NFL - Who is the better quarterback?

[Rayman]

This.

For all that Romo has "accomplished" whenever I've seen him play I've never come away overly impressed. He shows great touch on some balls and does some other things well as a QB(mobility for one) but I've never come away with the impression I just watched a "great" or Top 5 QB. Rodgers has always passed the "eye test" better to me.

I don't understand this "eyeball test" thing. I've seen with my eyes what the guy can and has done. The guy has had some excellent games, especially last year, down the stretch, when the "pressure" was on.

I love Rodgers mobility as well, he has better arm strength, IMO better accuracy, and right now Rodgers is on the rise as I think Romo has perhaps stagnated a bit as his team hasn't done as well.

This irritates me. Rodgers is barely above .500 as a QB and Romo's team still finished better than his last year. How has he stagnated if that's your criteria? Again, double standard. :ionno:

It's kind of odd to judge who the better NFL QB is though as neither have really accomplished anything, Rodgers is only in his 3rd year of starting, Romo in his 5th, and so you kind to have to judge it based on what physical or mental attributes each brings to the field and who you feel is the better overall package.

Like I said, if I'm starting Generic Team X and I have to choose between both of them I'm taking Rodgers immediately.

Your opinion, but the standards you based it on make me skeptical.

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't understand this "eyeball test" thing. I've seen with my eyes what the guy can and has done. The guy has had some excellent games, especially last year, down the stretch, when the "pressure" was on.

Ok.

And I never said Romo has never played any excellent games. I just said when I have seen him play I've never come away overly impressed, or he's never shown me anything he's done to show me he's an elite QB.

It's the NFL....most every QB during the course of the season will have an excellent game or two.


I also think it's hilarious that you say you don't "understand the eyeball test thing" then go on to describe it, while ignoring the obvious irony of the fact that while Cowboys fans feel Romo is disrespected for seemingly no other reason than that he's a Cowboy, you overlook the fact your own ":eyeball test" could be skewed because of your own love for him/your team.

Bravo.

This irritates me. Rodgers is barely above .500 as a QB and Romo's team still finished better than his last year.

Gee ya think?

Wow impressive stuff there..which is why I qualify it two sentences later by saying that if I'm starting a generic team I'm taking Rodgers based on what tools he has compared to how Romo's tools stack up.

Football is obviously a team game. I don't think you'd find any sane fan of football that would put ANY good amount of blame on the Packers "barely .500" record over the last two seasons on Rodgers. He's not a perfect player(nobody is) but if you are making a top 10 list of problems with the Packers over the last two season Aaron Rodgers doesn't even sniff it.

How has he stagnated if that's your criteria? Again, double standard. :ionno:

:facepalm:

Put it in context of the discussion. Mainly the next post I make about Rodgers benefiting from the hype Romo was receiving a few years ago. Rodgers is now the "hot name", the Cowboys have stagnated so Romo has lost some of that hype machine. I'm not saying it's "fair". I was making an observation as to one reason why Rodgers is more popular than Romo right now as a "better, up and coming, break out" etc etc QB.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough...........?

Your opinion, but the standards you based it on make me skeptical.

Of course they do.
But if I simply came in here and said Romo>Rodgers while giving no reasons you wouldn't have been skeptical at all because you agree with my statement. You wouldn't have quoted me, you wouldn't have asked me "why" etc etc.

You'd be "skeptical" of most any reason I gave in this thread trying to show Rodgers>Romo because it goes against your own opinion.

 

[Colonel Angus]

LOL @ the 42-8 spread.
(And hopefully no LOL that I took him #2 overall in my fantasy league)

Rodgers is the better player, I just thought it would be closer than that.

 

[Rayman]

Ok.

And I never said Romo has never played any excellent games. I just said when I have seen him play I've never come away overly impressed, or he's never shown me anything he's done to show me he's an elite QB.

It's the NFL....most every QB during the course of the season will have an excellent game or two.


I also think it's hilarious that you say you don't "understand the eyeball test thing" then go on to describe it, while ignoring the obvious irony of the fact that while Cowboys fans feel Romo is disrespected for seemingly no other reason than that he's a Cowboy, you overlook the fact your own ":eyeball test" could be skewed because of your own love for him/your team.

Bravo.



Gee ya think?

Wow impressive stuff there..which is why I qualify it two sentences later by saying that if I'm starting a generic team I'm taking Rodgers based on what tools he has compared to how Romo's tools stack up.

Football is obviously a team game. I don't think you'd find any sane fan of football that would put ANY good amount of blame on the Packers "barely .500" record over the last two seasons on Rodgers. He's not a perfect player(nobody is) but if you are making a top 10 list of problems with the Packers over the last two season Aaron Rodgers doesn't even sniff it.





