Romo best All-Time in TDs per game

[peplaw06]

i'm pretty sure that would have had something to avoiding copyright infringement and lawsuits by the Boys FO. Hence the number change and lack of any recognizable logos on the uni or helmet.

And you would be wrong.

 

[Bleu Star]

And you would be wrong.

Set me straight mr law man sir. Break it down to me. (on cell phone while making it rain in favorite local SC)

 

[Clove]

Umm.....well for one, it isn't a "fact".



How about .............NO.

You're not very bright, are you?

I'm not the arguing type, but if I'm going to have a debate, and I make a comment, at least I'll make an attempt to prove my theory vs blabbering.

 

[silverbear]

I'm sorry you wasted time writing all that other junk

English translation-- I'm not EVEN gonna try to deal with all those damned ol' facts...

LOL... you're so pathetic, and so transparent...

My definition of clutch is Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Aikman, Roethlisberger, even McNabb made it to the NFC championship game several times, and the Super Bowl.

First, that's not a definition of clutch, that's a list of players you consider clutch...

Second, kindly point out the players on that list who had done those things by the time they'd started their 39th game in the league...

I know, I know, "you're sorry I wasted my time" typing this... of course you're sorry, it and my earlier rebuttals make you look quite ignorant...

Romo had 1 good year

Man, ignorance flows like wine from your computer keyboard... Romo has had THREE "good years" so far, by any standard:

2006-- 10 starts, averaged 290.3 yards per game passing, put up a 95.1 quarterback rating... went 6-4 in his first 10 NFL starts... that's a VERY good year...

2007-- 16 starts, averaged 263.2 yards per game, put up a 97.4 quarterback rating... went 13-3... that's an EXCELLENT YEAR, one that even you concede was "good"...

2008-- 13 starts, averaged 265.2 yards per game, put up a 91.4 quarterback rating... not as good as his first two years, but of course he was hurt during the season, which had some negative impact... even so, he ranked 8th in quarterback rating, 5th in passing yards per game, 6th in yards per attempt average, tied for 5th in completions of 20 yards or longer (in spite of missing 3 games), tied for 5th in completions of 20 yards or longer (in spite of missing 3 games), and 6th in touchdown passes (in spite of missing 3 games)...

Even in 2008, Tony was clearly a top 10 QB, and an argument could be made that he was a top 5 QB...

In spite of missing 3 games... I'd call that a pretty good season, too...

And if you wouldn't call all of those seasons "good", which you apparently won't, well, that just proves my case-- you don't know anything about quarterback play, or football in general...

And in three seasons, 39 games of play, Tony has a 94.7 quarterback rating, has averaged 270.0 yards per game passing, has a 63.6 per cent completion rate, an 8.1 yards per catch average, and his team is 27-12 over that span...

All of those numbers are good, the ones in bold font (if he matches them for the rest of his career) are Hall of Fame good...

And I know, you're "sorry I wasted my time typing this"... of course you are, LOL...

That is fact my friend, and fact doesn't equate to hate.

No, it's not... it's the opinion of somebody who knows nothing about the game of football, but thinks he does...

And when you refuse to recognize REAL facts, when you blithely ignore them, then yeah, that does "equate to hate"... but we established that a long time ago, when you bitterly denounced Tony Romo while bitterly defending a far worst quarterback in Quincy Carter...

Perhaps the definition of "clueless" should involve "anybody who attacks Tony Romo while defending Quincy Carter"... I may have to drop a line to the folks at Webster's, see if I can't get that included in their next edition...

If I have any luck, I'll e-mail you for a picture, so that they can say "see Judas/Clove"...

 

[silverbear]

Your username could not be more appropriate.

His username tells you what his agenda is-- he's no longer here for the football talk, he's here because he doesn't like us...

IOW, he's just another troll...

 

[tomson75]

I'm not the arguing type, but if I'm going to have a debate, and I make a comment, at least I'll make an attempt to prove my theory vs blabbering.

I called you on stating that one of your asinine opinions was a FACT, when by definition (and common sense), it wasn't. It didn't need further discussion. It just was.

