Cowboyz1 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Bottom line ... Colombo kicked Peppers ass! +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So you are telling me that the Dallas O-line that has sucked for the entire year finally figured it out and it had nothing to do with Romo. Yeah right. Now you're just being dishonest and misrepresenting what I said. I CLEARLY stated that Romo's release and mobility helped last night. I haven't watched every Cowboys game this year, but I can tell you that Dallas' O-line played a lot better last night than they did last week. I'm sure that a lot of it had to do with the fact that Carolina's run D wasn't nearly as good as NYG's. Obviously, being able to establish the run early helps a QB tremendously. And if you had watched last night's game closely, you would have noticed significantly better pass-protection. The Cowboys played better across the board last night. And despite what you may think, it wasn't all because Bledsoe was holding a clipboard on the sideline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Bottom line ... Colombo kicked Peppers ass! Perhaps Grits will listen to a fellow Cowboys fan. 'Cause he sure as hell isn't listening to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Two weeks running Romo has played well. I guess you are going to tell me that the o-line finally came together and they could stick Bledsoe back in and he'd do just as well as Romo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Two weeks running Romo has played well. I guess you are going to tell me that the o-line finally came together and they could stick Bledsoe back in and he'd do just as well as Romo. Since your memory obviously isn't very good, let me refresh it: My problem with Romo being given the starting job was that he didn't EARN it. I also stated that, for all I know, Romo may prove to be a better option than Bledsoe. But he was never given the opportunity to show it before being given the keys to the offense. BTW, nice loss yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) Since your memory obviously isn't very good, let me refresh it: My problem with Romo being given the starting job was that he didn't EARN it. I also stated that, for all I know, Romo may prove to be a better option than Bledsoe. But he was never given the opportunity to show it before being given the keys to the offense. BTW, nice loss yesterday. Bledsoe did nothing to earn it either ... and everything to lose it. Which is, I guess where our difference of opinion lies. You think Bledsoe should have continued to hold the starting job so he could throw 30 INTs this year and get sacked 400 times. Whereas I believe that it was clear to anybody with an ounce of football acumen that Romo was a better option than Bledsoe, by far. Romo is clearly a better option and it was clear EVEN before his last 2 starts. Of course I am sure that the reason Romo is doing so well is because the o-line is playing so much better for Romo than Bledsoe. Edited November 6, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Two weeks running Romo has played well. I guess you are going to tell me that the o-line finally came together and they could stick Bledsoe back in and he'd do just as well as Romo. Careful with that. Leinart played well for two weeks, then <<splat>>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 BTW, nice loss yesterday. Romo did everything possible to earn that win though. I credit the loss more to TO and a pathetic Field Goal unit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Romo did everything possible to earn that win though. I credit the loss more to TO and a pathetic Field Goal unit... o-line failure to block allowing the safety going for the 2 point conversion in the 1st quarter 11 penalties for 153 yards, including the last facemask for 15 with no time left dropped TD pass by TO blocked FG It was a sloppy/horrible showing by all Cowboys EXCEPT Romo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Bledsoe did nothing to earn it either ... and everything to lose it. Which is, I guess where our difference of opinion lies. You think Bledsoe should have continued to hold the starting job so he could throw 30 INTs this year and get sacked 400 times. Whereas I believe that it was clear to anybody with an ounce of football acumen that Romo was a better option than Bledsoe, by far. Of course I am sure that the reason Romo is doing so well is because the o-line is playing so much better for Romo than Bledsoe. There's no question that Dallas' O-line hasn't played as poorly as they did against the Giants two weeks ago. Anybody with an ounce of football acumen can see that. And that apparently doesn't include you. Romo is clearly a better option and it was clear EVEN before his last 2 starts. You mean when he threw three picks agains the not-very-good Giants secondary in the second half of that game? Oh yeah, he looked A LOT better than Bledsoe out there. The bottom line is that Romo was handed the job out of desperation. Unlike Brady, for example, he didn't do anything to earn it. If it was so clear that he was a better option than Bledsoe BEFORE his two starts, Parcells would've given him the job back in