Are you done running in circles. Or do you have stats that actually hold substance or an actual valid argument to work with yet? You're just going right back to confirming Eli is the better QB........
Don't feel bad Romo does have a championship in amateur golf
And you are incorrect again I dismiss passer rating because of the variables. Which you already confirmed. As per you
Yes. And Romo and Eli were contemporaries, so this argument is irrelevant.
Yes. because he was more durable. Thanks for letting me know you didn't actually read my post.
That's because I'm a homer. Had nothing to do with who is actually a better QB. And as both had relatively short, mediocre careers, it doesn't really matter which one was better.
Kaep and Tebow played in the same era, dullard.
Has absolutely zero to do with passer rating.
Zero to do with passer rating.
Again, zero to do with passer rating.
Thank you for proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have zero idea of what a passer rating is. The only thing that matters in a passer rating is yards, comp %, TDs, and INTs.
Literally nothing else you mentioned is a factor in a QBs passer rating.
Oblivious.
Clearly oblivious.
If it shows how Manning's career is, I guess Manning has only played 2 seasons in the NFL, because he's only won in 2 postseasons. Keep up the ignorance.
Obviously false.
Obviously oblivious.
You obviously missed it when he lost. Because when the Giants lost, it was because Eli sucked. In the clutch.
AN MVP award in a single game does not mean a thing. It means he played good in one game. Great. Lots of QBs have one great game. Doesn't mean their great QBs.
To say Eli is a better QB than 99% of the QBs of this era is to ignore the stats. Eli is one of the worst QBs in the NFL and it should be obvious to anyone that watches football.
Still enjoying watching you flounder. Keep it up.
I’ll go through it in a sec and break it down for you. Otherwise I’m going to have to simplify it for you maybe pictures
I’ll go through it in a sec and break it down for you. Otherwise I’m going to have to simplify it for you maybe pictures
Yes. And Romo and Eli were contemporaries, so this argument is irrelevant.
Using the word contemporaries is confirming you can not compare passer rating by era....
Yes. because he was more durable. Thanks for letting me know you didn't actually read my post.
This is a direct contradiction that Eli's level of play in high pressure games and other aspects of his game. Play a bigger role in the comparison than relying solely on passer rating
That's because I'm a homer. Had nothing to do with who is actually a better QB. And as both had relatively short, mediocre careers, it doesn't really matter which one was better.
I already know you're a homer this has been established a long time ago. And you're being a homer with Romo as well. That was the point of that example....
Kaep and Tebow played in the same era, dullard.
Has absolutely zero to do with passer rating.
Zero to do with passer rating.
Again, zero to do with passer rating.
Again this disproves your contemporaries stance.....They played in the same era yet you chose Tebow and showed you use Bias when comparing players....
Thank you for proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have zero idea of what a passer rating is. The only thing that matters in a passer rating is yards, comp %, TDs, and INTs.
Literally nothing else you mentioned is a factor in a QB's passer rating.
Oblivious.
This may be difficult for you to understand but pass attempts play a role in completion percent. When a QB plays more games he throws more passes. That holds a direct effect on completion percent on probabilities alone. When a player plays in an offensive system that throw more same concept. If the offensive system is based on short passes completion percent rises.
When a QB has a better Offensive line, a HOF WR Owens,Witten,Dez etc....That will raise completion percent as well. But you would have to understand how systems work in order to understand that. Eli had a lot less to work with yet found success. Much more impressive. Than a stat riddled with variables
Clearly oblivious.
If it shows how Manning's career is, I guess Manning has only played 2 seasons in the NFL, because he's only won in 2 postseasons. Keep up the ignorance.
Obviously false.
Obviously oblivious.
If you took the time to read the play off stats of both QBs. You would see manning did not just come up big for the Giants in both super bowls. But he was clutch in all their play off games leading to their championships.
Where Romo was sloppy. Had more fumbles in the play offs than games played. If you watch the games or even just read the summaries he couldn't finish drives or carry momentum. And thats not even getting into the plays that directly caused dallas to be eliminated. Botched snap etc.....
You obviously missed it when he lost. Because when the Giants lost, it was because Eli sucked. In the clutch.
Again refer to the actual play off stats and summaries. His worst game was against the Eagles team. That picked Romo and Dallas apart 44-3. Winning the last play off spot while eliminating Dallas
An MVP award in a single game does not mean a thing. It means he played good in one game. Great. Lots of QBs have one great game. Doesn't mean their great QBs.
2 MVP awards following 2 Super Bowl victories. Where Eli was clutch. Again Romo didnt accomplish anything of significance
To say Eli is a better QB than 99% of the QBs of this era is to ignore the stats. Eli is one of the worst QBs in the NFL and it should be obvious to anyone that watches football.
Still enjoying watching you flounder. Keep it up.
I don't need luck. I use facts and logic. I even used a different color so you could tell the difference good luckGood luck with that.
Look I'm not trying to be a dick. I get that you are either a Romo homer or just really hate Eli for whatever reason.Hell I never liked the Giants because I have to deal with their fans when they win.Passer rating doesn't work as a solid direct comparison because of variables. Which Im not sure you understand. Dont take that as an insult not everyone gets variables or systems. But using logic and fact.without bias factoring in. Eli is the better QB.
Thats the definition of contemporary. Especially in this scenario perhaps you are using the word out of context.....
I wouldnt call Eli Mediocre by that standard Romo would be mediocre based on their comparison. Not even close to Siemian. You're stretching now.......Great example of how you attempt to word things to fit your agenda. Rather than just provide actual facts, Seimien won a super bowl ring as a back up. Eli won 2 Super Bowls as a starter and was named MVP twice. Big difference when you're trying to manipulate words to make an argument. Rather than using factual data. You know you have no argument. Eli is better than Romo
Again read those play off stats and summaries I posted. I think you'll find he earned the praise. Whether either of us like him or not. If Eli wasn't clutch they wouldnt have made it to or won those super bowls. Sorry like him or not I believe in giving credit when its due
And this is where yo are wrong again. Why are you looking at them as single game stats when they actually form a whole? And for future reference word play may work for you in the PF. But it does not work with me. Seamen was the worst example you could have chose. It seems like you just hate Eli. But we've also established you aren't beyond disregarding the over inflated stat you are relying on. Based on a homer position. Perhaps You're just being a Romo homer. And thats why you're ignoring facts and speaking in half truths
