I don't know if this will hurt any broadcasting in the future or not .  ESPN seems very forgiving to jocks who might put more potatoes on the couch watching them.

His day is coming...keep digging that hole cause you will be in that hole soon enough. 

Tom Brady could beat up Jim Rome and ESPN would still be foaming at the mouth to hire him when he retires.

Dude, you guys cheated and you still lost, thats what you get

F-the PAts

I'm sure he's been hounded lately for comment on this topic, but he really didn't need to go down this road.  If he'd won the Super Bowl, everything woulda been about the Golden Boy.  Instead, Romo n Jessica r getting all the press, and all of a sudden we have a third country heard from. 

 

Maybe what he's really angry about is that no one seems to remember his record setting year.  Maybe w/ all this, it's become a tarnished record?  Well, Barry Bonds never failed a drug test either. 

 

But he was right about one thing, ESPN is a bunch of whore-mongers who'll go after any story, b/c they r a news station, first and foremost.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  But that's not a reflection of former NFL players who know just how it might help saying just that.  Get over urself Brady.

& exactly how did they cheat in the 1 game they lost?

I guess we'll see how good of a coach Bellacheat is when he doesn't have an unfair advantage. Brady is a cry baby punk.

No, he prefers those kissasses at CBS and Fox that prefer to shove their heads so far up his golden ass. Never understood how honestly jimmy terry, howy and chris(all former players) could think that they didnt gain sny advantage from doing this . ESPN all did it at first too. "Ahhh...this istn as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be". Now Slareth(spelling) is the head of the class srying about how it helped them. ESPN- perfect example of crappy journalism and favortism. The Pats-Cheaters, and very very sore losers. Tom Brady- The most overrated QB in the NFL Today, and a whiner to boot. God I love this game.

Do you wanna bring some sort of numbers to back of your mouth or you just gonna let that thing run off the hook?

Can we stop with this spygate crap. Brady is right. Its stupid and has gotten way out of hand. Move on with your lives people. Especially you ESPN!

Thats all you got? Really? Come on kid.....use your brain. First off, how many more years does brady have on romo? 5? Romo's only played one full season. Give him four more before we make comparisions between romo then and brady now.

You're not really trying to compare Tony Romo and Tom Brady are you?

All this is, is more fuel for the fire that will burn Brady until he wins the SuperBowl next year.

 

But on my personal preferrence side... I'd chose Bridget Moynahan over Gieselle. I guess it's my strong attraction to brunettes.

I dunno 17-1 since he stopped chea..... I mean filming signals sounds pretty good to me.

Was he? Hmmm....lets compare the two kids first year.Completion Percentage: Brady 63.9 Romo-64.4. Yards: Brady- 2843 Romo4211. Tds: Brady 18 Romo 36 . Yards/game: Brady 185.5 Romo 263.2 . QB rating: 86.5 Romo 97.4. Infact, sans 2007-2008, brady had only broken a 90 qb rating twice in his career, had never thrown more then 28 td's, never thrown over 4110 yards. Romo has never thrown for less then  4211 yards, 36 td's , and hasnt had a career rating lower then 97.4. Looks to me, comparitvley, romo has had the almost the same level of sucsess as brady in his first year. True, he didnt win the superbowl, the biggest stat that counts, but had an equal amount of sucsess through the first season as brady did. BEsides, you cant count the superbowl that year. The pats cheated. Or did you conviently forget that one?

Who had an unfair advantage? I sure as hell haven't seen one.

If you are going to try and quote stats, at least quote the correct stats. You used Brady's stats from 2001 which is indeed his first season,but was not a full season. Then you used Romo's stats from 2007 which was NOT his first year, but WAS a full season. Nice try. Real mature. Romo actually threw for 2,903 yds in his first season only 60 more than Brady (albeit in 4 less starts). As for your stupid little QB rating comparison, well it holds no water. Romo came to a team with Terrell Owens already on it. Brady, up until this past season, has played and WON with a bunch of nobodies. You tell me why Romo has a better QB rating.

You also left out how each of their first seasons ended (which has been pointed out by several other people on this thread). Romo's ended with a fumble, and Brady's with a Super Bowl ring.

All stats aside, Tony Romo doesn't even come close to Tom Brady. Your taking 1.5 years of stats for Romo and somehow trying to make them sound like he is in the HOF after a 20 year career. Get over it, your boy ain't #1 and may never be. O yea and grow up.

Good, let him self-destruct before our very eyes.

by shooting himself in the foot, einstein.

So do superbowl rings decide the HOF? Yes or no?

