Which QB Would You Trade Romo For?

[Kilyin]

I think that you are probably correct in your observations on the running game (I don't know for certain as I did not see all the Chicago games) but you can almost say that for any QB. Romo had 4 games in which he had a poor QB rating. 73.7 against NYG (1st game) we rushed for 69 yards. Lost. 58.7 NYG (2nd game) we rushed for 110 yards. Lost. 58.8 New Orleans, 116 yards rushing, we lost and 45.5 Phi, 83 yards rushing we lost.

I mean, when you get good production from your running game, you have a much better chance of playing well as a QB. That's kinda for anybody IMO.

We won the second game against the Giants on a Gramatica FG. The common denominator though in the games we did lose, is that we were playing from behind (for the most part) and the opposing teams knew we weren't going to run the ball.

And having the Bears defense and special teams helped Grossman out as well. How many games did their defense win basically by themselves? Quite a few. I guess my main point is when you look at the Bears, they were damn good at everything except QB.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We won the second game against the Giants on a Gramatica FG. The common denominator though in the games we did lose, is that we were playing from behind (for the most part) and the opposing teams knew we weren't going to run the ball.

And having the Bears defense and special teams helped Grossman out as well. How many games did their defense win basically by themselves? Quite a few. I guess my main point is when you look at the Bears, they were damn good at everything except QB.

OK, that's a fair statement but still, Grossman had good games in the 2006 season. Not every win was because Jones pulled him out or special teams won it. I think he showed some potential in those games. I also think he played horrible in other games. That's what young QBs do. There up and down. Time will tell with Grossman.

 

[AbeBeta]

Doesn't have to be a stellar performance to make teams respect the fact that you're willing to run the ball.

So by that regard Romo was successful b/c of Thomas' brother. After all, we were willing to run the ball last year.

And I was beginning to think you had me on ignore, sweetheart.

Had my finger on the button but I can't quit you.

 

[tomson75]

OK, that's a fair statement but still, Grossman had good games in the 2006 season. Not very win was because Jones pulled him out or special teams won it. I think he showed some potential in those games. I also think he played horrible in other games. That's what young QBs do. There up and down. Time will tell with Grossman.

I'm just glad our first year starter didn't have "bad games" in the same mold as the "bad games" the bears first year starter had...that alone justifies balking at any notion of taking Grossman over Romo IMHO.

I wouldn't deny that the kid showed positive flashes...but his bad flashes were truly ghastly.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm just glad our first year starter didn't have "bad games" in the same mold as the "bad games" the bears first year starter had...that alone justifies balking at any notion of taking Grossman over Romo IMHO.

I wouldn't deny that the kid showed positive flashes...but his bad flashes were truly ghastly.

No arguements there. There are a couple of QBs I would take over Romo right now but Grossman would not be one of them.

Personally, for all the same reasons it would have been a mistake for us to cut Romo in the early years, I think it would be a mistake for the Bears to give up on Grossman. He is going to get better, IMO, the more playing time he gets. I would expect him to improve just like Romo has done. However, I would not trade Romo for Grossman.

 

[percyhoward]

I understand what you're saying Percy. But even though Aikman was done earlier than Gannon, if you came to me after Aikman's 5th season and asked who you would trade Gannon for, given all we know now, I still would have taken Aikman. I would trade a few less years for better play and results.

Who wouldn't, given what we know know. But in the case of Romo, Palmer, and Brees, that's still an unknown. And Romo appears to be the one with the longest shelf life. Maybe we should put Romo in a class (time-wise) with Rivers and Young.

 

[Stautner]

Who wouldn't, given what we know know. But in the case of Romo, Palmer, and Brees, that's still an unknown. And Romo appears to be the one with the longest shelf life. Maybe we should put Romo in a class (time-wise) with Rivers and Young.

I think it's at least a little bit of a stretch to assume Romo has the longest shelf life considering he is the only one of the three that hasn't yet fully proved he belongs.

With the other two you have virtually no risk that they won't pan out - except in case of injury, as with any QB - whereas there is still at least some concern that Romo's late season problems could haunt him in the future.

I doubt Romo is really that much younger either - after all this will be his 5th NFL season.

 

[percyhoward]

I think it's at least a little bit of a stretch to assume Romo has the longest shelf life considering he is the only one of the three that hasn't yet fully proved he belongs.

What you gain in shelf life you give up in the QB being a sure thing. That's a disadvantage with ANY QB who hasn't even played a full season, but not a knock on Romo in particular.

I doubt Romo is really that much younger either - after all this will be his 5th NFL season.

