Jump to content

WK7: NY Giants @ Dallas


Real Deal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe we have different standards, but if I had 4 drives with the average starting field position of the opponents 31.5 yard line, I wouldn't call 13 points a great success.

 

If you want to discredit the drive Kitna came in, it's 3 drives with the average starting field position of the Giants 27.6 yard line and 10 points. Either way... not impressed. But his numbers look good I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are we bringing up yardage? They didn't have to go anywhere on 3 on 4 of Romo's drives that's why they didn't get a lot of yardage.

 

ROMO WAS 5 OF 7 39 YARDS 1 TD, THE 2 INCOMPLETIONS? ON TARGET DROPS TO MILES AUSTIN, ROMO WOULD HAVE SCORCHED THE GIANTS D

Hahahahaha. The point was that they only scored one TD with less than thirty yards to start off with. Is that really that hard to get through your head?

 

You are starting to sound a lot like this guy right now:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/2192148024_688d0eb741_o.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahahaha. The point was that they only scored one TD with less than thirty yards to start off with. Is that really that hard to get through your head?

 

You are starting to sound a lot like this guy right now:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/2192148024_688d0eb741_o.gif

http://forum.i3d.net/attachments/offtopic-english/943182047d1249721477-happy-birthday-frank-facepalm.jpg

 

Really? If you are just going to ignore what I say theres no point in talking to you. God I've had better arguments with a wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forum.i3d.net/attachments/offtopic-english/943182047d1249721477-happy-birthday-frank-facepalm.jpg

 

Really? If you are just going to ignore what I say theres no point in talking to you. God I've had better arguments with a wall.

What point? That Romo was 5-7 with two drops? Who gives a [expletive]? He should of led the offense to more than 1 TD with that field position. I ignored what you said because it is a completely irrelevant point considering you guys still struggled to move the ball with Romo at QB. And gtfo with that "well if Romo was playing we would have won" bull[expletive]. We started playing lazy as hell because we went up by 18, if you didn't notice that you are either blind or stupid. Pick one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What point? That Romo was 5-7 with two drops? Who gives a [expletive]? He should of led the offense to more than 1 TD with that field position. I ignored what you said because it is a completely irrelevant point considering you guys still struggled to move the ball with Romo at QB. And gtfo with that "well if Romo was playing we would have won" bull[expletive]. We started playing lazy as hell because we went up by 18, if you didn't notice that you are either blind or stupid. Pick one.

 

Yeah because you could tell the Cowboys defense was real into the game after Romo got injured. Yes losing your starting QB can be the main reason for you to lose a game if you didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because you could tell the Cowboys defense was real into the game after Romo got injured. Yes losing your starting QB can be the main reason for you to lose a game if you didn't know.

 

Yes, losing you starting QB can cause you to lose the game.

But to say you would have won with him is a [expletive]ing injudicious way of thinking.

And if your defense is really that effected by the QUARTERBACK getting injured, there is something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...