Week 10 - Minnesota Vikings.

[Micah Prescott]

People always try to give Romo excuses like “he didn’t have a great OL”, or “he didn’t have a great defense”, or he didn’t have elite weapons around him”. All are BS. Romo had several of his OL make the pro bowl during his tenure and at one point (I believe 2014) had all 5 of his OL make the pro bowl. He also had an elite level defense with guys like Demarcus Ware, Jay Ratliff, Brady James, just to name a few. Not to mention played under two of the greatest defensive minds in NFL history in Parcels and Phillips. And as far as weapons he had a HOF TE (in his prime) in Witten, TO was putting up consistent 1,500 yard 10 TD seasons, a great 1-2 punch at RB (Jones/Barber) before they got Murray.

Romo had plenty of chances. Was he more “skilled” sure that doesn’t make him better. Romo had more skill than Tom Brady but no way in hell would I ever take Romo over Brady. If my team was going into the playoffs and I had a choice between Romo or Troy Aikman, it’s not even close. You have the guy that will get you stats for 1 playoff game. I’ll take the guy that sacrifices his stats to make the team better and actually win a title.

Sorry Romo had some good rosters but he did not have what Aikman had. Aikman had arguably the greatest oline ever made. He had one of the greatest RBs ever, a HOF WR, and a superior defense on top of that. There are a lot of QBs that could have won rings on that roster.

Troy Aikman
165 TDs, 141 INTs, 61.5comp%, 81.6 rating

Tony Romo
248 TDs, 117 INTs, 65.3comp%, 97.1 rating

So this is where you tell me they were in different eras so numbers don't matter, the problem is they were only separated by 4 years and Troy's numbers were not even that great in his own era anyway. Troy was a "good" QB that won because he was on an elite roster. Romo was a better and more skilled QB that did have some talented rosters they just were not "God level" rosters like Troy had.

This is something that Troy himself agrees with. If you asked him who is better between him and Romo he will tell you Romo, and it isn't because he is being humble, it is because Romo was better and he knows it.

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

Passing attempts -
Troy Aikman 4,715
Tony Romo 4,335

Passing Yardage
Troy Aikman 32,942
Tony Romo 34,183


Troy threw the ball more than Romo. Yet still had less yardage, less TDs, and way more INTs.

I think most would assume the opposite, that Romo would have more INTs than Troy, because that is what rings do to fans, they blind people from reality. And the reality is that Troy played on much better rosters than Romo did, and also played during less competition in the NFL. The 49ers were no joke but that was the Cowboy's only real obstacle.

[Mr B]

Sorry Romo had some good rosters but he did not have what Aikman had. Aikman had arguably the greatest oline ever made. He had one of the greatest RBs ever, a HOF WR, and a superior defense on top of that. There are a lot of QBs that could have won rings on that roster.

Troy Aikman
165 TDs, 141 INTs, 61.5comp%, 81.6 rating

Tony Romo
248 TDs, 117 INTs, 65.3comp%, 97.1 rating

So this is where you tell me they were in different eras so numbers don't matter, the problem is they were only separated by 4 years and Troy's numbers were not even that great in his own era anyway. Troy was a "good" QB that won because he was on an elite roster. Romo was a better and more skilled QB that did have some talented rosters they just were not "God level" rosters like Troy had.

This is something that Troy himself agrees with. If you asked him who is better between him and Romo he will tell you Romo, and it isn't because he is being humble, it is because Romo was better and he knows it.

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

Passing attempts -
Troy Aikman 4,715
Tony Romo 4,335

Passing Yardage
Troy Aikman 32,942
Tony Romo 34,183


Troy threw the ball more than Romo. Yet still had less yardage, less TDs, and way more INTs.

I think most would assume the opposite, that Romo would have more INTs than Troy, because that is what rings do to fans, they blind people from reality. And the reality is that Troy played on much better rosters than Romo did, and also played during less competition in the NFL. The 49ers were no joke but that was the Cowboy's only real obstacle.

Winning titles is the ultimate goal right? We’re not playing for participation trophies now are we? You’re pointing out Romo was statistically better than Troy, and I pointed out that Romo played with elite players and had elite teams yet Romo has never been past the 2nd round and Troy has 3 rings.

[bluejerseyjinx]

Sorry Romo had some good rosters but he did not have what Aikman had. Aikman had arguably the greatest oline ever made. He had one of the greatest RBs ever, a HOF WR, and a superior defense on top of that. There are a lot of QBs that could have won rings on that roster.

Troy Aikman
165 TDs, 141 INTs, 61.5comp%, 81.6 rating

Tony Romo
248 TDs, 117 INTs, 65.3comp%, 97.1 rating

So this is where you tell me they were in different eras so numbers don't matter, the problem is they were only separated by 4 years and Troy's numbers were not even that great in his own era anyway. Troy was a "good" QB that won because he was on an elite roster. Romo was a better and more skilled QB that did have some talented rosters they just were not "God level" rosters like Troy had.

This is something that Troy himself agrees with. If you asked him who is better between him and Romo he will tell you Romo, and it isn't because he is being humble, it is because Romo was better and he knows it.

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

Passing attempts -
Troy Aikman 4,715
Tony Romo 4,335

Passing Yardage
Troy Aikman 32,942
Tony Romo 34,183


Troy threw the ball more than Romo. Yet still had less yardage, less TDs, and way more INTs.

I think most would assume the opposite, that Romo would have more INTs than Troy, because that is what rings do to fans, they blind people from reality. And the reality is that Troy played on much better rosters than Romo did, and also played during less competition in the NFL. The 49ers were no joke but that was the Cowboy's only real obstacle.

Troy Aikman - 3 Super Bowl rings and Hall Of Famer
Tony Homo - 1 playoff win and never got by the divisional round.

Been trying to tell you now for a few weeks your sugar coated numbers don't tell the whole and true story my friend. I am surprised though that Troy is only behind a little over 1000 passing yards to Homo considering they were a run heavy team and the passing game was much more favorable to Homo with the rule changes over the years.

[bluejerseyjinx]

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

Passing attempts -
Troy Aikman 4,715
Tony Romo 4,335

Passing Yardage
Troy Aikman 32,942
Tony Romo 34,183


Troy threw the ball more than Romo. Yet still had less yardage, less TDs, and way more INTs.

I think most would assume the opposite, that Romo would have more INTs than Troy, because that is what rings do to fans, they blind people from reality. And the reality is that Troy played on much better rosters than Romo did, and also played during less competition in the NFL. The 49ers were no joke but that was the Cowboy's only real obstacle.

Troy Aikman - 3 Super Bowl rings and Hall Of Famer
Tony Homo - 1 playoff win and never got by the divisional round.

Been trying to tell you now for a few weeks your sugar coated numbers don't tell the whole and true story my friend. I am surprised though that Troy is only behind a little over 1000 passing yards to Homo considering they were a run heavy team and the passing game was much more favorable to Homo with the rule changes over the years. Micah, please stop trying to compare QB's like Dak and Homo to Troy and Roger. It really makes you look bad my friend and you will never win an argument trying to do so.

[bluejerseyjinx]

People always try to give Romo excuses like “he didn’t have a great OL”, or “he didn’t have a great defense”, or he didn’t have elite weapons around him”. All are BS. Romo had several of his OL make the pro bowl during his tenure and at one point (I believe 2014) had all 5 of his OL make the pro bowl. He also had an elite level defense with guys like Demarcus Ware, Jay Ratliff, Brady James, just to name a few. Not to mention played under two of the greatest defensive minds in NFL history in Parcels and Phillips. And as far as weapons he had a HOF TE (in his prime) in Witten, TO was putting up consistent 1,500 yard 10 TD seasons, a great 1-2 punch at RB (Jones/Barber) before they got Murray.

Romo had plenty of chances. Was he more “skilled” sure that doesn’t make him better. Romo had more skill than Tom Brady but no way in hell would I ever take Romo over Brady. If my team was going into the playoffs and I had a choice between Romo or Troy Aikman, it’s not even close. You have the guy that will get you stats for 1 playoff game. I’ll take the guy that sacrifices his stats to make the team better and actually win a title.