I love it when i get to whale on stupid people like you who think they know what their talking about. In 2000, tom Brady played in one game, didn't start, went one for three for 6 yards. In 2001, tom Brady started 14 games. Ma bey you should brush on your facts kiddo. And way to go to prove my point rookie. Comparing romo's first half season to tom Brady's first full season only more serves my point. As for romo getting to play with such talent, is that fault? You cant hold a player down for having a goo team or not. And touch on the point of how the season ended. Here....ill quote myself.....wouldn't want you to strain your brain....

"True, he didn't win the Superbowl, the biggest stat that counts, but had an equal amount of success through the first season as Brady did". Uh oh, have you had enough? Lemme make sure you got the point of my whole argument before i go. Room has only played a season and a half. Tom Brady has played 5. Its not right to compare his one season vs. Brady's career, the way injury's can change it. Sure, comparing first years, there you go. But give the young one some time. He's going to win his too. BTW....below is the link to tom Brady's career stats. You should do some brushing up....his ass cheeks must be tightening up and cutting off the flow of oxygen to your brain.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm

So then Bradshaw is the best qb ever then, seeing as how he has 4?

Whale on idiots like me? You're still quoting the wrong stats. Nice try though buddy. I never said anything about the 2000 season.

no...you said superbowl rings decided the HOF......

Just let RespectTheStar go, he's just p.o'd that Brady & other current players are on pace to TRAMPLE anything the messiah Aikman has ever accomplished. 

I don't think Brady or any of the other player on the Patriots know if they cheated or not. They think and have to know they earned all the wins they got. Think of it this way. You are one of the best at what you do at work. Then all of a sudden someone starts a rumor saying everything you have ever done was done by some sort of cheating that your boss orchestrated. But nothing can really be proved. Would you just tell everyone you were a bad worker that got lucky or try to discredit the person that started the rumor?

"Yes, for Quarterbacks, "

LMAO....seriously.....you dont have any stats to back up anything your saying, so you go like a little kid and throw out a tacky(and inaccurate) stement that actually has no bearing on the subject at hand. First, i dont consider aikman the messiah. I dont even consider him the best qb dallas' has ever had. Second, dont hate on aikman cause its obvious your jealous of the sucess he had with the cowboys. Besides, aikman best asset wasnt exactly measurable. Aikman was smart and accurate. Probably one of the top three most accurate guys ever to play the position. He made few mistakes when he played. BTW.....grats to the guys who are on pace to be better then Aikman. For a guy widely considered around the 12-15th best ever, its really not that special. Call me when they get around 6th or 7th, which BRady is not. 1 good season and a few efficient ones doesnt make you the best ever.

Dang man why so defensive? I was getting people to lay off you. Geez see if I try to help again. 

Sorry if i missed out on your sarcasm in your post. But with the way most people ague on here(someone submits a post with facts, then all the naysayers come alive and throw tacky insults at each other) its sometimes hard to distinguish.

Not a problem, I was just playing around anyhow. Seeing as we dont have a SB ring this year I need something fun to do.

Here is the problem. You submitted a post with facts, but you doctored them to make yourself look right. I commend you for actually using real facts (most people don't), but they're not what you're trying to make them into is all.

Could Tony Romo wind up being better than or just as good as Brady? Absolutely. That just currently is NOT the case. Now if you don't mind, can we get this thing back on topic?

A few things...

1) Tom Brady is ALREADY a lock for the HOF. So comparing him to Tony Romo is ridiculous. He needs to be compared to other HOFers, not young guys who haven't proven ANYTHING.

2) Tom's absolutely right... ESPN is a joke.

3) It really doesn't matter what he says. When he starts destroying the league again next year, they'll hop right back on his jock.

4) Without his 4 rings, there's no way Bradshaw even sniffs the HOF. So although rings don't guarantee the HOF for a QB, they sure make it a lot easier.

Hey I was just happy a cheating team lost...relax thong man!

Lost in this discourse of individual stats in a team game is the fact that Tom Brady thinks MTV still shows music videos.

How were they doctored? I compaired romo's first full season vs. brady's first. Did you miss something? or are you just in denile that romos first season was better than bradys?

 

Sorry kid, but your head is way to far up golden tom's ass to consider anything you say worth merit. Compairing a current player to a HOF is absoluty rediculous period. Even with cheating he's a lock? So mark mcguire and sammy and bonds are all lock for the baseball hall of fame? And please, dont tell me that "it didnt help brady " if it didnt, why were they stupid enough to get caught doing it multiple times. BTW, as i've shown, romo's first season was better than brady's, so compairing them isnt rediculous, its how far up there you are that is.

Yes, Tom Brady is a lock for the HOF. That's not even debateable at this point. Name a HOF-eligible QB with 3 SB rings, 2 SB MVP's, and a regular season MVP, as well as a major single-season passing record who ISN'T in the HOF. Fact: you can't.

