Highlight of the Super Bowl was Tony Romo

[Vanilla2]

Wish some of y’all appreciated him this much when he was our qb

 

[aria]

McVay had to decline the penalty because it would have given New England an extra down to help run out the clock. His team needed the ball back so the point was take the down over the yardage, stop the Patriots and give your office at least some kind of shot of scoring. It was absolutely the right call.

I actually had a moment where I was thinking why would you decline the penalty, but time was more important than yardage at that point.

But had he not declined the penalty it put the Pats in FG range, not to mention only a few yards to go for a first, which them almost no shot a winning had they converted. Do you remember how much time NE had and how much time the Rams would have had they accepted the penalty and stopped NE?

 

[aria]

Right. So I can assume we'll see all those armchair drunks in the booth in the next year or two, getting accolades industry wide for the great job they are doing.

PS--sounds like someone not only took a piss in your Wheaties this morning, but then force fed them to you while repeatedly smashing a white hot branding iron into your bare skin.

I hope the rest of your day goes better......

Awwwww...I hurt a Romoholics feelings, what else is new. I’m really not concerned with how many people agree with me or “like” my posts. Sorry we don’t agree here, it’s a public forum with varying opinions but how did you know someone pissed in my Wheaties and who’s to say I don’t like that?

And no, not every armchair drunk would be in the booth because typically those jobs go to former athletes and people who major in some sort of media. And yes, I have plenty of “armchair drunk” friends who are quite knowledgeable at football and contribute just as much as Tony, if not more. I never said he wasn’t good, IMOF, I said he provided a lot of insight but that he was wrong more often than right.

Would you like to have Wheaties with me for breakfast tomorrow because it sounds like you may like them, piss included of course.

 

[aria]

He commentates like he played.
Throws a lot out there and takes some chances. Hits on most, misses on few.

Right or wrong, he makes it interesting and gives us viewpoint on the game we don't usually get.

That’s a very good analogy with the exception I think he misses more often than he’s right but people overlook the times he’s wrong and only bring up the times he’s right so it gets blown way of proportion.

 

[Cowfan75]

Imagine if Troy and Joe had called this game. At least Romo can make it sound exciting even if it isn't.

 

[BoysForLife]

Awwwww...I hurt a Romoholics feelings, what else is new. I’m really not concerned with how many people agree with me or “like” my posts. Sorry we don’t agree here, it’s a public forum with varying opinions but how did you know someone pissed in my Wheaties and who’s to say I don’t like that?

And no, not every armchair drunk would be in the booth because typically those jobs go to former athletes and people who major in some sort of media. And yes, I have plenty of “armchair drunk” friends who are quite knowledgeable at football and contribute just as much as Tony, if not more. I never said he wasn’t good, IMOF, I said he provided a lot of insight but that he was wrong more often than right.

Would you like to have Wheaties with me for breakfast tomorrow because it sounds like you may like them, piss included of course.

My feeling aren't hurt or even remotely bothered. I agree with you, it's a free country. To each his/her own opinion.

You seem quite bent out of shape that people like the guy so much. That's your issue, not mine.
And for the record, the bold is laughable.

the idea that you actually think the guy sitting next to you swilling beer in a recliner could possibly contribute more from an analytical standpoint than Romo is simultaneously hilarious and ridiculous.

You're either grossly undervaluing Romo, or grossly overvaluing your drunken friends, or both.

Also I don't like Wheaties. With, or without, piss.

 

[Jason 82 Witten]

I would have to say Tony and Jim Nance are the best duo

 

[aria]

My feeling aren't hurt or even remotely bothered. I agree with you, it's a free country. To each his/her own opinion.

You seem quite bent out of shape that people like the guy so much. That's your issue, not mine.
And for the record, the bold is laughable.

the idea that you actually think the guy sitting next to you swilling beer in a recliner could possibly contribute more from an analytical standpoint than Romo is simultaneously hilarious and ridiculous.

You're either grossly undervaluing Romo, or grossly overvaluing your drunken friends, or both.

Also I don't like Wheaties. With, or without, piss.

First of all, you don’t know my friends or their football backgrounds. You didn’t have to play or coach professional football to be able to call out potential strategies, formations, plays, players abilities, strengths, weaknesses, common sense (ie watch out for a fake punt here, no joke) to be able to contribute as much as Tony. I’m sorry your basic knowledge of football is underwhelming and you are easily impressed with hypothetical plays/situations that may or may not happen.

I’m not bent out of shape with anyone “liking the guy so much”, more like obsessing over the guy so much and ignoring facts. I don’t know how many times I’ve said he brings a lot to the booth but his predictions, many of which are common sense (although a few aren’t) are overblown and lots of people tend ro iverlook how often he is wrong as compared to right.

BTW, whoever said anything about being drunk? I like how you added your own little made up assumption there to help bolster your false accusations.

 

[aria]

Imagine if Troy and Joe had called this game. At least Romo can make it sound exciting even if it isn't.

I actually prefer Joe and Troy. Troy isn’t afraid to sugarcoat anything and is rather blunt which pisses off a lot of homers around here. Tony’s grade school girl on her first date enthusiasm with all is “ooooing and ahhing” along with overkilling the most basic play to try and make it seem interesting gets old after awhile. Dude needs to smoke a joint.

Just my opinion and preference, he definitely bring other things positive aspects to the booth that others don’t.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Soooo, if the announcer wasn't an ex cowboy qb, would this thread even exist? Who gives a smokin crap about the quality of the commentary?

You have a bad attitude.

 

[Captain-Crash]

lmao

You have a bad attitude.

not as bad as the "hateboy".

 

[Runwildboys]

Disagree and I even commented in a thread a few weeks ago that I would keep track of how many times he was right vs wrong just for fun and to prove the Romoholics wrong.

Last night he was wrong more than right unless you include loophole comments like “watch for the run to the right” and if they run to the right then he’s correct but if they don’t then he’s not wrong because he didn’t specifically say they would run to the right.

Same thing with a punt. “This would be a good place to fake a punt, they should be looking for it”. It happens and he’s a genius, it doesn’t and he never specifically said they would.

I’m not saying he’s never right but it’s completely overblown. Every now and then he hits the nail on the head but so do a lot of arm chair coaches drinking beer and eating cheetos at home.

He's definitely not always right, but when he says things like, "They should be looking for it", he's just saying there's a good possibility, and he's right that they should be looking for it. It'd be foolish to be completely unprepared. When I watch, I'm frequently saying things like, "Watch for the play action." Sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't, but the possibility is so high that they'd be stupid to sell out on the run.

 

[Runwildboys]

I can tell you that I watched the game with a room full of people who hated Romo as a player as they hate the Cowboys. Now they can't get enough of him on the broadcasts they were actually rewinding the game at times to hear what Romo said again.

They love him in the booth as does most of America

That's saying a lot!

 

[aria]

He's definitely not always right, but when he says things like, "They should be looking for it", he's just saying there's a good possibility, and he's right that they should be looking for it. It'd be foolish to be completely unprepared. When I watch, I'm frequently saying things like, "Watch for the play action." Sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't, but the possibility is so high that they'd be stupid to sell out on the run.

I get that but he does that quite a bit and when he’s right they act like he hit the nail on the head but when he’s wrong he’s not because he said “should be looking for it”. It’s a nice little loophole where he can’t be wrong. There are a few time he’s matter of factly said something that was right (maybe it was the Pats/Chiefs game?) but he’s also said matter of factly things and been plenty wrong, more often than not IMO.

 

[America's Cowboy]

This was the highlight of the SB...

 

[cowboy_ron]

As much as he didn't really want to retire but healthwise he knew that it was the best decision. Tony seems comfortable and content in his new career...........If at some point in the future if he decides that he wants to get back closer to the game as a coach he wouldn't lack for teams wanting him with his knowledge of the game before the play is executed........and I hope it's in Dallas

 

[cowboy_ron]

lmao

not as bad as the "hateboy".

Which one was he?

 

[cowboy_ron]

[QUOTE="Jason 82 Witten, post: 9026628, member: 37418" ]I would have to say Tony and Jim Nance are the best duo[/QUOTE]
On FOX I get really tired EVERYTIME hearing: I'm Joe Cuckhold along with "the HOFer Troy Aikman".

 

[BoysForLife]

First of all, you don’t know my friends or their football backgrounds. You didn’t have to play or coach professional football to be able to call out potential strategies, formations, plays, players abilities, strengths, weaknesses, common sense (ie watch out for a fake punt here, no joke) to be able to contribute as much as Tony. I’m sorry your basic knowledge of football is underwhelming and you are easily impressed with hypothetical plays/situations that may or may not happen.

I’m not bent out of shape with anyone “liking the guy so much”, more like obsessing over the guy so much and ignoring facts. I don’t know how many times I’ve said he brings a lot to the booth but his predictions, many of which are common sense (although a few aren’t) are overblown and lots of people tend ro iverlook how often he is wrong as compared to right.

BTW, whoever said anything about being drunk? I like how you added your own little made up assumption there to help bolster your false accusations.

I don't need to know your friends, or their backgrounds, to safely conclude that they don't understand football as well as the all time leading passer in Cowboys franchise history

Unless one of your buddies is Staubach or something. In which case I'll retract my statement

But if he's just a regular Joe, even if he's quite knowledgeable about the game, it's still laughable to think they know as much as a guy who played professionally for over a decade

I love golf. I play as often as I can. I rarely miss watching a tournament on TV. Guess in your world that means I'm qualified to start looping for a tour player, right? Lol

 

[Runwildboys]

I get that but he does that quite a bit and when he’s right they act like he hit the nail on the head but when he’s wrong he’s not because he said “should be looking for it”. It’s a nice little loophole where he can’t be wrong. There are a few time he’s matter of factly said something that was right (maybe it was the Pats/Chiefs game?) but he’s also said matter of factly things and been plenty wrong, more often than not IMO.

So if I'm understanding you, the only predictions we should consider are the ones in which he says, "They're going to......". I agree with that. If you're going to keep count, keep count of the definitive prognostications, and ignore the maybes.