Rodgers vs Romo (1 Viewer)

[aj2631]

Who do you take and why....I know Rodgers is the man this year and the last two seasons.. but i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10...what you guys think?

 

[ookook]

Okay, make your case. Contribute something to start the dialogue...

 

[Hjelle9]

I think the transitions being made in Dallas at offensive tackle have to be worrisome esp. given the dominance at RDE in the division. Also, Romo will face Freeny/Mathis, Mario Williams, Clay Matthews, Julius Peppers, and Jared Allen. Any prolonged instability at the position will be attacked relentlessly and could have adverse effects on Romo's value. In addition, everyone is already considering Dez Bryant a dynamite addition for the season. Romo hasn't gotten on the same page with Williams in years of work, why Bryant so quickly? How often are rookie recievers heavy contributors? Isn't it more likely he'll battle a hamstring or an ankle all year and be mediocre? If Bryant doesn't have an immediate big play impact on the field, as I predict he won't(at least not near consistently), Austin is the only proven player to be considered a threat to score on any play other than Jones but obviously he can't be going out for a pass every down(or even be on the field).

With Rodgers you have what looks to be(and really was at the end of 09) a stabilized offensive line. Rodgers has more vertical weapons and proven dynamic threats that defenses must respect or be gouged by. GB runs more spread packages and empty sets(esp in the redzone) allowing Rodgers to freely run and gun, oftentimes for long stretches in games. Romo and the Cowboys always seem to come back their 22 personnel to get the RBs their looks and find favorable matchups for Witten. Last year, the Packers, while breaking in Jermichael Finely for a starting role, often had situations in which they could have lined up in classic 21 or 22 alignments with Donald Lee as TE1 and Finley TE2 but rather chose to flex Finley wide or into an H-Back position allowing the offense to stay spread and not handicap Rodgers by keeping weapons off the field or narrowing the space to operate his precision passing.

Rodgers should have more opportunities to throw(and rush) for touchdowns whether it be from big plays or redzone spreads.

 

[DoubleG]

Who do you take and why....I know Rodgers is the man this year and the last two seasons.. but i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10...what you guys think?

Hjelle has nailed the reasons why Rodgers is far an away a better choice. I'd like to see this "strong case" you speak of.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Who do you take and why....I know Rodgers is the man this year and the last two seasons.. but i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10...what you guys think?

What is the strong case?

 

[SoopaCee]

last year rodgers has 60 more points than Romo in my league........in '08 it was 107

fantasy wise that not too big of a drop off......considering Rodgers is a 1/2 rounder.....and Romo is a 3/4

your actually getting the value where you draft them......but IMO.....i rather wait and get romo then get a QB early....because with your first 2 picks (rb/wr, wr/wr) your making up those points and then some

the other positive for both of them is their teams are usually on the playoff bubble, so they play the whole season.....no "resting players" concerns

 

[Horses Mouth]

i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10

can you elaborate?

 

[Brothers Mayhem]

I'll explain why I like Romo over Rodgers this year:

1. As mentioned earlier - when you compare fantasy points between the two, while Rodgers results are better, they aren't better by leaps and bounds. In the last 32 games, Rodgers has averaged 370.35 fantasy points per season, or 11.6 fppg. Romo, in his last 29 games, has averaged 301.1 fp per season, or 10.4 fppg. (I used games played in '08 and '09) Thats a difference of 1.2 fppg. However, for that extra 1.2 points - you used a #1 pick.

2. When you consider that Rodgers has finished as the top QB foe the last 2 years. Drafting him, you are hoping he, at a minimum, repeats what he did in the previous year. When you are on top already - it becomes a different challenge to beat your own numbers. In contrast - Romo has yet to peak, by most opinions. At a minimum - he still has room to improve upon his numbers.

3. Someone mentioned earlier that Romo will face some tenacious DE's this year. I agree. Unfortunately, if every one of them picked up a couple of sacks a piece (which they won't), that only accounts for a dozen or so plays. Romo will likely throw the ball 30+ times per game this year. (He threw 450 passes in '08 and 550 passes in '09...trending upward pretty quickly) Those sacks will only create more fantasy points for Romo as he will now be throwing on 1st and 15, 2 and 12, etc. a dozen or so more times this year. Factor in an increase of receivers, while admittedly Dez is a rookie and is unproven, however, reports look good - at a minimum...I would expect Romo to repeat his numbers from last year, which we already know is 1.2 points less per game than Rodgers, but comes with a 3rd or 4th round price tag. However, I suspect that as we get closer to the beginning of the season - Romo's ADP is going to climb, if it already hasn't.

4. Finally, I'll close with this - Rodgers accumulated his #1 QB ADP by dominating in his division as well as the games out of his division. The Bears and the Lions should be more improved this year and less likely to roll over for the Packers as easily as they did over the last couple of seasons. Dallas however, is in an extremely tough division. (and has been for the last few years) Romo finished a whopping 1.2 fppg less than Rodgers playing in a much tougher division, but this year, one could argue that Dallas is improved and that Philly has dropped off some.

When you consider what you have to pay for Rodgers compared to Romo, combined with the notion that Romo looks to become more active passing with an improved WR group - assuming both QB's play the entire year healthy, Romo is the better value (IMO) with the strong possibility of becoming next year's #1 fantasy QB.

 

[Yitbos69]

i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10

can you elaborate?

I think the strong case for Romo is more in where you will draft him compared to Rodgers...Rodges current ADP is 9th as the #1 QB off the board...Romo is 38th and the 6th QB off the board....So you pay a 1st for Rodgers or a 4th for Romo. So if you think that Romo can be the #1 QB in 2010 which I do.... this is an easy choice...wait and take Romo

 

[Tyrion]

i think a strong case can be made for romo to be the top QB for '10

can you elaborate?

I think the strong case for Romo is more in where you will draft him compared to Rodgers...Rodges current ADP is 9th as the #1 QB off the board...Romo is 38th and the 6th QB off the board....So you pay a 1st for Rodgers or a 4th for Romo. So if you think that Romo can be the #1 QB in 2010 which I do.... this is an easy choice...wait and take Romo

Excellent points made by others in this thread on draft position. I like both QBs and I have already said what I think Romo can do this year in the Romo spotlight. Another edge I will give Romo is that he plays weeks 11-16 in Domes, mostly at home, except for one game he plays in fair weather Arizona. Rodgers? Not so much...

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

With Rodgers you have what looks to be(and really was at the end of 09) a stabilized offensive line.

The OT's got a year older as well...how long do they last? They drafted Bulaga...who I view as a RT...when will he be ready? Can Clifton hold up vs KVB, Allen, Peppers?

Rodgers has more vertical weapons and proven dynamic threats that defenses must respect or be gouged by.

The only proven threats are Driver and Jennings. Jones and Nelson aren't proven...neither has topped 50 catches or 700 yards in a season. Finley came on in the second half of the season....but proven would be at least a year of good production....last year he was 55/676/5.

GB runs more spread packages and empty sets(esp in the redzone) allowing Rodgers to freely run and gun, oftentimes for long stretches in games.

This is what elevates Rodgers and declines his supporting cast. In the Red Zone it could be anyone as the target...including Havner, Kuhn.

 

[brownhelmets]

I play in a pretty QB heavy scoring lead, so I would still probably take Rogers in the 1st and not look back. Standard scoring leagues, I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either. I think Rogers is a much safer pick at his ADP then RBs that go around the same time, so the argument that you aren't gaining much by picking Rogers early may not hold a ton of water to me.

Consider getting Mendenhall in the first and pairing him with Romo a couple rounds later vs. Rogers in the 1st and someone like Jonothan Stewart in the 3rd, which is about his ADP (actually lower according to fantasty football calculator.

I personally don't think the stratagy gives you a huge advantage to wait on a QB even in a standard scoring league.

 

[SoopaCee]

I play in a pretty QB heavy scoring lead, so I would still probably take Rogers in the 1st and not look back. Standard scoring leagues, I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either. I think Rogers is a much safer pick at his ADP then RBs that go around the same time, so the argument that you aren't gaining much by picking Rogers early may not hold a ton of water to me.Consider getting Mendenhall in the first and pairing him with Romo a couple rounds later vs. Rogers in the 1st and someone like Jonothan Stewart in the 3rd, which is about his ADP (actually lower according to fantasty football calculator.I personally don't think the stratagy gives you a huge advantage to wait on a QB even in a standard scoring league.

Consider getting S.Jax in the first and pairing him with Romo a couple rounds later vs. Rogers in the 1st and someone like Jonothan Stewart in the 3rd (in ppr league)^^^that sounds better....ill take romo

 

[strykerpks]

I'll explain why I like Romo over Rodgers this year:

1. As mentioned earlier - when you compare fantasy points between the two, while Rodgers results are better, they aren't better by leaps and bounds. In the last 32 games, Rodgers has averaged 370.35 fantasy points per season, or 11.6 fppg. Romo, in his last 29 games, has averaged 301.1 fp per season, or 10.4 fppg. (I used games played in '08 and '09) Thats a difference of 1.2 fppg. However, for that extra 1.2 points - you used a #1 pick.

