JS- SAL PAL says Favre overrated ??

[FritzDontBlitz]

I don't think its necessary to defend Favre, Favre's name is all over the record book. True, he was a league bad boy at the start but personal tragedies can go a long way in shaping a person's character. He has definitely matured off the field, but what he has done on the field needs no defense.

Even with the hype wave Romo has had pushing him into consideration as an elite QB - and compared to his present day counterparts, Romo is probably a close 3rd behind Manning and Brady - its ridiculous to consider a one year starter as "all-time" anything. The NFL has been in existence for over 80 years, and yet, you notice all the "overhyped" QB's come from the so-called "modern" era: which, in ESPNspeak, means "Super Bowl" era since that network consistently disses anything or anyone in existence before SB1. In truth, ESPN tends to treat anything that occurred before they were started as old news, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me if Sal thinks "all time" spans only the last 40 years or so.....

[KYPack]

They were hyping this book on an ESPN sports talk channel I listen to now and then.

They were puffing up Sal Paolantonio's credentials as a reporter so hard, I thought the book must've been written by Frank Deford or somebody like that.

Sal Paolantonio? He's a JAR. Just a reporter. The Philly bias is evident. You could also take the people that he runs down and make the opposite case quite logically. I hope this work dies a slow death. It's all crap.

[b bulldog]

Who cares about Sal and his opinions...he is entitled to them even though they may be incorrect.

[the_idle_threat]

Umm, romo did just barely make the team. I don't know what you are talking about, Bledsoe wasn't even in the picture when romo started with the cowboys.

He was a 3rd stringer, behind such notables as Quincy Carter and Chad Hutchinson.

He wouldn't have even been on the roster the following year if QC didn't get suspended for drugs. They had traded for Drew Henson and had Vinnie on the squad. Sorry, but they weren't going to keep 4 qbs.

The point Sal is making is that he was a SUPERSTAR out of the gate without having to prove himself.

I have to agree. If he wasn't playing in Dallas there is no way that he woulda been a superstar right away. Not saying he doesn't deserve it NOW, but that isn't Sal's point.

As for Favre. i'm in semi agreement. He isn't denigrating his QB skills at all. Just saying that his good ol boy legend has overtaken everything else. No one remembers his calling out team mates when he certainly wouldn't have liked that done to him, his poor decision making, his drug problems, his drinking problems, his ever constant should i retire, keep the team in suspense act.

Do i love Favre. OF COURSE. But, the myth is a bit much to take. And, the constant fawning over him is a bit nauseating. To think that Favre personfies everything that is good/just/right in the NFL/America is just ridiculous.

Tyrone, you should put "I don't know what you are talking about" in your sig for as often as it's true. You missed the words "last year" in my post.

I was talking about how Romo did not "barely make the team" last year---in the season that Paolantonio is talking about.

Paolantonio says Romo "barely made the team" in a disparaging manner that implies he barely made the team last year, and so was not deserving of his starting spot and the adulation that came with it. It implies that he was never anything more than a marginal roster guy who got lucky.

If he's talking about barely making the team way back in 2004---as you are---then the statement does nothing to support his point. Most undrafted free agents from small schools barely make the team until they get some experience.

Think: Cullen Jenkins. Is it a rip on Jenkins today that he failed to make the Packers team in 2003 and barely made the team in 2004? Of course not. If anything, it's a credit to his ability to work his way onto the roster and grow as a player.

Paolantonio was obviously not saying "barely made the team" in a way to give Romo this kind of credit. He was implying that Romo barely made the team last season, which is misleading and untrue.

From Romo's wikipedia page:

Elevated to the Cowboys' #2 quarterback in 2005, Romo had strong showings in the 2005 and 2006 pre-seasons. In the 2006 off-season, Sean Payton (now head coach of the New Orleans Saints), offered a third round draft pick for Romo, but Jerry Jones refused, asking for no less than a second round draft pick. Romo eventually took over the starting quarterback role from Drew Bledsoe during half time against the New York Giants on October 23.

Romo was not just some guy, as Paolantonio implies, that went from the trash heap to the Pro Bowl "after one season of play ... without really accomplishing anything to deserve it."

Romo started humbly, improved over time, and became a prospect for the team's quarterback of the future. He got the starting gig for one of the most followed and hyped teams in sports, played lights-out (after throwing 5 touchdowns on Thanksgiving, he led the NFL in passer rating), and led the team to the playoffs.

The hype wasn't completely unwarranted, and it's not surprising given how sports media always hypes 1) quarterbacks 2) "rookies" who are playing lights out, and 3) success stories that come from humble beginnings. Romo was all three rolled into one.

The fact that this apparently takes you and Paolantonio by surprise shows how little either of you know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Umm, romo did just barely make the team. I don't know what you are talking about, Bledsoe wasn't even in the picture when romo started with the cowboys.

