Hector Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 How the fuck do you accuse me of being dumb and answer your own question in the next sentence? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just now, Hector said: How the fuck do you accuse me of being dumb and answer your own question in the next sentence? Because you are dumb by believing that the Cowboys should play people seriously in a game that meant nothing and virtually anyone could have gotten hurt because the game only meant something to the Eagles. No GM is assessing someone's value in what's virtually a preseason game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 The only reason they would even let Romo take snaps is as a demonstration to the rest of the league. They didn't give a fuck if he was ready for the playoffs. Is he so brittle that he can't handle an extra series against a defense he already carved up? The whole point is to show people he can walk off the field on his own accord. It doesn't matter if he scored again or went 3 and out. No one is taking him because there isn't enough tape on him since his last injury. That's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, Hector said: The only reason they would even let Romo take snaps is as a demonstration to the rest of the league. They didn't give a fuck if he was ready for the playoffs. Is he so brittle that he can't handle an extra series against a defense he already carved up? The whole point is to show people he can walk off the field on his own accord. It doesn't matter if he scored again or went 3 and out. No one is taking him because there isn't enough tape on him since his last injury. That's the problem. But it doesn't matter if everyone around is playing at half speed and increasing the chance someone gets hurt. Yeah, Romo could have got hurt. But so could have Dak, Sanchez, or anyone else. I'm more shocked the whole team played that Lions game as hard as they did. In the Eagles game, he got a touchdown and stayed in one piece. That's all they needed from him. If he was needed to do ANYTHING in the other games that actually meant something, then it would be different. To let Romo stay in there and get hurt is hustling backwards because you are the one trying to SELL Romo. You can't sell Romo if he is injured again. He looked like Tony Romo long enough in the Eagles game (a game he didn't have to take ANY snaps mind you) to where anyone who needed a QB has a little more info to either buy or sell. If you're still on the fence with Romo after playing so many seasons, you really didn't want Tony Romo anyway. Teams knew ahead of time it was a small chance he was going play. That hasn't stopped them inquiring about OTHER QBs who haven't played that much. People were trying to pry Garoppolo away from NE, and no one knows if he is worth all that attention. No one is going to get the full picture from 1 or 2 games regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1. It's nice to see that Romo is still a smart enough QB to pick apart a mediocre secondary in less than 3 minutes. However, it doesn't squash any fears of him not being able to stay on the field. That's not to say they should have left him in there until he gets hit, but let him get another series or two for a decent sample size. And if he gets hurt, so what? He can be put out to pasture on the NFL Network and they just eat the dead money (which is where this is headed now). Maybe it wouldn't have made much of difference, but right now GMs are behaving as if he is injured when he's not. If somebody is selling me a waterproof whatever, eventually I'm going to ask the motherfucker to dunk it. It's not unreasonable. 2. Jimmy Garoppolo is 25 years old and looked stellar in the last few games he played. That's a ridiculous comparison. I'm a Cowboys fan and even I would advise any team to take Garoppolo over Romo if he were truly on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 14 hours ago, Hector said: 1. However, it doesn't squash any fears of him not being able to stay on the field. They play sixteen games in a regular season. Even if the Eagles called off the dogs, you're not proving anything because it is an exhibition. Moreover, that game was not an advert to sell Tony Romo. If the Giants weren't the Giants and that game actually meant something, there is slim chance Tony Romo even plays. One or two quarters isn't going to tell ANY GM worth his salt if Tony Romo can play an ENTIRE season. 14 hours ago, Hector said: 2. Jimmy Garoppolo is 25 years old and looked stellar in the last few games he played. That's a ridiculous comparison. I'm a Cowboys fan and even I would advise any team to take Garoppolo over Romo if he were truly on the market. Yeah, the Texans bought into Brock Osweiler and look how fast they got him up out of there. A few games doesn't mean shit. The risk is still there. Even with Romo, you don't really have to invest more than 1 or 2 seasons really. You can restructure his deal if he doesn't come with a discount. The Cousins situation proves that you don't want to hope or pray a young QB can turn a corner at some point. "Oh, you don't have the Pats to play with or Belicheck coaching you" is something you still have to seriously factor in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 You guys can have Brett Hundley for a first rounder if you want him! Warning: It's a package deal, you also have to sign Matt Flynn off the scrap heap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Foles an Eagle again, 2/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 16 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said: Yeah, the Texans bought into Brock Osweiler and look how fast they got him up out of there. A few games doesn't mean shit. The risk is still there. Even with Romo, you don't really have to invest more than 1 or 2 seasons really. You can restructure his deal if he doesn't come with a discount. The Cousins situation proves that you don't want to hope or pray a young QB can turn a corner at some point. "Oh, you don't have the Pats to play with or Belicheck coaching you" is something you still have to seriously factor in. I don't understand how Tony Romo isn't on a different team yet. He's one of the 10 best quarterbacks on the planet, and the NFL is full of teams that need quarterbacks. Seriously, I went through the entire league and he's better than a whole shitload of NFL quarterbacks. Unless you are New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay or one of those teams with a super young quarterback, why not go after Romo? If you are the Chiefs, you know exactly how far you can go with Alex Smith, why not sign Romo? The Texans and the Jaguars have good to great receivers and quarterbacks who can't throw them the ball. Romo on the sideline and Bortles on the field are essentially a 1:1 ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 2 hours ago, supremebve said: I don't understand how Tony Romo isn't on a different team yet. He's one of the 10 best quarterbacks on the planet, and the NFL is full of teams that need quarterbacks. Seriously, I went through the entire league and he's better than a whole shitload of NFL quarterbacks. Unless you are New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay or one of those teams with a super young quarterback, why not go after Romo? If you are the Chiefs, you know exactly how far you can go with Alex Smith, why not sign Romo? The Texans and the Jaguars have good to great receivers and quarterbacks who can't throw them the ball. Romo on the sideline and Bortles on the field are essentially a 1:1 ratio. Look at the responses here. If anyone is so concerned with Romo being made of balsa wood, you wouldn't even feign interest in him. The GMs being content with the current crop of starting QBs until another "viable" option presents itself is going to kill so many teams in (or could be in) title contendership. When there are very few elite quarterbacks, there ain't no easy answers. You're not going to able to just plug in some random QB and win games automatically. So either you're going reaffirm who you already have, find someone in the draft, or straight up sign a quarterback everyone else knows is not that good and try to ride that out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Elsalvajeloco said: Look at the responses here. If anyone is so concerned with Romo being made of balsa wood, you wouldn't even feign interest in him. The GMs being content with the current crop of starting QBs until another "viable" option presents itself is going to kill so many teams in title contendership. When there are very few elite quarterbacks, there ain't no easy answers. You're not going to able to just plug in some random QB and win games automatically. So either you're going reaffirm who you already have, find someone in the draft, or straight up sign a quarterback everyone else knows is not that good and try ride that out. This is a league with maybe 10 quality quarterbacks, but they've built a league where the only viable strategy is to have the best quarterback. Am I the only one who is waiting for a team to realize that there are 53 players on the team and maybe you could win by concentrating on maximizes the other 52 roster spots? At some point these teams are going to realize that waiting on a franchise quarterback that most likely doesn't exist is dumb, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just now, supremebve said: This is a league with maybe 10 quality quarterbacks, but they've built a league where the only viable strategy is to have the best quarterback. Am I the only one who is waiting for a team to realize that there are 53 players on the team and maybe you could win by concentrating on maximizes the other 52 roster spots? At some point these teams are going to realize that waiting on a franchise quarterback that most likely doesn't exist is dumb, right? ...Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, supremebve said: This is a league with maybe 10 quality quarterbacks, but they've built a league where the only viable strategy is to have the best quarterback. Am I the only one who is waiting for a team to realize that there are 53 players on the team and maybe you could win by concentrating on maximizes the other 52 roster spots? At some point these teams are going to realize that waiting on a franchise quarterback that most likely doesn't exist is dumb, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Raziel403 said: I 100% agree that he understands that all 53 players matter, AND that son of a bitch has Tom Brady. If you ever needed proof that life ain't fair, that is about as clear of a representation as exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 That's basically how Denver won the title the year before. I mean, yes, they had a living legend at QB, but he was beyond washed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said: That's basically how Denver won the title the year before. I mean, yes, they had a living legend at QB, but he was beyond washed up. True, but the plan was to ride Manning to the Super Bowl, not have Manning ride that defense to the Super Bowl. I'm talking about making the conscious decision to not mortgage their future for a questionable quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 The biggest thing that allows the Pats to function the way they do is keeping the salaries under control. They maximize what they have talent wise, but