Do not be fooled by our OL

[X-Dawg]

non sacks b/c Tony Romo can move - If Bledslow would have played - you're easily talking 4 sacks minimum...

[austintodallas]

Possibly, but he probably would have thrown for 100 more yards an an additional TD as well.

[felix360]

non sacks b/c Tony Romo can move - If Bledslow would have played - you're easily talking 4 sacks minimum...

i would have to agree on that, bledsoe as we all know is a statue back there, i actually think maybe 6 sacks cuz he would have held the ball to long

[Joe_Fan]

Possibly, but he probably would have thrown for 100 more yards an an additional TD as well.I'm guessing you're predicting this based upon Bledsoe's wonderful scrimmage performance, eh?

:lmao:

[superpunk]

non sacks b/c Tony Romo can move - If Bledslow would have played - you're easily talking 4 sacks minimum...

And we probably would've ended up with negative 11 billion points on offense.

[JackMagist]

Possibly, but he probably would have thrown for 100 more yards an an additional TD as well.Possibly, but you throw in the INT he likely would have had and there you go...4 to 6 Sacks and an INT will wipe out the effect of an extra 4 points for a TD instead of a FG pretty quickly.

Still, though I'm pretty happy with Romo after tonight I'm still not ready to throw Bledsoe on the scrap heap just yet.

[big dog cowboy]

non sacks b/c Tony Romo can move - If Bledslow would have played - you're easily talking 4 sacks minimum...
Always comes with the positive threads. ;)

At least you are consistent.

[austintodallas]

I'm guessing you're predicting this based upon Bledsoe's wonderful scrimmage performance, eh?

:lmao:No actually I'm basing it on his previous 14 years in the league.

[Qwickdraw]

Possibly, but he probably would have thrown for 100 more yards an an additional TD as well.
Don't forget a late game pick that would have led to a score by the defense thus losing the game.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another stupid thread by a wannabe browns fan.

If you would have said something about the lack of push in the ground game you would have had a point.

Fact is that there was no pressure up the middle. There were a couple of times where Romo had to step up something that anyone who has watched Bledsoe would realize he is more than capable of doing.

All in all the pass protection was heartening all night. I think I am going to put your threads in the same category as JFE columns: on ignore.

[Ashwynn]

Granted I think we are optomistic afte watching that. But they aren't as bag as OP would have you believe either. Sure, I think Bledsoe would have been sacked at least once, maybe more, But I also think the Oline played average ball over the course of the game. The start of the 2nd dr, when penalties backed us up, the line did a great job of staying out of trouble enough to let Romo get the first down back and keep the drive alive.

Not a stellar bunch for sure, but not the sieve we feared. Course, we did not face Strahan and Osi yet. But then not every team we play will have bookend studs to worry bout,

[X-Dawg]

No actually I'm basing it on his previous 14 years in the league.
Which are filled with Picks

[REDVOLUTION]

Possibly, but he probably would have thrown for 100 more yards an an additional TD as well.

Yeah... but..... if he gets sacked 4 times he could lose one and negate the TD.

[JackMagist]

Another stupid thread by a wannabe browns fan.

If you would have said something about the lack of push in the ground game you would have had a point.

Fact is that there was no pressure up the middle. There were a couple of times where Romo had to step up something that anyone who has watched Bledsoe would realize he is more than capable of doing.

All in all the pass protection was heartening all night. I think I am going to put your threads in the same category as JFE columns: on ignore.No, this is not a stupid thread; XDawg (who started the thread) is right on this one. Romo did a very nice job of feeling pressure and moving around in the pocket and made the OL look much better than they actually played because he did not get sacked. He "stepped up" far more than a "couple of times" and he also stepped sideways and back several times.

X most certainly is pushing his agenda but in this case he is dead on with his assessment. You can try to minimize the effectiveness of Romo in the pocket or ignore it as you will. But the simple Fact is that he handled himself in the pocket better than any QB we have put on the field in years and all of your denials will not change that.

[MichaelWinicki]

No, this is not a stupid thread; XDawg (who started the thread) is right on this one. Romo did a very nice job of feeling pressure and moving around in the pocket and made the OL look much better than they actually played because he did not get sacked. He "stepped up" far more than a "couple of times" and he also stepped sideways and back several times.

X most certainly is pushing his agenda but in this case he is dead on with his assessment. You can try to minimize the effectiveness of Romo in the pocket or ignore it as you will. But the simple Fact is that he handled himself in the pocket better than any QB we have put on the field in years and all of your denials will not change that.

Well said Jack.

Romo does have very good pocket presence-- much better than Bledsoe. Does that make him a better QB? No obviously not. But having a QB with awareness in the pocket does make me feel better.

[burmafrd]

Romo looked pretty good. BUt this is the first game of the pre season so one should not take too much of it to heart.

[ratpower]

Another stupid thread by a wannabe browns fan.

If you would have said something about the lack of push in the ground game you would have had a point.

Fact is that there was no pressure up the middle. There were a couple of times where Romo had to step up something that anyone who has watched Bledsoe would realize he is more than capable of doing.

