Aaron Rodgers is now 3-18 when trailing entering the fourth quarter

[gimmesix]

Dude every QB on that list is in the Hall of Fame or will be and it isn't because of their passer ratings I can promise you that. If it was all about passer ratings Shaun Hill, Rich Gannon, Marc Bulger, Trent Green, Donavan McNabb and David Garrard would all be considered better QB's than Rodger Staubach and several other HOF QB's.

I've been watching the Dallas Cowboys' "10 greatest games" on DVD the past few days. And I find it funny that many of the things people rag on here about Romo and the offense were also evident in the games included where Staubach was the QB:

1) Holding the ball too long.

2) Missing open receivers.

3) Bad pass protection.

4) Even poor snapping by the center (see the 1975 Minnesota playoff game).

Now, in each of these games, Staubach made plays to help his team eventually win. But I don't think he would have had a chance if not for the Cowboys' defense keeping them in the games and even setting up good opportunities to score, and the running game taking some of the heat off (as it did in Super Bowl VI).

Point is, without that supporting cast, I don't think many in here would have considered Staubach a great QB. (They would have been wrong, of course.) He would have just been that guy who puts up good numbers but can't lead Dallas to a Super Bowl or title. And realistically, his numbers would have suffered, too.

 

[percyhoward]

Point is, without that supporting cast, I don't think many in here would have considered Staubach a great QB. (They would have been wrong, of course.) He would have just been that guy who puts up good numbers but can't lead Dallas to a Super Bowl or title. And realistically, his numbers would have suffered, too.

Excellent points.

Also, about passer rating. Some people see the inflated passer ratings of today and wrongly conclude that passer rating is a bad stat. Simply not true. Passer rating has always been in fact a very good stat, with a high correlation to winning. Just don't try to use it to compare across eras--use the rankings.

When Staubach retired, he had the highest passer rating in NFL history. His four passing titles (four #1 rankings in passer rating) are just as valid as any QB who wins 4 passing titles today. The raw rating is meaningless. Different era.

 

[gimmesix]

Say what you will about Romo the comments comparing him with the top QB's in the game like Rodgers and Brees are becoming more ridiculous every day. You can bet if Brady has a bad game Sunday FANS will be on here in droves claiming Romo is better as they continue living in the moment. I hope some of you keep the nonsense coming because it's going to help keep a lot of us thoroughly entertained this offseason.

I don't think Rodgers having a bad day has anything to do with the comparisons, and I certainly am not one to say Romo is better than Rodgers or Brady.

But I do think his skill level is comparable. I do think he has the ability to be on a winning Super Bowl team, and I do think that former players like Roger Staubach agree with me on that.

You only think it's nonsense because you do not believe it. That's your prerogative. As I said, some of you would have thought the same about Staubach if his supporting cast hadn't been as good as it was. Aikman was the same way: He had one of the greatest running backs of all time, a very good offensive line and a very good defense, and he was a great quarterback. Without those other things, some of you would think Aikman wasn't on the same level as the top QBs of his day. I know you don't believe that, but everything you write to knock Romo's ability despite the numbers he consistently puts up says it.

 

[gbrittain]

Excellent points.

Also, about passer rating. Some people see the inflated passer ratings of today and wrongly conclude that passer rating is a bad stat. Simply not true. Passer rating has always been in fact a very good stat, with a high correlation to winning. Just don't try to use it to compare across eras--use the rankings.

When Staubach retired, he had the highest passer rating in NFL history. His four passing titles (four #1 rankings in passer rating) are just as valid as any QB who wins 4 passing titles today. The raw rating is meaningless. Different era.

People love to bag on the qb rating as a meaningless stat. I suppose if in the month of December had some qb other than Romo thrown for less completions, less yards, less Tds, and more INTs that somehow the Cowboys could have been better as long as the QB is a "winner".

 

[KJJ]

No they wouldn't, dude.

Staubach had seven (7) top 8 seasons.

Green 5
McNabb 4
Gannon 4
Bulger 3
Garrard 1
Shaun Who?

Passer rating is nothing more than TD, INT, and yards per attempt. Staubach was consistently better at throwing TD, avoiding INT, and averaging a high yards per attempt than any of those guys you named. How does passer rating make them better than Rodger Staubach?

How does passer rating make them better than Rodger Staubach?

All those QB's I mentioned have a "career" passer rating higher than Staubach and several other HOF QB's. Romo's career passer rating is second all time to only Aaron Rodgers. It's Romo's career passer rating that has a lot FANS getting carried away. I don't put a lot of weight on a career passer rating because 7 of the top 10 career passing rating leaders are current QB's.

