+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 115 of 115

Thread: WTF??? Romo worth $108 million??

  1. #111
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Posts
    37,062
    Quote 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.
    Finalized divorce from Victor Michael Walker Cruz November 23rd, 2014. 9:16 PM.

  2. #112
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote 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 at 05:45 AM.

  3. #113
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote 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?

  4. #114
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote 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 at 07:05 PM.

  5. #115
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote 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 at 02:56 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts