Trade Romo?

[hendog]

It would be hard for a sane person to have come back for that post.

But not hard for bbgun.

 

[theogt]

I didn't like the contemptuous, dismissive reaction to this guy's question. To call the idea of a Romo trade "insane" is itself insane. Romo hasn't amassed enough skins on the wall to be deemed "trade proof." For all we know, he's a flash in the pan, and if proven studs like Walker, Bledsoe, Haley, Portis, and Montana can be moved, so can dear old Tony.

If a team would be willing to give us what they gave us for Walker, that's a different story. Bringing that up is pointless, though, because no one is going to give up that much.

Bledsoe? Proven stud? LOLZ!

Portis was traded for one of the best cornerbacks to play the game and a second round pick. Running backs in the Denver system seem to be a dime a dozen. QBs in the Dallas system are a much rarer commodity.

Montana was at the end of his career. They had a HOF quarterback playing behind him. I'm not so sure Matt Baker is a HOF quarterback.

Start over. Draft one high for a change. Trade for a proven starter who's languishing or disgruntled on another team. If Romo can be picked off the junk pile, so can someone else. The point is that there's not enough evidence that he's for real or the guy. Therefore, he can be moved.

Yeah, because guys like Romo are a dime a dozen. Sometimes it's hard to take you seriously.

 

[bbgun]

If a team would be willing to give us what they gave us for Walker, that's a different story. Bringing that up is pointless, though, because no one is going to give up that much.

Bledsoe? Proven stud? LOLZ!

Portis was traded for one of the best cornerbacks to play the game and a second round pick. Running backs in the Denver system seem to be a dime a dozen. QBs in the Dallas system are a much rarer commodity.

Montana was at the end of his career. They had a HOF quarterback playing behind him. I'm not so sure Matt Baker is a HOF quarterback.

Yeah, because guys like Romo are a dime a dozen. Sometimes it's hard to take you seriously.

The Cards traded Jake Plummer. The Pack traded guys like Brunell, Brooks, and Hasselbeck. Skins traded Stan Humphries. Bucs traded Young. Trading Romo is not unthinkable, okay? He's not a 26-yo Aikman with several strong years under his belt. He's an anomaly. He's a mystery. And if the price is right, he can be had.

 

[Cochese]

I am sorry, but this is all dimwit talk. Trade Romo? Why? He has shown he has the talent and intelligence, he struggles when he is the only person on offense who can get yards............like every other QB in the league.

 

[bbgun]

Yeah, because guys like Romo are a dime a dozen.

Well, they are until they prove otherwise. It's not hard to come out of nowhere or off the bench and have big games in this league. Jason Garrett did it numerous times. Or that guy KC was rolling with early in the year. Hell, Kitna shredded us. You think Detroit considers him to be the answer? So spare me the "trading Romo is unthinkable" mentality.

 

[theogt]

The Cards traded Jake Plummer. The Pack traded guys like Brunell, Brooks, and Hasselbeck. Skins traded Stan Humphries. Bucs traded Young. Trading Romo is not unthinkable, okay? He's not a 26-yo Aikman with several strong years under his belt. He's an anomaly. He's a mystery. And if the price is right, he can be had.

Plummer - What the hell? Plummer sucked it up for years and was signed by Denver as a free agent.

All of the Packers you named - Brett Favre (enough said).

Steven Young - Had 2 horrible seasons with the Bucs and they had just drafted Vinny T first overall in the draft.

Stan Humphries? You can pull out all the obscure trades out of your arse all you want, but Romo isn't being traded.

The thread received the proper response.

 

[bbgun]

Plummer - What the hell? Plummer sucked it up for years and was signed by Denver as a free agent.

All of the Packers you named - Brett Favre (enough said).

Steven Young - Had 2 horrible seasons with the Bucs and they had just drafted Vinny T first overall in the draft.

Stan Humphries? You can pull out all the obscure trades out of your arse all you want, but Romo isn't being traded.

The thread received the proper response.

