Who is the better QB going into 2009? (1 Viewer)

[-primetime-]

Who do you think the better QB is right now...Romo or McNabb

I am not talking about past achievements or where they stand in history as of righ now, just a simple "who do you think is better?"...

 

[identikit]

Who do you think the better QB is right now...Romo or McNabbI am not talking about past achievements or where they stand in history as of righ now, just a simple "who do you think is better?"...

I need some clarification here...FF-wise? NFL-wise?

 

[-primetime-]

Who do you think the better QB is right now...Romo or McNabbI am not talking about past achievements or where they stand in history as of righ now, just a simple "who do you think is better?"...

I need some clarification here...FF-wise? NFL-wise?

NFL wise...

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I think I will go with the one that has won more playoff games ...

 

[identikit]

I think I will go with the one that has won more playoff games ...

Same here...McNabb

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I think I will go with the one that has won more playoff games ...

Same here...McNabb

McNabb has been a very good NFL QB, even without elite WRs ....

 

[got_nugs]

Coming from a Skins fan....I personally LOVED when Romo muffed that hold in the playoffs...but I could see where it could be said that he played well enough to win, if only the coach decided to put ANYONE aside from the starting QB out to hold on FG attempts. I know he hasn't won a playoff game, but it's hard to say ... well, I forgot my point.

Ok, I pick McNabb.

 

[Katana]

My 1st instinct was "pshhh Romo is way better"

Then i realized he wasnt

Voted McNabb

 

[-primetime-]

My 1st instinct was "pshhh Romo is way better"

Then i realized he wasnt

Voted McNabb

what made you realize that?Romo is more accurate, and more mobile...

the only thing he lacks over McNabb is history...

 

[BassNBrew]

Very interesting topic. Was all set to pick Romo and then I remember that McNabb was the QB who elevated Greg Lewis to Patriot status.

 

[NorrisB]

I dont see how people can go with McNabb unless the category is most injuries. McNabb's past playoff wins having nothing to do with this season, if it did people should be calling washed up players like Brett Favre and Corey Dillon but unfortunately it doesnt and Id take Romo any day of the week over McNabb.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Tony Romo has been responsible for more than 20 turnovers both of his full seasons as starter, including last year where he only started 13 games. McNabb never has.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yeah, I don't get where "Mcnabb's" (I use the term lightly since teams win games, not quarterbacks) playoff wins come into play here. This is about who is better RIGHT NOW, not who has had the better career. It's not like you can say that the Eagles' playoff wins (because they ARE the Eagles' playoff wins, not Mcnabb's) are proof that Mcnabb is more clutch because really, we know that being clutch is certainly not one of Mcnabb's strong suits (see: throwing up in the huddle with the Super Bowl on the line).

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Also, I find it fairly hilarious the way people are willing to bend the word "clutch" to fit the argument they want to make. On the one hand, a player can have a decent playoff record but rarely win the Super Bowl and it makes them "unclutch" and a "loser" because they can't win the big one (See Manning, Peyton). Meanwhile, another player can have a miserable record in the really big games and fail to win the big one utterly and completely and suddenly we ignore their poor record in conference championships and super bowls and say that the divisional round wins suddenly make them clutch.

 

[Adebisi]

McNabb. Romo isn't really a QB I take seriously.

 

[NorrisB]

Yeah, I don't get where "Mcnabb's" (I use the term lightly since teams win games, not quarterbacks) playoff wins come into play here. This is about who is better RIGHT NOW, not who has had the better career. It's not like you can say that the Eagles' playoff wins (because they ARE the Eagles' playoff wins, not Mcnabb's) are proof that Mcnabb is more clutch because really, we know that being clutch is certainly not one of Mcnabb's strong suits (see: throwing up in the huddle with the Super Bowl on the line).

