Which QB Would You Trade Romo For?

[Dhragon]

This is precisely same excuse employed by deadskin fans use to elevate JC and believes is better than Romo.

I don't care if Smith sat for 5 years to study or not the fact is, he is starting a QB and what he has done thus far is a fair game without excuse, just like I would not make any excuses for Romo's numbers or what he failed to do on the field. Aikman's first two years was horrible, Smith's first year was atrocious, his last year stats are not impressive no matter how you want to spin it.

And the 49ers lost their OC ( Norv Turner ), a man given large credit both for Smith's and Gore's production last season. W/O Turner, Smith might backslide.

 

[AbeBeta]

This is precisely same excuse employed by deadskin fans use to elevate JC and believes is better than Romo.

I don't care if Smith sat for 5 years to study or not the fact is, he is starting a QB and what he has done thus far is a fair game without excuse, just like I would not make any excuses for Romo's numbers or what he failed to do on the field. Aikman's first two years was horrible, Smith's first year was atrocious, his last year stats are not impressive no matter how you want to spin it.

It isn't "spin" to put something in context. You see, context is important for making comparisons between players. What you call "making excuses" is important for understanding the #s.

 

[AbeBeta]

And the 49ers lost their OC ( Norv Turner ), a man given large credit both for Smith's and Gore's production last season. W/O Turner, Smith might backslide.

Didn't Romo lose his OC in 2006?

I just don't buy the Norv Turner is a savior angle.

 

[Hostile]

Exactly why I chose not answer it.

Hiya Sarge. It's not that I dislike him either, because I don't.

 

[bbgun]

Hiya Sarge. It's not that I dislike him either, because I don't.

You can never please the fanatics, so don't even try. They think that complimenting a rival QB is a slight towards Romo. They're the same morons who think there's only five other head coaches superior to Wade. Totally incorrigible.

 

[theogt]

You can never please the fanatics, so don't even try. They think that complimenting a rival QB is a slight towards Romo. They're the same morons who think there's only five other head coaches superior to Wade. Totally incorrigible.

And some people don't realize how good he actually is. They're the same morons who think putting him in the top 10 or top 5 of QBs is somehow being a homer. Totally incorrigible.

 

[bbgun]

And some people don't realize how good he actually is. They're the same morons who think putting him in the top 10 or top 5 of QBs is somehow being a homer. Totally incorrigible.

If you're not one of the morons (doubtful), then you have nothing to fret about. Right?

 

[CoCo]

I like to hear all opinions even if they differ from mine. I might disagree or they might win me over or modify my position.

If people truly can't calmly handle contrary opinions, I doubt that telling them that soothes them much.

 

[CoCo]

btw - I think Romo has the potential to be in the upper third of the league. Maybe higher.

But given he's only had 11 starts I might be willing to risk a lower ceiling, or fewer years, to ease some of the doubt.

All that aside, I am quite happy that he'll enter 2007 as our starting QB with the opportunity to erase many of the justifiable doubts.

 

[Zaxor]

I like to hear all opinions even if they differ from mine. I might disagree or they might win me over or modify my position.

If people truly can't calmly handle contrary opinions, I doubt that telling them that soothes them much.

the idea of enlightenment through the exchange of ideas has left most forums and has given way to just being right... even if their wrong

same could be said of the world today... there is no longer what is good for us left... but what is right for me or where is mine.

but that would be more an ideology discussion than a Dallas Cowboy discussion

 

[firehawk350]

It's an interesting look at it, but I gotta say that some teams just have bad QBs, like the Lions. Kitna is like 32 and he just isn't any good.

Buffalo (Losman) - Flashing potential
Miami (Green) - Solid but old
Pats (Brady) - One of the greats
Jets (Pennington) - Good, but injury concerns

Balt (McNair) - Good but injury concerns
Browns (Frye/Quinn) - Poor vet, high-rated rookie
Bengals (Palmer) - Great young QB
Steelers (awfulberger) - Solid young QB

Texans (Schaub) - Flashes of potential
Colts (Manning) - One of the greats
Jags (Leftwich/Garrard) - Poor QB
Titans (Young) - Flashes of potential

Broncos (Cutler) - Flashes of potential
Chiefs (Huard) - Unknown vet, did well last year though
Raiders (Russell) - High-rated rookie
Chargers (Rivers) - Flashes of lots of potential

Cowboys (Romo) - Discussed ad nausem, flashed potential
Eagles (McNabb) - Good QB, injury concerns
Giants (Manning) - Borderline QB, consistency issues
Commanders (Campbell) - Flashed potential

Chicago (Grossman) - Flashes of potential, serious consistency issues
Detriot (Kitna) - Poor vet QB
GB (Farve) - Great QB way past his time
Minnesota (Tavarius) - Unknown

ATL (Vick) - Has the tools, consistency issues
Carolina (Delhomme) - Solid vet QB, consistency issues
NO (Brees) - Great QB
Tampa Bay (Garcia) - Solid QB that's getting old

Cardinals (Leinart) - Flashes potential
Rams (Bulger) - Great QB
49ers (Smith) - Flashes potential
Seahawks (Hasslebeck) - Good QB

Anyways, discounting poor QBs, ones with injury concerns, consistency issues and those getting old, you have 16 QBs that are good now or have potential. 17 if you include Brady Quinn, but I didn't since it would seem absurd since you passed him on the draft. At that point, it's mostly preference.

