Matt Ryan and Vick went over Romo despite Romo having better stats (Vick was a big draw that year -- and was also excellent). Of course Brees was also selected.

Man, what an awful prediction that was.

The Romo hate is classic on this board.

Here's the Tim Duncan comparison.

Griffin went for 22.5 and 12.1 in his first season (after he missed his first season due to injury).

Do you not get the difference between trying to "pwn" you and suggesting you don't go too crazy, while noting that you were also wrong in the thread? Are you really that ****ing stupid, or are you just trying to use your own wrong guesses as part of your troll?

Technically wrong, but the numbers are pro bowl caliber. I don't think that comment can be used against Hootie.

The best is when guys argue about Compensatory draft picks

I remember my first beer.

Yeah but Alex Smith tho.

Of course it can. Hootie was wrong, and he was arrogant enough about it to toss in a "Bookmark this post right here" comment.

Yeah, and it's not hard to see why you'd want to steer away from a topic as reeruned as "a 2009 redraft shows we should never talk about a draft in advance, ever."

Yes. You're right. A person of lesser faculties might look at it and say, "HE SAY'ED PRO BOWL. ROMO NO MAKE PRO BOWL AT ALL." But, a rational person might use a little bit of logic, and realize it would be kinda silly to use it against him since the guy did actually play well enough to be in the Pro Bowl.

My mistake.

No, a lesser person might be foolish enough to say "He didn't make the Pro Bowl, but he put up good numbers!".

A rational, sensible, person would say "You said he'd make the Pro Bowl. He didn't. You got it wrong.".

So, yes, your mistake.

I knew it was a waste of time replying to you. I knew it, but I ****ing did it anyways.
**** me.

Yes, I was pimping Geno, but I also said that he is a guy that you should sit for a year, and might be better for 2.
I thought you would have a real chance of ruining him if he started right away.

But I'm one of the few people here that believes that rookie QBs, except for a select few, should always be sat for at least a year, even if they are the first overall pick.

The guy didn't make the Pro Bowl. Hootie claimed he would, so Hootie was wrong, and might want to keep that in mind while he's using that same thread to bash someone else for an error. I didn't call Hootie an idiot or anything for making his claim. I just pointed out that it was wrong. Instead of just leaving it alone, or acknowledging the obvious, you decided to ignore plain language.

I think we can both agree that Hootie knew Romo was in the same conference as Brees and Rodgers when he made his claim, so this wasn't some last minute surprise entry beating out Romo.

And before you go crazy with the "woe is me for replying to you", remember that you were the one with the crack about using logic, and making the snide comment about "a person of lesser faculties" in the process.

Logic:

Claim was the Romo would make the Pro Bowl
Romo did not make the Pro Bowl
Claim was erroneous

I knew I was comparing him as a prospect to Tim Duncan but it was SO long ago I forgot what context I was using at the time. Leave it to Hamas to try and "troll" me yesterday by bringing up a past debate that I crushed out of the park. Kinda like when you pointed out I called Chris Johnson the best running back in the NFL the year before he became CJ2K.

But again, the narrative on this board is I'm always wrong because I think Peyton is better than Tom.