Would you have traded Romo

[Ren]

And your exactly the kinda person that trades away a franchise QB for a question mark.

A grass is greener type.

We're not getting 10 more years out of Romo and we're not competing for a SB this season and probably not next. Romo's value is as high as it's going to get right now and he's age is going to become a factor here real soon, we're not as close to a SB as we like to think. If we end up with a franchise QB with a future that's more the 3-4 years then hell yeah the grass is greener.

The potential gains far outweigh the risks, with Romo we get the late 90s all over again. People love Romo partly cause of the crap we had before him yet hanging on to him to long might put us right back in that position if we pass up an opportunity for someone else in order to hang on to that a few more years

 

[Ren]

You realize that teams have won with less at QB than Romo right? So it does take a TEAM. If we can build around him from inside out (OL/DL) like the Steelers, Raven...
Right now with the teams we been fielding, Romo is one of the few reason we have a chance to win every game we play. Every Sunday I know that we can win the game unlike the days with Bledsoe, Testeverde, Carter....etc.....I was sad to watch every Sunday knowing that it takes a minor miracle for us to win with those QBs.

So no, lets not trade away our hope. If you guarentee that FILL IN THE BLANK QB can lead us to a SB then ok I'll trade Romo but short of that no. I will draft a QB to develop for the future. If one falls to us in 1st or 2nd even.

Which just goes to show he's not as essential as a lot of people think, this team has a lot of holes if we could fill those by trading him and still get a decent QB we'd be in much better shape then trying to balance the cap while adding a player a year and watching him get older and his skill fade trying to hit that magical balance when everything comes together

Hershel Walker was a great player for us, what we got in return helped us win 3 SBs. We would have never done that by hanging on to him

 

[rcaldw]

Wasn't that the year that Rivers injured his knee and put off the surgery until after the playoffs?

Craig

Yes it was.

 

[UVAwahoos]

Been saying this forever.

Unfortunately, about 90% of Tony's starting career is going to end up being spent under an incredibly inexperienced OC in Garrett who had done nothing but "develop" Joey Harrington for two years in Miami before he was entrusted with the job here. And Chicago couldn't get rid of Wade Wilson fast enough.

How do we know Tony is being trained, taught, and managed the right way? We really don't. But he's going to take the heat for it.

I just can't believe that Tony would be the exact same player if he'd been tutored by Norv or Mike Holmgren all these years.

I'm not sure why this is so largely ignored by the fanbase. Garrett has been learning his own position a lot of the time here. I doubt that developing Romo has been top of his priority list. He has even more responsibilities now as head coach. The top QBs in the league have all had the benefit of solid, experienced, grizzled veteran coaching. Wade Wilson just doesn't seem to fit that profile.

 

[Wimbo]

I've got bad news for this argument though. I understand it, and agree with the fact that we went through a long QB desert. However, the bad news is that we will have to search for another QB anyway, LIKE IT OR NOT, in a short time. For all those who like to think of Romo as a new player, he is into his 30's already.

People who think we have found our QB for the next 10 years are just wrong, and I actually think that 5 years is probably stretching it.

That doesn't change my arguement at all. Just like the saying "it is easier to find a new job when you already have a job"... it is easier to "find your next QB when you already have a QB". Take the Packers, for example. They drafted Rodgers in the first round in the 2005 draft, after a season in which Favre lead the team to their division championship with 30 TD passes & a 92.4 QBR. Favre remained their starting QB for 3 more seasons before the Rodgers era began. This allowed Rodgers to develop without the pressure of being an NFL starter. You can argue that the Packers should have made the change a year sooner, but that is a textbook example of how to bring in a new QB.
Yes, this team needs to start thinking about who the next QB will be. But, that plan should include several more years with Romo at the helm. Trading away your franchise QB while he is in his prime when you have no heir-apparent is sheer lunacy.

 

[rcaldw]

That doesn't change my arguement at all. Just like the saying "it is easier to find a new job when you already have a job"... it is easier to "find your next QB when you already have a QB". Take the Packers, for example. They drafted Rodgers in the first round in the 2005 draft, after a season in which Favre lead the team to their division championship with 30 TD passes & a 92.4 QBR. Favre remained their starting QB for 3 more seasons before the Rodgers era began. This allowed Rodgers to develop without the pressure of being an NFL starter. You can argue that the Packers should have made the change a year sooner, but that is a textbook example of how to bring in a new QB.
Yes, this team needs to start thinking about who the next QB will be. But, that plan should include several more years with Romo at the helm. Trading away your franchise QB while he is in his prime when you have no heir-apparent is sheer lunacy.

I think you make good points, except the premise was getting 2 1st round picks. I think the plan would be (if one chose to do that) to make sure you get a QB with one of those #1's. Indeed, the only way I do that deal is if I'm pretty sure I could turn those 2- #1's and some other things into a lock for getting Andrew Luck. And I gotta tell you, I think if I could be fairly certain of getting the #1 overall, I would do that deal.

It is all a moot point anyway. Raiders did the deal, and we aren't getting the #1 overall.

 

[ChopBlock]

We're not getting 10 more years out of Romo and we're not competing for a SB this season and probably not next. Romo's value is as high as it's going to get right now and he's age is going to become a factor here real soon, we're not as close to a SB as we like to think. If we end up with a franchise QB with a future that's more the 3-4 years then hell yeah the grass is greener.

The potential gains far outweigh the risks, with Romo we get the late 90s all over again. People love Romo partly cause of the crap we had before him yet hanging on to him to long might put us right back in that position if we pass up an opportunity for someone else in order to hang on to that a few more years

Exactly.

Romo is better than the garbage Jerry brought in here in the early part of the last decade, but if you trade him for a couple of first rounders you don't have to settle for just garbage going forward.

And like you said, this team isn't going to the SB this year and will be fortunate to just make the playoffs. And with the way Romo has a proficiency for throwing games away I don't see us ever winning the 3-4 straight postseason games necessary to win a Super Bowl with him. And at 32 he's not going to be getting any younger or better.