This Big Ben versus Rodgers argument is ridiculous. First of all, Roethlisberger wins because he has two super bowl rings, who cares if he had the number one defense? Didn't he take his team down the field to score the winning touchdown in the last Super Bowl at the very end of the game? He's a proven winner and nothing can supplant that.
Yes, stat-wise Rodgers is a better QB, it's a no-brainer. However when you watch Ben play he just gets the game. He has a level of understanding that most quarterbacks don't. He takes a lot of bad sacks but half the time he gets out of them and makes a play. He inspires his teammates and makes them play better. I'm not saying Rodgers doesn't do these things but he had more time to prepare while sitting behind Favre for three years. Roethlisberger was thrust in as a rookie and went 15-1. A lot of that is the defense but for a a first-year QB that's impressive. Until Aaron gets to the playoffs and starts winning big games against good teams he can't be considered equivalent to Roethlisberger. Rodgers may be the better passer but Big Ben is simply a winner and a playmaker.
"Rockmolder" wrote:
So what on earth does that stand for? Being a winner? Do you consider Trent Dilfer a better QB than Rodgers because he's a winner? And what about Marino? He's a worse QB than Big Ben because he had a bad supporting cast his entire career?
I'm pretty sure that I could be a winner in that first Super Bowl the Steelers won. He worked against them more than he did with them.
That said, Ben has been doing pretty well, now he's carrying the team, but notice anything in the record? He's not carrying his team now his defense isn't the nr. 1. And that's with a pretty potent running game, which he's had his entire career, as well.
I don't think that he's replacable with just any QB. I actually think that he's one of the betters guys in the league. I don't think, however, that he's as good as Rodgers. I actually would've put Cutler ahead of him at the start of the season, but I guess that that isn't true, anymore.
"djcubez" wrote:
Here's how Roethlisberger ranks throughout the years.
2004: 22nd in Yards, 19th in TDs, 5th in QB Rating, 4th in COMP%
2005: 21st in Yards, 14th in TDs, 3rd in QB Rating, 9th in COMP% (missed 4 games this season)
2006: 8th in Yards, 13th in TDs, 21st in QB Rating, 19th in COMP%
2007: 14th in Yards, 3rd in TDs, 2nd in QB Rating, 7th in COMP%
2008: 14th in Yards, 15th in TDs, 24th in QB Rating, 21st in COMP%
2009: 6th in Yards, 9th in TDs, 8th in QB Rating, 3rd in COMP%
He's had pretty up and down years statistically but not bad overall. Here's the stats I find important:
2004: 6 fourth quarter comebacks, 15 wins, 1 playoff win
2005: 2 fourth quarter comebacks, 11 wins, 4 playoff wins
2006: 3 fourth quarter comebacks, 8 wins
2007: 2 fourth quarter comebacks, 10 wins
2008: 7 fourth quarter comebacks, 12 wins, 3 playoff wins
2009: 1 fourth quarter comeback, 6 wins
Roethlisberger has an 8-2 playoff record. Roethlisberger had SIX fourth quarter comebacks in his ROOKIE season. Roethlisberger seamlessly went through a head coach and offensive coordinator change.
Roethlisberger is simply a winner, that's my argument and I'm sticking to it. No one's saying Rodgers' can't be better, he's just not there yet. In fact Rodger's has only beaten three teams coming into a game with a winning record his whole career (2009 Dallas (7-2), 2008 Colts (3-2) & Bears (5-4)).
EDIT: Yes, I agree that judging a player's career based on wins and losses is not the best comparison. However the QB is the most important position in football. The QB gets the ball on every offensive play (excluding wildcat/special teams). The QB makes reads on the defense. The QB makes adjustments at the line. The QB chooses wear and who to throw the ball to. The QB is ultimately the guide to the offense and without a good QB teams rarely succeed. Name me 5 QB's that have been horrendous and have won a Super Bowl. Dilfer may not be a better passer than Marino but he made good decisions that helped his team win games. The team with the most points wins football games, the offensive unit scores points and the QB is in charge of the offense. Therefore the QB, over any other player on the football field, is directly tied to the wins and losses of his football team. To state otherwise is ignorant.
EDIT 2: Please don't call me a Rodgers-hater either. I love the shit out of Rodgers and believe we got very lucky having him on our team.