You then proceeded to claim that I've presented some "theory". I haven't. So you've essentially confused "fact" with "opinion" and then "fact" with "theory". Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

"Blabbering", my silly friend, is all you've managed to do here since your boyfriend got his walking papers. Not my problem, and it's pretty lame that you're using this forum as a shoulder to cry on.

If I thought you were a competent person, one worthy of explaining myself to any further , I'd let you know.

 

[silverbear]

I'm not the arguing type

Yeah, we believe that...

That's ALL you're about these days, stirring the fecal matter... your sheer arrogance has rarely been exceeded in this forum...

Happily, you're pretty bad at it, so all that's really happened is you've become the forum's semi-official resident pinata... everybody gets to have fun having a whack at you, and you just swing back for more...

Even more happily, you seem to be sturdily made, 'cause I have the uncomfortable feeling that if we ever did manage to crack you open, instead of candy we'd get a shower of wet manure...

I think from now on, I'm gonna call you JP, for Judas Pinata... any of the other posters who care to adopt my new nickname are cordially invited to join in...

 

[Clove]

English translation-- I'm not EVEN gonna try to deal with all those damned ol' facts...

LOL... you're so pathetic, and so transparent...



First, that's not a definition of clutch, that's a list of players you consider clutch...

Second, kindly point out the players on that list who had done those things by the time they'd started their 39th game in the league...

I know, I know, "you're sorry I wasted my time" typing this... of course you're sorry, it and my earlier rebuttals make you look quite ignorant...



Man, ignorance flows like wine from your computer keyboard... Romo has had THREE "good years" so far, by any standard:

2006-- 10 starts, averaged 290.3 yards per game passing, put up a 95.1 quarterback rating... went 6-4 in his first 10 NFL starts... that's a VERY good year...

2007-- 16 starts, averaged 263.2 yards per game, put up a 97.4 quarterback rating... went 13-3... that's an EXCELLENT YEAR, one that even you concede was "good"...

2008-- 13 starts, averaged 265.2 yards per game, put up a 91.4 quarterback rating... not as good as his first two years, but of course he was hurt during the season, which had some negative impact... even so, he ranked 8th in quarterback rating, 5th in passing yards per game, 6th in yards per attempt average, tied for 5th in completions of 20 yards or longer (in spite of missing 3 games), tied for 5th in completions of 20 yards or longer (in spite of missing 3 games), and 6th in touchdown passes (in spite of missing 3 games)...

Even in 2008, Tony was clearly a top 10 QB, and an argument could be made that he was a top 5 QB...

In spite of missing 3 games... I'd call that a pretty good season, too...

And if you wouldn't call all of those seasons "good", which you apparently won't, well, that just proves my case-- you don't know anything about quarterback play, or football in general...

And in three seasons, 39 games of play, Tony has a 94.7 quarterback rating, has averaged 270.0 yards per game passing, has a 63.6 per cent completion rate, an 8.1 yards per catch average, and his team is 27-12 over that span...

All of those numbers are good, the ones in bold font (if he matches them for the rest of his career) are Hall of Fame good...

And I know, you're "sorry I wasted my time typing this"... of course you are, LOL...



No, it's not... it's the opinion of somebody who knows nothing about the game of football, but thinks he does...

And when you refuse to recognize REAL facts, when you blithely ignore them, then yeah, that does "equate to hate"... but we established that a long time ago, when you bitterly denounced Tony Romo while bitterly defending a far worst quarterback in Quincy Carter...

Perhaps the definition of "clueless" should involve "anybody who attacks Tony Romo while defending Quincy Carter"... I may have to drop a line to the folks at Webster's, see if I can't get that included in their next edition...

If I have any luck, I'll e-mail you for a picture, so that they can say "see Judas/Clove"...

Once again, all I see is junk.

Your stats you just threw out, meaningless as usual. These stat guys make me laugh. I remember when Randall Cunningham had crazy stats, he still sucks.

Those stats, unfortunately, did not work in the Steelers or Eagles game last year, unfortunately.

I do know a little something something about football, I know a little more than Garrett knows, otherwise, his pathetic offense would not have sputtered with the Great Romo at the helm.

Romo had 1 good year, keep that in mind as you continue to litter up the board with non sense.

 

[theogt]

Once again, all I see is junk.

