Romo vs. Vick

[tyke1doe]

No, it's ratings....and not a valid argument in the consideration of how two players should be evaluated.

Right. So it's not a double standard when Romo gets criticized more than Rivers even though Rivers can stink it up too.

It's ratings.

Thank you for your wise deduction.


P.S. Phillip Rivers has taken a team further than Romo. Just saying.

 

[tomson75]

Right. So it's not a double standard when Romo gets criticized more than Rivers even though Rivers can stick it up.

It's ratings.

Thank you for your wise deduction.

Swing and a miss.

 

[SDCowboy]

Right. So it's not a double standard when Romo gets criticized more than Rivers even though Rivers can stink it up too.

It's ratings.

Thank you for your wise deduction.


P.S. Phillip Rivers has taken a team further than Romo. Just saying.

:laugh2:Good Lord...And Rivers hasn't even been to the playoffs in 5 seasons.

 

[tyke1doe]

Lmao...you think the people supporting the team and Romo are the ones that are worked up into a frenzy?

That's hilarious.

It's one thing to support the team and Romo.

It's another to moan and complain over, and over, and over again and call people idiots because they don't view things the same way you do.

The fact you can't distinguish between the two is equally as hilarious.

 

[tyke1doe]

Swing and a miss.

Not hardly.

Why do you think Romo gets criticized more? Because he is the quarterback of the Cowboys. Because people love to hear and watch the Dallas Cowboys when they're winning and when they're losing.

That's why Romo and the Cowboys are the topic of discussion on almost every football show.

Few care about the Chargers. They do care about the Cowboys.

But I understand Cowboys fans' need to feel persecuted so let me get my nails, cross and hammer. :laugh2:

 

[tomson75]

It's one thing to support the team and Romo.

It's another to moan and complain over, and over, and over again and call people idiots because they don't view things the same way you do.

The fact you can't distinguish between the two is equally as hilarious.

Oh wow...the irony is just smacking you in the face.

 

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2:Good Lord...And Rivers hasn't even been to the playoffs in 5 seasons.

And Romo hasn't been there in three seasons, and went one and out.

Be that as it may, it doesn't erase the fact that Rivers has been to an AFC Championship Game and Romo hasn't. Whether you think it matters or not is really irrelevant. The fact that some consider that in comparing the two is what matters and what they build their argument on with respect to Tony Romo and Phillip Rivers.

 

[tyke1doe]

Oh wow...the irony is just smacking you in the face.

If you say so.

 

[tomson75]

Not hardly.

Why do you think Romo gets criticized more? Because he is the quarterback of the Cowboys. Because people love to hear and watch the Dallas Cowboys when they're winning and when they're losing.

That's why Romo and the Cowboys are the topic of discussion on almost every football show.

Few care about the Chargers. They do care about the Cowboys.

But I understand Cowboys fans' need to feel persecuted so let me get my nails, cross and hammer. :laugh2:

Let me say this as slow as possible so maybe you can comprehend it this time.

I'm not arguing that Romo receives more criticism because of his higher visibility.

I'm saying that he shouldn't. Ratings should not be a factor when people evaluate players.

Comprende?

No one here is making Romo into a martyr...and as badly as you would like to make the media into one, they don't get a pass for stupidity just because more people will watch or read whatever they say when it concerns a more visible player.

Let me know if you need more help with this.

 

[tyke1doe]

TV ratings have nothing to do with how a player should be evaluated by sports media...

I don't say this with any disrespect, but you don't know much about sports media now days if you say such.

Sports shows survive based on ratings. Shows are looking for topics that drive ratings.

It's no coincidence that Tim Tebow has been discussed on ESPN's First Take show almost every show in the off season. Did we really need to hear about Tebow every day during the off season? No.

But we did. Why? Because of ratings.

The same with the Cowboys and the criticism the team receives.

It is what it is.

 

[erod]

I can settle this easily.

The Eagles would give us two No. 1s for Romo and throw a parade.

We wouldn't take a bag of funyuns for Vick.

Period.

