Your claim is that the Texans should take Romo because he's a proven quality QB.
He is. His numbers show that. If you want to claim otherwise, state your case.
But, Romo is only a proven quality QB if he is healthy.
There's
ability and there's
availability. If his
availability wasn't an issue, he wouldn't be
available.
You're implying that you have a high degree of confidence in his back because Romo is not a quality QB if his back is balky.
I'm not implying anything. The circumstances with Romo are well known and well established. Are you "implying" that no team will sign him because of his injury issues?
I can see why a team wouldn't be so eager to trade for him regardless of the leverage we have in the situation. Especially the Texans who will probably have to re-do Clowney's contract if he keeps playing this way, the same with DeAndre Hopkins, and have a defensive backfield that does need some work because it's a thin group and their best performer, Will Demps, is a 31 year old safety.
The Texans managed to make the playoffs and win with one arm tied behind their back thanks to Osweiler's incompetence. That arm being the arm of their passing game. And they still managed to hang tough with the Super Bowl champs. Who knows what they could have done with an actual quarterback?
The Texans have to make those financial decisions you've mentioned
anyway. No team can keep everybody, and no team can keep everybody indefinitely, while you waste time trying to sort out the most important position in sports.
If they pass on a trade for Romo (or can't sign him), what are you looking at? Another wasted season before they can and will cut Osweiler, O'Brien likely fired (as was already rumored this year) because he couldn't win, and then starting over with a new search for quarterback and coaching staff.
At that point, does it really much matter whether they've paid Clowney, Hopkins, or whoever?