DMN: Roger Staubach *my fav cowboy" says cowboys 12-4

[bbgun]

How long do the effects of multiple concussions linger? :

 

[cowboyjoe]

How long do the effects of multiple concussions linger? :

if i am right, this was ware's first concussion. Some take a few days, some a week or so. You just have to wait and see what the doctor says.

DC Fanatic, one of my buddies, had what ware said in an interview. Ware basically said to a degree he is still forgetting some stuff, but will get better in time.

Concussion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Concussion
Classification and external resources

Acceleration (g-forces) can exert rotational forces in the brain, especially the midbrain and diencephalon.
ICD-10 S06.0
ICD-9 850
MedlinePlus 000799
eMedicine aaem/123 sports/27
MeSH [1]
Concussion, from the Latin concutere ("to shake violently")[1] or the Latin concussus ("action of striking together"),[2] is the most common type of traumatic brain injury. The terms mild brain injury, mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), mild head injury (MHI), and minor head trauma and concussion may be used interchangeably,[3][4] although the latter is often treated as a narrower category.[5] The term "concussion" has been used for centuries and is still commonly used in sports medicine, while 'MTBI' is a technical term used more commonly nowadays in general medical contexts. Frequently defined as a head injury with a transient loss of brain function, concussion can cause a variety of physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms.

Treatment of concussion involves monitoring and rest. Symptoms usually go away entirely within three weeks, though they may persist, or complications may occur.[6] Repeated concussions can cause cumulative brain damage such as dementia pugilistica or severe complications such as second-impact syndrome.

Due to factors such as widely varying definitions and possible underreporting of concussion, the rate at which it occurs annually is not known; however it may be more than 6 per 1,000 people.[7] Common causes include sports injuries, bicycle accidents, car accidents, and falls; the latter two are the most frequent causes among adults.[8] Concussion may be caused by a blow to the head, or by acceleration forces without a direct impact. The forces involved disrupt cellular processes in the brain for days or weeks. On the battlefield MTBI is a potential consequence of nearby explosions.[9]

 

[bbgun]

if i am right, this was ware's first concussion. Some take a few days, some a week or so. You just have to wait and see what the doctor says.

I was referencing Roger's numerous concussions, but thanks for the seminar.

 

[Hostile]

I was referencing Roger's numerous concussions, but thanks for the seminar.

Roger is just dishonest.

 

[bbgun]

Roger is just dishonest.

More like muddle-headed. Serial concussions will do that.

 

[Hostile]

More like muddle-headed. Serial concussions will do that.

Nope, you're the doctor who diagnosed dishonesty, now you're stuck with it.

Unless you'd like to change your plea.

 

[bbgun]

Nope, you're the doctor who diagnosed dishonesty, now you're stuck with it.

Unless you'd like to change your plea.

Hmm. Pretty sure I was referencing Zoners, who have a history of predicting good things to come, facts and circumstances be damned. In any event, Roger's prediction was just as jaded and bewildering as Emmitt's, which I also rightly panned. The difference is that Emmitt didn't wait until the first game was played before making his.

 

[Hostile]

Hmm. Pretty sure I was referencing Zoners, who have a history of predicting good things to come, facts and circumstances be damned. In any event, Roger's prediction was just as jaded and bewildering as Emmitt's, which I also rightly panned. The difference is that Emmitt didn't wait until the first game was played before making his.

In your mind you might have been referencing Zoners, but in your analogy you made no such distinction.

Optimists are dishonest. Those are your direct words.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Oh goodness. Why is it that someone saying 12-4 is such a huge stretch? Quite a few agree that 11-5 is what they're thinking so you're talking about 1 game better than that. With some solid play, a lucky bounce here other, whatever else happens in a season it's not like saying 12-4 is completely out of the question.

 

[AdamJT13]

Romo had a poor first half

At halftime, Romo had a 100.7 rating, 115 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions.

Give me 30 more "poor" halves like that this season, please.

 

[Doomsday101]

At halftime, Romo had a 100.7 rating, 115 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions.

Give me 30 more "poor" halves like that this season, please.

I agree. I do think the 1st few passes Romo threw were a bit behind his WR allowing the Tampa defenders to knock some passes down and 42 yards of the 115 came near the end of the half on the Austin TD. I don't think Romo played bad at all but was not exactly sharpe from the get go.

 

[bbgun]

In your mind you might have been referencing Zoners, but in your analogy you made no such distinction.

Optimists are dishonest. Those are your direct words.

Er, I said they were seldom honest. If you're gonna debate me, it would help if you didn't put words in my mouth. I also put "optimist" in quotes because the word itself is open to interpretation. I, for one, predicted a 10-6 season followed by a playoff appearance. That, to most sane people, would qualify as an "optimistic" outlook. And someone needs to explain to me why "cynics = fatalists" is any less egregious than labeling perennial optimists as "truth-starved." An insult is an insult.

 

[DallasEast]

Oh goodness. Why is it that someone saying 12-4 is such a huge stretch? Quite a few agree that 11-5 is what they're thinking so you're talking about 1 game better than that. With some solid play, a lucky bounce here other, whatever else happens in a season it's not like saying 12-4 is completely out of the question.

Answer: 44-6.

That's right. The final regular season game of 2008 dictates what will happen in 2009. It's been scientifically proven. Hold on a second and I'll prove it. I read it somewhere. Please be patient. I've got the facts in black-and-white print. It'll only be a moment longer.



Just where the flip flop did I put the back of that Cracker Jack box anyway???

 

[AdamJT13]

I agree. I do think the 1st few passes Romo threw were a bit behind his WR allowing the Tampa defenders to knock some passes down and 42 yards of the 115 came near the end of the half on the Austin TD. I don't think Romo played bad at all but was not exactly sharpe from the get go.

Romo is a notoriously slow starter (his career rating in the first quarter is extremely low, but it's very high in the second quarter and the highest of any active QB in each of the third and fourth quarters).

Still, he completed his first three attempts Sunday and ended the first quarter with a 104.2 rating. If he can start games like that this year, he could end up with his best season yet.

 

[Hostile]

Never said you did. That's why I used "and" instead of "but." I moved the discussion further down the road. If cynics are "fatalists," then optimists can be similarly written off as "dishonest."

Er, I said they were seldom honest. If you're gonna debate me, it would help if you didn't put words in my mouth. I also put "optimist" in quotes because the word itself is open to interpretation. I, for one, predicted a 10-6 season followed by a playoff appearance. That, to most sane people, would qualify as an "optimistic" outlook. And someone needs to explain to me why "cynics = fatalists" is any less egregious than labeling perennial optimists as "truth-starved." An insult is an insult.

Er, no you didn't. There's the quote above. Word for word.

I don't consider fatalist an insult. I consider it a frame of mind. It's why the Chicken Little description works so well. Bonk on the head, can't see what hit head, the sky must be falling. That is fatalism.

Won the game, didn't play as well as expectations, completely ignore that expectations may or may not be realistic, note the next opponent is expected to be better, again ignore that expectations may or may not be realistic, suggest that the worst possible scenario is potentially imminent. That is fatalism.

Deny it if you wish. The only thing I haven't added is that those with these expectations always believe they are realists just like Chicken Little and claim to be more informed than anyone else because of 13 years of no playoff wins.

I love how one point I keep bringing up is conveniently ignored by these so called realists. Maybe you can enlighten me?

It has been claimed over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, that no team who plays the way we did against Tampa Bay on Sunday and gives up 400+ yards of Offense can expect to win a Super Bowl. 1 game, and the outlook has become fatalistic. See how that word pops up?

Explain to me how in 2007, the NY Giants after 1 game stood at 0-1 (not 1-0 as we are), gave up 45 points (not 21 as we did), gave up 478 yards of Offense (not 450 yards as we gave up); please enlighten me how that team in more dire straits than we were went on to win a Super Bowl and yet it is impossible for the Cowboys to do the same. Please Sensei, explain that to me.

Final word. Yes, I consider 10-6 an optimistic outlook. Please note, that unlike many I have never once called you a Commanders fan. In fact, I have never called you a cynic either. If anything I do think you are a realist. Truth be told only one thing about your habits here annoys me, and I won't lie it annoys the hell out of me. You seem to think that the "positive outlook" fans of this site are somehow more deluded than any fans in the world, and therefore lesser people. I personally find that to be a load of bull ****.

By all means take me up on my repeated challenge to go speak ill of any other team in the NFL on their fan websites and be applauded the way you seem to think anyone who bashes the team deserves to be here. In that sense you have never been realistic, and until you drop that charade, you never will be. The word fan is short for fanatic. No charge for English lesson.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Gotta love Roger's optimism and good points of view...

 

[Nav22]

So both Troy and Roger are pro-Romo. Interesting.

 

[Bleu Star]

Bleu Star, my favorite Cowboys fan, says 9-7.

 

[bbgun]

Er, no you didn't. There's the quote above. Word for word.

Gee, you still can't seem to track down my original post and quote me honestly. I wonder why that is? And why is this even coming up in a Staubach thread?

