Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTF??? Romo worth $108 million??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by njsean View Post
    Two things:

    First, there's a difference between fear of a player and acknowledgement that our opponent would be weaker without him.

    Second, if you're using the fact that the Cowboys lost to suggest that Romo hasn't consistently made our defense look silly, then I guess you just DVR and fastforward to the end score to form your opinion. Fact is, he nearly became a hero, rallying his team back against us to punch a ticket to the post season if not for Bryant's pinky.

    You can point to his bonehead mistakes and stupid picks - and we should be fortunate he makes them - if he ever got his head out of his backside, it would be a nightmare.
    All of this is irrelevant.

    We are 6-2 vs Cowboys when Romo is playing, the last 5 seasons.

    You seem to believe the number of yards Romo passes for vs Giants is far more important than the final score. I don't. (In 2011 the Packers and the Patriots were 31st and 32nd in the league in most yards allowed; yet the Packers went 15-1 and the Patriots made it to the Super Bowl. Ask them which is more important--yards allowed or points allowed, points scored, and wins).

    And, fact is, Romo "nearly" becoming a "hero" is not even close to the same thing as actually being a hero.

    The point about Romo's career--all 7 seasons--that is worthy of criticism is that his "bonehead mistakes and stupid picks" are what Romo is. They are not just an occasional factor that can be forgiven because he offsets them on other critical occasions.

    If, after 7 seasons, he has not gotten "his head out of his backside", as you yourself put it, what makes you think he will the next 6 years?

    Again, you seem to only remember this last season in evaluating Romo's performances vs Giants, when Romo threw for a lot of yards vs Giants. He did do that.

    But even so, he won only 1 of those games. And while you put so much on the issue of Bryant missing the winning TD the second game by "a pinkie", fact is, after 59+ minutes Romo and his team was --with all his "shredding" of our defense--losing the game.

    Your claim is that Giants would "be better off not facing" Romo twice a year. I--and others on this thread, apparently--reject that notion.

    You have no idea Cowboys would automatically be "weaker" without Romo. No idea. Meanwhile, Romo is the devil we know, and we know we have a far better than 50-50 (more like 75%, actually) chance of defeating Cowboys with Romo at the helm. HAIL ROMO!!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
      Romo is the devil we know, and we know we have a far better than 50-50 (more like 75%, actually) chance of defeating Cowboys with Romo at the helm.
      Facts is facts!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
        All of this is irrelevant.

        We are 6-2 vs Cowboys when Romo is playing, the last 5 seasons.

        You seem to believe the number of yards Romo passes for vs Giants is far more important than the final score. I don't. (In 2011 the Packers and the Patriots were 31st and 32nd in the league in most yards allowed; yet the Packers went 15-1 and the Patriots made it to the Super Bowl. Ask them which is more important--yards allowed or points allowed, points scored, and wins).

        And, fact is, Romo "nearly" becoming a "hero" is not even close to the same thing as actually being a hero.

        The point about Romo's career--all 7 seasons--that is worthy of criticism is that his "bonehead mistakes and stupid picks" are what Romo is. They are not just an occasional factor that can be forgiven because he offsets them on other critical occasions.

        If, after 7 seasons, he has not gotten "his head out of his backside", as you yourself put it, what makes you think he will the next 6 years?

        Again, you seem to only remember this last season in evaluating Romo's performances vs Giants, when Romo threw for a lot of yards vs Giants. He did do that.

        But even so, he won only 1 of those games. And while you put so much on the issue of Bryant missing the winning TD the second game by "a pinkie", fact is, after 59+ minutes Romo and his team was --with all his "shredding" of our defense--losing the game.

        Your claim is that Giants would "be better off not facing" Romo twice a year. I--and others on this thread, apparently--reject that notion.

        You have no idea Cowboys would automatically be "weaker" without Romo. No idea. Meanwhile, Romo is the devil we know, and we know we have a far better than 50-50 (more like 75%, actually) chance of defeating Cowboys with Romo at the helm. HAIL ROMO!!
        Actually, all of what you have written is irrelevant (see, I can do that too and it actually makes sense) - especially in regards to records when examining individual players. We've consistently beaten the Patriots, so by your reasoning, you would prefer to face them with Brady than without. The Packers we've beaten pretty soundly the last two times we've played - surely you'd prefer to face them with Rodgers than without if the win was (and of course IS) the most important thing. Speaking of the Packers, they've been pretty consistent against the Vikings of late - I guess they definitely want Peterson there for the long time coming. I could go on...

