Page 3 of 5

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:09 am
by Adipost
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.

[video][/video]

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:14 am
by Moriarty
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:21 am
by Boris13c
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

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:15 am
by Middleguard
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:50 pm
by ysleblanc
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:53 pm
by ysleblanc
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:55 pm
by gpphat
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?

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:09 pm
by ysleblanc
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:15 pm
by Rusty Trombagent
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."

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:38 pm
by Funkster
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.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:13 pm
by ysleblanc
Funkster wrote:
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.

Rodgers had 60 pass attempts his 1st 3 years, I'm not big on worrying about that.

I don't have a problem with a QB controversy, give me Montana and Young instead of Osweiller any day.

Romo has thrown how many passes the last 2 years? What is the point of signing a QB then having him hurt 2 weeks in or even preseason. Put a fork in him, he is done.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:50 pm
by Funkster
Some good points. It's true he's had limited field time in the last two season. Maybe, just maybe that time off gave his body time to fully heal?

You're right, signing him to get hurt doesn't make any scenes. That's also a huge assumption he will get hurt. You could also look at the flip side to that coin, he could also be the Romo of 2014.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:51 pm
by Mikefive
Funkster wrote:
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.
And when was Romo last a "top 10 QB"? 3 years ago? Being able to play QB well only matters if you can actually play, which Romo hasn't been able to do for 2 years. And now he's 37, well into the time when injuries don't heal like they used to and the body naturally starts wearing down. If he was all that you say, then surely somebody would've traded SOMETHING to Dallas for him, even with his price tag. But nobody would. That says a lot if your measuring stick is "top 10 QB".

Honestly, in paragraph 1 I also kinda disagree with you. Getting a bridge guy makes a certain amount of sense. But it presumes that the rookie is going to work out. However, history says that there's certainly no guarantee of that--especially with the Chicago Bears. Even top rookie QBs--better than the ones available this year--are only about a 50/50 proposition. Further, competition is a good thing. Sometimes, drafting a player at a position brings out the best in the incumbent. And if the rookie can't beat out the vet for 2, 3 or 4 years, that's not the worst scenario for a young QB. Or if the rookie wins the job fairly early on, then you either have a really good backup QB or you trade the guy if he can't accept that role. Any of those scenarios are better than the 60%(?) chance that the rookie flops and you're left with a bridge guy who you already know just isn't good enough.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:41 pm
by Mikefive
And to address the topic directly, there is absolutely no realistic chance that Romo becomes a Bear, simply because if you're Tony Romo trying to eek out another year or two of a career for a playoff run, why would you go to a 3 win team? And if you're John Fox and Ryan Pace, having just gone 9-23 so far, why would you go all in with a 37-year old QB with back problems who has played 5 games in 2 years?

Bringing in Tony Romo makes no sense whatsoever for the Chicago Bears.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:04 pm
by wab
I'd rather have Hoyer than Romo at this point in their careers and for this team right now.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:59 pm
by Funkster
Mikefive, again, you bring up some good point. But they're still basically the same concerns, age, injuries and why would Romo want to come to a 3 win team.

You have to remember, we're not talking about some unproven rookie. Tony Romo sits 29th on the all time passing yards list. He sits 21st on the all time TD list. He has a 97.1 career rating. I think his body of work says bare minimum bring him in for a workout and let the DR's do their job. If he can check off both those boxes, it would be foolish to not sign him.

If you watch his 80 yard drive vs. the eagles. His first throw in over a year was a 45 yard 9 route. It was off the mark but he also sent an immediate message, I still got it. His arm and brain are still the same and he was also working the pocket. If and when he gets cut, he will automatically be the top FA QB with Cousins most likely getting tagged. IMO, the bears offer Romo the formula needed for him to stay upright and extend his career.

IMO, the bears best scenario (if Cousins isn't an option) would be:

Romo
Hoyer (insurance)
Shaw (bears seem high on him)
Rookie (I'm starting to lean towards Mahomes)

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:51 pm
by mmmc_35
Romo is definitely better then Hoyer as players. There should be no doubt.

As a Romo fan I want him to retire, and live the good life. That's probably why I am not an nfl QB. If not retire go to the Broncos. Then Jets, Chicago, 49ers, and Browns.

As a Bear fan if they signed Romo I would expect a young QB, and several OL FA agent moves. Not necessarily big moves but moves to do the best to find a solid 8-9.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:22 pm
by Adipost
Reports are that Romo will be released with a verbal agreement on what teams he can't sign with. That should take Houston out of the picture.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:01 pm
by UOK
Adipost wrote:Reports are that Romo will be released with a verbal agreement on what teams he can't sign with. That should take Houston out of the picture.
Hmm, interesting. Like a non-compete clause. Guessing Bears won't be on their list of teams they give a rat's ass about, but it doesn't matter. He's going to be a backup in Denver because that's where he wants to go, and that's the team that wants him more than anybody.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:46 pm
by Adipost
UOK wrote:
Adipost wrote:Reports are that Romo will be released with a verbal agreement on what teams he can't sign with. That should take Houston out of the picture.
Hmm, interesting. Like a non-compete clause. Guessing Bears won't be on their list of teams they give a rat's ass about, but it doesn't matter. He's going to be a backup in Denver because that's where he wants to go, and that's the team that wants him more than anybody.
Don't know about Denver. 2 promising young QB's and a bad offensive line.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:05 am
by Funkster
Adipost wrote:
UOK wrote:
Adipost wrote:Reports are that Romo will be released with a verbal agreement on what teams he can't sign with. That should take Houston out of the picture.
Hmm, interesting. Like a non-compete clause. Guessing Bears won't be on their list of teams they give a rat's ass about, but it doesn't matter. He's going to be a backup in Denver because that's where he wants to go, and that's the team that wants him more than anybody.
Don't know about Denver. 2 promising young QB's and a bad offensive line.
Exactly! The obvious teams have to be bears, niners and jets.

