Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Galian Beast, Aug 19, 2013.
I see what you did there. LOL.
We all got the sarcasm, yes..
Was it clever or amusing or insightful in any way?
I'll let you decide that for yourself..
I thought the offense looked good moving the ball against Arizona. Dunbar's turnover was inside the 10. Dez's was also fairly deep in Arizona's territory. And while the connection was off, Williams showed his ability to get open deep.
I'll take all that with some minor cleanups.
Everyone should go refresh themselves on how many TDs Aikman threw compared to how many TDs Emmitt ran for. Then look at what this team has done and it should be pretty clear that offense Garrett is running is meant to be able to run the ball.
Romo isn't perfect but he is not the limiting factor on offense.
Yeah, those stats look good, but I see you didn't include a "percentage of drives ending in a fumble" stat! That wouldn't look so good for Romo, now would it?!
What's that have to do with Romo?
I rewatched the game last night. I can't say that I agree with the statement that the Offense looked good. I think there were way to many critical errors on Offense. Would have been much worse had not the Offense showed up big.
The ring thing is such a silly argument in my opinion it has no substance one way or the other there are 21 other starters on a football team, plus an entire ST unit. Romo or any other QB needs a lot of help to win a ring which is a team achievement not an individual one. Romo is a hell of a lot better than guys like Doug Williams,Mark Rippen,Trent Dilfer,Brad Johnson and there's a whole lot more who have won rings. But they won rings with great teams around them which Romo hasn't had beside maybe 1 time in his career
I'd gladly give back half the completions and half the yards for the 14 pts he left on the field. Romo has never had issues moving the ball btw the 20s. Most qbs don't with today's rules.
The ring "thing" wasn't a shot at Romo.
Romo has had two great teams around him.I believe the 2009 team was better than 2007.I believe the '09 was the second best team in football.I believe the '07 team was a 10-6 team that got lucky.
Romo never had a problem putting up numbers during the season, Int has always been his problem.
Even with the limited work during the preseason this year, I think Romo is primed to have a good if not Great season this year. I expect to see a focused Romo this season and will proved many doubters wrong.
Scoring points is his problem(2008-2012)
Not true. The 2007 team had MBIII in his prime, a much better offensive line and much better receivers. How can you say the 2009 team was the 2nd best after we got utterly dismantled by the Vikings?
His career TD numbers show he doesn't have a problem throwing TDs either.
Since Romo has had a star on his helmet, Romo has had double digit Ints all but one season (not including the year he was hurt) including 19 last year..
the 2009 teams defense only gave up 15.6ppg, that's how.
Had they played to their potential, they wouldn't have played Minny until the Championship Game.Minny was best team in football that year. I don't care who won the SB.
Barber was still effective and Choice and Jones were both better than Julius.Did I mention the defense was much better.
22.6ppg is the reason we underachieved.Minny did not destroy us in that game.The Cowboys drove the ball inside the Vikings 30 yard line four times in the first half of that game and came away with only three points.The dam broke after wasting so many opportunities.
Yes, Minnesota destroyed us. Driving inside the 30 doesn't mean diddly. As I have said so many times before, you find out about your team inside the 20s. And as you said, once we got inside their 30, we came away with a grand total of 3 points. That is getting totally owned. Our offensive line got completely run over in that game. And I would take 2007 MBIII over Julius, Choice AND Jones, whatever year you choose. 2007 MBIII was incredible. In 2007, we lost to the eventual SB champion Giants, but we should have beaten them. At the very least, we were far more competitive in that game than we were against Minny in 2009, who didn't even make it to the SB, much less win it.
That '07 team would've been destroyed by the Patriots in the SB. We just didn't match up with them.
our secondary in 2009 was much better than 2007.Minny had to pull the greatest choke job in history to lose that game to New Orleans. At no point during that game did the Saints look or feel like the better team.I don't know how they won.I don't know how they won the SB.
a. That Patriots team was one of the best of all time, certainly on offense.
b. We were far more competitive against the Patriots in the 2007 regular season than we were against the Vikings in 2009. We were 12-1 at one point that year, the only loss coming against the Patriots. And most of our wins came by a substantial margin. We had 13 Pro Bowlers that year, an NFL record. How you can say the 2009 team, which was exposed at a total fraud, was better than the 2007 team just boggles my mind. The 2009 team could beat the Eagles, that's it.
So you're saying, 10 ints in a season, is a problem?
brees has had 10 double digit seasons