And regardless of how good Romo's first season was, Brady's latest season was arguably the best EVER for a QB. So until Romo matches that, and wins a couple SB MVP's, it's really a moot point.

And by the way... I'm 3 years older than you... "kid".

Fact: Brady's not eligable. Plus, he's a cheater. Brady is more then likely headed to the HOF...becuase of the rings. Minus one season, brady hasnt had quite the "spectaular" career you believe he's had. Probably has something to do with where your head is located related to his ass. To be oneof the best ever, brady needs to prove he can win without cheating. We've been here and done this before kid, and you know ima win, and youll eventually just piss and moan and then walk away...just like.....wow......a kid.

My point is that there is not a single QB who has numbers that even approach Brady's numbers who ISN'T already in the HOF. He's a lock. He's the best QB in the NFL right now, and you can't legitimately refute that. The only argument you have is that he cheated. You can't prove how much he benefited from that, or even that he benefited from it at all. You are nothing but hot air.

Right, and you cant prove how much bonds and mcguire benifited from steriods either. You cant honestly belive that pat. If you can look outside of your homerism to atleast see that, you need to walk away from this site.Btw, Peyton Manning> Brady. And Peyton has never been caught cheating. Plus, he has better numbers. And even if he was the best today(which he isnt) that doesnt make him the best ever. That only makes the narrow minded think so.

Right, and you cant prove how much bonds and mcguire benifited from steriods either. You cant honestly belive that pat. If you can look outside of your homerism to atleast see that, you need to walk away from this site.Btw, Peyton Manning> Brady. And Peyton has never been caught cheating. Plus, he has better numbers. And even if he was the best today(which he isnt) that doesnt make him the best ever. That only makes the narrow minded think so.

Brady has nothing to do with spy-gate? Are you freaking serious? I mean....come on kid....you rambling is just digging you further and further into that idiot box you have upstairs. Did Brady not play for the Pats the last few seasons? And which side of the ball were they caught taping?Lemme break a piece of this off for you nice and slow and ery detailed so maybe somewhere, what little you've got left up there will catch on.  Last time i checked, the new England patriots(the NFL team coached by bill bellichick, qb'd by tom Brady)were caught taping other teams DEFENSE(you know,the part of the team trying to stop the other team from scoring), and since Brady played OFFENSE(the team with the ball, trying to put the ball into the end-zone, which is worth 6 points) it would have benefited(or given an advantage too) the QB, who just so happens to be Tom Brady. Sure, the players still have to play the game, but its a lot easier call them numbers when your playing with loaded dice, or to hit again when you know what the next card coming is. You sir are the one babbling on about this and that without ever having a point. I'm sorry you feel I'm an "a-hole" kid, but point blank, your an idiot that likes to pretend that you know anything about what your talking about, and quite frankly, i cant stand people like that/you. I'm not here to be your friend or impress you .I joined this site to speak my piece and see what others think. If you dint like it, dint read what i have to say. And the fact that you obviously didn't even read the post about Brady vs. Romo's first year just adds to how stupid you look. The point i was making is com pairing Brady's 6 years vs. Romo's 1 is unfair, and when you look at it with and even Kiel(the two players first seasons) Romos season was comparable, even better in 1/2 the categories then Brady. What should have ended is your typing so you could go back a re-read it, so ma bey you could understand some of it. Idiot.

Peyton's regular season numbers are BARELY better than Brady's... but his postseason numbers are considerably worse. Advantage: Brady.

And Brady has never been caught cheating either. And until you can prove that the cheating had any affect whatsoever on his performance, I can only assume that you're still full of crap.

And although Brady's resume isn't quite the best ever, it's certainly the best ever through 6 seasons. And it's not even close.

Where would sports talk be without stupid comments getting commented on by even stupider fans?

whats a PQ?  someone who has no clue...

Then please enlighten me pat...what were they tapings teams defences for? I gotta hear this one. Btw... since my facts are correct how is my opinion full of crap? Becuase the allmighty pat and his band of cheaters thinks so? Spare me.Oh, and the numbers dont lie kid, brady cant have had the best first 6 years, when he's only been the top qb 1 time and never had a qb rating over 92 until last season. Who has been: Peyton has.

Honestly... I don't know exactly how much it helped, and what exactly they were using it for. But neither do you. Which is why I won't pretend to know the effect it had on his numbers, and it's why you shouldn't, either. But you continue to do so, and that's what makes you sound so ridiculously ignorant.

And you're right...the numbers don't lie.

