Lets get everyones opinion

[aikemirv]

Wouldnt surprise me. Panthers arent nearly as good as advertised, yet for some reason many of you guys think they are among the best.

Yeah, but their front four is as good as anyone in the NFL and what is our weakness again?

Oh yeah - Oline!

Cause for Concern!

 

[superpunk]

they have arguably the best passrusher in the NFL in julius peppers. they are a contender with a good defense and they will blitz us. i don't think i'm over-estimating them.

It's not the defense they need to worry about.

If our defense can take away their big play, they cannot - at all - score. They have terrible third down conversion pct, and they are not a good team that can sustain drives. Their offense, even with Smith, has serious problems. Peppers will get his, he's too good not to, but that won't matter if they can't score.

That said - our defense can't take the big play away from anyone. But we did it last year, so there's something....

 

[Hostile]

Than why do you make Winicki wear those Peter Pan outfits?

And don't lie about it because he sent me pictures.

It's the only thing he looks good wearing.

 

[noshame]

Like I said, if we had started the season with him, I'd be more optimistic. Making the switch mid season removes that from the equation. It doesn't have to for everybody. Oh, and please don't tell me what we'd have with Bledsoe back there. I am more than aware of his deficiencies and am not his biggest fan. This can be about Romo vs. Bledsoe for you. It isn't for me and never will be.

Well, I finished falling off the BP bandwagon when he did not start Romo in the Rams game. playing Vinny till the bitter end was bad enough, but playing Bledsoe in the Rams game was purely an attempt to prop up BP's own ego, nothing else. It's costing us now.

 

[Hostile]

Honestly I don't know we could just as easily have been worse than 3-3. Romo has some qualities no doubt about it but we don't know if he can beat the lesser teams let alone the top teams. He is getting his oppertunity now and we will just see how it plays out.

I don't see how we could be worse than 3-3 Dooms. We won our 3 games rather handily. I do see how the same mistakes are the reason why we've lost 3 and might lose some more. So I think we could easily be better than 3-3, but not worse.

 

[Hostile]

*Bells ring, Children sing*

I wanted Bledsoe going into this season, unmistakably. Because of my hopes for the season, I didn't want an inexperienced player with a noted playground mentality trying to take us there, no matter how good he looked preseason. But if this move was in Parcells head, and it obviously was, because all these "smoke" reports resulted in the "fire" they were touting, then it should have been done right away. The first six games are now just a waste. We're at .500, effectively no different than the start of the season.

As for your last sentence.....yeah. And I am never like that.

I'm not either SP. I am often pessimistic, but I don't think pessimist fits me and I know fatalist doesn't. I believe we can win any game against any team on any given Sunday. But not if we keep playing big games like we have been.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't see how we could be worse than 3-3 Dooms. We won our 3 games rather handily. I do see how the same mistakes are the reason why we've lost 3 and might lose some more. So I think we could easily be better than 3-3, but not worse.

In those games Bledsoe did not get picked fact is we don't one way or the other what Romo would have done in those game he could have just as easily thrown for more ints that Bledsoe has we don't know. I'm not saying this as a knock on Romo but in 1/2 he has 3 ints and unless you have a crystal ball I don't think there is anyway to say Romo would or would not have made simular mistakes in these other games even aginst easy teams.

 

[Hostile]

In those games Bledsoe did not get picked fact is we don't one way or the other what Romo would have done in those game he could have just as easily thrown for more ints that Bledsoe has we don't know. I'm not saying this as a knock on Romo but in 1/2 he has 3 ints and unless you have a crystal ball I don't think there is anyway to say Romo would or would not have made simular mistakes in these other games even aginst easy teams.

I'll agree on that for QB play, but in the 3 wins the entire rest of the team played very well. In the 3 losses, they didn't. I think it transcends how our QB has played and ripples through the entire team.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'll agree on that for QB play, but in the 3 wins the entire rest of the team played very well. In the 3 losses, they didn't. I think it transcends how our QB has played and ripples through the entire team.

I agree it takes a team to win games but again we don't know if Romo would have made more mistakes than Drew or not and things like turnovers could have clearly led to more losses. To be fair yes he may have done better we just don't know and for anyone to say different is really getting caught up in the excitment of the move. Bottom line we don't know how Romo would have done or will do in the future but we will find out soon.

 

[Frosty]

No way could Parcels of justified starting a unproven QB who has never took a NFL snap on opening day. Bledsoe had to shoot himself in the foot and DID.

If Parcels can get this team not to give up the BIG Play and not Turn-over the ball 20 times then there is Hope for the season, Maybe not this game, But it needs to turn around and turn around quickly or Parcels shuold start thinking about churning the coaches roster, IMO

 

[Hostile]

No way could Parcels of justified starting a unproven QB who has never took a NFL snap on opening day. Bledsoe had to shoot himself in the foot and DID.

If Parcels can get this team not to give up the BIG Play and not Turn-over the ball 20 times then there is Hope for the season, Maybe not this game, But it needs to turn around and turn around quickly or Parcels shuold start thinking about churning the coaches roster, IMO

That is a somewhat valid point. I concede that it needed to look like we were playing to win it all and going with an unproven at QB might have derailed that illusion.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Honestly, everyone ...Do you think we would be any better than we are now at 3-3 if Romo had been in since the first snap against Jacksonville. I don't...So that said, I think we may not get any better but we certainly cannot be any worse. Opinions?

The honsest answer here is No.

Most likely we still beat the three horrible teams we have beaten and probably lost to the 3 squads we lost too.

This may sound crazy, but maybe just maybe we may have had a chance against Philadelphia. I say this because maybe Jim Johnson doesn't decide to blitz all out because the Quarterback is not Drew Bledsoe and also, maybe Bill Parcells decides to run the ball alot more (which many were confused why we didnt run as much, especially in the first half) with Romo in, even though he did say, he will not dumb down the playbook for Romo.

But realistic, nah, we are still 3-3 and maybe even an extra loss, earlier as Romo was getting his feet wet.

 

[chinch]

In other words, yes, I do believe 5-1 or 4-2 was possible with either Bledsoe or Romo at QB. Look closely at our losses.

5-1 with Romo was unrealistic... totally unrealistic. Something to wish and hope for but certainly not expect. Even with Drew playing perfect 5-1 would have been a near miracle considering how we finished last year.

IMHO we WOULD be 5-1 today with avg QB caretaking (the giants had us whipped as a team from the opening drive). I'd have expected Romo to throw away 1-2 games not Drew. Tuna probably felt the same way, hence the abrupt change.

 

[Hostile]

5-1 with Romo was unrealistic... totally unrealistic. Something to wish and hope for but certainly not expect. Even with Drew playing perfect 5-1 would have been a near miracle considering how we finished last year.

IMHO we WOULD be 5-1 today with avg QB caretaking (the giants had us whipped as a team from the opening drive). I'd have expected Romo to throw away 1-2 games not Drew. Tuna probably felt the same way, hence the abrupt change.

You're not paying attention to what I am saying at all are you?

 

[chinch]

You're not paying attention to what I am saying at all are you?

what?

 

[Hostile]

what?

That's what I thought.

 

[trueblue1687]

Like I said, if we had started the season with him, I'd be more optimistic. Making the switch mid season removes that from the equation. It doesn't have to for everybody. Oh, and please don't tell me what we'd have with Bledsoe back there. I am more than aware of his deficiencies and am not his biggest fan. This can be about Romo vs. Bledsoe for you. It isn't for me and never will be.

