News: Can Tony Romo Ever Get The Respect His Play Demands?

[DFWJC]

KJJ sure spends an incredible amount of effort and time tearing down Romo.
Every time I see the thread in the lineup, it's KJJ who was the most recent poster...day after day after day.
It's almost unhealthy.

 

[KJJ]

Anyone who wants to assign any blame on Romo in that Minny game, didnt watch the game. Period.

Also, two words. Team game.

On a final note, regarding your wiki link.. everything written on the internet is 100% fact. Bigfoot exists too, the internet told me.

Romo was part of the blame he turned the ball over 3 times and 2 of his turnovers were fumbles. Fumbles are all on the QB take the sack but don't fumble. The link I provided was from a highly credible source and it's been known for years that the NFL credits a QB with a W/L record. It was discussed in detail on the NFL Network a couple of years ago with Kurt Warner being asked if it's fair that QB's are given W/L records. Some of you are so hell bent on wanting me to be wrong all the time you argue in the face of facts. LOL It's all over the internet that NFL QB's are given W/L records accept I was right and stop looking to disagree with me all the time. No matter how many links and quotes I slam posters with they continue to knock the sources and try and squirm around all the conclusive evidence because they hate the fact I was right and they were wrong.

 

[KJJ]

KJJ sure spends and incredible amount of effort and time tearing down Romo.
Every time I see the thread in the lineup, it's KJJ who was the most recent poster...day after day after day.
It's almost unhealthy.

Calling me out gets you crossed out...buh-bye!

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Clean up on aisle 7. KJJ done spilt his keyboard diarrhea all over the place again.

 

[KJJ]

Every time I see the thread in the lineup, it's KJJ who was the most recent poster...day after day after day.
It's almost unhealthy.

That's because a few posters have me in their head and follow me around from thread to thread calling me out that's what I consider unhealthy. I post facts putting a few in their place and look what happens. Hate on! LOL

 

[KJJ]

If I was on the other side of this argument saying QB's don't have W/L records going along with the same theme as a few others I would be getting TORCHED with the same facts I laid out. That's the agenda I'm dealing with here.

 

[Seven]

KJJ sure spends an incredible amount of effort and time tearing down Romo.
Every time I see the thread in the lineup, it's KJJ who was the most recent poster...day after day after day.
It's almost unhealthy.

Windiest thread ever............gail force.

 

[Seven]

KJJ sure spends an incredible amount of effort and time tearing down Romo.
Every time I see the thread in the lineup, it's KJJ who was the most recent poster...day after day after day.
It's almost unhealthy.

Calling me out gets you crossed out...buh-bye!

Congrats DFWJC!! And Welcome...............

 

[Rogah]

That's because a few posters have me in their head and follow me around from thread to thread calling me out that's what I consider unhealthy. I post facts putting a few in their place and look what happens. Hate on! LOL

"Facts" like the top-8 QBs by passing yardage are all in the Hall of Fame, even though only half are even eligible (and 3 are still playing)?

Ignoring your lack of familiarity with "facts", it is tough to take someone seriously who claims they never heard anyone talk about the passer rating statistic until the 90's. I mean, that's an OK thing to say if you're in your 20's, but not for someone who claims to have been following football for longer than that.

 

[KJJ]

"Facts" like the top-8 QBs by passing yardage are all in the Hall of Fame, even though only half are even eligible (and 3 are still playing)?

Ignoring your lack of familiarity with "facts", it is tough to take someone seriously who claims they never heard anyone talk about the passer rating statistic until the 90's. I mean, that's an OK thing to say if you're in your 20's, but not for someone who claims to have been following football for longer than that.

Every QB I included will be first ballot Hall of Famers 5 years after they retire so they're in and I'm including them. It's clear you're just attempting to stir the pot better watch out or you might get burned. I already told you a few days ago I never paid attention to passer rating stats and you claimed you were following the stat before it even became the official formula used by the NFL to establish its passing leader. You're just one of those who's looking for something to argue about. If you were you looking through the newspaper at passer ratings in 1972 over a cup of coffee you must have been following the NFL since it's inception in 1920. lol

 

[Rogah]

Every QB I included will be first ballot Hall of Famers 5 years after they retire so they're in and I'm including them.

Just admit you made a mistake. Honestly, you would look a lot less foolish.

I already told you a few days ago I never paid attention to passer rating stats and

Actually what you said was:

"I can't even recall any mention of passer ratings during the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s."

You like facts? Well here's a fact for you: Anyone who cannot recall any mention of passer ratings during the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's either has amnesia or simply didn't follow football that closely during that time period.

you claimed you were following the stat before it even became the official formula used by the NFL to establish its passing leader.

I made no such claim and now you are just lying (quite lamely in fact) in order to cover up your own embarrassment.

So let's see.... Here are some more facts for you: You post things you claim are facts when they aren't true, you didn't follow football much until the late 90's, and you're lying about what I've said here.