Brady and Manning's per-season stats:
TD:  Brady 28.14, Manning 30.6
INT: Brady 12.29, Manning 15.3
Yards: Brady 3767, Manning 4162
Rating: Brady 92.9, Manning 94.7
Completion %: Brady 63, Manning 64.2

If you notice, those numbers are eerily similar. The perception is that Manning is a lot better than Brady. But if you look at his INT numbers, as well as the fact that Manning has had a MUCH better offense around him for most of their careers, and finally throw in Peyton's yearly postseason choke jobs, you can see that Brady actually is easily the better QB of the two.

Ya, you can see it if your wearing your pats goggles. And its not paytons fault the team he has around him. Its downright dumb to hold play that card. You cant hold manning having a good team around him, against him. BTw, the numbers say Manning IS better then brady. Like I said, they were taping defences, not offences. So the RB's and QBs, the players who read the defences and adjust the plays accordingly, are going to be the ones who benifit from it. Like Ive said before, its easier to roll the dice when their loaded.

Once again... you have no idea how much the tapes helped Brady, if at all. You are merely speculating there.

And I'm not holding it against Manning that he had a great offense around him. I'm merely pointing out an obvious reason for much of the statistical differences. In the one year that Brady had a HOF WR (like Manning has had for his entire career), Brady had arguably the best season ever for a QB. If he had a guy like Marvin Harrison for his entire career, like Peyton has had, instead of mediocre WR's like Deion Branch, David Patten, etc, then Brady's stats would have been undoubtedly improved. Until this year, the best WR he ever had was Troy Brown. I'mt exactly a stellar WR corps.

And like I said... the numbers don't even back up your point. As much as Peyton's regular season numbers are better than Brady's, Brady's postseason numbers beat Peyton's by even more. Would you rather have your QB performing at his best in the regular season against mediocre teams, or in the playoffs against the best of the best?

Your ani-Patriots bias is worse than you think... you should get that checked out.

Like iv said time and time agian, Tom BRady is undoubtedly the most overrated qb in history. You cant prove that witha hof fame wr his whole career he would have been better, because he hasnt had one his whole career. Thats like saying, because the sticker ont the car says itll get 20 miles to the gallon, doesnt make it true. There are veriables involved. And here's where your arguement becomes flawed. If his recievers were as mediocre, and he's never had a real running game(both of which are true) then how exactly did he have the "great" numbers he's had? Either the cheating had a larger part in his sucess then your letting yourself admit or his numbers arent as great as your claiming them to be. You cant have it both ways.

Your comments are so twisted, it's ridiculous. But I'll entertain your mental diarrhea for a little bit, because I'm on a ship right now, and I really don't have anything else to do.

"You cant prove that witha hof fame wr his whole career he would have been better, because he hasnt had one his whole career."

You're right, I can't prove it. All I can do is look at his career. For his entire career, he has had mediocre WR's. His leading WR's have been Troy Brown (twice), Deion Branch (twice), David Givens, Reche Caldwell and now Randy Moss. Only once has Brady had a WR with 1000+ yards... and he still averaged 3594 passing yards per season...NOT counting last season, where he threw for 4806 yards.

For the record, Reche Caldwell spent one season with the Pats... he caught for 760 yards... his career high with any other team is 352 yards. Obviously, he's a mediocre WR. Yet he was Tom's #1 WR for a year. Deion Branch was his #1 for 2 years... he has never had more than 1000 receiving yards in a season... and his two best seasons were with Brady. David Givens... he left for Washington last year... and his yards per game was less than half what it had been when he played in Brady's offense. Troy Brown was a good WR for years... but those years were BEFORE Brady took over. He is Brady's ONLY Pro Bowl WR that he had ever had before this year.

Now, with Randy Moss, Brady had arguably the best season ever for a QB.

You can say that he wouldn't have done better with better WR's... but that's just an ignorant statement. Not that I should be surprised to hear that coming from you... but whatever...

"There are veriables involved. And here's where your arguement becomes flawed. If his recievers were as mediocre, and he's never had a real running game(both of which are true) then how exactly did he have the "great" numbers he's had?"

Maybe he's really THAT good... and you're just THAT ignorant. I'd bet on it.

"Either the cheating had a larger part in his sucess then your letting yourself admit or his numbers arent as great as your claiming them to be. You cant have it both ways."

OR... maybe he's the best QB in the game. AFTER SpyGate is when Brady had the best numbers of his career. So the cheating must have a lot less of an effect than you think.

And I don't need to justify Brady's numbers at all. Outside of Peyton Manning, no one has better numbers. Peyton's aren't even that much better in the regular season, and they're considerably worse in the playoffs. That's a fact.

You're the most anti-Patriots biased person I have ever seen, and it's seriously clouding your judgment. Nothing you have said on this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter) is even remotely intelligent, and your very existence appears to be a waste of time and air.

