View unanswered posts | View active topics

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Search for:
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:09 am 
Offline
Assistant Coach
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am
Posts: 714
Funkster wrote:
wab wrote:
Fox doesn't like rookie quarterbacks, but that doesn't mean he won't play one. See: Clausen, Jimmy.


And that may be the reason he doesn't start another one??

New reports say Romo expects to be cut not traded. Quoted as being intrigued by Texans. I can't see them eating 25 million to sit Osweiler and I don't see going somewhere to be a back up. I also can't see a team trading for Osweiler.

Teams I can see Romo realistically signed by:
Bears
Niners
Jets

wab wrote:
The Bears gain absolutely nothing by signing Romo. Plus, Romo wants a ring, and he's got maybe 12 games left in him. He's not going to get a ring with the Bears.


I disagree, the bears could absolutely gain a winning QB, mentor to rookie and possibly the missing piece to the Bears offensive scoring woes. He's everything a GM could ask for in a QB. Might also be perfect timing. I also disagree with the whole 12 games left comment. You can't possible know that as fact. An actually former NFL doctor says his injury is not career ending.

What competive vet QB doesn't want to compete for a ring? He might not have that option. He might have to "settle" for a team that he can be the immediate starter.


Houston would be a title contender with Tony Romo. It would also be a P.R. Nightmare for Jerry Jones if he let Romo go across the street. If Jones let's Romo go, they will have a handshake deal that Romo won't go across the street.

phpBB [video]


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline
Assistant Coach
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Posts: 723
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
gpphat wrote:
BearDen wrote:
Adipost wrote:
ysleblanc wrote:
Bears getting Romo would piss me off, even more so if they have up a pick for him.

Dumb management 101.


Get ready to be pissed off.

Not happening. The Romo part anyway, though I'm sure the Bears will do something to piss fans off as per usual.


Yeah, signing Romo just wouldn't make much sense...but not signing Jeffery will piss off a lot of fans


Romo makes the most sense if you want to sit your rookie QB for a season.


What's the point of that? What would the Bears gain from sitting a rookie QB for a season accomplish? Draft Watson, start him from day 1


Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.

_________________
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 12659
Location: The Bear Nebula
Moriarty wrote:
Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.




it all depends on the individual player

Troy Aikman and Peyton Manning were starters as rookies, they threw lots of interceptions, their teams didn't win much, but both said later the experience was good for them ... they were mentally strong enough to absorb the abuse and actually learn from the experience

then you have JeMarcus Russell and Matt Leinert ... started as rookies, they threw lots of interceptions, their teams didn't win much, but neither were mentally strong enough to absorb the abuse and actually learn from the experience

so it isn't just physical ability that defines whether a newly drafted player will succeed or fail ... there is a very big mental part to it that plays a much bigger role than many understand or accept ... that is why Cad McClown was such a washout as a Bear because mentally he was on par with dryer lint

_________________
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin

Image
BLOG : Emissions from the Bears Nebula


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline
Assistant Coach

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:10 pm
Posts: 710
I suspect that the most likely scenario in which Fox gets fired involves an injury. Because that's what Bears' players do. They get injured.

1) Romo doesn't have even 12 games left in him and proves to be an expensive bridge that collapses.

2) JG costs a 1st and a huge long term guarantee then demonstrates why he couldn't even finish a 4-game season last year.

3) A rookie is thrown in too soon, has to rely too heavily on his feet, and becomes RG III II.

The safest bet for Fox is probably to retain and start Hoyer (not Cutler because of fan hatreds) praying that he lasts half the season. Then if the team is at least 500, leave him in until they're not. That way, if the rook gets thrown in, he's had some time, and it's an heroic opportunity to save the team. If not, it means the team finishes at least 8-8.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
MVP

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am
Posts: 1891
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
wab wrote:
Fox doesn't like rookie quarterbacks, but that doesn't mean he won't play one. See: Clausen, Jimmy.


Not gonna start a rookie if he doesn't have to with his job on the line.


That's the thing, how many more wins does Romo give Fox over a rookie? Do you think Romo can propel the Bears to a winning record? If Fox goes from 3-13 to 7-9 with Romo I think he gets the axe, especially if the Bears draft a rookie in the first round and he doesn't play him. If Fox goes from 3-13 to 7-9 with a rookie behind the center, that will save his job.

Romo provides nothing for the Bears outside of a high price tag for at least 1 year. Romo is better suited to go to a team that actually has a legitimate chance at a deep playoff run (see Houston or Denver).



I think there are 5-6 other options that are better than Romo among veteran NFL QB's including Garoppolo who is as much a rookie and a veteran.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
MVP

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am
Posts: 1891
Moriarty wrote:
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
gpphat wrote:
BearDen wrote:
Adipost wrote:

Get ready to be pissed off.

Not happening. The Romo part anyway, though I'm sure the Bears will do something to piss fans off as per usual.


