NFL - Who is the better quarterback?

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Romo is still a top 8-10 quarterback.

I agree. But I've seen him sliding down on the average poster's list.

 

[Tailback U]

Romo is on the same level as Schaub to me. Which is in the lower to mid level of tier 2.

And that is no slight. I like Schaub more than most, I just don't think the Texans do a good job of allowing him to spread it out and sling it. This year they would come out in pro sets and run the ball with Foster, go down by 2 scores, then come out in the 2nd half in 4 wides and Schaub would bring them back only to watch his defense lose the game from the sideline.

 

[dave]

Romo gets more grief than other quarterbacks because he plays for Dallas.
His numbers hold up.

Would you take Romo over this team's QB?

New England - no
N.Y. Jets - yes
Miami - yes
Buffalo - yes

Pittsburgh - no
Baltimore - no
Cleveland - yes
Cincinnati - yes

Indy - no
Jacksonville - yes
Houston - yes
Tennessee - yes

Kansas City - yes
San Diego - no
Oakland - yes
Denver - yes

Philadelphia - no
N.Y. Giants - no
Washington - yes

Chicago - yes
Green Bay - no
Detroit - yes
Minnesota - yes

Atlanta - no
New Orleans - no
Tampa Bay - no
Carolina - yes

Seattle - yes
St. Louis - no
San Francisco - yes
Arizona - yes

That's 12 teams whose QBs I wouldn't replace with Romo.
But there are other factors in consideration here.
Tampa, St. Louis and Baltimore all have young, up and coming franchise-level QBs.
N.Y. Giants have a QB with a Super Bowl ring, but really no better than Romo ... just has the ring.

 

[NAHSTE]

Romo is on the same level as Schaub to me. Which is in the lower to mid level of tier 2.

And that is no slight. I like Schaub more than most, I just don't think the Texans do a good job of allowing him to spread it out and sling it. This year they would come out in pro sets and run the ball with Foster, go down by 2 scores, then come out in the 2nd half in 4 wides and Schaub would bring them back only to watch his defense lose the game from the sideline.

He was 5th in the NFL in passing attempts this year, and led the league in 2009. It seems like the Texans have been doing a pretty "good" job of letting him sling it to me. (Especially in weeks 14 and 15 when he threw 116 attempts ... not surprisingly, they lost both games.) If anything they should've been throwing less, considering their suspect defense. They had a 3-10 record when Schaub attempted at least 30 passes this year. And why wouldn't they run with Foster? He was only the league's leading rusher.

Schaub is not a winning QB. He wilts under pressure and can't complete a pass beyond 10-yards from the LOS. He's Marc Bulger 2.0 basically.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Romo is on the same level as Schaub to me. Which is in the lower to mid level of tier 2.

And that is no slight. I like Schaub more than most, I just don't think the Texans do a good job of allowing him to spread it out and sling it. This year they would come out in pro sets and run the ball with Foster, go down by 2 scores, then come out in the 2nd half in 4 wides and Schaub would bring them back only to watch his defense lose the game from the sideline.

You must have a long list of tier 2 QB's.

How I see it.
Tier 1 - Brady, P. Manning
Tier 2 - Brees, Big Ben, Rodgers, Rivers,
Tier 3 - Romo, Eli, Schaub, Vick(although if Vick has another season like he had this year he could jump out of tier 3 I think.)
I also think Cassel, Freeman, Ryan and Flacco are all climbing up many peoples lists, and if they keep improving as I'm sure they will challenge Romo. I think Romo looks more and more average now with so many QB's growing up around him.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Just think how great a game Rodgers would have had if his WR's caught passes..

We could have been talking about a 400, 450 yard game with 4 or 5 TD's.

Romo will always have more critics because of the logo on his helmet. He's a good QB, but this season (and that's what these QB power ranking lists are these days.. a seasonal circle jerk) Rodgers was downright fantastic.

We'll see what 2011 has in store for him, assuming there is football to begin with.

 

[Deviant]

Just think how great a game Rodgers would have had if his WR's caught passes..

We could have been talking about a 400, 450 yard game with 4 or 5 TD's.

Romo will always have more critics because of the logo on his helmet. He's a good QB, but this season (and that's what these QB power ranking lists are these days.. a seasonal circle jerk) Rodgers was downright fantastic.

We'll see what 2011 has in store for him, assuming there is football to begin with.

That's what I hate about most people who make these lists. They're so wavering on who the best quarterback is. I say Aaron Rodgers is the 2nd best quarterback in the league before the start of the season and I'm laughed at. Now, all the sudden, it's not funny anymore because he has a Super Bowl and every has him in the Top 3-5.

Base the quarterback more on ability and what he does in game, not more on stats and awards.

