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