HeHateMe Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 If he gets in it will be because he beat New York this week and New Orleans the following week and puts up average numbers. That should be enough . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Romo sits to pee wasn't good enough to beat out Bledsoe, and only because Bledsoe lost his job did Romo sits to pee get to play so he could not win the starting job the first 1/3 of the season on his own team.... butshould be considered the best QB of the season for the NFC? sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 If he gets in it will be because he beat New York this week and New Orleans the following week and puts up average numbers.That should be enough . uh no it's not and I wouldn't start counting W's before the games are played ask eagle fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassow Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Romo sits to pee wasn't good enough to beat out Bledsoe, and only because Bledsoe lost his job did Romo sits to pee get to playso he could not win the starting job the first 1/3 of the season on his own team.... butshould be considered the best QB of the season for the NFC? sorry Give me a break.:doh: Exactly how does Romo sits to pee "beat out" Bledsoe then?? No matter when he got a chance to play, you would chalk it up as Bledsoe losing his job, not Romo sits to pee beating him out. It's impossible for you to be unbiased at all, and it really makes you look like a fool. Did Jason Campbell give the redskins a better chance to win? Or, was he just not good enough to beat out Brunell, and only got a chance to play because Mark was pitiful. Your performance is decided on the field. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he couldn't win the job during the first 1/3 of the season. All that matters is his current play ON THE FIELD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Give me a break.:doh: Exactly how does Romo sits to pee "beat out" Bledsoe then?? No matter when he got a chance to play, you would chalk it up as Bledsoe losing his job, not Romo sits to pee beating him out. It's impossible for you to be unbiased at all, and it really makes you look like a fool. Did Jason Campbell give the redskins a better chance to win? Or, was he just not good enough to beat out Brunell, and only got a chance to play because Mark was pitiful. Your performance is decided on the field. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he couldn't win the job during the first 1/3 of the season. All that matters is his current play ON THE FIELD. I would have to say that I agree with you. To say that because Romo sits to pee could not beat out Bledsoe and as a result, should not get a chance to be considered is like saying because Favre was 4th string when he was in Atlanta his first year, he shouldn't be considered for the HOF. Just doesn't make any sense when you stop to think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 And if after 10 games for Romo sits to pee he has better numbers and a better team record? Then Romo sits to pee should go. He gets much credit for turning that team around. However, right now, based on this '10 game criteria' Dallas fans have suddenly set up, McNabb should be a front-runner. He was that team, and his numbers would be pretty good for a QB that played a full 16 games. Then again, the only reason we're having this discussion at all is because the NFC QBS have been so darn bad this year across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Then Romo sits to pee should go. He gets much credit for turning that team around.However, right now, based on this '10 game criteria' Dallas fans have suddenly set up, McNabb should be a front-runner. He was that team, and his numbers would be pretty good for a QB that played a full 16 games. Then again, the only reason we're having this discussion at all is because the NFC QBS have been so darn bad this year across the board. Personally, I think McNabb should get consideration. He has, by far, been the best QB in the NFC, over most of the season IMO. Obviously, he would not be available to play but I would have no problem if McNabb got voted in and then replaced by another QB. No big deal there IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plane Thrower Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Just doesn't make any sense when you stop to think about it. Welcome to Bubba's world. He says Romo sits to pee's numbers don't add up if he played over 16 games to be considered for the Pro Bowl... how does 375/540 for 4968 yards with 24 TDs and 15 INTs sound? That's what his projected stats are over 15 games, even if you considered the crappy half he played against the Giants. Bubba, put a sock in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcterry7 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Romo sits to pee should be on the ballot without question, as should Campbell and Leinart. He should be given the opportunity to be voted into the pro bowl. Honestly, it is not like we are voting him the MVP of the league, it is a meaningless all-star game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swisha Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 sorry thought it was wrong when