>winning Tthe division & sitting home in JAN. It's the
>difference between winning a playoff game & losing a playoff
>game. It's the difference between winning a SB & losing a SB.
>
>(And yes I'm well aware of everything that happened but I'm
>talking about QB play).
>
>That's the entire point. Winning QBs MAKE THOSE PLAYS. The
>margin between winning QBs and losing QBs especially when you
>have Romo's talent is miniscule. It's those one or two key
>plays that make ALL the difference in the world.
>
>Think about Eli's scramble in the SB vs the Pats which leads
>to a huge reception & eventually the game winning TD. Think
>about Neil O'Donnells 2 bad throws vs us in the 1995
>SB....That's it. The margin of error is small.

2 things:
A) if dude doesn't hold on to the ball on his helmet and
drops it like most receivers would, do we talk about Eli as "great"
still? I don't think so. He had some luck/help.

B)That same year, in the playoff Tony makes a huge play to Patrick Crayton that would have probably put the game away for us. What
happened? Crayton, wide open, drops what would have been an open
field run straight to the endzone. As a result, Romo is cast as
a "choker" and Eli is discussed as an all-time great.

If Crayton makes that catch, the conversation about these 2 QBs
could be exactly the opposite of what we're hearing now. Eli
could be the choker, and Romo would be the guy who overcame
adversity. Point is, winning QBs are not only great but they
often have A LOT of luck and help on their side.

PS. For every better QB you mention, can you at least admit they
ALL have had better coaching that Romo? Like, IN EVERY CASE.