Im shocked people brought up McNabb as clutch, I dont think I could think of a bigger choker

 

[fred_1_15301]

Also, I find it fairly hilarious the way people are willing to bend the word "clutch" to fit the argument they want to make. On the one hand, a player can have a decent playoff record but rarely win the Super Bowl and it makes them "unclutch" and a "loser" because they can't win the big one (See Manning, Peyton). Meanwhile, another player can have a miserable record in the really big games and fail to win the big one utterly and completely and suddenly we ignore their poor record in conference championships and super bowls and say that the divisional round wins suddenly make them clutch.

McNabb has made it to 5 NFC championship games so he must have a somewhat "decent" playoff record. If you're trying to compare Manning to McNabb, the playoffs is probably not the route you want to take.

 

[todisco1]

McNabb, but I'm interested in seeing what Romo does this year.

 

[Bankerguy]

Gotta say McNabb at this point.

 

[phillyphan07]

I dont see how people can go with McNabb unless the category is most injuries. McNabb's past playoff wins having nothing to do with this season, if it did people should be calling washed up players like Brett Favre and Corey Dillon but unfortunately it doesnt and Id take Romo any day of the week over McNabb.

so mcnabb's past football success has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but his past football injuries have everything to do with it?

 

[phillyphan07]

Also, I find it fairly hilarious the way people are willing to bend the word "clutch" to fit the argument they want to make. On the one hand, a player can have a decent playoff record but rarely win the Super Bowl and it makes them "unclutch" and a "loser" because they can't win the big one (See Manning, Peyton). Meanwhile, another player can have a miserable record in the really big games and fail to win the big one utterly and completely and suddenly we ignore their poor record in conference championships and super bowls and say that the divisional round wins suddenly make them clutch.

I'm confused... I don't see anyone comparing how clutch the two QBs in any of the previous posts....

 

[Zoomanji]

Also, I find it fairly hilarious the way people are willing to bend the word "clutch" to fit the argument they want to make. On the one hand, a player can have a decent playoff record but rarely win the Super Bowl and it makes them "unclutch" and a "loser" because they can't win the big one (See Manning, Peyton). Meanwhile, another player can have a miserable record in the really big games and fail to win the big one utterly and completely and suddenly we ignore their poor record in conference championships and super bowls and say that the divisional round wins suddenly make them clutch.

I'm confused... I don't see anyone comparing how clutch the two QBs in any of the previous posts....

And only one of the 2 QBs in the discussion have ever won a playoff game If a guy fumbles a snap at the end of the game would that be choking?

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for as statistics go, I think Romo is the clear choice. He's younger, he's been better the past couple of seasons, he was better last season, and he's younger. But it's legitimate to wonder how much of Romo's big numbers have to do with TO and Witten, and how much of McNabb's inferior numbers have to do with the lack of a great WR. He has Westbrook, but we all saw what McNabb did that year he had TO.

I think they're very close to even. Different QBs, but equally effective in '09.

 

[Bushead]

Yeah, I don't get where "Mcnabb's" (I use the term lightly since teams win games, not quarterbacks) playoff wins come into play here. This is about who is better RIGHT NOW, not who has had the better career. It's not like you can say that the Eagles' playoff wins (because they ARE the Eagles' playoff wins, not Mcnabb's) are proof that Mcnabb is more clutch because really, we know that being clutch is certainly not one of Mcnabb's strong suits (see: throwing up in the huddle with the Super Bowl on the line).

Im shocked people brought up McNabb as clutch, I dont think I could think of a bigger choker

Romo?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Also, I find it fairly hilarious the way people are willing to bend the word "clutch" to fit the argument they want to make. On the one hand, a player can have a decent playoff record but rarely win the Super Bowl and it makes them "unclutch" and a "loser" because they can't win the big one (See Manning, Peyton). Meanwhile, another player can have a miserable record in the really big games and fail to win the big one utterly and completely and suddenly we ignore their poor record in conference championships and super bowls and say that the divisional round wins suddenly make them clutch.

I'm confused... I don't see anyone comparing how clutch the two QBs in any of the previous posts....