September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 It was a sloppy/horrible showing by all Cowboys EXCEPT Romo. Romo was excellent yesterday. We can agree on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) There's no question that Dallas' O-line hasn't played as poorly as they did against the Giants two weeks ago. Anybody with an ounce of football acumen can see that. And that apparently doesn't include you. You mean when he threw three picks agains the not-very-good Giants secondary in the second half of that game? Oh yeah, he looked A LOT better than Bledsoe out there. The bottom line is that Romo was handed the job out of desperation. Unlike Brady, for example, he didn't do anything to earn it. If it was so clear that he was a better option than Bledsoe BEFORE his two starts, Parcells would've given him the job back in September. You crack me up. It's the same o-line dude. The difference is that Romo isn't cemented to the ground in the pocket holding the ball for 20 seconds with a 30 minute release. Edited November 6, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 You crack me up. It's the same o-line dude. The difference is that Romo is cemented to the ground in the pocket holding the ball for 20 seconds with a 30 minute release. But I thought that Bledsoe was the immobile one? Did it ever occur to you that the Giants pass rush might just be a lot better than Carolina or Washington's? Did it ever occur to you that Dallas' O-line might pass-protect better against the latter two teams because of that fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 BTW, nice loss yesterday. After Chicagos loss yesterday are you a Colts fan again ? I lose track with you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 After Chicagos loss yesterday are you a Colts fan again ? I lose track with you.. Nice comeback. But it doesn't change the fact that the cowboys suck and are going nowhere this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Nice comeback. But it doesn't change the fact that the cowboys suck and are going nowhere this year. That may be true but I dont understand your obsession with it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 That may be true but I dont understand your obsession with it.. The only obsession I see here is Grits trashing Bledsoe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 The only obsession I see here is Grits trashing Bledsoe. And your counterpoint man crush on Bledsoe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) And your counterpoint man crush on Bledsoe. "Man crush"? I don't feel strongly about Bledsoe one way or the other. And I'm more than willing to admit that Bledsoe may be finished and that Romo might be a better option than him at this point. But apparently you're not willing to admit that Romo did nothing to earn the starting QB position. Edited November 6, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 "Man crush"? I don't feel strongly about Bledsoe one way or the other. And I'm more than willing to admit that Bledsoe may be finished and that Romo might be a better option than him at this point. But apparently you're not willing to admit that Romo did nothing to earn the starting QB position. Romo didn't have to earn it ... Bledsoe so un-earned his starting spot ... and that is what you refuse to acknowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Romo didn't have to earn it ... You're right. NFL QBs don't have to earn their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 You're right. NFL QBs don't have to earn their jobs. Very often when the starting QB gets hurt (Blesdoe - Brady, Green - Bulger) or just plain sucks (Bledsoe - Romo, Warner - Leinart) that is exactly the case. Then there are cases where a change is made because the organization drafted the replacement franchise QB and is tired of waiting despite the good performance of the QB already in place (Palmer - Kitna, Brees - Rivers, McNair - Young). So, no, the back up QB very often does not have to "earn the starting job" as much as the starting QB loses it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Very often when the starting QB gets hurt (Blesdoe - Brady, Green - Warner) or just plain sucks (Bledsoe - Romo, Warner - Leinart) that is exactly the case. Then there are cases where a change is made because the organization drafted the replacement franchise QB and is tired of waiting despite the good performance of the QB already in place (Palmer - Kitna, Brees - Rivers, McNair - Young). So, no, the back up QB very often does not have to "earn the starting job" as much as the starting QB loses it. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Very often when the starting QB gets hurt (Blesdoe - Brady, Green - Warner - Bulger) or just plain sucks (Bledsoe - Romo, Warner - Leinart) that is exactly the case. Then there are cases where a change is made because the organization drafted the replacement franchise QB and is tired of waiting despite the good performance of the QB already in place (Palmer - Kitna, Brees - Rivers, McNair - Young). So, no, the back up QB very often does not have to "earn the starting job" as much as the starting QB loses it. Fixed again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.