Your stats you just threw out, meaningless as usual. These stat guys make me laugh. I remember when Randall Cunningham had crazy stats, he still sucks.

Those stats, unfortunately, did not work in the Steelers or Eagles game last year, unfortunately.

I do know a little something something about football, I know a little more than Garrett knows, otherwise, his pathetic offense would not have sputtered with the Great Romo at the helm.

Romo had 1 good year, keep that in mind as you continue to litter up the board with non sense.

First you scream that someone doesn't back themselves up with stats, then when they do, you say you don't care about stats.

You're a joke. And a pretty funny one at that.

 

[Clove]

First you scream that someone doesn't back themselves up with stats, then when they do, you say you don't care about stats.

You're a joke. And a pretty funny one at that.

I never said back it up with stats. I'll take it back if you show me.

Do you have anything else to add to the discussion since you like arguing anyways, if not, thanks for your meaningless input?

 

[theogt]

I never said back it up with stats. I'll take it back if you show me.

Do you have anything else to add to the discussion since you like arguing anyways, if not, thanks for your meaningless input?

Here you go.

I'm not the arguing type, but if I'm going to have a debate, and I make a comment, at least I'll make an attempt to prove my theory vs blabbering.

You don't attempt to prove squat. You state your opinion and that's it. You're worthless.

 

[Clove]

Here you go.

You don't attempt to prove squat. You state your opinion and that's it. You're worthless.

Our starting QB is worthless from what I've seen last year. Your gripe should be with him, not me.

 

[theogt]

Our starting QB is worthless from what I've seen last year. Your gripe should be with him, not me.

Like usual, you don't back up squat.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

None of the questions were answered as usual,

Because they're unanswerable and entirely polemic in nature.

Your questions do one of two things:

1) Make specious, unsubstantiated assumptions (i.e. Have you stopped beating your wife?).

2) Commit the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. For instance, you ask for specific instances of clutch play by Romo. Then, when someone produces such an instance, you reject it solely because it involved Romo and, in your mind, Romo is incapable of playing clutch.

In the end, your questions can only have one possible answer -- the one that you want.

 

[silverbear]

Once again, all I see is junk.

You should stop reading your own posts...

Your stats you just threw out, meaningless as usual.

ROTFLMAO... each and every stat I've "thrown out" at you was directly responsive to an assertion you've made, and directly rebutted said assertion...

Which is proven rather easily-- if you had a factual rebuttal to any of them, you would certainly have thrown it at me...

Trolls who are being beaten senseless by statistical fact all say those numbers are "meaningless"... their problem is they prove that they don't know much about football when they say that, because the numbers can tell you EXACTLY how a game, or a season, progressed-- if you know how to read them and interpret them...

And your problem is that I'm very good at doing exactly that... which is why you've been repeatedly punked by your friendly local Bear over these last couple-three days...

You'd probably be better off putting me on your ignore list, JP, the more you try to hang with me the worse you get punked...

I do know a little something something about football

You keep saying that, but to date you have provided absolutely no evidence that's the case...

I know a little more than Garrett knows

SURE you do...

In fact, one wonders why you're not getting paid millions of dollars for that vast knowledge, the way ol' Red is...

Can you even smell what you're shoveling, JP??

Romo had 1 good year, keep that in mind as you continue to litter up the board with non sense.

That specious theory has already been thoroughly rebutted... repeating discredited opinions over and over again does not make them more valid... particularly not when they had no validity to being with...

All you prove by repeating crapola like that is that you are incapable of processing facts normally, indeed incapable of recognizing factual reality...

 

[silverbear]

I never said back it up with stats.

It's true, you haven't... in fact, if one thing has become abundantly clear, it's that you don't care if your theories can be factually substantiated...

Nope, ol' JP is clearly one of those "my mind's made up, don't bother confusing me with a lot of facts" types...

 

[silverbear]

Our starting QB is worthless from what I've seen last year.

Takes a special kind of stupid to think that...

 

[Bleu Star]

And you would be wrong.

Set me straight mr law man sir. Break it down to me. (on cell phone while making it rain in favorite local SC)

Oh...

 

[peplaw06]

Oh...

He wouldn't have to worry about copyright infringement... There's no copyright on Romo's likeness. It's clearly a parody. He's just a moron.