Rank the NFC East teams position by position....

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

are bringing up no facts except that Eli won SB MVP. If you think that makes him a great QB and better than QBs with better numbers yearly so be it.

Yes you are, your'e ignoring the one big fact that over rides all others and is the point of playing,.............winning a championship!.See this is my point ,I never said he was great....nope, I said he's better then Romo and that is what the thread and my post are about,McNabb,Eli, Campbell,Romo....just NFC east QB's ...nothing else.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes you are, your'e ignoring the one big fact that over rides all others and is the point of playing,.............winning a championship!.See this is my point ,I never said he was great....nope, I said he's better then Romo and that is what the thread and my post are about,McNabb,Eli, Campbell,Romo....just NFC east QB's ...nothing else.

But winning the SB is not the overriding factor in this type of discussion because it does not determine the best QB. The clear example, which has been overused this century, but still applies, is Trent Dilfer.

The Superbowl is the team goal. It is what every player young or old dreams of winning. BUT not every starter on a SB winning team is suddenly the best at his position. Not for the point of this discussion at least. David Tyree had a heck of a play, but he is not even your best WR. Manning made a heck of an escape, but he is not statistically the best QB in the NFC.

If you want the discussion to be which NFCE QB has the most SB rings, then Eli wins. This discussion is about which QB plays the best for his position.
I would say it depends what your main criteria is:

If you go by statistics I would say Romo.
If you go by consistency and ability I would say McNabb.
If you go by potential I would go with Campbell.
If you go by team achievement i would say Eli.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

But winning the SB is not the overriding factor in this type of discussion because it does not determine the best QB. The clear example, which has been overused this century, but still applies, is Trent Dilfer.

The Superbowl is the team goal. It is what every player young or old dreams of winning. BUT not every starter on a SB winning team is suddenly the best at his position. Not for the point of this discussion at least. David Tyree had a heck of a play, but he is not even your best WR. Manning made a heck of an escape, but he is not statistically the best QB in the NFC.

If you want the discussion to be which NFCE QB has the most SB rings, then Eli wins. This discussion is about which QB plays the best for his position.
I would say it depends what your main criteria is:

If you go by statistics I would say Romo.
If you go by consistency and ability I would say McNabb.
If you go by potential I would go with Campbell.
If you go by team achievement i would say Eli.

Agreed to a point but it is a fact that can not be ignored .Again I never said he's the best at his postion.....and if you go back I put McNabb at the front then Eli,yes he's better then Romo,I think Campbell is better then Romo also...The point of playing your best is to give your team the best chance of winning,Eli does ,Romo does not.If we go by your argument the Romo is better then McNabb..............ahhh no.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Agreed to a point but it is a fact that can not be ignored .Again I never said he's the best at his postion.....and if you go back I put McNabb at the front then Eli,yes he's better then Romo,I think Campbell is better then Romo also...The point of playing your best is to give your team the best chance of winning,Eli does ,Romo does not.If we go by your argument the Romo is better then McNabb..............ahhh no.

Well, you are saying there's no way that Eli's better than Romo, and you simply need more on your side to be able to say that.

But it appears that by the rest of your rankings, this isn't at all about Eli. This is about not really seeing Romo for what he is. Because I think you can make a good argument that McNabb is better than Eli is better than Campbell (even though I don't necessarily agree with that, I think they are all about the same player at this point in their careers). But out of ALL THREE of those guys, only Donovan McNabb has had even one season as good as Romo's worst year. Three guys. 18 seasons. 1/18 in having a better year than Romo's 2009. Clearly, Romo is the best QB in the division by pretty much any measure.

And if you want to talk playoff victory's, then you have to exclude everything that isn't in the first round, as not to compare apples to oranges (i.e. considering more than one game in a one-and-done format -- since we aren't talking about a bunch of multiple ring winners). Campbell has never started a playoff game. Romo is oh-for-2 as a playoff QB. Eli is a mere 1-for-4 in first round games. McNabb, however, is a perfect 7-for-7 in his first round playoff games.

So, playoff wise, Eli has been much more comparable to Romo than he is to McNabb, who is historically a very, very good playoff quarterback, actually better than he is in the regular season.

And because of that, I think people can say 1) McNabb, and 2) Romo, and can use postseason performance to back it up. Other than that though, Romo appears to be a tier, if not two, above everyone else in the division.

And this comes from a Skins fan.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, you are saying there's no way that Eli's better than Romo, and you simply need more on your side to be able to say that.

But it appears that by the rest of your rankings, this isn't at all about Eli. This is about not really seeing Romo for what he is. Because I think you can make a good argument that McNabb is better than Eli is better than Campbell (even though I don't necessarily agree with that, I think they are all about the same player at this point in their careers). But out of ALL THREE of those guys, only Donovan McNabb has had even one season as good as Romo's worst year. Three guys. 18 seasons. 1/18 in having a better year than Romo's 2009. Clearly, Romo is the best QB in the division by pretty much any measure.

And if you want to talk playoff victory's, then you have to exclude everything that isn't in the first round, as not to compare apples to oranges (i.e. considering more than one game in a one-and-done format -- since we aren't talking about a bunch of multiple ring winners). Campbell has never started a playoff game. Romo is oh-for-2 as a playoff QB. Eli is a mere 1-for-4 in first round games. McNabb, however, is a perfect 7-for-7 in his first round playoff games.

So, playoff wise, Eli has been much more comparable to Romo than he is to McNabb, who is historically a very, very good playoff quarterback, actually better than he is in the regular season.

And because of that, I think people can say 1) McNabb, and 2) Romo, and can use postseason performance to back it up. Other than that though, Romo appears to be a tier, if not two, above everyone else in the division.

And this comes from a Skins fan.

I said I wasnt gonna post anymore in this thread because it was going into a straight up back and forth battle but I had to post this...

No matter what your opinions are about the QBs in the NFC East you have to agree this was a very well thought out post.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes you are, your'e ignoring the one big fact that over rides all others and is the point of playing,.............winning a championship!.See this is my point ,I never said he was great....nope, I said he's better then Romo and that is what the thread and my post are about,McNabb,Eli, Campbell,Romo....just NFC east QB's ...nothing else.

He's sees what you are saying, but he's telling you that you are wrong. I agree with him.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He's sees what you are saying, but he's telling you that you are wrong. I agree with him.

Then your'e both wrong.