He was a 3rd stringer, behind such notables as Quincy Carter and Chad Hutchinson.

He wouldn't have even been on the roster the following year if QC didn't get suspended for drugs. They had traded for Drew Henson and had Vinnie on the squad. Sorry, but they weren't going to keep 4 qbs.

The point Sal is making is that he was a SUPERSTAR out of the gate without having to prove himself.

I have to agree. If he wasn't playing in Dallas there is no way that he woulda been a superstar right away. Not saying he doesn't deserve it NOW, but that isn't Sal's point.

As for Favre. i'm in semi agreement. He isn't denigrating his QB skills at all. Just saying that his good ol boy legend has overtaken everything else. No one remembers his calling out team mates when he certainly wouldn't have liked that done to him, his poor decision making, his drug problems, his drinking problems, his ever constant should i retire, keep the team in suspense act.

Do i love Favre. OF COURSE. But, the myth is a bit much to take. And, the constant fawning over him is a bit nauseating. To think that Favre personfies everything that is good/just/right in the NFL/America is just ridiculous.

Tyrone, you should put "I don't know what you are talking about" in your sig for as often as it's true. You missed the words "last year" in my post.

I was talking about how Romo did not "barely make the team" last year---in the season that Paolantonio is talking about.

Paolantonio says Romo "barely made the team" in a disparaging manner that implies he barely made the team last year, and so was not deserving of his starting spot and the adulation that came with it. It implies that he was never anything more than a marginal roster guy who got lucky.

If he's talking about barely making the team way back in 2004---as you are---then the statement does nothing to support his point. Most undrafted free agents from small schools barely make the team until they get some experience.

Think: Cullen Jenkins. Is it a rip on Jenkins today that he failed to make the Packers team in 2003 and barely made the team in 2004? Of course not. If anything, it's a credit to his ability to work his way onto the roster and grow as a player.

Paolantonio was obviously not saying "barely made the team" in a way to give Romo this kind of credit. He was implying that Romo barely made the team last season, which is misleading and untrue.

From Romo's wikipedia page:

Elevated to the Cowboys' #2 quarterback in 2005, Romo had strong showings in the 2005 and 2006 pre-seasons. In the 2006 off-season, Sean Payton (now head coach of the New Orleans Saints), offered a third round draft pick for Romo, but Jerry Jones refused, asking for no less than a second round draft pick. Romo eventually took over the starting quarterback role from Drew Bledsoe during half time against the New York Giants on October 23.

Romo was not just some guy, as Paolantonio implies, that went from the trash heap to the Pro Bowl "after one season of play ... without really accomplishing anything to deserve it."

Romo started humbly, improved over time, and became a prospect for the team's quarterback of the future. He got the starting gig for one of the most followed and hyped teams in sports, played lights-out (after throwing 5 touchdowns on Thanksgiving, he led the NFL in passer rating), and led the team to the playoffs.

The hype wasn't completely unwarranted, and it's not surprising given how sports media always hypes 1) quarterbacks 2) "rookies" who are playing lights out, and 3) success stories that come from humble beginnings. Romo was all three rolled into one.

The fact that this apparently takes you and Paolantonio by surprise shows how little either of you know.

Dude, where do get the LAST YEAR. That isn't anything Sal Pal said, that was as usual your interpretation.

Here is the exact quote from JS:

He barely made the team, and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it.

That by no means says last year. Try to stay with the rest of the class.

His point is THE SUPERSTAR. Sal isn't denigrating his ability or right to start or making the team. But, being annointed a SUPERSTAR after ONE season.

You need to work on comprehension.

[the_idle_threat]

Dude, where do get the LAST YEAR. That isn't anything Sal Pal said, that was as usual your interpretation.

Here is the exact quote from JS:

He barely made the team, and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it.

That by no means says last year. Try to stay with the rest of the class.

His point is THE SUPERSTAR. Sal isn't denigrating his ability or right to start or making the team. But, being annointed a SUPERSTAR after ONE season.

You need to work on comprehension.

When was that "one season of play"? That's right, class, it was last year.

Don't go projecting your reading comprehension problems on me. :P

And it's mind-boggling that anyone can't understand why Romo's star rose so fast.

He plays a marquee position, he put up outstanding numbers, and he led a popular and success-starved franchise to some huge wins, and into the playoffs. Several of his best performances were in nationally-televised games, such as his first start in a Sunday night game, a victory over the previously-undefeated Colts, and the Thanksgiving game in which he threw 5 TDs and no INTs. All this as essentially a rookie---and one that started the season completely off many people's radar.

What else would a guy have to do in order to "deserve" being hailed a young star? It's not like his performance so far this season suggests it was a fluke.