 

[tyke1doe]

Let me say this as slow as possible so maybe you can comprehend it this time.

I'm not arguing that Romo receives more criticism because of his higher visibility.

I'm saying that he shouldn't. Ratings should not be a factor when people evaluate players.

Comprende?

No one here is making Romo into a martyr...and as badly as you would like to make the media into one, they don't get a pass for stupidity just because more people will watch or read whatever they say when it concerns a more visible player.

Let me know if you need more help with this.

Now let me return the favor since the concept called context seems to escape you. And I'll be even slower in my delivery.

Here ... is ... what ... SDCowboy85 said

I love the double standard, though. Rivers has a nightmarish season last year...not a peep. Romo has two off games and he's suddenly on football's skid row.

To ... which ... I ... responded

Is it a double standard that the Cowboys get the prime slots in the NFL national game rotation?

Is it a double standard when the Cowboys get twice the coverage of the San Diego Chargers?

Your ... response ... was

No, it's ratings....and not a valid argument in the consideration of how two players should be evaluated.

And ... my ... point ... is ... EXACTLY!

Notice ... I ... addressed ... why ... one ... might ... not ... hear ... a ... peep ... about ... Rivers ... bad ... season.

It ... is ... because ... it's ... not ... a ... ratings ... driver ... because ... the ... Cowboys ... generate ... greater ... ratings ... than ... the ... Chargers.

Why ... are ... we ... not ... hearing ... more ... about ... Josh ... Freeman?

It ... is ... because ... few ... care ... about ... the ... Buccaneers ... compared ... to ... the ... Cowboys. And ... that ... is ... a ... product ... of ... ratings.

Comprende?

 

[tyke1doe]

Sorry, double post. Although, given the level of contextual comprehension, maybe another post was necessary.

 

[tomson75]

Now let me return the favor since the concept called context seems to escape you. And I'll be even slower in my delivery.

Here ... is ... what ... SDCowboy85 said



To ... which ... I ... responded



Your ... response ... was



And ... my ... point ... is ... EXACTLY!

Notice ... I ... addressed ... why ... one ... might ... not ... hear ... a ... peep ... about ... Rivers ... bad ... season.

It ... is ... because ... it's ... not ... a ... ratings ... driver ... because ... the ... Cowboys ... generate ... greater ... ratings ... than ... the ... Chargers.

Why ... are ... we ... not ... hearing ... more ... about ... Josh ... Freeman?

It ... is ... because ... few ... care ... about ... the ... Buccaneers ... compared ... to ... the ... Cowboys. And ... that ... is ... a ... product ... of ... ratings.

Comprende?

I'm just going to assume that this unreadable mess says something to the effect that you were wrong, and that you'll try harder next time.

No worries. It happens to all of us Tyke! Have a nice day!

 

[CutMeMick]

Now let me return the favor since the concept called context seems to escape you. And I'll be even slower in my delivery.

Here ... is ... what ... SDCowboy85 said



To ... which ... I ... responded



Your ... response ... was



And ... my ... point ... is ... EXACTLY!

Notice ... I ... addressed ... why ... one ... might ... not ... hear ... a ... peep ... about ... Rivers ... bad ... season.

It ... is ... because ... it's ... not ... a ... ratings ... driver ... because ... the ... Cowboys ... generate ... greater ... ratings ... than ... the ... Chargers.

Why ... are ... we ... not ... hearing ... more ... about ... Josh ... Freeman?

It ... is ... because ... few ... care ... about ... the ... Buccaneers ... compared ... to ... the ... Cowboys. And ... that ... is ... a ... product ... of ... ratings.

Comprende?

Game, set, and match. :spanking:

 

[craig71]

Now let me return the favor since the concept called context seems to escape you. And I'll be even slower in my delivery.

Here ... is ... what ... SDCowboy85 said



To ... which ... I ... responded



Your ... response ... was



And ... my ... point ... is ... EXACTLY!

Notice ... I ... addressed ... why ... one ... might ... not ... hear ... a ... peep ... about ... Rivers ... bad ... season.

