So when are the trolls

[Firstnten]

Now you are just being silly. And confrontational. During the Holiday season no less, when we should be kind to our fellow football fan.

 

The man played and won with a punctured lung and broken ribs on the road against a team that beat the Giants and their so-called "elite" QB. Romo followed it up with another gutsy performance when his own team sucked against a Redskins team that beat the Giants twice, including one game where Montana Jr served up and INT TD. Questioning Romo after the year he has had, factoring in statistics and the intangibles, is just silly at this point.

 

The hand was too swollen on Sunday for him to really be effective. If they threw him out there, maybe they would have won. But why risk it? Why risk him diving or other players diving for a fumbled snap? Why risk balls sailing and Austin or Dez being hung out to dry? Why risk Romo further damaging his hand when they can still line up and play a mediocre Giants team for a playoff spot?

 

Because Tampa Bay might rise up from the dead and beat Atlanta? And then you can back in at 8-8? Please...

 

The Giants defensive line may generate too much pressure this week. The Cowboys defensive line must be better than the last time out. If the Giants win they win. If the Cowboys play better defense, and they can, I think they could win. I think the weather could help them.

 

But I also think most true Cowboys fans are okay with not backing in at 8-8.

 

I saw the hit on Romos hand and for a guy who played with a punctured lung......he was out after one play. And then Jones? What a coincidence. You're deluding yourself if you think he couldn't play because of the injury, or it's a sound reason. it's a poor mans argument keeping your starting QB out of the game with ANY playoff scenario in play IMO. It's gutless. But this isn;t out of Jerry Jone's MO. Sell more seats to the superbowl then you have in an attempt to break an attendance record. Buy air fair and seats to the NFCC before your team gets there. Evict neighborhoods using eminent domain to build a stadium. Dallas "fans" will be crying with 20/20 vision if they lose this weekend and Tampa wins. I'm not sure about this but I think there maybe a WWE smackdown on Sunday night. Since you have already admitted you would rather watch that instead of an Eli Manning QB'ed team you can always check in here for game updates.

[Firstnten]

While Romo was in the locker room getting X-rayed, the Giants began pulling away. Soon after, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones arrived on the sideline from his midfield viewing booth, presumably to discuss or demand the play-it-safe approach.

Jones returned to his booth about the same time that Romo returned to the sideline, doctors having determined he had no broken bones, just a bruise. Romo threw a few wobbly warm-up passes, spoke to a trainer, then got his wrist wrapped. About the same time he was trading his helmet for a baseball cap, team vice president Stephen Jones arrived on the sideline and spoke with trainers. Jones then joined Romo as being done for the day.

[BadEgg]

Silly, silly, silly. Jones should not have been on the sidelines but Romo should not have played. A swollen throwing hand is not worth the risk, especially when you can beat a mediocre team to get it. Beat the 8-7 team or go home. Really, I can't be more objective than that.

 

Had the Cowboys played Romo and injured him more, and had Atlanta gone on and upset NO, everyone would say Garrett was stupid for playing Romo in a meaningless game when they could clinch against the Giants.

 

Honestly, the Giants are not a very good team. If you lose to the Giants twice, you are not a very good team and do not deserve the right to back in at 8-8. At least for me, it's that simple. I think that's a very objective analysis but I can't speak for all Cowboys fans on the issue.

 

But I don't think it was gutless.

 

This has got to be the dumbest debate ever.

[Nas]

Silly, silly, silly. Jones should not have been on the sidelines but Romo should not have played. A swollen throwing hand is not worth the risk, especially when you can beat a mediocre team to get it. Beat the 8-7 team or go home. Really, I can't be more objective than that.

 

Had the Cowboys played Romo and injured him more, and had Atlanta gone on and upset NO, everyone would say Garrett was stupid for playing Romo in a meaningless game when they could clinch against the Giants.

 

Honestly, the Giants are not a very good team. If you lose to the Giants twice, you are not a very good team and do not deserve the right to back in at 8-8. At least for me, it's that simple. I think that's a very objective analysis but I can't speak for all Cowboys fans on the issue.

 

But I don't think it was gutless.

 

This has got to be the dumbest debate ever.

 

The Patriots would beg to differ

[Firstnten]

Silly, silly, silly. Jones should not have been on the sidelines but Romo should not have played. A swollen throwing hand is not worth the risk, especially when you can beat a mediocre team to get it. Beat the 8-7 team or go home. Really, I can't be more objective than that.

 

Had the Cowboys played Romo and injured him more, and had Atlanta gone on and upset NO, everyone would say Garrett was stupid for playing Romo in a meaningless game when they could clinch against the Giants.

 

Honestly, the Giants are not a very good team. If you lose to the Giants twice, you are not a very good team and do not deserve the right to back in at 8-8. At least for me, it's that simple. I think that's a very objective analysis but I can't speak for all Cowboys fans on the issue.

 

But I don't think it was gutless.

 

This has got to be the dumbest debate ever.

 

Objective? LMAO if you think for one minute that Romo didn't want to play you're out of your mind. And the fact that you completely missed the point is a laughable. Jones made the decision, Jones as in Jerry Jones not Romo not the trainers not Garret. It's not "had" the "cowboys" it's had "Jones". Honesty...... if your an NFL team that had to pull your starting QB in the hopes of beating a team that sucks one game before the season ends...guess what? You suck worse. And whats worse is your owner is making these decisions not they player not the coaching staff. In game decisions. (Let me refer you to the lions game if you have any lingering doubts). Whats even better is your pie in the sky thought process "if" this and "if" that what do you think would have happened "if" the Giants had lost!?!? LMAO you think they would have beaten Philly?

[Firstnten]

Hey cowboys fans caption this:

 

[Firstnten]

Let me start it out.....

 

 

"leave me alone old man you fuck this team up enough"

[Nas]

Hey cowboys fans caption this:

 

http://youtu.be/pvCXoYbuxQk

 

What happened there? This is the first I see this?

[ksm7]

I saw the hit on Romos hand and for a guy who played with a punctured lung......he was out after one play. And then Jones? What a coincidence. You're deluding yourself if you think he couldn't play because of the injury, or it's a sound reason. it's a poor mans argument keeping your starting QB out of the game with ANY playoff scenario in play IMO. It's gutless. But this isn;t out of Jerry Jone's MO. Sell more seats to the superbowl then you have in an attempt to break an attendance record. Buy air fair and seats to the NFCC before your team gets there. Evict neighborhoods using eminent domain to build a stadium. Dallas "fans" will be crying with 20/20 vision if they lose this weekend and Tampa wins. I'm not sure about this but I think there maybe a WWE smackdown on Sunday night. Since you have already admitted you would rather watch that instead of an Eli Manning QB'ed team you can always check in here for game updates.

 

if the cowboys laid down thinking it was a meaningless game, that is one thing. but the dog doesn't get the notion that it made no sense to pull their starting QB after a hand injury with 3 1/2 quarters to go against a defense that puts heat on the QB regularly in a game that you don't have to win to get in. if they kept him in and somewhere in the third quarter he took another hit to the hand and ended up breaking it, you would be on here saying how the genius princeton boy coach made a stupid decision keeping an injured romo in to try and win a game that they didn't have to win...you may deny it now, but you would. never the less, the dog will stand on what he has said since week 4...the NFC east rep in the playoffs is a placeholder...possibly get lucky round 1 against detroit, or maybe beat a lesser opponent in atlanta, but beyond that, they are merely a stepping stone, regardless of which mediocre team with a high school defense gets in...

[Firstnten]

if the cowboys laid down thinking it was a meaningless game, that is one thing. but the dog doesn't get the notion that it made no sense to pull their starting QB after a hand injury with 3 1/2 quarters to go against a defense that puts heat on the QB regularly in a game that you don't have to win to get in. if they kept him in and somewhere in the third quarter he took another hit to the hand and ended up breaking it, you would be on here saying how the genius princeton boy coach made a stupid decision keeping an injured romo in to try and win a game that they didn't have to win...you may deny it now, but you would. never the less, the dog will stand on what he has said since week 4...the NFC east rep in the playoffs is a placeholder...possibly get lucky round 1 against detroit, or maybe beat a lesser opponent in atlanta, but beyond that, they are merely a stepping stone, regardless of which mediocre team with a high school defense gets in...

 

Here is the why this is a stupid comment....

 

 

If, maybe, might have, could have been.

 

 

With the way the dog talks I question if he has even watched football the past several weeks Rodgers is playing and he's playing FOR NOTHING. How long ago did they wrap up the division? And the Saints? Better yet ask Romo I'm sure he was happy with sitting. I mean with what a bruised hand? compared to a punctured lung. But I guess if he knew he was going to lose to the lions he would have been better off to sit......oh wait another "if" or "but".....

 

the dog doesn't understand allot of things....please consult Lockhart on future posts...

