NFL - Who is the better quarterback?

[FirstTimer]

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.

Idiotic to say. The Cowboys are incredibly relevant as they are one of, if not the most, valuable franchise in the league.Simply because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996 doesn't make them irrelevant.

They are incredibly valuable, have a huge nation wide fan base, are at least in the playoff hunt conversation on a yearly basis, sometimes in Super Bowl talk and garner headlines for a variaty of issues.

I'm not a Cowboy fan by any stretch but to say they aren't relevant is retarded

 

[Tailback U]

Romo is a good QB, and I know the two are statistically comparable, but I think Rodgers is a much better QB when I watch him. He is just a more polished QB, in my opinion, and I come away very impressed with his mechanics and fundamentals when I watch him.

Romo is a bit more unorthodox, which doesn't make him worse by any means, but just not my type of QB.

 

[dave]

Idiotic to say. The Cowboys are incredibly relevant as they are one of, if not the most, valuable franchise in the league.Simply because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996 doesn't make them irrelevant.

They are incredibly valuable, have a huge nation wide fan base, are at least in the playoff hunt conversation on a yearly basis, sometimes in Super Bowl talk and garner headlines for a variaty of issues.

I'm not a Cowboy fan by any stretch but to say they aren't relevant is retarded

Agreed.
The Cowboys are one of the top 3-5 most influential franchises in the NFL.

 

[Rayman]

Romo is a good QB, and I know the two are statistically comparable, but I think Rodgers is a much better QB when I watch him. He is just a more polished QB, in my opinion, and I come away very impressed with his mechanics and fundamentals when I watch him.

Romo is a bit more unorthodox, which doesn't make him worse by any means, but just not my type of QB.

 

[Primetime]

Idiotic to say. The Cowboys are incredibly relevant as they are one of, if not the most, valuable franchise in the league.Simply because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996 doesn't make them irrelevant.

They are incredibly valuable, have a huge nation wide fan base, are at least in the playoff hunt conversation on a yearly basis, sometimes in Super Bowl talk and garner headlines for a variaty of issues.

I'm not a Cowboy fan by any stretch but to say they aren't relevant is retarded

It was the '95 season....just to nitpick. The Packers won the Superbowl in the '96 season.

 

[Rayman]

It was the '95 season....just to nitpick. The Packers won the Superbowl in the '96 season.

January of 1996...:shifty:

 

[Primetime]

January of 1996...:shifty:

Still 15 seasons ago, not 14....:shifty:

 

[Anthony]

 

[Rayman]

Still 15 seasons ago, not 14....:shifty:

No one said anything about 14.

 

[Loco]

Agreed.
The Cowboys are one of the top 3-5 most influential franchises in the NFL.

The point is nobody outside of Dallas cares enough about the Cowboys to hate them. They are not the Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, Michael Irving Cowboys. America does not hate them.

 

[kmanharris]

The point is nobody outside of Dallas cares enough about the Cowboys to hate them. They are not the Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, Michael Irving Cowboys. America does not hate them.

lolwut? Nobody outside of Dallas cares enough to hate them?

1) I am going to go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of the people in Dallas LOVE THEM

2) You don't get out much do you? What part of the country do you live in? I can tell you that just about the entire North East hates the Cowboys. I hear that shit almost daily.

Edit: I see your location is Boston. I don't know how you haven't heard it.

 

[NAHSTE]

The point is nobody outside of Dallas cares enough about the Cowboys to hate them. They are not the Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, Michael Irving Cowboys. America does not hate them.

Stupid post is stupid. The Cowboys are easily one of the most hated teams. Ask Eagles, Giants and Redskins fans if they hate Dallas. Then ask Texans fans if they hate Dallas.

Then ask every other team's fans.

 

[Point Blank]

I hate Dallas..:ionno:

 

[Rayman]

I hate Dallas..:ionno:

Avy made me lawl

 

[citizenerased]

The point is nobody outside of Dallas cares enough about the Cowboys to hate them. They are not the Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, Michael Irving Cowboys. America does not hate them.

What's it like, in todays modern world, to not own a TV?

 

[JeremyHight]

Last year, Romo had a better TE, an arguably better WR corps (from top to bottom, I'd take Dallas last year over GB), a better OL, a better RB corps, and a better environment to pass the ball (Dallas is much easier to pass in compared to Green Bay in the winter). Despite all that, Rodgers had a better year statistically.

I'd take Rodgers. Romo is good, but moving forward, I see Rodgers getting better and better. Romo seems to have topped out. Tony is extremely good and among the best in the league, but I think Rodgers is slightly better.

 

[FirstTimer]

It was the '95 season....just to nitpick. The Packers won the Superbowl in the '96 season.

...Odd...I thought the Super Bowl for the 95 season was played in 1996 .............

 

[Primetime]

...Odd...I thought the Super Bowl for the 95 season was played in 1996 .............

Obviously I know that, but when people say the Cowboys won the Superbowl in 96, people assume it was the 96 season when, in fact, it was the 95 season. I guess I pointed out mostly because the Packers won it in the 96 season.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Last year, Romo had a better TE, an arguably better WR corps (from top to bottom, I'd take Dallas last year over GB), a better OL, a better RB corps, and a better environment to pass the ball (Dallas is much easier to pass in compared to Green Bay in the winter). Despite all that, Rodgers had a better year statistically.

I'd take Rodgers. Romo is good, but moving forward, I see Rodgers getting better and better. Romo seems to have topped out. Tony is extremely good and among the best in the league, but I think Rodgers is slightly better.

There yards comp% avg ypc qb rating ,tds first down%etc were almost identical. To say he had a better stasticial season is REALLY splitting hairs.

Going into the season I dont know anyone that would have taken Roy Williams , Patrick Crayton over Jennings,Driver. The tide changer was Miles Austin who was a nobody until the K.C game. Again splitting hairs.

The rest I agree with. I dont see Romo improving , I can see Rodgers handling the rush better and putting up great numbers in that system.

 

[Aso]

Obviously I know that, but when people say the Cowboys won the Superbowl in 96, people assume it was the 96 season when, in fact, it was the 95 season. I guess I pointed out mostly because the Packers won it in the 96 season.

Yeah most of the playoffs (if not all?) are played in the next calendar year so people say that year. It actually annoys me just a little bit as well because some people end up getting confused. Just say the season year it was played in, not the calendar year.