Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Vinnie2u, Feb 21, 2013.
Great trade if you want Clowney because the BOYS would be picking first next year.
No. The only way trades like this work for both teams is under optimal conditions and we don't have that.......
Optimal for us would be a really good young QB whom we believe could be as good or better than Romo given the chance to start. Kind of like what we had back in 2006......
Throw in the kicker that your vet QB has one year left on his deal.....
Then and only then do you have the makings of a deal worth doing on our side....
Now you need the right trading partner. Some team fairly loaded who's been consistently held back by it's starting QB. A team who's ready to win now and could benefit from acquiring a 33 yr old QB.
:laugh2: You have a point.
All natural too...
i like and am a huge tony romo fan but if a team whos desperate for a QB is offering multiple 1sts and 2nd round pick(s), I'm sorry that's just something you have to consider. As much as I like Romo as our QB, and I completely agree that getting rid of him would set us back but I am in the crowd that believes no player is aboved being traded for the right price. Imgaine if someone gave us two 1sts and two 2nds or something like that I think it would be stupid to turn it down without a lot of discussion amongst the cowboys braintrust. With those you can say hello to new oline dline S etc!
trading an UDFA for at least 4 potential starters in rounds 1 and 2 sounds pretty good to me.
Why would we use any of our picks on an OT if we have Tyron Smith and sign Branden Albert?
Trading Romo and starting Orton would be ridiculous unless the goal is to have a top 10 pick in 2014. If you're looking to revisit 2000 to 2005 trade Romo and leave yourself with Orton and watch things go from bad to worse. I've said repeatedly you can't move on from Romo until you have a better option in place at QB. You have no chance of competing without a productive QB. The Cowboys would have ended up no better than 4-12 with Orton last season. You don't trade your starting QB for a roll of the dice in the draft and leave yourself with a journeyman at the position.
You could end up with nothing with those picks for Romo and even if the players develop into starters you still won't win because you're stuck with an immobile backup QB as your starter. Your idea is to start Orton then pick up another lead footed journeymen at the position. With the OL the Cowboys have they would have no chance with a QB who can't avoid the rush and get outside the pocket and make plays. Even with the escapability Romo has he was sacked 36 times last season. In 2010 Orton got sacked 34 times in 13 games behind a Broncos OL that was far better than what the Cowboys have.
Moore took 34 sacks in 13 starts for Miami in 2011. Go look at his numbers and you'll see why the Dolphins burned a #1 on a QB and threw him on the bench. Orton got dumped for Tebow in Denver and then got kicked to the curb by KC in favor of the 2 stiffs that led them to a 2-14 season last year. The Cowboys would have one of the worst QB situations in the league with Orton as the starter and Moore backing him up. It's pretty amusing the ideas some of you armchair GM's come up with that you think will better the team.
you play too much Madden 12. real football doesn't work like that.
Have you considered a move like that would leave the Cowboys desperate for a QB? The Cowboys may end up in a position where eventually they'll be offering multiple 1sts to try and get a QB unless not having one leads to them having the #1 overall pick. As much of a QB driven league as the NFL has become you leave yourself with a bad QB situation you're done!
point very well taken but if you can grab 4 starters in the first 2 rounds for 1 qb im just saying i don't think it becomes an instant "no" it would have to be a serious discussion amongst the cowboys braintrust. you don't make deals like that with high picks very often
But then we still don't have a franchise QB anymore and we have to spend the pics all over again and try to maybe get one one. Trading a QB for picks cancels the picks out when you have to spend them all over again on one. And that's if you're lucky enough to land one first try. That's why Romo caliber QBs never get traded unless they're causing a problem.
Please explain why it would set us back a decade ?
And please no stupid arguments like "you know how long it took us to find Romo after Aikman retired".
That's not a stupid argument. The odds of our next attempt at franchise QB being as productive as our current one are very, very low.
Romo has 3-4 good seasons left in him. How would his departure set us back a decade?!?
W/out Romo this team has virtually zero playoff chances in the next two seasons. But beyond that...in the longer term...trading him might make sense.
So, your strategy is to label legitimate points as "stupid?" Interesting philosophy. Personally, I think it's stupid that you would refuse to consider history. But regardless, let's say we hit on every pick this upcoming draft. We'd then be a mediocre team with no qb, but we also would not be drafting high enough to land a qb, so we'd with be such with Ponder quality qb prospects, or we'd have to give up more than we received from the Romo trade to grab a legit prospect. The point is, I only believe in one NFL truism -- if you have a franchise signal caller, you don't let him go unless you have his replacement. Period.
Exactly and given the salary cap situation and other aging players, I won't be surprised if the Cowboys don't win a Super Bowl with Romo in the next 4 years. By then, Romo will probably be done and they'll have to find another QB which could easily take another 3+ years (that's even if they draft a good one that can start as a rookie the year after Romo leaves).
There's a pretty good chance that if you define being set back a decade not winning a super bowl, then that's a pretty likely outcome with or without Romo.
The time to think about blowing up this team was the year before last but thinking outside the box doesn't jive with management or the fans, so grit your teeth and hope they can build a team around Romo before he has to retire.
I wish this board had been around when they traded Herschal Walker so we could laugh at how everyone claimed it would doom them for a decade.
If Romo is worth 4 starters in the first 2 rounds then why trade him? What are the odds on coming up with 4 starters in the first 2 rounds? There would be no serious discussion amongst the Cowboys brain-trust to make that trade because every pick you get for Romo would be a roll of the dice and the move would leave the team without a franchise QB. Seattle, Indy and Washington all finished with losing records in 2011 because they didn't have a QB. Just look how improved those teams were by adding a quality QB in 2012 they all made the playoffs.
The Cowboys could add 5 starters next season and would still be picking in the top 10 with Kyle Orton at QB. According to some experts if the Chiefs add a top flight QB they would go from 2-14 to a playoff team next season. That's just how critical having a solid playmaking QB is to a teams success.
Regardless of Romo's elimination game failures he's the Cowboys most valuable player and the team would have no chance of competing without a productive, talented QB. This team needs an athletic QB who can avoid pressure and get outside the pocket and make plays to be successful.
Sorry I have zero confidence that Romo can put together 3 solid games in the playoffs and win a Super Bowl. He could have the best offensive line in the NFL. Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson on his side and I would still look away when the game is on the line.
No, there isn't anything out there even remotely close to replacing Romo and the QB class in the upcoming draft is abymsal
if you're gonna trade the most premiere position in football for picks, you better have a plan on either drafting a replacement, knowing there's a viable replacement in FA and being confident you can get him, or having faith that your backup can fill in amicably.
Then why watch the game in the first place?
Really...45 years old and you are sporting that sig?