[The Leaper]

When was that "one season of play"? That's right, class, it was last year.

Don't go projecting your reading comprehension problems on me. :P

You have to forgive Biggie.

He likes to pretend he's smarter than everyone else...but he's really not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dude, where do get the LAST YEAR. That isn't anything Sal Pal said, that was as usual your interpretation.

Here is the exact quote from JS:

He barely made the team, and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it.

That by no means says last year. Try to stay with the rest of the class.

His point is THE SUPERSTAR. Sal isn't denigrating his ability or right to start or making the team. But, being annointed a SUPERSTAR after ONE season.

You need to work on comprehension.

When was that "one season of play"? That's right, class, it was last year.

Don't go projecting your reading comprehension problems on me. :P

And it's mind-boggling that anyone can't understand why Romo's star rose so fast.

He plays a marquee position, he put up outstanding numbers, and he led a popular and success-starved franchise to some huge wins, and into the playoffs. Several of his best performances were in nationally-televised games, such as his first start in a Sunday night game, a victory over the previously-undefeated Colts, and the Thanksgiving game in which he threw 5 TDs and no INTs. All this as essentially a rookie---and one that started the season completely off many people's radar.

What else would a guy have to do in order to "deserve" being hailed a young star? It's not like his performance so far this season suggests it was a fluke.

You are using the term star. Pal uses the term superstar. There is a difference.

I understand why the hype on Romo. But, to annoint him a superstar in the same class as brady, favre, manning just proves Pal's point.

Pal isn't saying he is a bad player. Just overrated. Pal isn't saying don't call him a rising star..just that the superstar hype makes him overrated.

If Romo wasn't playing for Dallas he would be in the same category as Rivers who, prior to this year, accomplished as much. Why isn't rivers on this list?

You are missing understanding the comma in Pals sentence. He isn't saying it that he barely made the team last year. He is talking in the past. If he wanted to say that it all happened in the same year he leaves out the comma. You use a comma to separate ideas. This is standard english.

He came into 06 as Bledsoe's backup. He didn't just barely make the team. He is referring to the previous year when he did just barely make the team.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When was that "one season of play"? That's right, class, it was last year.

Don't go projecting your reading comprehension problems on me. :P

You have to forgive Biggie.

He likes to pretend he's smarter than everyone else...but he's really not.

I'm not smarter than everyone else, but easily smarter than yourself.

[the_idle_threat]

Tyrone, your arguments have gotten so stupid now that it's obvious you're arguing only for its own sake. But then again, what else is new? It seems like the only reason you come to this board is to start and participate in arguments.

Yet, here I go, feeding the troll once again...

You are using the term star. Pal uses the term superstar. There is a difference.

Is the difference so great that he deserves to be called one of the 5 most overrated quarterbacks of all time? I think not.

I understand why the hype on Romo. But, to annoint him a superstar in the same class as brady, favre, manning just proves Pal's point.

Pal isn't saying he is a bad player. Just overrated. Pal isn't saying don't call him a rising star..just that the superstar hype makes him overrated..

The guy came seemingly out of nowhere, and put up good enough numbers to lead the league in passer rating---which means he was outperforming Brady, Favre & Manning---as a first-year starter.

The guy was playing like a superstar. So why wouldn't the media treat him like one? I've said it twice now in previous posts---his story is the type that the media kills for. And he's backed up the hype so far this season.

If Romo wasn't playing for Dallas he would be in the same category as Rivers who, prior to this year, accomplished as much. Why isn't rivers on this list?.

I agree that playing for a highly exposed team like Dallas makes Romo more popular, but Romo came out of the gate playing better than Rivers too. Rivers played almost half a season before his coaches trusted him enough to take the training wheels off and let him chuck it.

You are missing understanding the comma in Pals sentence. He isn't saying it that he barely made the team last year. He is talking in the past. If he wanted to say that it all happened in the same year he leaves out the comma. You use a comma to separate ideas. This is standard english..

This is easliy the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. I have already covered the fact that barely making the team years earlier doesn't support the writer's point. You continue to argue this stupidity, and then you hit me with "If he wanted to say that it all happened in the same year he leaves out the comma. You use a comma to separate ideas. This is standard english (sic)."

Where the hell did you learn English? You must have missed that day in grade school, when you were giving blowjobs for crack.

Tell me, professor, if this sentence flows correctly:

"He barely made the team and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it."

Seriously, Tank made smarter arguments than the shit you're selling. Nobody is buying.

He came into 06 as Bledsoe's backup. He didn't just barely make the team. He is referring to the previous year when he did just barely make the team.

