Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The legendary 2010 Dallas Cowboys, fighting for homefield advantage at 1-2

PF Chang

By PF Chang
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
Aaron Rodgers Stats

Recent Career Passing Rushing Sacked Fumbles

Year Team G QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD Sack YdsL Fum FumL

2008 Green Bay 16 93.8 341 536 63.6 4038 252.4 7.5 28 13 56 207 12.9 3.7 4 34 231 9 3

2009 Green Bay 16 103.2 350 541 64.7 4434 277.1 8.2 30 7 58 316 19.8 5.4 5 50 306 10 4

2010 Green Bay 4 96.3 84 122 68.9 940 235.0 7.7 8 5 15 69 17.3 4.6 2 5 33 0 0

Career Totals (Full) 43 97.1 810 1258 64.4 9741 226.5 7.7 67 26 140 639 14.9 4.6 11 98 640 22 10

Tony Romo sits to pee's Stats

Season Team G QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD Sack YdsL Fum FumL

2005-06 Dallas 16 0.0 0 0 N/A 0 0.0 N/A 0 0 2 -2 -0.1 -1.0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 Dallas 16 95.1 220 337 65.3 2903 181.4 8.6 19 13 34 102 6.4 3.0 0 21 124 8 3

2007-08 Dallas 16 97.4 335 520 64.4 4211 263.2 8.1 36 19 31 129 8.1 4.2 2 24 176 10 2

2008-09 Dallas 13 91.4 276 450 61.3 3448 265.2 7.7 26 14 28 41 3.2 1.5 0 20 123 12 7

2009-10 Dallas 16 97.6 347 550 63.1 4483 280.2 8.2 26 9 35 105 6.6 3.0 1 34 196 5 4

2010-11 Dallas 3 93.9 88 128 68.8 940 313.3 7.3 4 2 2 -2 -0.7 -1.0 0 1 5 0 0

Career 80 95.5 1266 1985 63.8 15985 199.8 8.1 111 57 132 373 4.7 2.8 3 100 624 35 16

Last year Romo sits to pee threw for more yards, more yards per attempt, and had a lot fewer sacks. Checkmate.

Checkmate? You're pathetic. Never mind that Rodgers was superior in every other (more important) category. 49 more yards? How many of Romo sits to pee's yards were "air yards" as opposed to YAC from Witten and Austin? There's your YPA right there. Fewer sacks says more about the O-line. You're done. Go to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
But, our team sucks. All Dallas players are overrated. We have no offensive line and a terrible defense. Our receivers are overrated. Austin is a flash in the pan. Roy Williams is overpaid (yes, he is). How can you explain all this? Me thinks your line of thinking is what sucks.

WTF are you talking about? Incoherent babble. It's like you're arguing with every single negative perception of the Cowboy's simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
WTF are you talking about? Incoherent babble. It's like your arguing with every single negative perception of the Cowboy's simultaneously.

I'm just posting everything I see on this board about how bad we are. Just wondering how Romo sits to pee plays so well with nothing around him. You really don't come on here much, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Checkmate? You're pathetic. Never mind that Rodgers was superior in every other (more important) category. 49 more yards? How many of Romo sits to pee's yards were "air yards" as opposed to YAC from Witten and Austin? There's your YPA right there. Fewer sacks says more about the O-line. You're done. Go to bed.

I'm not going to try to talk with you any more. It's useless. You obviously have very little knowledge about the league in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Shining star, I posted the article because the article is ridiculous and I thought it was funny. Sad that it was posted on the "worldwide leader," but still funny. You nor Roger.Staubach or any other Cowboy fans have defended it. That's a credit to you guys, so good. I'm not crying about the article, more lamenting how low mainstream media outlets have stooped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted

That's a point I've tried to make on here several times. I don't see why so many Redskin fans work themselves into such a frenzy about these types of articles. The Cowboys have as many negative things written about them as positives ones, but I could care less. There are always negative articles about the coaching staff, Jerry Jones, distractions, perceptions, failing to meet expectations, etc. You know what? I DON'T CARE. They mean nothing and do not influence anything. A few posters on this board continually post these types of articles and seem to blame Cowboy fans for the articles. How do we have anything to do with them? How about people acting a little more mature and taking them for what they are. Nothing but a way for so-called writers to rile people up. The ones that get their panties in a wad over this stuff are actually playing right into the authors' laps. Sadly, I don't think most realize that they are being played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roger.Staubach

Roger.Staubach

Posted
Posted
Romo sits to pee has no "edges". More mobile? Considering Rodgers has double the rushing yards and about quadruple the rushing touchdowns in less games, behind that sieve of an o-line he is forced to play behind in Green Bay, I don't think so. Did you know, that back in 2008 (couldn't find a more recent list) Jake Delhomme had a higher winning percentage than Kurt Warner? Football is a team game. Rodger's 2009 season was head and shoulders above Romo sits to pee's. How about something more meaningful than "Romo sits to pee is better because I say so."

Would you care to compare sacks/fumbles during the same period? I have no idea what the numbers would say...I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
That's a point I've tried to make on here several times. I don't see why so many Redskin fans work themselves into such a frenzy about these types of articles.

We don't "work ourselves into a frenzy"...we merely point out the asinine Cowboys-biased media pieces then laugh at the stupidity. If anything, it's Cowboys fans who work themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Skins fans love pointing out the Dallas bias.

A few posters on this board continually post these types of articles and seem to blame Cowboy fans for the articles.

I've yet to see anyone blame Cowboys fans for these types of articles...I have seen people say that these articles could only be written by a Cowboys fan posing as an unbiased sports journalist, though.

Nothing but a way for so-called writers to rile people up. The ones that get their panties in a wad over this stuff are actually playing right into the authors' laps. Sadly, I don't think most realize that they are being played.

How funny that you say this right after claiming that there are some on here who blame the Cowboys fans for these types of articles. Aren't you in essence blaming Skins fans for these articles as well?

This must be the latest talking points handed out at Cowboys fans seminars: "Claim that those who point out the pro-Cowboys bias are the ones fueling the articles". The first wave of explanations was "There's no Dallas bias...you're just jealous because nobody writes about the Skins" lol...When that didn't work, Dallas fans stopped pretending there was no bias towards the Cowboys, and now are saying the pro-Cowboys bias is only an attention-grabbing gimmick and that "You're the reason these types of articles exist!". I can't wait to see what the next wave of excuses will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tr1

tr1

Posted
Posted
We don't "work ourselves into a frenzy"...we merely point out the asinine Cowboys-biased media pieces then laugh at the stupidity. If anything, it's Cowboys fans who work themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Skins fans love pointing out the Dallas bias.

I've yet to see anyone blame Cowboys fans for these types of articles...I have seen people say that these articles could only be written by a Cowboys fan posing as an unbiased sports journalist, though.

How funny that you say this right after claiming that there are some on here who blame the Cowboys fans for these types of articles. Aren't you in essence blaming Skins fans for these articles as well?

This must be the latest talking points handed out at Cowboys fans seminars: "Claim that those who point out the pro-Cowboys bias are the ones fueling the articles". The first wave of explanations was "There's no Dallas bias...you're just jealous because nobody writes about the Skins" lol...When that didn't work, Dallas fans stopped pretending there was no bias towards the Cowboys, and now are saying the pro-Cowboys bias is only an attention-grabbing gimmick and that "You're the reason these types of articles exist!". I can't wait to see what the next wave of excuses will be.

As a rule, puke fans aren't very intelligent.

And, most couldn't tell you who Kosier is...or who replaced him while he's been injured. Frankly, most don't even know who Ratliff is.

They're a poor excuse for a fan base.

Pathetic and funny at the same time.

They'll all be rooting for their second favorite team in a few weeks.

:rotflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tweedr01

Tweedr01

Posted
Posted
Haha, you're the one playing the "because I said so game". I just told you why Romo sits to pee and Rodgers were pretty much on even par. You hate Romo sits to pee because of the team he plays for, pure and simple. As far as offensive lines, our is no better than the one Rodgers plays behind. Rodgers' receivers are considered the best in the league. Romo sits to pee does not rush very often, but he's extremely mobile in the pocket and eludes the rush better than any QB in the league. He's been sacked ONE time this year, behind an below average Oline. ONE time. Romo sits to pee doesn't run with the ball much because he's a more mature QB than Rodgers. He moves in the pocket in order to get rid of the ball, not run with it. That's what more experienced QBs do. Learn the game and then come back and talk. By the way, have you looked at Romo sits to pee's stats from 2009? I must think not or you wouldn't make the statement you made.

Uh what?!!?!?:yikes:

Last time I checked I thought that the pukes had Dez Bryant, that's all they need, but then you add in Williams (probowler.....in 2006), Austin, Witten, Ogletree, and Hurd, I mean HURD!!! That guy makes you guys the best WR corp in the league, lol

Last time I checked more mature QB's dont' throw more picks, but then again, I live in reality

Yawn. Let the ownage begin.

Rodgers had 30 tds. Romo sits to pee had 26. Rodgers had 7 ints. Romo sits to pee had 9. Rodgers had 5 rushing tds. Romo sits to pee had 1.

Well, I think that just about covers it.

Owned.

Yea, that's head and shoulders better. You got me. LOL Romo sits to pee won in the playoffs, Rodgers did not.

What's Romo sits to pee's record in the playoffs? Also, way to go! You tried arguing, got owned, and then changed the basis of the argument, nice!

Neil-Goldman-family-guy-684494_1024_768.gif

Rodgers' defense gave up 51 points. It's a team game. Like I said, you suck at this. He only threw for over 400 yards and 4 tds...

Don't let facts get in the way, he's a puke fan, he deflects this on the daily

Checkmate? You're pathetic. Never mind that Rodgers was superior in every other (more important) category. 49 more yards? How many of Romo sits to pee's yards were "air yards" as opposed to YAC from Witten and Austin? There's your YPA right there. Fewer sacks says more about the O-line. You're done. Go to bed.

LOLOL, I can't even believe he tried to argue that with the extra 49 yds Romo sits to pee is so much better, LOL. Nevermind the fact that Rodgers had more TD's, rushing and passing, these 49 yds make Romo sits to pee the better qb, HAHAHAHAH, what a moron!

WTF are you talking about? Incoherent babble. It's like you're arguing with every single negative perception of the Cowboy's simultaneously.

Hey now, there are way more negative perceptions that he isn't arguing....but he's looking stupid jumping from argument to argument. Provide him with facts and he changes what he's complaining about.

What excuse?We won wankster. No excuses.

Lol, wankster! Could we get that put into his sig, or his avatar?

I'm just posting everything I see on this board about how bad we are. Just wondering how Romo sits to pee plays so well with nothing around him. You really don't come on here much, do you?

Uh, he's been here longer than you, and posted more than you, again when provided with facts just change what you are arguing about, puke deflection in motion!

I'm not going to try to talk with you any more. It's useless. You obviously have very little knowledge about the league in general.

HAHAHAHA, go home to your mommy, and take your ball with you.

As a rule, puke fans aren't very intelligent.

And, most couldn't tell you who Kosier is...or who replaced him while he's been injured. Frankly, most don't even know who Ratliff is.

They're a poor excuse for a fan base.

Pathetic and funny at the same time.

They'll all be rooting for their second favorite team in a few weeks.

:rotflmao:

I'm pretty sure that's what they've been doing from Week 1 - Week 3, once the bye week came they added that to their win column. They are now 2-2 and well on their way to the Super Bowl!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tweedr01

Tweedr01

Posted
Posted
I would much rather have Rogers as our QB than Romo sits to pee. I can't prove that he's better, just a preference. I like Romo sits to pee, but I am just not sure that he has what it takes to win in crunch time. He has yet to show me that....

An honest response, please forward to Shining Star aka DOTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Since Dallas was in the driver's seat at 1-2, did yesterday clinch a playoff spot for them?

Yes. Also, it clinched homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. In fact, every playoff game will be played at Cowboys Stadium because of how big, shiny, and awesome it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...