Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

Swoosh, the better question might be... does anybody in their right mind think Romo is a superstar QB?

(03-20-2012 05:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Swoosh, the better question might be... does anybody in their right mind think Romo is a superstar QB?

i would seriously hope not.

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

An above average QB in the first half. Bench bait in the second. A waterboy in the playoffs.

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

Only if you seriously think Romo is on par with the following Dallas QB's:

a) Roger Staubach
b) Troy Aikman

I don't. Heck, before the "internet age", Romo wouldn't even beat out Danny White for the starting position.

(03-20-2012 09:09 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

Only if you seriously think Romo is on par with the following Dallas QB's:

a) Roger Staubach
b) Troy Aikman

I don't. Heck, before the "internet age", Romo wouldn't even beat out Danny White for the starting position.

just to be clear, i do not consider romo a superstar. But I'll say this, the romo hate on here is insane. The guy had 31 TD's and only 10 picks last year, with a QB rating of 102.5. In 2010 he was hurt most of the year, but in 2009 he had 26 TD's and 9 picks. He's been pretty damn good lately and you're crazy if you think a QB with a career 155-132 ratio is anywhere near as good as Romo. In the playoffs he's had 2 bad games and 2 very good/great games. Very small sample size

(03-20-2012 09:53 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:09 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

Only if you seriously think Romo is on par with the following Dallas QB's:

a) Roger Staubach
b) Troy Aikman

I don't. Heck, before the "internet age", Romo wouldn't even beat out Danny White for the starting position.

just to be clear, i do not consider romo a superstar. But I'll say this, the romo hate on here is insane. The guy had 31 TD's and only 10 picks last year, with a QB rating of 102.5. In 2010 he was hurt most of the year, but in 2009 he had 26 TD's and 9 picks. He's been pretty damn good lately and you're crazy if you think a QB with a career 155-132 ratio is anywhere near as good as Romo. In the playoffs he's had 2 bad games and 2 very good/great games. Very small sample size

The Cowboys success is measure in playoff wins and super bowls....


Tony Romo....

(03-20-2012 05:49 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Swoosh, the better question might be... does anybody in their right mind think Romo is a superstar QB?

i would seriously hope not.

Well I certainly don't think he's a superstar. Had I been in charge in Dallas, I'd have found myself a better QB long before hitting the playoffs...

(03-20-2012 12:48 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 06:48 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  this is a pointless article. i didn't say elway was a good businessman, just that he's a businessman. I know you'll find a way to disagree with this, but the whole point of owning a football team (any team for that matter) is to win a SB.

Tell that to Bidwell. But, is this a business, or a competition? You've flipped positions now.

Quote: Put aside your feelings for Elway and tell me that you really think a Tebow-lead Broncos team could have a chance to win it all.

I never thought Dilfer would win a Super Bowl. Nevertheless, there are plenty of teams out there w/ QB's who aren't good enough to win it all. They didn't drop a budding superstar to chase Peyton.

Building a SB calibre team takes strategy. I think Elway blew that.

Quote: Every fan and every analyst and all the team personnel can agree on this. you're the only dissenter

Heh. Not exactly stiff competition.

you called tebow a budding superstar. nuff said

and that dilfer win was light years ago (i know it's a unit of distance, not time). The NFL is way different now. The league has become much more QB centric, mainly because of the stringent fines/rules put in place against hard hitting defenses. That Ravens team would've been severely hamstrung if it played under today's rules

I disagree, b/c they play much the same way now. Saragusa wasn't going to get fined for stuffing holes at the line. McAlister was not a hitter like Lott or even Palamalu.

The Ravens' win wasn't in that much of a different era. We're not talking 1988.

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

No, but he's adequate. The media try to make every player a superstar. They want hype and attention b/c that means eyes on the TV, listening to radio, and reading print.

Then when these guys (Romo, Flacco, Sanchez, Vick) don't live up to the artificial hype, there's some big letdown and backlash. It's nuts.

(03-21-2012 07:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

No, but he's adequate. The media try to make every player a superstar. They want hype and attention b/c that means eyes on the TV, listening to radio, and reading print.

Then when these guys (Romo, Flacco, Sanchez, Vick) don't live up to the artificial hype, there's some big letdown and backlash. It's nuts.

so you think tebow has the potential to be better than romo and vick?

(03-21-2012 07:44 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 07:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

No, but he's adequate. The media try to make every player a superstar. They want hype and attention b/c that means eyes on the TV, listening to radio, and reading print.

Then when these guys (Romo, Flacco, Sanchez, Vick) don't live up to the artificial hype, there's some big letdown and backlash. It's nuts.

so you think tebow has the potential to be better than romo and vick?

Good question. I've used "superstar" two different ways. Tebow is a celebrity, and in that sense Romo and Vick have been "superstars" as well.

Talent-wise? None of them are bona fide superstars. Young, Montana, Marino...Peyton. Talent superstars.

(03-21-2012 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 07:44 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 07:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 05:28 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Another question. Do you consider Tony Romo to be a superstar QB?

No, but he's adequate. The media try to make every player a superstar. They want hype and attention b/c that means eyes on the TV, listening to radio, and reading print.

Then when these guys (Romo, Flacco, Sanchez, Vick) don't live up to the artificial hype, there's some big letdown and backlash. It's nuts.

so you think tebow has the potential to be better than romo and vick?

Good question. I've used "superstar" two different ways. Tebow is a celebrity, and in that sense Romo and Vick have been "superstars" as well.

Talent-wise? None of them are bona fide superstars. Young, Montana, Marino...Peyton. Talent superstars.

maybe i'm not understanding you, but your double-talk is incredible. I agree with both of the above statements. My question is, when you called Tebow a budding superstar, was the adjective meant to mean superstar as in celebrity and ticket seller? If yes, then i totally agree

(03-21-2012 12:59 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  maybe i'm not understanding you, but your double-talk is incredible. I agree with both of the above statements. My question is, when you called Tebow a budding superstar, was the adjective meant to mean superstar as in celebrity and ticket seller? If yes, then i totally agree

Yes it was.

I suppose it is double-talk, but I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Tebow is a superstar celebrity. That still adds value to a franchise. He's unlikely to be a superstar in terms of NFL QB talent. That doesn't mean he can't win.

(03-21-2012 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 12:59 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  maybe i'm not understanding you, but your double-talk is incredible. I agree with both of the above statements. My question is, when you called Tebow a budding superstar, was the adjective meant to mean superstar as in celebrity and ticket seller? If yes, then i totally agree

Yes it was.

I suppose it is double-talk, but I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Tebow is a superstar celebrity. That still adds value to a franchise. He's unlikely to be a superstar in terms of NFL QB talent. That doesn't mean he can't win.

i agree with that. He definitely puts butts in the seats. But whatever Elway's shortcomings as an owner, he's been a Bronco for life and he wants to be a part of another championship. He understands that Tim Tebow does not give him that chance, but (healthy) peyton manning does. In my mind that's what it boils down to. Is elway a great businessman? no. Is he a great executive? No. But this is the right move, because with Tebow they'd never be bad enough to get the chance to draft Luck or RGIII

(03-21-2012 01:27 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  He understands that Tim Tebow does not give him that chance, but (healthy) peyton manning does. In my mind that's what it boils down to.

Yes, that's his perception. I think he's wrong, b/c I don't think Manning has enough talent around him.

Quote: Is elway a great businessman? no. Is he a great executive? No. But this is the right move, because with Tebow they'd never be bad enough to get the chance to draft Luck or RGIII

Then you find a gem like Brady (or Brees) or you build a team like the 2000-1 Ravens.

(03-21-2012 01:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 01:27 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  He understands that Tim Tebow does not give him that chance, but (healthy) peyton manning does. In my mind that's what it boils down to.

Yes, that's his perception. I think he's wrong, b/c I don't think Manning has enough talent around him.

Quote: Is elway a great businessman? no. Is he a great executive? No. But this is the right move, because with Tebow they'd never be bad enough to get the chance to draft Luck or RGIII

Then you find a gem like Brady (or Brees) or you build a team like the 2000-1 Ravens.

oh come on, the chances of finding a Brees or Brady are slim to none. You can't wait for that to happen. Not in today's world of instant gratification

The 49ers tried to build a team like the Ravens. Unfortunately for them, this is a passing league where your rushing attack and secondary play are far less important. Also, the niners didn't get to face kerry collins and watered down Giants team. That Giants team didn't have one big time weapon on offense. Tiki barber was by far the best offensive player and that was back when he was still having big fumbling problems. Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Brad Johnson (22 TD's, 6 picks), Brady, Dilfer, Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The chance of winning the SB without a great QB is extremely low.

(03-21-2012 03:48 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Brad Johnson (22 TD's, 6 picks), Brady, Dilfer, Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The chance of winning the SB without a great QB is extremely low.

You just named 4 of those top QBs that were available to every team in the league, two for more than one round. And that doesn't count Favre, Dilfer and Johnson who were picked via trade (or FA or whatever). Rodgers went late first round, Roethlisberger went mid-first round.

So finding those QBs is far from impossible.

Then there's the other side, and you have guys like Delhomme, Gannon, Chandler and McNabb who get there, and can even make it close.

(03-21-2012 04:19 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 03:48 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Brad Johnson (22 TD's, 6 picks), Brady, Dilfer, Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The chance of winning the SB without a great QB is extremely low.

You just named 4 of those top QBs that were available to every team in the league, two for more than one round. And that doesn't count Favre, Dilfer and Johnson who were picked via trade (or FA or whatever). Rodgers went late first round, Roethlisberger went mid-first round.

So finding those QBs is far from impossible.

Then there's the other side, and you have guys like Delhomme, Gannon, Chandler and McNabb who get there, and can even make it close.

firs thing, don't lump mcnabb in with delhomme. For awhile there mcnabb was a hall of fame QB. He was simply amazing, but kept getting screwed by his team.

and yeah you're right, you can find great QB's later on in the draft, guess it isn't as hard as I thought. Problem is, if you commit to tebow you have to wait for that QB to fall to you and then risk a QB controversy.

IMO, elway had very few moves to make. Sure, he could move forward with Tebow and not win anything until either upgrading his D and skill positions or waiting for an all world QB to fall to him. Or he could go for Manning and hope he could give him enough weapons to work with.

(03-21-2012 04:59 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 04:19 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 03:48 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Brad Johnson (22 TD's, 6 picks), Brady, Dilfer, Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The chance of winning the SB without a great QB is extremely low.

You just named 4 of those top QBs that were available to every team in the league, two for more than one round. And that doesn't count Favre, Dilfer and Johnson who were picked via trade (or FA or whatever). Rodgers went late first round, Roethlisberger went mid-first round.

So finding those QBs is far from impossible.

Then there's the other side, and you have guys like Delhomme, Gannon, Chandler and McNabb who get there, and can even make it close.

firs thing, don't lump mcnabb in with delhomme. For awhile there mcnabb was a hall of fame QB. He was simply amazing, but kept getting screwed by his team.

I like McNabb, but lots of people around here don't. So I try to talk about him understatedly.

Quote:and yeah you're right, you can find great QB's later on in the draft, guess it isn't as hard as I thought. Problem is, if you commit to tebow you have to wait for that QB to fall to you and then risk a QB controversy.

IMO, elway had very few moves to make. Sure, he could move forward with Tebow and not win anything until either upgrading his D and skill positions or waiting for an all world QB to fall to him. Or he could go for Manning and hope he could give him enough weapons to work with.

That's a legit point. It's about patience. Elway is in a tough spot b/c a QB can bloom his 3rd year...but if he doesn't, you have to start over. My opinion is that you get the other pieces together during that time.

I just think Elway and Fox handled it poorly. If you don't give Tebow a chance, then you waste a 1st round pick on the bench, and still keep the myth alive while fans (your customers) remain discontent.

Better to cultivate it and give it your best shot, and draft for the cast around him. If it doesn't work, the fans know that and willingly move on to the next QB. And that might be a Flynn from FA, or finding the next Favre or Brees. Before all this got really going, I thought they should have seen if Plummer was interested in coming back.

I think talent exists, but NFL rushes too many QBs (again, look at Brees, Gannon or Beueurlein) instead of developing them. They also don't always give them a system to work in. The latter is hard w/ FA and injuries, but still you gotta work w/ your talent.