Browns to make pitch for Jimmy G // Trubisky #1 QB on their board
-
If we take Trubisky we give up the 1st pick in the draft for our QB, and we are out of the race for the top Def. players in the draft. We still have 12,33,65 to pick up Def. players to help this team.
Jimmy G. could be the right direction to go but people think a 1 and 4 is to much to spend on him. But remember this, there are what about 6 teams looking for there QB, Jimmy G. is not going to go cheep. I would try to set the deal in stone now before the draft, and teams start bidding on his services.
I would go hard after Jimmy, I would offer NE our 2nd. (65) this year, and our 2nd. next year. We still have 3 top picks for Def. and we walk out with our QB, the top Def. pick, and 12 and 33 to boot.
If Jimmy is a top 20 QB he is worth the 2 seconds, if Trubisky is a top 20 QB he is worth the 1st pick, If both bomb out I would rather loose 2 seconds than the first pick. Both are going to have risks but I do think that Jimmy is the lower risk.....
If we take Trubisky we give up the 1st pick in the draft for our QB, and we are out of the race for the top Def. players in the draft. We still have 12,33,65 to pick up Def. players to help this team.
Jimmy G. could be the right direction to go but people think a 1 and 4 is to much to spend on him. But remember this, there are what about 6 teams looking for there QB, Jimmy G. is not going to go cheep. I would try to set the deal in stone now before the draft, and teams start bidding on his services.
I would go hard after Jimmy, I would offer NE our 2nd. (65) this year, and our 2nd. next year. We still have 3 top picks for Def. and we walk out with our QB, the top Def. pick, and 12 and 33 to boot.
If Jimmy is a top 20 QB he is worth the 2 seconds, if Trubisky is a top 20 QB he is worth the 1st pick, If both bomb out I would rather loose 2 seconds than the first pick. Both are going to have risks but I do think that Jimmy is the lower risk.....
I have to add to my comments above, Everyone knows we have to hit on this draft to turn this team around, that means we first have to address the QB, no matter who we draft, without a stable QB it wont make a difference, So we have to address that one first, Question... is that QB on this team now? Most would say NO.... and at best a poor maybe..... We have a few options here, 1.) Take the best QB in the draft, costing us the #1 pick. 2.) Trading for a QB that might be better than we get in the draft. 3.) FA
1.) Draft - option
2.) Trade -option
3.) FA -- poor option - At best buys us a year. ( I dont think many on here wouldnt agree. )
So now we have only 2 Real options left, Draft or trade, This front office has to do one of the 2, Draft the best QB, or Trading for the best QB, I dont care which way the Browns go, as long as we get the best QB we can get.
I would go hard after Jimmy, I would offer NE our 2nd. (65) this year, and our 2nd. next year. We still have 3 top picks for Def. and we walk out with our QB, the top Def. pick, and 12 and 33 to boot.
If possible, We could now trade down to 3 or 4, picking up one of the two 2nd rd. picks We give NE. So the whole deal cost us one 2nd. and we still get Allen or Gerritt.
-
Oh ok, now it makes sense why as a kid I always knew grown ups were full of shit.Welcome to the world of grownups.
I only quoted the pieces of what you said that I wished to respond to. Your post can stand on its own without me having to regurgitate the whole thing.
I mean your post was almost as bad as MSNBC.
Mitch2Pryor said:
Oh ok, now it makes sense why as a kid I always knew grown ups were full of shit.
I mean your post was almost as bad as MSNBC.
Not sure what you meant by that, but I will take as "your post is intelligent, cogent, substantive, and makes me look like an ass" which it does.
If you want your entire posts regurgitated, be a child and post the same thing 3 or 4 times.
-
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
Mitch2Pryor said:
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
WE would be competitive faster with an outstanding QB than we would be with a defensive player. Simple fact of life.
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
A QB will take you further faster than any other position (or two) on the team.
-
Oh, Jeezus. Watch the film.The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
He is better than our QBs.