All in all the pass protection was heartening all night. I think I am going to put your threads in the same category as JFE columns: on ignore.

Yup, the running game and lack of push and holes should be the real concern...O-line has not convinced anyone yet...

[X-Dawg]

OL's are built over time - built by big FA buys in the off season - Our OL is floating between a mixture of crap and quality...seems the crap rises to the top more often than not.

[jazzcat22]

Well said Jack.

Romo does have very good pocket presence-- much better than Bledsoe. Does that make him a better QB? No obviously not. But having a QB with awareness in the pocket does make me feel better.

Well, then again, Beldsoe could read the coverage much sooner, and get rid of the ball quicker, then he wouldn't have the pressure to need to move around to complete the play.

I wouldn't say Romo has a better pocket presents than Bledose, based on 1 PRE SEASON game, in which is NOT game planned.

[JackMagist]

Well, then again, Beldsoe could read the coverage much sooner, and get rid of the ball quicker, then he wouldn't have the pressure to need to move around to complete the play.

I wouldn't say Romo has a better pocket presents than Bledose, based on 1 PRE SEASON game, in which is NOT game planned.I don't see how you can say that Bledsoe makes his reads quicker...Romo was hitting his 2nd, 3rd and outlet receivers consistently last night because he was reading his progressions quickly. And he was moving around and avoiding the rush while keeping his concentration down the field and never held the ball too long. Bledsoe is notorious for holding the ball too long and for sticking with his primary receiver too long. Your assertion just does not hold up in the light of reality.

[jazzcat22]

I don't see how you can say that Bledsoe makes his reads quicker...Romo was hitting his 2nd, 3rd and outlet receivers consistently last night because he was reading his progressions quickly. And he was moving around and avoiding the rush while keeping his concentration down the field and never held the ball too long. Bledsoe is notorious for holding the ball too long and for sticking with his primary receiver too long. Your assertion just does not hold up in the light of reality.


Yes Bledsoe is known for that, but not on every play. I am not saying Romo did bad. I think he played excellent. But to say Bledsoe would have been sacked 4 times, or would throw an INT, isn't reality either. I think my assertaion hods up very well. I know you didn't say that, but othere did.

Another thought, and I can't remember right now. But did Seattle blitz at all last night? Or not mush. Giving Romo more time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, this is not a stupid thread; XDawg (who started the thread) is right on this one. Romo did a very nice job of feeling pressure and moving around in the pocket and made the OL look much better than they actually played because he did not get sacked. He "stepped up" far more than a "couple of times" and he also stepped sideways and back several times.

X most certainly is pushing his agenda but in this case he is dead on with his assessment. You can try to minimize the effectiveness of Romo in the pocket or ignore it as you will. But the simple Fact is that he handled himself in the pocket better than any QB we have put on the field in years and all of your denials will not change that.

Im not saying that Romo isnt mobile. That does not mitigate that fact that other than the one play where the DE almsot got to him he moved about two steps to his left and then up in the pocket, all he ever had to do was step forward in the pocket. The pass protection from the middle three was superb.

His scrambles were almost exclusively straight ahead right behind Rivera. Well, all three of them.

X-Dawg's assertion that Bledsoe wouldve been sacked 6 times was and still is stupid and I stand by that statement. The protection that Romo got is exactly the type that Bledsoe needs in that it allowed him to step up in the pocket. That does not mean that Im saying that Romo cant move around.

[MichaelWinicki]

X-Dawg's assertion that Bledsoe wouldve been sacked 6 times was and still is stupid and I stand by that statement. The protection that Romo got is exactly the type that Bledsoe needs in that it allowed him to step up in the pocket. That does not mean that Im saying that Romo cant move around.


Yeah 6 sacks is probably extreme but I don't think it can be argued that Bledsoe probably wouldn't have escaped the game sack-free.

[jrumann59]

Bledsoe has poscket presence but chooses to ignore to make a big play by holding the ball too long. Heath Shuler had no pocket presence, Ryan Leaf had no pocket presence, Aikman toa certain degree didn't either or he was like Bledso liked to hang on to the ball a little longer. If Aikman had learned to throw away he probably would have played another 3 years and wouldn't have to worry about all those concussions.

[TwoDeep3]

Twice Romo fumbled the snap and on a couple of occassions he started playing sand lot football.

If he were playing in a real game against a team that was trying their utmost to win, then the results of his miscues and ad libbing might have been different.

Romo showed some poise and made some things happen.

But the fact is, the fan base of this team is so hungry for results, they will call hamburger porterhouse if it furthers the dream.

When Romo performs at the level he did last night in a regular season game, against top flight talent, then I may start coming around on him.

Thus far this was one pre-season game that didn't mean much to many but fringe players trying to make a team.

He has some skill. How that translates to the big stage when it means something is another question which was not answered last night.

[lspain1]

Yup, the running game and lack of push and holes should be the real concern...O-line has not convinced anyone yet...


I agree with this. The jury is still out...and will be until we get into the season.