Bring it on queer. Ya, ill admit i hate them for getting away with cheating, and i hate the golden crap based on the fact that he is without a doubt the most overrated qb in the nfl. Everything you spew is always based on a condition....i use numbers. If you cant pull your head out of your ass and agree to disagree, let it die, then thats your own problem. But dont come on here and be tacky and call names and throw petty insults. I joke around, but when it comes to calling someone a waist of air....thats classless and tacky. You sir, are an ignorant douche. Have a good day.

You did nothing of the sort. Thats my point. Romo's first season is not better than Brady's, by a long shot. How did Romo's first full season end again?

 

In a second round loss in the playoffs to the eventual superbowl champs.....and i idd exactly that.......i know where your going with this....read what i said first. It might help to read things before you post because you dont like thwt they first sentence said. Agian, ill say, brady's first full season in the NFL compaired to romos, romo had the BETTER numbers, and the line right below all the numbers, i clearly wrote : "True, he didnt win the superbowl, the biggest stat that counts, but had an equal amount of sucsess through the first season as brady did"....Try agian?

Is any of that English? I could barely read it.

Are you actually trying to argue this still? You're wrong. You doctored the stats to make Romo look better. Why is Brady's first full season 2001 where he played only 14 games, yet for Romo you skip the 06-07 season (10 games) and used the 07-08 season where he played all 16? Man its fun proving homers wrong.

You want to consider "the first full season" the first season that each guy started all 16 games? Fine.

Brady-
Comp % = 62.1
Pass. Yds. = 3,764
TD = 28
INT = 14

Romo-

Comp. % - 64.4
Yds - 4,211
TD - 36
INT - 19

Pretty damn close especially considering that Brady was throwing to a bunch of NOBODIES and Romo had TO and some Terry Glenn, along with Jason Witten. As far as I'm concerned the edge goes to Brady.

I don't base anything on a condition. And I also use numbers... except I use REAL ones, not ones that I make up, and/or skew to fit my argument.

Clearly, you have nothing worthwhile to say. Come back when you do.

And I think it's funny when you talk about the Cowboys and Romo "In a second round loss in the playoffs to the eventual superbowl champs"... second round, sure... but it was still their first playoff game that year, and Tony Romo's Cowboys are still 0-2 in the playoffs.

I agree to disagree, but that's mostly because you insist on being wrong. Therefore, I'll agree to be the correct one in this matter, and you can continue being the illogical, clueless Cowboys homer that you have proven yourself to be. Enjoy the Tony Romo era in Dallas... let's see if he can match Brady's bling.

trollaments

wait.....wait.....10 games arent a full season kid. Argue that if you want, it just shows ignorance. Romo didnt start till what...week 8?Thats half a season.  arent you the idiot that tried to argue that i wasnt using real stats? Cause  your numbers....look exactly like mine. Think before you speak. BTW.....Romo didnt have terry glenn but for 1.5 games...you can give the edge to brady and live in the moment......but Brady isnt quiet as good as you think he is, and time will eventually prove me right. Besides all this, lets see how he fares when he doesnt have a defence and isnt allowed to cheat anymore.

Ok....let me break this down for you. I dont need you permission or approval when I post my opinion on here. If you dont like it dont read it, dont respond to it.  Btw, since you apprently dont read the all of the arguement at hand, ive already posted all my numbers and stats backing up my beliefs. And since your not reading the arguemtn, or atleast to an adjective view, let me agian, for your special little self reiterate the point i was making. Romo's first full season was compairable to Bradys and in many places, his stats were actually better. True he didnt win a superbowl, which is the most important stat,but superbowl rings dont make you the best ever. If they did, Terry bradshaw would be the best ever followed by troy.  And agian, like ive said, dont need your permission or approval to post my opinion on the subject where i want. Dont like it, walk away.

 

BTW, i said his head is up brady's ass, not his own.

Stats i made up? Hmmm....every single website Ive checked confirms my number were exactly right.....nor where they skewed. Never said Brady wasn't better, i said in many places romos number were better, although he didn't win a Superbowl. How is that so hard to comprehend?

Lets just drop it....... You guys keep going back and forth saying the exact same thing. Same numbers, what if so and so, how many games this, how many WRs that. Geez. Let me end it.

 

BRADY > ROMO ............ FACT, BOTTOM LINE, STOP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, I really couldn't care less whose first season you think is better. Sure, Romo had some better numbers... but he was in an undeniably better offense. The fact remains that Tom Brady is still the best QB in football, and he is a guaranteed first-ballot Hall of Famer. Now you're admitting that he's better than Romo anyway, so I'm pretty sure you never even had a point anyway... you were just typing to see yourself type...

Interpretation:

Ok, let me break this down for you: I don’t need your permission or approval to post my opinion here. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, and don’t respond to it.  FYI, since you apparently don’t read the all of the arguments at hand, I’ve already or review my posts with all my numbers and stats backing up my beliefs, but you’r not reading my arguments, nor are you taking an objective point of view, than let me say this again, so that, even with your special limitations, you understand fully what I am trying to say: Romo's first full season was comparable to Brady’s because in many categories his stats were actually better. It is true he didn’t win a Superbowl, which is sometimes considered to be the most important stat, but Superbowl rings can’t make someone the best ever. If they could Terry Bradshaw would be the best QB ever, followed by Troy.  Again, like I’ve said, I don’t need your permission or approval to post my opinion on any subject where i want. If you don’t like it, walk away.

***Does anyone have any spare eye bandages?

To the author:  It sounded like it was quite apparent, in the eyes of your responders, that there was an understanding of who's head you felt was up another's ass.  If you're trying to argue Romo "will be" better than Brady, or if you're trying to argue that "he is" better than Brady ... than I believe you are greatly mistaken, and miles away from who's head is up another's ass.

1.Peyton>Brady. You said it yourself. Brady is a cheater and will be lucky to get in the HOF with an asterick, if at all. Agian, never made the arguement Romo was better yet, the point was its not fair to compare Romo's 1.5 seasons to Brady's 5. Agian, my point- brady's the most overrated qb not only today, but ever.

Im obsessed with Romo? Since he wasnt the topic of this blog, and I didnt bring him into, another poster, wh uses the same method you do(throw out a tacky insult and steer away from the subject at hand, mabey even correct some spelling here and there, brought romo into it. I simply pointed out how ignorant a comment it was and here we are now. But thats classy. Throw out a classless tacky half attempt at  bad sexual insult, and prove what a pee-on you really are. BTW....still dont need your approval. Not here for you to like me or what I say. Dont like it....walk away.

Im obsessed with Romo? Since he wasnt the topic of this blog, and I didnt bring him into, another poster, wh uses the same method you do(throw out a tacky insult and steer away from the subject at hand, mabey even correct some spelling here and there, brought romo into it. I simply pointed out how ignorant a comment it was and here we are now. But thats classy. Throw out a classless tacky half attempt at  bad sexual insult, and prove what a pee-on you really are. BTW....still dont need your approval. Not here for you to like me or what I say. Dont like it....walk away.

Well, in retrospect oughtn't we be glad it was only a "classless and tacky" comment, and not a Good Sexual Insult?  That would've been 'bad' right?

And what is being peed on?  I'm not so sure the Q is ready for that kind of CGI!  How classy is that?  lol

Alright....2 Gold stars for you actually reading. See...your improving already. Next we'll work on class.

"Oh, Lord, please don't let be Comp & Rhetoric I, II, or III ........ pppplllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!"

LMAO

Is this kid serious? Doesn't anyone else realize how stupid he sounds, and how bad he is making himself look?

Listen to the 20 year old punk ramble on about how I'm a kid. Dude I've provided facts here that prove you're full of it, and all you can think to do is insult me. You're making me feel like ML31 here and I don't like it. Now either admit that you're wrong or shut up. You're getting annoying.

Take it easy with the insults of women tough guy, especially Natasha. You wanna pick on someone, pick on me. Or Pat for that matter, either one will provide the membership with some laughs.

What does that say?

You're about as qualified to help someone work on class as you are to help with their spelling. That would be like TO giving classes on humility, or Tony Romo giving advice on how to perform in the clutch. You don't know the first thing about class...

Anger management classes anyone?

Shhhhhhh ... Wang no lyke to bee in pubrick!

that was sarcasm retard

and just out of curiosity who is the weasel sob thats been dropping these pqs all over the place

 

probably some cowboys fan no doubt, grow some balls and tell someone what you think is wrong with their post instead of point, click red square, tuck tail between legs.

 

it should be changed from pq to pqt

 

point, qlick, tuck

You've provided facts here? Where? Must have missed them, cause all youve done is said "no, no....your wrong. I dont like what your saying so youmust be making stats up...." number dont lie dude, even if you dont like them....agian...you dont like what im saying, walk away. You can twist the words however you want them, you havent even made a logical arguement agianst why my arguements flawed.

But what have your numbers shown? Absolutely nothing. Even if I was to believe everything you've said (and backed up with numbers), then all we'd have would be:

1) Tony Romo had better stats than Brady in their first full seasons
2) Peyton Manning is a better regular season QB than Brady

None of that proves anything that matters. For example... Brady is STILL the best QB in football, and he's STILL a lock to be a first ballot HOFer. Nothing you say has refuted that in the least bit.

