Manning Versus Romo, Who Will Prevail?
For our project, we have decided to compare the careers of two very popular football players. We are going to be comparing them based on their statistics in order to determine, with numbers, who appears to be the more skilled of the two. The players we have chosen are Peyton Manning (Colts) and Tony Romo (Cowboys). While Peyton Manning has been playing since 1998, Tony Romo has only been seriously playing since 2006. Therefore, in order to create a more accurate assessment of skill, we will be comparing both playersā careers from 2006 and beyond.
*Our information was based on each playerās statistics on www.nfl.com. We recalculated Peyton Manningās statistics in order to fit the time period used in this report.
To start we will compare some basic PASSING statistics:
Peyton Manningās touch down percentage (2006-2009): 5.6%
Tony Romoās touch down percentage (2006-2009): 5.9%
Peyton Manningās interception percentage (2006-2009): 2.3%
Tony Romoās interception percentage (2006-2009): 3.2%
Peyton Manningās yards per game (2006-2009): 271.98
Tony Romoās yards per game (2006-2009): 173.0
Peyton Manningās total yards (2006-2009): 15,854
Tony Romoās total yards (2006-2009): 13,495
Peyton Manningās total completions (2003-2009): 1,368
Tony Romoās total completions (2003-2009): 1,047
Analysis of the Passing statistics:
What we will do here is compare the Passing statistics to see which player come out on top.
Touch down percentage:
(PM) 5.6% < 5.9% (TR): Tony Romo
Interception percentage:
(PM) 2.3% < 3.2% (TR): Peyton Manning (The higher the percentage, the worse of a rating it is.)
Yardās Per Game:
(PM) 271.98 > 173.0 (TR): Peyton Manning
Total Yards:
(PM) 15,854 > 13,495 (TR): Peyton Manning
Total Completions:
(PM) 1,368 > 1,047 (TR): Peyton Manning
It is apparent that in all crucial areas, except for one Peyton Manning has excelled beyond Tony Romo. Donāt like numbers? Then take a look at these graphs:
This project was completed by Quanta and David.

.jpg?w=2560)
.jpg?w=2560)
.jpg?w=2560)
.jpg?w=2560)
.jpg?w=2560)

.jpg?w=2560)