Yeah, signing Romo just wouldn't make much sense...but not signing Jeffery will piss off a lot of fans


Romo makes the most sense if you want to sit your rookie QB for a season.


What's the point of that? What would the Bears gain from sitting a rookie QB for a season accomplish? Draft Watson, start him from day 1


Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.



I think starting a rookie on a bad team where he gets picked off and pounded is probably the #1 reason a lot of 1st round QB's don't pan out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
Practice Squad
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:28 am
Posts: 26
Moriarty wrote:
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
gpphat wrote:
BearDen wrote:
Adipost wrote:

Get ready to be pissed off.

Not happening. The Romo part anyway, though I'm sure the Bears will do something to piss fans off as per usual.


Yeah, signing Romo just wouldn't make much sense...but not signing Jeffery will piss off a lot of fans


Romo makes the most sense if you want to sit your rookie QB for a season.


What's the point of that? What would the Bears gain from sitting a rookie QB for a season accomplish? Draft Watson, start him from day 1


Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.


Let's say that is the case and sitting the rookie is the "safe" play, why pay the Romo price tag to be a place holder? Why not re-sign Hoyer or bring in Glennon? Romo is someone you pay the price tag for when you are a playoff caliber team whose weakness is the QB position. Unless you honestly believe the Bears are a 3-13 playoff ready team that only needs Romo to push them to the SB?

Which brings me back to my original argument, what's the point of bringing in Romo to be a place holder?


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
MVP

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am
Posts: 1891
gpphat wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
gpphat wrote:
BearDen wrote:
Not happening. The Romo part anyway, though I'm sure the Bears will do something to piss fans off as per usual.


Yeah, signing Romo just wouldn't make much sense...but not signing Jeffery will piss off a lot of fans


Romo makes the most sense if you want to sit your rookie QB for a season.


What's the point of that? What would the Bears gain from sitting a rookie QB for a season accomplish? Draft Watson, start him from day 1


Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.


Let's say that is the case and sitting the rookie is the "safe" play, why pay the Romo price tag to be a place holder? Why not re-sign Hoyer or bring in Glennon? Romo is someone you pay the price tag for when you are a playoff caliber team whose weakness is the QB position. Unless you honestly believe the Bears are a 3-13 playoff ready team that only needs Romo to push them to the SB?

Which brings me back to my original argument, what's the point of bringing in Romo to be a place holder?


I'd rather have Glennon, Taylor or Kapernick plus a rookie than Romo. At least those guys have the potential to be long term options if the rookie needs more time or flops.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline
Head Coach
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Posts: 3216
Location: Maine!
ysleblanc wrote:
gpphat wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
gpphat wrote:
Adipost wrote:
gpphat wrote:

Yeah, signing Romo just wouldn't make much sense...but not signing Jeffery will piss off a lot of fans


Romo makes the most sense if you want to sit your rookie QB for a season.


What's the point of that? What would the Bears gain from sitting a rookie QB for a season accomplish? Draft Watson, start him from day 1


Starting a guy on Day 1 doesn't automatically mean "he gets better, sooner".
Often it means "He looks terrible, develops bad habits that become even harder to remove, loses confidence in himself and loses the confidence of his teammates."

Many times, not starting them right away, is the faster and more reliable way to getting them to where you want them to be.


Let's say that is the case and sitting the rookie is the "safe" play, why pay the Romo price tag to be a place holder? Why not re-sign Hoyer or bring in Glennon? Romo is someone you pay the price tag for when you are a playoff caliber team whose weakness is the QB position. Unless you honestly believe the Bears are a 3-13 playoff ready team that only needs Romo to push them to the SB?

Which brings me back to my original argument, what's the point of bringing in Romo to be a place holder?


I'd rather have Glennon, Taylor or Kapernick plus a rookie than Romo. At least those guys have the potential to be long term options if the rookie needs more time or flops.


yeah, if bringing in a vet is the plan, there are plenty of options that dont stink like "john fox is worried about his job."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
MVP
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:35 pm
Posts: 1199
ysleblanc wrote:
I'd rather have Glennon, Taylor or Kapernick plus a rookie than Romo. At least those guys have the potential to be long term options if the rookie needs more time or flops.


You see that's the thing, you don't want to stunt your rookies growth. A long term option isn't really that great if the team is trying to draft, groom and play. And you certainly don't want a QB controversy when it's time for your rook to take over. Look at the mess Dallas is in, that's where the bears would be. That's why Romo makes scenes. He would be a 2 year option, 3 tops and would most likely retire. Worst case scenario would have a drafted QB taking over around 25.

IMO, some of you are sorely misjudging the capabilities Romo. He is a top 10 QB that is going to hit the open market. If and when he works out for teams, he will get signed fast and will start again.

_________________
"This is what I believe in: I believe that to have sustained success you must build your team through the draft." - Ryan Pace


Top
 Profile  
 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: scootiepuff and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group