Finding Romo's Replacement

Craig said:
so in this thread, i take it that there is no middle ground. Its either you want to use a first rounder on a qb or you dont want to draft a qb to maximize the team while romo is here. Got it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is only one way to get this done because everybody knows UDFAs that are molded for a couple years never pan out. Pardon the sarcasm.
 
darthseinfeld said:
Who exactly are we giving up 2 first round picks and probably 60 million guarenteed to with their drafted team unwilling to match?
Click to expand...

Who knows, I wouldn't envision us doing this for another 3-4 years. I'm not even saying that is the solution. I'm simply saying it is a better idea than randomly taking a 1st round quarterback just because we want a quarterback of the future, when the vast majority fail.
 
MagicMan said:
You ain't the only one on this thread......don't apply it to yourself..
Click to expand...

You said, "You all are assuming we need a 1st round QB". I replied, "not true" because everyone does not think we need a QB in the 1st round.
 
viman96 said:
You do not have to draft a QB in the 1st or 2nd and Romo is a great example of that. The idea or should I say pie in the sky hope that you just find a franchise QB after Romo retires is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

you do realize that in the last 20 years how few SB winning QBs have not come from the first rd, right?
Wilson
Brees
Warner
Brady

The ODDS of getting a franchize QB after the first rd are horrible. In the last 10 years you only have Wilson. Romo was taken in 2003 so you can go farther really. Then you only get Brady, then Brees (who was an early 2nd) and then a few years more you get Warner.

UDFA SB winning QBs consist of Warner.
QBs that were picked after 3rd rd (Wilson) Brady.

So your idea that you can get one after the first rd is the same as counting on winning the lottery.
 
ThreeandOut said:
Reading is indeed important. I just gave you three franchises that are in the process of grooming their QB's. But you obviously know more about developing QB's than Bill Bellicheck and Sean Peyton.
Click to expand...

Saints drafted a quarterback in the 3rd round, not the 1st.

Garoppolo was a 2nd round draft pick and is an UFA in 2018. The Patriots are more likely to trade him to another team like they did Mallett than have him replace Brady. Note they did the same with Mallett, but got very little value out of him.
 
I'm amused by the people who are like, "I didn't mean we had to draft a quarterback in the first round to replace Romo."

The success rate after the first round is even worse...

It's like odds means nothing to you...
 
Galian Beast said:
Who knows, I wouldn't envision us doing this for another 3-4 years. I'm not even saying that is the solution. I'm simply saying it is a better idea than randomly taking a 1st round quarterback just because we want a quarterback of the future, when the vast majority fail.
Click to expand...
Most drafted QBs fail. Finding a QB is trial and error. And no one does it properly anymore. Teams are too scared about the 4 to 5 year window.

Aaron Rodgers sat for three seasons .

Aaron Rodgers also signed a long term extention halfway through his fifth year.

Teams have more than enough time to sit a QB for a couple seasons and subsequently have more then enough time to evaluate whether or not they are worthy of an extension. They are just too impatient and fickle to do it properly. Teams that have been winning Super Bowls this decade seem to have an idea
 
Galian Beast said:
I'm amused by the people who are like, "I didn't mean we had to draft a quarterback in the first round to replace Romo."

The success rate after the first round is even worse...

It's like odds means nothing to you...
Click to expand...
So we should never draft a QB?
 
Galian Beast said:
Saints drafted a quarterback in the 3rd round, not the 1st.

Garoppolo was a 2nd round draft pick and is an UFA in 2018. The Patriots are more likely to trade him to another team like they did Mallett than have him replace Brady. Note they did the same with Mallett, but got very little value out of him.
Click to expand...

Your original post talked about not drafting QB's early so 2-3 rounds certainly qualify as early rounds in the draft. Garoppolo stands a much better chance of taking over for Brady than Mallet just because Brady had more years left when they took Mallett.
 
viman96 said:
Stupid to think a great QB is limited to the 1st
Click to expand...

When nearly every starting qb in the NFL is a 1st round draft pick... The odds of finding a qb outside the first round are extremely slim. But don't let reality bother you.
 
ThreeandOut said:
Your original post talked about not drafting QB's early so 2-3 rounds certainly qualify as early rounds in the draft. Garoppolo stands a much better chance of taking over for Brady than Mallet just because Brady had more years left when they took Mallett.
Click to expand...

That is sound logic, but if you look at the percentage of starters in the league that were 2nd round draft picks, you'll see that it is still extremely small.
 
Galian Beast said:
No, you just shouldn't draft one with the expectations of being able to groom one while Romo is still playing.
Click to expand...

So we should put a gun to our head and force ourselves to draft one in the first round when Romo retires and hope to god that draft isnt 2013 Part II. Then rinse and repeat two years later.

Do you happen to live in Cleveland?
 
darthseinfeld said:
So we should put a gun to our head and force ourselves to draft one in the first round when Romo retires and hope to god that draft isnt 2013 Part II. Then rinse and repeat two years later.

Do you happen to live in Cleveland?
Click to expand...

Straw man argument.

I would either

a) Draft a QB a year or two before Romo retires
b) Sign a free agent QB, even if they are franchised
c) Trade up in the draft for a QB when the time is right

It mostly depends on Romo's ability to continue performing and it depends on who is in the draft and in free agency at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 5,243 (members: 173, guests: 5,070)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,215
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top