Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Very often when the starting QB gets hurt (Blesdoe - Brady, Green - Bulger) or just plain sucks (Bledsoe - Romo, Warner - Leinart) that is exactly the case. Those analogies aren't comparable to Dallas' situation. The Cardinals are not contending this year and are clearly in a rebuilding process. Therefore, starting their first-round pick after losing their first four or so games is an option. On the other hand, Dallas WAS contending this season. If that's changed then, by all means, put Romo in there. I don't think that anybody believed Bledsoe would still be in Dallas in '07. But if that's not the case and Dallas wants to put its best team on the field, Parcells needed more than one three-interception half of a game to determine that Romo was indeed the best option. It was an obvious panic move on The Tuna's part. Young and Palmer were high first-round picks and were given their spots because their team wasn't ready to contend. Romo was never an elite prospect and his team's situation is far different. Rivers (another high first-round pick) was given the starting position because of Brees' shoulder injury last December and because he and Brees were both taking up a significant amount of cap room. Again, it's a completely different situation than Romo's in Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 i think i have to agree with blitz here. if a starting QB plays badly enough, the next guy "earned" a shot simply by virtue of being next on the depth chart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Those analogies aren't comparable to Dallas' situation. The Cardinals are not contending this year and are clearly in a rebuilding process. Therefore, starting their first-round pick after losing their first four or so games is an option. On the other hand, Dallas WAS contending this season. If that's changed then, by all means, put Romo in there. I don't think that anybody believed Bledsoe would still be in Dallas in '07. But if that's not the case and Dallas wants to put its best team on the field, Parcells needed more than one three-interception half of a game to determine that Romo was indeed the best option. It was an obvious panic move on The Tuna's part. Young and Palmer were high first-round picks and were given their spots because their team wasn't ready to contend. Romo was never an elite prospect and his team's situation is far different. Rivers (another high first-round pick) was given the starting position because of Brees' shoulder injury last December and because he and Brees were both taking up a significant amount of cap room. Again, it's a completely different situation than Romo's in Dallas. Romo has something those others didn't have ... FOUR YEARS in the Cowboys system. You couldn't be more wrong when you call it a panic move ... more proof of your lack of football acumen or at the very least your lack of knowledge in this particular situation. Bledsoe sucked and he sucked hard. There was absolutely NO value in moving forward with him at QB. With Bledsoe at QB the team would have been lucky to finish above .500. Kitna's last year as a Bengal was a VERY good year and the Bengals were in contention for the playoffs. Arizona benched Warner because he sucked for a RAW just drafted QB. Dallas benched Bledsoe because he sucked for a QB that had been in their system for FOUR years. Bledsoe was LEFT on the NE bench behind Tom Brady despite his return to health. Bottom line ... the back up QB does NOT always have to earn starting status no matter the excuses you are now making for why it was acceptable for every other organization in the world to make the move and not Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) Romo has something those others didn't have ... FOUR YEARS in the Cowboys system. You couldn't be more wrong when you call it a panic move If he had THAT much time in the Cowboys system and Bledsoe sucks so badly, why wasn't Romo the starter last year? Or earlier this season? ... more proof of your lack of football acumen Your football-knowledge ego is ridiculous. Grow up. Bledsoe sucked and he sucked hard. There was absolutely NO value in moving forward with him at QB. With Bledsoe at QB the team would have been lucky to finish above .500. The last time I checked, Bledsoe had two bad games (JAX and PHI), one unimpressive first half (NYG), and three pretty good games (WAS, TEN, HOU). Romo has had one unimpressive second half (NYG), a decent-but-not-spectacular game against a team that shot themselves in the foot