When the entirety of their argument is made up of number of playoff wins (when comparing a QB that's played 10 years to one that's played 3 years no less), they don't actually have to say the word.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

People love to bring up Romo's fumbled snap on the FG and laugh it up about how unclutch that makes him, but they tend to forget that in order for that to happen he had to lead his team down the field to set them up for a chip-shot game-winning field goal.

So, after driving them downfield most QBs would've just trotted off the field and that would've been the end of it (it was certainly good enough to make Tom Brady be considered one of the most clutch of all time just for getting his kicker within 50 yards, much less the 20 yard kick that Romo left them with). But because Romo is a bad holder, suddenly that makes him a bad QB?

Now, you can try and argue that the fumbled snap isn't indicative of him being a bad holder, but an unclutch one that choked when it mattered which would transfer over to his QB play. Only, that would be ignoring that he had just led his team down the field in clutch fashion as a QB with time running out in a playoff game for an easy game winning FG.

So if Romo comes off the field there (like most QBs would) and they make that field goal and his playoff record is 1-1 instead of 0-2 (as if two games are any kind of trend anyway) does that make Romo a normal level of "clutchness" as compared to "lol he's the biggest choker ever"? He's still the same guy, the same QB, with the same level of "clutchness" either way. That's how flawed people's logic and perception is in this. A simple decision by the coach as to who the holder is changes your perception THAT drastically, when the decision being made has NOTHING to do with his ability or "clutchness" as a quarterback. That just seems a bit off to me.

 

[H.K.]

So if Romo comes off the field there (like most QBs would) and they make that field goal and his playoff record is 1-1 instead of 0-2 (as if two games are any kind of trend anyway) does that make Romo a normal level of "clutchness" as compared to "lol he's the biggest choker ever"? He's still the same guy, the same QB, with the same level of "clutchness" either way. That's how flawed people's logic and perception is in this. A simple decision by the coach as to who the holder is changes your perception THAT drastically, when the decision being made has NOTHING to do with his ability or "clutchness" as a quarterback. That just seems a bit off to me.

I guess the difference is people are judging him on his actual performance, not his hypothetical one. In real life, he dropped the snap.

 

[thriftyrocker]

These 2 faced head-to-head week 17 and the winner made the playoffs. McNabb didn't win the game himself, but he made no mistakes & managed the game. Romo had a couple bad turnovers in the 3rd which made the game a blowout.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So if Romo comes off the field there (like most QBs would) and they make that field goal and his playoff record is 1-1 instead of 0-2 (as if two games are any kind of trend anyway) does that make Romo a normal level of "clutchness" as compared to "lol he's the biggest choker ever"? He's still the same guy, the same QB, with the same level of "clutchness" either way. That's how flawed people's logic and perception is in this. A simple decision by the coach as to who the holder is changes your perception THAT drastically, when the decision being made has NOTHING to do with his ability or "clutchness" as a quarterback. That just seems a bit off to me.

I guess the difference is people are judging him on his actual performance, not his hypothetical one. In real life, he dropped the snap.

Yeah, but my point was that you're having your opinion of him altered between "normal clutchness" and "one of the biggest chokers ever" based on the coach's decision to play him as a holder on kicks? That's crazy.He wasn't playing quarterback. If you want to argue that Mcnabb is a better holder than Romo, then fine, but the question was which is a better QB. You can't really argue that that fumble is indicative of his likeliness to choke as a quarterback, because he DIDN'T choke as a quarterback when he led them down the field to set them up for that field goal, in the playoffs, as a quarterback.

It's already one thing that people base so much of their opinion of a player on such a small subset of plays that have more to do with pure mathematics anyway, but to base it on such a small subset of plays that are influenced by so many other things is even more baffling to me, and then to take that and apply it to a small subset of plays that don't even have to do with him playing the position being discussed just boggles the mind.

 

[The_Fonz]

As a giants fan, I hate facing McNabb much more than Romo.

 

[dansav]

In my opinion McNabb. He throws a better ball and has had lesser talent around him and still produced.