Well, if you wanna be ticky-tacky about the details (and you always do, when someone else makes a factual error that you can use to goad them into an argument), you would acknowledge that Romo did NOT barely make the team in the previous year (2005). By that time, he was second string, and had played very well in the preseason. Romo barely made the team in 2003 and possibly also in 2004. This is why referencing that fact (that he barely made the team maybe 2 or three seasons earlier) does nothing to support the writer's argument that he's supposedly overrated now.

Game, set, match.

I know you're gonna get the last word in. You always do. But you're grasping at straws now. This shit is over.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, your arguments have gotten so stupid now that it's obvious you're arguing only for its own sake. But then again, what else is new? It seems like the only reason you come to this board is to start and participate in arguments.

Yet, here I go, feeding the troll once again...

You are using the term star. Pal uses the term superstar. There is a difference.

Is the difference so great that he deserves to be called one of the 5 most overrated quarterbacks of all time? I think not.

I understand why the hype on Romo. But, to annoint him a superstar in the same class as brady, favre, manning just proves Pal's point.

Pal isn't saying he is a bad player. Just overrated. Pal isn't saying don't call him a rising star..just that the superstar hype makes him overrated..

The guy came seemingly out of nowhere, and put up good enough numbers to lead the league in passer rating---which means he was outperforming Brady, Favre & Manning---as a first-year starter.

The guy was playing like a superstar. So why wouldn't the media treat him like one? I've said it twice now in previous posts---his story is the type that the media kills for. And he's backed up the hype so far this season.

If Romo wasn't playing for Dallas he would be in the same category as Rivers who, prior to this year, accomplished as much. Why isn't rivers on this list?.

I agree that playing for a highly exposed team like Dallas makes Romo more popular, but Romo came out of the gate playing better than Rivers too. Rivers played almost half a season before his coaches trusted him enough to take the training wheels off and let him chuck it.

You are missing understanding the comma in Pals sentence. He isn't saying it that he barely made the team last year. He is talking in the past. If he wanted to say that it all happened in the same year he leaves out the comma. You use a comma to separate ideas. This is standard english..

This is easliy the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. I have already covered the fact that barely making the team years earlier doesn't support the writer's point. You continue to argue this stupidity, and then you hit me with "If he wanted to say that it all happened in the same year he leaves out the comma. You use a comma to separate ideas. This is standard english (sic)."

Where the hell did you learn English? You must have missed that day in grade school, when you were giving blowjobs for crack.

Tell me, professor, if this sentence flows correctly:

"He barely made the team and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it."

Seriously, Tank made smarter arguments than the shit you're selling. Nobody is buying.

He came into 06 as Bledsoe's backup. He didn't just barely make the team. He is referring to the previous year when he did just barely make the team.

Well, if you wanna be ticky-tacky about the details (and you always do, when someone else makes a factual error that you can use to goad them into an argument), you would acknowledge that Romo did NOT barely make the team in the previous year (2005). By that time, he was second string, and had played very well in the preseason. Romo barely made the team in 2003 and possibly also in 2004. This is why referencing that fact (that he barely made the team maybe 2 or three seasons earlier) does nothing to support the writer's argument that he's supposedly overrated now.

Game, set, match.

I know you're gonna get the last word in. You always do. But you're grasping at straws now. This shit is over.

I disagree. You think differently, fine.

Support Pal: Again, we disagree. Fine. I dont' understand why you feel it doesn't support Pal's point. Not being argumentative, i truly think it does, and can't understand why you don't. Maybe it is because i assumed that this is just a short blurb and not the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Pal thinks he barely made the team last year? You really believe that Pal is that stupid?

Star: To me that is a crucial word. And, as someone who has to believe that a writer and his editors would choose a specific word i believe it is valid. If he said star i would definitely say Pal is on crack. But, superstar, yes.

i do acknowledge the 5 argument. Valid.

English: What do i know. I was only an english major and got paid to write for a number of years.

Sentence: yes it makes sense, and it is what you would claim Pal is saying. As if Romo didn't have a prior history.

Goad: I don't force you or anyone to answer a post. If you feel you must, to blame me. Or perhaps you feel about me as i feel about other people's posts. You are compelled. But, don't blame me for your inability to not post a response.

Romo: I totally agree. I have no problem acknowledging that, or that he was on the rise. I just think even calling him a star for playing a half season is ridiculous. Just like i thought the love for Gado was dumb. Lot's of one season wonders in all sports. Or guys who have a great season then regress.

Rivers: I think your interpretation is kinda subjective if not wrong. Trust is the wrong term. Marty was/is conservative. It was only after it became blindingly obvious that they needed to open up the offense that he allowed him to do more. Or, once marty realized his job was on the line. If Marty had brett on his team from the beginning we wouldn't be discussing him as the greatest. Look how Dan Reeves constrained Elway, and Reeves is a flaming liberal compared to marty.

Tank: Don't know him nor his arguments.