- Thread starter
- #61
Nice!I think if you are subjective enough you can compare eras (to a point) what drives me nuts is when people try & compare stats between eras. You compare the player not the stats.
BTW there is only one answer to who was the best QB in Cowboy history.
Roger fucking Staubach!
Yeah, cause it's correctEasy to say Staubach and Aikman.
Roger was the best ever. Made me a boys fan.I think if you are subjective enough you can compare eras (to a point) what drives me nuts is when people try & compare stats between eras. You compare the player not the stats.
BTW there is only one answer to who was the best QB in Cowboy history.
Roger fucking Staubach!
yeah. My 2 favorite players all timeRoger was the best ever. Made me a boys fan.
Haha. You’re wrong but okYeah, cause it's correct
Using stats always slants to the players of today due to the rules and the way the game has changed. Pretending Romo is even in the same league as Staubach and Aikman is ridiculous. Claiming he is better is just comical. Sorry dude but this video gets a big
Dak is the best qb ever. Hehe
Yeah, cause it's correct
Using stats always slants to the players of today due to the rules and the way the game has changed. Pretending Romo is even in the same league as Staubach and Aikman is ridiculous. Claiming he is better is just comical. Sorry dude but this video gets a big
Everyone knows times are different, rules are different. Stats can lie. That does not have to even be mentioned. Talent, however is evident and whoever states that Romo could not have done great in those other eras is a poor judge of talent. I can see that most people see the rings and they think “talent.” Many great QBs do not have rings: Tarkington, Fouts, Archie Manning, Marino, Jergonson to name just a few. Don’t be blinded by the bling and judge players on their talents. Have a great day.Glad you said it. Because I was about to.