Finding Romo's Replacement

[Galian Beast]

It worries me more if they sign a get franchise QB. Teams do not let quality QBs hit the market under no circumstances. If they take your approach, there is a good chance that they will spend another twenty years before finding a top QB. I want a winning team after Romo. You are thinking short term. There may be bust in the first round, but Aikman, Manning , Luck etc, don't just show up on the open market or come late in the draft. Brady and even Romo are exceptions and true long shots that happened to work out. Poor planning and not investing in a top QB prospect will hurt this team for years. It seems like you feel that all resources needs to go toward helping Romo now with no consideration for the future. If I misunderstand your position, I apologize, but it sure seems like you are all about getting Romo a Super Bowl without thinking of life after he retires.

How did Drew Brees go to New Orleans? How did Peyton Manning go to Denver? How did Carson Palmer go to Oakland and THEN to Arizona? How many teams did Kurt Warner go to? New York and Arizona? Brett Favre? Jets and Vikings?
The reality though rare, it does happen. My point is you have to keep yourself on look out for good situations, not simply jump to the conclusion that we must draft a quarterback, because of a random window assigned to tony romo based on nothing except pessimism.

 

[Galian Beast]

You should work on your rebuttles without simply referring to someones argument as a straw man argument

When you assume someone's argument that they didn't make... that's a straw man argument. You can look it up.

 

[Galian Beast]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

 

[Galian Beast]

The interesting thing with how the Patriots do it, IIRC is that they have that draft pick as the #2 QB, not the #3. Garoppolo was their only backup QB in 2014. That saves them a good bit of money as compared to paying a veteran #2 QB and carrying a 3rd developmental QB.

Sure, and when the starter goes down, people will complain that the team didn't invest in a capable backup QB....

 

[Cowboyz88]

So…we shouldn't draft a QB because we already have one, so that's just silly.

We shouldn't draft one in the 1st because most first rounders are busts.

We shouldn't draft one in later rounds, because late rounders almost never make it.

We shouldn't expect to find one in FA because Romo and Warner are the exceptions, so why bother.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Galian Beast]

So…we shouldn't draft a QB because we already have one, so that's just silly.

We shouldn't draft one in the 1st because most first rounders are busts.

We shouldn't draft one in later rounds, because late rounders almost never make it.

We shouldn't expect to find one in FA because Romo and Warner are the exceptions, so why bother.

Makes sense to me.

Are they teaching debating skills in school anymore?

I never made any of those assertions.

 

[Cowboyz88]

Are they teaching debating skills in school anymore?

I never made any of those assertions.

All of these have been, at one point or another, reasons as why not to draft a QB, and I should know because I've been a proponent of drafting one for at least the last 3-5 years.

Whether you asserted all of them or not, you're providing more reasons as why not to bother.

If it were up to many fans, we'd never attempt to get a QB at all, because of this stat or that stat or this team or that team.

At some point, this team must address getting the next guy, or it could potentially negate of all the great personel decisions over the last few years.

 

[xwalker]

Are they teaching debating skills in school anymore?

I never made any of those assertions.

It is never really clear what assertions you are or aren't making in your multitude of new threads.

If you can't make clear an concise threads, don't get upset when people don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[Galian Beast]

It is never really clear what assertions you are or aren't making in your multitude of new threads.

If you can't make clear an concise threads, don't get upset when people don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I was pretty clear, sorry. If you're missing what I said, you either aren't trying or you have poor reading comprehension. Either way I can't help you... either way.

 

[JBell]

Second let me address this issue. The salary cap. This isn't the 90's nor is it the early 2000's. The best aspect of having a rookie QB is to have them play for you for cheap so you can give that player a better team with the money you aren't spending on them. You used to be able to sign rookies for 6 years before you had to pay them. Now you can only get them for 4 years before you have to pay them. Note the 5th year option is basically the franchise tag, not quite as expensive, but none the less... It is 16 million dollars next year.

The 5th year option salary is different depending on where you were drafted in the first round.

The next point takes me to the high level of nfl busts drafted in the first round. The bust rate is higher than 50%

All QB situations are not created equally. Some QB's are put in places where they're destined to fail. Terrible OL, no run game, lack of offensive weapons, etc.

I think it's safe to say with the best offensive line in football, a top 5 WR, and a young defense on the rise, a first round QB would have a much better chance of succeeding here as opposed to a place like Jacksonville.