Yep, Tony will be staying. Not because he's great, but because the short-term alternatives are worse. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Message to Jerry: no extensions till the end of the 2007 season.

Correction: I think Plummer was a UFA.

 

[theogt]

Yep, Tony will be staying. Not because he's great, but because the short-term alternatives are worse. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Message to Jerry: no extensions till the end of the 2007 season.

Correction: I think Plummer was a UFA.

Parcells thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Jerry thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Aikman thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

99% of this board thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Stop taking contrarian positions just because they're contrarian and stop and think for a moment.

 

[Cochese]

Parcells thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Jerry thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Aikman thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

99% of this board thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Stop taking contrarian positions just because they're contrarian and stop and think for a moment.

I just dont understand it. They are all over him one week and comparing him to piece of crap worthless NFL QB's the next.

 

[bbgun]

Parcells thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Baloney. Half the time he's poormouthing the kid and warning against overconfidence. You obviously weren't listening.

Jerry thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Ha! He hopes that's the case. Jerrah loves him some bargains. Hell, he was lobbying for Bled to start the Carolina game.

Aikman thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Irrelevant. Aikman also personally lobbied for the Joey Galloway trade and the LaFleur selection. Great eye for talent.

99% of this board thinks he's the QB of the future for the Cowboys.

Now I know I'm right!

Stop taking contrarian positions just because they're contrarian and stop and think for a moment.

Stop elevating players beyond where they belong.

 

[theogt]

Yeah, Parcells doesn't think the kid has a future, but he benched Drew Bledsoe who you (just minutes ago) claimed was a proven stud.

BUSTED!

 

[bbgun]

Yeah, Parcells doesn't think the kid has a future, but he benched Drew Bledsoe who you (just minutes ago) claimed was a proven stud.

BUSTED!

He benched Drew because he was all but washed up. Bled was considered a "stud" when he was traded years ago. Understand? And yes, Romo has a ways to go before he even catches up to Jake Plummer during his Cards days. Remember when he won a playoff game in Dallas? I do.

 

[theogt]

He benched Drew because he was all but washed up. Bled was considered a "stud" when he was traded years ago. Understand? And yes, Romo has a ways to go before he even catches up to Jake Plummer during his Cards days. Remember when he won a playoff game in Dallas? I do.

Romo has a ways to go before he even catches up to Plummer? Wow, I think this is your subtle way of telling me you're kidding.

Plummer's QB ratings while at Arizona: 73.1, 75.0, 50.8, 66.0, 79.6, 65.7

 

[Dale]

The Cards traded Jake Plummer. The Pack traded guys like Brunell, Brooks, and Hasselbeck. Skins traded Stan Humphries. Bucs traded Young. Trading Romo is not unthinkable, okay? He's not a 26-yo Aikman with several strong years under his belt. He's an anomaly. He's a mystery. And if the price is right, he can be had.

Just because a player "can" be moved doesn't mean he should.

I agree that Romo isn't untradeable. No player is. It's possible a new coach would come in and want a different style QB.

I just don't think we could do that much better, frankly. We have a 10-game sample of Romo. We've seen him at his best and his worst. It's not like we're looking at just one game or a few quarters here.

How many quarterbacks have been better than Romo's combined good/bad over those 10 games? Could you name more than, say, 10 names? I doubt it.

Romo's one of the better quarterbacks in this league already. He's not Tom Brady. He's not even Peyton Manning. But the league isn't overflowing with great quarterback play and we've got a guy that can lift this team on his shoulders on occasion.

I think the Ware comparison above is a good one. Should we consider trading him in the hopes of getting an even more disruptive pass rusher? Should we consider dumping Newman for a corner capable of making more "big" plays? Should we unload Witten for a more athletic tight end capable of better attacking poorly thrown balls?

I just don't think it's wise to trade a good, young quarterback to go shooting for the stars in the draft at this point.

 

[Dale]

He benched Drew because he was all but washed up. Bled was considered a "stud" when he was traded years ago. Understand? And yes, Romo has a ways to go before he even catches up to Jake Plummer during his Cards days. Remember when he won a playoff game in Dallas? I do.

In six years as Arizona's starter, he once threw more touchdowns than interceptions. He never completed 60 percent of his passes. Never averaged more than 7.44 yards per throw. Never threw more than 18 TDs. And he never even cracked an 80 QB rating for a season.

Hell, the guy once threw 9 TDs and 24 INTs.

Your opinion of Romo must be EXTREMELY low to have made the quoted assessment.

Phillip Rivers has yet to win a playoff game. I'd happily take him over the Jake Plummer that ever graced Arizona's field.

 

[bbgun]

In six years as Arizona's starter, he once threw more touchdowns than interceptions. He never completed 60 percent of his passes. Never averaged more than 7.44 yards per throw. Never threw more than 18 TDs. And he never even cracked an 80 QB rating for a season.

Hell, the guy once threw 9 TDs and 24 INTs.

Your opinion of Romo must be EXTREMELY low to have made the quoted assessment.

Phillip Rivers has yet to win a playoff game. I'd happily take him over the Jake Plummer that ever graced Arizona's field.

And if Tony had played in that exact same Arizona offense surrounded by the exact same players, the results would have been very similar--if not worse. In Dallas, he had the benefit of stepping into a high-octane offense surrounded by skill players at wideout and a respectable running game. And his recent TD to INT ratio is looking very Plummerish, wouldn't you say? Jake did take his team to the playoffs and did win on the road--something Tony can hope to replicate this Saturday. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more Romo plays the more other teams have gotten wise to him. Likewise, at least 19 or 20 NFL teams would elect to keep "their" guy over Tony if you offered a straight up trade. Trading Tony is very unlikely, but not unthinkable.

 

[Cochese]

And if Tony had played in that exact same Arizona offense surrounded by the exact same players, the results would have been very similar--if not worse. In Dallas, he had the benefit of stepping into a high-octane offense surrounded by skill players at wideout and a respectable running game. And his recent TD to INT ratio is looking very Plummerish, wouldn't you say? Jake did take his team to the playoffs and did win on the road--something Tony can hope to replicate this Saturday. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more Romo plays the more other teams have gotten wise to him. Likewise, at least 19 or 20 NFL teams would elect to keep "their" guy over Tony if you offered a straight up trade. Trading Tony is very unlikely, but not unthinkable.

19 or 20?? The best seed in the NFC would die for a QB of Romo's caliber. What a friggin joke of a post.

 

[theogt]

And if Tony had played in that exact same Arizona offense surrounded by the exact same players, the results would have been very similar--if not worse. In Dallas, he had the benefit of stepping into a high-octane offense surrounded by skill players at wideout and a respectable running game. And his recent TD to INT ratio is looking very Plummerish, wouldn't you say? Jake did take his team to the playoffs and did win on the road--something Tony can hope to replicate this Saturday. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more Romo plays the more other teams have gotten wise to him. Likewise, at least 19 or 20 NFL teams would elect to keep "their" guy over Tony if you offered a straight up trade. Trading Tony is very unlikely, but not unthinkable.

Yeah, because the Falcons, Giants, and Lions all had Tony figured out.

Trading Tony is so unlikely that the suggestion deserves being laughed at.

 

[Dale]

And if Tony had played in that exact same Arizona offense surrounded by the exact same players, the results would have been very similar--if not worse. In Dallas, he had the benefit of stepping into a high-octane offense surrounded by skill players at wideout and a respectable running game. And his recent TD to INT ratio is looking very Plummerish, wouldn't you say? Jake did take his team to the playoffs and did win on the road--something Tony can hope to replicate this Saturday. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more Romo plays the more other teams have gotten wise to him. Likewise, at least 19 or 20 NFL teams would elect to keep "their" guy over Tony if you offered a straight up trade. Trading Tony is very unlikely, but not unthinkable.

