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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm just going to take my point above, and move it into a top ten list to better illustrate my point.

The top 10 QB seasons in NFC East history (since the 2002 realignment)
[According to Football Outsiders DYAR]

1. McNabb, 2004 (1,393)
2. Romo, 2007 (1,295)
3. McNabb, 2008 (1,048)
4. E. Manning, 2008 (1,031)
5. K. Collins, 2002 (1,007)
6. Romo, 2008 (878) [13 games]
7. Romo, 2006 (696) [10 games]
8. McNabb, 2006 (658) [11 games]
9. McNabb, 2007 (658)
10. Campbell, 2008 (656)

Romo only has had three seasons as a starting QB in the NFL, and he's clearly the most prolific passer in the history of the 4 team division. However, McNabb has had enough strong seasons where I believe you could make the argument that he should be the divisions no. 1, and he's the only one of the group that has enjoyed playoff success.

Admittedly though, I did not realize how good McNabb's 2008 was. His case for No. 1 looks way weaker if I were to take that off the list. See:

1. McNabb, 2004 (1,393)
2. Romo, 2007 (1,295)
3. E. Manning, 2008 (1,031)
4. K. Collins, 2002 (1,007)
5. Romo, 2008 (878) [13 games]
6. Romo, 2006 (696) [10 games]
7. McNabb, 2006 (658) [11 games]
8. McNabb, 2007 (658)
9. Campbell, 2008 (656)
10. E. Manning, 2005 (604)

But if you threw Romo and Eli onto the same roster, most people would agree that this hypothetical team would be more likely to win games with Romo in than Eli. Thus, the conclusion is that Romo is better. That's just common sense.

I don't think many people are convinced that Romo is a top three QB, I don't even know if he's top five (Brees, Brady, Rivers, Peyton...and then who?), but clearly, he's more accomplished as a player than Eli is. EVERY SEASON Romo has ever played has been more productive than the very best season Eli has had. Eli got the one super bowl opportunity between the two of them, simply because the Giants are a better run organization than the Cowboys. Not because of inherent greatness. Chances are, if Accorsi had been there to build the Cowboys, post-Parcells, Romo would have a ring right now.

Good post here. The Giants are better run and Eli played safe football but still.....Eli had his chance and he took advantage of his opportunity. We don't know how Romo would've thrown the ball in -20 degees when NY had to play in GB. It wasn't just Eli's SB game, he played very well in horrible conditions at GB. Let's not forget that.

Good post here. The Giants are better run and Eli played safe football but still.....Eli had his chance and he took advantage of his opportunity. We don't know how Romo would've thrown the ball in -20 degees when NY had to play in GB. It wasn't just Eli's SB game, he played very well in horrible conditions at GB. Let's not forget that.I think the Eli should get plenty of credit for playing well during that stretch. The Giants did not win the super bowl in spite of him. His play was a major cog in that run.

Ultimately though, the Giants weren't playing with the best-stacked deck in those playoffs. So while Eli deserves plenty of credit for his string of play, it's still improper to point out he "has a ring" without pointing out that he was considerably lucky to get all the way with that team.

By that I mean, Eli and the Giants weren't knocking on the door of the SB in the two seasons prior to 2007, they had long been a playoff afterthought. Eli had not done anything of note in the playoffs prior to January 2008. So when the Giants got going, and beat down two very talented teams in the Bucs and the Cowboys, they had rightfully earned their shot at a ring. But the Packers and Pats both had plenty of oppertities to deny the Giants the championship.

My point, is in a one and done format, it's not right to hate on those who haven't gone all the way. Teams that lose in the first round might have very well gone 3-1 if the playoffs were a round robin instead of play-off. It's essentially why I believe that teams that consistently get deep into the playoffs but don't ever win are more accomplished than teams like the Giants, who are a playoff afterthought in most years, but happen to win it all just once.

The difference between the Cards and the Giants is James Harrison falling on the Goal Line as opposed to the half yard line, or even Asante Samuels' hands failing him.