We are now in Last place in NFC east

[Bob Sacamano]

Okay, you're again distorting the point. Im making the claim that Romo won't fix the defense. You are arguing that he will (to a degree that these games would be pretty much won). You base this on the fact that Romo turned the ball over in less critical areas which led to a statisically misleading defensive ranking. I'm making the point that if points off of turnovers remain relatively constant through the season, it doesn't matter WHERE the defense gets the ball. It's called the socratic method...

no he's not, he's saying that Romo won't give the opposing O a shorter field to work w/

at least not at the level Brad Johnson did today for the Giant's offense, that was just ridiculous

and regarding a healthy Campbell being better than a non-healthy Romo, we don't even know how injured Romo is going to be coming back

 

[theebs]

I love how this has turned into a romo vs campbell argument.

Who cares.

Judge players by their teams.

A quarterbacks job is to do whatever it takes to win the game, not worry about his statistics or his foolish passer rating.

Romo, campbell, manning and mcnabb are all about the same.

Romo has no defense helping him out. So in the end his team will most likely be sitting out the playoffs while the other three are squaring off in january.

And I will trade statistics, especially qb rating for a playoff team any day.
Romo is a tremendous player anyone who thinks he isnt, is a moron.

 

[firehawk350]

Sure I remember but so what, oh I guess you're never wrong... Take a hike TROLL!!!!

You have no credibility. Sure, you are good for all that rah-rah stuff, people with minimal critical thinking capabilities are. But I am debating football with people who maintain some ability to engage in abstract thought so thus, you are out of your element.

 

[firehawk350]

I love how this has turned into a romo vs campbell argument.

Who cares.

Judge players by their teams.

A quarterbacks job is to do whatever it takes to win the game, not worry about his statistics or his foolish passer rating.

Romo, campbell, manning and mcnabb are all about the same.

Romo has no defense helping him out. So in the end his team will most likely be sitting out the playoffs while the other three are squaring off in january.

And I will trade statistics, especially qb rating for a playoff team any day.
Romo is a tremendous player anyone who thinks he isnt, is a moron.

Is that a mistype? You'd rather have statistical dominance over winning? Honest question...

 

[Bizwah]

Is that a mistype? You'd rather have statistical dominance over winning? Honest question...

Reread the post.....

 

[Bob Sacamano]

seriously

this guy teaches people? guess not how to read

 

[theebs]

Is that a mistype? You'd rather have statistical dominance over winning? Honest question...

I Just said the exact opposite of that, not sure why you thought that.

what i was saying was it is a team sport and the qb's job is to do whatever it takes to win and NOT worry about a foolish qb rating or personal stats.

 

[Bizwah]

I Just said the exact opposite of that, not sure why you thought that.

what i was saying was it is a team sport and the qb's job is to do whatever it takes to win and NOT worry about a foolish qb rating or personal stats.

You'll have to excuse him....he's still wetting his shorts over our current situation....Can't say I blame him.

 

[Mansta54]

You have no credibility. Sure, you are good for all that rah-rah stuff, people with minimal critical thinking capabilities are. But I am debating football with people who maintain some ability to engage in abstract thought so thus, you are out of your element.

Naw, all that sounds real good but you're really here to TROLL. Trust, the other posters know that as well. Don't try to pass it off as intellegent conversation. Nobody is fool!!!!!

 

[firehawk350]

no he's not, he's saying that Romo won't give the opposing O a shorter field to work w/

at least not at the level Brad Johnson did today for the Giant's offense, that was just ridiculous

and regarding a healthy Campbell being better than a non-healthy Romo, we don't even know how injured Romo is going to be coming back

His point unless I miss my guess is... The Rams and Giants wouldn't have scored 35 because Romo wouldn't have let them have a shorter field. Thus, Romo back means less scoring by other teams. My point is it doesn't matter where the turnover happens if the teams score at the end of a drive. So in reality, we really aren't arguing the same issue but the best way to describe Romo's affect on the defense.

Of course, I don't expect such nuisances to be apparent to you. Debate isn't necessarily an argument.

 

[firehawk350]

Reread the post.....

That's why I ask, because the entire post says you'll prefer a winning team but the second to last sentence says...

"And I will trade statistics, especially qb rating for a playoff team any day."

Which I misread. Thus, the clarification was needed...

 

[Bizwah]

His point unless I miss my guess is... The Rams and Giants wouldn't have scored 35 because Romo wouldn't have let them have a shorter field. Thus, Romo back means less scoring by other teams. My point is it doesn't matter where the turnover happens if the teams score at the end of a drive. So in reality, we really aren't arguing the same issue but the best way to describe Romo's affect on the defense.

Of course, I don't expect such nuisances to be apparent to you. Debate isn't necessarily an argument.

Ok....I see what you're saying....but you're also not listening to logic.

In today's game we were unable to mount any kind of drive at all....save the end of the game.

That led to more opportunities for the other team.

Romo, if anything, has shown us that he can consistently move this team and score. So, longer possessions and more points would naturally mean that our team is holding the opposition to fewer points.

Now, Romo isn't the end all to our problems. But he certainly will help some. If you can't see that (or refuse to), then you're as foolish as someone that thinks all our problems are solved when number 9 hits the field.

 

[firehawk350]

seriously

this guy teaches people? guess not how to read

You know nothing about me... I have misread things but it's my nature to question things and thus, I asked for clarification. Which I got. That's a good thing in case you didn't know.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

His point unless I miss my guess is... The Rams and Giants wouldn't have scored 35 because Romo wouldn't have let them have a shorter field. Thus, Romo back means less scoring by other teams. My point is it doesn't matter where the turnover happens if the teams score at the end of a drive. So in reality, we really aren't arguing the same issue but the best way to describe Romo's affect on the defense.

Of course, I don't expect such nuisances to be apparent to you. Debate isn't necessarily an argument.

which distance is it easier to score from:

30 yards?

or 70 yards?

wouldn't you say it's easier to score points starting at the opponent's 30 yard line, as opposed to starting at your 30? wouldn't your chances of scoring increase w/ a shorter field to work w/, as opposed to a field twice that distance?

that's Adam's point, and which is pretty easy to follow

 

[firehawk350]

Ok....I see what you're saying....but you're also not listening to logic.

In today's game we were unable to mount any kind of drive at all....save the end of the game.

That led to more opportunities for the other team.

Romo, if anything, has shown us that he can consistently move this team and score. So, longer possessions and more points would naturally mean that our team is holding the opposition to fewer points.

Now, Romo isn't the end all to our problems. But he certainly will help some. If you can't see that (or refuse to), then you're as foolish as someone that thinks all our problems are solved when number 9 hits the field.

I was using the socratic method. I think Romo will help, but I don't think he would have turned the two losses into victories. Thus, the only thing I think Romo would have brought is more palatable losses. I have listened though, I can see your point and definitely think it has merit but I'm not thinking this will automatically equal victories where there was 35-14 losses. Different shades of grey I think...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I was using the socratic method. I think Romo will help, but I don't think he would have turned the two losses into victories. Thus, the only thing I think Romo would have brought is more palatable losses. I have listened though, I can see your point and definitely think it has merit but I'm not thinking this will automatically equal victories where there was 35-14 losses. Different shades of grey I think...

do you think our O looks like it did today? against the Rams? against the Bucs? w/ Romo at the helm?

we only score 14 and 13 points against the Rams and Bucs, but we averaged 26 a game w/ Romo as our starter

I don't know why you're restricting the argument to games that Romo played and the Cowboys lost

 

[firehawk350]

which distance is it easier to score from:

30 yards?

or 70 yards?

wouldn't you say it's easier to score points starting at the opponent's 30 yard line, as opposed to starting at your 30? wouldn't your chances of scoring increase w/ a shorter field to work w/, as opposed to a field twice that distance?

that's Adam's point, and which is pretty easy to follow

Don't speak for him... I told you what point I was responding to... If he was making a different point, he can speak up himself. As for your point...

The Cowboys average 26 points given up a game with Romo out. The Cowboys gave up 23.5 points with Romo in. It's not a statistical advantage to hold your hat on (especially considering you played such offensive powerhouses has Cleveland and Cincinatti).

 

[Bizwah]

I was using the socratic method. I think Romo will help, but I don't think he would have turned the two losses into victories. Thus, the only thing I think Romo would have brought is more palatable losses. I have listened though, I can see your point and definitely think it has merit but I'm not thinking this will automatically equal victories where there was 35-14 losses. Different shades of grey I think...

Of course you don't.

You're naturally going to look at our games from a negative stand point.

We're going to look at it from a positive viewpoint....But we've seen more of Romo than you...we've seen him win games for us in spectacular fashion.

In both our losses....the Rams and Giants....our main problem was our inability to mount any sustained drives. We continually kept giving teams opportunities.

I think the Ram game is a win for us. This game probably still isn't.....But it's tough to know for sure.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Don't speak for him... I told you what point I was responding to... If he was making a different point, he can speak up himself. As for your point...

I'm not speaking for him, I'm understanding his argument

which you aren't

the same way you misinterpreted a very simple statement that theebs made

The Cowboys average 26 points given up a game with Romo out. The Cowboys gave up 23.5 points with Romo in. It's not a statistical advantage to hold your hat on (especially considering you played such offensive powerhouses has Cleveland and Cincinatti).

does the O look better w/ Romo in the lineup? yes or no?

does that improve the Cowboys' chances of winning?

yes or no?

 

[firehawk350]

do you think our O looks like it did today? against the Rams? against the Bucs? w/ Romo at the helm?

we only score 14 and 13 points against the Rams and Bucs, but we averaged 26 a game w/ Romo as our starter

I don't know why you're restricting the argument to games that Romo played and the Cowboys lost

I don't doubt he'd scored more, but would he have scored 21 points more? Maybe, but I don't personally think so.