All I can do is point to the stats. Accept them or reject them. As the old saying goes, numbers don't lie.
Wait, is this turning into a Romo is more or even as accurate as Aikman argument?
Apparently. But I don't think it's even particularly close.
Apparently. But I don't think it's even particularly close.
It is not.
When Romo's career is over, he won't be remembered for his uncanny accuracy. Not that he is inaccurate, but he has bouts of it at times.
That's why I think it's not close is because of how inconsistent Romo has been through his career. Aikman was spot on almost every game. At least for the majority of his career.
These aren't my stats. They are the NFL.
And?
As I said accept them or reject them but they support Romo.
In the last 10 years there has been a massive shift in PI calls and rules. Especially the mysterious hitting a defenseless receiver. I don't think you can compare passing percentages of the two QBs accurately. All I know is I watched both play every game of their career and Aikman was more accurate, especially with the short to intermediate routes.
Let's see Romo win a Super Bowl MVP and then we'll talk.
I don't know if Aikman did it on purpose to prevent INTs but he would throw it low and behind the WR a lot and I think I saw him hit a guy in stride about 3 times during his career. Normally, he put the WR in a position to prevent any YAC. Romo gets it to the WR in a position for them to make plays (sometimes at the cost of an INT when the WR volleys the damned ball to the defense).
Aikman was a total baller and tough as nails. Tony Romo is a better pure passer.
Romo has a lot to prove in the postseason should we get there.
This is dumb.
And if I think it is dumb.....
3 time Super Bowl winning QB vs career choke artist in big games?
Are we really having this debate?
It's a simple premise. Who is the more accurate passer not who has won the most SB rings. The stats favor Romo.