It ... is ... because ... it's ... not ... a ... ratings ... driver ... because ... the ... Cowboys ... generate ... greater ... ratings ... than ... the ... Chargers.

Why ... are ... we ... not ... hearing ... more ... about ... Josh ... Freeman?

It ... is ... because ... few ... care ... about ... the ... Buccaneers ... compared ... to ... the ... Cowboys. And ... that ... is ... a ... product ... of ... ratings.

Comprende?

I don't have a horse in this race but that right there is right funny, kind of a George and Lenny conversation....


Craig

 

[tomson75]

Game, set, and match. :spanking:

Tyke, your companionship here speaks volumes. Maybe you should cut your losses...

 

[AdamJT13]

ESPN just did a segment on which QB would you trust more at the end of the game. Ron Jaworski spoke for Vick and Merrill Hoge spoke for Romo. They had 3 minutes and during this time the public could vote for their favorite of the two. So this vote was worldwide , or at least as far as ESPNs broadcast stretches. And the winner is---

Vick 56%---Romo 44%

What does that say about Romo??? You decide for yourself.

Passer ratings since 2000 in the final 10 minutes of the fourth quarter (minimum 250 attempts) --

95.7 Tony Romo
95.4 Peyton Manning
93.8 Philip Rivers
90.0 Aaron Rodgers
89.7 Daunte Culpepper
89.0 Joe Flacco
88.2 Tom Brady
87.3 Rich Gannon
85.7 Drew Brees
85.6 Matt Cassel
84.5 Kurt Warner
84.3 Trent Green
82.7 Ben Roethlisberger
82.7 Josh Freeman
82.6 Eli Manning
82.6 Mark Brunell
82.5 Jake Delhomme
81.7 Donovan McNabb
81.3 Jeff Garcia
81.2 Vinny Testaverde
81.1 Brad Johnson
80.9 Matt Ryan
80.7 Chad Pennington
80.5 David Garrard
79.1 Jay Cutler
78.7 Byron Leftwich
78.6 Michael Vick
78.5 Matt Schaub
77.7 Jason Campbell
76.7 Brian Griese
76.7 Matthew Stafford
76.5 Aaron Brooks
76.4 Carson Palmer
76.3 Kerry Collins
76.0 Kyle Orton
74.1 Steve McNair
72.9 Gus Frerotte
72.7 Joey Harrington
71.4 Matt Hasselbeck
70.9 Alex Smith
70.8 Brett Favre
70.5 Drew Bledsoe
70.0 Marc Bulger
69.9 Ryan Fitzpatrick
68.9 Jon Kitna
68.8 David Carr
68.1 Kyle Boller
67.8 Jake Plummer
64.4 Rex Grossman
64.3 Mark Sanchez
63.5 Derek Anderson
58.7 Josh McCown
57.5 Jay Fiedler

 

[CutMeMick]

Tyke, your companionship here speaks volumes. Maybe you should cut your losses...

LOL
Dude, just admit you got PWND....you're embarassing yourself.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm just going to assume that this unreadable mess says something to the effect that you were wrong, and that you'll try harder next time.

No worries. It happens to all of us Tyke! Have a nice day!

Rather, you know I have a strong point and instead of bothering to comprehend it, you'll beg out and claim some mythical award as if you won this debate.

Typical Internet wimpery. :laugh2:

My point is very clear. And I'll restate it for your pleasure (especially since the use of ellipsis* seems to escape you):

The reason why Tony Romo gets criticized more than other quarterbacks, in this case Phillip Rivers, is because the Cowboys generate ratings - when they're good and when they're bad. And as the leader of the Cowboys, Romo is going to be evaluated more harshly than other quarterbacks, particularly quarterbacks whose franchises shine less brightly than the Cowboys franchise.


(*In reported speech, the ellipsis is sometimes used to represent an intentional silence, perhaps indicating irritation, dismay, shock or disgust.

In poetry, this is used to highlight sarcasm or make the reader think about the last points in the poem.)