Sorry Romo had some good rosters but he did not have what Aikman had. Aikman had arguably the greatest oline ever made. He had one of the greatest RBs ever, a HOF WR, and a superior defense on top of that. There are a lot of QBs that could have won rings on that roster.

Troy Aikman
165 TDs, 141 INTs, 61.5comp%, 81.6 rating

Tony Romo
248 TDs, 117 INTs, 65.3comp%, 97.1 rating

So this is where you tell me they were in different eras so numbers don't matter, the problem is they were only separated by 4 years and Troy's numbers were not even that great in his own era anyway. Troy was a "good" QB that won because he was on an elite roster. Romo was a better and more skilled QB that did have some talented rosters they just were not "God level" rosters like Troy had.

This is something that Troy himself agrees with. If you asked him who is better between him and Romo he will tell you Romo, and it isn't because he is being humble, it is because Romo was better and he knows it.

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

[bluejerseyjinx]

Sorry Romo had some good rosters but he did not have what Aikman had. Aikman had arguably the greatest oline ever made. He had one of the greatest RBs ever, a HOF WR, and a superior defense on top of that. There are a lot of QBs that could have won rings on that roster.

Troy Aikman
165 TDs, 141 INTs, 61.5comp%, 81.6 rating

Tony Romo
248 TDs, 117 INTs, 65.3comp%, 97.1 rating

So this is where you tell me they were in different eras so numbers don't matter, the problem is they were only separated by 4 years and Troy's numbers were not even that great in his own era anyway. Troy was a "good" QB that won because he was on an elite roster. Romo was a better and more skilled QB that did have some talented rosters they just were not "God level" rosters like Troy had.

This is something that Troy himself agrees with. If you asked him who is better between him and Romo he will tell you Romo, and it isn't because he is being humble, it is because Romo was better and he knows it.

TO and Jason Witten will both be HOF’s. No doubt that the OL of the 90’s was great but don’t forget they only had 1 HOF on that line (Larry Allen), although Nate Newton should be in too in my opinion. Romo also played with two HOF OL (Tyron Smith/Martin) and one that was on a HOF trajectory before he got sick (Fredrick).

Not sure how young you are so you might now remember Troy when he was coming out of UCLA but he was billed as the next John Elway. He was big and athletic and had a cannon for an arm. If he had ended up on a team like the Raiders he would have put up huge numbers. The Dallas offense didn’t need him to do that though. The coaches (and Troy) knew that the best way to win was to consistently run the ball. Troy had every right and had the authority to check out of run plays because he liked a WR matchup. He stuck with the run though because again, he knew that was the best chance for them to win. That’s where Romo wasn’t as good. He was a gunslinger and loved to pass and put up great numbers. I think he liked being a superstar QB for the Cowboys more than he desired winning. Even though running the ball was more conducive to winning he preferred to throw the ball.

Now there is one HUGE advantage that Troy and Roger had that Romo didn’t have in his prime was elite coaching. Parcells left after Romo’s first few games as a starter. Phillips was a great defensive mind but was limited on the offensive end and then was replaced by Garrett. Garrett encouraged the gunslinger mentality. When Romo would check out of run plays in order to pass Garrett was ok with that.

AMEN !

[bluejerseyjinx]

No one gives a crap about Nick Foles. When talking about QB’s and their legacy with the Cowboys it’s all about measuring up to Roger and Troy. Romo was fun to watch and has really good numbers but he will always be well behind Troy and Roger when it comes to Cowboys lore. Dak is trying to establish himself on the same side as Troy and Roger but he has to earn it. He still has time, he has weapons, he has an elite defense, he has pretty much everything he needs to win a championship. We just need to see him do it.

"Lore" is great and all but most knowledgeable fans have a clear understanding that Romo was MUCH more skilled than Troy. Even Troy understands that. The numbers are in different stratospheres and their eras aren't THAT far apart.

Team sport and while Romo did have a few good rosters during his time the team as a whole could never put it together.

I don't think Romo ever had a defense like this current defense though.

People always try to give Romo excuses like “he didn’t have a great OL”, or “he didn’t have a great defense”, or he didn’t have elite weapons around him”. All are BS. Romo had several of his OL make the pro bowl during his tenure and at one point (I believe 2014) had all 5 of his OL make the pro bowl. He also had an elite level defense with guys like Demarcus Ware, Jay Ratliff, Brady James, just to name a few. Not to mention played under two of the greatest defensive minds in NFL history in Parcels and Phillips. And as far as weapons he had a HOF TE (in his prime) in Witten, TO was putting up consistent 1,500 yard 10 TD seasons, a great 1-2 punch at RB (Jones/Barber) before they got Murray.

Romo had plenty of chances. Was he more “skilled” sure that doesn’t make him better. Romo had more skill than Tom Brady but no way in hell would I ever take Romo over Brady. If my team was going into the playoffs and I had a choice between Romo or Troy Aikman, it’s not even close. You have the guy that will get you stats for 1 playoff game. I’ll take the guy that sacrifices his stats to make the team better and actually win a title.

You beat me to the punch. Well said.

[Micah Prescott]

Okay explain how Troy "sacrificed stats" to win? Because the offensive coordinator ran the ball a lot so Troy didn't get as much passing time?

That isn't true because Troy threw more than Romo did.

He just didn't complete as many, that's how he sacrificed.

What's crazy is that Troy was actually more of risk taker and gun slinger than Romo too. Hence more interceptions.

I think Troy has the misconception of being a game manager low risk taker because he was an immobile statue. But he threw into traffic often.

You have to remove the bias that the rings are creating in your head. Just use your eyes where it is fairly obvious Romo was more athletic and had a better arm too. Not only that but took less chances. Listen to the guy talk in the booth he knows the play before it happens.

[bluejerseyjinx]

The one huge sacrifice Staubach and Aikmen was throwing the damn ball away when they had nothing instead of trying to gun sling the into double and triple teams. Remember one of Jimmy's motto's, "Its not the great plays you make, its the bad plays you don't make". Nothing wrong with throwing the ball away when you have nothing. Punt and maintain field position when you have a good defense and keep the pressure on the opponents and make them crack under pressure.

[Mr B]

The one huge sacrifice Staubach and Aikmen was throwing the damn ball away when they had nothing instead of trying to gun sling the into double and triple teams. Remember one of Jimmy's motto's, "Its not the great plays you make, its the bad plays you don't make". Nothing wrong with throwing the ball away when you have nothing. Punt and maintain field position when you have a good defense and keep the pressure on the opponents and make them crack under pressure.

Exactly. Know when to throw the ball out of bounds or eat the sack. Don’t just throw the ball up for grabs. That would lead to some exciting plays but the problem with Romo was that he seemed to throw picks at the worst possible moment in the game. And usually it came from him trying to force the ball into coverage.

It’s also easy to explain how Troy sacrificed stats for win. Physically Troy was superior to Romo in every way. Both Norv Turner or Ernie Zampese loved to pass the ball and had an elite WR and TE at their disposal. Not to mention Emmitt was pretty good at receiving out of the backfield. Both Turner and Zampese were Air Coryell disciples and for sure had pass options in their offenses, Troy more often than not decided to stay with the run call.

[Micah Prescott]

Troy threw the ball into traffic more than Romo did, hence having way more INTs than Romo. And if the stats existed I guarantee you that the two are not that far separated in "throwing the ball away".

PFF has that stat I believe. PFR does too. Maybe I'll try to dig them up later.

This is ignores the reality that "throwing the ball away" is what makes Aikman superior to Romo being pretty outlandish.

[Micah Prescott]

Looking back at it all, aside from Troy being on arguably the greatest roster ever assembled. I think one of the biggest advantages he had over Romo was the lack of competition.

The 90s Cowboys had to get passed Steve Young and the 49ers, that was their big challenge every year. There were some good teams here and there but the AFC as a whole was a joke and Dallas blew by most teams not named the 49ers.

Romo played during Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees primes. Players like Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson. There were 2 more teams in total (Jags and Panthers) and that alone makes the odds a tiny bit less. It was just a much more talented playing field for Romo and Dallas.

[Mr B]

Looking back at it all, aside from Troy being on arguably the greatest roster ever assembled. I think one of the biggest advantages he had over Romo was the lack of competition.

The 90s Cowboys had to get passed Steve Young and the 49ers, that was their big challenge every year. There were some good teams here and there but the AFC as a whole was a joke and Dallas blew by most teams not named the 49ers.

Romo played during Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees primes. Players like Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson. There were 2 more teams in total (Jags and Panthers) and that alone makes the odds a tiny bit less. It was just a much more talented playing field for Romo and Dallas.

Lack of competition? The NFC East was the toughest division in football during Troys time. Both the Redskins and Giants had won SB’s within Troy’s first 4 seasons. That’s just in the division. Then had to get past San Fran who had also won a SB in 1990 and Green Bay with a young Brett Favre. So if you want to throw out names how about Joe Montana, Steve Young, Brett Favre, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, and not to mention the line of HOF coaches they had to beat to get to the SB (much less win 3 of them). Plus throw in the fact that the defenses were much tougher and were allowed to get away with a lot more during Troy’s era.

[Micah Prescott]

I'll give you the Packers I guess but for whatever reason the Packers were never a problem for Dallas back then. And I think Rodgers is vastly superior to Favre. The AFC as a whole was garbage during Troy's time. Those early 90s years anyway. Everyone knew that if they could make it to the Super Bowl it was theirs.

You seem like a feasible fan to me. Ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) if Troy didn't have those rings would you consider him better than Romo? If you remove the wins and losses and just compare the two of them in a vacuum who would you consider more talented.

The "lore" rewards ONLY the QB position for wins and losses and it's BS to be honest.

Everyone understands that Barry Sanders was better then Emmitt Smith. Despite the fact that Barry couldn't win anything and Smith has 3 rings. So with RBs fans are able to look past the "team". That's exactly how QBs should be treated too. But they aren't and it's BS.

If Dak won a ring this year it wouldn't be because he got better. It would be because his defense did.

Did Stafford suddenly get worse at playing QB this year? No his team got worse. He is the same.

Right now Micah Parsons is complaining that the MVP award should go to others, not just QBs.

QBs always have, and probably always will, get way way way way way too much credit for wins and losses. I can accept that most fans will sheepishly have that mindset, it's fine. But it is always nice to run into fans who are more realistic and open minded than that.

[bluejerseyjinx]

I'll give you the Packers I guess but for whatever reason the Packers were never a problem for Dallas back then. And I think Rodgers is vastly superior to Favre. The AFC as a whole was garbage during Troy's time. Those early 90s years anyway. Everyone knew that if they could make it to the Super Bowl it was theirs.

You seem like a feasible fan to me. Ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) If you remif Troy didn't have those rings would you consider him better than Romo? ove the wins and losses and just compare the two of them in a vacuum who would you consider more talented.

The "lore" rewards ONLY the QB position for wins and losses and it's BS to be honest.

Everyone understands that Barry Sanders was better then Emmitt Smith. Despite the fact that Barry couldn't win anything and Smith has 3 rings. So with RBs fans are able to look past the "team". That's exactly how QBs should be treated too. But they aren't and it's BS.

If Dak won a ring this year it wouldn't be because he got better. It would be because his defense did.

Did Stafford suddenly get worse at playing QB this year? No his team got worse. He is the same.

Right now Micah Parsons is complaining that the MVP award should go to others, not just QBs.

QBs always have, and probably always will, get way way way way way too much credit for wins and losses. I can accept that most fans will sheepishly have that mindset, it's fine. But it is always nice to run into fans who are more realistic and open minded than that.

But Aikman did win back to back Super Bowls and 3 of them in 4 years. You want us to throw out that for your hypothetical comparison of Tony Homo. Please. Stop sticking up for the biggest choking QB we ever had. When it came to making the right decision in the most meaningful and biggest games, there was just no explanation for the decision and throws he made that cost us those games. You can't compare a choker to a QB that brought home 3 Super Bowl trophy's. Stop it. Next you will find a way to compare him to legends that will make you look more foolish. I believe I finally understand Steven A. Smith's recently renewed hatred of Cowboy fans. When it comes to the new and younger Cowboy fans under Jerry, I'm starting to lean his way.

[Micah Prescott]

troy didn't win those rings all by himself. So yes you absolutely should disregard wins and loses when grading the talent of any single individual.