If you were you looking through the newspaper at passer ratings in 1972 over a cup of coffee you must have been following the NFL since it's inception in 1920. lol

I didn't look at QB ratings in 1972 because I wasn't exactly reading back then, but unlike you I sure heard and followed lot of conversations about passer ratings in the 80's and 90's.

It's clear you're just attempting to stir the pot - and you have already been severely burned.

 

[Idgit]

I provided nothing but facts while you provided nothing but opinions. You claimed what I posted was untrue and wrong and you were wrong. I got it right and you got it wrong and try as you might there's no way around it.

Lol. This is getting repetitive and I've lost interest. But, for the sake of posterity, what you provided was a link to a site that counted and misattributed things, and a link to wikipedia. Which you then mistook for actual facts.

If you really really want facts from me to demonstrate that something that is self-evident is, in fact, self-evident, I could do that. I've resisted it, because it's silly, but it's definitely possible. For example:

--There are 53 players on an NFL roster. Typically, no more than two of them play quarterback. Never more than 3 of them on any team. Meaning ~95% of every roster for every team is not a QB.
--There are 11 players on every offensive snap. 10 of them are not quarterbacks.
--Quarterbacks do not block for the quarterback. Nor do they normally catch the ball thrown by the quarterback, though there are rare exceptions.
--There are 11 players on each defensive snap. None of them play quarterback
--No quarterback in the league right now plays on special teams
--If a team plays two QBs in a game and wins, it's one win. And yet by your calculus it's a win for both QBs, which makes two wins. This is a logical impossibility for one game. Especially if QB wins and team wins were the same thing. The impossibility is resolved immediately, though, when we remember that 'quarterback wins' aren't actually a thing.
--The teams that win the most games qualify for the playoffs each season, irrespective of how many games were won with a specific QB playing some of the time. This is because the league actually only counts team wins, no matter what Wikipedia or countingthingsrelatedtofootball.com might think. They do not count 'QB wins,' again because QB wins are not a thing.
--And here's one that's an actual stat that's not necessarily evident to just people who have heads and have seen a football game on tv: in the salary cap era, no team has won a championship with a QB who's taken up more than 13.1% of their cap space in a Superbowl winning season. That 13.1% was for Steve Young in the inaugural cap season. The next highest was Eli Manning's 11.7% in 2011. Which means the other ~87% of every championship-winning NFL team's cap during that time has gone to players who are not starting QBs. Following the money suggests strongly that every Superbowl winning team in the salary cap era believes it's not just the QBs who win NFL games.

All of this is, of course, absurd. And I honestly don't care if you insist on pretending that football is anything other than a team sport, or that people who pretend otherwise actually have credibility that matters when it comes to how respect is measured in NFL circles. For my part, what a player gets paid and how long he starts are pretty good measures of respect in a capped payroll system like the NFL has. Tony Romo has the respect of his ownership. He's got the respect of his peers. He's got the respect of the teams he competes against and their coaches. And he's got the respect of fans everywhere who have even a vague understanding of how causes can be related to effects.

If there's respect out there from anybody who thinks it makes sense to assign it based on something a quarterback has only partial control over, well, for my money that's not worth anything at all anyway. Which is to say, he's already got the respect his play demands. That was the original question of the thread. The respect that has nothing to do with his play can go wherever it wants to and continue to be irrelevant.

And, since I know from experience that you'll just keep posting KJJ, long after any semblance of your original point has been lost, I'll let you have the last word between the two of us on the topic. Cheers.

 

[KJJ]

Just admit you made a mistake. Honestly, you would look a lot less foolish.
Actually what you said was:

"I can't even recall any mention of passer ratings during the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s."

You like facts? Well here's a fact for you: Anyone who cannot recall any mention of passer ratings during the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's either has amnesia or simply didn't follow football that closely during that time period.
I made no such claim and now you are just lying (quite lamely in fact) in order to cover up your own embarrassment.

So let's see.... Here are some more facts for you: You post things you claim are facts when they aren't true, you didn't follow football much until the late 90's, and you're lying about what I've said here.
I didn't look at QB ratings in 1972 because I wasn't exactly reading back then, but unlike you I sure heard and followed lot of conversations about passer ratings in the 80's and 90's.

It's clear you're just attempting to stir the pot - and you have already been severely burned.

I didn't make a mistake you're just looking for one because you have a problem with me that's a fact! I told you I was 5 years old in 1972 so did you expect a 5 year old to grab the morning paper to examine passer ratings that weren't even an official formula yet? LOL There was no internet nor all the NFL dedicated TV shows we see today dissecting every single stat during the 70's, 80's and part of the 90's and the league not yet becoming pass happy had very few paying attention to passer ratings or how they were even tabulated. Better cool down pale you're burning up more than that pot you're trying to stir. Anymore attempts to make this discussion anything less than civil will get you eliminated from my world here.

 

[KJJ]

Lol. This is getting repetitive and I've lost interest. But, for the sake of posterity, what you provided was a link to a site that counted and misattributed things, and a link to wikipedia. Which you then mistook for actual facts.

If you really really want facts from me to demonstrate that something that is self-evident is, in fact, self-evident, I could do that. I've resisted it, because it's silly, but it's definitely possible. For example:

--There are 53 players on an NFL roster. Typically, no more than two of them play quarterback. Never more than 3 of them on any team. Meaning ~95% of every roster for every team is not a QB.
--There are 11 players on every offensive snap. 10 of them are not quarterbacks.
--Quarterbacks do not block for the quarterback. Nor do they normally catch the ball thrown by the quarterback, though there are rare exceptions.
--There are 11 players on each defensive snap. None of them play quarterback
--No quarterback in the league right now plays on special teams
--If a team plays two QBs in a game and wins, it's one win. And yet by your calculus it's a win for both QBs, which makes two wins. This is a logical impossibility for one game. Especially if QB wins and team wins were the same thing. The impossibility is resolved immediately, though, when we remember that 'quarterback wins' aren't actually a thing.
--The teams that win the most games qualify for the playoffs each season, irrespective of how many games were won with a specific QB playing some of the time. This is because the league actually only counts team wins, no matter what Wikipedia or countingthingsrelatedtofootball.com might think. They do not count 'QB wins,' again because QB wins are not a thing.
--And here's one that's an actual stat that's not necessarily evident to just people who have heads and have seen a football game on tv: in the salary cap era, no team has won a championship with a QB who's taken up more than 13.1% of their cap space in a Superbowl winning season. That 13.1% was for Steve Young in the inaugural cap season. The next highest was Eli Manning's 11.7% in 2011. Which means the other ~87% of every championship-winning NFL team's cap during that time has gone to players who are not starting QBs. Following the money suggests strongly that every Superbowl winning team in the salary cap era believes it's not just the QBs who win NFL games.

All of this is, of course, absurd. And I honestly don't care if you insist on pretending that football is anything other than a team sport, or that people who pretend otherwise actually have credibility that matters when it comes to how respect is measured in NFL circles. For my part, what a player gets paid and how long he starts are pretty good measures of respect in a capped payroll system like the NFL has. Tony Romo has the respect of his ownership. He's got the respect of his peers. He's got the respect of the teams he competes against and their coaches. And he's got the respect of fans everywhere who have even a vague understanding of how causes can be related to effects.

If there's respect out there from anybody who thinks it makes sense to assign it based on something a quarterback has only partial control over, well, for my money that's not worth anything at all anyway. Which is to say, he's already got the respect his play demands. That was the original question of the thread. The respect that has nothing to do with his play can go wherever it wants to and continue to be irrelevant.

And, since I know from experience that you'll just keep posting KJJ, long after any semblance of your original point has been lost, I'll let you have the last word between the two of us on the topic. Cheers.

From the length of that response you still won't accept or admit you were wrong. My argument was that the NFL attaches W/L records to QB's and that they're the only positional player credited with a W/L record and you disagreed. I proved this to be 100% correct...CASE CLOSED!

 

[Rogah]

I didn't make a mistake you're just looking for one because you have a problem with me that's a fact!

"The top 8 all-time passing yardage leaders are all in the HOF." - KJJ, post 170

Seriously, you look so much more foolish refusing to admit you made an honest mistake than you do by defending a statement every single person in this forum knows is factually incorrect.

 

[KJJ]

"The top 8 all-time passing yardage leaders are all in the HOF." - KJJ, post 170

Seriously, you look so much more foolish refusing to admit you made an honest mistake than you do by defending a statement every single person in this forum knows is factually incorrect.

I didn't make a mistake I added them because they're all locks. Accept it and move on! You're just one of the obsessive types I deal with everyday here who are looking for anything to stir something up. Keep combing through my posts. LOL

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

From the length of that response you still won't accept or admit you were wrong. My argument was that the NFL attaches W/L records to QB's and that they're the only positional player credited with a W/L record and you disagreed. I proved this to be 100% correct...CASE CLOSED!

Did this guy seriously complain about the length of someone else's post?

 

[5Stars]

Calling me out gets you crossed out...buh-bye!

lmao....

 

[KJJ]

Seriously, you look so much more foolish refusing to admit you made an honest mistake than you do by defending a statement every single person in this forum knows is factually incorrect.

I'm not the one looking foolish it's the ones who keep slamming me for proving a few people wrong who look foolish. What I pointed out is factually correct that the NFL credits QB's with a W/L record. That's been going on longer than passer ratings have been around.

 

[5Stars]

Did this guy seriously complain about the length of someone else's post?

He's the biggest Romo troll on this board. Rarely if ever do you see him respond to the rest of the TEAM and it's accomplishments or disappointments. But any loss by the Cowboys he assigns blame to the QB. How freaking stupid is that...yet it's allowed to go on and on and on, day after day after day.

Pathetic...and embarrassing.