Leroy Butler: Rodgers “much better” than Romo

by

Interesting nugget here from Leroy Butler (originally from jsonline, but I link to it here at si.com).

Ex-Packer: Rodgers better than Romo Former Packers all-pro safety LeRoy Butler analyzed the Cowboys-Packers game: “I saw the game in person and I played 12 years so I want people to know that, from what I saw, Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tony Romo. Based on throwing the ball in certain areas. The interception Romo threw to Collins and some of these other passes and the way he moves around, Aaron is a much better quarterback. Aaron doesn’t put his team in those kinds of situations. When you look at Romo’s stats, you’ll see those long passes and those glamour things. Aaron’s stats are OK, too, but if he gets the opportunity to throw 40 or 50 times a game, he’s going to be good.” (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Leroy Butler isn’t afraid to say what he thinks, and if you pay enough attention to what he does say (weekly game keys, sports radio interviews, etc), you’ll learn that he has a tremendously insightful and fascinating take on things. This is an interesting comment considering I compared the two on Sunday night saying to my dad that I thought they had very similar styles (agile, good arms, smart passers mostly, choose to run in similar circumstances, etc). I’m encouraged that Leroy believes this because he often ends up being right.

That said, I wouldn’t go as far as Leroy does here just yet. While Romo’s interception was a really bad one (2 of our guys were waiting to just pick it off), he had some other really nice throws and played a solid game. Both of his long “glamour” passes to Austin hit the guy in stride and he had a bunch of other quality passes/good decisions out there Sunday night. I’d say he played a better overall game than Rodgers (though I’ll concede he faced a bit less pressure than Rodgers – though he got pounded on the Austin TD). Rodgers played decently, but he had some questionable throws too – one of which should have been an easy pick for Pacman. I think what Butler is getting at here is that he thinks Romo is a riskier passer than Rodgers and may not be quite the game manager Rodgers may be. That may end up being true, but I do think it’s premature to reach a conclusion like this after just 3 games. Romo has played at a high level for several years now. He is an established player. So far, I agree with Butler that Rodgers looks really good. But I’d stop short of claiming he’s “much better” than one of the best QBs in the NFL…for now anyway.

About these ads

4 Responses to “Leroy Butler: Rodgers “much better” than Romo”

  1. Cate Says:

    Well, good for Butler being able to figure that out Sunday night. The offensive line played so badly it was hard to tell if Rodgers was good or bad since he only ever had about .05 seconds to throw before Dallas had him on the ground.

    FWIW, I think Romo’s a little overrated. Personally I think the guy is really a neat guy; down to earth, personable, and nice, but on the field I think he’s really good, but I don’t think he’s as good as the hype. Dallas as a whole is as good as the hype but not Romo himself, in my humble, non-expert opinion.

  2. awhayes Says:

    Cate – we’re all “experts” nowadays with this blogging stuff!!!

    O-Line was very weak. Rodgers had high-school-QB-like time to get rid of the ball!

    You make a good point about the fact that Romo plays for a high quality team – I think he’s surrounded by major talent which definitely helps him shine. And you’re right, he is on the ultimate, obnoxiously, over-hyped team in the world. I think a good argument could be made for him falling back to the middle of the pack on a different team. But I still think he’s very good. I do think his performance this year in the playoffs will be important w/re to figuring out just how good he is.

  3. Aaron Rogders Says:

    I did not realize until now that the reason we were in the strange shotgun formation was because we only had 3 receivers. Jones was mostly out and Martin was out too. For a team that does a lot of 4 and 5 receiver sets, shouldn’t we have 6 to 7 receivers? Can’t we train the backs to be receivers? It also didn’t seem like we did a lot of tightend or back screens. They appeared to be using the tightends and backs for blocking mostly which I can understand. But, quick screens can usually counter the rush I would think.

  4. awhayes Says:

    A Rodg – very much agree. Martin was out and Jones got hurt on the first play (came back in briefly a few plays later but couldn’t walk, much less run). Yes, the 3 receiver option seriously limited us – and we didn’t seem to do much with 2 tight end sets. I really hope this isn’t the case, but I do wonder a bit if the jones injury disrupted MM’s overall game plan. Our passing game plan seemed shallow and predictable.

    I had written in the game keys prior to the game my belief that screens would be helpful against a rush like Dallas’. Now, they were able to often rush just 4-5 guys because our line was so weak, so they have have had some LBs back there to help. But still, I completely agree that screens would have been a useful play against the 4-5 guys who were rushing and being overly aggressive. Misdirection plays also may have helped out quite a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: