It's always interesting to see that the QB who digs his team into a hole and finally gets them out of that same hole gets all the praise, while the QB who plays consistently well is taken for granted.
Not saying that that's totally the case here, but Ben throws quite a few interceptions to TDs and, when he finally takes his team back, he gets all the praise. Not the vaunted defense that stops the other team, giving Ben 4 drives to mount a comeback, but the offense, which finally scores after multiple failed drives.
Just for some reference, their offense was the 22nd in the league last year, with the passing game ranking 17th. To me, that means you can't move the ball and shows that you've been riding the coattail of your defense quite effectively. Just like Terry Bradshaw.
Rodgers, on the other hand, let our offense quite effectively, while having about the same problems as the Steelers. Bad o-line, ours being a bit worse, but good receiving core, ours being a bit better. Problem is, he didn't have the nr. 1 ranked defense, so they didn't win any play-off games for him. They actually let a lot of comeback games slip away.
They actually worked against us more than with us, but that's a whole different story.
I can imagine that that isn't everything, though, but next to all of that, Rodgers has more impressive statistics himself and his throws and reads look a lot better and cleaner. Ben is a tank, he won't go down and maybe Rodgers doesn't make great pre-snap reads, but I can't imagine that you'd take Ben over Rodgers for just those reasons.
I don't believe in magic intangibles. Winning is not in your blood, or something.
"porky88" wrote:
Again, those stats are all cute, but they're stats. They're there for guidance, but I'm not making a final decision when I can watch the two players play and come to a final conclusion using my eyes. If you believe Rodgers, who has never played in the postseason yet is better than Ben, then that's obviously your view. It's based solely on stats though which I don't believe is end all or tell all. The best stats don't always = championships. They help, but again, nothing is ever constant. Football is and never will be that easy.
Players that play well on the big stage like a Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees (tonight) and yes, a Ben Roethlisberger have that extra "something" that separates them from a player like a Matt Schaub.
Aaron Brooks in 2002 and 2003 averaged 25 touchdowns, 3,500-plus yards. Keep in mind, I believe it was in this exact same offense. Is he on a similar level as say Aaron Rodgers though? Of course not because of things that are shown when they play. A few things worth noting are: Rodgers reads defenses better, makes better decisions, and I think he's a better leader. On the bookend of those seasons, Brooks had some nice numbers as well. That was it though.
Ben only has topped those numbers in one season, but so has Rodgers. You really think Brooks is a better QB than Ben Roethlisberger? That's what the numbers say, but again, numbers are never bulletproof. Rodgers is only in his second year and will have his second solid season. In fact, he's on pace to have an amazing season.
Roetherlisger had 32 touchdowns, 11 INTs, over 3,000 yards and completed 65% of his passes. His QB rating was 104.1. His team won ten games. This was in 2007. He's on pace to throw over 4,000 yards this season and 25 touchdown passes. Only 15 INTs which isn't that bad. If he keeps up this pace, that's his second "stat" year for you to wrap your head around. Ironically, the same as Rodgers.
Ben is only 27 which is two years older than Rodgers. There is still along ways to go for both of them.
It's almost like an insult in your view that someone would put Ben ahead of Rodgers. I'm not saying Ben is a much better QB than Rodgers or that it's not close. I think it is.
"Rockmolder" wrote: