Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:The Cowboys are so lucky that Romo got hurt again. Just GTFO and let Prescott get the reps.

....

Like I was saying back in August...

The Cowboys would be at least this good with Romo.

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:The Cowboys are so lucky that Romo got hurt again. Just GTFO and let Prescott get the reps.

....

Like I was saying back in August...

The Cowboys would be at least this good with Romo.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

Ok, so if the horsecollar has been extended to the shoulder pads and collar etc because of player safety. Why is it still perfectly legal to drag a guy down by the hair?

Same injuries right?

Electromatic wrote:Ok, so if the horsecollar has been extended to the shoulder pads and collar etc because of player safety. Why is it still perfectly legal to drag a guy down by the hair?

Same injuries right?

Probably because that is the individual player's choice to have hair hanging out of the helmet. They shouldn't need to design a helmet to protect a player's long hair.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Ok, so if the horsecollar has been extended to the shoulder pads and collar etc because of player safety. Why is it still perfectly legal to drag a guy down by the hair?

Same injuries right?

Probably because that is the individual player's choice to have hair hanging out of the helmet. They shouldn't need to design a helmet to protect a player's long hair.

I agree, but it's not the hair that you're protecting, it's the knees/ankles/back all the same forces as the horse collar.

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:The Cowboys are so lucky that Romo got hurt again. Just GTFO and let Prescott get the reps.

....

Like I was saying back in August...

The Cowboys would be at least this good with Romo.

Romo turns it over and takes unnecessary risks. Dak plays within himself and that's what they need.

Zeke Elliott has helped the Cowboys quite a bit. Defense is improved too.

I think Dak's main assets over Romo right now are not turning the ball over and availability.

verb_to_trust wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:The Cowboys are so lucky that Romo got hurt again. Just GTFO and let Prescott get the reps.

....

Like I was saying back in August...

The Cowboys would be at least this good with Romo.

Romo turns it over and takes unnecessary risks. Dak plays within himself and that's what they need.

Romo's last full season as a starter had very few turnovers. He's been very good at protecting the ball with this O-line.

I personally think Romo is great if healthy. Some QBs just get their INTs in during the first half of the game and Tony gets his in the last. I think whatever team he lands on could have a drew brees like payoff

Romo is pretty old too. I don't think he has much left.

There is not a single reason to put Romo back on the field. OMG how is this even a conversation. He's like 47 years old. And he sucks. Moving on!

Simple Torture wrote:This video cuts out right before Fouts says that he doesn't think this wasn't intentional by Burfict. Wtf, Fouts?

Lucky Gronk came out OK in this game, too. Cheap shots.

Vontaze Burfict might be the #1 headcase in sports right now.

More than Greg? Hardy, Odell Beckham, Boogie Cousins, Paul Goldschmidt, Yasiel Puig, Connor McGregor, you name it.

Burfict #1

Bammer wrote:Vontaze Burfict might be the #1 headcase in sports right now.

More than Greg? Hardy, Odell Beckham, Boogie Cousins, Paul Goldschmidt, Yasiel Puig, Connor McGregor, you name it.

Burfict #1

Tiger Woods?

Bammer wrote:Vontaze Burfict might be the #1 headcase in sports right now.

More than Greg? Hardy, Odell Beckham, Boogie Cousins, Paul Goldschmidt, Yasiel Puig, Connor McGregor, you name it.

Burfict #1

head cases to me are unpredictable people. Burfict is pretty predictable.

exciting game

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:exciting game

Why be ratings down? Me no understand.

Glad the Giants are finally gonna shit can that kicker.

I didn't watch the game. Why was it unexciting? Because of bad/sloppy play or just because it was low scoring?

durdencommatyler wrote:I didn't watch the game. Why was it unexciting? Because of bad/sloppy play or just because it was low scoring?

1) Because it's really really stupid to play an NFL game on Thursday 3.5 days after both teams just played a game.

2) Matt Barkley was playing QB because Bryan Hoyer broke his arm...and 2 WR's led the team in rushing for GB because the RB situation is dire. There must be some rule that the Bears have to be semi terrible at QB.

It was just the standard predictably sloppy awful Thursday Night Football game. The Packers eventually wore down the Bears defense and scored enough.