        It is not just this past season - since he's been the starter Romo has consistently performed well against us even in losing efforts. This is, of course, a TEAM game. The fact that we HAVE beaten the Cowboys with Romo doesn't equate to that the Cowboys wouldn't be even less competitive with a rookie QB or some journymen at the helm.

        I have "No idea" that the Giants would automatically be weaker without Eli Manning. No idea. But I'm sure Cowboys fans would be willing to role those dice. (Que your response about the difference in record which completely misses the point about the difficulty in finding a QB)

        I try not to not to fall into the easy trap of being rude on a message broad, but "reject" the notion all you want, I think anyone who thinks the Cowboys would be better for us with Romo than without is being deliberately thick or belligerent and overly dismissive of a rival.

        EDIT: Regardless of his unfathomably consistent stupidity in the biggest games, he's good enough to keep the Cowboys competitive enough to keep having big games to blow. Jones being able to find another QB to lead a team despite the idiocy that surrounds them at every level at the drop of a hat seems like a strange stance.
        Last edited by njsean; 03-31-2013, 10:35 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by njsean View Post
          Actually, all of what you have written is irrelevant (see, I can do that too and it actually makes sense) - especially in regards to records when examining individual players. We've consistently beaten the Patriots, so by your reasoning, you would prefer to face them with Brady than without. The Packers we've beaten pretty soundly the last two times we've played - surely you'd prefer to face them with Rodgers than without if the win was (and of course IS) the most important thing. Speaking of the Packers, they've been pretty consistent against the Vikings of late - I guess they definitely want Peterson there for the long time coming. I could go on...

          It is not just this past season - since he's been the starter Romo has consistently performed well against us even in losing efforts. This is, of course, a TEAM game. The fact that we HAVE beaten the Cowboys with Romo doesn't equate to that the Cowboys wouldn't be even less competitive with a rookie QB or some journymen at the helm.

          I have "No idea" that the Giants would automatically be weaker without Eli Manning. No idea. But I'm sure Cowboys fans would be willing to role those dice. (Que your response about the difference in record which completely misses the point about the difficulty in finding a QB)

          I try not to not to fall into the easy trap of being rude on a message broad, but "reject" the notion all you want, I think anyone who thinks the Cowboys would be better for us with Romo than without is being deliberately thick or belligerent and overly dismissive of a rival.

          EDIT: Regardless of his unfathomably consistent stupidity in the biggest games, he's good enough to keep the Cowboys competitive enough to keep having big games to blow. Jones being able to find another QB to lead a team despite the idiocy that surrounds them at every level at the drop of a hat seems like a strange stance.
          We aren't the only ones saying that. Even Cowboy fans think it's absolutely ridiculous, not just us or the rest of the division. Nobody is saying Romo is a bad quarterback or that he sucks..but let's be honest here, no matter how competitive, or how "good" he is, he will always have that nitch of making a mistake down the road. I really don't think anyone is shaking in their boots.

          In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter how good of a regular season quarterback he is. It doesn't matter how many 4th quarter comebacks he has. It doesn't matter how many records he breaks, it doesn't matter he's better statistically than Eli. He is an accident waiting to happen, and he will almost always find a way to screw everything up. That is why people are more than happy to have him stay in the division. Him being an accident waiting to happen negates the fact that he is competitive, you're just going to throw an interception with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter with the NFC East Championship on the line anyway.

          That is the sad thing about Tony Romo.
          Last edited by Rudy; 03-31-2013, 10:49 PM.
          Mood: WOOF!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rudyy View Post
            In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter how good of a regular season quarterback he is. It doesn't matter how many 4th quarter comebacks he has. It doesn't matter how many records he breaks, it doesn't matter he's better statistically than Eli. He is an accident waiting to happen, and he will almost always find a way to screw everything up. That is why people are more than happy to have him stay in the division. Him being an accident waiting to happen negates the fact that he is competitive, you're just going to throw an interception with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter with the NFC East Championship on the line anyway.
            A good regular season performance by the Cowboys can keep the Giants out of the playoffs. That's how I see it.