 

Hold on dog I see Jerry Jone's son coming to consult with you...better do what Da Da says....Sit Romo sit...good dog

[ksm7]

 

 

Here is the why this is a stupid comment....

 

 

If, maybe, might have, could have been.

 

 

With the way the dog talks I question if he has even watched football the past several weeks Rodgers is playing and he's playing FOR NOTHING. How long ago did they wrap up the division? And the Saints? Better yet ask Romo I'm sure he was happy with sitting. I mean with what a bruised hand? compared to a punctured lung. But I guess if he knew he was going to lose to the lions he would have been better off to sit......oh wait another "if" or "but".....

 

the dog doesn't understand allot of things....please consult Lockhart on future posts...

 

Hold on dog I see Jerry Jone's son coming to consult with you...better do what Da Da says....Sit Romo sit...good dog

 

The dog isn't defending the cowboys if they blew the game off, but the dog will defend playing a key injured player for 3 quarters against a nasty pass rush risking further injury that would prevent him from playing the next week in a win and your in scenario. Why are you struggling with that so much? If you had watched football much, you would know that Rodgers and the packers were playing for an unbeaten season up until two weeks ago, and home field throughout up until last week...and he's healthy. Here's an "if"...play hurt against the eagles and hope to not get injured, because as you say, IF the bucs manage to pull together the last week of the season and beat the falcons, you can get in without beating a crappy division rival...if, if, if...

[Firstnten]

The dog isn't defending the cowboys if they blew the game off, but the dog will defend playing a key injured player for 3 quarters against a nasty pass rush risking further injury that would prevent him from playing the next week in a win and your in scenario. Why are you struggling with that so much? If you had watched football much, you would know that Rodgers and the packers were playing for an unbeaten season up until two weeks ago, and home field throughout up until last week...and he's healthy. Here's an "if"...play hurt against the eagles and hope to not get injured, because as you say, IF the bucs manage to pull together the last week of the season and beat the falcons, you can get in without beating a crappy division rival...if, if, if...

 

PLay hurt!?!?! This just in Romo played with broken ribs and a puntured lung.

 

Really they beat KC and lost to the bears? The pack was playing for an unbeaten season but played Rodgers last weekend. San fran, NO, and the pats are playing thier guys why? I love how you keep saying "if" when your whole argument is predicated on an "if" what "IF" Romo destroyed philly and came out uninjured. He played Philly earlier in the year and survived. With the rules the way they are now only a pussy would sit Romo a scared little man with a huge ego. Let me make this clear for the dog. This is my opinion, I think it was a puss move and I would bet my next years salary that Romo feels the same way.

[ksm7]

 

 

PLay hurt!?!?! This just in Romo played with broken ribs and a puntured lung.

 

Really they beat KC and lost to the bears? The pack was playing for an unbeaten season but played Rodgers last weekend. San fran, NO, and the pats are playing thier guys why? I love how you keep saying "if" when your whole argument is predicated on an "if" what "IF" Romo destroyed philly and came out uninjured. He played Philly earlier in the year and survived. With the rules the way they are now only a pussy would sit Romo a scared little man with a huge ego. Let me make this clear for the dog. This is my opinion, I think it was a puss move and I would bet my next years salary that Romo feels the same way.

 

Ok, let the dog slow it down for you, because, well, that only seems right. A healthy Rodgers played two weeks ago when GB was playing for an unbeaten season, and continued to play last week since GB was still playing for the umber 1 seed. NO, SF and the Pats are still playing for seedings. Last week NO was still playing for the division. This is all fact, not opinion.

 

Sitting an injured player in a game that is not a must win to ensure that player plays the next game in the must win game is smart. Teams do it all the time. Again, why you struggle with this the dog will never know. Sitting your key player to ensure you have him in a must win is smart. And by the way, your whole argument is based on an if...if Atlanta loses to TB...if, if, if...why not play for what you can control.

[Firstnten]

Ok, let the dog slow it down for you, because, well, that only seems right. A healthy Rodgers played two weeks ago when GB was playing for an unbeaten season, and continued to play last week since GB was still playing for the umber 1 seed. NO, SF and the Pats are still playing for seedings. Last week NO was still playing for the division. This is all fact, not opinion.

 

Sitting an injured player in a game that is not a must win to ensure that player plays the next game in the must win game is smart. Teams do it all the time. Again, why you struggle with this the dog will never know. Sitting your key player to ensure you have him in a must win is smart. And by the way, your whole argument is based on an if...if Atlanta loses to TB...if, if, if...why not play for what you can control.

