JS- SAL PAL says Favre overrated ??

[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.