My argument is you’re clueless about what happens in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers was going to be great regardless because he was a first round pick with immense talent, not because he sat around doing nothing for three years. The “film/playbook study” is exactly the same whether you are the starter or the backup. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I think you are fantasizing that he was attending a football academy or getting special attention from the coaches as an understudy or something equally ludicrous.
starting QBs get the bulk of the snaps and have the majority of the focus in any film room with any coach.
as a very young player Romo didn't even work with the OC much less head coach; he worked with the QB coach alone, which is why Parcells fired that coach when he promoted Romo.
He wanted Romo re-trained to his personal standards.
As to Rodgers listen to HIM... he hated Favre because he wasn't involved at all. He was given no real training advantage.
BUT... yes there is a very real advantage to not starting year 1.
You get additional snaps and practice time. You get stronger, you are a year round pro.
See Pat Mahomes.
It is still helpful.
Dak would have had a very Aaron Rodgers like trajectory except Romo had a bad back.
He was 3rd string... and an afterthought when he simply beat out Sanchez and won the job for good by executing mistake-free football to go win 13 games as a rookie.
Dak wasn't some rd1 guy with every box checked that was handed a starting job and allowed to go win 3 games in year 1 on a rebuilding team throwing it 40 tiomes and turning it over.
He simply won the job due to his durability and execution.
Tony Romo was cut because he made 1.5M PER START over his final 3 NFL seasons and the Dallas Cowboys could not overcome that to win.