So me and leggy are having a debate in a Skype chat, and he thinks the people are Vizzed are idiots, and won't know how to be objective, and look at this in a logical way. 

I say Flacco because he is more consistent than Romo, but leggy says Romo because he never had the O-Line. 

So, who do you think the better QB is? 


Please, do not vote or post if you can't give a reason, or don't know what you are trying to say.  

Way to throw me under the bus.

I'll tell you what I told you in Skype the other day.

Romo is the better QB, and here is why.

Prior to this year, he had to scramble on almost every other play.

His offensive line has always been disappointing, and never gave him much chance to stick in the pocket and make the passes he needs to. The pocket would collapse almost instantly and force him to go running. Even if Romo isn't the best QB in the NFL (I have no delusions that he is) he's definitely one of the best scramblers in the NFL. He's had to become good at scrambling, because it's all he was allowed to do. This year, the offensive line is keeping the pocket secure for a longer period of time, and as a result, he has more time to make important decisions. This has led to him handing off the ball to Murray, as well as him having a high completion percentage (68.6%, third in the NFL behind Rivers and Brees), and a top 5 QB Rating (He's at 100.5, 5th behind only Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, and Peyton Manning, and tied with Carson Palmer).

One of his weaknesses, his ability to throw an interception here and there, is due to his only "real" deep threat, Dez Bryant constantly being double or even triple covered. You would allow a lot of interceptions too, if your only option was triple covered.

Witten can catch, but usually, he's a short option who is thrown to when you need that short gain. A lot of those interceptions come on plays where Romo needs to throw it far, or they'll end up having to punt on fourth down.

The only thing Flacco has over Romo that matters is yards (1596 for Flacco, 1510 for Romo), and various yards related stats... except for yards per pass attempt. Romo throws 7.91 yards per ATTEMPT (7th in the NFL) whereas Flacco throws for 7.26 (which is 17th). There's an argument out there for shorter being better, which is fair, but per attempt factors in incompletions as well as interceptions. If Flacco was notably better than Romo, he would have a higher accuracy on these shorter passes, right? (He doesn't, Romo's completion percentage is 68.6%, which, again, is 3rd in the NFL, whereas Flacco's is 63.6, which is 18th in the NFL).

So not only is Romo more accurate than Flacco, but he's throwing for more yards per attempt. Which means he's airing the ball out and still more accurate.

It's too early in the season for interception numbers to be telling, but Flacco has an edge there (Flacco has 3, and Romo has 5).

The things Flacco beats Romo in are by little, and the things Romo beats Flacco in are by big amounts. I put a high importance on completion percentage.

But hey, this is a career year for Romo, right? Let's look at the career numbers. Keep in mind Flacco is a 7th year pro, and Romo is a 9th year pro.

Over their careers, Romo not only has a favorable completion percentage despite playing longer... (Romo has a 64.8%, and Flacco has a 60.5%), but he also has the edge in TD% (5.5% as opposed to 4%) while only being down slightly in INT% (2.7%, as opposed to 2.4%).

"But what about yards!?" you are probably asking.

Romo's career yards per attempt - 7.8
Flacco's career yards per attempt - 7.0

"No fair, Romo has a higher completion percentage, how about passes that were caught?"

Romo's career yards per catch - 12.1
Flacco's career yards per catch - 11.5

Even on something that's supposed to be Flacco's bread and butter, Romo is outpacing him.

The only thing Flacco has to his name that Romo doesn't is a Super Bowl Ring. Romo is only able to do so much, he can't play defense (something that until recently was suspect) and he can't run for 300 yards a game. Flacco had a better core around him during his Super Bowl year, but because he's the QB will get all the credit, even though his own part was rather minimal.

Now, take all the numbers, and remember this bit I said at the top.

"Prior to this year, he had to scramble on almost every other play."

He had to SCRAMBLE because of the weak O-line, and STILL put up better career numbers than Flacco. Can you imagine how good his numbers would be if his line had actually done their jobs the first 7 or so years?

Oh, and Romo is coming off back surgery. And he's still outplaying Flacco.

There's not even a fair comparison. Romo gets a lot of flack because he can't win games singlehandedly. Romo has never been the problem in Dallas, and never will be. The problem has been lackluster defense and a terrible offensive line.

The reason the Cowboys are 5-1 and just beat the Seahawks is a combination of great play from Romo, increased performance from running backs, and a defense and offensive line that does their job.

If you are objective and look at the numbers, there's almost no argument one can make for Flacco.