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

[Lazyking]

Goes for most teams in the league if you're saying we'd have to play the backup.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

Yes he is......but who would you rather have? BTW, this not meant as a Romo bash

 

[Afigueroa22]

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.

I just think both guys have a seemingly mediocre supporting cast and Rodgers does better with his because he's better.

How would Rodgers do in this offense? What about Romo in theirs?

 

[dstovall5]

I just think both guys have a seemingly mediocre supporting cast and Rodgers does better with his because he's better.
How would Rodgers do in this offense? What about Romo in theirs?

If you swapped Romo and Rodgers today, then this is what I'd believe would happen. You would see a sharp incline in Romo's production, and a sharp decline in Rodger's production.

I think both have about the same situation in offensive line, GB has a better offensive cordinator, GB has a better HC, GB has better overall WRs, and GB has the more reliable RB. The only one that's even debatable I think is the WRs, you could make a case that they're a wash.

Romo has shown he doesn't need a physical beast at the WR position, he just needs a WR who runs crisp routes and who has reliable hands. All of which GB has in Cobb, Nelson, and Jones. I didn't say their TE Finley because even though he is talented, he's also very inconsistent and drops too many balls like how Williams does for us.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

make another statement that can't be proven by any sort of fact.

No need for me to do that. You've got that covered well enough on a regular basis. Enough to cover the entire board actually.

But hey, thanks for trolling and following me all over the board. Its nice to know Im being thot of all the time.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

No need for me to do that. You've got that covered well enough on a regular basis. Enough to cover the entire board actually.

But hey, thanks for trolling and following me all over the board. Its nice to know Im being thot of all the time.

You would know about trolling wouldn't you?

Nah.. my statement was the truth.

You can't prove in any way that the Boys would be doing as bad as the Packers are without Rodgers, but i can prove that they already have done better without Romo in a season than with him.

Tell me i'm wrong if i am.. lol.

 

[Afigueroa22]

If you swapped Romo and Rodgers today, then this is what I'd believe would happen. You would see a sharp incline in Romo's production, and a sharp decline in Rodger's production.

I think both have about the same situation in offensive line, GB has a better offensive cordinator, GB has a better HC, GB has better overall WRs, and GB has the more reliable RB..

I agree that Romo would probably benefit but I don't think Rodgers would see such a sharp decline. Rodgers to Dez sounds nice. I don't really know how Rodgers would fare in this rusty offense.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

You would know about trolling wouldn't you?

Nah.. my statement was the truth.

You can't prove in any way that the Boys would be doing as bad as the Packers are without Rodgers, but i can prove that they already have done better without Romo in a season than with him.

Tell me i'm wrong if i am.. lol.

How many seasons ago was that? The relevance to now?

 

[dstovall5]

I agree that Romo would probably benefit but I don't think Rodgers would see such a sharp decline. Rodgers to Dez sounds nice. I don't really know how Rodgers would fare in this rusty offense.

I think he would have a sharp decline mainly because of the lack of offensive creativity. For example, how in the heck for the first 8 weeks or so of the regular season does our coaches NOT move Dez around on the line? Rodgers would probably see our play book and laugh ... and then go on to learn it within a day. I just think it has more to do with the surroundings, then the actual players themselves. Obviously Rodgers is better than Romo straight up though.

Rodgers to Dez does sound like a lovely combo, maybe we'll get to see it in Hawaii before their career's are over? That'd be cool.

 

[perrykemp]

If you swapped Romo and Rodgers today, then this is what I'd believe would happen. You would see a sharp incline in Romo's production, and a sharp decline in Rodger's production.

I think both have about the same situation in offensive line, GB has a better offensive cordinator, GB has a better HC, GB has better overall WRs, and GB has the more reliable RB. The only one that's even debatable I think is the WRs, you could make a case that they're a wash.

Romo has shown he doesn't need a physical beast at the WR position, he just needs a WR who runs crisp routes and who has reliable hands. All of which GB has in Cobb, Nelson, and Jones. I didn't say their TE Finley because even though he is talented, he's also very inconsistent and drops too many balls like how Williams does for us.

I hear you and I can see elements of the comparisons you are trying to make, however the thing that sets Rodgers apart from just about every QB who has ever played is his freakishly low interception rate of 1.7%, Compare him to three of the guys folks often list at the top QBs in NFL history you'll see he is nearly a full point better than Montana (2.6%), Manning (2.7%), and a good measure better than Brady (2.0%).

That's what makes Rodgers unique -- he has the TD numbers of a big time elite slinger but the INT rate of a busdriver QB.

Romo's career INT rate is 2.7% and I don't think it would be measurably better if had played in GB his whole career.

That low INT rate is why Rodgers has the highest QB rating in NFL history. That's where I think your analysis breaks down.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I hear you and I can see elements of the comparisons you are trying to make, however the thing that sets Rodgers apart from just about every QB who has ever played is his freakishly low interception rate of 1.7%, Compare him to three of the guys folks often list at the top QBs in NFL history you'll see he is nearly a full point better than Montana (2.6%), Manning (2.7%), and a good measure better than Brady (2.0%).

That's what makes Rodgers unique -- he has the TD numbers of a big time elite slinger but the INT rate of a busdriver QB.

Romo's career INT rate is 2.7% and I don't think it would be measurably better if had played in GB his whole career.

That low INT rate is why Rodgers has the highest QB rating in NFL history. That's where I think your analysis breaks down.

You must be very pleased to have him as your quarterback.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

How many seasons ago was that? The relevance to now?

So as i thought.. i'm not wrong.

The last time we were without Tony in our lineup for an extended period of time, we won more games with the backup that year than with Romo.

..and there's absolutely no proof that our team would do as bad as the Packers are without Rodgers.

My statement.. evidence to back it up.

Your statement.. another blind assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Any other questions?

 

[ufcrules1]

You must be very pleased to have him as your quarterback.

I hear you and I can see elements of the comparisons you are trying to make, however the thing that sets Rodgers apart from just about every QB who has ever played is his freakishly low interception rate of 1.7%, Compare him to three of the guys folks often list at the top QBs in NFL history you'll see he is nearly a full point better than Montana (2.6%), Manning (2.7%), and a good measure better than Brady (2.0%).

That's what makes Rodgers unique -- he has the TD numbers of a big time elite slinger but the INT rate of a busdriver QB.

Romo's career INT rate is 2.7% and I don't think it would be measurably better if had played in GB his whole career.

That low INT rate is why Rodgers has the highest QB rating in NFL history. That's where I think your analysis breaks down.

Solid post. I have been watching Rodgers for years and he hates to throw an interception. I mean he hates it with a passion. He is really an extremely smart QB. Only QB I think is smarter is Peyton but he doesn't have the zip on the ball that Rodgers has. I WISH Rodgers was our QB.

 

[Rockport]

Solid post. I have been watching Rodgers for years and he hates to throw an interception. I mean he hates it with a passion. He is really an extremely smart QB. Only QB I think is smarter is Peyton but he doesn't have the zip on the ball that Rodgers has. I WISH Rodgers was our QB.

I'll take Romo. Rodgers has the better arm but Romo's a football player. Instincts.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I'll take Romo. Rodgers has the better arm but Romo's a football player. Instincts.

Rodgers doesn't have football instincts??

 

[zrinkill]

Tony is just as important to our success as Rogers is to Greenbay ........ But Rogers is the better player.

 

[coult44]

I'll take Romo. Rodgers has the better arm but Romo's a football player. Instincts.

I hope to God your being sarcastic...

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

So as i thought.. i'm not wrong.

The last time we were without Tony in our lineup for an extended period of time, we won more games with the backup that year than with Romo.

..and there's absolutely no proof that our team would do as bad as the Packers are without Rodgers.

My statement.. evidence to back it up.

Your statement.. another blind assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Any other questions?

Yea, how along was that and how is that relevant NOW, - you know for this team?

 

[EvilJerry88]

I'll take Romo. Rodgers has the better arm but Romo's a football player. Instincts.

I agree Romo is better. He improvises better and does more with less. Anybody could succeed in Rodgers' position. Romo is a better pure passer as well. He can always find the best guys open. He's also more clutch. Look at his 4th quarter passer rating. Romo also does better at controlling an offense and audible-ing unlike Rodgers who is really just a plug and play in that system of his.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

I hear you and I can see elements of the comparisons you are trying to make, however the thing that sets Rodgers apart from just about every QB who has ever played is his freakishly low interception rate of 1.7%, Compare him to three of the guys folks often list at the top QBs in NFL history you'll see he is nearly a full point better than Montana (2.6%), Manning (2.7%), and a good measure better than Brady (2.0%).

That's what makes Rodgers unique -- he has the TD numbers of a big time elite slinger but the INT rate of a busdriver QB.

Romo's career INT rate is 2.7% and I don't think it would be measurably better if had played in GB his whole career.

That low INT rate is why Rodgers has the highest QB rating in NFL history. That's where I think your analysis breaks down.

One thing I've noticed about Rodgers is he is terrible at coming back . In other words most of the packers wins are by double digits . When he has to come back he is very unimpressive .