 

[Hasselbeck]

That's what I hate about most people who make these lists. They're so wavering on who the best quarterback is. I say Aaron Rodgers is the 2nd best quarterback in the league before the start of the season and I'm laughed at. Now, all the sudden, it's not funny anymore because he has a Super Bowl and every has him in the Top 3-5.

Base the quarterback more on ability and what he does in game, not more on stats and awards.

That makes no sense.

Sincerely,
Tom Brady is the GOAT (pre Super Bowl XL loss)
Peyton Manning is the GOAT (pre Super Bowl XLIV loss)
Drew Brees is the best QB in football (post Super Bowl XLIV win)

 

[dave]

I think Rodgers has surpassed Brees because of Rodgers' mobility.
I don't think he's surpassed Manning or Brady.

 

[Tailback U]

He was 5th in the NFL in passing attempts this year, and led the league in 2009. It seems like the Texans have been doing a pretty "good" job of letting him sling it to me. (Especially in weeks 14 and 15 when he threw 116 attempts ... not surprisingly, they lost both games.) If anything they should've been throwing less, considering their suspect defense. They had a 3-10 record when Schaub attempted at least 30 passes this year. And why wouldn't they run with Foster? He was only the league's leading rusher.

Schaub is not a winning QB. He wilts under pressure and can't complete a pass beyond 10-yards from the LOS. He's Marc Bulger 2.0 basically.

Like I said, they threw the ball a lot because they'd fall behind after running the ball and trying to stay balanced in the first half. For as much as Schaub threw the ball, Foster was 3rd in the league in rushing attempts.

Just by looking at his pass attempts tells absolutely nothing about when he was throwing the ball most (in the second half) and out of what formations he performed better in (pro sets vs spread).

I watched a lot of the Texans this year and they repeatedly fell behind while running the ball and trying to use playaction to pass and out of pro formations. That is my whole argument here, he is not a good quarterback under center and in 2 WR sets. He excels in spread formations, 3 and 4 WR sets, specifically out of shotgun. And he averaged 7.6ypc, tied for 6th best in the league, and completed 59 passes over 20 yards (2nd in the league) so I don't get why you're trying to label him captain checkdown.

Playing with one of the worst defenses in the history of the NFL might have had a little to do with his record this year. I'm not saying he is great, I'm saying that the Texans' offense isn't tailored around his strengths.

I don't believe in this BS that a QB is either a winner or a loser and that's that. It's so silly how a QB is all of a sudden labeled a winner only when the team he is on makes it to the playoffs or wins a super bowl. I believe football is a team sport.

In response to your statements about his week 14 and 15 performances:

Tennessee scored on its first three possessions and was up 21-0 at the end of the first quarter. The Titans also sacked Matt Schaub(notes) four times and picked him off once. Schaub finished by throwing for 325 yards and two TDs, but it was much too late for a team that just can’t seem to get started in the first half.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap;_ylt=Akx0SkdibwpF6pQFTOFqV4j.uLYF?gid=20101219010

Pretty much exactly what I've been saying here.

The week 15 loss to Denver was by 1 point. Schaub threw a pick on the last drive when his arm was hit while throwing. I believe there was some controversial call in that game as well but can't remember it clearly. Either way, like I said, I don't believe in labeling a QB a winner or a loser and that's all they are ever going to be.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

I think Rodgers has surpassed Brees because of Rodgers' mobility.
I don't think he's surpassed Manning or Brady.

I still think Brees is a better passer. Surpassed IMO, no. On par IMO, maybe. I just don't see it.

I mean we're not talking about Mike Vick here, I think people are making too much of Rodgers running ability. I'm not trying to make light of it, he's one of the NFL's better starting QB's when running, but I don't think he's so good at running that it greatly changes how he stacks up to Brees. That's just how I see it.

 

[shag773]

Romo is still a top 8-10 quarterback.

I agree. But I've seen him sliding down on the average poster's list.

I think for many posters it's "out of sight, out of mind". Romo has his faults, but for me he's still in the top 10. But there are QB's breathing down his neck, so 2011 will be a huge year for him.

Romo will always have more critics because of the logo on his helmet. He's a good QB, but this season (and that's what these QB power ranking lists are these days.. a seasonal circle jerk) Rodgers was downright fantastic.

Any QB who plays in a major NFL market is scrutinized. Romo's swinging dick bachelorhood coupled with a colossal playoff flub or two has led some people to underrate his career as a whole.

I think Rodgers has surpassed Brees because of Rodgers' mobility.
I don't think he's surpassed Manning or Brady.

I still think Brees is a better passer. Surpassed IMO, no. On par IMO, maybe. I just don't see it.

