Skins Fans starting to see the light: Romo vs JC

[5Stars]

Yeah, your right, I did just make up that statistic (like I said). It's wrong, but I said I didn't do any research, so it's going to be wrong. You have the time to do research, good job. Okay, let's look at it this way. Romo had 4 games below 60 which is 35 points from his average, which in turn works out to be 36% of the time, he played WELL below his average.

Manning had 3 games that fall that far below his average (19% of the time). Brady had two games that far below his average (13%), Palmer had 1 game (6%). These QBs, while they are the cream of the crop, don't struggle with consistency nearly as much as Romo does.

Using the examples you gave, Romo has about twice as many games where he struggles as does any other QB. Of course, that means he has to counterbalance them with equally better games as his bad games, so like I said, he knows no middle ground.

If our teams swapped QB's, how would you feel about it?

 

[Hostile]

96% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Seriously -you don't think your positions through at all, or do any research.

Last year Carson Palmer had QB ratings of 52, 79, 69, and 63 while he posted a 93 rating for the year. He had 4 games where he was over 10 points higher than his average, for a total of 50% of his games falling outside the range you specified.

Tom Brady posted an 86 average, and had games where he posted ratings of 79, 58, 102, 107, 97, 108, 55, 128, 34, 115, 112, and 74 - that's 12 out of 16 games where he wasn't within your specified range.

Peyton Manning had 11 of his 16 games fall outside that range, including lows of 71, 61, 68, 80 and 79.

Looks like Tony Romo is just your average NFL Superstar QB.

That is, if we use your criteria, which I'm sure you'll feebly attempt to qualify.

EDIT: And these percentages were done by me reading your position as - The QB would be within his average rating in EITHER direction, which makes them more generous than what you actually said.

i.e. your criteria means that Tony Romo's individual game ratings would have had to range from 90-100. I did 85-105.



I guess you would rather me just yank moronic statements out of my behind.

Like....I don't know.....you?

Firehawk350 >>> :spanking: <<< superpunk

 

[superpunk]

That is, if we use your criteria, which I'm sure you'll feebly attempt to qualify.

Yeah, your right, I did just make up that statistic (like I said). It's wrong, but I said I didn't do any research, so it's going to be wrong. You have the time to do research, good job. Okay, let's look at it this way. Romo had 4 games below 60 which is 35 points from his average, which in turn works out to be 36% of the time, he played WELL below his average.

I'm psychic.

You have no point.

Sit the **** down.

 

[firehawk350]

You clearly do not understand how QB ratings work. This is no indictment of a QB.

In 11 starts, Romo had only 3 games with a rating below 85. By comparison, Peyton Manning had 8 of 20 starts with a rating below 85.

This is just crap. I challenge you to find one full time starter that meets this criterion.

Even very basic research would find fault in your argument. While it's true that Manning has had 8 games outta 20 that fall below 80, he's also had only 1 game that falls below 60. It's easy when you fit your argument.

 

[chicago JK]

So Manning and Brady are the benchmarks for Romo? If so, it is going to be hard for him to ever impress Skin fans.

I am glad Romo is on our team. How great will he be? who knows. I just love that we have a face of the team now who absolutely drives other teams fans crazy. He must be doing something good.

 

[firehawk350]

Listen dude, like I said, I just completely made that up. I did some research and corrected it. That's the scientific method. Come up with a hypothesis and research to disprove it then refine it. Happy?

 

[firehawk350]

So Manning and Brady are the benchmarks for Romo? If so, it is going to be hard for him to ever impress Skin fans.

I am glad Romo is on our team. How great will he be? who knows. I just love that we have a face of the team now who absolutely drives other teams fans crazy. He must be doing something good.

I'm just using what superpunk gave me, he started the comparisons.

 

[Idgit]

96% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Seriously -you don't think your positions through at all, or do any research.

Last year Carson Palmer had QB ratings of 52, 79, 69, and 63 while he posted a 93 rating for the year. He had 4 games where he was over 10 points higher than his average, for a total of 50% of his games falling outside the range you specified.

Tom Brady posted an 86 average, and had games where he posted ratings of 79, 58, 102, 107, 97, 108, 55, 128, 34, 115, 112, and 74 - that's 12 out of 16 games where he wasn't within your specified range.

Peyton Manning had 11 of his 16 games fall outside that range, including lows of 71, 61, 68, 80 and 79.

Looks like Tony Romo is just your average NFL Superstar QB.

That is, if we use your criteria, which I'm sure you'll feebly attempt to qualify.

EDIT: And these percentages were done by me reading your position as - The QB would be within his average rating in EITHER direction, which makes them more generous than what you actually said.

i.e. your criteria means that Tony Romo's individual game ratings would have had to range from 90-100. I did 85-105.



I guess you would rather me just yank moronic statements out of my behind.

Like....I don't know.....you?

Firehawk. Would you consider this a meaningful contribution? And if so, is it coincidental?

If you're going to call a man out, you should give him props when he proves to you in front of the whole class that his is bigger than yours.

 

[firehawk350]

Your right, he did come up with a meaningful contribution. Good job. *edit* anyways, i gotta grab lunch (its 11 here in AZ) and I'd rather not have to type while eating, so I'm going to see what else is going on and I'll be back if anyone still wants to debate.

 

[superpunk]

Firehawk. Would you consider this a meaningful contribution? And if so, is it coincidental?

The funny part is that I didn't even see that post while I was making mine and looking up those QBs stats. I hit reply, and then saw it and added it in with an edit.

I don't think firehawk really wants meaningful contributions. Everytime someone makes one, his feeble opinions are exposed and he just bails for a few days.

