl with Romo under center has more to do with the Cowboys owner, coaching staff and team in general than it does with Tony Romo. Is Romo good enough to win if all the other pieces come together? I think so, is he going to be the corner stone of a SB winner like say Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Joe Montana or Drew Brees. Probably not, but he is adequate enough that if everything else were to come together for the Cowboys, of course he could win. Football is about blocking, tackling and team play which is the reason why Doug Williams, or Brad Johnson have rings and Dan Marino, or Jim Kelly do not.
Stats and QB rating are very deceiving as they sometimes are over inflated against poor teams and sometimes have no relevance to winning. Obviously teams throw more and QBs put up some big numbers when they are loosing, while when a team is in control a QB's numbers seem less impressive at times. Ben Rothlisberger has won two SB's, one in which he had a very lackluster performance. John Elways stats were less impressive in the Superbowls he won than in the ones he lost. As great as his stats were in years when he couldn't win a SB, the addition of some defense and a great ground game suddenly lifted Elway from no rings to two at a time when his QB skills were on the decline. The Cowboys as a team the last couple of seasons tended to look great against lousy teams then terrible against quality teams which has a nullifying effect on a lot of the stats.
posted by Atheist at 05:28 PM on July 11, 2011
Even though McNabb is on the other side of his career, I would still rather have him because of his post season experience (9-7 as a starter compared to Romo's 1-3, and 4 of those McNabb losses game in Conference championship games while Romo only has been out of the first round once), better record in close games (35-34 to 18-20 in games decided by 7 or less) and much better when closing out the season and playoff chances are on the line (22-11 vs 10-13 in December/January games).
Those are weird, isolated, historic stats. By that measure, you'd have John Elway or Steve Young come out of retirement before you'd pick Romo because nowhere in there does it actually say what they're capable of now.
McNabb circa 2004 is a better QB than Romo, but stats he put up then have no bearing on the aged, unable to even start in Washington QB he is now.
Or maybe Tom Brady is just far better a football player/quarterback than Tony Romo and isn't distracted by those types of things.
I'd agree he's a better football player, but the argument was that having an active love life is somehow a detractor towards one's success, to which I say there are a lot more pressing factors that affect winning than that.
posted by dfleming at 05:37 PM on July 11, 2011
Those are weird, isolated, historic stats. By that measure, you'd have John Elway or Steve Young come out of retirement before you'd pick Romo because nowhere in there does it actually say what they're capable of now.
Actually it shows that players such as McNabb do better under pressure while players like Romo fold like a house of cards.
posted by Demophon at 06:26 PM on July 11, 2011
Actually it shows that players such as McNabb do better under pressure while players like Romo fold like a house of cards.
Did better. Past tense. What one did in 2004 has no bearing on their abilities in 2011. For instance, where in your metric does Donovan McNabb's 2011 performance when his job was on the line (i.e., pressure) fit? It doesn't; it assumes that no matter how bad he was last year, he's still a winner today because he was a winner yesterday. That's bad statistical analysis.
Similar to Dirk Nowitzki this year, these discussions on chokers only last until a player (and their team) plays up to their capabilities at the right time. Then, suddenly, they're heralded the hero.
posted by dfleming at 06:50 PM on July 11, 2011
I don't think a bad quarterback can put up Romo's numbers. He's been a consistently high producer for a number of years. He's that and certainly no dumber than Favre, so I can imagine him ultimately being successful.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:09 PM on July 11, 2011
Actually it shows that players such as McNabb do better under pressure while players like Romo fold like a house of cards.
1. The preferred comparison is "Superman on laundry day".
2. You can tell Donovan McNabb is done when people start using him as a "I'd rather have so-and-so". He's in his Grand Old Man phase if we're pretending he was great under pressure. As I recall, he leads the league in # of times throwing up in playoffs and # of times a teammate said player choked in the Super Bowl.
Romo's an odd duck. Top-tier talent, but hasn't delivered under pressure. Football is such a team game; it's easy to ascribe that failure to a single player but the reality is much harder to tease apart.
posted by yerfatma at 09:07 PM on July 11, 2011
I think using the situation in Washington as a benchmark of McNabb's current abilities is a dicey move. I don't think there was ever a moment under the Shanahans where he was actually put in a positive position to succeed. He didn't do himself any favors, and I'm not saying he would've put up a Tom Brady year if it hadn't been for them, but the Washington situation is just so dysfunctional that I will give him the benefit of the doubt on it.
That said, I'd take Romo over him.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:35 PM on July 11, 2011
I'd agree he's a better football player, but the argument was that having an active love life is somehow a detractor towards one's success,
Obviously, that's not the case.
posted by grum@work at 11:13 PM on July 11, 2011
From a stat perspective, I think one can make the case for Romo in the top 10, but he'd be toward the bottom, IMHO.
From a leadership/gamesmanship standpoint, I think I'd take most of the QB's others have mentioned over Romo.
As to the love life situation, to me it isn't about an active love life, it's about a love life that makes sense. Brady's made sense to me, Tiger's did not.
posted by dviking at 12:39 AM on July 12, 2011
2. You can tell Donovan McNabb is done when people start using him as a "I'd rather have so-and-so". He's in his Grand Old Man phase if we're pretending he was great under pressure. As I recall, he leads the league in # of times throwing up in playoffs and # of times a teammate said player choked in the Super Bowl.
Even so I would still take a QB who led his team to a Super Bowl over one who has only managed to get out of the first round one time. I am not saying that McNabb is the QB I want leading my team for the next 10 years, I am saying that right now head to head I value what McNabb brings to the table more so than what Romo does. Romo is a product of playing for the Cowboys. If he played for the Seahawks we would being talking about him being compared more to Kyle Orton than Tom Brady. Don't forget that Romo also had a 1-5 record at the time of his injury, yet Jon Kitna took the same team and came within one win of a .500 record (4-6).
Plus even without McNabb on the list that still leaves 7 NFC QBs that I would take ahead of Romo plus 4 no doubt AFC QBs for a total of 11 that prevent Romo from seeing the inside of the top 10.
Here's a scenario for everyone. As part of the new CBA it is announced that every QB in the league is going back into a draft and will be signed to only 1 year contracts. Any team that doesn't make the playoffs gets demoted to the UFL. It becomes an "all-in" year for every team because unless you win you are out of the league. Does Romo go in the first 10 picks? I don't think so.
posted by Demophon at 09:18 AM on July 12, 2011
Don't forget that Romo also had a 1-5 record at the time of his injury, yet Jon Kitna took the same team and came within one win of a .500 record (4-6).
Firing Wade Phillips and installing Jason Garrett as coach had a lot to do with that. As you said, Romo is a product of playing for the Cowboys. The team around him had a lot to do with that 1-5 record. He played well enough to win all but one of those games, but the vaunted defense suddenly couldn't stop anybody. They gave up 27, 34, 24 and 41 points in four of the losses.
Does Romo go in the first 10 picks? I don't think so.
A draft is about future potential. Calling Romo a "top-10 quarterback" is about the present. If Romo wasn't injured, he was on pace in 2010 to throw for 4,280 yards and 29 touchdowns on 18 interceptions. His QBR was 94.9. Sounds like a top 10 quarterback to me. Only five quarterbacks threw for 4,000 yards and 29 touchdowns last season.
As a Cowboys fan, I watched the team suffer for years after Troy Aikman's retirement because they couldn't find a worthy successor. Look at who led the team in passing those dark years: Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, Drew Bledsoe and a 41-year-old Vinny Testaverde!
It's a good debate whether Romo is top 10. But at the risk of being plunged back into quarterback interregnum, I am 100 percent confident Romo's the guy who should be leading the team when the NFL comes back.
posted by rcade at 09:37 AM on July 12, 2011
Even so I would still take a QB who led his team to a Super Bowl over one who has only managed to get out of the first round one time.
Again, football is a team sport. By that logic, you would take John Elway over Michael Vick or Matt Ryan.
posted by yerfatma at 09:45 AM on July 12, 2011
A draft is about future potential. Calling Romo a "top-10 quarterback" is about the present. If Romo wasn't injured, he was on pace in 2010 to throw for 4,280 yards and 29 touchdowns on 18 interceptions. His QBR was 94.9. Sounds like a top 10 quarterback to me. Only five quarterbacks threw for 4,000 yards and 29 touchdowns last season.
A normal draft yes, but as I spelled out in my scenario it's still all about 1 year win or your out. I don't think you get more present than that. In that scenario Romo does not go in the first 10 picks which means he is not a top 10 QB.
As for Romo's 2010 pace, how much of that was also a product of the fact that he was facing some of the lesser quality defenses in the league and was having to play catch up which means more passing plays and more chances to load up those stats. In his 4 full games last year he faced the 31st, 20th, 32nd, 29th, and 10th ranked pass defenses from last season and in the only game against a team in the top half of the league put up his lowest yardage total.
Again, football is a team sport. By that logic, you would take John Elway over Michael Vick or Matt Ryan.
No actually I am saying that as a tie breaker with other things evening each other out I would take Elway over Vick or Ryan. Since Elway is no longer on the playing field of Vick or Ryan I guess I don't have to make that choice. However Romo and McNabb are on the same playing field and McNabb gets the tie breaker over Romo by having not fallen apart like a house of cards in almost every playoff game he has appeared in. If Romo ever proves us wrong like Dirk did this year, then he could get that tie breaker.
