Clarifying My Stance on Tony Romo

[blindzebra]

This is a discussion board. You sure can dish it but can't take it.

I respect MANY AND MOST posters here who I banter with. You are not in that group and candidly you need to stop whining and this "tattletale" mentality. If I didn't know better I'd think you ......... Well I won't pontificate - but you exude all you project in this post.

This coming from someone who has started countless threads throwing hissy fits about being picked on is too rich.

We really need a pot/kettle smilie.

 

[Banned_n_austin]

This is a discussion board. You sure can dish it but can't take it.

I respect MANY AND MOST posters here who I banter with. You are not in that group and candidly you need to stop whining and this "tattletale" mentality. If I didn't know better I'd think you ......... Well I won't pontificate - but you exude all you project in this post.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. But BZ does dish it out and CANNOT take it ...

I've seen 8 year olds with better playground manners ... and I'm not joking ...

He'll be the first to sling the insults and the first to runn and tattle if somone jokes with him ...

He'll also accuse you of kissing up to the mods ... but I've never been to a game with any of them ....

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Those who are offended by the word do not understand it. It's really that simple.

Nope. Sorry, Hos, I generally agree with what you have to say, but you're way off base here. You're trading on two different meanings of the word and you know it. Often, the negative connotations that the term "agenda" can import have been clear in your posts: in particular, when you point out that only someone driven by an agenda could arrive at certain conclusions. I typically agree when you accuse someone of being driven by an agenda. But let's not pretend that the accusation is anything other that: in other words, a finding of fault.

Seems to me that the appropriate way to counter the inappropriate counter-accusations is not to throw one's hands up and concede that all of us have agendas (implying, even if unwittingly, that all of our posts are colored by them) but to distinguish between bona fide opinions and preferences and agenda-driven assertions.

 

[Banned_n_austin]

This coming from someone who has started countless threads throwing hissy fits about being picked on is too rich.

We really need a pot/kettle smilie.

Or my favorite smilie when you try to go present your case that you're being picked on without cause ...


:anvil:














:laugh2:

 

[Banned_n_austin]

Nope. Sorry, Hos, I generally agree with what you have to say, but you're way off base here. You're trading on two different meanings of the word and you know it. Often, the negative connotations that the term "agenda" can import have been clear in your posts: in particular, when you point out that only someone driven by an agenda could arrive at certain conclusions. I typically agree when you accuse someone of being driven by an agenda. But let's not pretend that the accusation is anything other that: in other words, a finding of fault.

Seems to me that the appropriate way to counter the inappropriate counter-accusations is not to throw one's hands up and concede that all of us have agendas (implying, even if unwittingly, that all of our posts are colored by them) but to distinguish between bona fide opinions and preferences and agenda-driven assertions.

Now that's the hammer on the frickin' nail!

Very well said.

:clap2:

 

[Hostile]

I'm not trying to start a flame war. But BZ does dish it out and CANNOT take it ...

I've seen 8 year olds with better playground manners ... and I'm not joking ...

He'll be the first to sling the insults and the first to runn and tattle if somone jokes with him ...

He'll also accuse you of kissing up to the mods ... but I've never been to a game with any of them ....

I'd go to a game with anyone from this forum. I put out an invitation. He wanted to go because he lives there. Leave the Mods out of this. It has nothing to do with anything.

 

[blindzebra]

I'm not trying to start a flame war. But BZ does dish it out and CANNOT take it ...

I've seen 8 year olds with better playground manners ... and I'm not joking ...

He'll be the first to sling the insults and the first to runn and tattle if somone jokes with him ...

He'll also accuse you of kissing up to the mods ... but I've never been to a game with any of them ....

I'm not the one making call out posts like this one, and just when did I tattled on you?

I did not go to a game with a mod, I went to a game with a FAN of the Cowboys.

 

[The30YardSlant]

nm

 

[Hostile]

Nope. Sorry, Hos, I generally agree with what you have to say, but you're way off base here. You're trading on two different meanings of the word and you know it. Often, the negative connotations that the term "agenda" can import have been clear in your posts: in particular, when you point out that only someone driven by an agenda could arrive at certain conclusions. I typically agree when you accuse someone of being driven by an agenda. But let's not pretend that the accusation is anything other that: in other words, a finding of fault.

Seems to me that the appropriate way to counter the inappropriate counter-accusations is not to throw one's hands up and concede that all of us have agendas (implying, even if unwittingly, that all of our posts are colored by them) but to distinguish between bona fide opinions and preferences and agenda-driven assertions.

Words have both a connotation and a denotation to them Outlaw.

For example, if I say "that girl is thin." Some will interpret that as she is slender. Some as emaciated.

Do I use that word for a purpose? You bet I do. It is still a very generic word that the meaning of is actually positive. It has been taken as a negative here. That was never my intent and I find it very humorous that it has happened.

Let me make a couple of comments on the agenda aspect of the latest bruhaha. This is just food for thought.