He is 25 and can paid an incentive based contact.
What is wrong with you homos?
Z
Zombo said:
Oh, Jeezus. Watch the film.
He is better than our QBs.
He is 25 and can paid an incentive based contact.
What is wrong with you homos?
Z
A. I don't want to give up anything more than a mid 2d round pick for him (see...I came to see things a bit more your way, previously I did'nt want to give up more than a 3)
B. He will be a FA....he won't want an incentive laden contract, he will want a guaranteed money deal....or his agent would be a fool.
C. I would NOT want to franchise him....not unless he really was the difference in this team making the playoffs. Franchising him means you pay him the average of the top 5 QBs in the league. I don't think we are ready to put him in the Rodgers/Brady/BR/ type category
-
If we take Trubisky we give up the 1st pick in the draft for our QB, and we are out of the race for the top Def. players in the draft. We still have 12,33,65 to pick up Def. players to help this team.
Jimmy G. could be the right direction to go but people think a 1 and 4 is to much to spend on him. But remember this, there are what about 6 teams looking for there QB, Jimmy G. is not going to go cheep. I would try to set the deal in stone now before the draft, and teams start bidding on his services.
I would go hard after Jimmy, I would offer NE our 2nd. (65) this year, and our 2nd. next year. We still have 3 top picks for Def. and we walk out with our QB, the top Def. pick, and 12 and 33 to boot.
If Jimmy is a top 20 QB he is worth the 2 seconds, if Trubisky is a top 20 QB he is worth the 1st pick, If both bomb out I would rather loose 2 seconds than the first pick. Both are going to have risks but I do think that Jimmy is the lower risk.....
If we take Trubisky we give up the 1st pick in the draft for our QB, and we are out of the race for the top Def. players in the draft. We still have 12,33,65 to pick up Def. players to help this team.
Jimmy G. could be the right direction to go but people think a 1 and 4 is to much to spend on him. But remember this, there are what about 6 teams looking for there QB, Jimmy G. is not going to go cheep. I would try to set the deal in stone now before the draft, and teams start bidding on his services.
I would go hard after Jimmy, I would offer NE our 2nd. (65) this year, and our 2nd. next year. We still have 3 top picks for Def. and we walk out with our QB, the top Def. pick, and 12 and 33 to boot.
If Jimmy is a top 20 QB he is worth the 2 seconds, if Trubisky is a top 20 QB he is worth the 1st pick, If both bomb out I would rather loose 2 seconds than the first pick. Both are going to have risks but I do think that Jimmy is the lower risk.....
For a 1 and a 4, one of those other teams can have him. And if he is just a Top 20 QB, he is worth a 4th rounder.
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
Ha, what's to say even with Jimmy we'd be "competitive"? BTW, it's been argued elsewhere what if McDaniels gets the SF HC job? No one should know Garropolo better. If he doesn't make a play for him, no one else should either.
Ha, what's to say even with Jimmy we'd be "competitive"? BTW, it's been argued elsewhere what if McDaniels gets the SF HC job? No one should know Garropolo better. If he doesn't make a play for him, no one else should either.
There you go. The 49ers, because of what you say, very well may be a better trade partner than the Browns. They may give up more, and Josh would have working knowledge of Marcopolo mor than anyone else.
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
WE would be competitive faster with an outstanding QB than we would be with a defensive player. Simple fact of life.
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
A QB will take you further faster than any other position (or two) on the team.
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
the Cowboys were missing a few pieces, they added two pieces, the rb was
a lock, the qb a wonderful accident for them.
"yawn"
-
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
You are right. Cowboys went from 4-12 to 13-3 primarily due to the play of their new QB and RB. And as good as the RB is, I attribute more to the QB.
What else of significance changed on that team?
Their defensive personell wasn't that big of a change. Their OL either (it was always good)
-
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
not even close....
the Cowboys were missing lost a few pieces, they added two pieces, the rb was
a lock, the qb a wonderful accident for them.
