I have always made it a strict practice not to respond to criticism of something I have written.

That doesn't mean I didn't read the criticism. I just didn't respond. However, that was a vestige of my days at a newspaper, where space was at a premium and not that many people took the time to sit down and actually write and then mail a letter.

OnMilwaukee.com and other online publications have vastly changed the landscape for that kind of thing. Not only do they provide space for comment and criticism, they actually solicit it and make it easy to comment and criticize. And so, I've made a decision to get in on this wonderful two-way communication.

My column last week was a perfect example. I wrote about questions I have regarding Aaron Rodgers' ability to be an inspirational quarterback. I made the claim that inspiration is a big part of sports, especially football -- a game where emotional peaks play such a vital part.

I made the point that Rodgers obviously had some strong qualities, but that I had suspicions about whether he was the kind of quarterback who could light a fire under teammates. I claimed that he compiled wonderful individual statistics, but that he was falling short in the victory category.

Well you could hear the avalanche of criticism from Green Bay to Milwaukee. I went through the criticism very carefully.

Of 24 comments, 22 of were critical. Five of those were absurd and added absolutely nothing to the debate. You five guys know who you are, so I don't have to list your names here.

The other critical comments were thoughtful and serious. I found it interesting that 10 of the critics used statistics to prove their points. The very point of my column was that Rodgers might have great statistics but that wasn't enough for the quarterback of a champion.

I can easily see how readers would disagree with what I wrote. But, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was asking a question that can only be answered at some point in the future.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that the other A-Rod, Alex Rodriguez, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Here's the highest paid player in baseball. He's got stats coming out of his ears, but not a single world championship ring on his finger. Is it all his fault? Of course not. But, as such a star, does he bear more of the blame than his other, more mortal, teammates? I think the answer is yes.

I remember having a whiskey-lubricated conversation with Lynn Dickey, the former quarterback for the Packers. His team was suffering through an abysmal season and Dickey was way down in the dumps.

I tried to boost his spirits. First, I bought him another drink and then I said it wasn't his fault that his team sucked.

"I'm the quarterback," he slurred. "I'm supposed to make the rest of them better. All of them. That's who I'm supposed to be."

It was from players like Dickey that I learned about this intangible quality and it became something I have always looked for in athletes who are in leadership positions. Those athletes don't always win championships, but they do inspire their teammates to be better, and in some cases, much better.

I stand by my concern over whether Rodgers is the kind of quarterback who can create a climate of inspiration that infuses his teammates with performance beyond their abilities.

For those of you who used the Talkback feature -- keep it up. Even the five of you who are silly, personal or looking for applause.

Clap, clap, clap.