- Thread starter
- #41
ROMOTOOWENS
Well-Known Member
Romo played half a season under Bill and they weren't that good.
For some reason, you take this as Romo hate. It's not an insult to Steve Nash to say he was no where near Magic Johnson. A Rod was literally on one leg and beat usDid Romo fumble with 70 yards of green in front of him. Did he lose control of the ball on the non catch. ? Did he tell Sterling Moore to have the worst game of his career?
13-3 isn't good? The team Bill left had what. 10 pro bowlers?Romo played half a season under Bill and they weren't that good.
I think we would would have won the Super Bowl when we we 8-8 with HOF players like Jason Witten and DeMarcus Ware. Like it or not, Romo choked some of those games. He is a better player now2007- Romos second yr as starter . I will give you ARod in his prime. U think we win the Super Bowl ???
This is where you aren't able to follow along with others point of view. They were better every year because of how much better Rodgers is versus Romo. So if you put Rodgers on the Cowboys things change dramatically...That's nuts . He has had a better team every year since 09 and won 1
I think we would would have won the Super Bowl when we we 8-8 with HOF players like Jason Witten and DeMarcus Ware. Like it or not, Romo choked some of those games. He is a better player now
There are a lot of plays in a Football game where someone can win or lose a game. Great QBs make people forget about the Sterling Moores of the World and win in spite of them. And for the one millionth time Murray did NOT have 70 yards of open field in front of him. there was a safety back there. Switch the QBs and GB isn't even in that game and we have HFA throughout...Did Romo fumble with 70 yards of green in front of him. Did he lose control of the ball on the non catch. ? Did he tell Sterling Moore to have the worst game of his career?
Exactly. Without Rogers, the Pack are a 5-11 teamThis is where you aren't able to follow along with others point of view. They were better every year because of how much better Rodgers is versus Romo. So if you put Rodgers on the Cowboys things change dramatically...
Exactly. Without Rogers, the Pack are a 5-11 team
A much better team if his replacement is Rodgers?And without Romo we are ............
Good grief, are you trying to say Romo is better than Rodgers? I'm guessing you aren't, because only the King of Football Clueless would try and make that argument. So what's your point?And without Romo we are ............
A much better team if his replacement is Rodgers?
Good grief, are you trying to say Romo is better than Rodgers? I'm guessing you aren't, because only the King of Football Clueless would try and make that argument. So what's your point?
nor you me, but you've been trying to push my buttons ever since I came back from being bannedYes me with an agenda. That's funny. Here is the deal , for some reason after 10 yrs of posting on the same boards- you still don't know me.
In their Prime Witten, Dez, Ware, Murray, Lee, TSmith, Fredrick, Martin....besides Clay Matthews and a past his prime CWoodson, who are the studs Rodgers has played with?I said it in a thread yesterday that Rodgers is better. With that being said - GB on the whole has had better players than the Cowboys the last 7 -8 - 20 yrs