Would a bullet-throwing 'rifle' style of QB passing (Rodgers-type) work for Dallas?

[Red Dragon]

Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers are different types of throwing quarterbacks. I am not commenting positively or negatively on either one, just simply comparing.


Romo often "floats" balls to receivers to where they need to be. His passes tend to be softer, with a more graceful, lobbed, higher arc, and thrown to a spot. The ball does sometimes seem to take a long time to arrive.


Rodgers tends to "gun" the ball to where he wants it. He throws at a much lower, level, bullet-type pass with much more zip to it. Watching Pack film, his receivers often have to jump, sometimes a bit awkardly, to snag the ball that is traveling almost on a line. His passes, thrown harder, lower, and more powerfully, tend to arrive a split second earlier than a Romo pass would. Rodgers tries to gun the ball in between tight spots, too.



Put in other terms, Romo is more of an arc howitzer, while Rodgers is a rifle.



Now, with Romo's corps of receivers - Bryant, Robinson, Austin, Witten, etc. - would a "rifle bullet" style of passing - with a QB trying to gun the ball low and hard to where it needs to go - work in Dallas? Would it do any good? Or would Dallas receivers simply drop the passes as the ball knifed them in the hands?



One benefit of the Rodgers passing style (in theory) is that there would be fewer interceptions, since the ball arrives more quickly. But such a QB might also be tempted to gun the ball in between tight spots such as two defenders, maybe leading to more INTs.




James Jones of the Packers is known for drops, so maybe Rodgers' approach has its pros and cons.

 

[Tricericon]

Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers are different types of throwing quarterbacks. I am not commenting positively or negatively on either one, just simply comparing.

Romo often "floats" balls to receivers to where they need to be. His passes tend to be softer, with a more graceful, lobbed, higher arc, and thrown to a spot. The ball does sometimes seem to take a long time to arrive.

Rodgers tends to "gun" the ball to where he wants it. He throws at a much lower, level, bullet-type pass with much more zip to it. Watching Pack film, his receivers often have to jump, sometimes a bit awkardly, to snag the ball that is traveling almost on a line. His passes, thrown harder, lower, and more powerfully, tend to arrive a split second earlier than a Romo pass would. Rodgers tries to gun the ball in between tight spots, too.

Put in other terms, Romo is more of an arc howitzer, while Rodgers is a rifle.

Now, with Romo's corps of receivers - Bryant, Robinson, Austin, Witten, etc. - would a "rifle bullet" style of passing - with a QB trying to gun the ball low and hard to where it needs to go - work in Dallas? Would it do any good? Or would Dallas receivers simply drop the passes as the ball knifed them in the hands?

One benefit of the Rodgers passing style (in theory) is that there would be fewer interceptions, since the ball arrives more quickly. But such a QB might also be tempted to gun the ball in between tight spots such as two defenders, maybe leading to more INTs.

James Jones of the Packers is known for drops, so maybe Rodgers' approach has its pros and cons.

I don't have any idea how it would affect the WRs, but I think it would hurt the offensive line not to have Romo's lightning release back there - I always figured the "float" was a side effect of the motion that lets him get it out so fast.

 

[lane]

tony does not have a 7 millimeter magnum

he has a soft touch with a quick release

the only weakness in romo's game is his riverboat gambling..and he is showing maturity these last two weeks big time.

to answer your question...our receivers are capable of catching either.

 

[Reality]

tony does not have a 7 millimeter magnum

he has a soft touch with a quick release

the only weakness in romo's game is his riverboat gambling..and he is showing maturity these last two weeks big time.

to answer your question...our receivers are capable of catching either.

I think it comes down to what the receivers are used to catching. Every so often Romo will not only release it quickly but also throw it faster than normal and almost always when that happens, the receiver either lets it go through their hands or they drop it. The receivers would adapt to faster throws if they were being thrown faster more often though.

#reality

 

[MC KAos]

would a rodgers type quarterback work for dallas? i think he would work for anyone!

 

[SDCowboy]

Nope. When Romo throws bullets, they bounce off the receivers hands into the air for INTs.

 

[bbgun]

would a rodgers type quarterback work for dallas? i think he would work for anyone!

We're now reduced to dreaming up reasons not to take an MVP caliber quarterback (not just a guy who can "throw hard") over Tony. Crazy.

 

[lane]

I think it comes down to what the receivers are used to catching. Every so often Romo will not only release it quickly but also throw it faster than normal and almost always when that happens, the receiver either lets it go through their hands or they drop it. The receivers would adapt to faster throws if they were being thrown faster more often though.

#reality

i agree.

good point.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

RODGERS

Does that dude even have a weakness anymore?

 

[lane]

RODGERS

Does that dude even have a weakness anymore?

unfortunately........not

he is the real deal.

 

[NextGenBoys]

I think this is obviously what sets the two apart.

Both are equally mobile, but Rodgers has a stronger arm, and is a bigger body.

 

[locked&loaded]

"Would a bullet-throwing 'rifle' style of QB passing (Rodgers-type) work for Dallas?"

LOL

 

[KJJ]

Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers are different types of throwing quarterbacks. I am not commenting positively or negatively on either one, just simply comparing.


Romo often "floats" balls to receivers to where they need to be. His passes tend to be softer, with a more graceful, lobbed, higher arc, and thrown to a spot. The ball does sometimes seem to take a long time to arrive.