I mean we're not talking about Mike Vick here, I think people are making too much of Rodgers running ability. I'm not trying to make light of it, he's one of the NFL's better starting QB's when running, but I don't think he's so good at running that it greatly changes how he stacks up to Brees. That's just how I see it.

I think it's fair to have Rodgers on par with Brees and Ben at this point. However, his last two years has brought him well on his way to Manning/Brady status.

 

[Scorask]

Clueless, clueless, clueless.

Go and watch the way the team folded with Kitna against the Giants when Romo was knocked out.

Then watch the pathetic efforts against Jacksonville and Green Bay.

Then watch Kitna complete maybe five passes to a receiver per game on average.

Then come back here and tell me we were better off with Jon Kitna under center and that he had better command of the offense than a guy who was leading the league in passing when he went down, no thanks to his coach, line, or defense.

I'm clueless? I would say I'm more realistic and that you have been defending Romo for so long that it's got you brainwashed into thinking otherwise, and blaming everyone/everything else but Romo.

Before Romo went down they were 1-5, Romo was 213/148 1605yds 11TD's/7int's.
After Kitna took over, 5-5, Kitna was 318/209 2365yds 16 TD's/12int's(5 passes x 10 games=50, your math is a little off).

Aside from the 1st 2 losses after the Giant game where Romo went down, they lost 3 games by a total of 7 points. And in that Giants loss it was more the D folded than Kitna's fault, who I believe hadn't played for 2 years.

I know your going to mention the coaching change but I don't believe they threw out the old playbook and started over, after all the new HC was the old OC and he also made the same salary as the former HC, so I'm sure Garrett trumped Phillips when it came down to the offense. The difference, IMO, was Kitna seemed to correctly execute the plays that were called, unlike your boy.

One thing that we both agree on is the D is awful, if it wasn't so bad, Kitna may have been 8-2. But I'm sure that still would have been a fluke because Romo wasn't under center pulling it off. Offensively, your team was better with Kitna, it's a sad realization for you, but it's true.

We have been having this debate for about 6 years now, this must be getting old for you because nothing has really changed. If anything it's gotten worse, with Romo that is.

 

[Tengo Juego]

I mean we're not talking about Mike Vick here, I think people are making too much of Rodgers running ability. I'm not trying to make light of it, he's one of the NFL's better starting QB's when running, but I don't think he's so good at running that it greatly changes how he stacks up to Brees. That's just how I see it.

I think you're dismissing his running ability. Just to put it into perspective, Rodgers just completed his 3rd season as a starting QB and is just under a thousand yards in those 3 seasons. Brees, in 9 seasons, has rushed for about half that and has scored about half as many TDs as Rodgers.

It's so damn subjective, these topics. How do you compare Rodgers to Brees? Do you grab Brees' best 3 seasons of his 9 in the league, and compare them to Rodgers? Or do you compare the success of the two? Honestly, either way you go about comparing them, turns out that they've achieved similar success in the league. But Rodgers has done it sooner in his career than Brees. So, does that mean he's better?

I still think Brees is a better passer. Surpassed IMO, no. On par IMO, maybe. I just don't see it.

I think you should maybe re-observe when you've gotten over Rodgers beating your team. :smug:

 

[DomePatrol]

I think Rodgers has surpassed Brees because of Rodgers' mobility.
I don't think he's surpassed Manning or Brady.

Theyre like 2a and 2b in my book. Drew brees can actually move around when need be you never takes off running but he shuffles to extend the play really well. As for the thread Romo is a good QB just not a top 5 QB.

 

[Rayman]

I'm clueless? I would say I'm more realistic and that you have been defending Romo for so long that it's got you brainwashed into thinking otherwise, and blaming everyone/everything else but Romo.

Before Romo went down they were 1-5, Romo was 213/148 1605yds 11TD's/7int's.
After Kitna took over, 5-5, Kitna was 318/209 2365yds 16 TD's/12int's(5 passes x 10 games=50, your math is a little off).

Reading comprehension FTL.

Then watch Kitna complete maybe five passes to a receiver per game on average

I actually watch the Cowboys play. Thanks to my job I've been able to see every game for the last six years, I don't go by what the morons and talking heads at ESPN say. Go check the box scores of each game Kitna started. Only against Jacksonville did any Dallas receiver have more than 4 catches, and that was Miles Austin, who didn't sniff those kinds of numbers again until the Cardinals game. Obviously 5 is an exaggeration, but really not that much of one. He threw to Witten and the backs almost exclusively because he was incapable of going downfield consistently.

Aside from the 1st 2 losses after the Giant game where Romo went down, they lost 3 games by a total of 7 points. And in that Giants loss it was more the D folded than Kitna's fault, who I believe hadn't played for 2 years.

Did you not see the games Romo played? Every single game they lost was by 7 or less (Holy hypocrisy, Batman!). He was literally the only reason they were in each of those games - they struggled to run the ball throughout, penalties killed them against Washington, Tennessee, and Minnesota and the defense, to steal a quote from Bart Scott, couldn't stop a nosebleed against the latter two as well as Chicago and New York.

Aside from Dez Bryant, the entire team, Kitna included, played like absolute dogs the second half of the Giants game, and against Jacksonville and Green Bay. I was at that Giants game - the difference between the offense with and without Romo was night and day and it carried over into the next two games.

Kitna got picked four times against Jacksonville...FOUR TIMES! By the #$@*ing JAGUARS! (Yes, I'm aware 3 of them bounced off of WRs' hands, but so did 5 of Romo's 7 picks, and I'm sure people like you blamed him for that anyway, so we'll keep it consistent). The only reason the team was able to turn it around was the coaching change, which brings us to this...

I know your going to mention the coaching change but I don't believe they threw out the old playbook and started over, after all the new HC was the old OC and he also made the same salary as the former HC, so I'm sure Garrett trumped Phillips when it came down to the offense. The difference, IMO, was Kitna seemed to correctly execute the plays that were called, unlike your boy.

Again, shockingly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Every player on the team has vouched for the change that took place from the first day Garrett took over. Night and day as far as attention to detail, something the doughboy never bothered to concern himself with. In a sport like football, that's pretty damn important.

lol @ saying Kitna was able to execute the offense when Romo was not. Could not be more wrong. I like Kitna as a veteran backup who can help you out in a pinch, but if you're counting on him to produce for a long period of time, you're in serious trouble. They didn't win those games because the offense was underacheiving with Romo and suddenly, magically Jon Kitna resurrected them. They won those games because there was a renewed committment to running the ball, more attention to detail (penalties dropped dramatically under Garrett), and the defense, while still incapable of stopping people, started forcing a ton more turnovers once they started playing zone.

So yes, like most teams in the league would in a similar circumstance, the Cowboys played better under a better coach. Had nothing to do with the playbook whatsoever.

One thing that we both agree on is the D is awful, if it wasn't so bad, Kitna may have been 8-2. But I'm sure that still would have been a fluke because Romo wasn't under center pulling it off. Offensively, your team was better with Kitna, it's a sad realization for you, but it's true.

We agree until the bolded part. Again, couldn't be farther from the truth. The coaching change had far more to do with the team's success with Kitna than Romo not being there. Once again, see the Jaguars and Packers games.

We have been having this debate for about 6 years now, this must be getting old for you because nothing has really changed. If anything it's gotten worse, with Romo that is.

I have absolutely no issue with admitting when a player on my team has faults. Romo does have some. But the ones he gets killed for are either overblown or simply non-existant.

Again, as someone who's watched every Dallas Cowboys game for the last 6 years, I'll sum this all up by repeating what I said in my last post:

You're fucking clueless.


:gtfo:

 

[Scorask]

:gtfo:

I had to give thanks for the gif, it's a nice addition to your usual responses. With 6 years worth of post's similar to that one, you can probably just cut and paste now from your old post's, at least it will save you time. You changed my mind though, I see what your saying now, makes perfect sense, thanks:tee:

 

[Deviant]

I think Rodgers has surpassed Brees because of Rodgers' mobility.
I don't think he's surpassed Manning or Brady.

Rodgers is and has been better than Brees. I would trust Rodgers in a game more than I would Brees. Rodgers throws better than Brees does. His passes are remarkably on point. Doesn't matter if it's a deep throw one-on-one or if it's three men in traffic, that ball always gets there and is right where it is supposed to be. I don't see that same deal of accuracy out of Brees.

Then, what makes him greater is his ability to improvise and run. His threat as a passer opens up the field for him and he's very smart when he takes off, but he's not afraid to take contact either if it's for a first or for the score. He's one of the best runners at quarterback in the NFL. So, I would definitely take him over Brees.

As a quarterback, I think he's already better than Brady (granted, I also think there are two other quarterbacks better than Brady). Better than Peyton? He might be. I think the only thing Peyton really has over him is command and intelligence (which Peyton needs as a pure passer).

However, I think Rodgers is going to be the best quarterback in the NFL for this decade (and I've always thought that) and it wouldn't shock me if he becomes debated as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Sorry Ryan and Flacco, but you're not going to come close to this guy.

 

[bucky]

No one cares.

I do.

 

[Rayman]

I had to give thanks for the gif, it's a nice addition to your usual responses. With 6 years worth of post's similar to that one, you can probably just cut and paste now from your old post's, at least it will save you time. You changed my mind though, I see what your saying now, makes perfect sense, thanks:tee:

I put a lot of thought into that post...:shifty: