MichaelWinicki;2979852 said:
I must say Rich, I've always considered you one of the most level-headed people on this board... But your sudden GROR (Get Rid Of Romo) has left me puzzled.
Yeah, the guy has "warts", but from where I'm standing I do not see any QB out there who doesn't have a weakness or two.
I honestly can't see it being very easy to find another QB with the production capability of Romo. Not when you combine his accuracy numbers with his elusiveness in the pocket with his eagerness to look for the "big throw" (yeah, I consider that to be a positive). The fact is the guy is going to be in the top-5 of all QB's when it comes to passer rating very, very shortly.
Yeah, I can understand how you would want a QB who makes less mistakes, but I'm betting you're going to get one with much less production. You just don't find guys who can maintain a 95 passer rating under a log.
And to think that's going to take a single 1st round draft pick QB to replace Romo-- well, I think the odds are stacked against it. Heck, this team could go through 2 or 3 or 5 drafted QB's until it found one that could maintain an 85 passer rating.
I'm a business guy. An entrepreneur if you will. And contrary to popular opinion, entrepreneurs-- at least the successful ones aren't risk takers. And giving up on Romo in order to give the "keys" over to an unproven rookie scares my entrepreneurial bones to the core.
Good post, Michael. I'm in the same boat.
I think we must stick with Romo if we're going to have any realistic chance to win with this "current" group (Witten, Roy, Barber, etc.). I realize Sanchez, Ryan and Flacco leaves people wetting themselves over the idea of drafting a blue chipper that can get to the playoffs out of the gate, but that's a rarity. We could just as easily get the next Matt Leinart, and I don't think it's the time to roll the dice when you have a core nucleus entering its prime -- including a two-time Pro Bowl quarterback -- just for the off chance that you can land a QB that would be placed three spots higher on the "Top 10 QBs in the NFL" list.
As for the rest of Rich's post, I largely agree with most of the points, but I will disagree on the Flozell and Felix comments.
With Felix, I see potentially an all-time great in terms of being able to produce great plays by the bunches in just limited touches. But I'm not convinced he's the type that will be better with "more than 15" touches a game than he is with 10-12.
Personally, and this is just me, but he's the ideal complementary back. Choice, by contrast, gets better as the game goes on. I thought he was much tougher to tackle in the fourth quarter than the first against Carolina. I think Barber is the same way. Julius Jones, I think, was the same way -- which made him a TERRIBLE complementary back slotted to get less than 10 touches in a game.
Felix, on the other hand, only needs 10 touches to get to 100 yards. He's shown this game after game after game (even despite his injury history). I actually believe we've found a formula that works.
Barber gets in the neighborhood of 18 carries; Felix gets 10-12 touches; Choice gets the rest (though his true time to shine is when there's an injury to the main two cogs).
I don't know that we need to experiment and give Barber less touches -- especially not until Felix proves he can hold up injury-wise for, at the minimum, a five-game stretch. Then, and only then, would I ever consider upping his touches. Just my two cents on the matter.
As for Flozell, he continues to protect Romo's back and is stout against the run. I'm not ready -- and may never be -- to "see" if the same can be said for Free. It could take seeing Romo's season end for that question to be answered. Flozell gets that alarming one penalty a game, but it's worth it as long as he's blocking as well as he is IMO.