 

[firehawk350]

Or, I've got, you know, other responsibilities... Like a family with two young kids and a wife that doesn't want me to spend all my time home debating with cowboys fans over pedantic details of football. Or even, sometimes, my boss wants me to work on, you know, work... Crazy as it is...

 

[Hostile]

Your right, he did come up with a meaningful contribution. Good job. *edit* anyways, i gotta grab lunch (its 11 here in AZ) and I'd rather not have to type while eating, so I'm going to see what else is going on and I'll be back if anyone still wants to debate.

Where in AZ are you?

I'm in Tucson.

 

[firehawk350]

The funny part is that I didn't even see that post while I was making mine and looking up those QBs stats. I hit reply, and then saw it and added it in with an edit.

I don't think firehawk really wants meaningful contributions. Everytime someone makes one, his feeble opinions are exposed and he just bails for a few days.

Anyways dude, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I have multiple times in this thread. If you win, I'll admit it. You just declare victory every time a new point is brought up and call any rebuttal I make as "spinning". You don't realize that any rebuttal at all is technically "spinning".

 

[Idgit]

The funny part is that I didn't even see that post while I was making mine and looking up those QBs stats. I hit reply, and then saw it and added it in with an edit.

I don't think firehawk really wants meaningful contributions. Everytime someone makes one, his feeble opinions are exposed and he just bails for a few days.

He's the Jason Campbell of CZ. What he lacks in accuracy, he makes up for in mediocrity.

 

[5Stars]

Or, I've got, you know, other responsibilities... Like a family with two young kids and a wife that doesn't want me to spend all my time home debating with cowboys fans over pedantic details of football. Or even, sometimes, my boss wants me to work on, you know, work... Crazy as it is...

Bad firehawk, bad, bad, bad excuse! We all have other responsibilities...you are not the only one! However, a patteren exists that when you lose an arguement/conversation, you disappear until a new topic comes about the RedStinks...then you are back to your oldself..

Just an FYI...

Carry on...

 

[superpunk]

Or, I've got, you know, other responsibilities... Like a family with two young kids and a wife that doesn't want me to spend all my time home debating with cowboys fans over pedantic details of football. Or even, sometimes, my boss wants me to work on, you know, work... Crazy as it is...

I never said you had to be on here constantly. That said, you do have nearly 1,000 posts on a rival board, which is something I'm sure few of us are able to accomplish - so you're finding time somewhere.

But, it is your MO (I feel it only fair to outline yours to you, as you so kindly did for me earlier in the thread) to throw crap up against the wall, and stir up a hornet's nest until someone FINALLY comes along with solid facts that disprove your weak opinions (or, flung crap). Then.....you're gone.

You don't want meaningful contributions. That's the last thing you want, because every time you get one, you end up looking like a buffoon to the thousands of people who peruse this board. What you want is conflict and people who are willing to go back and forth with you so long as they keep facts out of the conversation and debate things on your level. As soon as someone takes it up a notch, you're finished.

 

[Idgit]

Your right, he did come up with a meaningful contribution. Good job. *edit* anyways, i gotta grab lunch (its 11 here in AZ) and I'd rather not have to type while eating, so I'm going to see what else is going on and I'll be back if anyone still wants to debate.

Props.

 

[firehawk350]

Where in AZ are you?

I'm in Tucson.

I didn't know that, I'm in Sierra Vista. I work at Ft Huachuca. I hate this place though, the best italian food is in a place with freaking plastic tableclothes, and consist of various choices like spaghetti, spaghetti with meatballs, vegeterian spaghetti and pizza. No form of night entertainment other than a bunch of redneck bars, and a bevy of crazy in-laws. And isn't it supposed to be getting cooler now??? It's hotter now then it was in july/august.

 

[kmd24]

Even very basic research would find fault in your argument. While it's true that Manning has had 8 games outta 20 that fall below 80, he's also had only 1 game that falls below 60. It's easy when you fit your argument.

It's not my argument, it's yours. You made up the bogus 10% crap. 85 happens to be 10% below Romo's 2006 passer rating. For Peyton, I would have used 91 (10% below his 101 rating), but that seemed unfair when comparing the two.

By your criterion, Manning is "inconsistent."

 

[firehawk350]

I never said you had to be on here constantly. That said, you do have nearly 1,000 posts on a rival board, which is something I'm sure few of us are able to accomplish - so you're finding time somewhere.

But, it is your MO (I feel it only fair to outline yours to you, as you so kindly did for me earlier in the thread) to throw crap up against the wall, and stir up a hornet's nest until someone FINALLY comes along with solid facts that disprove your weak opinions (or, flung crap). Then.....you're gone.

You don't want meaningful contributions. That's the last thing you want, because every time you get one, you end up looking like a buffoon to the thousands of people who peruse this board. What you want is conflict and people who are willing to go back and forth with you so long as they keep facts out of the conversation and debate things on your level. As soon as someone takes it up a notch, you're finished.

Actually, I debated the facts here. I came up with a hypothesis that I never claimed as fact, you disproved it. My original thought stayed the same (that Romo is inconsistent) while tweaking the details. Scientists do it all the time, it's the very basic idea of the scientific theory. If I'm flat out wrong, I'll admit it. I was wrong about Brandon Lloyd, he has done nothing. Let's see, what else... I was wrong about my prediction of the Eagles/Commanders in 06, I admitted it and won't even make predictions anymore. So, in conclusion, I do debate facts and if I get them mixed up or interpret them wrong (as in the Lloyd and eagles/skins case), I'll admit it. If I just make something up on the fly, I'll preface that.