            Look at what happened once the Redskins found a quarterback.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
              A good regular season performance by the Cowboys can keep the Giants out of the playoffs. That's how I see it.

              Look at what happened once the Redskins found a quarterback.
              Well they better change their system or else they won't have him for long.

              And you're right, a good regular season from them can cause us problems, I just don't see it.
              Mood: WOOF!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                A good regular season performance by the Cowboys can keep the Giants out of the playoffs. That's how I see it.

                Look at what happened once the Redskins found a quarterback.
                EXACTLY. I mean I'm not ignorant of the mans shortcomings and I would be fed up if I were a fan of his team, but the fact that he chokes only matters if he's playing us. His defiencies in big games doesn't negate his ability to prevent us, directly or indirectly, from us having our own big games.

                Yes the Cowboys overpaid, but Romo is a symptom of the teams idiocy, not the disease itself. Without him, it's a safe bet they lose the small gameS too.
                Last edited by njsean; 04-01-2013, 03:45 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by njsean View Post
                  Actually, all of what you have written is irrelevant (see, I can do that too and it actually makes sense) - especially in regards to records when examining individual players. We've consistently beaten the Patriots, so by your reasoning, you would prefer to face them with Brady than without. The Packers we've beaten pretty soundly the last two times we've played - surely you'd prefer to face them with Rodgers than without if the win was (and of course IS) the most important thing. Speaking of the Packers, they've been pretty consistent against the Vikings of late - I guess they definitely want Peterson there for the long time coming. I could go on...

                  It is not just this past season - since he's been the starter Romo has consistently performed well against us even in losing efforts. This is, of course, a TEAM game. The fact that we HAVE beaten the Cowboys with Romo doesn't equate to that the Cowboys wouldn't be even less competitive with a rookie QB or some journymen at the helm.

                  I have "No idea" that the Giants would automatically be weaker without Eli Manning. No idea. But I'm sure Cowboys fans would be willing to role those dice. (Que your response about the difference in record which completely misses the point about the difficulty in finding a QB)

                  I try not to not to fall into the easy trap of being rude on a message broad, but "reject" the notion all you want, I think anyone who thinks the Cowboys would be better for us with Romo than without is being deliberately thick or belligerent and overly dismissive of a rival.

                  EDIT: Regardless of his unfathomably consistent stupidity in the biggest games, he's good enough to keep the Cowboys competitive enough to keep having big games to blow. Jones being able to find another QB to lead a team despite the idiocy that surrounds them at every level at the drop of a hat seems like a strange stance.
                  You mad, Bro?

                  I don't dispute your point that Dallas would have difficulty in easily finding an adequate Romo replacement this year. I disagree with your point that Giants should tremble in their boots at the prospect of facing Romo twice a year for the next few years. Two different points of contention.

                  If that disagreement with your point makes me "deliberately thick or belligerent and overly dismissive of a rival", I can live with that.

                  I'm guessing since disagreement with you is considered to be "rude" by you, you experience a lot of rudeness. Sorry about that.

                  Comparing the experience of a team competing against 2 teams outside the team's division vs competing against a divisional rival over the same time period is a straw argument. Comparing the results of competing against a division rival twice a year for a period of the past 6 years as opposed to competing against the Patriots 4 times in 2 discrete seasons (2007, 2011) over the same 6 year period and the 2 Packers games in a 12 month period, in order to support your argument is entertaining, but is, in fact, irrelevant if not absurd.

                  Almost, but not quite, as silly as equating the hypothetical loss of Eli by the Giants to the potential loss of Romo by the Cowboys.

                  I mean, what's the worst that could have happened to the Cowboys had there been no Romo the last 6 seasons? They'd have zero post season wins instead of one post season win?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                    You mad, Bro?

                    I don't dispute your point that Dallas would have difficulty in easily finding an adequate Romo replacement this year. I disagree with your point that Giants should tremble in their boots at the prospect of facing Romo twice a year for the next few years. Two different points of contention.

                    If that disagreement with your point makes me "deliberately thick or belligerent and overly dismissive of a rival", I can live with that.

                    I'm guessing since disagreement with you is considered to be "rude" by you, you experience a lot of rudeness. Sorry about that.

                    Comparing the experience of a team competing against 2 teams outside the team's division vs competing against a divisional rival over the same time period is a straw argument. Comparing the results of competing against a division rival twice a year for a period of the past 6 years as opposed to competing against the Patriots 4 times in 2 discrete seasons (2007, 2011) over the same 6 year period and the 2 Packers games in a 12 month period, in order to support your argument is entertaining, but is, in fact, irrelevant if not absurd.

                    Almost, but not quite, as silly as equating the hypothetical loss of Eli by the Giants to the potential loss of Romo by the Cowboys.

                    I mean, what's the worst that could have happened to the Cowboys had there been no Romo the last 6 seasons? They'd have zero post season wins instead of one post season win?
                    Show me where I said we should tremble in our boots when facing Romo. Talk about strawman...

                    I've posited that our road to divisional championships is easier with a weaker Dallas team, both through our continued success against them and the overall worse record they would have as a weaker team. I have absolutely no vested interest in how many playoff games the Cowboys would have won in the past years, all I know is our road to the post season would have been easier without either directly losing to them or indirectly by them beating other teams and making it more of a race. You don't think the Patriots love being surrounded by scrubs qbs in their division?

                    I'm glad you enjoyed the intentionally hyperbolic Brady/Rodgers comparisons, which were used to simply demonstrate the mistake in equating team results (records) when discussing individual ability. The Jags have been terrible for years now - that doesn't negate the fact they'd be even easier without MJD. But hey, you like to support you're argument by saying nobody can have any idea if losing their starting QB weakens a team. Right.

                    Oh, and yeah, totally seething, bro.
                    Last edited by njsean; 04-01-2013, 05:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by njsean View Post
                      Show me where I said we should tremble in our boots when facing Romo. Talk about strawman...

                      I've posited that our road to divisional championships is easier with a weaker Dallas team, both through our continued success against them and the overall worse record they would have as a weaker team. I have absolutely no vested interest in how many playoff games the Cowboys would have won in the past years, all I know is our road to the post season would have been easier without either directly losing to them or indirectly by them beating other teams and making it more of a race. You don't think the Patriots love being surrounded by scrubs qbs in their division?

                      I'm glad you enjoyed the intentionally hyperbolic Brady/Rodgers comparisons, which were used to simply demonstrate the mistake in equating team results (records) when discussing individual ability. The Jags have been terrible for years now - that doesn't negate the fact they'd be even easier without MJD. But hey, you like to support you're argument by saying nobody can have any idea if losing their starting QB weakens a team. Right.

                      Oh, and yeah, totally seething, bro.
                      Cowboys haven't made the post season since they tied for NFC East winner with Eagles in 2009. A season in which Giants swept them.

                      Cowboys have finished each season since 2009 behind the Giants in ranking.

                      Cowboys are 2-6 vs Giants since 2008, and 1 of those 2 was with Kitna as QB. In those 8 contests over 4 seasons Romo has won 1 game.

                      How much weaker do the Cowboys need to be in order for our road to the post season to "have been easier"?

                      Again, referring to 2 and 3 games Giants played vs non Division teams (Pats and Packers) does not make your argument or demonstrate anything. Playing 2 times per year against division opponents (regardless of strength of opponent), year in and year out, is different for any team than is playing once every 2-4 years against non Division teams.

                      Your Jags / MJD reference actually makes my point in a different manner. Of course, everything else the same, Jags would be a weaker team without MJD. The point is--so what? They are a terrible team with him and they would be terrible without him. They've been at the bottom or next to bottom of their division for the past several years now. It would not make a difference if they were weaker without him, they'd still be at the bottom.

                      The same is true for Dallas. Without Romo, the next couple of years at least Cowboys would be a lesser team. So? They'd still not make the post season and they'd still lose to Giants at least 3 out of every 4 games.

                      The fact that they'd do worse without Romo means nothing when they are mediocre--at best-- with Romo.
                      Last edited by gmen46; 04-02-2013, 12:56 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X