When will we ever see Romo?

[iceberg]

Out of the four teams who made the the Conference Championships, only one had a Quarterback that they drafted. And those three teams will probably stick with those respective QB's for years to come.

Not saying that I agree with this "Win Now" attitude but I also believe it's possible to hit on something other than the draft to build a franchise.

yea, and the one that won it drafted their qb last year.

i do fully believe it's possible that way - just not AS possible as actually planning long term and making a committment vs. lobbing on some band aids and hoping it all holds together.

 

[Jersey]

Hopefully, we NEVER, EVER have to see him in a game. Some people just don't know a dang thing about football.:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[mschmidt64]

don't people keep pointing to a 3 year rule? if you've not shown it in 3 years you won't? : )

Maybe he HAS shown something.

You just don't know it because you are the average ignorant fan.

Parcells keeps us in the dark in a lot of these matters and that's the way it should be.

 

[iceberg]

Maybe he HAS shown something.

You just don't know it because you are the average ignorant fan.

Parcells keeps us in the dark in a lot of these matters and that's the way it should be.

i am NOT average!!!!

if you wanna be kept in the dark you'd not be in a forum talking about the future of a team. make up your own mind, dude.

 

[mschmidt64]

i am NOT average!!!!

It certainly wouldn't take a large effort from you to convince me otherwise.

You're right.... below average.

 

[aznhalf]

yea, and the one that won it drafted their qb last year.

i do fully believe it's possible that way - just not AS possible as actually planning long term and making a committment vs. lobbing on some band aids and hoping it all holds together.

Agreed.

However there is always the possibility that you commit and you still miss, and you end up with the likes of a Harrington, Boller, Ramsey, or Brooks and years of rebuilding with no franchise QB to show for it.

 

[iceberg]

It certainly wouldn't take a large effort from you to convince me otherwise.

You're right.... below average.

you wanna get into it - PM me and i'll rip you another one. till then, stop the insults dude. this ain't the place for 'em.

 

[iceberg]

Agreed.

However there is always the possibility that you commit and you still miss, and you end up with the likes of a Harrington, Boller, Ramsey, or Brooks and years of rebuilding with no franchise QB to show for it.

agree - it's a risk either way. i just feel it's a bigger risk with less % on the ultimate return to band aid things vs. plan things.

 

[mschmidt64]

you wanna get into it - PM me and i'll rip you another one.

No you won't.

till then, stop the insults dude. this ain't the place for 'em.

Then stop crying about Romo.

He's a guy our staff likes and we're developing him. I don't know if he's going to turn into Jake Delhomme or not but you certainly don't either.

As of right now, there isn't anything rational to complain about with Tony. He's by far exceeded expecations.

 

[iceberg]

No you won't.

Then stop crying about Romo.

He's a guy our staff likes and we're developing him. I don't know if he's going to turn into Jake Delhomme or not but you certainly don't either.

As of right now, there isn't anything rational to complain about with Tony. He's by far exceeded expecations.

PM coming.

 

[mschmidt64]

PM coming.

Do you have another point to make?

Tony Romo is just fine.

You can cite the three year rule or wax rhetoric about how he "should have shown something by now," but you are not only wrong, you are also jumping to a hysterical conclusion that he HASN'T shown something.

You don't know that. Don't pretend like you do.

 

[cobra]

When will we see Romo? Are you looking for a specific time?

How about: October 12, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.?

Or, in the alternative, how about the self-evidently obvious answer: WHEN HE IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK ON THE TEAM.

 

[iceberg]

Do you have another point to make?

Tony Romo is just fine.

You can cite the three year rule or wax rhetoric about how he "should have shown something by now," but you are not only wrong but you are jumping to a hysterical conclusion that he HASN'T shown something.

You don't know that. Don't pretend like you do.

and you don't know that he has. my "3 year rule" was a "ha ha" much like my saying i'm not just AVERAGE.

if parcells and drew are here 2 more years, will romo be "just fine" never taking a snap? if we don't show more committment to players we feel SHOULD be here, then why should they stay?

 

[iceberg]

When will we see Romo? Are you looking for a specific time?

How about: October 12, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.?

Or, in the alternative, how about the self-evidently obvious answer: WHEN HE IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK ON THE TEAM.

and we're gonna know this from practice and practice only?

we've had chances to let another qb get some snaps, practice during a game. we just didn't take 'em. you can defend it, explain it, and try to justifiy all you want but those on the side (of which yes i'm on) of letting your players play when you get a chance are yes, upset we let those chances go by and we're NO BETTER OFF than before that chance.

 

[mschmidt64]

and you don't know that he has.

What I know is that he is an undrafted free agent that our coaching staff (in fact, now TWO coaching staffs) is in love with.

And we turned down a third round pick from the Jets to keep him.

That speaks for itself. He has value.

Whether as a backup or otherwise.

So your quips about the three year rule amount to nothing in my esteem. The signs say that the people who count have seen enough.

 

[iceberg]

What I know is that he is an undrafted free agent that our coaching staff (in fact, now TWO coaching staffs) is in love with.

And we turned down a third round pick from the Jets to keep him.

That speaks for itself. He has value.

Whether as a backup or otherwise.

So your quips about the three year rule amount to nothing in my esteem. The signs say that the people who count have seen enough.

again - my 3 year rule was HA HA meant to be funny because i've seen people use it but no, i don't think it applies to qb's - esp ones never even allowed to hit the field ONE TIME in those 3 years.

at this point i have no idea what you're arguing about (much less care). we agree romo has value. i'd like to see him get to play, you don't care if he ever does.

let's just leave it at that.

 

[jackrussell]

Parcells is not going to sacrifice a season just to prove to the fans what he already knows and that is Romo and Henson are not ready to take this team over. I don't think it is the fact that Bill does not want to see a young QB play he has done it before but he did not return to football to play pre-season football during the reg season. I like Romo and hope the best for him but the truth of the matter is there is a good reason teams did not bother to draft him, he played in a lower level of college football and his skill level was not that great.

You can't make it anymore simple than that.

Though there are those that can make it more complicated.

 

[speedkilz88]

You will see Romo on the field in 2007, in a Denver Broncos uniform. He will replace Jake the Fake sometime that season.

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

well then i hope bledsoe gets hurt so we can see what he;s got

:bang2: :bang2: What the hell were you thinking with that comment? You just opened yourself up for a cyber-asswhooping by a lot of people on this forum, and I can blame them. You are an idiot for wishing an injury on the best QB we have on the team just so you can see someone else play.

 

[felix360]

:bang2: :bang2: What the hell were you thinking with that comment? You just opened yourself up for a cyber-asswhooping by a lot of people on this forum, and I can blame them. You are an idiot for wishing an injury on the best QB we have on the team just so you can see someone else play.

: :shoot2: :shoot1: :chainsaw: :chop:

bring it on, cyberfight its on haha