Aaron Rodgers was a "stat guy" too, until he won a championship. Junc's arguments here are as predictable here as they are tied... and significantly, they're wrong.
Sports is about tomorrow, not yesterday. I don't care how many playoff games you've won. It doesn't mean you'll win one more. It doesn't mean you even deserve the credit for those you've won. Anyone with two eyes could see Aaron Rodgers was good enough to win a championship. If as a hypothetical you had a chance to get him a year or two ago and begged off in favor of a guy who's won a few playoff games -- like a Mark Sanchez -- then you're dumber than a jar of money spunk.
Tony Romo absolutely is good enough to win a championship. He's a better QB than Sanchez, than Joe Flacco, than Eli Manning, than a bunch of guys who've won playoff games. Nobody who knows anything scouts and ranks quarterbacks primarily by playoff victories. It's as dumb a way to do it as there is. Junc just spends so much time on message boards he's takes positions that you can defend with numbers and stats rather than positions that, you know, require you to actually know what you're talking about.
Jim Plunkett won two Super Bowls as a starter. Yet, he was never good enough as a player to even make a Pro Bowl, and was replaced as a starter everywhere he went. If you'd rather have him as your starter in some hypothetical than Dan Fouts, who never even made a Super Bowl game, then all I can tell you is I want you as the GM for a team in my division. I'm going to kick your dumb *** every time.
Tony Romo is absolutely worth a first. He's worth actually somewhat more than that. And I'd be willing to pay it.