 

[stevegamer]

These 2 faced head-to-head week 17 and the winner made the playoffs. McNabb didn't win the game himself, but he made no mistakes & managed the game. Romo had a couple bad turnovers in the 3rd which made the game a blowout.

This is a solid point. The last time these 2 played a regular-season game, they were on the same field in a must-win game pitting divsion rivals.One had the better weapons around them, and lost. This was partly due to a number of his own mistakes, and was a direct cause of the most lopsided loss in franchise history in this rivalry.The other made very few misteks, and played pretty well.While 1 game can't be used as the sole judge, it's interesting to note what happenend the last time they faced each other in a big game.

 

[phillyphan07]

People love to bring up Romo's fumbled snap on the FG and laugh it up about how unclutch that makes him, but they tend to forget that in order for that to happen he had to lead his team down the field to set them up for a chip-shot game-winning field goal.So, after driving them downfield most QBs would've just trotted off the field and that would've been the end of it (it was certainly good enough to make Tom Brady be considered one of the most clutch of all time just for getting his kicker within 50 yards, much less the 20 yard kick that Romo left them with). But because Romo is a bad holder, suddenly that makes him a bad QB?

I understand the argument that one blown hold doesnt make Romo a bad QB. But people also love to point to McNabb's superbowl puke as being the reason why he is a terrible QB.If you're not going ignore Romo's drive down the field then don't ignore McNabb's run through the 2004 playoffs (without T.O. no less)If you going to blame Parcells for sending Romo out to handle that snap, then maybe you should ask why Andy Reid had McNabb drop back FIFTY TWO times (76% of all offense plays) because taking that kind of physical beating from the N.E. defense might have had something to do with McNabb getting sick with 2 minutes left. (And its not like they were passing because it was a blow out. The game was tied 14-14 at the end of the 3rd quarter and the final was 24-21)

 

[stewartcjae]

People love to bring up Romo's fumbled snap on the FG and laugh it up about how unclutch that makes him, but they tend to forget that in order for that to happen he had to lead his team down the field to set them up for a chip-shot game-winning field goal.So, after driving them downfield most QBs would've just trotted off the field and that would've been the end of it (it was certainly good enough to make Tom Brady be considered one of the most clutch of all time just for getting his kicker within 50 yards, much less the 20 yard kick that Romo left them with). But because Romo is a bad holder, suddenly that makes him a bad QB?

I understand the argument that one blown hold doesnt make Romo a bad QB. But people also love to point to McNabb's superbowl puke as being the reason why he is a terrible QB.If you're not going ignore Romo's drive down the field then don't ignore McNabb's run through the 2004 playoffs (without T.O. no less)If you going to blame Parcells for sending Romo out to handle that snap, then maybe you should ask why Andy Reid had McNabb drop back FIFTY TWO times (76% of all offense plays) because taking that kind of physical beating from the N.E. defense might have had something to do with McNabb getting sick with 2 minutes left. (And its not like they were passing because it was a blow out. The game was tied 14-14 at the end of the 3rd quarter and the final was 24-21)

Honestly I don't feel either QB gets enough credit for what they have done. Everyone seems quick to discount what they have done because of some excuse or another. Both are very good at putting their teams in position to win. It has not happened yet for Romo, but I really don't put his playoff losses squarely on him. (I'll even give you the botched hold, even though he shouldn't have been in there). McNabb too, how many NFC championships, with virtually no WR to through to. Both have faults, and maybe neither will win a Ring, but both are very good QB's.If I had to chose one this year to be my QB, I'd take Romo, because of potential and youth. It is very close though. They are both on that 2nd tier.

