Romo Is To The Cowboys, What Rodgers Is To The Packers

[gimmesix]

Come playoff time KC will need more of a game-changing QB.

I agree with that, but it would be nice to have that kind of defensive play AND a game-changing QB. Or am I being too greedy?

 

[percyhoward]

There are people who act as if if Romo went down we couldn't win a game. It is an unreasonable position to take, given the fact that it has already been proven that we can. We did.

I was writing in answer to your question "why couldn't we have a better record with the backup?"

 

[joseephuss]

I agree with that, but it would be nice to have that kind of defensive play AND a game-changing QB. Or am I being too greedy?

Yes, you are being greedy, but greed is good. It is rare to have that combination.

 

[Don Corleone]

Come playoff time KC will need more of a game-changing QB.

The 2000 Ravens say hello. But I do agree.

 

[joseephuss]

The 2000 Ravens say hello. But I do agree.

There are always exceptions. This KC defense isn't as good as that Ravens defense. And if they make it to the Superbowl they will probably face a much better team than the Ravens did that year.

 

[rcaldw]

I was writing in answer to your question "why couldn't we have a better record with the backup?"

We possibly could. It is a statistical possibility. That has already been proven. It happened.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Have you been watching the Packers w/o Rodgers? Garbage.

If we didnt have Romo it would be the same for us.

We have a valuable QB!

Silly pictures and gif's aside.. what proof do you have that it would be the same for us without Romo?

Or do you just enjoy shouting about things that can in no way be proven by evidence or fact?

As for your last statement there... obvious observations are obvious.

 

[Ring Leader]

Tony can get us to the brink of the playoffs. Let us see if he can actually win some playoff games.

He can't win anything by himself, and if/when we do lose, there's a strong chance that Romo won't be the primary reason.

 

[Clove]

They managed to win 11 games with one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. But didn't make the playoffs. Ask Belichek if the team would have been better off had Brady been healthy that year. Get back to me on what he says.

Nice try.

So it's not a team sport?

 

[percyhoward]

We possibly could. It is a statistical possibility. That has already been proven. It happened.

If you're point is that it's possible when the record with the starter is unusually bad, and we get 3+ takeaways in half the backup's games, then you're not really saying anything.

 

[85Cowboy85]

Kitna was 3x the player that any of the Packer's backups are. And you could argue that the 10 games he played in 2010 was the best stretch of football he played his entire career. 88.9 rating is only about a 6-7 point dropoff from Romo. The average rating in the NFL for a starter is about 85-82. So you managed to plug in a backup and get a performance better then your average starting quarterback. If that is your counter example for being able to win without Romo you are essentially hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again.

Orton's career rating is about 15 points lower then Romo's. If the defense can shave it's passer rating allowed by 15 points we could absolutely go 8-8 with Kyle Orton. So in that sense yes we could 'win' with Orton but unless either the defense turns into the 85 bears or Orton becomes Johnny Unitas we are going to lose 2/3 -3/4 of our games.

This team needs the QB to put up a rating of 92-95 just to keep it's head above water. This defense is terrible and has been terrible for a long time. In that sense at least we are the same as the Packers. The Packers don't have John Kitna to bail them out thus it's become a disaster.

 

[ufcrules1]

He can't win anything by himself, and if/when we do lose, there's a strong chance that Romo won't be the primary reason.

Like in 2012 against the Commanders for all the marbles? Yeah, ok.

 

[dstovall5]

Like in 2012 against the Commanders for all the marbles? Yeah, ok.

That 2012 wk 17 game doesn't mean a darn thing if Romo doesn't lead our atrocious team from a 3-5 record to a 6 game stretch where we won 5 of 6. We actually should've won 6 of 6, but sadly our team has problems winning even when our QB puts up a terrific performance.

 

[rcaldw]

If you're point is that it's possible when the record with the starter is unusually bad, and we get 3+ takeaways in half the backup's games, then you're not really saying anything.

You're just being stubborn. Carry on.

 

[Afigueroa22]

Rodgers is more important to the Packers than Romo is to the Cowboys.

That's because Rodgers is better than Romo.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Silly pictures and gif's aside.. what proof do you have that it would be the same for us without Romo?

Or do you just enjoy shouting about things that can in no way be proven by evidence or fact?

As for your last statement there... obvious observations are obvious.

You're a little late to the party - page 5. And as usual, you add nothing of value or significance to it.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

You're a little late to the party - page 5. And as usual, you add nothing of value or significance to it.

Right on time as far as i see it.. and speaking of adding nothing of significant value.. why dont' you post another gif or make another statement that can't be proven by any sort of fact.

 

[dstovall5]

That's because Rodgers is better than Romo.

And he's also better then any other QB not named Peyton Manning right now, so what's your point? Aaron Rodgers could potentially go down as the greatest QB to ever play the game, so that's not really a slight to be worse then Aaron Rodgers.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

That 2012 wk 17 game doesn't mean a darn thing if Romo doesn't lead our atrocious team from a 3-5 record to a 6 game stretch where we won 5 of 6. We actually should've won 6 of 6, but sadly our team has problems winning even when our QB puts up a terrific performance.

This is absolutely true. Romo had a great second half of the season and almost led us back to the playoffs.

Of course, you do have to acknowledge that the way Romo played in the first half of the season, some of those turnovers probably helped put us in a hole to begin with.

 

[coult44]

We have NO idea how Kyle Orton would play. Hopefully we don't have to find out. I'd say 90% of every contending team would be in Green Bays position if their QB went down. Only the teams with great defenses would continue to succeed if their starting QB went down.