Dude,

I realize you may not have learned this, but ... stringing together misspelled words (even if on the internet), when you are engaging in any form of rhetoric makes it next to impossible for you to be taken seriously!  ESPECIALLY, when you use very direct language towards others, call people out for lack of class, and even go as far as criticizing a lady, who's already known for her wit, literary skills, and knowledge of sports ... in more ways than you and I combined, on this website!  All you've done is make yourself look like a hypocrite who's upset that others don't agree with you, and the sad part is you don't even realize it.

Homo and Bratty aren't even retired!  It's pointless to argue about the two clowns!  If you want to debate something just as meaningless, regarding QB's currently in the NFL, bring up a debate about the Manning Sisters or something! 

Last tidbit:  People don't "make logical arguments that refute why another's argument is flawed!"  They don't, because that would mean they agree with them!  Rhetoric (arguing) is done to SHOW how/why another's argument is flawed.

So argue! Quit griping ... quit pointing fingers ... quit acting childish ... and freakin prove your point!  Leave all the b.s. on Myspace ... please!

Well, I PQ'd this comment and the one after it, but simply because I thought they were classless and you point out the obvious (your comment being sarcasm) and than insult someone.  Even that I might've looked over, but your second post was full of whining over a PQ ... so ... I couldn't resist!

Good for you for having the balls and decency to explain it at least.

 

Thats really all I wanted.

So the point i was arguing would be right. And I never said number 2, you did. For what I was arguing, that does matter. Am I saying Romo is a better QB right now then Brady? No. Am I saying tom Brady wont ever make it to the HOF? Absolutely not. But until he proves he can win without cheating, then he'll be IMO overrated. As for him being a lock, he either needs to have a few more great years, or get a big fat asterisk by his name, just like bonds and Sosa and McGuire, two of which, more then likely will not even make the BHOF. Rings don't make you a HOFer(see Trent Dilfer and Earl Morrall ). Is Brady one of the top 5 qb's in the NFL today? Sure. Probably put him in either 2 or 3, behind manning, and maybe rothlisberger, just because i believe he is a little better on the run then Brady.  Is he in the top 10 all time? No. Not until he has a few more "stellar" seasons and again, proves he can with without cheating.

For starters... he won 17 games THIS year without cheating... and without cheating, had the best season of his life.

Second, you are proving yourself to be the most ignorant person on this site more and more with each post. CriticalFanatic is the biggest Roethlisberger apologist on the site, and even HE will tell you that Big Ben isn't even close to Brady's level.

Yes, Brady IS top 10 all time. In fact, he's top 5 all time. Fact.

Btw... How many rings do Dilfer and Morrall have? 1 each? And how many SB MVP's do they have? Zero between them? Brady has 3 rings, 2 SB MVP's, 1 regular season MVP, an obscenely good playoff track record, and a slew of passing records as well... stop being stupid.

Anyway, keep driveling on and on with your ignorant BS... it's funny to me... I can't wait to see what you write next.

wow a little sensitive are we

Pat....I'm done having this argument with you. The fact that you cant look at the facts without being a homer is seriously your problem. Your not going to change my mind, nor am I going to give a crap what you say. The facts are the facts, like em or leave em.

They just weren't what you said they were is all. You used different parameters for each player to try and make Romo look better. You see to be the only one that doesn't see it. Just fess up already, you're getting annoying.

Damn double posts again.

I guess you can't read then.

The only person being a homer here is you. Its kinda pathetic actually.

i agree with brady...ESPN is a joke. they don't cover hockey nearly as much as they should.

*awaits PQs from people that jump on the "hockey is a dead sport" bandwagon*

Let me rephrase my statement. The only stats you have used are the same ones i have used, yet, my stats are wrong?

opinion:

a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.

That's just it dude. That's my opinion. I'm not going to back down, you cant prove me wrong, and if you dont like it, maybe your the one who should "fess up" or just walk away. Besides, I enjoy seeing how delusional some of you are. And, it fun to get you all riled up.

It's a shame you're done. I was really quite entertained, hearing things like "I'd put Brady at 2 or 3, behind Manning and Roethlisberger" ...

I agree that Ben runs better than Brady does. I'll give you that. But EVERYTHING else leans heavily in Brady's favor. So yes, the facts are the facts... I agree with you there. But you're not stating facts. You're stating opinions. And they go against ALL of the facts.

Conventional wisdom states that opinions can't be wrong, since they're only opinions... but somehow, you've defied all that... because your opinion is clearly wrong. And that's a fact.

That & I'm sure Brady can ride a bike better....... Roethlisberger=douchebag.

wait...this clown is putting Roethlisberger ahead of brady? bwahahaha

that's like trying to argue that Puerto Rico is a state.

No they aren't. Are you mentally disabled? Seriously. Otherwise I don't know how to explain your extreme lack of intelligence.

Well it is a commonwealth. They get a vote for President!

No it isn't your opinion. I did prove you wrong. Sorry. I don't know what is wrong with you, but if you have no more nonsense to spew I'm done with you.

I think Pat said it best. You found some way to make an opinion wrong, cause yours clearly is. On so many different levels.

ohh you didnt know...... This is not the only thread where Romo is greater than..... everyone. I remember at least 2 more.

Cowboy fans intellectually make molasses look like a cheetah.

Not sure how many more consecutive years of blatant failure by Romo will make them realize that he is no elite NFL QB and never will be.

Alex Smith fan? I don't remember ever proclaiming myself to be an Alex Smith fan, just a 49er fan.

Thats a ridiculous comment. Do you ever see any 49er games trying to hype up Smith like Cowboys fans do Romo?

Take your swiss cheese 7th grade arguments elsewhere, somewhere more fit for someone of your maturity and intellectual level. Im not even joking.

Overunder on how long until one of the moderators bans this intellectually challenged poor excuse of a troll salvant?

Over 5.5 days   -145
Under 5.5 days +137 *

* fixed price

Who said romo was better then brady right now? Musta missed that one.......the dumbass who said that needs to get off crack, and enter nfl therapy. Could he be in the future? Sure. IS he now? No.

Go easy on yourself there pal.

That sounds ALOT better than Romo is better than Brady now. Was that a valid argument... absolutely. Do I think its accurate, no. That's what this website is about peoples opinions. But it does make for some funny reading when people take it to heart. Those need to realize it's just all in good fun.

I'm sorry.   Please forgive me. It wont happen again.

The Cowboys are just unbelievably gay

Never said Romo was better then Brady....

Coulda fooled me. Lemme go find it for you. I shall return.

No, he's more like the Emperor. Vader saves the day at the end of Return of the Jedi and then everyone likes him. The Emperor was never the good guy. But that wouldn't work out cuz then who would Belichick be? Never mind. Belichick's the Terminator. But from the first Terminator. Have you ever seen one of Belichick's friggin press conferences?!?! The guy has like no emotion! He's always got the same dull tone lol. I love his conferences after a win! I'm sure he tears Brady a new ass after the game though since he's never happy. "Five touchdowns?!?! What is this?!?! This isn't junior high!! I want double that next game!!" lol he must have been a psycho in the locker room after losing the Super Bowl after an undefeated season lol

Let's start with post #11, 23 and 32.

You know dude, your kinda like the beat-down boxer who keeps getting up because his pride. You should learn when to walk away, take the L, and argue another day. Its not heroic, its sad. Coupled with you refusal to read and comprehend what is being said, your making yourself look bad.  To hopefully help you out here, I'm going to break it down as follows: first,I'm going to prove where your comprehension skills have walked away from you. Then, Ill cover my final arguments one more time. If it still gets by you after that, well...I'll just feel sad for you.

OK. Post 11. Romo's name was never mentioned, nor was any comparative statements made. Strike One.

Post 23. Props for at least finding the right field. I believe that this was the one were I compared there two first seasons as a starter. You said that I "bent" the facts to my argument and that I didn't use accurate numbers(BTW, even if you don't like then, doesn't make it untrue: 14: starts and 15 games played is a full season, 7 games started and 8 played in is not). In this post i clearly said "

True, he didn't win the Superbowl, the biggest stat that counts, but had an equal amount of success through the first season as Brady did" . Where did i say Romo had a better season. Deductive reasoning would say after reading that, I did indeed say Brady had the better season, not Romo. Swing and a whiff number 2.

And ahh, the best one you saved for last. Post number 32. I say this is my best, because I clearly wrote the context of this argument, for the simple minded who would attack me just because they didn't like the subject. Let me post again.

Its not right to compare his one season vs. Brady's career, the way injury's can change it. Sure, comparing first years, there you go. Compairing Brady's years of play in the NFL vs. Romo's year and a half isn't fair to Romo, nor is it fair to compair tom Brady's 3 rings to romo's seeing as he hasn't been playing long enough to have 3. Strike 3.

Now, if for some ungodly reason, your still not comprehending what I'm saying, as I did in at least 4 posts, Ill reiterate: Could Romo be better than Brady down the road? Absolutely. Could he have one good season and never be heard from again? Sure. Is he better then Brady now? No . He's only played one and one half season, he still has a lot of learning to do, like how to be "clutch". Thanks for trying kid. Have a good one.