I watched Drew Bledsoe fail miserably with the same cast Tony Romo has. Bledsoe couldn't crack a 70 QB rating. He threw more interceptions than touchdowns. So, yes, I have a hard time believing Tony's success can be largely attributed to his supporting cast.

Secondly, I'd like to see the list of the 20 teams that would elect to keep their guy over Romo. And even if that were the case, I'm not sure what that shows. Teams often like to keep continuity. I'm more interested not in who the team would prefer but who is actually the better quarterback. I'd like to see the 20 passers that are better.

I guess what I'm getting at is I bet you could find teams that wouldn't take Peyton Manning over their current guy. That doesn't mean their guy is better. Manning's 30, can't win a big game, etc. Don't think San Francisco might be more inclined to keep their young, up-and-comer in Smith at this point? Doesn't make him better now, or ever. Would San Diego risk disrupting team chemistry by trading for Brady or Manning when they know Rivers plays well in their system? I'm not so sure.

We knew Romo would hit a rough patch. And he has. But despite the team's 1-3 record over the last four games, Romo has thrown 6 TDs and 6 INTs. We could do a lot worse than a quarterback who, at his worst, is throwing as many INTs as TDs. He has a 77.1 QB rating in his "worst" month -- which, by the way, is the exact same QB rating of Drew Bledsoe's career, for comparison's sake.

Lastly, you suggest teams have started to figure Romo out. Yet, two of his last three games have featured 70-percent completion rates with 110-plus QB ratings. And he's averaged 300 yards and thrown, on average, 2 TDs and 1 INTs in those two games. (Note: I don't see Romo dropping the ball in phantom fashion as evidence of teams figuring him out.)

I realize those two games came against mediocre to poor competition. But I also realize that in Romo's worst two games -- Philly and New Orleans -- seemingly no one on this Dallas Cowboys roster stepped up. I don't know how much blame to place squarely on him; he deserves a large portion, but how much?

I'll agree that Romo is still largely an unknown quantity. Ten games does not a career make. But no young quarterback is "known." And at a position that's so hard to find quality, I don't' feel like we should unload what is obviously a talented player for the first pretty girl we see across the party.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

And if Tony had played in that exact same Arizona offense surrounded by the exact same players, the results would have been very similar--if not worse. In Dallas, he had the benefit of stepping into a high-octane offense surrounded by skill players at wideout and a respectable running game. And his recent TD to INT ratio is looking very Plummerish, wouldn't you say? Jake did take his team to the playoffs and did win on the road--something Tony can hope to replicate this Saturday. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more Romo plays the more other teams have gotten wise to him. Likewise, at least 19 or 20 NFL teams would elect to keep "their" guy over Tony if you offered a straight up trade. Trading Tony is very unlikely, but not unthinkable.

I live in Arizona so I have seen Plummer play many times and he was terrible. Shannahan compensated for his inability to read defenses by having him constantly run bootlegs and throw outside the pocket which is the only thing Plummer can do. The Broncos beat most teams because they can run the ball effectively. Shannahan would design bootlegs for Plummer so he could throw or run for the first down. However, the quality teams in the playoffs could force Plummer to remain in the pocket which will kill his game since he had trouble reading defenses and making decisions in the pocket. This is why he always tanked in the playoffs and threw multiple interceptions.

The Cardinals had a decent offensive coordinator in Mark Tresman but Plummer was too stupid to be able to digest his offense. So Plummer would throw multiple picks during most of the game because he couldn't read defenses. But Plummer always flourished in the 2 minute offense because he didn't have to think and he could just run his favorite bootlegs and ad lib which he is good at. However, to succeed in the NFL, you have to be able read defense and throw in the pocket which Romo has shown he can do.

If you want to criticize Romo, criticize his naivete. Romo thinks like a young Brett Favre in that he feels he needs to make plays for his team to succeed instead of showing more patience. That will be fixed over time. However, if someone is dumb and can't read defenses and make decisions, that is very hard to correct as shown by Quincy Carter. Romo is not one of these types of QB's. He is a smart kid. However, QB's like Plummer were never students of the game.