2. When you consider that Rodgers has finished as the top QB foe the last 2 years. Drafting him, you are hoping he, at a minimum, repeats what he did in the previous year. When you are on top already - it becomes a different challenge to beat your own numbers. In contrast - Romo has yet to peak, by most opinions. At a minimum - he still has room to improve upon his numbers.

3. Someone mentioned earlier that Romo will face some tenacious DE's this year. I agree. Unfortunately, if every one of them picked up a couple of sacks a piece (which they won't), that only accounts for a dozen or so plays. Romo will likely throw the ball 30+ times per game this year. (He threw 450 passes in '08 and 550 passes in '09...trending upward pretty quickly) Those sacks will only create more fantasy points for Romo as he will now be throwing on 1st and 15, 2 and 12, etc. a dozen or so more times this year. Factor in an increase of receivers, while admittedly Dez is a rookie and is unproven, however, reports look good - at a minimum...I would expect Romo to repeat his numbers from last year, which we already know is 1.2 points less per game than Rodgers, but comes with a 3rd or 4th round price tag. However, I suspect that as we get closer to the beginning of the season - Romo's ADP is going to climb, if it already hasn't.

4. Finally, I'll close with this - Rodgers accumulated his #1 QB ADP by dominating in his division as well as the games out of his division. The Bears and the Lions should be more improved this year and less likely to roll over for the Packers as easily as they did over the last couple of seasons. Dallas however, is in an extremely tough division. (and has been for the last few years) Romo finished a whopping 1.2 fppg less than Rodgers playing in a much tougher division, but this year, one could argue that Dallas is improved and that Philly has dropped off some.

When you consider what you have to pay for Rodgers compared to Romo, combined with the notion that Romo looks to become more active passing with an improved WR group - assuming both QB's play the entire year healthy, Romo is the better value (IMO) with the strong possibility of becoming next year's #1 fantasy QB.

I agree somewhat that depending on when they're drafted, Romo probably offers better value. However, I have to question the reasoning of the bolded.

Why is a 30 year old QB going into his 5th year as starter "yet to peak" and in who's opinion?

Whereas a 26 year old QB going into his 3rd year as starter is going to decline? Rodgers may not go above and beyond his previous numbers but I see no reason why it's unlikely he matches his career averages...somewhere around 4000/30/10 with potential upside.

 

[fightingillini]

I'll take Romo, since I can get him 1-2 rounds later than Rodgers. I think that their stats will be close at the end of the year, with Rodgers scoring about 1 pt per game more.

 

[Brothers Mayhem]

I'll explain why I like Romo over Rodgers this year:

1. As mentioned earlier - when you compare fantasy points between the two, while Rodgers results are better, they aren't better by leaps and bounds. In the last 32 games, Rodgers has averaged 370.35 fantasy points per season, or 11.6 fppg. Romo, in his last 29 games, has averaged 301.1 fp per season, or 10.4 fppg. (I used games played in '08 and '09) Thats a difference of 1.2 fppg. However, for that extra 1.2 points - you used a #1 pick.

2. When you consider that Rodgers has finished as the top QB foe the last 2 years. Drafting him, you are hoping he, at a minimum, repeats what he did in the previous year. When you are on top already - it becomes a different challenge to beat your own numbers. In contrast - Romo has yet to peak, by most opinions. At a minimum - he still has room to improve upon his numbers.

3. Someone mentioned earlier that Romo will face some tenacious DE's this year. I agree. Unfortunately, if every one of them picked up a couple of sacks a piece (which they won't), that only accounts for a dozen or so plays. Romo will likely throw the ball 30+ times per game this year. (He threw 450 passes in '08 and 550 passes in '09...trending upward pretty quickly) Those sacks will only create more fantasy points for Romo as he will now be throwing on 1st and 15, 2 and 12, etc. a dozen or so more times this year. Factor in an increase of receivers, while admittedly Dez is a rookie and is unproven, however, reports look good - at a minimum...I would expect Romo to repeat his numbers from last year, which we already know is 1.2 points less per game than Rodgers, but comes with a 3rd or 4th round price tag. However, I suspect that as we get closer to the beginning of the season - Romo's ADP is going to climb, if it already hasn't.