with turnovers (CAR), and a very good game against a team that Bledsoe also beat up on earlier in the season (WAS). Given that, I fail to see how Romo makes the Cowboys a .500 or better team, while Bledsoe dooms them to a sub-.500 record. Kitna's last year as a Bengal was a VERY good year and the Bengals were in contention for the playoffs. They didn't have a winning record, they missed the playoffs, they had the 28th-ranked defense, and Kitna has a long history of poor play. No wonder they went with Palmer the following season. Arizona benched Warner because he sucked for a RAW just drafted QB.Dallas benched Bledsoe because he sucked for a QB that had been in their system for FOUR years. "FOUR YEARS" in a team's system means squat. Seneca Wallace has been in the Seahawks system for FOUR YEARS. Does that make him a viable NFL starter? Bledsoe was LEFT on the NE bench behind Tom Brady despite his return to health. Brady PROVED in SEVERAL REAL-GAME SITUATIONS that he was a better fit for NE's offense. Not pre-season games against second-string defenses. Not NFL Europe games against bottom-of-the-barrell NFL players. Not seven-on-seven drills with the scout team. REAL GAMES. If Bledsoe hadn't been injured, Brady never would've taken his spot. Edited November 6, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 If he had THAT much time in the Cowboys system and Bledsoe sucks so badly, why wasn't Romo the starter last year? Or earlier this season? Good question. My guess is that Parcells has too much loyalty to his boys of old. But finally got fed up with yet another stupid critical mistake by Drew 'Mr. Interception' Bledsoe'. The last time I checked, Bledsoe had two bad games (JAX and PHI), one unimpressive first half (NYG), and three pretty good games (WAS, TEN, HOU). Romo has had one unimpressive second half (NYG), a decent-but-not-spectacular game against a team that shot themselves in the foot with turnovers (CAR), and a very good game against a team that Bledsoe also beat up on earlier in the season (WAS). Given that, I fail to see how Romo makes the Cowboys a .500 or better team, while Bledsoe dooms them to a sub-.500 record. Bledsoe did "pretty good" against three horrible teams and sucked hard against any opponent worth a manure. Yeah that is a ringing endorsement. Romo has been playing largely mistake free since he has been named the starter. Giving up much fewer sacks and only 1 INT. He is utilizing the number 1 WR on the team AND the great TE that we have. I can't believe your man-crush on Bledsoe has so blinded you to his quite obvious failings. I wish that we could ship Bledsoe to your team, whichever one that happens to be this week, and let you love him as he starts for YOUR team and leads them down the path to the cellar in the league. They didn't have a winning record, they missed the playoffs, they had the 28th-ranked defense, and Kitna has a long history of poor play. No wonder they went with Palmer the following season. 2003 - Cincinnati was 8-8 and what exactly does having the 28th ranked defense have to do with the QB's performance? Kitna had 3591 yards that year with 26 TDs and 15 INTs. Cincy was second in their division to Baltimore's 10-6. The offense was ranked 12th. However, you are right about one thing ... the problem with Cincy isn't and hasn't been their QB ... it is their lack of a defense. This year their defense is ranked right about middle of the pack and their offense is also right about the middle of the pack. Making them a very medoicre team. Palmer was totally unproven and in his first year threw for 2897 yards 18 TDs and 18 INTs. Leading the Bengals to an 8-8 record. Yet because he was highly drafted and touted YOU believe that automatically translates so NFL success and he should AUTOMATICALLY get his shot. "FOUR YEARS" in a team's system means squat. Seneca Wallace has been in the Seahawks system for FOUR YEARS. Does that make him a viable NFL starter? Brady PROVED in SEVERAL REAL-GAME SITUATIONS that he was a better fit for NE's offense. Not pre-season games against second-string defenses. Not NFL Europe games against bottom-of-the-barrell NFL players. Not seven-on-seven drills with the scout team. REAL GAMES. If Bledsoe hadn't been injured, Brady never would've taken his spot. It looks like the four years in Dallas' system did wonders for Romo. Brady's numbers after taking over for Bledsoe were not spectacular ... 