It has nothing to do with a "versus" of any sort. It's as simple as having a choice of either - or. All I'm really saying is you've got to take a shot after some point if Bledsoe don't work. Starting Romo @ the start of the season wouldn't be very smart either when you at least THINK that Bledsoe would benefit from some offensive improvements (or suspected improvements) like OL and receiver...Fasano, etc. I, too wish we could have the best player at every position, but QB has to be the toughest to hit successfully for a team. I still remember Tom Landry switching to a 10th rounder and pulling Craig Morton. That worked out OK I think. But, we've not had a better QB since (including AIkman). Don't through ther baby out with the bath water yet, at least see how the games are played before you fall on the knife.

 

[Hostile]

It has nothing to do with a "versus" of any sort. It's as simple as having a choice of either - or. All I'm really saying is you've got to take a shot after some point if Bledsoe don't work. Starting Romo @ the start of the season wouldn't be very smart either when you at least THINK that Bledsoe would benefit from some offensive improvements (or suspected improvements) like OL and receiver...Fasano, etc. I, too wish we could have the best player at every position, but QB has to be the toughest to hit successfully for a team. I still remember Tom Landry switching to a 10th rounder and pulling Craig Morton. That worked out OK I think. But, we've not had a better QB since (including AIkman). Don't through ther baby out with the bath water yet, at least see how the games are played before you fall on the knife.

Some of you guys need to read closer or ask clarifying questions. Not sure which. The things you assume are just not even close to what I'm saying in most instances.

The change at QB has very little to do with me no longer having expectations for this team. Yes, it plays a part. The team is under achieving, not just the QBs. 53 guys. Because of that I have curtailed my expectations and will just enjoy the season as much as I can.

As such I would rather we had begun the season with Romo instead of wasting 5 and 1/2 games of his time. In my opinion both our QBs have played terrible to this point, but they are not alone. So it isn't "either/or" for me about Romo and Bledsoe, it's "and."

I'm not "falling on the knife" or giving up. I'm simply saying there's no reason to have high expectations any more. Yes, again the QB play has a part in that equation. Now if the team gets going, maybe I can revive those expectations, but I need to see evidence that they can before I waste my time and energy hoping for something that may never materialize.

If others want to say the grass is already greener, that's there business. I don't see greener until the fertilizer gets activated and soaks in. If you know what I mean.

 

[trueblue1687]

Some of you guys need to read closer or ask clarifying questions. Not sure which. The things you assume are just not even close to what I'm saying in most instances.

The change at QB has very little to do with me no longer having expectations for this team. Yes, it plays a part. The team is under achieving, not just the QBs. 53 guys. Because of that I have curtailed my expectations and will just enjoy the season as much as I can.

As such I would rather we had begun the season with Romo instead of wasting 5 and 1/2 games of his time. In my opinion both our QBs have played terrible to this point, but they are not alone. So it isn't "either/or" for me about Romo and Bledsoe, it's "and."

I'm not "falling on the knife" or giving up. I'm simply saying there's no reason to have high expectations any more. Yes, again the QB play has a part in that equation. Now if the team gets going, maybe I can revive those expectations, but I need to see evidence that they can before I waste my time and energy hoping for something that may never materialize.

If others want to say the grass is already greener, that's there business. I don't see greener until the fertilizer gets activated and soaks in. If you know what I mean.

I guess that since you posted in a thread that lead off with the question of whether or not the QB change was beneficial, I assumed you were actually speaking in context of this thread. I think I'm reading fine...maybe your just not saying what you mean. It almost sounds like you're saying they need to be winning or it's "a waste of time" ?? Either way, it's like you said...your opinion to have.

 

[Hostile]

I guess that since you posted in a thread that lead off with the question of whether or not the QB change was beneficial, I assumed you were actually speaking in context of this thread. I think I'm reading fine...maybe your just not saying what you mean. It almost sounds like you're saying they need to be winning or it's "a waste of time" ?? Either way, it's like you said...your opinion to have.

For me it isn't a simple, "yeah, rah rah rah, let's go" or a "we're doomed." I don't put that much faith in one player turning around fortunes. Hence why I clrified my statements to include the entire team being a reason why my expectations have been shelved. There is not straight answer yes or no from me on the change at QB. It just isn't that simplistic to me.