The worst thing that could happen is

[theogt]

Thank you. Sir. may I have another.

Last I checked, hyperbole wasn't a crime on the interwebs.

 

[SupermanXx]

wasn't Bledsoe's first pass against the ALL-WORLD Titans an interception?

it's play to play with this guy, not game to game

 

[Hostile]

Last I checked, hyperbole wasn't a crime on the interwebs.

Neither is making the hyperbole look silly.

 

[superpunk]

Last I checked, hyperbole wasn't a crime on the interwebs.

No. But people do get criticized for having an agenda.

Hoping one player fails just so you can see that shiny new toy that impressed you so much in the preseason certainly qualifies for that label.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

The worst thing that could happen is Dallas being down by 21 in the middle of the fourth quarter and Romo doesn't see the field or possibly even worse is that he does, gets a third and long and hands off.

This would mean that Parcells is aware of the brewing QB controversy, doesn't want Romo to upstage and we're stuck with Bledsoe, leaving us no hope at another Super Bowl.

 

[Yeagermeister]

The worst thing that could happen is Romo having to play, with the exception of a couple of preseason games where the defenses were very vanilla, we do not know what we have in Romo. If he has to play we could very well be playing for draft position.

 

[superpunk]

This would mean that Parcells is aware of the brewing QB controversy, doesn't want Romo to upstage and we're stuck with Bledsoe, leaving us no hope at another Super Bowl.

And then, who would ever solve the JFK mystery?

Give me a break with this Parcells is purposely hamstringing his team, BS. Such a crock of crap.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

No. But people do get criticized for having an agenda.

Hoping one player fails just so you can see that shiny new toy that impressed you so much in the preseason certainly qualifies for that label.

Obviously we can agree to disagree on the QB situation. There is no agenda(believe it or not) I just dont trust Drew. I wanted to. I want to. But I dont anymore. I cant.

If you read my previous posts.. I want to be wrong... dont think I am... I get no satisfaction from Drew not being able to deliver us back to Prominence. None!!!

 

[theogt]

No. But people do get criticized for having an agenda.

Hoping one player fails just so you can see that shiny new toy that impressed you so much in the preseason certainly qualifies for that label.

Having an agenda means wanting something to happen (or not happen). What's wrong with that?

 

[StanleySpadowski]

The worst thing that could happen is Romo having to play, with the exception of a couple of preseason games where the defenses were very vanilla, we do not know what we have in Romo. If he has to play we could very well be playing for draft position.

I'd honestly rather be playing for draft position finding out if Romo is the future than suffering through 9-7 and the 18th pick with Bledsoe.

Romo works out, great. He doesn't, still in better shape knowing that going into next year. Win Win.

 

[Hostile]

Obviously we can agree to disagree on the QB situation. There is no agenda(believe it or not) I just dont trust Drew. I wanted to. I want to. But I dont anymore. I cant.

If you read my previous posts.. I want to be wrong... dont think I am... I get no satisfaction from Drew not being able to deliver us back to Prominence. None!!!

Then how can you call it the "worst" thing that could happen instead of the best thing that could happen?

You know something like, "the best thing that could happen is that Bledsoe rebounds and restores the fan base faith in him."

When you say it the way you did it looks like you want him to fail. I personally don't get that.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The worst thing that could happen is Romo having to play, with the exception of a couple of preseason games where the defenses were very vanilla, we do not know what we have in Romo. If he has to play we could very well be playing for draft position.

Very true. We dont know what we have in Romo. We may never know at this rate.

The flip side is we know what we have in Drew.

1. A QB that lost the only SB he played in
2. He holds the ball too long
3. He STILL makes rookie-like mistakes
4. A 6th? rounder took his job
5. A crappy QB in Buffalo took his job
6. A undrafted QB may take his job

 

[theogt]

Neither is making the hyperbole look silly.

Well, if you believe that Bledsoe is less likely to "prove us wrong" than not, then him having a single good game (and thus buying him an extra couple of weeks until we find out what we have in Romo) would be a "worse" option than finding out sooner rather than later. Obviously not the worst thing, but that's hyperbole for ya.

 

[Hostile]

The actual worst thing that could happen to this team is devestating injuries. Not that players play well and ruin people's hopes for someone else getting a chance. I want to see Romo as much as anyone on this forum if not more. That doesn't mean, and will never mean, that I want Bledsoe to screw up.

Ridiculous.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Then how can you call it the "worst" thing that could happen instead of the best thing that could happen?

You know something like, "the best thing that could happen is that Bledsoe rebounds and restores the fan base faith in him."

When you say it the way you did it looks like you want him to fail. I personally don't get that.

Ok. I understand how you took it.

Let me clarify a little.

If he rebounds this week I dont have confidence in Drew achieving any level of consistency.

Does that clear it up?

 

[StanleySpadowski]

That doesn't mean, and will never mean, that I want Bledsoe to screw up.
.

I think you're misconstrueing some people's "anticipation" that Bledsoe will screw up with "want".

 

[Hostile]

Well, if you believe that Bledsoe is less likely to "prove us wrong" than not, then him having a single good game (and thus buying him an extra couple of weeks until we find out what we have in Romo) would be a "worse" option than finding out sooner rather than later. Obviously not the worst thing, but that's hyperbole for ya.

I know what hyperbole is and that's why I shot it down. I focused on the word "worst." Therefore I got it, and I get it, and don't need an explanation from you on the intent. It was, and is, a stupid statement. If he had asked it as a question I probably wouldn't have commented at all.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Well, if you believe that Bledsoe is less likely to "prove us wrong" than not, then him having a single good game (and thus buying him an extra couple of weeks until we find out what we have in Romo) would be a "worse" option than finding out sooner rather than later. Obviously not the worst thing, but that's hyperbole for ya.

Oh I dont think its hyperbole at all.

Yet another year goes by and we have no clue as to what we have at QB for the future..

 

[theogt]

I know what hyperbole is and that's why I shot it down. I focused on the word "worst." Therefore I got it, and I get it, and don't need an explanation from you on the intent. It was, and is, a stupid statement. If he had asked it as a question I probably wouldn't have commented at all.

Overreacting to hyperbole on the internet must take a lot of time.

*Looks at Hos's post count*

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I know what hyperbole is and that's why I shot it down. I focused on the word "worst." Therefore I got it, and I get it, and don't need an explanation from you on the intent. It was, and is, a stupid statement. If he had asked it as a question I probably wouldn't have commented at all.

Wow... if you dont agree with the severity of Drew staying at QB... then just call it stupid... NICE!!