Cowherd finally said it!!!

[TNCowboy]

Finally? He's been saying that for weeks.

Personally, I think Rodgers is that good. I think that he has one really good WR, a good TE, and a bunch of guys who look good because Rodgers makes them better. Looking at their offensive personnel, I wouldn't dare trade players with them, QBs aside.

If I had to start a team tomorrow and I could take one player from another roster, I'd probably take him. I wouldn't rate him above Brady, Manning or Brees, but then he's younger than they are.

Having said that, there's still that unproven element of whether or not he'll get it done in the playoffs and late in the season. My guess is that he will, but that remains to be seen.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

You reel me in and then . . .

I thought the question would be "Why does jerra put up with Wade?"

 

[kramskoi]

Media/fans really crack me up sometimes.

Can you even imagine the hate Romo would face if he won only 20 of his first 36 starts like Rodgers has done? Tony won 26 of his first 36 starts, put up blistering numbers in the process, and made the Cowboys relevant in the NFC again. But it wasn't enough. He needed a playoff win in order for the media to annoint him as elite, right? That was his golden ticket!

"Numbers be damned! Win a playoff game!"

I guess not being the QB of America's Team means Rodgers gets a free pass on all of that.

"Rodgers is elite, look at his numbers! Forget his W/L record and the 0 playoff wins!"

You can argue stats until you're blue in the face... Rodgers has a slightly higher QB rating and lower INT %, Romo has a better yards/attempt and higher TD% and a lower sack %.

But Romo wins more. (And isn't that what's most important? Or no, my bad, what's "most important" is always the thing that the Cowboys QB is deficient in. When Aikman was our QB, numbers were most important... this allowed media/fans to say Steve Young is better).

39-19 as a starter (plus a not-so-valuable-anymore-since-he's-done-it playoff win) vs. 20-16 as a starter. A 67.2% win percentage vs. a 55.6%. When the Cowboys don't beat themselves, Romo makes the Cowboys incredibly difficult to beat. Sacks are drive-killers. Romo doesn't take sacks, and he has a flair for making things happen, especially on 3rd down. In fact, I honestly think Romo has spoiled the Cowboys to the extent where that could be one of the reasons we are often so sloppy offensively. Who needs details when Superman under center can get us out of practically any jam?

Now Rodgers, he takes sacks. In fact, he led the league in sacks allowed last year.

Whether Green Bay wins or loses, you see Rodgers' stat line and you assume he had a great game. What the stat line won't show you is the sack he took on 3rd and 6 that helped kill a key drive which ultimately led to defeat. 20-16 as a starter is barely above .500, and Green Bay has given him a pretty freakin' strong supporting cast. Not like he's working with scrubs up there.

Either way, they're both terrific and it's definitely an arguable debate. I don't blame people for assuming Rodgers is better... in fact, you'd have to be pretty strong-minded to NOT think so, since the media has done their darndest to convince us of this for almost a year now.

...the grass always looks greener...since 2007, Romo has been the King of third down conversions, probably only Roethlisberger is comparable...his improvisational skills give him the edge over Rodgers, who really has'nt done anything as far as post-season goes...he always seems on the cusp but seems constantly shackled by bad tackle play and lack of a proficient running game...

 

[NextGenBoys]

Finally? He's been saying that for weeks.

Personally, I think Rodgers is that good. I think that he has one really good WR, a good TE, and a bunch of guys who look good because Rodgers makes them better. Looking at their offensive personnel, I wouldn't dare trade players with them, QBs aside.

If I had to start a team tomorrow and I could take one player from another roster, I'd probably take him. I wouldn't rate him above Brady, Manning or Brees, but then he's younger than they are.

Having said that, there's still that unproven element of whether or not he'll get it done in the playoffs and late in the season. My guess is that he will, but that remains to be seen.

I would agree with this. Rodgers is for real.

And I'm not so sure how good Brady is going to be anymore without Moss. Moss makes QB's better just from his presence. Brady was never considered better than Manning before he got Moss. It was always Manning, then Brady.

Moss will single handedly turn around the Favre and the Vikings season. It makes me sick, because I will be back in the Metrodome in 2 Sundays, and I don't feel like watching us get our butts handed to us again, or Moss taking a crap on us for the 90th time.