I don't consider fatalist an insult. I consider it a frame of mind. It's why the Chicken Little description works so well. Bonk on the head, can't see what hit head, the sky must be falling. That is fatalism.

Yeah right. "Fatalist" is an obvious term of endearment. If you squint hard enough, maybe even a compliment.

Won the game, didn't play as well as expectations, completely ignore that expectations may or may not be realistic, note the next opponent is expected to be better, again ignore that expectations may or may not be realistic, suggest that the worst possible scenario is potentially imminent. That is fatalism.

More like well-deserved wariness, assuming all of us haven't been in a coma for the last 13 years.

Deny it if you wish. The only thing I haven't added is that those with these expectations always believe they are realists just like Chicken Little and claim to be more informed than anyone else because of 13 years of no playoff wins.

Some of us see the team and the front office for what it really is (good, even elite in certain spots, but ultimately not good enough). But we have nowhere else to go, so we come crawling back, kinda like "battered wife syndrome." You don't go 13 years without a playoff win by making wise or sound decisions, so a healthy dose of skepticism seems to be the appropriate "emotion" around here. You obviously disagree. So be it.

I love how one point I keep bringing up is conveniently ignored by these so called realists. Maybe you can enlighten me?

It has been claimed over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, that no team who plays the way we did against Tampa Bay on Sunday and gives up 400+ yards of Offense can expect to win a Super Bowl. 1 game, and the outlook has become fatalistic. See how that word pops up?

I hope you're not lumping me in with those fans, because I did no such thing. Again, it's more than just one game. In a sense, the Cowboys are victims of their recent regular season success. We're used to seeing red-hot Septembers and Octobers followed by disastrous Decembers, so Tampa qualifies as "low hanging fruit" in the grand scheme of things. Yes, enjoy the victory, but don't overlook some of the more ominous aspects that could prevent this team from accomplishing its ultimate goal: a championship. Better yet, don't disparage those who are so "impolite" as to notice said pitfalls.

Explain to me how in 2007, the NY Giants after 1 game stood at 0-1 (not 1-0 as we are), gave up 45 points (not 21 as we did), gave up 478 yards of Offense (not 450 yards as we gave up); please enlighten me how that team in more dire straits than we were went on to win a Super Bowl and yet it is impossible for the Cowboys to do the same. Please Sensei, explain that to me.

For starters, they had/have a real GM, not to mention superior depth. My post-victory criticisms of the team's performance in Tampa have been pretty muted so far, so I'm not sure what you want from me. I may be a "realist," but I'm not gonna be a dick and start ragging on certain players five minutes after the gun has sounded. All of that can wait. Just because they theoretically can win it all doesn't mean they will. Defeating Tampa 50-0 wouldn't have changed my mind one iota. I'll hope for the best but brace myself for disappointment.

Final word. Yes, I consider 10-6 an optimistic outlook. Please note, that unlike many I have never once called you a Commanders fan. In fact, I have never called you a cynic either. If anything I do think you are a realist.

Thanks for the kind words. And in my defense, I haven't used the word "sheep" as a pejorative in well over a year. Maybe longer.

Truth be told only one thing about your habits here annoys me, and I won't lie it annoys the hell out of me. You seem to think that the "positive outlook" fans of this site are somehow more deluded than any fans in the world, and therefore lesser people. I personally find that to be a load of bull ****.

Every site has an "internal culture." The Zone is pro-Jerry/pro-team in general/anti-media, DCC is wildly anti-Jerry, and forums like The Ranch or Blogging The Boys fall somewhere in between. It might surprise you that I find DCC to be too cynical (i.e. hatred for Jerry morphing into malice towards the team itself), which is why I do the majority of my posting over here. Not sure where you get the "lesser people" vibe. If anyone's been accused of being less than a real fan, or "encouraged" to find a new team, it's the cynics.

By all means take me up on my repeated challenge to go speak ill of any other team in the NFL on their fan websites and be applauded the way you seem to think anyone who bashes the team deserves to be here.

Sure I'd get bashed, because that's classic trolling. Not sure where you're going with this.

In that sense you have never been realistic, and until you drop that charade, you never will be.

Charade? What charade?

The word fan is short for fanatic. No charge for English lesson.

You can be a fan without being fanatical--a point I've made time and again, to no avail. I'll keep beating that drum 'til it finally sinks in.

 

[newlander]

Roger the Dodger......the best...sorry Troy....but Roger was my first Cowboy QB as a kid....he was the best. Captain frickin' comeback.............