I'd rather give up two first round draft picks for a sure thing at QB and pay the player a veteran salary, than draft a quarterback in the first round HOPE he turns out good and sit him for 3-4 years and then pay him a veteran salary anyways....

You have no idea how long that rookie will be sitting on the bench. That's all dependent on Romo. And if that rookie has to sit the duration of his rookie contract due to Romo aging like fine wine, so be it. He's not going to command a backbreaking 2nd contract if he's never taken a snap, and he only cost you one 1st rounder as opposed to your proposal of giving away two.

I wouldn't be against trading two first rounders for a young franchise QB, but how often does that situation present itself?

The game has changed and your way of thinking needs to change with it.

Teams are destroyed by first round QB busts. And you would probably have us spend 2 to 3 first round draft picks on the position trying to find a proper legitimate successor to Romo.

It really worries me that part of your strategy for replacing Romo is just hoping that we find a great quarterback in the first round on our first try, despite the fact that teams across the league fail at this at a high percentage. Most drafts have 0 franchise quarterbacks, some have 1, and very very few have 2 or more, but magically we will get it done because?

The bolded is all guesswork on your part with nothing to support it.

There's no magic involved when it comes to helping a young QB. An offensive line, run game, and a defense are a QB's best friend. We have the foundation set for a young QB to come in and succeed.

 

[Galian Beast]

All of these have been, at one point or another, reasons as why not to draft a QB, and I should know because I've been a proponent of drafting one for at least the last 3-5 years.

Whether you asserted all of them or not, you're providing more reasons as why not to bother.

If it were up to many fans, we'd never attempt to get a QB at all, because of this stat or that stat or this team or that team.

At some point, this team must address getting the next guy, or it could potentially negate of all the great personel decisions over the last few years.

Wrong again, please actually read what I said rather than coming to your own conclusion.

 

[Arkyvarminter]

I think if Romo were to go downhill in a hurry Jerry would most likely take a proven QB already in the league than wait and take a chance on a draft pick. Sure, he would draft one, but with us being pretty close to contending, he would go after a proven passer to keep us in contention right at the moment. Its just too hard to find a college QB that can step in and do well, even with our line. I know they exist but we won't get lucky again with someone like Romo, even in the first round and I think Romo could play well before he took over. Just my opinion. I think if Romo continues to do well, Garrett will get a QB in the first round in a year or two. He's going to try to avoid what we went through the Quincy Carter years, especially with our talent. Back then Jerry was calling the shots but now he's listening to Garrett and that gives me hope.....

 

[xwalker]

I was pretty clear, sorry. If you're missing what I said, you either aren't trying or you have poor reading comprehension. Either way I can't help you... either way.

No, if you notice there are several people that don't know what you're trying to say. When several people don't understand 1 person, then by definition, the 1 person is not communicating properly.

 

[Cowboyz88]

Wrong again, please actually read what I said rather than coming to your own conclusion.

If I wanted a debate lesson, I'd ask, and I don't need to.

Don't tell me that these haven't been reason to not draft a QB. I see them every draft.

And, your assertion that teams are crippled by first round busts completely overlooks all the teams that are propped up by first round studs.

At some point, you have to trust your scouts and pull the trigger, because we all agree that QBs don't grow on trees.

 

[Galian Beast]

No, if you notice there are several people that don't know what you're trying to say. When several people don't understand 1 person, then by definition, the 1 person is not communicating properly.

That is a misconception. That's how we get mob rule by the foolish.

A lot of people in this topic understood perfectly, however those with an agenda seemed to ignore what I said entirely.

 

[sbark]

I could well see the Pats, with Brady's upcoming "time off"......play the kid they drafted last year, and with the usual adaptations to scheme they are able to do, win more than they loose with him, the media will then drum beat for him..............and they will get a couple of #1 picks for him. and then like Cassel end up being a journeyman bouncing around the league.

or is Brady old enough they hang on to him---we'll see what they think of him.

 

[Westcoasthabsfan]

i highly doubt the cowboys draft a franchise QB, there just arent many out there...i mean Eli won twice and hes no superstar in this league.....

 

[jnday]

How did Drew Brees go to New Orleans? How did Peyton Manning go to Denver? How did Carson Palmer go to Oakland and THEN to Arizona? How many teams did Kurt Warner go to? New York and Arizona? Brett Favre? Jets and Vikings?
The reality though rare, it does happen. My point is you have to keep yourself on look out for good situations, not simply jump to the conclusion that we must draft a quarterback, because of a random window assigned to tony romo based on nothing except pessimism.

So your plan is hoping that blind luck provides an elite QB after Romo is done? Do you want the future to live or die based on Romo? This is the most short-sighted thread that I have read in a long time. At Romo's age anything can happen. Your plan is blind luck providing another QB instead of proper planning like the better teams in the league tries to do. From your comments, elite QB are available every year. That thinking has worked out do well for 80% of the league with QBs that are average or worse. It sounds like you would just be happy with Romo and you are willing to gamble with the future after him.

 

[Galian Beast]

So your plan is hoping that blind luck provides an elite QB after Romo is done? Do you want the future to live or die based on Romo? This is the most short-sighted thread that I have read in a long time. At Romo's age anything can happen. Your plan is blind luck providing another QB instead of proper planning like the better teams in the league tries to do. From your comments, elite QB are available every year. That thinking has worked out do well for 80% of the league with QBs that are average or worse. It sounds like you would just be happy with Romo and you are willing to gamble with the future after him.

People seem to still be having problems reading.

I'm saying unless it looks like Romo is falling apart or decides to hang it up, I'm not going into any year saying this is the year I have to get a QB because of any random timetable that I've come up with that isn't based on any thing medical, person, or performance-wise relating to Romo.

I think you need to keep an eye out for veteran players who might become free agents or might fall out of favor with their teams. I also think you have to keep an eye on draft classes to see what sort of quarterbacks are out there. I also think you need to pick up quarterbacks late in the draft or through UDFA as appropriate. I also think you should try to bank an extra first round draft pick going forward by trading down one year. I also wouldn't be afraid to go after a franchised quarterback, especially one coming off their rookie contract.

What I don't suggest is a good idea however is just drafting a qb in rd 1-3 because you think romo only has a year or two left... Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Cowboyz88]

People seem to still be having problems reading.

I'm saying unless it looks like Romo is falling apart or decides to hang it up, I'm not going into any year saying this is the year I have to get a QB because of any random timetable that I've come up with that isn't based on any thing medical, person, or performance-wise relating to Romo.

I think you need to keep an eye out for veteran players who might become free agents or might fall out of favor with their teams. I also think you have to keep an eye on draft classes to see what sort of quarterbacks are out there. I also think you need to pick up quarterbacks late in the draft or through UDFA as appropriate. I also think you should try to bank an extra first round draft pick going forward by trading down one year. I also wouldn't be afraid to go after a franchised quarterback, especially one coming off their rookie contract.

What I don't suggest is a good idea however is just drafting a qb in rd 1-3 because you think romo only has a year or two left... Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

So as I understand it, you wouldn't take a run on a single, first round pick, because that's "random," but you would take the chance on possibly giving up two picks on a franchised QB on a rookie contract, because teams would so willingly allow you to do so? Why not just rub a genie's lamp and wish for a franchise QB?

Talk about random.

If said team would let their "franchised QB" (actually, non-exclusive franchise player) go, the Cowboys would be on the hook for TWO first round picks, and this you feel is a perfectly sound philosophy and not "the dumbest thing you've ever heard?"

Did you not see trades like Herschel, Roy Williams, Joey Galloway, RG3, Ricky Williams, etc. blow up in their teams (Cowboys twice, for the love of Pete) face?

Why on earth, if their QB is indeed a franchise player, would a team let them go, knowing how hard it is to find a real franchise QB? Could anyone ever see the Colts letting Luck go or the Seahawks let Wilson go (is this the unlikely scenario you're personally hoping for?)?

And, if any team DID let their franchise QB go, would not you feel like the Cowboys got hoodwinked into buying fools gold? Could anyone imagine the Cowboys blowing two first round picks on QBs like Geno, Austin Davis, Hoyer, etc.? TWO first round picks.

And Vets? Please. How many times, in the last decade, has a vet gone on to other teams to be anything special? Alex Smith? Matt Schaub? Fitzpatrick? Cutler?

The only one that comes to mind is Brees, and I'd say his scenario is much rarer than actually drafting one.

So, the idea of taking a run on a franchised QB or a washed up/journeyman vet seems like more of a sure thing than drafting and developing a high draft pick?

Gotcha.