 

[big dog cowboy]

btw - I think Romo has the potential to be in the upper third of the league. Maybe higher.

Cowboys (Romo) - Discussed ad nausem, flashed potential

Even though it is a overrated way of placing value on a player, you guys forget Romo went to the Pro Bowl just 5 months ago?

 

[Kilyin]

Browns (Frye/Quinn) - Poor vet, high-rated rookie

How is Charlie Frye a "veteran"? He's played two seasons and never started all 16 games.

Grossman is one of the worst QBs in the league. Flashes of potential? Yeah, and Jason Campbell will lead the Foreskins to a Superbowl.

Do you actually read what you post?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Cowboys (Romo) - Discussed ad nausem, flashed potential
Eagles (McNabb) - Good QB, injury concerns
Giants (Manning) - Borderline QB, consistency issues
Commanders (Campbell) - Flashed potential

hilarious

Romo had a 95 QB rating, completed 65 percent of his throws, averaged over 7 yards per attempt, I say he did more than flash potential, to put the 2 together and say they flashed potential is ludicrous, Campbell isn't on Romo's level

 

[firehawk350]

hilarious

Romo had a 95 QB rating, completed 65 percent of his throws, averaged over 7 yards per attempt, I say he did more than flash potential, to put the 2 together and say they flashed potential is ludicrous, Campbell isn't on Romo's level

Yeah, Romo flashed some potential, but to say he fits in other category is ********. He was inconsistent maybe but that's to be expected when he gets his first starts, and I cant put him in with Manning and Brees and Brady and those proven vets... I can't say he has injury concerns, or is getting up there in age. So what other category did I have? Potential and he has it... As a matter of fact, you just hate that I said it. That has been said before me and all of a sudden, you are like, he's attacking our team and get all defensive...

Jason Campbell has shown a lot of potential and if you can't see that, you should get a lobotomy to slow the fall of western civilization.

 

[firehawk350]

How is Charlie Frye a "veteran"? He's played two seasons and never started all 16 games.

Grossman is one of the worst QBs in the league. Flashes of potential? Yeah, and Jason Campbell will lead the Foreskins to a Superbowl.

Do you actually read what you post?

Okay, fine, he just sucks then. I mean, if he's so great, why did Cleveland trade all those picks for Quinn then?

Grossman has potential, he had great games. But struggles mightily with consistency. Or is it Romo is the only one who can have bad games and still have potential?

 

[peplaw06]

Grossman has potential, he had great games. But struggles mightily with consistency. Or is it Romo is the only one who can have bad games and still have potential?

:umm: I don't think Romo had any lines like this.

14-37, 144 yards, 0 TDs, 4 INTs
6-19, 34 yards, 0 TDs, 3 INTs
2-12, 33 yards, 0 TDs, 3 INTs

All in the 2006 season... Romo's bad games were still over 40% completions and he only had one 3 pick game, and that was in his first real game against the Giants.

 

[Kilyin]

Okay, fine, he just sucks then. I mean, if he's so great, why did Cleveland trade all those picks for Quinn then?

Grossman has potential, he had great games. But struggles mightily with consistency. Or is it Romo is the only one who can have bad games and still have potential?

The only thing I said about Frye is he's not a veteran QB. Nobody said anything about him being great. Try to keep up.

And Grossman played horribly in most games. That's why he had a 74 QB rating for the year. That's why he has a 72 career rating. The Bears won games in spite of Grossman. Grossman doesn't have a problem with consistency, he consistently sucks.

Romo had a 95 rating for the year. There's no comparison between the two.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah, Romo flashed some potential, but to say he fits in other category is ********.

Romo flashed more than just potential, he was a very good QB for a good stretch, and even w/ the bad, he still finished in the top 10 in the league

He was inconsistent maybe but that's to be expected when he gets his first starts, and I cant put him in with Manning and Brees and Brady and those proven vets...

you certainly don't put him w/ a QB like Jason Campbell

Jason Campbell has shown a lot of potential and if you can't see that, you should get a lobotomy to slow the fall of western civilization.

:laugh1: he was horrible, I'm glad you saw glimpses through the suckery, and again, you could look at any QB, and find a nugget in his play or 2

it's funny how you began your post saying that there are QBs who are just bad, when Jason Campbell was bad last year, until he proves otherwise, he's a bad QB, don't pit him w/ Romo is all I'm saying

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The only thing I said about Frye is he's not a veteran QB. Nobody said anything about him being great. Try to keep up.

And Grossman played horribly in most games. That's why he had a 74 QB rating for the year. That's why he has a 72 career rating. The Bears won games in spite of Grossman. Grossman doesn't have a problem with consistency, he consistently sucks.

Romo had a 95 rating for the year. There's no comparison between the two.

it's like firehawk didn't see any Bear games, hell, that he didn't pay attention at all to anything but the Commanders last year