Page 63 of 90 FirstFirst ... 135359606162636465666773 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 945 of 1339
  1. #931
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavemold View Post
    Tebow should be higher !!!!
    Tim Tebow should not be ranked, if the assessment is based on the projected top players in 2012. It is even more laughable that Tony Romo is ranked No. 91, falling 19 spots after putting up arguably his best statistical season. You're not telling me that Romo is only marginally better than Tebow.

  2. #932
    Nyah! Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kalamazoo MI/Millennium City MI
    Posts
    33,359

    Default

    Romo was top 10 in all categories, top 5 in many, with the #4 overall QB rating. He seemed to have gotten his wildly erratic "good game/hideous game" thing under control, but man it's hard to forget the past. In fact, all year long I kept waiting for "the other shoe to drop" and him to fall apart.
    'Dox out.

    "But I think the difference is, when Democrats go crazy, they get shown the door. When Republicans go crazy they get appointed to the Science committee. " - Shawn Hopkins

    "Can it, you nit!" - Violet Beauregard

    "And Paradox is never correct. About anything."- Kid Omega


    Champions: The Conclave
    Decorum & Friends (A City of Heroes archive)

  3. #933
    14 Time Rita's Champion SUPERECWFAN1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Somewhere In....AMERICA!
    Posts
    50,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Romo was top 10 in all categories, top 5 in many, with the #4 overall QB rating. He seemed to have gotten his wildly erratic "good game/hideous game" thing under control, but man it's hard to forget the past. In fact, all year long I kept waiting for "the other shoe to drop" and him to fall apart.
    Whats scary is ... Romo in his career....has never had a career passing rating below 91. His lowest passing rating year was 2008 and he missed 3 games that season. Also his career average is 96.9 ! So him being ranked near Tebow by some is silly.
    "Heads up-- If Havok's position in UA #5 really upset you, it's time to drown yourself hobo piss. Seriously, do it. It's the only solution." - Rick Remender

    Sucks 200 character limit.

  4. #934
    Nyah! Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kalamazoo MI/Millennium City MI
    Posts
    33,359

    Default

    Even weirder, they have Overrated and Underrated sections and they have Tebow in the Under and Romo in the Over. Yeah, that's just nuts.
    'Dox out.

    "But I think the difference is, when Democrats go crazy, they get shown the door. When Republicans go crazy they get appointed to the Science committee. " - Shawn Hopkins

    "Can it, you nit!" - Violet Beauregard

    "And Paradox is never correct. About anything."- Kid Omega


    Champions: The Conclave
    Decorum & Friends (A City of Heroes archive)

  5. #935
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERECWFAN1 View Post
    Whats scary is ... Romo in his career....has never had a career passing rating below 91. His lowest passing rating year was 2008 and he missed 3 games that season. Also his career average is 96.9 ! So him being ranked near Tebow by some is silly.
    Moreover, Tony Romo was ranked at No. 72 in 2010, when he missed the final 10 games because of a broken collarbone.

    So Romo has one of his best statistical seasons, played all 16 games including a stretch with a broken rib and punctured lung (leading Dallas to wins over San Francisco and Washington during that span) ... and drops 19 spots.
    Last edited by Mic Murphy; 04-29-2012 at 10:34 PM.

  6. #936
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mic Murphy View Post
    Tim Tebow should not be ranked, if the assessment is based on the projected top players in 2012. It is even more laughable that Tony Romo is ranked No. 91, falling 19 spots after putting up arguably his best statistical season. You're not telling me that Romo is only marginally better than Tebow.
    He took a pretty bad Denver team to the playoffs and won a playoff game . Romo should be higher.
    Last edited by Cavemold; 04-29-2012 at 11:14 PM.

  7. #937
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mic Murphy View Post
    Moreover, Tony Romo was ranked at No. 72 in 2010, when he missed the final 10 games because of a broken collarbone.

    So Romo has one of his best statistical seasons, played all 16 games including a stretch with a broken rib and punctured lung (leading Dallas to wins over San Francisco and Washington during that span) ... and drops 19 spots.
    What probably hurts his standings is the giant game. Where he missed a wide open miles austin.

  8. #938
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavemold View Post
    He took a pretty bad Denver team to the playoffs and won a playoff game . Romo should be higher.
    Denver's 1-4 record before Tim Tebow became the starter is somewhat overstated. The Broncos lost three of those games by a combined 10 points. Not to mention Denver lost its final three regular-season games and backed into the playoffs because of the tiebreaker system. Of Denver's wins with Tebow under center, the only ones that did not require a late comeback were the games against Oakland and Minnesota (which each had some bad defenses).

  9. #939
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavemold View Post
    What probably hurts his standings is the giant game. Where he missed a wide open miles austin.
    One of the players in the video profile on Tony Romo still was citing the 2006 playoff game as a knock against Romo, so it's more accurate to surmise that the players can't let go of the image of Romo not being a "clutch" player. Evidently, there is a bias against Romo by the players who voted on the poll (not to mention Romo should be evaluated solely on his performance in 2011). Romo was placed just ahead of people like Tim Tebow and Green Bay fullback John Kuhn, despite being among the NFL leaders in most major passing categories.

