I think we need a Tony Romo forum

[TK]

Oh, and Romo sits to pee 95 rating :excited:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

:laugh: I state it over and over and over again to bring back his bottom line which is often lost with skins fans.

It's not lost, it's just irrelevant when you view Romo sits to pee's overall performance. It only becomes relevant when a Cowboys fan wants to gloss over his last 5 games of the season, which included 10 turnovers and three games with a QB rating of under 58. It only becomes relevant when Cowboys fans want to ignore that he didn't play an entire season, so those extra six games very well may have been far more like the last 5 games than the first 5 games. It only becomes relevant when Cowboys fans don't have a retort to all of the very real negative stats and realistic questions about Romo sits to pee's season last year.

THAT'S when we get treated to the "He had an overall rating of 95!!" mantra...that's when you act like it trumps all the other things brought up about Romo sits to pee's performance last season. It's akin to a Bears fan defending Grossman by saying "He went to the Super Bowl!!". Nobody has a problem saying "yeah, so?" to that reality, because we all saw how Grossman played over the course of 16 games.

Don't act shocked when Romo sits to pee and his heavenly 95 QB rating over 10 games gets even less respect.

If one, just one skin fan were to say "hey, despite some ups and downs he finished with a pretty good year," I wouldn't post that rating.

That's because he didn't finish well...he finished pretty poorly, actually. Nobody here is going to say "Well, Romo sits to pee played pretty well there in November"...nobody cares that he played well in November lol. Not to mention that there have been PLENTY of Skins fans in this forum who have said Romo sits to pee played decently for a first time starter. Where the disconnect comes is from thinking that his overall play (NOT his overall QB rating) shows that he's deserving of all the praise he's been getting from the media.

I constantly post the rating to bring a level of sanity, reason, and common sense when evaluating his first season starting as a whole.

No, you post the 95 QB rating because you feel it encapsulates all we need to know about how good Romo sits to pee is...sanity, reason, and especially common sense would dictate that one singular stat or rating number will never adequately sum up a player's performance. More often than not, that singular stat or rating number hides and masks the flaws a player has.

[Big Weirdo]

This was a great performance.

I'm partial to this one.

[flashback]

Romosexuals.

They are everywhere.

Could I get that under my username? Please? :cool:

[DoGood28]

All I know is I would be sick to my stomach if I was posting on a cowboys MB with a cowboy avatar. I wouldn't be able to stand looking at my own posts.:puke:

[TK]

Could I get that under my username? Please? :cool:

The ES Genie has granted your wish.

Oh, and Romo sits to pee 95 rating :excited:

[flashback]

Woo-hoo! :excited: 95 rating!

[THEHEREAFTER]

This was a great performance.

It wasn't that bad TK considering his play at QB. Now FG holding was a disaster.

[taylorcoreskin]

The ES Genie has granted your wish.

Oh, and Romo sits to pee 95 rating :excited:

if he approves, can we make his avatar the Romo sits to pee 95 rating smilie?

[THEHEREAFTER]

It's not lost, it's just irrelevant when you view Romo sits to pee's overall performance.

Huuhhh? His regular season QB rating is IRRELEVANT when evaluating a QB's overall performance? Do you want to rethink this one. Irrelevant?

It only becomes relevant when a Cowboys fan wants to gloss over his last 5 games of the season, which included 10 turnovers and three games with a QB rating of under 58.

Not glossing over the last 5 anymore than you're glossing over the first 5. It's quite clear that there was more good than bad, hence the 95.1 rating. He also finished two of his last 3 with 100+ ratings. Is it really this difficult? LeBron James finished the finals series with 26, 9 and 9. He didn't play brilliantly the entire series but these were his averages. The QB rating is relevant when evaluating the ENTIRETY of his season. This should be pretty simple. If what he did in December was THAT bad he would have fishished with a much worse rating.

It only becomes relevant when Cowboys fans want to ignore that he didn't play an entire season, so those extra six games very well may have been far more like the last 5 games than the first 5 games.

Now we're getting into hypotheticals and fantasy. Who's to say that he wouldn't have had a few more stellar games had he started the season, which in my mind he should have? I'm just going by the 10 starts he did have and REALITY!

It only becomes relevant when Cowboys fans don't have a retort to all of the very real negative stats and realistic questions about Romo sits to pee's season last year

.

What real negative stats? The first year starter had 3 really sub-par games, one of which was a winning effort in which he essentially won at the end. 8 of his 11 starts including the playoffs resulted in an 86 rating or better. Did Romo sits to pee answer every question last year? Of course not! Romo sits to pee was inconsistent towards the end of the season. No one can deny this. All I'm saying is that he did more positive than negative and exceeded expectations. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

THAT'S when we get treated to the "He had an overall rating of 95!!" mantra...that's when you act like it trumps all the other things brought up about Romo sits to pee's performance last season. It's akin to a Bears fan defending Grossman by saying "He went to the Super Bowl!!". Nobody has a problem saying "yeah, so?" to that reality, because we all saw how Grossman played over the course of 16 games.

Of course and you and I know both know that Grossman's a different ballgame. Romo sits to pee didn't start 16 games so we don't know. What I do know is how he played in 10 starts and that's all I can evaluate. He has plenty of questions to answer. All I'm saying is that he had an impressive first 10 starts.

Don't act shocked when Romo sits to pee and his heavenly 95 QB rating over 10 games gets even less respect.

So are you saying that if JC finished with a 95.1 rating over his 7 starts you wouldn't be the least bit encouraged by it?

That's because he didn't finish well...he finished pretty poorly, actually. Nobody here is going to say "Well, Romo sits to pee played pretty well there in November"...nobody cares that he played well in November lol.

September and November count. They're very important parts to any teams season. He actually did finish better than most here believe. Once again, so that we're clear. Three of his last four starts including the playoffs, resulted in an 89 or better rating. Two of his last Three starts resulted in a 100+ rating. He had his struggles, especially with fumbling but he didn't finish as badly as you'd like to make it.

No, you post the 95 QB rating because you feel it encapsulates all we need to know about how good Romo sits to pee is...

Califan, it's pretty black and white to me really. The guy made mistakes. He was a first year starter though. When he got his chance, more often than not, he played really well. Why is getting this across to you like pulling teeth?

sanity, reason, and especially common sense would dictate that one singular stat or rating number will never adequately sum up a player's performance. More often than not, that singular stat or rating number hides and masks the flaws a player has.

One singular stat doesn't adequately sum up a players performance agreed. The passer rating system isn't perfect but the leagues better passers always seem to be near or at the top. I would disagree though, that more often than not it masks as opposed to exposes weaknesses.

1 Peyton Manning IND 4397 557 362 31 9 68 101.0

3 Drew Brees NO 4418 554 356 26 11 86 96.2

5 Tony Romo sits to pee DAL 2903 337 220 19 13 56 95.1

6 Carson Palmer CIN 4035 520 324 28 13 74 93.9

7 Marc Bulger STL 4301 588 370 24 8 67 92.9

8 Philip Rivers SD 3388 460 284 22 9 57 92.0

9 Tom Brady NE 3529 516 319 24 12 62 87.9

Notice any simularities with this group? They're considered the leagues best passers for a reason. Of course with Romo sits to pee, the evaluation isn't complete because of his not starting the entire season. He did however make the most of his opportunity.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Notice any simularities with this group? They're considered the leagues best passers for a reason. Of course with Romo sits to pee, the evaluation isn't complete because of his not starting the entire season. He did however make the most of his opportunity.

Don't forget to include Grossman who was rated at 94.4 after his first 7 starts and 88.5 after 10 (see a pattern?) He also had a very good 18/11 TD/INT ratio and 6 fumbles. after 10

[kevin11]

Hereafter, where is #2 and 4?

Unlike Romo sits to pee, the rest of those QBS actually played good when their team relied on him. Romo sits to pee faded away from the season because just like what Bubba says, they got film tape and now he was exposed. Romo sits to pee likes to throw outside of pocket and the Saints exposed that. Look what happened in that game..Same for detriot.

Also, do you know where i can find that detriot vr cowboys game?

[Westbrook36]

I think the stats don't tell the entire story. I remember Romo sits to pee padding his stats and rating with that one game against a HORRIBLE opponent with 5 tds.....3 of which that were less than 5 yards. I seriously think Bill created a monster that day. He was trying to give Romo sits to pee confidence yet he gave Romo sits to pee an esteemed vision of himself that he was simply not able to keep up.

[kevin11]

I think the stats don't tell the entire story. I remember Romo sits to pee padding his stats and rating with that one game against a HORRIBLE opponent with 5 tds.....3 of which that were less than 5 yards. I seriously think Bill created a monster that day. He was trying to give Romo sits to pee confidence yet he gave Romo sits to pee an esteemed vision of himself that he was simply not able to keep up.

yeah, with barber scoring tds like crazy, they didnt need him to score those. But, redskins fans cant really talk about that game. Campbell played in that one and did alright, nothing special.

[tr1]

Sometime early next season, everyone will realize that Romo sits to pee is a mediocre qb....

[THEHEREAFTER]

Don't forget to include Grossman who was rated at 94.4 after his first 7 starts and 88.5 after 10 (see a pattern?) He also had a very good 18/11 TD/INT ratio and 6 fumbles. after 10

:tantrum: :nana: :poke: :poke: :ciao: :no: :nana: :nana:

[THEHEREAFTER]

Hereafter, where is #2 and 4?

I didn't include Damon Huard and Donovan McNabb who were benched and got injured respectively.

Unlike Romo sits to pee, the rest of those QBS actually played good when their team relied on him.

This is a horrible generalization. Romo sits to pee often came through when we needed him most.

Romo sits to pee faded away from the season because just like what Bubba says, they got film tape and now he was exposed

Romo sits to pee didn't play as well in December but he DID have two 100+ rated games in has last three. The playoff game was an 89. Let's not forget that our defense slipped as well.

Romo sits to pee likes to throw outside of pocket and the Saints exposed that. Look what happened in that game..Same for detriot.

Sean Peyton did an excellent job on Romo sits to pee. Nobody knew Romo sits to pee better and it showed. Peyton was familiar with just about our entire roster and he definitely gave other teams a blueprint. In the Detroit game however, we put up 31 points. Guess which unit let us down the most?

[THEHEREAFTER]

I think the stats don't tell the entire story. I remember Romo sits to pee padding his stats and rating with that one game against a HORRIBLE opponent with 5 tds.....3 of which that were less than 5 yards. I seriously think Bill created a monster that day. He was trying to give Romo sits to pee confidence yet he gave Romo sits to pee an esteemed vision of himself that he was simply not able to keep up.

Romo sits to pee didn't pad his stats against Tampa. He just simply picked them apart and took what was there. There's nothing wrong with short TD's. In fact, in many cases, it's harder to work with an enclosed area where the defense can tighten. If anything, Bill does not attempt to create overconfidence.

[Titaw]

I have counted three times where THEHEREAFTER has stated:

:excited: Romo sits to pee's 95 rating

So I guess I'll state it too.

:excited: Romo sits to pee's 95 rating

[kevin11]

I didn't include Damon Huard and Donovan McNabb who were benched and got injured respectively.

This is a horrible generalization. Romo sits to pee often came through when we needed him most.

Wait, did he go through in the detriot game? saints game? and seattle playoff? the answer is no. In detriot, he had like 3 fumbles( or was it 2) and 1 pick. in the saints game, he threw some bad passes and overal he panicked.

Romo sits to pee didn't play as well in December but he DID have two 100+ rated games in has last three. The playoff game was an 89. Let's not forget that our defense slipped as well.

yes, the defense slipped. Still, Romo sits to pee didnt help with the fumbles.

Sean Peyton did an excellent job on Romo sits to pee. Nobody knew Romo sits to pee better and it showed. Peyton was familiar with just about our entire roster and he definitely gave other teams a blueprint. In the Detroit game however, we put up 31 points. Guess which unit let us down the most?

Wait, did he go through in the detriot game? saints game? and seattle playoff? the answer is no. In detriot, he had like 3 fumbles( or was it 2) and 1 pick. in the saints game, he threw some bad passes and overal he panicked.

yes, the defense slipped. Still, Romo sits to pee didnt help with the fumbles.

[taylorcoreskin]

I have counted three times where THEHEREAFTER has stated:

:excited: Romo sits to pee's 95 rating

So I guess I'll state it too.

:excited: Romo sits to pee's 95 rating

I never saw your sig before. I felt compelled to tell you how funny it is. nicely done :laugh:

[Titaw]

I never saw your sig before. I felt compelled to tell you how funny it is. nicely done :laugh:

It was found here and I decided to use it as my sig because my initial reaction to seeing that was the same as yours, LMAO!!!

[THEHEREAFTER]

Wait, did he go through in the detriot game? saints game? and seattle playoff? the answer is no. In detriot, he had like 3 fumbles( or was it 2) and 1 pick. in the saints game, he threw some bad passes and overal he panicked.

yes, the defense slipped. Still, Romo sits to pee didnt help with the fumbles.

Romo sits to pee played well against Detroit despite a couple of costly turnovers. Once again, he finished with over a 100+ rating and we put up 31 points. 31 Points should beat Detroit. Romo sits to pee's worse game was against the Saints. You get no argument from me there. Against Seattle he played a solid error free game until the bobbled snap. Kevin you fail to include his clutch performances @ washington and @ nyg and vs. Indi. Why is this. Romo sits to pee energized our season and is a big part of why we even made the playoffs.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Romo sits to pee played well against Detroit despite a couple of costly turnovers. Once again, he finished with over a 100+ rating and we put up 31 points. 31 Points should beat Detroit. Romo sits to pee's worse game was against the Saints. You get no argument from me there. Against Seattle he played a solid error free game until the bobbled snap. Kevin you fail to include his clutch performances @ washington and @ nyg and vs. Indi. Why is this. Romo sits to pee energized our season and is a big part of why we even made the playoffs.

Clutch performance at Washington? The game you lost? What?

[THEHEREAFTER]

Clutch performance at Washington? The game you lost? What?

2tds, no int's, no fumbles 109 rating... leading us down the field ending with a perfect strike to Witten to set up a would be winning FG. What happened after that does not diminish what he did.