It will be his second season of actually playing, not even his second full season. That's why I said it's not the years, it's the milage. His chances of still being effective at age 35 are much greater than those of guys who were playing full time from age 22. Gannon and Garcia are a couple of examples of over-35 guys who benefitted from sitting out more than 4 full seasons.

 

[Stautner]

What you gain in shelf life you give up in the QB being a sure thing. That's a disadvantage with ANY QB who hasn't even played a full season, but not a knock on Romo in particular.


It will be his second season of actually playing, not even his second full season. That's why I said it's not the years, it's the milage. His chances of still being effective at age 35 are much greater than those of guys who were playing full time from age 22. Gannon and Garcia are a couple of examples of over-35 guys who benefitted from sitting out more than 4 full seasons.

Still being the key word - my point is that there is some question whether he will be a true quality NFL QB AT ALL at this point, so the word still doesn't even apply to Romo (yet) regardless of what age you are projecting.

The logic would work with a rock solid proven entity, but with a guy still trying to prove himself it just doesn't.

 

[percyhoward]

Still being the key word - my point is that there is some question whether he will be a true quality NFL QB AT ALL at this point, so the word still doesn't even apply to Romo (yet) regardless of what age you are projecting.

Applying your logic to the way I see it though, I happen to think "yet" is the key word.

But that's the crux of the argument, and we definitely disagree on it. There is not so much doubt in my mind as there is in yours. We'll see.

 

[Twyst]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=2922525

 

[percyhoward]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=2922525

Would anybody trade Romo for McNair, Boller, AND Troy Smith?

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The Jags.............yea ,they are all set at QB

 

[Stautner]

Applying your logic to the way I see it though, I happen to think "yet" is the key word.

But that's the crux of the argument, and we definitely disagree on it. There is not so much doubt in my mind as there is in yours. We'll see.

The word "yet" OOZES doubt - and that's the point. "Yet" tells you someone or somthing's future is still in doubt - that whatever you are looking toward has not come to fruition and, therefore, may never come to fruition.

That's the point - it's nuts to pass on a sure thing for a longer shelf life of something that may never come to pass.

OF course, if it never comes to pass, then I'm afraid the shelf life wont be nearly as long as you suspect.

Don't get me wrong - I like Romo and think he will end up doing very well, but given the choice you take the sure thing.

 

[percyhoward]

The word "yet" OOZES doubt - and that's the point. "Yet" tells you someone or somthing's future is still in doubt - that whatever you are looking toward has not come to fruition and, therefore, may never come to fruition.

You're getting a little carried away with semantics. I haven't sent in next year's tax returns "yet," but I don't have any doubts about that particular eventuality. Your opinion is 100% right--in your mind. And maybe you're not alone. But it's still speculation, and as long as we're speculating, I'm sure you don't mind if a bit of hope gets mixed in with the expectations.

 

[mmohican29]

Noone in their right mind would trade Tony Romo for Alex Smith... in two seasons as starter, Smith I don't believe has more TD passes than Romo. That's ridiculous. Romo is wayyyyy better than Alex Smith.

 

[Stautner]

You're getting a little carried away with semantics. I haven't sent in next year's tax returns "yet," but I don't have any doubts about that particular eventuality. Your opinion is 100% right--in your mind. And maybe you're not alone. But it's still speculation, and as long as we're speculating, I'm sure you don't mind if a bit of hope gets mixed in with the expectations.

Here are the problems with what you are saying:

1. You have a history of a number of years that helps you determine what your tax return will be - and THAT's what Brees and Palmer have but Romo does not ......... so in truth your tax return analogy actually supports my position.

2. It's silly for you to talk to me about my opinion being specultion, because that's exactly what I've been saying all along - that Romo's future IS SPECULATION - whereas, barring injury, you know what Brees and Palmer are capable of.

My whole point has been that you are banking on speculation whereas I would bank on a sure thing.

 

[percyhoward]

My whole point has been that you are banking on speculation whereas I would bank on a sure thing.

I think you're exaggerating a bit.

And I think this thread is ready to make the jump to theaters.

 

[Stautner]

I think you're exaggerating a bit.

And I think this thread is ready to make the jump to theaters.

Really? You think that compared to Brees and Palmer Romo is the sure thing and their abilities are the ones still up in the air ........ ?

Pretty weird to say that guys who have put together consecutive successful season are "iffy", and a guy who has yet to even play a full season, and who had some mixed results is the proven entity - don't you think?

 

[Kilyin]

Pull out all the stats you want, Grossman is terrible. I'll give you one reason that Grossman managed to have some good games - Thomas Jones took the pressure off him. Now that the Bears lost Jones (in one of the most questionable offseason decisions bar none) he's only going to look worse (if that's possible).

Bookmark it.

Just patting myself on the back.