2843 yards, 18 TDs and 12 INTs. What they were was a vast improvement over Bledsoe's. Brady made fewer mistakes than Bledsoe, especially in critcal situations. Bledsoe was so on his way out the door in NE and the injury to Brady only escalated it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 49 completions, 86 attempts, 584 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 3 sacks, 96.3 rating in his 3 wins 41 completions, 83 attempts, 580 yards, 1 TD, 7 INTs, 13 sacks, 41.2 rating in his 3 losses Wins against HOU, TEN, WAS - teams that area a combined 7-17, their defeneses are ranked 26th, 24th and 31st. Losses against JAC, NYG, PHI - teams that area a combined 15-9, their defenses are ranked 5th, 8th and 12th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) Bledsoe did "pretty good" against three horrible teams and sucked hard against any opponent worth a oh poopy. Yeah that is a ringing endorsement. As opposed to Romo, who threw three picks in two quarters against the one good team that he's played. He could only muster one TD against CAR in the first three quarters of the game. The Cowboys only won that game because Carolina's offense and specials teams kept turning the ball over. Joey Harrington could've won that game, as he did against the turnover-happy Bears on Sunday. Romo's only impressive game was yesterday against the Redskins, with their freaking 28th-ranked defense that Bledsoe beat up on back in Week 2. What was that you were saying about "ringing endorsements"? I can't believe your man-crush on Bledsoe has so blinded you to his quite obvious failings. You have the debating skills of a 14-year-old. Palmer was totally unproven and in his first year threw for 2897 yards 18 TDs and 18 INTs. Leading the Bengals to an 8-8 record. Yet because he was highly drafted and touted YOU believe that automatically translates so NFL success and he should AUTOMATICALLY get his shot. Nope, that's not what I said. You're being blatantly dishonest now. Cincy went with Palmer because Marvin Lewis didn't believe that his defense was going to take them far into the playoffs and because he wanted to use '04 as the year to develop their #1 draft pick. Kitna was also pretty freaking bad prior to 2003 ('99 in SEA was his only other standout season). The fact that Kitna didn't land a starting gig until this season speaks volumes about how much confidence NFL coaches and GMs have in him. As expected, Palmer sucked for about the first 10 games of '04. The Bengals were clearly still in rebuilding mode in '04. It looks like the four years in Dallas' system did wonders for Romo. You're basing that on a bad performance in one half of a game, a game where Romo could only muster 10 offensive points going into the 4th quarter and only won because CAR kept turning the ball over in their own territory, and a good performance against a horrible defense in a third game. And that proves what? Brady's numbers after taking over for Bledsoe were not spectacular ... 2843 yards, 18 TDs and 12 INTs. What they were was a vast improvement over Bledsoe's. Brady's numbers in '01 were NOT a "vast improvement over Bledsoe's." You're dead wrong about that. Brady is more efficient than Bledsoe and the team went on a tear (especially on defense) after he took over. Belichick values efficiency at the QB position and decided to ride the momentum. He also (correctly) saw that Brady was going to be more than just an above-average QB. The move had a lot more to do with Brady being a young prodigy than Bledsoe being a turnover machine (only 13 INTs in 2000 and 15 in 2001 on over 600 passing attempts). Bledsoe was so on his way out the door in NE and the injury to Brady only escalated it. The injury to who? That's all speculation on your part. If Bledsoe hadn't been injured, there's absolutely no evidence that he would've lost his job in '01. Edited November 7, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) 49 completions, 86 attempts, 584 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 3 sacks, 96.3 rating in his 3 wins 41 completions, 83 attempts, 580 yards, 1 TD, 7 INTs, 13 sacks, 41.2 rating in his 3 losses Wins against HOU, TEN, WAS - teams that area a combined 7-17, their defeneses are ranked 26th, 24th and 31st. Losses against JAC, NYG, PHI - teams that area a combined 15-9, their defenses are ranked 5th, 8th and 12th. So, it's Bledsoe's fault that Romo turned the ball over three times (one pick returned for a TD) in the second half of the Giants game? You're so full of it... Edited November 7, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) I give up. You quite obviously have some serious blinders on in regards to the many and numerous faults of