they allowed Trotter, samething nowI'd feel the same if they added Campbell it is suppose to be for an entire season, there is way to know how Romo sits to pee would have done during the Pokes toughest part of the schedule, and if you avg his numbers over the entire 16 games.... not even close to other deserving QB's McNabb started 10 games..... but he won't be voted in, though he is more deserving You are kidding me, right? First, you say it's supposed to be an entire season thing and then you bring up the fact that Mcnabb won't be voted in yet he started 10 games? You see how you contradict yourself? You're telling me Larry Johnson last season shouldn't have made the Pro-bowl? If McNabb started the last 10 games of the season and put up those numbers, he'll get in too. It's the "what have you done for me lately." And I think it's rightfully so because it's tougher to play down the stretch of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 You are kidding me, right? First, you say it's supposed to be an entire season thing and then you bring up the fact that Mcnabb won't be voted in yet he started 10 games? You see how you contradict yourself?You're telling me Larry Johnson last season shouldn't have made the Pro-bowl? If McNabb started the last 10 games of the season and put up those numbers, he'll get in too. . You're kidding right.... Reading comprehension isn't your thing One I said McNabb WON'T get in... hello TWo I said If compare the two ten game starts... McNabb is better than Romo sits to pee And he missed 6 starts because of INJURY not because he couldn't beat out Garcia It's the "what have you done for me lately." And I think it's rightfully so because it's tougher to play down the stretch of the season. Rightfully no but you are right about it being a "what have you done for me lately." vote, meaning it is nothing more than a popularity contest instead of rewarding the best players at their position for the entire season Down the stretch??? :laugh: well since the toughest part of the Pokes schedule was the first half, I disagree... not to mention later the season the more teams are beat up and injured... making it easier for a fresher player to preform against. There is no way anyone can "assume" what Romo sits to pee wouldhave done for a full 16 game season... how many times have we seem a player start out great and then fade, or vice versa.... The player who has done it for the entire season or at least the biggest part of it should be the only ones considered period 15 or 14 games at the least not 10 or less... I said it two years ago with Trotter, and would say it if it was Campbell not Romo sits to pee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 All that matters is his current play ON THE FIELD. for THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!!!!!!! not half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 for THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!!!!!!!not half So are you saying that if say Tomlinson were to have missed the first 4-5 games he should have no shot? What about a player like Hasselbeck who missed much of the middle of his season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 If Romo sits to pee plays every game the way he is playing then damn right he deserves it, but I would hate for him to get in because of a few solid starts, and have his vote total so high that even if he fizzles, he still gets in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swisha Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 You're kidding right....Reading comprehension isn't your thing One I said McNabb WON'T get in... hello Exactly...You were saying Romo sits to pee won't get in because it's an ENTIRE season thing, so by pointing out that Mcnabb won't get in even though he started ONLY 10 games with better numbers than Romo sits to pee is irrevelant to your argument, is it not? When I said it's tougher down the stretch, I wasn't specifically talking about the Cowboys' schedule, but only in general. The intensity and pressure are much greater as well as the games are much more meaningful. What do you think would be tougher, playing an 1-1 team or an 7-7 team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassow Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 for THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!!!!!!!not half No response to the rest of my post??? Look, I could care less about the probowl....but if Romo sits to pee was a fraud he would have shown it by now. I wont lose any sleep over if he gets in or not, but if he plays as well during the latter portion of the season as he has for the middle third of the season....he should go. If Romo sits to pee takes the cowboys deep into the playoffs, I'm sure you would scoff at the mention of him as an MVP candidate as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I think you have to ask yourself the question of, okay whos more deserving? A guy who plays GREAT but for only 10 games or a guy whos okay but also mediocre for all 16 games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin11 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Take a deep breath, everybody. Doesn't the pro bowl voting end in 2 morw weeks? SO that gives Romo sits to pee 8 starts to get him in