4. Finally, I'll close with this - Rodgers accumulated his #1 QB ADP by dominating in his division as well as the games out of his division. The Bears and the Lions should be more improved this year and less likely to roll over for the Packers as easily as they did over the last couple of seasons. Dallas however, is in an extremely tough division. (and has been for the last few years) Romo finished a whopping 1.2 fppg less than Rodgers playing in a much tougher division, but this year, one could argue that Dallas is improved and that Philly has dropped off some.

When you consider what you have to pay for Rodgers compared to Romo, combined with the notion that Romo looks to become more active passing with an improved WR group - assuming both QB's play the entire year healthy, Romo is the better value (IMO) with the strong possibility of becoming next year's #1 fantasy QB.

I agree somewhat that depending on when they're drafted, Romo probably offers better value. However, I have to question the reasoning of the bolded.

Why is a 30 year old QB going into his 5th year as starter "yet to peak" and in who's opinion?

Whereas a 26 year old QB going into his 3rd year as starter is going to decline? Rodgers may not go above and beyond his previous numbers but I see no reason why it's unlikely he matches his career averages...somewhere around 4000/30/10 with potential upside.

I'm sorry Strykerpks - I should have clarified who's opinion I was referencing. It isn't anyone in particular. Just the collective "side" that I interpreted most of the articles I have been reading were coming down on. Many of the staff writers and blogtalk hosts are commenting how they feel Romo is in for a big year...well more than I hear he isn't going to have one anyways. Those were the opinions that I was referencing. (And of course, I agree with most all of them) Also, I didn't intend for my post to sound as if I thought Rodgers was going to have a down year or anything. He may very well make it 3 years in a row as the #1 QB in fantasy football. I was just trying to communicate that if you are drafting Rodgers with a 1st rd. pick, I believe you would have to be doing it in hopes he matches or improves upon last years numbers which is challenging. I mean Driver had his surgery, so maybe he performs better or Finley is more seasoned now so maybe he contributes more than he already has, or preferrably, maybe Grant lives up to expectations and provides the run game to make play action more effective (improved O-line performance) - something along those lines will have to happen so that Rodgers can improve upon his numbers IMO.

But with Romo - you can get Rodgers-like performance for a better value pick, in addition, Romo has improved his offense where it is likely his numbers will improve as well. (admittedly, it remains to be seen)

Hope that clarifies the intent of my post earlier. Just making my case for drafting Romo instead of Rodgers - of course either are welcomed to my roster at anytime.

 

[Hjelle9]

With Rodgers you have what looks to be(and really was at the end of 09) a stabilized offensive line.

The OT's got a year older as well...how long do they last? They drafted Bulaga...who I view as a RT...when will he be ready? Can Clifton hold up vs KVB, Allen, Peppers?

Rodgers has more vertical weapons and proven dynamic threats that defenses must respect or be gouged by.

The only proven threats are Driver and Jennings. Jones and Nelson aren't proven...neither has topped 50 catches or 700 yards in a season. Finley came on in the second half of the season....but proven would be at least a year of good production....last year he was 55/676/5.

GB runs more spread packages and empty sets(esp in the redzone) allowing Rodgers to freely run and gun, oftentimes for long stretches in games.

This is what elevates Rodgers and declines his supporting cast. In the Red Zone it could be anyone as the target...including Havner, Kuhn.

The Packers drafted him to play LT and that's where he will play as the backup to Clifton this year. TJ Lang has shown he can handle the left tackle position if needed but the staff prefers him on the right. Clifton goes down, bring in bulaga, he can't do it, switch him with Lang(maybe this will reveal Bulagas destiny to be a career RT). This is a much more manageable and stable plan than the Packers had in place last year, having an unproven Barbre win the right job vs no competiton in camp and sliding out the LG to cover for any Clifton injury weakened the whole line significantly since neither tackle could pass block, like at all. Maybe one of Ted's picks like Breno will actually prove competent, too. Besides, even with all hell breaking loose on Rodgers, the Packers schemed new looks for pass protection(poor finley getting stuck in the backfield blocking) and Rodgers still put up his numbers. Things can only be better with both starting tackles under contract to start the season and clear depth behind them.Jones and Nelson have proven themselves to be what they need to be(especially Jones). Two guys that if you don't pay attention to becuase you're all over Driver and Jennings, you will be beaten for a big gain(Nelson can hurt you deep but he's more likely to hurt you like Driver by picking up a huge first down after a quick broken tackle). They aren't featured enough by the offense to rack up starter stats and that's fine, they aren't good enough or consitent enough to constantly look to anyway. Especially when you have Finley Jennings and Driver to trust. Discount Jermichael Finley if you want, it seems silly to me, but you really cannot have more questions than the possibility of his knee or ankle getting tweaked. At the very least maybe you noticed a slight skill disparity between he and Donald Lee that Rodgers may now utilize.

I agree that his supporting cast is declined by the his stuation except for Finley. He's the beneficiary of the whole packers system right now. He's the most interchangeable weapon in the starting lineup and has BY FAR the best size and most consistent hands. Rodgers throws 30 TDs without a serious redzone threat the majority of the year or an offensive line and now he has a 6'5" fade catching beast and line stability and we want to discount his prospects?

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I would like to end all discussion about Romo being a candidate for the top QB. You should not take him any earlier than the 5th round, especially if you play in my league.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

With Rodgers you have what looks to be(and really was at the end of 09) a stabilized offensive line.

The OT's got a year older as well...how long do they last? They drafted Bulaga...who I view as a RT...when will he be ready? Can Clifton hold up vs KVB, Allen, Peppers?

Rodgers has more vertical weapons and proven dynamic threats that defenses must respect or be gouged by.

The only proven threats are Driver and Jennings. Jones and Nelson aren't proven...neither has topped 50 catches or 700 yards in a season. Finley came on in the second half of the season....but proven would be at least a year of good production....last year he was 55/676/5.

GB runs more spread packages and empty sets(esp in the redzone) allowing Rodgers to freely run and gun, oftentimes for long stretches in games.

This is what elevates Rodgers and declines his supporting cast. In the Red Zone it could be anyone as the target...including Havner, Kuhn.

The Packers drafted him to play LT and that's where he will play as the backup to Clifton this year. TJ Lang has shown he can handle the left tackle position if needed but the staff prefers him on the right. Clifton goes down, bring in bulaga, he can't do it, switch him with Lang(maybe this will reveal Bulagas destiny to be a career RT). This is a much more manageable and stable plan than the Packers had in place last year, having an unproven Barbre win the right job vs no competiton in camp and sliding out the LG to cover for any Clifton injury weakened the whole line significantly since neither tackle could pass block, like at all. Maybe one of Ted's picks like Breno will actually prove competent, too. Besides, even with all hell breaking loose on Rodgers, the Packers schemed new looks for pass protection(poor finley getting stuck in the backfield blocking) and Rodgers still put up his numbers. Things can only be better with both starting tackles under contract to start the season and clear depth behind them.Both OT's are 33....odds are they will decline(just like Al Harris and Charles Woodson). Can one of these middle round picks step up? Possibly. Can Bulaga emerge as a true LT? It's possible. He isn't overly athletic, doesn't have long arms, and slipped in the draft for a reason, in an NFL climate that puts a premium on keeping QB's upright.

Jones and Nelson have proven themselves to be what they need to be(especially Jones). Two guys that if you don't pay attention to becuase you're all over Driver and Jennings, you will be beaten for a big gain(Nelson can hurt you deep but he's more likely to hurt you like Driver by picking up a huge first down after a quick broken tackle). They aren't featured enough by the offense to rack up starter stats and that's fine, they aren't good enough or consitent enough to constantly look to anyway. Especially when you have Finley Jennings and Driver to trust. Discount Jermichael Finley if you want, it seems silly to me, but you really cannot have more questions than the possibility of his knee or ankle getting tweaked. At the very least maybe you noticed a slight skill disparity between he and Donald Lee that Rodgers may now utilize.

Then how are they proven? They aren't....they are overhyped backup WR's at this point. Steve Breaston put up 1000 yards as a WR3 and he wasn't getting the credit Nelson/Jones get.

I discount Finely b/c everyone thinks he is Gates right now. He had a decent run at the end of the year and one playoff game. When he puts it together for a full season....then he is proven or a star.

I agree that his supporting cast is declined by the his stuation except for Finley. He's the beneficiary of the whole packers system right now. He's the most interchangeable weapon in the starting lineup and has BY FAR the best size and most consistent hands. Rodgers throws 30 TDs without a serious redzone threat the majority of the year or an offensive line and now he has a 6'5" fade catching beast and line stability and we want to discount his prospects?

Finley had 55/676/5....many TE's topped that last year. I know he is young and yall think he will develop into the "beast". But Rodgers spreads the ball around...which is why Jennings is losing value....and why Colston is losing value with the Saints.

The earlier post was pure optimism and I had to counter his argument with how they could be worse.