Bledsoe. BLEDSOE 1999 - 19 TDs, 21 INTs rating of 75.6 team record 8-8 out of the playoffs 2000 - 17 TDs, 13 INTs rating of 77.3 team record 5-11 out of the playoffs Yeah those numbers were going to keep him gainfully employeed as a starting QB in NE. BRADY 2001 - 18 TDs, 12 INTs rating of 86.5 2002 - 28 TDs, 14 INTs rating of 85.7 2003 - 23 TDs, 12 INTs rating of 85.9 Brady started 2 fewer games in 2001 than Bledsoe did in 2000 and had 1 more TD, 1 less INT and a passer rating that was 9+ points higher. But most of all he exhibited leadership, poise, control under pressure and an ability to win ... all things Bledsoe lacked and STILL lacks. Edited November 7, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) I give up. You quite obviously have some serious blinders on in regards to the many and numerous faults of Bledsoe. BLEDSOE 1999 - 19 TDs, 21 INTs rating of 75.6 team record 8-8 out of the playoffs 2000 - 17 TDs, 13 INTs rating of 77.3 team record 5-11 out of the playoffs Yeah those numbers were going to keep him gainfully employeed as a starting QB in NE. BRADY 2001 - 18 TDs, 12 INTs rating of 86.5 2002 - 28 TDs, 14 INTs rating of 85.7 2003 - 23 TDs, 12 INTs rating of 85.9 Brady started 2 fewer games in 2001 than Bledsoe did in 2000 and had 1 more TD, 1 less INT and a passer rating that was 9+ points higher. But most of all he exhibited leadership, poise, control under pressure and an ability to win ... all things Bledsoe lacked and STILL lacks. So, you admit that Brady's numbers weren't a "vast improvement" over Bledsoe's in 2001? Or were you just unaware of the definition of the word "vast"? I never said that Bledsoe was going to keep his job in NE past 2001. But I have yet to see you produce a shred of evidence to show that he would've lost his job that year if he wasn't injured. Did you have some sort of personal communication with Belichick back in 2001 that we're unaware of? BTW, the Pats defense ranked 18th in 2000 and Pete Freaking Carroll was coaching them in '99. But, no, it was all Bledsoe's fault that they didn't make the playoffs in those years! I couldn't care less about Bledsoe, but your blatant hatred of him is just downright amusing. Edited November 7, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 why do birds....suddenly appear everytime.....you are neeear just like me, they long to be close to yooooouuuu.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 why do birds....suddenly appear everytime.....you are neeear just like me, they long to be close to yooooouuuu.... Bobby Carpenter is a LB, not their QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboz Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Go ROMO,,,, Bledsoe sucks and has for years. The savor of the Cowboys has come,,, Plus I started him this weekend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Bledsoe deserves the pine IMO. Have you read his latest blog post ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Bledsoe deserves the pine IMO. Have you read his latest blog post ? Man some people have too much time on their hands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 That's freaking hysterical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Another very un-Bledsoe like performance 308 yards, 2 TDs NO INTs, SACKED ZERO TIMES Yeah I can see how we should still be starting Bledsoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Another very un-Bledsoe like performance 308 yards, 2 TDs NO INTs, SACKED ZERO TIMES Yeah I can see how we should still be starting Bledsoe It was Vs the 'Cards but you're right he is doing a lot better than Bledsoe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I'm buying a Romo jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I like Romo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 2-1 as a starter, and thats with a fluke loss to the Foreskins that wasn't his fault. He'll have a good test this week against the Colts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboz Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Go ROMO,,,, Bledsoe sucks and has for years. The savor of the Cowboys has come,,, Plus I started him this weekend He , he, he ,he started him again.... Bench boy's problem, and it has been for years. Attitude. He's afraid. That's why the guys been folding under pressure for years.... It’s not just his immobility its fear, I’ve seen it in his eyes for years! When some guys get behind they get mad, the killer instinct! IMO that’s all Bledsoe needs. Go ROMO!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.