The argument is preposterous. (I'd use spicier words, but I'm trying to be polite.) Leaning on the argument of "intangibles" is to take this debate out of the realm of science and relegate it to something mystical, which I refuse to do.
Furthermore, to argue that Roethlisberger is by default a better quarterback because he has two rings is to compare teams, not quarterbacks. We're trying to compare quarterbacks here; in order to do that, we must separate the quarterback from his team. There is such a thing as winning a Super Bowl in spite of your quarterback, and that's what the Steelers (not to mention the Ravens) have managed to do. Unquestionably, Roethlisberger has played for winning teams, studded with probable Hall of Famers, while Rodgers has not. That's not a mark on Rodgers -- that's a mark on his team and on the staff assembling and preparing the team.
Rodgers took over team whose defense became decimated with injuries and still put out an amazing performance. Roethlisberger and Dilfer had the luxury of playing with some of the most incredible defensive units ever assembled, and their numbers were paltry compared to Rodgers'. The fact that Roethlisberger had to have 6 comeback wins in his rookie year, despite the overpowering defense, shows how anemic their offensive output was.
Comeback wins aren't a sign of greatness in my eyes. They're a symptom of a failure to put a team away early in the game.
I find it ironic, yet all too predictable, that a lot of the same people who came up with this arbitrary criterion that Rodgers had to pull a victory out of his ass within the last two minutes of a game still aren't willing to give him the credit he deserves.
I showed exhaustively in another thread that despite enduring adversity the likes of which Favre never could have imagined, Rodgers is assembling perhaps the greatest portfolio of first- and second-year performances in the history of the NFL. Yet people still aren't satisfied. Incredible.
The Ravens and Steelers won rings in spite of their quarterbacks. The Packers are losing in spite of their quarterback. Even in his second year, Rodgers stands head and shoulders above Roethlisberger.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
You make a lot of good points. I argued in the Favre threads months ago that Rodgers' hasn't brought our team down and has delivered the majority of the time in the fourth quarter. I guess the most obvious conclusion I can come to is that you can't compare the two. Just as you express in your post; "Leaning on the argument of 'intangibles' is to take this debate out of the realm of science and relegate it to something mystical."
Rodgers' has only the been the starter for 2 years while Roethlisberger has had the benefits of 6. In contrast Rodgers' had three years to sit on the bench and study the game while Roethlisberger was thrust into the starting QB role his rookie season. How many quarterbacks have succeeded in the same position as Roethlisberger? Rodgers' has also benefited from coach continuity while Roethlisberger changed head coaches and offensive coordinators without missing a beat.
It's also interesting that the Steelers went 6-10 with Tommy Maddox at the helm the year before they went 15-1 with Roethlisberger there, despite the Steelers winning "in spite of their QB" as you say.
Fourth quarter comebacks are the result of an "anemic offense?" From 2004-2007 the Steelers never ranked lower than 12th in points.
I agree having a top 10 defense every year has benefited Big Ben immensely but to negate his contributions because of that is ridiculous.
I also agree comparing wins is the equivalent to comparing entire teams. However it's obvious that when a QB plays well they have a better chance of winning versus a QB playing poorly. Roethlisberger has played well enough to win two Super Bowls in five seasons.
I also continue to contend that statistics aren't as important as everyone likes to think.
In the long run we can't compare the two. They are different situations and different people all together. But to say Roethlisberger isn't a good quarterback is plain wrong. He's truly not an elite passer but he's a playmaker--a warrior. Rodgers' still has plenty of time and is a much better passer but does he have the cajones that Big Ben possesses? That remains to be seen.
EDIT: Once again, I'm not hating on Rodgers. Ultimately a quarterback is expected to take his team down the field and score points. Rodgers has done that only to be failed by his defense plenty of times but he also has let his team down before. How many drives have we had to settle for field goals because Rodgers couldn't punch it in? How many of Rodgers' sacks are actually his fault and not his offensive line? There are a lot of things to consider in this debate but I still would pick Roethlisberger because of his experience, winning and history of facing adversity. Rodgers may be the best fantasy quarterback but we're talking about reality here.
Ack, how can I not be a homer though? I'd definitely take Rodgers as my QB. If Rodgers was on the Steelers I think they'd instantly have a better offense. However I think he'd have even more sacks than behind our offensive line. Roethlisberger's mobility and ability to shake off sacks is just unmatched in the league today (Favre of old does come to mind). Of course if Roethlisberger were in our pass-first offense instead of the Steelers grind them strategy out whose to say he wouldn't be putting up unreal statistics? I will concede this debate because I think we all have good points and there is no one right answer.