Rodgers tends to "gun" the ball to where he wants it. He throws at a much lower, level, bullet-type pass with much more zip to it. Watching Pack film, his receivers often have to jump, sometimes a bit awkardly, to snag the ball that is traveling almost on a line. His passes, thrown harder, lower, and more powerfully, tend to arrive a split second earlier than a Romo pass would. Rodgers tries to gun the ball in between tight spots, too.



Put in other terms, Romo is more of an arc howitzer, while Rodgers is a rifle.



Now, with Romo's corps of receivers - Bryant, Robinson, Austin, Witten, etc. - would a "rifle bullet" style of passing - with a QB trying to gun the ball low and hard to where it needs to go - work in Dallas? Would it do any good? Or would Dallas receivers simply drop the passes as the ball knifed them in the hands?



One benefit of the Rodgers passing style (in theory) is that there would be fewer interceptions, since the ball arrives more quickly. But such a QB might also be tempted to gun the ball in between tight spots such as two defenders, maybe leading to more INTs.




James Jones of the Packers is known for drops, so maybe Rodgers' approach has its pros and cons.

I seriously cannot believe this topic. Just when I thought I've seen it all here we have this. Rodgers has thrown for 2619 yards with 24 TD's in only 8 games completing a staggering 72% of his passes and you're saying he has too much zip on his throws causing his receivers to drop balls and have to jump and reach awkwardly for them?

How does a QB complete 72% of their passes if their receivers are having to awkwardly adjust to their throws to make catches? We just had a Romo vs Brady thread now we a FAN complaining that Rodgers who's having one of the best years ever for a QB guns the ball causing his receivers to drop passes and have to reach awkwardly for them but Romo floats balls to where they need to be.

Yeah Romo floats them alright some float directly into the hands of defenders. To say Rodgers approach to throwing the football has it's cons is ridiculous when you look at his numbers and see what he's accomplished the past couple of years. You're saying his passes have too much zip and that's a bad thing? I've watched Rodgers a lot he throws touch passes when needed but you're just reaching for something to knock him on.

There's not a QB in the league that throws a more beautiful, accurate ball than Aaron Rodgers that's why he's on pace to break some passing records this season. Some of the fans here are a real piece of work they'll do anything they can to try and poke a few holes in the game of a great QB in an attempt to make Romo look better.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I love Tony, I really do. There's nothing, nothing, Tony does better than Rodgers. That's not an insult.

 

[KJJ]

I think this is obviously what sets the two apart.

Both are equally mobile, but Rodgers has a stronger arm, and is a bigger body.

Rodgers is more mobile than Romo he's probably the most mobile QB in the league next to Vick. Romo is slippery and quick but he can't run like Rodgers.

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Rodgers is playing at an all time great level. Love Tony, but he's not on the same stratosphere as Aaron. That's not a knock at all because no quarterback is even close to Rodgers level. I'll put it this way if Rodgers continues playing like this the rest of the regular season, into the playoffs and wins another super bowl it will go down as the greatest season ever for an NFL QB. If he wins a super bowl this year and next year he will be in the discussion for greatest quarterback of all time. I know it's a different sport, but the way Rodgers is playing reminds me so much of Michael Jordan in the 90's. Jordan like Rodgers was simply unstoppable and indefensible. There was nothing you could do. If you tried to double or triple team Jordan he would just pass it to his teammates and they would hurt you. With Rodgers you can try to blitz him and hit him all you want, but he's a tough player and can take the hits. His recieving core is one of the most talented and consistent recieving cores in recent memory. You can't double any of his receivers.

 

[TheCoolFan]

Velocity? If you're an NFL WR, your goal is to catch any ball that comes your way, it doesn't matter if it's a wobbly duck or a fastball bullet. When's the last time you've seen a drop and they say "Aw well that quarterback needs to not throw it so hard next time."

 

[visionary]

Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers are different types of throwing quarterbacks. I am not commenting positively or negatively on either one, just simply comparing.


Romo often "floats" balls to receivers to where they need to be. His passes tend to be softer, with a more graceful, lobbed, higher arc, and thrown to a spot. The ball does sometimes seem to take a long time to arrive.


Rodgers tends to "gun" the ball to where he wants it. He throws at a much lower, level, bullet-type pass with much more zip to it. Watching Pack film, his receivers often have to jump, sometimes a bit awkardly, to snag the ball that is traveling almost on a line. His passes, thrown harder, lower, and more powerfully, tend to arrive a split second earlier than a Romo pass would. Rodgers tries to gun the ball in between tight spots, too.



Put in other terms, Romo is more of an arc howitzer, while Rodgers is a rifle.



Now, with Romo's corps of receivers - Bryant, Robinson, Austin, Witten, etc. - would a "rifle bullet" style of passing - with a QB trying to gun the ball low and hard to where it needs to go - work in Dallas? Would it do any good? Or would Dallas receivers simply drop the passes as the ball knifed them in the hands?



One benefit of the Rodgers passing style (in theory) is that there would be fewer interceptions, since the ball arrives more quickly. But such a QB might also be tempted to gun the ball in between tight spots such as two defenders, maybe leading to more INTs.




James Jones of the Packers is known for drops, so maybe Rodgers' approach has its pros and cons.

we can all use a hearty laugh now and again
thanx for that

 

[TheFinisher]

Why would anyone perfer a weaker armed QB?

 

[perrykemp]

RODGERS

Does that dude even have a weakness anymore?

He holds the ball for too long...

Don't know if it's a "weakness" per say because the result is he throws very few interceptions because he almost never throws the ball where defenders can get to it.