Brady working for less than he's worth on the open market frees up cap space so that NE can sign better players than teams that just have a high priced QB can afford. There are a lot of teams that just can do that, because there are a lot of guys not willing to work "cheap" like Brady. Now, as far as getting that back under control, well, the high salary genie isn't going back in the bottle, so that's out, and you're not getting rid of the cap. Although at this point, the MLB should show that a team of high priced talent != Titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 DeMarcus Ware is retiring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Raziel403 said: The biggest thing that allows the Pats to function the way they do is keeping the salaries under control. They maximize what they have talent wise, but Brady working for less than he's worth on the open market frees up cap space so that NE can sign better players than teams that just have a high priced QB can afford. There are a lot of teams that just can do that, because there are a lot of guys not willing to work "cheap" like Brady. Now, as far as getting that back under control, well, the high salary genie isn't going back in the bottle, so that's out, and you're not getting rid of the cap. Although at this point, the MLB should show that a team of high priced talent != Titles. I'm not even talking about teams overpaying for Tom Brady, I'm talking about people overpaying Joe Flacco. Joe Flacco isn't good enough to be the reason you win a Super Bowl. He's good enough to win a Super Bowl if everyone else is good enough to get him there. If you overpay Joe Flacco, you hamstring your entire franchise. So, i you have the choice between overpaying Joe Flacco, or letting him walk, I think you should let him walk. Overpaying Joe Flacco is worse than not having a good quarterback. The team that realizes that Joe Flacco is a good quarterback at $15 million, but terrible at $22 million will have an advantage over almost every other team in the league. You can win with Flacco at $15 million, but the team would be better off with a replacement level quarterback at his current salary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Yeah, I made some typos, but that's what I was getting at. Your want a reason that, say, the Colts suck? A good reason is that they've made Luck the highest paid QB is the League and had to get their O-line at Dollar General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 The Ravens were stuck with paying Flacco though. His playoff run was all-time great (like arguably the best a QB has ever played through a Super Bowl run) and it happened with him hitting free agency that year. Sure, they had to be worried that it was just a really well timed hot streak, but letting that guy walk right then would have been franchise suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidNatural Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 The reason that Romo isn't on another team is that no one wants to take that cap hit if they can avoid it, especially for a quarterback that's played 5 games in the last two years. If the Cowboys release him, he'll be picked up pretty quick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 Raiders sign Cordarrelle Patterson The spirit of Al Davis lives on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 7 hours ago, Brian Fowler said: The Ravens were stuck with paying Flacco though. His playoff run was all-time great (like arguably the best a QB has ever played through a Super Bowl run) and it happened with him hitting free agency that year. Sure, they had to be worried that it was just a really well timed hot streak, but letting that guy walk right then would have been franchise suicide. Paying him that much money is also franchise suicide. If you let him walk, you can improve your entire team. If you pay him you can't. Do you think it is coincidental that they were a good to great team for years with average quarterback play? Or is it possible that their average quarterback play gave them the freedom to have consistently dominant defenses and a great running game? They gave him that contract when his value was at its all-time highest, but their team was also old as shit. They could have tried to reload with a lot of young talent, or overpay their quarterback. They chose the latter and they haven't been good since. Paying him that money did more harm than good to the future of the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I remember the Flacco situation vividly since my brother is a Ravens fan. It was a lose/lose situation for the team, as mentioned he just had an epic historical personal run to get the Ravens a Superbowl win. He didn't deserve that much money, everyone knew it, but not re-signing him would have hurt their momentum and would have been blasted by fans. Teams will always overpay for QBs, at least Flacco did something to earn it first unlike the likes of Flynn, Osweiler, and Cassel. What was a really bad idea was signing him to an extension last off-season. I completely get his fat contract after winning the Super Bowl, that's life. But they haven't drafted anyone the last few years to replace him, after 2017 they could have cut him with minimal dead money but now they will have him an extra year. Its not odd that he got the big money after his SB run, what's odd is the Ravens haven't really made an attempt to get his replacement so they keep over-paying for a now average QB. Its funny because since my brother is a Ravens fan and I am a Bills fan, he is annoyed how much cheaper it would have been for the Ravens to keep Tyrod two years ago and not have any dip in QB play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts