My Meaningless Thoughts On The Game...

[big dog cowboy]

We won. By a lot.

Enjoy it.

What is sad is that sometimes it's so hard to tell.

 

[Jenky]

Absolutely, I'd encourage everyone to do exactly that. But you also have to look at it objectively and realize that we beat a pretty poor team that has been decimated by injuries this year (which is becoming the norm in the state of Washington). I will feel much better if we beat the Eagles next week, that to me is our first true challenge since the Giants in week 2. You seem to be a pretty upbeat person when it comes to the Cowboys, what is a realistic expectation as far as the outcome is concerned for next week in your mind?

And we destroyed the Falcons, but I guess they weren't considered a "true challenge". But somehow the Eagles are -- even though they lost to one of the worst teams in the league. :laugh1:

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The whole sig man.

You've gone ESPN.

Seriously... Stop and think for a minute how crazy it is to give up on a guy who has done so much in so little time.

Saying something like that is something i'd expect from a extremely casual fan who picks up a JJT article in the news paper while drinking coffee and agrees with everything he says.

There are no similarities between ESPN and myself.

If somebody on ESPN said Romo should get traded, you can rest assured that they are:

1. Probably looking for attention.
2. Wouldn't give Romo any credit if he proved them wrong.
3. Probably didn't do any research on the subject.
4. Did it to rile up Cowboys fans.
5. Probably didn't like Tony for blowing them off for an interview.
6. Have numerous inaccuracies.

He's not a 22 year old or a 25 year old or even a 27 year old QB anymore.

If Romo has another lousy December and postseason, I really wonder where all of these posters will be. It doesn't benefit me to see Romo fail, but it's a question the Cowboys need to ask themselves if it does happen.







YAKUZA

 

[speedkilz88]

And we destroyed the Falcons, but I guess they weren't considered a "true challenge". But somehow the Eagles are -- even though they lost to one of the worst teams in the league. :laugh1:

If they manage to beat them, the eagles will all of a sudden not be a true challenge either.(just like the falcons)

 

[Section446]

And we destroyed the Falcons, but I guess they weren't considered a "true challenge". But somehow the Eagles are -- even though they lost to one of the worst teams in the league. :laugh1:

Your point being? Teams have off weeks...

If you can't tell the difference between a Jim Johnson defense (yes I know he's dead, but the defense is still the same) and a VanGorder run defense then you aren't one with the force when it comes to the game of football. The Falcons are a shell of their former selves this season and are hardly as intimidating as they were a year ago.

 

[Jenky]

If they manage to beat them, the eagles will all of a sudden not be a true challenge either.(just like the falcons)

Exactly!:laugh2:

 

[speedkilz88]

There are no similarities between ESPN and myself.

If somebody on ESPN said Romo should get traded, you can rest assured that they are:

1. Probably looking for attention.
2. Wouldn't give Romo any credit if he proved them wrong.
3. Probably didn't do any research on the subject.
4. Did it to rile up Cowboys fans.
5. Probably didn't like Tony for blowing them off for an interview.
6. Have numerous inaccuracies.

He's not a 22 year old or a 25 year old or even a 27 year old QB anymore.

If Romo has another lousy December and postseason, I really wonder where all of these posters will be. It doesn't benefit me to see Romo fail, but it's a question the Cowboys need to ask themselves if it does happen.







YAKUZA

So far the Cowboys not succeeding in the playoffs have had little to do with the play of Romo.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Would this research have recommended cutting Peyton Manning after his fifth season when he was 0-3 in the playoffs?

Would this research have recommended starting Steve Young in San Francisco?

Of course not. All three QBs happen to be leading all of the QBs in the history of the league in QB rating. And two of them are HOF quarterbacks. But the research you rely on would have not allowed them to get there.

Your opinion is just bizarre. Bizarre, that's a good word to describe it. And it forces others to completely disregard everything else you say, so congrats on that.

Peyton's stats showed he turned the ball over far less than Romo (don't forget about fumbles) and was continually improving his play, even during the 0-3 performance in the playoffs.

Don't call me irrational when you have ZERO idea of what you're talking about.





YAKUZA

 

[theogt]

Peyton's stats showed he turned the ball over far less than Romo (don't forget about fumbles) and was continually improving his play, even during the 0-3 performance in the playoffs.

Don't call me irrational when you have ZERO idea of what you're talking about.

And this is where the data mining comes into play.

Have fun with that.

 

[JBell]

Peyton's stats showed he turned the ball over far less than Romo (don't forget about fumbles) and was continually improving his play, even during the 0-3 performance in the playoffs.

Don't call me irrational when you have ZERO idea of what you're talking about.





YAKUZA

That's funny, because Peyton's QB rating in his first three playoff games was 59 and he had 2 turnovers.

Romo in his first two playoff games? 1 turnover, 75.8 QB rating.




Looks like you're the one who has ZERO idea of what he's talking about.

