PDA

View Full Version : Kiper likes Schaub over Romo


blockhead83
03-28-2007, 01:25 PM
I was listening to ESPN radio in Dallas this morning, and the hosts were discussing a comment Kipers made, which was something to the effect of, "I'd take Schaub over Romo, with 16 exclamation points..." Apparently several NFL scouts have made a similar reference. The hosts of the show were adamant that if they were going to start a franchise, they'd take Romo 10 times out of 10 over Schaub, and frankly I have to agree with them. Romo played like a pro-bowl performer last year and saved the Cowboys season, and after watching him on several occasions I think he throws one of the prettiest, best placed balls in the NFL. Schaub on the other hand has very little evidence to go on, and the public opinion of him is basically resting on his college and limited professional accomplishments.

I just thought that it was interesting that some scouts and Kiper were willing to come and put their stamp on a guy with little professional background over someone who made the pro-bowl last season. There's obviously something about Schaub that makes people think he's going to be really special. While I disagree that he'd be better than Romo, if Kiper and similar minded scouts are indeed correct and he plays at a similar level or above the one Romo plays at, then we got a fantastic value from the trade and we're going to see a winning team in Houston very soon.

P.S. They said the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....

texans83
03-28-2007, 01:28 PM
as soon as romo made the pro bowl he started to go into a slump though, this is why I think they need to wait till the last week of the season b4 they pick who is going to be going. IMO

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2007, 01:29 PM
For the past 2 years, scouts and personnel guys have been gaa-gaa over Schaub. They've talked about it over and over on ESPN and NFLN. That's why I've been so surprised that those same announcers and experts that have talked about how highly the scouts and personnel guys have Schaub ranked are now so down on someone actually going out and getting him.

Stampede
03-28-2007, 01:33 PM
For the past 2 years, scouts and personnel guys have been gaa-gaa over Schaub. They've talked about it over and over on ESPN and NFLN. That's why I've been so surprised that those same announcers and experts that have talked about how highly the scouts and personnel guys have Schaub ranked are now so down on someone actually going out and getting him.


Because it's the Texans who got him.

Vinny
03-28-2007, 01:33 PM
I just thought that it was interesting that some scouts and Kiper were willing to come and put their stamp on a guy with little professional background over someone who made the pro-bowl last season. There's obviously something about Schaub that makes people think he's going to be really special. While I disagree that he'd be better than Romo, if Kiper and similar minded scouts are indeed correct and he plays at a similar level or above the one Romo plays at, then we got a fantastic value from the trade and we're going to see a winning team in Houston very soon.

P.S. They said the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....Honest question....

How can you be sure that Schaub isn't going to be better than Romo if you haven't seen him play? Aren't you just as guilty as the guys you accuse of blindly liking Schaub over Romo? What's the difference? If neither of you guys have enough data to compile an opinion isn't your best bet to stay neutral instead of just assuming that there is no shot that Schaub can't be a better QB than an undrafted FA up in Jerryjonesville?

real
03-28-2007, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure if Schaub is going to be better than Romo...

I think Romo is a beast by the way...

But, from the little I've seen from Schaub I think he's going to be darn good...

JMO

nunusguy
03-28-2007, 01:39 PM
I'm excited about Schaub and looking forward to the season with him,
but I really think the value of any endorsement Kiper makes about a particular player is dubious.

blockhead83
03-28-2007, 01:39 PM
Honest question....

How can you be sure that Schaub isn't going to be better than Romo if you haven't seen him play? Aren't you just as guilty as the guys you accuse of blindly liking Schaub over Romo? What's the difference? If neither of you guys have enough data to compile an opinion isn't your best bet to stay neutral instead of just assuming that their is no shot that Schaub can't be a better QB than an undrafted FA up in Jerryjonesville?

