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

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Fox doesn't like rookie quarterbacks, but that doesn't mean he won't play one. See: Clausen, Jimmy.
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

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.
User avatar
gpphat
Practice Squad
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:28 am

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).
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

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.
If he starts a highly drafted rookie, his job isn't on the line. If he starts...say...Romo over a highly drafted rookie, his job is. And the latter is going to get him fired faster.
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

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).
What you are not factoring in is that many of the QB's in this draft class still have a lot of work to do before they can start in the NFL.
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

wab 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.
If he starts a highly drafted rookie, his job isn't on the line. If he starts...say...Romo over a highly drafted rookie, his job is. And the latter is going to get him fired faster.
If he loses in any scenario, he's fired.
User avatar
gpphat
Practice Squad
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:28 am

Adipost wrote:
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).
What you are not factoring in is that many of the QB's in this draft class still have a lot of work to do before they can start in the NFL.
Yes many QB's do need work before starting in the NFL...but not the QB's that will be available to the Bears at #3
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

[video][/video]
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

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.
User avatar
Funkster
MVP
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:35 pm

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.
“Protect this fucking house, go all out, leave that shit out on the field, let’s have some fun, makes some plays baby ” Mitch Trubisky #believethesleeve
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

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]
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

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.
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15958
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 103 times

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
Middleguard
MVP
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:10 pm
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 120 times

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.
ysleblanc
MVP
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am

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.
ysleblanc
MVP
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am

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.
User avatar
gpphat
Practice Squad
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:28 am

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?
ysleblanc
MVP
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am

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.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7336
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 967 times

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
User avatar
Funkster
MVP
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:35 pm

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.
“Protect this fucking house, go all out, leave that shit out on the field, let’s have some fun, makes some plays baby ” Mitch Trubisky #believethesleeve
ysleblanc
MVP
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:07 am

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.
User avatar
Funkster
MVP
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:35 pm

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.
“Protect this fucking house, go all out, leave that shit out on the field, let’s have some fun, makes some plays baby ” Mitch Trubisky #believethesleeve
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

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.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

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.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

I'd rather have Hoyer than Romo at this point in their careers and for this team right now.
User avatar
Funkster
MVP
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:35 pm

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)
“Protect this fucking house, go all out, leave that shit out on the field, let’s have some fun, makes some plays baby ” Mitch Trubisky #believethesleeve
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

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.
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

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.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 926 times

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.
Image
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

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.
Post Reply