 

you Fell right into it. Look at the contradiction here... it's more improtant to play guys in games and risk injuries, that as you said "are not must wins" in the context YOU provided. getting the number one seed is not a must win game, going for an unbeaten reocrd is not must win, (just ask the pats if they would have rather won the superbowl or had an undbeaten regular season) taking the division after you are in is not must win. Once you make the playoffs you have made the playoffs. Giants where a number six seed and won the superbowl. Was the last game of the superbowl season vs the pats a must win game? I remember a hard fought exciting game that in your world was unessasary. You see DOG its fact that these games where/ are for the division etc etc but it's your opinion that it's more improtant to play key guys then to sit them. And as I said evenmore to the point you contradict yourself with it. Sit a guy for a "Possible" must win game and play guys after you have made the playoffs. My opionion is these guys should be playing if healthy EVERY game. And guess was DOG...thats how 99.9% of the players feel. SO inconclusion Dog says not only is it smart to sit players when the game is a must win to get into the playoffs it's also a smart move to play guy and take risks when it's not a "must win" after you have clinched a playoff spot, because it's equally important to take the dvision and get seeded higher.

 

School is out. Have a nice weekend.

[ksm7]

you Fell right into it. Look at the contradiction here... it's more improtant to play guys in games and risk injuries, that as you said "are not must wins" in the context YOU provided. getting the number one seed is not a must win game, going for an unbeaten reocrd is not must win, (just ask the pats if they would have rather won the superbowl or had an undbeaten regular season) taking the division after you are in is not must win. Once you make the playoffs you have made the playoffs. Giants where a number six seed and won the superbowl. Was the last game of the superbowl season vs the pats a must win game? I remember a hard fought exciting game that in your world was unessasary. You see DOG its fact that these games where/ are for the division etc etc but it's your opinion that it's more improtant to play key guys then to sit them. And as I said evenmore to the point you contradict yourself with it. Sit a guy for a "Possible" must win game and play guys after you have made the playoffs. My opionion is these guys should be playing if healthy EVERY game. And guess was DOG...thats how 99.9% of the players feel. SO inconclusion Dog says not only is it smart to sit players when the game is a must win to get into the playoffs it's also a smart move to play guy and take risks when it's not a "must win" after you have clinched a playoff spot, because it's equally important to take the dvision and get seeded higher.

 

School is out. Have a nice weekend.

 

if you think advancing your seeding or getting home playoff games is not important, that is your opinion. while number 6 seeds are winning superbowls, it is the harder road and not one teams want to go down. thus, if healthy, key players will play. here is the key point in what you stated...IF HEALTHY. the dog has pointed out time and time again that if dallas bagged the game that is wrong. sitting a key player who is injured to avoid potentially a more significant injury is smart so that you have that player the following week in a game you know you have to win is smart and makes sense. you are all confused.

[Firstnten]

if you think advancing your seeding or getting home playoff games is not important, that is your opinion. while number 6 seeds are winning superbowls, it is the harder road and not one teams want to go down. thus, if healthy, key players will play. here is the key point in what you stated...IF HEALTHY. the dog has pointed out time and time again that if dallas bagged the game that is wrong. sitting a key player who is injured to avoid potentially a more significant injury is smart so that you have that player the following week in a game you know you have to win is smart and makes sense. you are all confused.

 

Please don't inject your confiused logic in my point. Every game IMO is important especially games that give you an oppotunity to not only get in but get homefield advantage which is my point.(specifcially play attention to the words "give you an opporunity) I'm not making that distiction you are. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Sitting guys and eliminating possible playoff senarios IMO is pussy and the opposite of smart.. An if it pans out that Dallas loses and they could have gotten in dispite a loss this weekend you will see a different tone about this whole thing. Homo was healthy enough to play with a puntured lung but not healthy enough to continue after he brusied his hand?!?! And what injury did Felix Jones have? II guess thats what you consider bagging the game? Players risk significant injury in every game evety snap. I thinks it's a poor mans argument, it's ok to sit guys and distill your season down to one possible rout to the playoffs when teams are playing starters for seeding after they have gotten in.

 

 

And the if and but argument can also be applied to playing guys for seeding. What would Dallas fans think if homo got blown up the lastgame of the season and was out of the playoffs had they clinched the division weeks ago and the last game of the season was for the first seed. You can't have to both ways.

