Like It or Not..It's the Book on Romo

[Earl Stevens]

Romo is an excellent QB, but his tendency to turn the ball over in key moments keeps the spotlight squarely on him and the Cowboys. Having said that, the defense hasn't been very good.

I agree, but the spotlight is mainly on Romo because of the popularity of his team and the amount coverage they get. Which is way too much.

 

[UnBiasedPerspective]

I agree, but the spotlight is mainly on Romo because of the popularity of his team and the amount coverage they get. Which is way too much.

M'eh, all publicity is good publicity.

Unless it includes the phrase "America's Team"

 

[Otis B. Driftwood]

I wasnt trying to give you any crap here. Your screen name though was actually used for a characters name in one of my favorite movies.. Captain Spaulding was his deranged dad

We're good. I was so focused on my hero Roger I forgot all about my other hero Groucho.

I feel so ashamed...

 

[cowboycolors]

M'eh, all publicity is good publicity.

Unless it includes the phrase "America's Team"

some would add the name Jerry Jones to that list

 

[es4m11]

Your words. "But Farve's Packer offense were only special because of Favre. Go back and look at the WR he played with in the 90's after Sterling Sharpe. None of those guys were world beaters"

I take it you are saying all other players Favre had sucked. Either that's what you're saying or you have absolutely no fucking idea of the talent the Packers had.

And yes I can be a ass. Now get over it.

How does any of that equate to me saying "the Packer's receivers sucked"? I remember quite well the talent the Packers had back then. And for you to discredit Favre the way you have makes me wonder how clearly you remember those Packers teams....

For arguments sake, I am going to stick with the 90's Packers teams. So no Donald Driver, who was a very good receiver.

Sterling Sharpe was a world beater, for sure. Such a shame that he had to leave the game early. But Favre's best years came after he was gone. After Sharpe, Antonio Freeman was the best receiver Favre had to throw to during that time period. Freeman was a very good WR, a one time pro-bowler and all-pro. Robert Brooks was one of the most over rated receivers I can remember from that time. He had two good seasons. Brooks was never a pro-bowler. Mark Chimura was an above average TE who made the pro-bowl 3 times. Kieth Jackson played in GB that last two years of his career, one of those seasons he was a pro-bowler. Edgar Bennett, Favre's main man out of the backfield never made a pro-bowl.

Excluding Sharpe, that amounts to 5 total pro-bowls and 1 all-pro selection. Meanwhile, from '95-'97 Favre racked up three straight MVP's, a Super Bowl win and another appearence.

Like I said, the receivers that Favre played with were good, but the WR's were not the reason that team was great. It was Favre and the defense, to go along with EXCELLENT coaching.

 

[jarntt]

Again, Romo was less turnover prone and sack prone than Wilson last year and Wilson and Romo's career interception% aren't far apart..

Well certainly through their first two years in the league Romo had less ints...

 

[UnBiasedPerspective]

some would add the name Jerry Jones to that list

He's becoming like the ex wife that won't go away.

 

[tw1st3d]

He's becoming like the ex wife that won't go away.

dont say that while Im watching crime shows ..... I may start plotting

 

[UnBiasedPerspective]

dont say that while Im watching crime shows ..... I may start plotting

I wouldn't want to instigate anything...

 

[Manster7588]

How does any of that equate to me saying "the Packer's receivers sucked"? I remember quite well the talent the Packers had back then. And for you to discredit Favre the way you have makes me wonder how clearly you remember those Packers teams....

For arguments sake, I am going to stick with the 90's Packers teams. So no Donald Driver, who was a very good receiver.

Sterling Sharpe was a world beater, for sure. Such a shame that he had to leave the game early. But Favre's best years came after he was gone. After Sharpe, Antonio Freeman was the best receiver Favre had to throw to during that time period. Freeman was a very good WR, a one time pro-bowler and all-pro. Robert Brooks was one of the most over rated receivers I can remember from that time. He had two good seasons. Brooks was never a pro-bowler. Mark Chimura was an above average TE who made the pro-bowl 3 times. Kieth Jackson played in GB that last two years of his career, one of those seasons he was a pro-bowler. Edgar Bennett, Favre's main man out of the backfield never made a pro-bowl.

Excluding Sharpe, that amounts to 5 total pro-bowls and 1 all-pro selection. Meanwhile, from '95-'97 Favre racked up three straight MVP's, a Super Bowl win and another appearence.

Like I said, the receivers that Favre played with were good, but the WR's were not the reason that team was great. It was Favre and the defense, to go along with EXCELLENT coaching.

WOW, just simply fucking WOW. You want to use the lack of Pro Bowls as a tool to justify saying Favre's receivers weren't that good. Look who his offensive players were competing against to make the ProBowl. His teammates were way above average. If it wasn't for Rice, Irvin, Smith, and Sanders his teams would had been dominated with pro bowlers. His team mates were great throughout his career too bad the had to compete with the ones I mentioned and a few others. Novice and Moose for example. Lack of Pro bowls doesn't mean a guy was not great just that there were a few better that year.

I will give Favre all the credit it the world for owning the INT record.

 

[tw1st3d]

WOW, just simply fucking WOW. You want to use the lack of Pro Bowls as a tool to justify saying Favre's receivers weren't that good. Look who his offensive players were competing against to make the ProBowl. His teammates were way above average. If it wasn't for Rice, Irvin, Smith, and Sanders his teams would had been dominated with pro bowlers. His team mates were great throughout his career too bad the had to compete with the ones I mentioned and a few others. Novice and Moose for example. Lack of Pro bowls doesn't mean a guy was not great just that there were a few better that year.

I will give Favre all the credit it the world for owning the INT record.

I got no love for Favre either ....
Cost his team more wins they he ever won them ....
Madden was a huge Favre fan though .... and his weekly rants on him so drew in the believers

 

[Manster7588]

I got no love for Favre either ....
Cost his team more wins they he ever won them ....
Madden was a huge Favre fan though .... and his weekly rants on him so drew in the believers

I don't dislike Favre but to suggest Favre's team mates were only good because of Favre and then use Pro Bowls to defend that thought is asinine. Think about Rice and Irvin were virtually shoe ins before the season. There was a bunch of receivers fighting each other for the other spots. Same scenario at RB.

 

[tw1st3d]

I don't dislike Favre but to suggest Favre's team mates were only good because of Favre and then use Pro Bowls to defend that thought is asinine. Think about Rice and Irvin were virtually shoe ins before the season. There was a bunch of receivers fighting each other for the other spots. Same scenario at RB.

really only one person I see being over or under rated in this debate .... Robert Brooks .....
Good?
Sharpes career cut short? So was his


HE CREATED THE LAMBO LEAP ........... but he was just "ok"

 

[es4m11]

WOW, just simply fucking WOW. You want to use the lack of Pro Bowls as a tool to justify saying Favre's receivers weren't that good. Look who his offensive players were competing against to make the ProBowl. His teammates were way above average. If it wasn't for Rice, Irvin, Smith, and Sanders his teams would had been dominated with pro bowlers. His team mates were great throughout his career too bad the had to compete with the ones I mentioned and a few others. Novice and Moose for example. Lack of Pro bowls doesn't mean a guy was not great just that there were a few better that year.

I will give Favre all the credit it the world for owning the INT record.

I already gave you some stats. What the hell else do you want to judge these guys on? His teammates were good. I have never argued that. But let's not pretend he was throwing to Hall of Famers.

You don't like Favre, that is fine, I don't much care for him either. But the whole point of this argument was that Favre at his best, was better than Romo at his best. I don't understand how there is much argument here. Romo has literally done nothing of serious importance.

 

[tw1st3d]

I already gave you some stats. What the hell else do you want to judge these guys on? His teammates were good. I have never argued that. But let's not pretend he was throwing to Hall of Famers.

You don't like Favre, that is fine, I don't much care for him either. But the whole point of this argument was that Favre at his best, was better than Romo at his best. I don't understand how there is much argument here. Romo has literally done nothing of serious importance.

you need a valume bruh .....

you lost

dont have a heat attack

 

[es4m11]

really only one person I see being over or under rated in this debate .... Robert Brooks .....
Good?
Sharpes career cut short? So was his


HE CREATED THE LAMBO LEAP ........... but he was just "ok"

Injuries are part of the game. Robert Brooks only had two seasons where he contributed at a high level. He was good, but a little like Miles Austin. Huge production for a very short period of time.

 

[Manster7588]

I already gave you some stats. What the hell else do you want to judge these guys on? His teammates were good. I have never argued that. But let's not pretend he was throwing to Hall of Famers.

You don't like Favre, that is fine, I don't much care for him either. But the whole point of this argument was that Favre at his best, was better than Romo at his best. I don't understand how there is much argument here. Romo has literally done nothing of serious importance.

You tried to use lack of pro-bowls when those players were competing against THE BEST WR in NFL history and a great WR in Irvin. Same thing with RB. Come on they had Smith and Sanders written into ti ProBowl before the season started. You made a dumb argument simple as that. Of course it's not the first time and I'm sure it's not the last.

 

[es4m11]

you need a valume bruh .....

you lost

dont have a heat attack

Please explain what and how I lost it?

 

[tw1st3d]

Please explain what and how I lost it?

uhhhhhh

can I just start with the 1st mistake?

Brooks was nothing special?


we can move on past that ...... other than his career was cut short

BTW ... Sharpe wasnt really a Favre receiver ..... That was a Don Majowski ( if I spelled the name right) era

You just seem a bit confused on the Brett Era in Green Bay ........ Just saying

 

[es4m11]

You tried to use lack of pro-bowls when those players were competing against THE BEST WR in NFL history and a great WR in Irvin. Same thing with RB. Come on they had Smith and Sanders written into ti ProBowl before the season started. You made a dumb argument simple as that. Of course it's not the first time and I'm sure it's not the last.

I have given you some stats already, now I have given you their accolades. What more do you want? What exactly is your point? That Green Bays receivers weren't good enough to make the pro bowl? But you have been straying from the point. This argument was not about me saying whether they were good or not. I acknowledge they were good. The whole debate was about two points: 1. Favre at his best was better than Romo. 2. Romo has had comparable talent to throw the ball too.

Somehow you managed to include Jerry Rice and Barry Sanders

Now please try and stay on task.