Teams pass so much now most of the current QB's have higher career passer ratings than a lot of truly great QB's who played in a different era where a premium was on running the ball. Plus the rules are different now which has really opened up the passing game this is why completion percentages and passer ratings keep going up. As for Shaun who it's Shaun Hill he plays for Detroit and his career passer rating currently ranks tied for 24th.

Passer rating is nothing more than TD, INT, and yards per attempt.

Then what's the big deal about it? You're the one who brought it up with a list of HOF QB's you think Romo should be ranked with because of his passer rating. You asked me if I thought Romo would be worse than all of them if he made that list and yes he would because he hasn't won the playoff games or SB most of those QB's did. A passer rating doesn't mean a whole lot if it's not resulting in playoff wins and SB's. A QB's passer rating doesn't tell the whole story and it certainly doesn't tell you which QB's are the greatest of all time.

 

[gbrittain]

As someone already said qb rating across eras may not tell u much but in a given year against your peers it says a lot.

 

[percyhoward]

People love to bag on the qb rating as a meaningless stat. I suppose some how in the month of December had Romo thrown for less completions, less yards, less Tds, and more INTs that somehow the Cowboys could have been better as long as the QB is a "winner".

I guess anything is possible for a person who can look at a list of QB with the most top 8 seasons in passer rating, see that it contains nothing but HOF players, and conclude that passer rating has no connection with QB greatness.

But then again, the people who struggle to understand the difference between a raw number and a league ranking are probably the same people who have a hard time sorting out the difference between the performance of an individual player and the performance of an entire team.

 

[gbrittain]

I guess anything is possible for a person who can look at a list of QB with the most top 8 seasons in passer rating, see that it contains nothing but HOF players, and conclude that passer rating has no connection with QB greatness.

But then again, the people who struggle to understand the difference between a raw number and a league ranking are probably the same people who have a hard time sorting out the difference between the performance of an individual player and the performance of an entire team.

Exactly.

 

[percyhoward]

All those QB's I mentioned have a "career" passer rating higher than Staubach and several other HOF QB's. Romo's career passer rating is second all time to only Aaron Rodgers. It's Romo's career passer rating that has a lot FANS getting carried away. I don't put a lot of weight on a career passer rating because 7 of the top 10 career passing rating leaders are current QB's.

Teams pass so much now most of the current QB's have higher career passer ratings than a lot of truly great QB's who played in a different era where a premium was on running the ball. Plus the rules are different now which has really opened up the passing game this is why completion percentages and passer ratings keep going up. As for Shaun who it's Shaun Hill he plays for Detroit and his career passer rating currently ranks tied for 24th.

See post #182.

You're the one who brought it up with a list of HOF QB's you think Romo should be ranked with because of his passer rating.

That's not a list of players I "think" he "should" be ranked with. It's the list of the only players who have done what Romo will have done as soon as he has his next top 8 season.

When I said passer rating is "nothing more" than TD, INT, and yards per attempt, I'm not putting it down. I'm saying that's all there is to it. The formula is complicated, but the elements that go into it are just yards, attempts, completions, TD, and INT. To say that passer rating is a bad stat is not only wrong, it's the same as saying that yards, attempts, completions, TD, and INT are bad stats, because that's all it really is.

If the number of top ranked seasons in passer rating doesn't tell you a whole lot about who the greatest QB's have been, then why is it that the only QB on that list are Hall of Famers? Why doesn't it also contain 10-15 other names of QB's who were just "good but not great?"

If Romo does indeed have a top 8 season next year, and he makes that list, and he's the worst QB on the list...so what?

 

[KJJ]

I don't think Rodgers having a bad day has anything to do with the comparisons, and I certainly am not one to say Romo is better than Rodgers or Brady.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rodgers had played like he had all season and the Packers won. You wouldn't be on here saying you would take Romo over Rodgers had Rodgers passed for 365 yards and 4 TD's yesterday. You obviously must think Romo is better than Rodgers if you're claiming you would take Romo over him. As soon as one of these top QB's have a bad day FANS here pounce like cats claiming Romo is better. These debates always start up when one of these QB's have an off day it's become predictable.

You only think it's nonsense because you do not believe it. That's your prerogative.

Any knowledgeable football fan who doesn't carry an incredible Cowboy bias would roll their eyes to what you're saying. Rodgers has won a SB and a SB MVP and he just came off a league MVP season leading the Packers to a 15-1 record. He just had one of the best seasons in history by a QB who wouldn't think what you're saying isn't nonsense? Romo hasn't come close to playing at the level we saw Rodgers play at this past season. Rodgers got sacked 36 times just like Romo and his defense and running game were ranked lower than the Cowboys. Rodgers made the Packers tick and once he had a bad day it was lights out.

