Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;362479]I do, since I live in the DC area, I have no choice. Sometime it is the only game on TV. I did not say he doesn't have the arm to throw it, I have seen him over throw many time. I am just saying he is inaccurate. So what! ESPN said JC has a good arm, well move over John, Joe, and Brett. How come when ESPN says Romo is good, everyone in here says they are not right, but when they say JC has a good arm, they are pretty accurate and credible?[/quote]

He has missed some deep balls, but he's connected with several as well.
About him being accurate. Well, I think he could be better, but this is the pot calling the kettle black. [b]Campbell's comp% is 59.3%, Romo's is 59.1%. So if Campbell is inaccurate, so is Romo. [/b]

[quote]Weren't you the one who said that Gibbs supports his players and would stick with them. If Gibbs does take him out or run the ball, how is that going to help his psyche? How is that going to toughen up your QB and make him believe everything is possible and to never give up. Wade stuck with Romo and they ended up winning, who knows what would have happened if Brad Johnson was in the game.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I was the one that said that, but I do think he supports his players. He does not support blatent incompetance though. I have trouble thinking he'd keep someone in that had 6 turnovers. 4 sure...but I doubt 6.
You seem to keep implying that Romo won the game for them, and that can't be farther from the truth. Your kicker won the game for you, and Romo did his best to lose the game for you. The other 21 players on the field won the game for you. The 11 on d, and the other 10 on offense. Romo did next to nothing to win that game on the whole.
I know you want to think Romo did that last 2 drives, and technically, he did well on those two stretches, but you can't ignore ALL the other drives of the game.
For all this, I still say he's not as good as people think he is. People think he's a top 3 or 4 QB, and he's barely a top 10-15, when it comes to total talent. I feel we're going to start to see him come back to earth.
I will say this, if he carves up the Patriots, I'll change my tune about him. But I expect at least 2 int's from him, and the Cowboys will lose.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;362442]

If 5 weeks was enough to decide who the pro bowl QBs should be, we'd have to put David Garrard on the AFC roster ahead of palmer. [/QUOTE]

Not to nit pick, but Garrard still wouldn't make the roster.

Brady, 1383 yards, 16 tds, 2 ints
Manning, 1319 yards, 10 tds, 2 ints
Anderson, 1251 yards, 11 tds, 8 ints
Palmer, 1171 yards, 10 tds, 6 ints
Roethlisberger, 1013 yards, 9 tds, 3 ints
Garrard, 848 yards, 4 tds, 0 ints.

Not sure who he would push out there, he needs to put up better numbers to be considered. Garrard is not making mistakes, but he's not playing the game to win either, he's playing not to lose. (not that there is anything wrong with that if it works, but it's rare that conservative QB's with low numbers make the pro bowl)

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=Mattyk72;362672]Why does one not count??[/quote]
because it was the one batted down by Jason Taylor near the end-zone against Miami in the last seconds and ARE just happened to be there. That wasn't exactly how JC intended the pass to be.

[quote] Why don't you just stick to watching Dallas.[/quote]LOL, I wish, but I live near DC and I am stuck watching the Redskins as well.

[quote] You're totally missing my point. You tried making some point about yards per attempt not meaning much because of yards gained after the catch, I simply countered by saying in Campbell's case he has hit his fair share of deep balls and his YPA is legit, not full of runs after the catch. He has 15 completions of 20 yards or more so far. [/quote] I never said he doesn't have the arm or can't throw it, I said he is inaccurate on his deep throws. He has his share of deep balls, but he sure has missed open players by over-throwing them.

[quote] This offense is one that is based on taking deep shots and it's nothing like a west coast system that depends on short throws turned into long gains by the receivers. [/quote]If you read my earlier posts, you will see that I've said the same thing.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

This thread is totally wrecking my "Hate on the Packers week!" I know, if you don't like it don't post. I'm just saying..

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=TheBigD;362658]Ok, one of them was that ball ARE caught off the deflection in the last seconds, so that is just 3. So, for the first 4 games, he has 3 completions of 40+, how does that make him a deep passers? I keep saying, he does have the arm, no doubt, but he is inaccurate.[/quote]

I asked you earlier, what are you basing this on? I definitely have seen him miss maybe THREE passes tops down field all season...

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;362658]Ok, one of them was that ball ARE caught off the deflection in the last seconds, so that is just 3. So, for the first 4 games, he has 3 completions of 40+, how does that make him a deep passers? I keep saying, he does have the arm, no doubt, but he is inaccurate.[/QUOTE]

D, i'm all for different view points, but you are simply wrong. You say you're stuck watching 'Skins games? Good, come back from the Dark Side. If you've seen these games you should be commenting on how accurate JC has been on the deep ball. We're not only basing our judgements of his downfield accuracy on regular season, he also connected on some nice deep throws in preseason. Before you type it, let me answer it. Yes it was preseason but we're judging deep throws on accuracy alone, that doesn't get affected by any coverage or personnel. When he has missed, it's been a touch too long and by touch I mean 2 or 3 steps.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

AND those misses have been few and far between...

If you also read the articles talking about JC, you'll see how they mention how accurate he IS on deep passes. If there's anything he's inaccurate on, which is also documented in said articles, it's his short to intermediate game.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;362851].....accurate JC has been on the deep ball. We're not only basing [B]our judgements[/B] of his downfield accuracy on regular season, he also connected on some nice ...[/quote]

Thank you, it is just your judgement against mine. One of us is right and the other is wrong.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;362846]
I never said he doesn't have the arm or can't throw it, I said he is inaccurate on his deep throws. He has his share of deep balls, but he sure has missed open players by over-throwing them.
[/QUOTE]

You also said he was inaccurate, and I proved he's actually slightly more accurate than Romo (by .2%). SO I am failing to see your point.
Why argue about his accuracy when he's more accurate than the self dubbed savour of the Cowboys?

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=TheBigD;362886]Thank you, it is just your judgement against mine. One of us is right and the other is wrong.[/quote]

Suggestion.....why don't you two just agree to disagree and leave it at that? The irony of this whole debate is this is a Redskins fan board, but if you look at the thread with the most reads, it is this one that is titled for Tony Romo, a Dallas Cowboy.

That is kinda like what Larry the Cable guy says...."It's like wipin before you crap.......it just don't make sense".

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;363191]Suggestion.....why don't you two just agree to disagree and leave it at that? The irony of this whole debate is this is a Redskins fan board, but if you look at the thread with the most reads, it is this one that is titled for Tony Romo, a Dallas Cowboy.

That is kinda like what Larry the Cable guy says...."It's like wipin before you crap.......it just don't make sense".[/QUOTE]

So in that analogy, Romo is the crap? LOL.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=jsarno;362801]Not to nit pick, but Garrard still wouldn't make the roster.

Brady, 1383 yards, 16 tds, 2 ints
Manning, 1319 yards, 10 tds, 2 ints
Anderson, 1251 yards, 11 tds, 8 ints
Palmer, 1171 yards, 10 tds, 6 ints
Roethlisberger, 1013 yards, 9 tds, 3 ints
Garrard, 848 yards, 4 tds, 0 ints.

Not sure who he would push out there, he needs to put up better numbers to be considered. Garrard is not making mistakes, but he's not playing the game to win either, he's playing not to lose. (not that there is anything wrong with that if it works, but it's rare that conservative QB's with low numbers make the pro bowl)[/quote]He has one less game than everyone on that list. Rate stats, man!!

Here's the lowdown on Garrard: 7.8 Y/A on 67% completion. He's got no picks in over 100 attempts. That's why if the season ended today, he'd be in the probowl.

The season doesn't end today, but Garrard is still having a damn good season.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=jsarno;363227]So in that analogy, Romo is the crap? LOL.[/quote]


I would consider it highly ill regular if there was a thread on a Cowboys fan board titled for Jason Campbell, and that thread was the 3rd most read and 3rd most active thread on the board.

And that is what you have here...a Romo thread taking over a Redskins board.

If he really was "crap" as you say....then why waste all that time talking about it on your fan board?

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;363272]I would consider it highly ill regular if there was a thread on a Cowboys fan board titled for Jason Campbell,[/quote]

That's because Campbell is too hard to spell for the typical posters found on a Cowboys fan board.:)

On a serious note, I did read where Romo's father was diagnosed with cancer a couple of days after the Bears game. I can definitely see that kind of news having an impact on anyone's performance. I hate to see anyone, friend or foe, have to deal with that.

Fact is Romo plays his butt off and I haven't seen or heard him run his mouth. It's a terrible waste for him to be a member of the Cowboys organization.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;363262]He has one less game than everyone on that list. Rate stats, man!![/quote]

Not everyone...Palmer has 4 games as well.

[quote]Here's the lowdown on Garrard: 7.8 Y/A on 67% completion. He's got no picks in over 100 attempts. That's why if the season ended today, he'd be in the probowl.

The season doesn't end today, but Garrard is still having a damn good season.[/QUOTE]

Well, considering in the past 9 seasons, here is the break down on how many QB's have been sent to the pro bowl from the AFC:
1998- 3
1999- 3
2000- 4
2001- 3
2002- 3
2003- 3
2004- 3
2005- 5
2006- 3

So as you can see, they send 3 QB's from the AFC most of the time. No way is he having a better season than Brady and Manning (that is not debatable), so Garrard would have to beat out Palmer and Roethlisberger for that last spot. (he should be able to beat out Anderson, so I'll just drop him out now, but if he continues his hot hand, he'll have to come back in) Do you really think Garrard's 1 td per game average is enough to beat out those two? Big ben is averaging just under 2 tds per game, and a +6 TD to INT ratio, and Palmer has a 2.5 td per game average with a +4 td to int ratio (same amount of games and butt load more tds and passing yards.) So while I do agree Garrard is looking decent, he is not a pro bowler just yet. He would be my 5th choice in AFC. Not to mention the pro bowl is a popularity contest and Palmer and Big Ben have much better well known names.

Garrard is on pace for 16 td's, I can't think of anyone in recent memory (Minus Vick) that has made the pro bowl with only 16 tds over the course of the season.
So while I understand your comments for lifting Garrard up, don't lift him up too high. He deserves to be ranked around #5 or so in the AFC, but that doesn't make him a pro bowler.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;363272]I would consider it highly ill regular if there was a thread on a Cowboys fan board titled for Jason Campbell, and that thread was the 3rd most read and 3rd most active thread on the board.

And that is what you have here...a Romo thread taking over a Redskins board.

If he really was "crap" as you say....then why waste all that time talking about it on your fan board?[/QUOTE]

I never once said he was crap, just pointing out that you used an analogy that compared him to crap. Kinda funny.

I don't think it matters what is the most active thread...we had a thread on here (forgot what SS renamed it) that got over 5000 posts...it was a thread about nothing...whatever we wanted to talk about that night.
If we made a thread that said "the cowboys suck!" it would get more posts and hits than this thread. Quite frankly I don't see you point in even saying anything about it. We'll talk about nothing at all, and the "super happy fun thread" has something like 3000 posts and that's mainly about utube.

Re: I guess Romo's contract extension
 

I am still not sold on Romo. I'm think'n maybe a one hit wonder... I think this cowboys team could probably win with even grossman as their QB.