:facepalm:

Put it in context of the discussion. Mainly the next post I make about Rodgers benefiting from the hype Romo was receiving a few years ago. Rodgers is now the "hot name", the Cowboys have stagnated so Romo has lost some of that hype machine. I'm not saying it's "fair". I was making an observation as to one reason why Rodgers is more popular than Romo right now as a "better, up and coming, break out" etc etc QB.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough...........?



Of course they do.
But if I simply came in here and said Romo>Rodgers while giving no reasons you wouldn't have been skeptical at all because you agree with my statement. You wouldn't have quoted me, you wouldn't have asked me "why" etc etc.

You'd be "skeptical" of most any reason I gave in this thread trying to show Rodgers>Romo because it goes against your own opinion.

To be honest, people saying Rodgers is better isn't even what bothers me.

What bothers me is how Rodgers is "elite" after only 2 years starting with no playoff wins when 2 years ago the only reason people kept saying Romo wasn't elite was because he lacked playoff victories and wasn't a "winner" (despite having a ridiculous W-L record).

It is what it is.

 

[Aso]

My decision of Rodgers > Romo didn't have anything to do with playoff wins. If you do wanna go there though, I don't think you can blame Rodgers for the Arizona loss. That one is on the defense.

 

[FirstTimer]

To be honest, people saying Rodgers is better isn't even what bothers me.

What bothers me is how Rodgers is "elite" after only 2 years starting with no playoff wins when 2 years ago the only reason people kept saying Romo wasn't elite was because he lacked playoff victories and wasn't a "winner" (despite having a ridiculous W-L record).

It is what it is.

I don't think Rodgers is elite.

I just think he's better than Romo.

IMO there's only two "elite" QB's in the NFL.

Brady and Manning.

 

[kmanharris]

To be honest, people saying Rodgers is better isn't even what bothers me.

What bothers me is how Rodgers is "elite" after only 2 years starting with no playoff wins when 2 years ago the only reason people kept saying Romo wasn't elite was because he lacked playoff victories and wasn't a "winner" (despite having a ridiculous W-L record).

It is what it is.

This. You can say that Cowboy fans get buthurt easily, yadayadayada but let's be real here. The ONLY person that gave any reason behind choosing Rodgers as being so much better than Romo was firsttimer, and I can respect his opinion.

I don't think throughout this whole thread (I could have just missed it) I saw anyone else give their reasoning other than just saying Rodgers>Romo and its not even close. IMO its just based on hating everything and anything to do with the Cowboys.

Again, I don't care if you think Rodgers is better than Romo. They have similar stats but like firsttimer said, Rodgers is the up and comer so its easier to pick him.

I just don't understand, and probably never will, how Rodgers is SO FAR ahead of Romo. The double standard that is being portrayed is ridiculous though. Call it homerism, call it being butthurt, but its the truth.

 

[Rayman]

My decision of Rodgers > Romo didn't have anything to do with playoff wins. If you do wanna go there though, I don't think you can blame Rodgers for the Arizona loss. That one is on the defense.

:bongrip:

 

[NAHSTE]

Both are good QBs, I'm not saying Romo is garbage, but he is what he is. One of the best QBs in the second tier, as is Rodgers. Rodgers and he could both vault into the first tier depending on what happens, but given my gut feeling I'd say A-Rod has a better chance to improve than Romo.

I still have Roethlisberger in the first tier, but I'm probably in the minority there.

Manning/Brady
Brees
Roethlisberger
--------
Rivers/Rodgers
Romo
McNabb

------
Flacco, Ryan, Palmer, Schaub, Eli, etc.

 

[Aso]

The reason Romo wasn't elite to me until last season is because he turned the ball over way too much.

2006: 10 starts, 13 INT's, 9 fumbles
2007: 16 starts, 19 INT's, 10 fumbles
2008: 13 starts, 14 INT's, 13 fumbles

Last year in 16 starts Romo was able to trim that down to only 9 INT's with only 6 fumbles. Until the '09 season I didn't think Romo was elite for that reason. Now I believe he is.

After the '09 season now I believe Rodgers is elite too. He was able to get the ball out of his hand quicker in the 2nd half of the season and that cut down on sacks. He doesn't have a turnover problem as it is. He has looked great as a passer.

 

[Aso]

And in tiers like that I would put in the first tier:

Brees, Manning, Brady, Rivers, Romo, Rodgers

Big Ben is too inconsistent season in and season out. If he can keep up what he did last season then he would be in that first group.

 

[Woy]

Both are good QBs, I'm not saying Romo is garbage, but he is what he is. One of the best QBs in the second tier, as is Rodgers. Rodgers and he could both vault into the first tier depending on what happens, but given my gut feeling I'd say A-Rod has a better chance to improve than Romo.

I still have Roethlisberger in the first tier, but I'm probably in the minority there.

Manning/Brady
Brees
Roethlisberger
--------
Rivers/Rodgers
Romo
McNabb

------
Flacco, Ryan, Palmer, Schaub, etc.

Looks very similar to mine. I also have Ben in the first tier.

 

[NAHSTE]

And in tiers like that I would put in the first tier:

Brees, Manning, Brady, Rivers, Romo, Rodgers

Big Ben is too inconsistent season in and season out. If he can keep up what he did last season then he would be in that first group.

Rivers, Romo and Rodgers need to show me more. Especially Rivers. His playoff numbers aren't exactly spectacular and he did just lose the best offensive player he's ever played with.

He's got the potential, and his brother Stephen is an LSU Tiger so I'm no longer allowed to hate the guy. I'm fully prepared to put he, Romo or Rodgers in that first tier if they build their playoff resumes, but that hasn't happened yet for any of them.

 

[Primetime]

Not saying Rodgers playoff resume isn't empty, but the man's first playoff game he had 5 touchdowns and led his team to 45 points. That's damn impressive. The loss in the game was solely the defense's fault.

 

[NAHSTE]

Not saying Rodgers playoff resume isn't empty, but the man's first playoff game he had 5 touchdowns and led his team to 45 points. That's damn impressive. The loss in the game was solely the defense's fault.

This is true, but Rodgers of the three probably has the most to gain with a good playoff run this year. The other two are already established commodities, but Rodgers could leapfrog them with another great regular season and then a two or three wins in the playoffs.

 

[Primetime]

Agreed. The Packers are talked about as possible favorite to come out of the NFC. They need to make a push for Rodgers to be in contention with Manning, Breesus, and Brady talks. If Green Bay stays healthy, they should make a solid run at an NFC championship without a problem.

 

[NAHSTE]

Ryan and Flacco have a shot to jump into that 2nd tier with good years as well. Lot of young QBs with something to prove this season.

 

[Fox1994]

Because while I think Romo has a slight edge in mobility for anything else I look for in a QB, arm strength, accuracy, intangibles, etc etc I think Rodgers is ahead.

So like I said while hypothetically I may have Rodgers ranked 4th and Romo 7th...it could be a larger actual "preference" gap than 3 spots shows.

I've never exactly understood the 'intangibles' argument. If it's intangible, that means it's immeasurable, but whatever. Here's what I know of intangibles: leadership, composure. I'm sure there's something else to other people, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

I can see Rodgers being more of a leader, but I couldn't make an argument either way for composure. Like you said, maybe it's a preference thing. I already said I'd take Rodgers over Romo, so I'm not quite sure why we're arguing except over minute details that really don't make a bit of difference.

Other than the general troll/idiot fan that you get with multitudes of other players calling them trash too....no

.

 

[FirstTimer]

I've never exactly understood the 'intangibles' argument. If it's intangible, that means it's immeasurable, but whatever. Here's what I know of intangibles: leadership, composure. I'm sure there's something else to other people, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

I can see Rodgers being more of a leader, but I couldn't make an argument either way for composure. Like you said, maybe it's a preference thing. I already said I'd take Rodgers over Romo, so I'm not quite sure why we're arguing except over minute details that really don't make a bit of difference.



.

To a degree. You can't put an exact number on it like you can with yards or whatever but you can get a general feel. As immeasurable as it is it wouldn't take much to tell someone to Manning or Brady have much better intangibles than Leinart. Sue at Rodgers and Romo you may be splitting hairs a bit more but you can still develop a general feel.

 

[Loco]

9-7 is double ? ..nice math.


Romos scrambling ability kept him alive last season.
Either could go Breesy and win a SB this yr and be catapulted to top 3 status. Theyre about as equal as you get. Wouldnt suprise me the least to see either with a SB ring sometime soon.

The lopsidedness of this poll is funny. Did the 90s Cowboys stomp teams so bad that it harbors hatred for this long ?
Only the Pats are in the same universe as "instant hatred" instant "overrated" status for any star player.

Romo has a career INT Rate of 3.0. Rodgers is only 1.8 which means Romo gets picks naerly twice the amount of Rodgers and I said nearly. But that wasnt the only the only thing I said. I like how you nit picked one thing in my post and ignored the rest especially age factor. Keep your blinders on and ignore everything around you just like a typical Dallas fan. And BTW the Cowboys haven't done shit in forever, nobody hates the Cowboys because the Cowboys are not relevant.

Yes, everyone hates the Pats but nobody gives a crap about your LOLfail coach or your ludicrous owner or over hyped players. I like how Roy Williams gets more publicity than 80% of the WR in the league and he sucks donkey dick.