[ksm7]

Please don't inject your confiused logic in my point. Every game IMO is important especially games that give you an oppotunity to not only get in but get homefield advantage which is my point.(specifcially play attention to the words "give you an opporunity) I'm not making that distiction you are. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Sitting guys and eliminating possible playoff senarios IMO is pussy and the opposite of smart.. An if it pans out that Dallas loses and they could have gotten in dispite a loss this weekend you will see a different tone about this whole thing. Homo was healthy enough to play with a puntured lung but not healthy enough to continue after he brusied his hand?!?! And what injury did Felix Jones have? II guess thats what you consider bagging the game? Players risk significant injury in every game evety snap. I thinks it's a poor mans argument, it's ok to sit guys and distill your season down to one possible rout to the playoffs when teams are playing starters for seeding after they have gotten in.

 

 

And the if and but argument can also be applied to playing guys for seeding. What would Dallas fans think if homo got blown up the lastgame of the season and was out of the playoffs had they clinched the division weeks ago and the last game of the season was for the first seed. You can't have to both ways.

 

of course players risk injury, but he was already injured...there's a difference. the dog doesn't understand this and so will stop trying to make the obvious point. sitting an injured player to have access to that player the next week in a must win makes more sense then playing an injured player increasing the potential for more serious injury in a game that doesn't carry the same level of importance than the following week. you stick with your hypotheticals, the dog will stick with his. your ifs are just as iffy as the dogs...paint it however you want. if rodgers or brady or brees had some type of injury, then the coaches would be cautious playing them in a game that may only determine playoff seedings. you know this, but your fandom prevents you from looking at it intelligently. your hatred for a team is blurring your objectivity. that is the dog's opinion. enjoy the game...the dog is sure you would enjoy it more had the cowboys played romo further last week and he ended up breaking his hand and had to sit out this week...that would have given you ammo to say how stupid they were playing him in that game...

[Firstnten]

of course players risk injury, but he was already injured...there's a difference. the dog doesn't understand this and so will stop trying to make the obvious point. sitting an injured player to have access to that player the next week in a must win makes more sense then playing an injured player increasing the potential for more serious injury in a game that doesn't carry the same level of importance than the following week. you stick with your hypotheticals, the dog will stick with his. your ifs are just as iffy as the dogs...paint it however you want. if rodgers or brady or brees had some type of injury, then the coaches would be cautious playing them in a game that may only determine playoff seedings. you know this, but your fandom prevents you from looking at it intelligently. your hatred for a team is blurring your objectivity. that is the dog's opinion. enjoy the game...the dog is sure you would enjoy it more had the cowboys played romo further last week and he ended up breaking his hand and had to sit out this week...that would have given you ammo to say how stupid they were playing him in that game...

 

Wrong again dog, Dallas could beat the Giants with Kitna. the Dog is sure of allot of things. Rodgers finished last weekends game with concussion sypmtoms. And your still missing the point.

[ksm7]

 

 

Wrong again dog, Dallas could beat the Giants with Kitna. the Dog is sure of allot of things. Rodgers finished last weekends game with concussion sypmtoms. And your still missing the point.

 

Anybody can beat the giants, but it is easier to do with your starter. The dog doesn't see anything about Rodgers having concussion like symptoms, but if he did and finished a game against chicago, well then that was stupid on GBs part. And now the dog is officially done trying to argue this point with someone who clearly doesn't understand sensible decision making....feel free to have the last word to make whatever point you are trying to make. You would be flying solo on this one...

[BadEgg]

Wrong again dog, Dallas could beat the Giants with Kitna. the Dog is sure of allot of things. Rodgers finished last weekends game with concussion sypmtoms. And your still missing the point.

 

Dumb ass dumb ass dumb ass.

 

Yes, the Cowboys can beat the Giants with Kitna. They did last season.

 

BUT Kitna is not available. Hence, why they WANT Romo as healthy as he can be this week. Because they are not beating anyone with Steve McGee this season, especially a potential shoot out. He has potential but he is a project.

 

The key here is that it was Romo's throwing hand. That is more significant then a rib injury. Because you don't grip the ball with your ribs. There are some former QBs that are saying he will have trouble gripping the ball tonight, a week out.

 

So you rest up, you don't aggravate the injury and you move on to a mediocre team that is beatable. Also, by the way, Felix Jones had a hamstring. It's a leg muslcle that can keep you out for weeks, ever a season, if you injury bad enough. Ware was not healthy the first Giants game, so they rest them too.