Honest answer, it's just that the likelihood of him being better than a pro-bowl quality guy seems much lower than the likelihood of him being worse. It seems to me if he had perennial pro-bowler written all over him, he wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round, sat behind a starter for 3 years, and have a 0-2 starters record with a 1:1 TD to INT ratio. A much exaggerated, but analagous situation would be for me to say had I played the lottery last week I would've won. Nobody can tell me I wouldn't have, since I never played, but the odds that I would have would be infinitesimal (that's a huge overstatement, but you get the picture hopefully). The other reason is I tend to be pessimistic as a Texans fan who's had almost every major acquisition in his favorite franchise's existence blow up in his face. It's called learning by association. I'm not saying Schaub is going to suck, I'm just saying I'd be very, and pleasantly, surprised if he came in and played at a pro-bowl level after being a back up for 3 years.

Please_Evolve
03-28-2007, 01:41 PM
I was listening to ESPN radio in Dallas this morning, and the hosts were discussing a comment Kipers made, which was something to the effect of, "I'd take Schaub over Romo, with 16 exclamation points..." Apparently several NFL scouts have made a similar reference. The hosts of the show were adamant that if they were going to start a franchise, they'd take Romo 10 times out of 10 over Schaub, and frankly I have to agree with them. Romo played like a pro-bowl performer last year and saved the Cowboys season, and after watching him on several occasions I think he throws one of the prettiest, best placed balls in the NFL. Schaub on the other hand has very little evidence to go on, and the public opinion of him is basically resting on his college and limited professional accomplishments.

I just thought that it was interesting that some scouts and Kiper were willing to come and put their stamp on a guy with little professional background over someone who made the pro-bowl last season. There's obviously something about Schaub that makes people think he's going to be really special. While I disagree that he'd be better than Romo, if Kiper and similar minded scouts are indeed correct and he plays at a similar level or above the one Romo plays at, then we got a fantastic value from the trade and we're going to see a winning team in Houston very soon.

P.S. They said the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....

Before Romo started last year he was not really battle tested himself. Suddenly he steps in and makes a significant impact. But let's not kid ourselves first he backdoored into the pro-bowl on a lil over half a season in the NFC that HAS to tell you something about the conference.

I'd also like to add he had more mobility then Bledsoe...I've seen tortioises injured on the Discovery Channel that have more mobility then that statue. Anyone would look good after that. Their line play was shaky as ours and Romo had his games were he looked brilliant and others were not so.

Romo also had several years in the same system to learn and get used to terminology etc etc. Scaub has had several years in the WCO under Greg Knapp, who is in the Walsh tree if i remember right, running a similar variation that Kubiak had Denver and is trying to implement here. However unlike Romo ,who had only preseason snaps under his belt, Schaub has had game experience even if it is sparingly.

Anyone seeing the correlation here? Except obviously Romo has better skillset around him for the most part.

Meloy
03-28-2007, 01:43 PM
As I understand our offensive sets, the QB does not have to be exceptional. Just not subject to brain farts and turn overs. If he plays within the system and our pickups for 2006 & 2007 do only what they are projected to do, we should have a good year. Anything above that from anybody adds gravy for the chicken.

Specnatz
03-28-2007, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure if Schaub is going to be better than Romo...

I think Romo is a beast by the way...

But, from the little I've seen from Schaub I think he's going to be darn good...

JMO

The problem is that as soon as teams had some film on Romo he struggled. A player has to adapt to defenses and Romo did not do that after his first several games.

Vinny
03-28-2007, 01:47 PM
I'm not sure if Schaub is going to be better than Romo...

I think Romo is a beast by the way...

But, from the little I've seen from Schaub I think he's going to be darn good...

JMO
Romo a beast? He didn't play that well late in the year when teams kept him in the pocket.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2007, 01:47 PM
I'm excited about Schaub and looking forward to the season with him,
but I really think the value of any endorsement Kiper makes about a particular player is dubious.


Yeah, the fact that Kiper is pro-Schaub worries me and we might should have taken that into consideration and gone with Sage instead.