the pro bow? Yeah, he defiantly goes in with 8 starts...If he puts up 250 2TDs every game, he should make it in, but he will probably get in becuase of the nfc and how it sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I think you have to ask yourself the question of, okay whos more deserving? A guy who plays GREAT but for only 10 games or a guy whos okay but also mediocre for all 16 games? how about the guy whose played great for the entire season, not the guy the media has hyped to the moon for a few games Romo sits to pee hasn't even had 10 starts yet only five, what if he gets hurt, or comes back to earth... the giants abused him in the second half of game one... what if they repeat their ownage? Spin it any way you want, everyone here gets upset over the pro bowl picks, when the "popular" player gets the bid over the deserving player, and only playing for a little over half the season is not deserving (if he actually will play half the season) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 how about the guy whose played great for the entire season, not the guy the media has hyped to the moon for a few games I feel ya Bubba. But the NFC's only got one guy who's done that in Drew Brees. You could throw Marc Bulger in there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 No response to the rest of my post???Look, I could care less about the probowl....but if Romo sits to pee was a fraud he would have shown it by now. I wont lose any sleep over if he gets in or not, but if he plays as well during the latter portion of the season as he has for the middle third of the season....he should go. If Romo sits to pee takes the cowboys deep into the playoffs, I'm sure you would scoff at the mention of him as an MVP candidate as well... nothing worth responding too that wasn't addressed earlier to honestly believe Romo sits to pee is the real deal aftr a half dozen starts against lower half defenses is far from proving he's the REALdeal Ever hear of Scott Mitchell? Gary Hogeboom? Gus Ferotte? The NFL is full of guys who had a great few games then never came close to repeating that early success only time will tell if Romo sits to pee is a flash in the Pan or the next Poke great QB. guys you rocket to stardom over night tend to burnout quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I feel ya Bubba. But the NFC's only got one guy who's done that in Drew Brees. You could throw Marc Bulger in there as well. McNabb, Smith, Grossman all have had as many or more great games than Romo sits to pee. Even Favre though he had a rough game monday Eli was a several game tear before slipping, something Romo sits to pee could do very easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassow Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 nothing worth responding too that wasn't addressed earlierto honestly believe Romo sits to pee is the real deal aftr a half dozen starts against lower half defenses is far from proving he's the REALdeal Ever hear of Scott Mitchell? Gary Hogeboom? Gus Ferotte? The NFL is full of guys who had a great few games then never came close to repeating that early success only time will tell if Romo sits to pee is a flash in the Pan or the next Poke great QB. guys you rocket to stardom over night tend to burnout quickly Indy has the 13th ranked defense, and the 3rd ranked passing defense. Carolina has the 8th ranked defense and the 8th ranked passing defense. He seemed to play well against both of those teams. While I don't think hes a fraud, only time will tell. But, if he plays the way he has over the past five games theres no way he shouldn't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reic Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Indy has the 13th ranked defense, and the 3rd ranked passing defense. Carolina has the 8th ranked defense and the 8th ranked passing defense. He seemed to play well against both of those teams. While I don't think hes a fraud, only time will tell. But, if he plays the way he has over the past five games theres no way he shouldn't go. Romo sits to pee had 0 TDs and 1 interception and a fumble against Indy if it were anyone else in the league they would have been munched on. I will give him his 270 1td 1int game versus carolina He threw for 5 TD passes against the Bucs 4 of them for under 10 yards, 3 of them for under 5... Romo sits to pee will be on the ballot because he has stats, as will Campbell, and I know Brunell is on there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassow Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Romo sits to pee had 0 TDs and 1 interception and a fumble against Indy if it were anyone else in the league they would have been munched on.I will give him his 270 1td 1int game versus carolina He threw for 5 TD passes against the Bucs 4 of them for under 10 yards, 3 of them for under 5... Romo sits to pee will be on the ballot because he has stats, as will Campbell, and I know Brunell is on there too. He also went 19 for 23 (82.6%) for 226 yards in the Indy game, and beat a previously unbeaten team. That may have had a little something to do with the lack of munching. And are you really trying to discount his performance against TB????:doh: :doh: :laugh: Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.