 

I could care less what Atlanta does this weekend. But I'll bet they win. But playing your best player in the hope that a terrible team upsets a playoff team...dumb dumb dumb.

 

You bet on yourself against teh Giants not TB against Atlanta

[ksm7]

 

 

Dumb ass dumb ass dumb ass.

 

Yes, the Cowboys can beat the Giants with Kitna. They did last season.

 

BUT Kitna is not available. Hence, why they WANT Romo as healthy as he can be this week. Because they are not beating anyone with Steve McGee this season, especially a potential shoot out. He has potential but he is a project.

 

The key here is that it was Romo's throwing hand. That is more significant then a rib injury. Because you don't grip the ball with your ribs. There are some former QBs that are saying he will have trouble gripping the ball tonight, a week out.

 

So you rest up, you don't aggravate the injury and you move on to a mediocre team that is beatable. Also, by the way, Felix Jones had a hamstring. It's a leg muslcle that can keep you out for weeks, ever a season, if you injury bad enough. Ware was not healthy the first Giants game, so they rest them too.

 

I could care less what Atlanta does this weekend. But I'll bet they win. But playing your best player in the hope that a terrible team upsets a playoff team...dumb dumb dumb.

 

You bet on yourself against teh Giants not TB against Atlanta

 

Wait, so kitna is out also? The dog didn't even realize this. All the more reason to sit romo,since you need to have two QBs available for the giants...this is a no brainer argument having to be made with someone who may not have a brain...

[Cowboyz]

so much for banking on Tampa to win anything by a high draft pick.

[hlb37]

The Dallas fans are right. When you finish your season 1-5 it is perfectly acceptable to take one of those games off as unimportant. After all you have earned it.

 

Now Romo can get back to important shit like working on his handicap.

[Firstnten]

Dumb ass dumb ass dumb ass.

 

Yes, the Cowboys can beat the Giants with Kitna. They did last season.

 

BUT Kitna is not available. Hence, why they WANT Romo as healthy as he can be this week. Because they are not beating anyone with Steve McGee this season, especially a potential shoot out. He has potential but he is a project.

 

The key here is that it was Romo's throwing hand. That is more significant then a rib injury. Because you don't grip the ball with your ribs. There are some former QBs that are saying he will have trouble gripping the ball tonight, a week out.

 

So you rest up, you don't aggravate the injury and you move on to a mediocre team that is beatable. Also, by the way, Felix Jones had a hamstring. It's a leg muslcle that can keep you out for weeks, ever a season, if you injury bad enough. Ware was not healthy the first Giants game, so they rest them too.

 

I could care less what Atlanta does this weekend. But I'll bet they win. But playing your best player in the hope that a terrible team upsets a playoff team...dumb dumb dumb.

 

You bet on yourself against teh Giants not TB against Atlanta

 

You could care less about Atlanta but you bet they win. And you call me a dumb ass.

 

You bet on yourself against teh Giants not TB against Atlanta

 

My grammar is bad by far but even I couldn't make sense of that one.

 

I spoke to some guy's that where at the Philly game by the Dallas sideline bench. turns out you guy where right Romo's injury wasn't a bunch of bullshit like Jone's injury. "hamstring". So I was wrong. Once more i love the fact the you fruit cakes think seeing his hand for a second on TV makes you sports doctors. And believe everything you read on SI.com or ESPN is fact. I've seen first hand guys play with deep bruises to their throwing hand and play effectively.

 

http://www.nfl.com/v...a2/Romo-injured

 

Clearly he couldn't play his had was the size of what did you say "grapefruit"?

 

There are some former QBs that are saying he will have trouble gripping the ball tonight, a week out.

 

Romo had trouble with throwing the ball this past weekend and it had nothing to do with his throwing hand.

 

So please fill me in on some more "keys" to the argument. Because really I don't know the difference between a rib and a metacarpal. I'll look to you geniuses for more ESPN speak and medical diagnosis.

 

 

Also I didn't know Kitna was put in IR the 15th or that he was hurt at all so I was wrong there also.

 

Funny thing is when I'm wrong I can admit unlike you pussies.

 

So there you have it you and the "dog" IMO where correct with your assertions that Romo should have been taken out of the game.

[Firstnten]

Wait, so kitna is out also? The dog didn't even realize this. All the more reason to sit romo,since you need to have two QBs available for the giants...this is a no brainer argument having to be made with someone who may not have a brain...

 

I love the fact that you make a point using info you didn't know about after the fact. Clearly a superior mind.