Vinny
03-28-2007, 01:49 PM
As I understand our offensive sets, the QB does not have to be exceptional. Just not subject to brain farts and turn overs. If he plays within the system and our pickups for 2006 & 2007 do only what they are projected to do, we should have a good year. Anything above that from anybody adds gravy for the chicken.This is a fallacy. John Elway won at least 12 playoff games and participated in 5 Super Bowls. Since Elway retired the Broncos have won one playoff game after all these years. They also replaced a "serviceable" QB in Plummer by taking a QB that has the potential to be elite as they traded up to draft Cutler.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2007, 01:51 PM
Honest answer, it's just that the likelihood of him being better than a pro-bowl quality guy seems much lower than the likelihood of him being worse. It seems to me if he had perennial pro-bowler written all over him, he wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round, sat behind a starter for 3 years, and have a 0-2 starters record with a 1:1 TD to INT ratio. A much exaggerated, but analagous situation would be for me to say had I played the lottery last week I would've won. Nobody can tell me I wouldn't have, since I never played, but the odds that I would have would be infinitesimal (that's a huge overstatement, but you get the picture hopefully). The other reason is I tend to be pessimistic as a Texans fan who's had almost every major acquisition in his favorite franchise's existence blow up in his face. It's called learning by association. I'm not saying Schaub is going to suck, I'm just saying I'd be very, and pleasantly, surprised if he came in and played at a pro-bowl level after being a back up for 3 years.

What? Romo was undrafted and sat on the bench for 3-4 years before getting a chance to start. Schaub had been projected as a first rounder but dropped because he had a shoulder injury. Then he got stuck behind Vick who had a monster contract and even if they'd drafted Montana, Vick would have been starting. The Falcons fans that have seen Schaub in action have been impressed and they said part of the reason his stats were bad was because he usually only came in when the Falcons were way behind and he had to wing it and take risks in an attempt to bring the team back.

Texas
03-28-2007, 01:53 PM
Its the cowboys radio...Of course there going to say something ridiculous about us !

Lucky
03-28-2007, 01:55 PM
P.S. They said the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....

Hahaha. After that disaster in the playoffs, I wouldn't be so smug.

Regarding Schaub...who knows? Kiper doesn't, the cowgirl jockers don't, nobody does.

Regarding Romo...who is the real Tony Romo? The guy who started out hot and threw 5 TDs against the Bucs? Or the guy who flamed out at the end of the year, throwing 8 picks and getting sacked 13 times over the last 5 regular season games? Oh, and letting a wild card game slip through his fingers. Romo still has a lot to prove.

Dawgnme
03-28-2007, 02:43 PM
... let's not kid ourselves first he backdoored into the pro-bowl on a lil over half a season in the NFC that HAS to tell you something about the conference.

What you said, hoss! Romo as a Pro Bowler is relative - we are talking about the NFC, after all. Anyway, we all saw what happened after defensive coordinators had a few weeks of tape to scheme against him... X-POSED!!!

To the Schaub point, I found the ATL fan thread most interesting. Several of the posters point out the circumstances surrounding Schaub's INTs - desperation heaves just before the half or toward the end of games when they were clearly out of hand. I hope we get Brown in the draft to protect the guy.

Texans_Chick
03-28-2007, 02:49 PM
Honest question....

How can you be sure that Schaub isn't going to be better than Romo if you haven't seen him play? Aren't you just as guilty as the guys you accuse of blindly liking Schaub over Romo? What's the difference? If neither of you guys have enough data to compile an opinion isn't your best bet to stay neutral instead of just assuming that there is no shot that Schaub can't be a better QB than an undrafted FA up in Jerryjonesville?

Nicely put.

The only test of a QB is how they play once teams have seen them play for a while and have seen their strengths and weaknesses.

It is something that makes evaluating backup quarterbacks very difficult if you have only been able to look at them in spot situations. Teams have to make educated guesses.

Romo's diminished play near the end of the season could be based on a number of factors, and maybe one of those might be teams better preparing for him. Hard to say.

Double Barrel
03-28-2007, 03:06 PM
The problem is that as soon as teams had some film on Romo he struggled. A player has to adapt to defenses and Romo did not do that after his first several games.

I agree. It will be interesting to see how Romo looks now that teams have a history to study, how Romo responds to being The Man and starting at the beginning of a season, and how well he reacts when the chips are down.

And honestly, everyone excuses it away, but the dude choked when his team needed him to do something simple like hold the ball for a FG attempt. The mindset of making a mistake at that point in the game, with your season on the line in the playoffs, can be revealing.