As rcade pointed out, the top 10 QBs is about the present, guys like Elway are not participants in the present, so using that point over and over doesn't really make a point yerfatma. The weakest guy in the league that has a ring as a starting QB in my opinion now would be Eli and like I said Eli gets the nod on a tie breaker. I am not saying Eli is exponentially better than Romo, but I am saying I would put him ahead of Romo on the top 10 list.
posted by Demophon at 10:00 AM on July 12, 2011
gets the tie breaker over Romo by having not fallen apart like a house of cards in almost every playoff game he has appeared in
Thus all those rings Donovan has. Your point seems to be you don't like Romo.
posted by yerfatma at 10:27 AM on July 12, 2011
As for Romo's 2010 pace, how much of that was also a product of the fact that he was facing some of the lesser quality defenses in the league and was having to play catch up which means more passing plays and more chances to load up those stats.
Not much, in my opinion. His projected numbers for 2010 are close to his actual numbers for 2009. He's one of the handful of quarterbacks in the league who can put up 4,000 passing yards and around 30 touchdowns.
I like McNabb and think he got a raw deal from Philly, but I'd never take him over Romo without seeing if 2010 was a fluke. He had an awful year and he's four years and 94 starts older than Romo. That's almost six full seasons of extra wear and tear. McNabb may be entering the backup phase of his career.
posted by rcade at 10:30 AM on July 12, 2011
McNabb gets the tie breaker over Romo by having not fallen apart like a house of cards in almost every playoff game he has appeared in.
Romo has been in four playoff games with the Cowboys.
1: A 2007 21-20 wild card loss to Seattle in which he was 17-29 with 189 yards passing and threw for one touchdown and no interceptions. He let the ball pass through his hands on a game-winning field goal attempt as time expired.
2: A 2009 21-17 wild card loss to the New York Giants, 18-36, 201 yards, one touchdown and one pick.
3: A 2010 34-14 wild card win over the Philadelphia Eagles, 23-35, 247 yards, two touchdowns and no picks. He outplayed McNabb in all those categories.
4: A 2010 34-3 loss to the Minnesota Vikings, 22-35, 198 yards, no touchdowns and one pick.
I don't see greatness there, but I don't see a house of cards either. I think you're exaggerating his faults.
posted by rcade at 10:39 AM on July 12, 2011
He let the ball pass through his hands on a game-winning field goal attempt as time expired.
Maybe one of the strangest things I've seen in a playoff game. If he would have made it to the end zone, and it was close, I would count it as the strangest thing I've ever seen in a playoff game.
posted by tron7 at 10:48 AM on July 12, 2011
He was an ankle tackle from overcoming the problem of slick balls.
posted by rcade at 10:55 AM on July 12, 2011
He was an ankle tackle from overcoming the problem of slick balls.
Or perhaps Grammatica could have done ANYTHING to even minutely disrupt the defenders path. Anything at all. Give him a high five, sneeze on him, blow him a kiss, fall on his face in that general direction.
As a lifelong Cowboys fan, I've had more than my share of Romo irritations. But to say he's not in the top 10 in the NFC alone is pure illogical bias. Nothing more.
And, my God rcade, how dark were those "dark years?" You failed to mention Ryan Leaf. Aweful. Just aweful. If you didn't realize the importance of stability at the QB position before then, you damn sure knew it afterward. And THAT'S why I'll take Romo today, despite his occasional embarrassments.
posted by SooperJeenyus at 11:32 AM on July 12, 2011
But to say he's not in the top 10 in the NFC alone is pure illogical bias. Nothing more.
Top 10 maybe, Top 8 no.
Heck, I even thought Kitna was starting to control that offence pretty well last year. He doesn't have Romo's ability, but he certainly appears to offer some consistancy that the Cowboys lack at QB, especially in key situations.
posted by cixelsyd at 02:02 PM on July 12, 2011
Top 10 maybe, Top 8 no.
Rodgers, Brees, Vick, and maybe Ryan, I'll concede, but you can have Cutler, Freeman, Eli, and McNabb. I'll take Romo over that lot.
posted by SooperJeenyus at 03:07 PM on July 12, 2011
Freeman was inexplicably able to turn the Bucs into a good team last year with very little talent surrounding him. And, he is only in his second year in the league.
McNabb moved like Methuselah last year. Cutler is even more erratic than Romo. Eli at least has a Super Bowl ring. It wasn't a Brad Johnson type ring either, so at least we know he is able to elevate his game to Super Bowl quality.
posted by bperk at 03:57 PM on July 12, 2011
Freeman was inexplicably able to turn the Bucs into a good team last year with very little talent surrounding him.
I like Josh Freeman a lot, but I have to disagree with you. I think the coaching staff has done a good job with the team and they've brought in a lot of good, young talent. No young QB turns a team around single-handedly.