  10. #940
    Nyah! Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kalamazoo MI/Millennium City MI
    Posts
    33,359

    Default

    Actually, the poll is about who's going to be good in '12, so, no, Romo should not be evaluated solely on his performance in '11, nor should anyone else.
    'Dox out.

    "But I think the difference is, when Democrats go crazy, they get shown the door. When Republicans go crazy they get appointed to the Science committee. " - Shawn Hopkins

    "Can it, you nit!" - Violet Beauregard

    "And Paradox is never correct. About anything."- Kid Omega


    Champions: The Conclave
    Decorum & Friends (A City of Heroes archive)

  11. #941
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Actually, the poll is about who's going to be good in '12, so, no, Romo should not be evaluated solely on his performance in '11, nor should anyone else.
    Theoretically, that may be the case but realistically the players are being evaluated on past performance (and selectively on single-season and/or career performances, depending on the viewpoint the players want to debate). Otherwise, there is no basis on which to rate the players. And even then, there is no basis on which to suggest that the backup quarterback is on the same plane as a starting quarterback coming off arguably his best season statistically.

  12. #942
    Magnificent Bastard worstblogever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    36,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERECWFAN1 View Post
    Well its a big IF right now for the Jaguars. They have Gabbert and drafted WR to give him a WR to throw to. Plus hired an offensive coach to work with him. Now a lot here really ripped Gabbert and he did have issues. But we have to remember...

    1.) The lockout wiped out Gabbert's training camp and learning curve.

    2.) Gabbert was told when they released Gerrard he wouldn't be starting so soon. In fact it was told he'd likely start the 6th or 7th week to get him more time to learn.

    3.) By the end of the 1st week he was rushed in before he was ready and made the starter. It showed that he needed time to adjust to NFL playing and handling pressure at times. He suffered some hard rookie issues , a lot due to a WR core that really was on pare with the Browns .

    4.) The Jaguars halfway through Gabbert's struggling rookie season , cut his leading WR !


    They drafted Blackmon for him and are hoping Murlarky can work with his issues. Guy has a great arm , he just needs to handle pressure and cut down on those mistakes better. Which I think with a full camp and all...he could possibly do it.
    Past years, yeah, I'd say, "No way they'd give up on Gabbert after just two seasons."

    But then again, that's exactly what the Browns seem to be doing with Colt McCoy. And what the Panthers did when they went for Cam Newton, instead of giving Jimmy Clausen more than a single year.

    Make no mistake, some folks though Gabbert was a bit of a reach when they traded up to get him last year. But if they get the #1 pick next year, they'll probably take Barkley. Years past, they would have traded down for a bunch of picks (like the Rams did, rather than abandon Sam Bradford to take RGIII). Then again, on that Rams comparison... Bradford looked a bit better in his rookie season than Gabbert did in his first.
    Last edited by worstblogever; 04-30-2012 at 08:50 AM.

    CBR's Cerebra: Mutant Tracker
    Updated Tuesdays.

    X-Poster of the Month: January 2014
    - the best there is at what i do -

  13. #943
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    And what the Panthers did when they went for Cam Newton, instead of giving Jimmy Clausen more than a single year.
    and all Cam Newton did was throw for over 4,000 yds and score a bunch of touchdowns
    Support your local roller derby league

  14. #944
    14 Time Rita's Champion SUPERECWFAN1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Somewhere In....AMERICA!
    Posts
    50,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    Past years, yeah, I'd say, "No way they'd give up on Gabbert after just two seasons."

    But then again, that's exactly what the Browns seem to be doing with Colt McCoy. And what the Panthers did when they went for Cam Newton, instead of giving Jimmy Clausen more than a single year.

    Make no mistake, some folks though Gabbert was a bit of a reach when they traded up to get him last year. But if they get the #1 pick next year, they'll probably take Barkley. Years past, they would have traded down for a bunch of picks (like the Rams did, rather than abandon Sam Bradford to take RGIII). Then again, on that Rams comparison... Bradford looked a bit better in his rookie season than Gabbert did in his first.
    McCoy and Clausen weren't 1st rd draft picks really. Clausen fell to the low 2nd rd where the Panthers got him. Newton was a once in a lifetime #1 guy and the Panthers had a 2nd rd QB. McCoy was a 3rd rd QB. They won't feel so much pressure to make those picks work like a 1st rd QB. Which the Jaguars will. They traded and invested in Gabbert. They will see how much strides he makes this season and if he does....he will be their QB in year #3. If he falls further and does a Ryan Leaf...then yep...they draft a QB.
    "Heads up-- If Havok's position in UA #5 really upset you, it's time to drown yourself hobo piss. Seriously, do it. It's the only solution." - Rick Remender

    Sucks 200 character limit.

  15. #945
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,772

    Default

    The browns still need a WR

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •