My, you're pretty sensitive about this subject, eh? Lots of anger coming from you on this.
You don't have to directly compare Romo to those guys in order to make the point which was made (which YOU obviously missed) which is that Romo should be given the same benefit of the doubt that those guys are and have been given because those guys have also had poor games in their careers.
But they are all bad examples because Romo does not warrant nor merit the same level of respect or the same benefit of the doubt that those all-timers do.
If that's not the point that was trying to be made, then why even bring those guys up?
If all he was trying to say was not to cherry pick his bad moments and make a hyperbolic claim that generalizes his career, then that's what he should have said. And for the record, I agree with that.
This discussion has idiotically gone on WAY longer than it should have because there is a group of Pro-Romo guys and Pro-Dak guys who keep arguing the same crap over and over with neither side being able to objectively view the other guy's strengths and weaknesses. Whether you want to admit it or not you're in the camp that can't give an honest assessment of Romo's flaws or his potential handicaps -- you just blindly think he's going to be better than Dak the minute he steps on the field, all of his questions, uncertainties, and recent history be damned.
I'm not here to argue either side, I just thought it was silly to suggest even in the slightest way that Romo warranted the same respect, patience, and expectations that 3 all-time HOF'ers did.
We could win the SB and some of you guys are still gonna be having this idiotic argument.
Get it over it already.