This is actually a pretty good piece. The point of the article is to "dis" the QB stats after he introduces them. (The only thing I can figure when he cites Romo as "third most efficient" is that his Yards per Completion and TD's per attempt numbers are higher than Peyton's, Brady's and others, giving him a ever so slightly higher Pass Rating, for whatever that's worth.)
But, in the end, his point is to highlight the lack of a correlation between having the best passing attack and winning the SB. He acknowledges that, while Romo might have a great stats year in 2010 with the Cowboys' personnel, such an accomplishment doesn't guarantee that the Cowboys will be playing a Home SB in February.
Basically, he's making the point that many of us on this board have made for years in the "Joe vs. Dan" and "Peyton vs. Tommy" arguments: it's all about the bling and not about the stats. He even lets Tony have the final word:
"At the end of the day, winning is what counts at my position," Romo said Wednesday before a promotional appearance for Starter apparel at an Arlington Wal-Mart. "As I get older, it doesn't matter to me if I throw for 100 yards a game or 400 if we win. You're a far better quarterback when you throw for 150 yards and win than when you throw for 320 and lose. Stats are just stats."
That sounds like the 2001, 2003 and 2004 Patriots to me.
That wasn't his point, it was (to his credit) Romo's.
I think the problem in assessing elite is the media changes the definition of what elite is to suit it's mood at any given time or allow it to dicate to the rest of us based on relationships. Guys who make their jobs easier always get an edge in the nods department.
An elite QB should be someone who both passes the stats test and wins. A HOF caliber career by all measures. The media needs to get over it's need to crown guys incrementally based on momentary snapshots. Guys like Manning and Brady who have consistently performed at a high level over an extended period of time and have the hardware that really matters (and in particular a Lombardi or three not to mention a record or two) are elite.
After last year Brees is legitimately knocking on the door to be #3 among present day elite
QB's. Ben is still a tick below that even with 2 Lombardi's because of his maddening inconsistency and the fact that they won the first one almost in spite of him. Ditto Favre in his dotage surrounded by talent. He'll be a first ballot HOF'er based mostly on longevity
based stats following an early Lombardi and because he's a commanding character.
Warner was a prolific passer when all the planets were aligned right and he won a ring and they will probably enshrine him based on longevity too although he was a journeyman backup for a good chunk of his career whose great good fortune was backing up a draft bust on his personal back nine. McNabb IMO isn't even in the enshrinement conversation anymore unless he accomplishes something really big in DC like actually getting to a personal second superbowl.
Nobody else is legitimately in the discussion just yet no matter how badly the media keeps wanting them to be. Rivers, Eli, Palmer, Romo, Ryan, Rogers and even Schaub or, I suppose although I doubt it Cutler, each have a shot at yet emerging as elite by the time their careers wind down in another several seasons or more, but they could all just as likely end up the inigmatic shooting stars like Jake Delhomme that mediots just get hung up on like schoolgirls. The Derek Anderson one year hype driven pro bowl talents of the world...like so many mediots were convinced Brady was in 2001 until he emphatically proved them wrong.
Romo hasn't done a thing in Dallas yet. That may not be entirely his fault, and the same could be said for all of the above, but then again he's a gunslinger by nature and he hasn't yet shown he's willing to consistently discipline or extend himself and in the process consistently elevate his generally quite talented teamates performances. And the same can be said for most of the above.
