The fact that you think that means anything is telling.I played Division 1 football, did you?
This comment is telling. You act as if you're gods gift to the free world, you don't think that those who have actually played matters at?The fact that you think that means anything is telling.
Some of the most ridiculously stupid and undisciplined people I know were college and professional players.
Means nothing.
And people who have to tell people they played college ball are all, well, searching.
The fact that you think that means anything is telling.
Some of the most ridiculously stupid and undisciplined people I know were college and professional players.
Means nothing.
And people who have to tell people they played college ball are all, well, searching.
Godwin's law rears its head.People that appeal to ESPN propaganda to deny Romo was a notorious choker despite indisputable evidence to suggest the contrary are like those who reject the holocaust. Caught up in a delusion that only you and a select few other weirdos share. The rest of us live in reality and see Romo for what he was.
Godwin's law rears its head.
Not nearly as bad as someone who thinks they know the game because of a high activity level on an online message board, but hey, stay bitter.
1. Romo's football career was not over. He chose to retire. It was more a reflection of what Dallas meant to him and not so much the fallacies some people weakly attempt to stick to him.Coincidence? Weird way to say it... Romo did not just lose his starting position that season— his career was over.
He handled that transition as graciously as he possibly could have— and earned respect around the league and media for doing so.
Not sure why you are trying to say otherwise. He could have pouted at the FO or demanded an outright release... he served the best interest of the team that was in the midst of a contending season, and refused to be a distraction when he most certainly could have made it “about himself” in that moment
"Career choker" is a made up pejorative. It has no basis in reality. Every QB that never won a SB is then a career choker, e.g., Dan Marino, Archie Manning, or Dan Fouts. Every QB that had a game on the line but could not "win" it (as if it is all dependent upon one player) is a "career choker". It's a simplistic over-simplification of a game where winning championships is due to an organization, from scouting, personnel management, coaching on both sides of the ball, and players on down.What means of comparison would please you then? Those who deny 9/11? Watergate? JFK? That the sky is blue? That the earth is round instead of flat? That Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492?
The evidence of Romo being a career choker is clear and dry to those that aren't overly sentimental about the guy.
Tony would just throw to written.What a load of crap.
Every player on that offense would trade Task for a healthy Romo on a nanosecond.
Receivers like catchable balls thrown in time downfield.
If you think Dak Prescott is a better quarterback than Tony Romo, you are beyond a blithering football idiot.Not nearly as bad as someone who thinks they know the game because of a high activity level on an online message board, but hey, stay bitter.
"Career choker" is a made up pejorative. It has no basis in reality. Every QB that never won a SB is then a career choker, e.g., Dan Marino, Archie Manning, or Dan Fouts. Every QB that had a game on the line but could not "win" it (as if it is all dependent upon one player) is a "career choker". It's a simplistic over-simplification of a game where winning championships is due to an organization, from scouting, personnel management, coaching on both sides of the ball, and players on down.
Being a backup guard for UT San Antonio doesn't mean you understand the game.This comment is telling. You act as if you're gods gift to the free world, you don't think that those who have actually played matters at?
You know more from your couch?