Which side has nicknames for the other?

Why no turmoil over the opinions on Bledsoe? We all agreed on him too.

Which side has used mocked up photos to give more shots?

I'd ask which side is itching to rub the other sides nose in more, but that opinion is subjective. Yet another misused word.

You'd think that us reporting something positive about Henson after all the negative reports might have given people a sense of hope. I know that's how I would have felt if they came back with these reports.

The bottom line is the 2 sides are again polarizing and it is going to get uglier because of the trolling aspect of it. Every INT and sack will be the evidence we all should have been seeing.

I really wish I had never brought it up.

 

[Nors]

Words have both a connotation and a denotation to them Outlaw.

For example, if I say "that girl is thin." Some will interpret that as she is slender. Some as emaciated.

Do I use that word for a purpose? You bet I do. It is still a very generic word that the meaning of is actually positive. It has been taken as a negative here. That was never my intent and I find it very humorous that it has happened.

Let me make a couple of comments on the agenda aspect of the latest bruhaha. This is just food for thought.

Which side has nicknames for the other?

Why no turmoil over the opinions on Bledsoe? We all agreed on him too.

Which side has used mocked up photos to give more shots?

I'd ask which side is itching to rub the other sides nose in more, but that opinion is subjective. Yet another misused word.

You'd think that us reporting something positive about Henson after all the negative reports might have given people a sense of hope. I know that's how I would have felt if they came back with these reports.

The bottom line is the 2 sides are again polarizing and it is going to get uglier because of the trolling aspect of it. Every INT and sack will be the evidence we all should have been seeing.

I really wish I had never brought it up.

I really wish I had never brought it up.


Really? You always have used it as an antagonistic connotation.

 

[adbutcher]

Good job.

The secret spin meeting will be at Adbutcher's next Sunday in preperation for MNF. I'll bring the chips, you supply the dip.

Shsssh! They are already on to us.

Hos,

My sentiments exactly, if Romo proves me wrong and become an effective starter for the boyz then I will be his biggest fan.

 

[Jimz31]

This is what gets me....each side is accusing the other that they "don't want the other to succeed"....

I personally have never read one say that they hope the other fails....if they do it is ENTIRELY DUE TO HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE POSTER ON THE OTHER SIDE of this issue.

Arm strength....that article IS being dismissed by those on the Henson side....why else would those on his side keep referring to "arm strength" as being a negative.

Those on the Romo side don't want to say anything positive about Henson either. He has a good game and they say it's due to him facing the 3rd stringers or whatever.

Nobody knows how each will turn out at this point. Both sides have agendas....I'm convinced of that.

The other thing that I am getting more and more convinced of is that our future QB is still not yet on this roster.....and it may be that way as long as BP is calling the shots.

I could be wrong....but at least I can admit that.

 

[Hostile]

I really wish I had never brought it up.


Really? You always have used it as an antagonistic connotation.

Actually I don't. That is how you've taken it.

 

[Hostile]

Shsssh! They are already on to us.

Hos,

My sentiments exactly, if Romo proves me wrong and become an effective starter for the boyz then I will be his biggest fan.

You know Ad, I am often critical of players. I have never photoshopped a player or sought to humiliate him. Not one single player. I've never rooted for an injury so a player I like better can play. You know how disgusted all of us were when people cheered Arrington's injury Saturday night. It just isn't in me.

I've got strong opinions and I'm not afraid of stating them. Clearly when I do it stirs the pot. The one thing I am pleased about with regards to that is I do it without malice or sensationalism. I knew with both threads I posted that there would be chaos. It doesn't take a degree in common sense to know it was coming. I challenged some folks opinions and that is taboo.

My bad.

I agree, here's hoping he impresses me more in the future.

 

[Hostile]

This is what gets me....each side is accusing the other that they "don't want the other to succeed"....

I personally have never read one say that they hope the other fails....if they do it is ENTIRELY DUE TO HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE POSTER ON THE OTHER SIDE of this issue.

Arm strength....that article IS being dismissed by those on the Henson side....why else would those on his side keep referring to "arm strength" as being a negative.

Those on the Romo side don't want to say anything positive about Henson either. He has a good game and they say it's due to him facing the 3rd stringers or whatever.

Nobody knows how each will turn out at this point. Both sides have agendas....I'm convinced of that.

The other thing that I am getting more and more convinced of is that our future QB is still not yet on this roster.....and it may be that way as long as BP is calling the shots.

I could be wrong....but at least I can admit that.

I have not dismissed that article. I also said that the reports of 70 to 80 mph for Henson is nonsense.

I have not commented on the article at all. Do I wonder about it? You bet I do. It doesn't jive with what I saw.

 

[Jimz31]

I have not dismissed that article. I also said that the reports of 70 to 80 mph for Henson is nonsense.

I have not commented on the article at all. Do I wonder about it? You bet I do. It doesn't jive with what I saw.