"yawn"
fify....the actually lost pcs, then got them back.....
You are right. Cowboys went from 4-12 to 13-3 primarily due to the play of their new QB and RB. And as good as the RB is, I attribute more to the QB.
What else of significance changed on that team?
They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
-
This is the most incorrect thing that I've ever heard you say.
not even close....
the Cowboys were missing lost a few pieces, they added two pieces, the rb was
a lock, the qb a wonderful accident for them.
"yawn"
fify....the actually lost pcs, then got them back.....
You are right. Cowboys went from 4-12 to 13-3 primarily due to the play of their new QB and RB. And as good as the RB is, I attribute more to the QB.
What else of significance changed on that team?
They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
-
They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
12-4 in 2014.They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
pretty good read its a pretty long article explaining the "Worth" of draft picks in relation to the QB Market. Oddly enough it seems to make mathematical sense to draft Trubisky or another top QB according to market value
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/how-the-cleveland-browns-can-beat-the-draft-quarterback-market-011617
"The Cleveland Browns have the first overall pick. Do they take a quarterback? Find out how the Browns can beat the quarterback market in the 2017 Draft." -
Zombo said:
Oh, Jeezus. Watch the film.
He is better than our QBs.
He is 25 and can paid an incentive based contact.
What is wrong with you homos?
Z
A. I don't want to give up anything more than a mid 2d round pick for him (see...I came to see things a bit more your way, previously I did'nt want to give up more than a 3)
B. He will be a FA....he won't want an incentive laden contract, he will want a guaranteed money deal....or his agent would be a fool.
C. I would NOT want to franchise him....not unless he really was the difference in this team making the playoffs. Franchising him means you pay him the average of the top 5 QBs in the league. I don't think we are ready to put him in the Rodgers/Brady/BR/ type category
A. I don't want to give up anything more than a mid 2d round pick for him (see...I came to see things a bit more your way, previously I did'nt want to give up more than a 3)
B. He will be a FA....he won't want an incentive laden contract, he will want a guaranteed money deal....or his agent would be a fool.
C. I would NOT want to franchise him....not unless he really was the difference in this team making the playoffs. Franchising him means you pay him the average of the top 5 QBs in the league. I don't think we are ready to put him in the Rodgers/Brady/BR/ type category
Hi Z, here's the competition to make Jimmy worth franchising. About $23 million will git er done.
- Colts QB Andrew Luck: $24.6 million.
- Saints QB Drew Brees: $24.3 million.
- Ravens QB Joe Flacco: $22.1 million.
- Packers QB Aaron Rodgers: $22 million.
- Seahawks QB Russell Wilson: $21.9 million.
- Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger: $21.85 million.
-
I started a thread like this over a month ago. My source was an article whose "source" was former GM Lombardi. Anyway why not if the price isn't too high. The first pick should be Jonathon Allen who fits in with a 4-3. The Next pick should be Myles Garrett. How's that?
-
I started a thread like this over a month ago. My source was an article whose "source" was former GM Lombardi. Anyway why not if the price isn't too high. The first pick should be Jonathon Allen who fits in with a 4-3. The Next pick should be Myles Garrett. How's that?
-
12-4 in 2014.They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
-
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
-
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
-
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
Except, of course, that he's 78-49 for his career with a 13-3 season, 11-5 season and a 12-4 season as well.
He's had 6 seasons where he's started at least 15 games. Of those, he's had three 10+ win seasons and three 8-8 seasons. So your premise that he's a .500 QB is both unfounded and ridiculous. Injury has nothing to do with it because the premise is whether or not the team would have more wins with Dak or more wins with Romo. Not who would be injured first.
You're wrong. You've been proven wrong by multiple people on multiple accounts. It's over.
But now you'll slightly pivot to a micropoint that benefits your argument in some way and dismisses the rest - the patented Gipper heeldig pivot. This time, I'm not falling for it...I'm done with it.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login