Cue examples of when it has happened & make me feel stupid.
posted by yerfatma at 04:04 PM on July 12, 2011
However Romo and McNabb are on the same playing field and McNabb gets the tie breaker over Romo by having not fallen apart like a house of cards in almost every playoff game he has appeared in.
You should take a look at the one playoff game they played against each other. I'll give you a hint; it didn't go the way you think it did.
posted by dfleming at 06:18 PM on July 12, 2011
He was an ankle tackle from overcoming the problem of slick balls.
I am not a big Romo fan, and certainly am not a Cowboy fan despite being a lifelong resident of the area (it's a JJones thing). But I wish I could remember if there was a measurement after the botched snap. Romo lets the ball slip through his fingers, he runs to the left and is tackled. I think they determined there was no fumble because he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. The ball ended up about the one yard line, which is where the Cowboys had to go to get the first down. But Seattle ball. I remember when the play was happening thinking great the Cowboys lose and then thinking wait the Cowboys have a chance because of the first down. But I don't remember if there was ever a measurement to see if he made the first or not?
Just one of those things that has bothered me over the years. Not that much, because of the outcome, but bothered me still.
posted by graymatters at 06:33 PM on July 12, 2011
You should take a look at the one playoff game they played against each other. I'll give you a hint; it didn't go the way you think it did.
Their entire teams and coaches played against each other as well, and that had a lot to do with the outcome, maybe more than the quarterbacks, who never go head to head on the field. Each plays a different game against a different team. The stats/results for ranking these guys really only work in the aggregate.
It's also worth reminding people that the McNabb/Romo discussion is over a probable #10 a possible #11 on the active QB list, not over which guy is superman and which guy is dogshit. "Top ten" doesn't even signal "elite" anymore, it's more like, "Hey this guy's pretty good" vs. "Hey this guy's not bad."
posted by Hugh Janus at 06:53 PM on July 12, 2011
You should take a look at the one playoff game they played against each other. I'll give you a hint; it didn't go the way you think it did.
Once again, even without McNabb there are still 7 NFC and 4 no doubt AFC QBs who rank ahead of the over hyped product of Jerry World. Romo is NOT a top 10 QB!
posted by Demophon at 07:25 PM on July 13, 2011
Your argument would be stronger if you conceded comments that are flat-out wrong. You've already been shown he doesn't collapse "like a house of cards" in the playoffs. Seven "no doubt" quarterbacks in the NFC ahead of Romo, including Cutler and Freeman in that list? You just don't like the guy.
posted by rcade at 09:33 AM on July 14, 2011
I did not say 7 "no doubt" NFC QBs. I said 7 NFC QBs & 4 no doubt AFC QBs. I only referred to the to no doubt AFC QBs because I think you could arguably put two more (Flaaco & Schaub) ahead of Romo too, but then you go back down the long argument list so I limited the AFC part of the conversation to just the top 4 bringing the total to 11. Its not that I don't like the guy, I just say he is not a top 10 QB and by providing at least 11 options I have proven that point. Apparently your Cowboy fanhood prevents you from hearing rationale conversations about your QB.
posted by Demophon at 10:55 AM on July 14, 2011
Apparently your Cowboy fanhood prevents you from hearing rationale conversations about your QB.
I already said there's a good argument whether Romo is top 10. You're just not making it.
posted by rcade at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2011
Apparently your Cowboy fanhood prevents you from hearing rationale conversations about your QB.
The Cowboys might be my least favorite team and I think you're nuts.
posted by tron7 at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2011
Fine then, where does he appear in the top 10 for everyone else?
posted by Demophon at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2011
The consensus appears to be that if he's top 10, it's pretty close to 10. Which as Hugh said, isn't much of a compliment.
posted by rcade at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2011
so using that point over and over doesn't really make a point
But using the term 'fold like a house of cards' repeatedly makes yours?
I am 100 percent confident Romo's the guy who should be leading the team when the NFL comes back.
You and me both. With being the QB of the Cowboys comes a lot of great expectations and a heap of criticism if the team doesn't perform at the highest level possible.
posted by BornIcon at 11:17 AM on July 15, 2011
Fine then, where does he appear in the top 10 for everyone else?
Brady Manning Brees Rodgers
Rivers Vick Roethlisberger Ryan Romo
The space is where there's a pretty clearly defined group of elite passers with playoff experience and consistency. Schaub/Flacco/Freeman are all guys who haven't had significant playoff tests or who failed them so far. I think they could jump up.
Eli's not even in the conversation, as he's so up/down it's hard to really trust him for 16 games + playoffs without elite running backs.
posted by dfleming at 12:05 PM on July 15, 2011
Hey if Trent Dilfer can win a Super Bowl then that is proof any QB CAN win one. Sorry Dan Marino.
Although there is no way Romo is a top 10 QB in the NFL. I can come up with 8 in the NFC alone that I would put ahead of him.