Just like we all ignore them when comparing Emmitt and Barry. Or ANY other position.

College scouts are forced to ignore wins and losses when judging QB prospects because they have to be realistic. So should we when judging the pros.

[bluejerseyjinx]

But Tony Romo lost quite a few games all on his own. Big difference.

[Micah Prescott]

But Tony Romo lost quite a few games all on his own. Big difference.

That isn't true at all. Muffed snaps don't matter if the defense doesn't give up points.

The final score is the result of every single play in the game.

[Mr B]

I'll give you the Packers I guess but for whatever reason the Packers were never a problem for Dallas back then. And I think Rodgers is vastly superior to Favre. The AFC as a whole was garbage during Troy's time. Those early 90s years anyway. Everyone knew that if they could make it to the Super Bowl it was theirs.

You seem like a feasible fan to me. Ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) if Troy didn't have those rings would you consider him better than Romo? If you remove the wins and losses and just compare the two of them in a vacuum who would you consider more talented.

The "lore" rewards ONLY the QB position for wins and losses and it's BS to be honest.

Everyone understands that Barry Sanders was better then Emmitt Smith. Despite the fact that Barry couldn't win anything and Smith has 3 rings. So with RBs fans are able to look past the "team". That's exactly how QBs should be treated too. But they aren't and it's BS.

If Dak won a ring this year it wouldn't be because he got better. It would be because his defense did.

Did Stafford suddenly get worse at playing QB this year? No his team got worse. He is the same.

Right now Micah Parsons is complaining that the MVP award should go to others, not just QBs.

QBs always have, and probably always will, get way way way way way too much credit for wins and losses. I can accept that most fans will sheepishly have that mindset, it's fine. But it is always nice to run into fans who are more realistic and open minded than that.

If we removed all their accomplishments and stats and all things were equal (type of offense and era) and I had a choice between a young Troy Aikman at the start of his prime or a young Tony Romo at the start of his prime I’m taking Troy Aikman 10 out of 10 times. Troy was superior to Romo in every physical way and had the temperament I prefer out of my QB.

[Micah Prescott]

I'll give you the Packers I guess but for whatever reason the Packers were never a problem for Dallas back then. And I think Rodgers is vastly superior to Favre. The AFC as a whole was garbage during Troy's time. Those early 90s years anyway. Everyone knew that if they could make it to the Super Bowl it was theirs.

You seem like a feasible fan to me. Ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) if Troy didn't have those rings would you consider him better than Romo? If you remove the wins and losses and just compare the two of them in a vacuum who would you consider more talented.

The "lore" rewards ONLY the QB position for wins and losses and it's BS to be honest.

Everyone understands that Barry Sanders was better then Emmitt Smith. Despite the fact that Barry couldn't win anything and Smith has 3 rings. So with RBs fans are able to look past the "team". That's exactly how QBs should be treated too. But they aren't and it's BS.

If Dak won a ring this year it wouldn't be because he got better. It would be because his defense did.

Did Stafford suddenly get worse at playing QB this year? No his team got worse. He is the same.

Right now Micah Parsons is complaining that the MVP award should go to others, not just QBs.

QBs always have, and probably always will, get way way way way way too much credit for wins and losses. I can accept that most fans will sheepishly have that mindset, it's fine. But it is always nice to run into fans who are more realistic and open minded than that.

If we removed all their accomplishments and stats and all things were equal (type of offense and era) and I had a choice between a young Troy Aikman at the start of his prime or a young Tony Romo at the start of his prime I’m taking Troy Aikman 10 out of 10 times. Troy was superior to Romo in every physical way and had the temperament I prefer out of my QB.

No not their stats, those are individual accomplishments. JUST the wins and loses which are accomplished by entire rosters and coaching staffs.

If we ignore their team success, and just look at what each of them did individually, I don't think anyone could say Troy is better than Tony with a straight face. The only reason Troy get the nod is those rings, and the "lore" around them. And that is all it is. "LORE".


Obviously Troy was the superior prospect coming out of college.

Andrew Luck was also a superior prospect and he lost to Oklahoma State before being drafted, no one cared because they understood that is the result of the team and not Andrew Luck.