- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
The team is 8-8 the last three years straight. It is .500 since 1997. It is .500 when Romo is hurt and not playing.
- Thread starter Rynie
- Start date
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Doomsday says Weeden and the Dallas cowboys would be 8-8. that's not likely bc Weeden is bad and Dallas is bad. Doomsday you're wrong for that notion.
Fix.
Fix.
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
So what you're meaning to say is that Romo over the last three years is one game over .500 (he didn't play Week 17 last season), and the team is .500 since 1997.
Not that Romo is .500 or that him playing gives us the odds of a coin flip. Cause that's wrong. He's played more than the past three seasons.
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
No he does not. Doomsday says it really doesn't matter who is under center, you are what you are as the Tuna says. 8-8.
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
No, man... For 55 million we get coin toss odds.
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
I mean if you look at his W-L record alone, you'll see that he's 16 games over .500. You want people to believe that it's his fault the team is .500 since 1997? If anything he's pulled this shitty franchise from the doldrums to .500 during his tenure.
Don't try to sell the members here that bullshit. Every person in here is smarter than that. And if Jon88 were still here, he'd see through your bullshit too.
Don't try to sell the members here that bullshit. Every person in here is smarter than that. And if Jon88 were still here, he'd see through your bullshit too.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been awake 48 hours and took 3 zzzquil so you win this debate. Lemme get another doomsday-ism
Before the pink elephants
Irv cowboy is gay
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
I am saying we are 8-8 with him, we'll be 8-8 at least, without him.
I'm not blaming HIM for being 8-8 the last three years, or playing .500 ball since 1997. That's your Freudian projection not mine.
Suffice it to say I reply such in response to the lameass "without Romo we would be 1-15" crap we see almost daily in the webosphere. And it's simply not been true. With Romo out we have fucking still managed .500 ball.
2233boys
2
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 0
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
.500 is not the doldrums?
But see? This is the crap I'm talking about. No doubt if Romo went out for the season starting tomorrow, and Dallas still wound up 8-8, you would be talking about how oh shucky darn, if only Tony hadn't gone down we woulda been 13-3.
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
But truly, after seeing the zip he has on the ball and the movement he showed in the video I linked before, I am less and less worried about his back. And if he doesn't play Thursday in San Diego, I got no problem with that either. No sense risking him in preseason.
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
That's "A" idiot. Not "an." Irony alert!
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
19 more games and you'll be all done with him dont worry
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Lemme say that after coming to me in pm's with respect for an OG, doomsday Is no irvcowboy.
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
I hope this means what I think it means and I hope you're right. Because if Dallas gets to play 19 games that count, one of those is the Super Bowl and it's also with a really good record since that represents a bye week in the playoffs.
And you are also correct, that if that happens myself and all other Romo "haters" get a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up juice. And I will gladly drink that, along with whatever crow is being served with it.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^Honest question: romo-friendly fans would you party with a romo hater on said day? Or do they gets no love
- Messages
- 21,800
- Reaction score
- 4,305
It would be the end of Romo hating, everywhere. Just like with Favre even though he is the NFL all-time turnover machine.
Rynie
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 1,321
- Reaction score
- 54
That's "A" idiot. Not "an." Irony alert!
No, it's "an". Idiot begins with a vowel. ;l
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
And you're wrong. We're 16 games over .500 with him.
Are you serious? You're not blaming Romo for being 8-8, 8-8 and 8-7 the last three years? Then why are you bringing it up as if it's a knock against him?
I'm saying you're blaming him for the team having been .500 since 1997. Considering you brought up the .500 record since 1997 saying we're .500 without him. It's bullshit. Our record since 1997 includes 112 games started by him in which he has been 64-48. 16 games over .500. Simple math will tell you that in games he hasn't started since 1997, the team is 16 games under .500. And he didn't start a game until the middle of 2006. You're bringing up a stat that has 10 years worth of games where he didn't play, and where the team was 16 games under .500, and saying we would be .500 without him. It's patently false.
I'm merely pointing out you aren't above flat out lying in your campaign to tear Romo down.
Care to prove that?
Oh hell... here, I'll prove you wrong.
Romo started 10 games in 2006, went 6-4. Were 3-3 before he ever took an NFL snap.
In 2008, he missed three games, and we went 1-2.
In 2010, he missed the final 10 games, and we went 5-5.
In 2013, he missed one game, and we went 0-1.
So since he took an NFL snap, the Cowboys are 6-8 without Romo. With him, we're 64-48, or 16 games over .500. Without him we haven't managed .500 ball, and with him, we're well over .500.
If you want to continue with the lame argument that since 1997 we are .500, then that would presumably include the 16 games over .500 that we have been when he's actually played. So he's taken a team that's 16 games under .500 and brought them back to even by being 16 games over .500.