Bears - I can see why the bears could be intriguing to Romo, QB friendly offensive system, good O-line, RB, TE, and if Jeffery is resigned a very promising WR corps. Not to mention a solid defense that is trending up and ready to have a "break out" season.

Niners - not much going on for this team except a new GM and HC. This team will be rebuilding. Only plus I can think of is Shannahan talking a big talk using his success in Atlanta as the bate.

Jets - this is a team that needs a QB but makes little scenes. This team is aging fast and IMO is pretty far off from turning the corner. Plus, they play in the AFC east and would be competing with the Pats for the division, good luck with that.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:39 am
by Adipost
Jeremiah thinks Romo goes to Chicago

[video][/video]

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:43 am
by RING4CHI
If Romo can't stay healthy beyond Dallas' offensive line, what makes people think he's a fit in Chicago?

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:28 am
by Adipost
RING4CHI wrote:If Romo can't stay healthy beyond Dallas' offensive line, what makes people think he's a fit in Chicago?
His injury history is overblown. His injury last season was purely a football injury, not some reoccurring issue with his back. It required no surgery and he was healed in 6 weeks. Romo actually tried to hide the injury to keep on playing.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:42 am
by Mikefive
Funkster wrote:
Adipost wrote:
UOK wrote:
Adipost wrote:Reports are that Romo will be released with a verbal agreement on what teams he can't sign with. That should take Houston out of the picture.
Hmm, interesting. Like a non-compete clause. Guessing Bears won't be on their list of teams they give a rat's ass about, but it doesn't matter. He's going to be a backup in Denver because that's where he wants to go, and that's the team that wants him more than anybody.
Don't know about Denver. 2 promising young QB's and a bad offensive line.
Exactly! The obvious teams have to be bears, niners and jets.

Bears - I can see why the bears could be intriguing to Romo, QB friendly offensive system, good O-line, RB, TE, and if Jeffery is resigned a very promising WR corps. Not to mention a solid defense that is trending up and ready to have a "break out" season.

Niners - not much going on for this team except a new GM and HC. This team will be rebuilding. Only plus I can think of is Shannahan talking a big talk using his success in Atlanta as the bate.

Jets - this is a team that needs a QB but makes little scenes. This team is aging fast and IMO is pretty far off from turning the corner. Plus, they play in the AFC east and would be competing with the Pats for the division, good luck with that.
But if you're Romo in the twilight of your career, why would you want to go to any of those rebuild projects??? That makes no sense at all.

Why would Romo honor some alleged verbal agreement? That's like saying... "We're terminating your contract and we know you want to go to a team with playoff aspirations, but you just need to agree not to." What does Romo get out of it? He gets to look in the mirror and say he's a good guy? Romo is in a kinda desperate situation right now. He wants a shot a winning in the worst way and his options are very limited.

What would be more interesting if that was in a written contract (assuming that's somehow legal under the CBA). Here Tony. We'll give you $10M on the day you send your retirement letter in if you don't play with this list of teams. Now that would make more sense than having some verbal no-no list that he doesn't get compensated in any way for abiding by.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:32 am
by wab
This still makes absolutely no sense. Romo has barely played in like two years. He'll get hurt 6 games in and the Bears will have to stumble through the season with Nathan Peterman or some other 4th round garbage.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:50 am
by G08
wab wrote:This still makes absolutely no sense. Romo has barely played in like two years. He'll get hurt 6 games in and the Bears will have to stumble through the season with Nathan Peterman or some other 4th round garbage.
Funny you mentioned Peterman... I have a feeling we might double dip at QB this draft. Watson at #3 and Peterman in round 4 if/when he's still there.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:53 am
by wab
I actually don't dislike Peterman. He's just not Watson. He's basically a more nimble Matt Barkley with a slightly better arm.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:58 am
by G08
wab wrote:I actually don't dislike Peterman. He's just not Watson. He's basically a more nimble Matt Barkley with a slightly better arm.
Pretty much, and he's run a Pro system so I think his transition might be easier. It's instant QB controversy but hey, it worked very well for the Redskins.

Re: ESPN: "Realistic Chance" of Tony Romo becoming a Bear

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:20 am
by Rusty Trombagent
G08 wrote:
wab wrote:This still makes absolutely no sense. Romo has barely played in like two years. He'll get hurt 6 games in and the Bears will have to stumble through the season with Nathan Peterman or some other 4th round garbage.
Funny you mentioned Peterman... I have a feeling we might double dip at QB this draft. Watson at #3 and Peterman in round 4 if/when he's still there.
if we double dip, deshone kizer will be available in the 6th. i'd be up for that.