 

[perrykemp]

Any knowledgeable football fan who doesn't carry an incredible Cowboy bias would roll their eyes to what you're saying. Rodgers has won a SB and a SB MVP and he just came off a league MVP season leading the Packers to a 15-1 record. He just had one of the best seasons in history by a QB who wouldn't think what you're saying isn't nonsense? Romo hasn't come close to playing at the level we saw Rodgers play at this past season. Rodgers got sacked 36 times just like Romo and his defense and running game were ranked lower than the Cowboys. Rodgers made the Packers tick and once he had a bad day it was lights out.

Well put.

Someday football historians will look back and wonder how the heck a NFL team with the 2nd worst rated defense in history of the NFL and absolutely no running game managed not to go 1-15... but in fact went 15-1.

That answer is Aaron Rogers. He did it despite being sacked 36 times and not having a single obvious hall-of-famer around him.

Romo has had seasons where he had two obvious hall of famers to throw to (Owens and Witten).

 

[gbrittain]

Well put.

Someday football historians will look back and wonder how the heck a NFL team with the 2nd worst rated defense in history of the NFL and absolutely no running game managed not to go 1-15... but in fact went 15-1.

That answer is Aaron Rogers. He did it despite being sacked 36 times and not having a single obvious hall-of-famer around him.

Romo has had seasons where he had two obvious hall of famers to throw to (Owens and Witten).

Or we could go to the tried and true formula of "stats don't mean anything", so maybe the defense was not really that bad.

 

[perrykemp]

Or we could go to the tried and true formula of "stats don't mean anything", so maybe the defense was not really that bad.

If I were to have asked you before the season started that there would be a team in the NFL this season that would:

• Give up the most yards passing in the history of the NFL
• Give up 2nd most yards overall in the history of the NFL
• Allow 4.7 ypc rushing
• Give up 41 sacks
• Sack leader with only 6 sacks

What would your guess have been on their record? I'm hard pressed anybody here on CZ would have guess anything more than 3-13 and many would probably say 0-16 or 1-15.

I think it adds some interesting perspective on the season Rodgers managed to pull off this year.

 

[KJJ]

If the number of top ranked seasons in passer rating doesn't tell you a whole lot about who the greatest QB's have been, then why is it that the only QB on that list are Hall of Famers? Why doesn't it also contain 10-15 other names of QB's who were just "good but not great?"

Peyton Manning is the only QB on that list that's currently active. Most of those QB's haven't played in years some haven't played in decades. Bro the game has changed! Romo will never sniff the HOF unless he wins some SB's but he has a chance to be on that list because he plays in an era where the passing game is so wide open. Most of the QB's on that list played well before the passing rules had been changed. They weren't protected from high, low and late hits like the current QB's.

Years ago QB's couldn't even move out of the tackle box and throw the ball away without being called for grounding. Receivers use to get mugged all the way down the field. It use to take 4-5 years to develop a QB now rookie QB's are stepping in having instant success. It's a different game now so you can't compare the numbers and passer ratings with QB's of today with those from years ago it's not the same. I'm not even going to waste the time going through all the differences between todays game and when most of the QB's on that list played.

 

[gbrittain]

If I were to have asked you before the season started that there would be a team in the NFL this season that would:

• Give up the most yards passing in the history of the NFL
• Give up 2nd most yards overall in the history of the NFL
• Allow 4.7 ypc rushing
• Give up 41 sacks
• Sack leader with only 6 sacks

What would your guess have been on their record? I'm hard pressed anybody here on CZ would have guess anything more than 3-13 and many would probably say 0-16 or 1-15.

I think it adds some interesting perspective on the season Rodgers managed to pull off this year.

Lol. I am taking NOTHING away from Aaron. One if not the best Qbing performances I have ever seen.

I am making fun of the stats dont matter crowd. Just because the stats say the defense was bad well...stats don't matter, don't tell the whole story and etc.

Sorry my sarcasm was not clear.

 

[gimmesix]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rodgers had played like he had all season and the Packers won. You wouldn't be on here saying you would take Romo over Rodgers had Rodgers passed for 365 yards and 4 TD's yesterday. You obviously must think Romo is better than Rodgers if you're claiming you would take Romo over him. As soon as one of these top QB's have a bad day FANS here pounce like cats claiming Romo is better. These debates always start up when one of these QB's have an off day it's become predictable.

First of all, I simply answered a question about who I would take. I gave my reasons for it:

1) Both quarterbacks have the ability to win Super Bowls.

2) I like Romo's personality better than Rodgers' cockiness.

My reasonings, my answers, had absolutely nothing to do with Rodgers having a bad day. If that question had not been asked, I would not have given my opinion. I had no dog in this fight.

I see no reason to pounce on Rodgers. He has proven to be a very good QB.

As I said, you continue to hold team accomplishments against Romo, to denounce his ability. If you want to use that standard, then Rodgers wasn't good enough to get his team to the NFC Championship Game despite all of his statistical accomplishments. (See, the same argument seems ridiculous when applied to Rodgers, doesn't it?) Why was that the case this year when his team won it all last year? Because his team was better last year, just like Staubach's was in those 1970s games I watched, just like Aikman's was in the early 1990s.

If you ever decide to apply the same standard, I think it might open your eyes that Romo has shown that the difference in the QBs is not very much. But I don't think you're capable of doing that.

 

[KJJ]

That's not a list of players I "think" he "should" be ranked with. It's the list of the only players who have done what Romo will have done as soon as he has his next top 8 season.

You asked me You mean, of the 12 quarterbacks in the history of the league who will have ever done it, Romo will be the worst? So you must think he should be ranked with them. He would be worse than all those QB's because he hasn't accomplished what they did regardless of his passer rating. There's a lot of things Romo needs to go along with his passer rating if he wants to be ranked as a great QB and get voted into the HOF. I doubt any HOF voters put any weight into a QB's passer rating.

 

[TNCowboy]

:laugh2: at finding a stat to justify Romo. Here's another one: 1-3. Someone can research that one in just a few seconds. Group him with Philip Rivers, whose career is virtually mirroring Romo's, plus a few more playoff wins. Rivers was tagging right along with Romo in this fabricated stat prior to this year, no?

It's going to drive typical Cowboys-homer-Romo-QB-Rating-guys nuts when the rest of the world considers Eli Manning - if he gets to another SB - on a plane with his brother, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers....and still has Romo in the 2nd tier with guys like Phillip Rivers.

Romo's a good QB and isn't what's wrong with the Cowboys. But he also isn't in the same class with the guys at the top and there are few who aren't Cowboys homers who think he is.

 

[KJJ]

1) Both quarterbacks have the ability to win Super Bowls.

A lot of QB's who've played the game had the ability physically to win a SB some had great ability but they lacked what it took between the ears and inside their heart. Montana didn't have the greatest ability and neither does Brady that's why he was a 6th rd pick but both he and Montana had what can't be timed or measured. I know Rodgers has what it takes to win a SB because he's been there and done it. Romo has yet to prove he has what it takes to do it. Rodgers is younger than Romo so it makes no sense that anyone even a homer would take Romo over Rodgers when Rodgers is clearly the better QB.

2) I like Romo's personality better than Rodgers' cockiness.

I think you're confusing confidence with cockiness. I' could care less if Rodgers isn't Mr Congeniality he's a proven winner who has a lot of years left. He's the best QB in the game and I would swap Romo for him in a heartbeat! I think Romo is a very good QB but let's face it he hasn't come close to doing what Rodgers has and some of it has been his fault.

My reasonings, my answers, had absolutely nothing to do with Rodgers having a bad day. If that question had not been asked, I would not have given my opinion. I had no dog in this fight.

This Romo vs Rodgers debate has been going on for awhile. If yesterdays bad game by Rodgers didn't influence your opinion then how about digging up a post prior to yesterdays game where you were picking Romo over him. You're just living in the moment like a lot of FANS here do. You never hear this nonsense when Rodgers is lighting it up for 350 plus and 4 TD's. Mark my words if Brady or Eli stumbles Sunday watch them get persecuted by the Romosexuals.

If you ever decide to apply the same standard, I think it might open your eyes that Romo has shown that the difference in the QBs is not very much. But I don't think you're capable of doing that.

The abilities of some QB's may be similar but the differences that make one QB great and the other QB good can't be gaged strictly by physical ability. a lot of what makes a QB great is what they have within. Some QB's have intangibles that can't be measured. If it was just about ability you wouldn't see so many college QB's flame out in the NFL.

 

[Ring Leader]

I guess anything is possible for a person who can look at a list of QB with the most top 8 seasons in passer rating, see that it contains nothing but HOF players, and conclude that passer rating has no connection with QB greatness.

But then again, the people who struggle to understand the difference between a raw number and a league ranking are probably the same people who have a hard time sorting out the difference between the performance of an individual player and the performance of an entire team.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Now back to the extremists.