Hos, my post wasn't directed directly at you....it was a general post of what I have seen from both sides on the issue.

 

[Nors]

Actually I don't. That is how you've taken it.

NOT - THATS HOW YOU USED IT

Its called out and in the open. I don't use that word at all anymore. I let those that do bury themselves deeper!

 

[Hostile]

Hos, my post wasn't directed directly at you....it was a general post of what I have seen from both sides on the issue.

I didn't take it as directed at me Jim. I just was commenting on the article that was posted angle. Like I said, I don't know what to make of the article.

I posted a quote in the very 1st post of this thread that was from a journalist who has seen the man throw literally hundreds of passes. That isn't me and my sidekicks and our agenda. That is from someone who has more evidence than all of us in this forum do. He has logged hours of observation.

Just like the article, it is totally ignored. He didn't say that occasionally Romo wows him. He didn't validate that article at all. Totally ignored.

I was quite surprised at Romo's lack of zip. You see, for 3 years now I have believed he must be able to shotgun that sucker good. I saw him throw hard. I stand by my statement that there is a noticable difference between him and the other 2. If that needs to be ignored so people think more highly of their own opinions so be it.

We live in a world full of blinders. You can bet the next game there will be commentary on his throws and whether they have pop or not. I'm going to hear it from now until he shuts me up or is gone. I know that. I'm not silly.

I told you that once Q was gone people who defended him would turn on him but I wouldn't. Jim, either I'm the luckiest guesser in the world or this isn't my first rodeo because I've made the buzzer on each call on this subject.

 

[Hostile]

NOT - THATS HOW YOU USED IT

Its called out and in the open. I don't use that word at all anymore. I let those that do bury themselves deeper!

What can I tell you Nors? No matter what I post if it differs with your opinion it hurts your feelings. So it doesn't surprise me you feel this way at all. Heck I'm not even surprised you reply with the old all caps, "I'm upset and going to let you know it," shouting. You see, it's like Pavlov's dog. I know ahead of time what the reaction will be when the light goes on. Conditioned response syndrome.

I have agendas. Brand me. I'm a big boy and I can take it.

 

[jobberone]

Hos, there was nothing wrong with your initial post. If people choose to take your opinions personally then that is there problem. Sorry for the long post but you all know I have to say things with four or five paragraphs when several sentences will do. We all have our little problems.

I wasn't at the game but based on my observations of Calico's clips and some shots on TV we have opposing views about what we saw. I said I thought that Romo didn't appear to throw with as much velocity as the other two. So we are in agreement there. But that does not mean Romo has an inadequate arm. There are explanations as to why he may not have zipped the majority of this passes. I thought Romo was clearly the best QB that day. Henson looked better than I thought he would based on what was coming out of camp. Bledsoe played poorly compared to most of his past performances IMO. In fact I looked at Bledsoe when he was with the Bills and none of the video I saw showed him patting the ball or having happy feet as in Saturday. So I think Bledsoe will be ok and our starter baring injury. So all the talk about Romo vs Henson is just talk IMO. People should be rooting as hard as possible for both of these guys because if Bledsoe goes down we will have to depend on one or both of them. Not saying you are doing that but a lot on here are and they are doing it primarily to battle other posters. It's oneupmanship and points for ego. It is childish but that's ok. Freedom of speech and all that. Sorry if this offends anyone but if the shoe fits then wear it.

The only way to truly get an accurate read is to measure it with an accurate device or by accurate measurements using time and distance. A radar gun is now deemed the most accurate way and there are guns out there than can read velocity within one foot from the QBs hand. Apparently that is a more accurate way to measure velocity than anywhere else in the balls trajectory. And they are accurate. Very.

However, the human eye is pretty good as well but still that is objective. Not scientific but worthy of notice. When you say Romo's throws appear slower then I take very good notice. I also take notice when Aikman says he throws the ball well and can make all the throws. And I don't think Romo would still be here if his arm were not strong enough for him to start one day. To assume all those people who have evaluated him over time that are known to be good evaluators of talent doesn't seem to be very reasonable IMO but everyone should be able to do voice their opinion without ridicule or disrespect. The fact I stand on the other side of the fence from you on this issue doesn't mean I don't consider your take or take offense. And I know you don't. The fact he is here is testimony his arm strength is adequate to be an NFL QB IMO. But I believe Henson and Bledsoe both have better arm strength or in a better way to put it can throw the ball with more velocity which is a prime determinant of how flat the QB can make a throw and how quickly it gets there and how far they can throw it.

To base how a QB is going to succeed based on thrown velocity as the primary determinant is not reasonable. Again I don't hear you say that. And I agree with your worry that he may not be in the end the best backup or future starter. Right now he's better than Henson but that's one person's opinion.

So you are not responsible for all this ruckus and bickering. It goes on with or without your input. And it is self perpetuating because everyone wants to "win" the war of words and get the last shot in.

Such is the nature of the beast Hos. But it was a good try and I respect you for it.