 

[Paniolo22]

To put the whole blame on Romo is ridiculous. When Eli sucked, his team bailed him out. When Big Ben sucked, his D bailed him out. Romo played ok, and his team flaked, so it's his fault. Makes complete sense.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Yakuza. I disagree with your opinion on Romo, but it certainly doesn't invalidate all of your commentary.

 

[ShiningStar]

I agree with Yakuza and he always gives good data and well thought, or fact based posts.

The problem with Romo this year is the same as others, he plays well before December. If that happens again, who will still want Romo come next year? Will you root for a guy who plays his best before December? A few wins and you are ready to ride the guy to the SB he hasnt gotten to yet?

And Theo, this is the same thing as in the PC zone. If someone doesnt agree wtih you, you shut them down, no conversation, no debate, just agree with me or you are stupid". It gets old real fast.

 

[Primetime42]

There are no similarities between ESPN and myself.

If somebody on ESPN said Romo should get traded, you can rest assured that they are:

1. Probably looking for attention.
2. Wouldn't give Romo any credit if he proved them wrong.
3. Probably didn't do any research on the subject.
4. Did it to rile up Cowboys fans.
5. Probably didn't like Tony for blowing them off for an interview.
6. Have numerous inaccuracies.

He's not a 22 year old or a 25 year old or even a 27 year old QB anymore.

If Romo has another lousy December and postseason, I really wonder where all of these posters will be. It doesn't benefit me to see Romo fail, but it's a question the Cowboys need to ask themselves if it does happen.







YAKUZA

There's a difference between having a contingency plan if he fails and flat out saying "He needs to be traded".

Sorry dude. I can't get behind that.

 

[ShiningStar]

There's a difference between having a contingency plan if he fails and flat out saying "He needs to be traded".

Sorry dude. I can't get behind that.

will the plans be the same as the others? Wait til he does it than find a plan in Feburary?

 

[juck]

There's nothing irrational about a guy who has developed an established pattern of playing extremely well before December then crapped the bed in December and thinking that unless this guy proves that he can break this pattern, then you're better off looking elsewhere.

There's nothing irrational about having a blog reader compile a database of every season by every NFL quarterback who threw at least one pass, normalize the data between eras, and come up with Romo having a similar career to the same point as QB's like Jim Everett, Dan Fouts, John Elway, Scott Mitchell, Frank Ryan and Jack Kemp. And outside of Fouts, none of these guys got better in their late 20's and early 30's. And only Elway won a Super Bowl.

Hey, I hope Romo proves me wrong. He seems to be taking the right steps this year to raise the level of his play, but we'll see when the rubber hits the road in a few weeks.

You're spot on. Idiots on this board have short memories.

 

[RS12]

You're spot on. Idiots on this board have short memories.

There are idiots on this board? Would they be of the cool aid drinking variety?:laugh2:

 

[speedkilz88]

I agree with Yakuza and he always gives good data and well thought, or fact based posts.

The problem with Romo this year is the same as others, he plays well before December. If that happens again, who will still want Romo come next year? Will you root for a guy who plays his best before December? A few wins and you are ready to ride the guy to the SB he hasnt gotten to yet?

And Theo, this is the same thing as in the PC zone. If someone doesnt agree wtih you, you shut them down, no conversation, no debate, just agree with me or you are stupid". It gets old real fast.

I'll go on record right now and say I want him next season and the ones after that too.

 

[ShiningStar]

I'll go on record right now and say I want him next season and the ones after that too.

Just stand by it is all i ask. I prefer Romo as well, but you gotta live with the ups and the downs. For me, SB's arent the only things that matter.

 

[mmohican29]

That's a good point. I can't really explain the lack of INT's with this team. I never could. I watch other teams and its like the qb has his worst throws against every team but the Cowboys. I swear I watch some of these INT's SHarper gets? They aren't Sharper in great coverage. He's just at the right place at the right time. This is not really a argument on my part but I just have no clue on how it seems qb's throw terrible passes against other teams but with us not only do the get the ball out of there fast they rarely throw terrible footballs. But I agree with you. We need more plays out of the secondary. Today we got fumbles. I'll take either to be honest. A turnover is a turnover. But some INT's would be nice. I just don't see many that should be had. Sensabaugh dropped one right through his hands but with the cast he deserves a pass.

The reason why we don't get as many picks as other teams has more to do with the presure we dial up combined with the fact we play a zone coverage to prevent first down conversions.

This causes QB's to throw on the first or second read because they are usually looking for the weakness in the zone and counting on their receivers to be at a specific yardage and spot on time. We rarely allow QB's to settle in the pocket and let the play develop further downfield, and this is where INT's occur on most occasions- tipped balls and safety breaks on the football.

To put it simply, the Dallas Cowboys defense doesn't allow QB's time to make bad decisions... it's either a completion for decent yardage if the playcall was correct or incomplete.

This helps explain our very good 3rd down conversion rate on D. It's batted down, a wormburner, or it's going OB if we get good pressure but don't get the sack.