 

[Snotbubbles]

People love to bring up Romo's fumbled snap on the FG and laugh it up about how unclutch that makes him, but they tend to forget that in order for that to happen he had to lead his team down the field to set them up for a chip-shot game-winning field goal.So, after driving them downfield most QBs would've just trotted off the field and that would've been the end of it (it was certainly good enough to make Tom Brady be considered one of the most clutch of all time just for getting his kicker within 50 yards, much less the 20 yard kick that Romo left them with). But because Romo is a bad holder, suddenly that makes him a bad QB?Now, you can try and argue that the fumbled snap isn't indicative of him being a bad holder, but an unclutch one that choked when it mattered which would transfer over to his QB play. Only, that would be ignoring that he had just led his team down the field in clutch fashion as a QB with time running out in a playoff game for an easy game winning FG.So if Romo comes off the field there (like most QBs would) and they make that field goal and his playoff record is 1-1 instead of 0-2 (as if two games are any kind of trend anyway) does that make Romo a normal level of "clutchness" as compared to "lol he's the biggest choker ever"? He's still the same guy, the same QB, with the same level of "clutchness" either way. That's how flawed people's logic and perception is in this. A simple decision by the coach as to who the holder is changes your perception THAT drastically, when the decision being made has NOTHING to do with his ability or "clutchness" as a quarterback. That just seems a bit off to me.

So your argument is that if the Cowboys would have had a holder who was more "clutch", instead of Romo who isn't "clutch", then Romo would be considered "clutch"?Since we're throwing hypotheticals out there, if the Eagles defense would have come up "clutch" and stopped the Cardinals last drive of the game in the NFCC game, you know the drive AFTER McNabb led his team back to take the lead with a TD, could we say that McNabb would be more "clutch"?

 

[Snotbubbles]

People love to bring up Romo's fumbled snap on the FG and laugh it up about how unclutch that makes him, but they tend to forget that in order for that to happen he had to lead his team down the field to set them up for a chip-shot game-winning field goal.So, after driving them downfield most QBs would've just trotted off the field and that would've been the end of it (it was certainly good enough to make Tom Brady be considered one of the most clutch of all time just for getting his kicker within 50 yards, much less the 20 yard kick that Romo left them with). But because Romo is a bad holder, suddenly that makes him a bad QB?

I understand the argument that one blown hold doesnt make Romo a bad QB. But people also love to point to McNabb's superbowl puke as being the reason why he is a terrible QB.If you're not going ignore Romo's drive down the field then don't ignore McNabb's run through the 2004 playoffs (without T.O. no less)If you going to blame Parcells for sending Romo out to handle that snap, then maybe you should ask why Andy Reid had McNabb drop back FIFTY TWO times (76% of all offense plays) because taking that kind of physical beating from the N.E. defense might have had something to do with McNabb getting sick with 2 minutes left. (And its not like they were passing because it was a blow out. The game was tied 14-14 at the end of the 3rd quarter and the final was 24-21)

Honestly I don't feel either QB gets enough credit for what they have done. Everyone seems quick to discount what they have done because of some excuse or another. Both are very good at putting their teams in position to win. It has not happened yet for Romo, but I really don't put his playoff losses squarely on him. (I'll even give you the botched hold, even though he shouldn't have been in there). McNabb too, how many NFC championships, with virtually no WR to through to. Both have faults, and maybe neither will win a Ring, but both are very good QB's.If I had to chose one this year to be my QB, I'd take Romo, because of potential and youth. It is very close though. They are both on that 2nd tier.

Actual on-field performance, McNabb isn't 2nd tier. He basically does what it takes for his team to win games. He doesn't put up the flashy numbers like a Drew Brees, just Ws. I can't think of too many QBs I'd rather have over McNabb for one year and I'm not talking about fantasy, I'm talking about just winning games. P. Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger that's about it.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

?? I"m shocked McNabb isn't like 75% + ahead in the polls. Romo is a tease, and considering he's done nothing but choke the last 2 seasons late in the year, how could you pick him? :(

 

[inzanitee]

McNabb right now. May change after this or next year.

 

[Banger]

it's funny because if this poll were done at the same time last year I'm sure the results would've been completely opposite. Probably something like 65-35/70-30 in favor of Romo.