So for those of you who haven't been living under a rock; a popular discussion is going on in the football world and it's a familiar one. Who's the better QB between Tony Romo and Eli "Little Brother" Manning? I can see how this question comes up because for one; these two both play in the most exciting division in all of sports and another reason is they're both very successful but in different ways. Tony Romo being the undrafted QB who impressed none other than Bill Parcells enough to steal a starting spot from Drew Bledsoe and finally stabilized the position of quarterback in Dallas that was a mess since Aikman retired. The other being Eli Manning playing in the shadows of his future Hall of Famer brother Peyton but emerging from that shadow by winning his second title in 5 years. Now that those reasons for discussion are out the way I gotta say it's really an unfair comparison. It's not statistics vs. statistics or accolades vs. accolades; it's statistics vs. accolades.
Spoiler Alert: Captain Obvious makes an appearance after the jump.
Now we can all look at career stats and see that Tony Romo has the edge in completion percentage, touchdown to interception ratio, yards per completion average and QB rating. Eli Manning has the advantage in post season success which includes two Super Bowls compared to Romo's underwhelming 1-3 playoff record. Now I've heard too much of the Romo hasn't had the right kind of team, or defense, around him to win big or that the Giants pass rush won the last two titles. How much of that is fact and how much is opinion is something I'll avoid as much as possible because it tires me. What I do wanna touch on is how would all this be viewed by Cowboy fans if the roles of these two players were completely reversed. It's easy to say that Tony is a better QB because of statistics but how many of us would throw that out the window if it was Romo who had the less impressive statistics but two Super Bowl titles?
My two best friends happen to be Steeler fans and in my overall circle there are at least 8 Giants fans. It's safe to say they bring up their recent titles since both current QB's have two a piece. Now while Romo puts up better numbers than Roethlisberger and Manning, those championships are the elephant in the room. Have they benefitted from defensive play? Yes. Once again though, how many of us would put down Romo by saying our defense did all the work if the roles were reversed? If Eli were in Romo's shoes I certainly wouldn't entertain how great his stats were if my quarterback was the one with two Super Bowl rings at the age of 31-32. I'd be the first one saying "Yea.... but does he (Eli) have any championships?". In no way do I think Eli could be a Cowboy and do what Romo hasn't since 05-06 because of all the other parts of the game so that's not what this is about. I just simply can't take my fellow Cowboy fans defending Romo by bashing Eli's stats. There's two ways to conclude who's the better quarterback and neither are fair. It's easy to defend Romo by saying he has better stats (he does, not arguing that) or that Eli is just a product of a team with great late season surge and pass rushing (not that easy to avoid I guess). At the end of it all the Gnats have two titles with Manning under Center and that's what we want out of our Cowboys with Romo as the head honcho.
So who is the better QB? After personally looking at it from both views and then reversing roles I'd have to say Eli, not only because of championships but also his postseason record. Now if Tony Romo and the current Cowboys have turned the table and win a championship while Eli and his current Giants have two then the debate becomes way more leveled than it is now and both statistics/accolades become fair play. If that were to happen then Tony Romo is the better QB by far having achieved outstanding numbers and the hardware to match. I guess it all depends on what is more important from a fans point of view. For me it's championships.