As far as Shaub is concerned, none of us know and we have to take a leap of faith. Personally, I think he's going to impress us and take charge of the offense like Texans fans have never seen before. But that's just me and my opinion.

Errant Hothy
03-28-2007, 03:21 PM
It had to be Jennifer Engle's radio show...which means it was a big bowl of steaming dog poo. There are very few radio personalities/journalists in the DFW that I think are worth a damn, and it's not like I think Kiper is that great either; but between these two I'll take Kiper everyday of the week.

HomeBred_Texan
03-28-2007, 03:30 PM
I don't care what anyone has to say about him or the trade. Until I see him play a full season or at least a few games, I am not going to make any decisions on if he is good or bad or a pro bowler or a flop or the trade was good or bad. I am taking the "wait and see" approach to the whole thing right now...

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2007, 03:30 PM
It had to be Jennifer Engle's radio show...which means it was a big bowl of steaming dog poo. There are very few radio personalities/journalists in the DFW that I think are worth a damn, and it's not like I think Kiper is that great either; but between these two I'll take Kiper everyday of the week.

Yeah, but you gotta love the name "Little Ball of Hate."

Errant Hothy
03-28-2007, 03:34 PM
Yeah, but you gotta love the name "Little Ball of Hate."

Only good thing about her, and maybe for that entire station.

GP
03-28-2007, 03:36 PM
I like the fact t hat Schaub is 6-5 237.

Carr is 6-3 230.

Romo 6-2 225.

Schaub is 3 inches taller than Romo.

Two inches taller than Carr.

Being taller helps to throw better over the d-line, and it helps even more that Schaub stands UPRIGHT and explodes off the ball of his foot when he throws instead of squatting and lowering his arm & pass trajectory like Carr did.

Schaub is going to do fine.

We're not used to seeing a QB who can read a defense pre-snap and then put a ball where he wants it to go.

The whole team just lost so much confidence in David because of his inability to those things; it became normal for the team to lose its focus and just go through the motions because they sat there and spinned their wheels so much of the time. It's degrading when you do all you can do, and it doesn't matter because your QB is not in the flow like he should be.

Wait until Schaub starts barking at those RBs/TEs/WRs when they mis a route, drop a ball, etc. He's going to lay the smack down and lead this team.

We just cannot even begin to imagine what that looks like because we've not seen it for 5 years on our team.

Schaub's going to do just fine. A lot of people mock Kiper and make fun of him. You try predicting ALL players and where they land, etc. I'd say he has a better finger on the pulse of the NFL draft than most people give him credit for.

El Tejano
03-28-2007, 03:46 PM
I was listening to ESPN radio in Dallas this morning, and the hosts were discussing a comment Kipers made, which was something to the effect of, "I'd take Schaub over Romo, with 16 exclamation points..." Apparently several NFL scouts have made a similar reference. The hosts of the show were adamant that if they were going to start a franchise, they'd take Romo 10 times out of 10 over Schaub, and frankly I have to agree with them. Romo played like a pro-bowl performer last year and saved the Cowboys season, and after watching him on several occasions I think he throws one of the prettiest, best placed balls in the NFL. Schaub on the other hand has very little evidence to go on, and the public opinion of him is basically resting on his college and limited professional accomplishments.

I just thought that it was interesting that some scouts and Kiper were willing to come and put their stamp on a guy with little professional background over someone who made the pro-bowl last season. There's obviously something about Schaub that makes people think he's going to be really special. While I disagree that he'd be better than Romo, if Kiper and similar minded scouts are indeed correct and he plays at a similar level or above the one Romo plays at, then we got a fantastic value from the trade and we're going to see a winning team in Houston very soon.

P.S. They said the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....

If anything I believe this shows that going for Schaub over a rookie in the 1st round is reason to believe we made a good move.

blockhead83
03-28-2007, 03:54 PM
What? Romo was undrafted and sat on the bench for 3-4 years before getting a chance to start. Schaub had been projected as a first rounder but dropped because he had a shoulder injury. Then he got stuck behind Vick who had a monster contract and even if they'd drafted Montana, Vick would have been starting. The Falcons fans that have seen Schaub in action have been impressed and they said part of the reason his stats were bad was because he usually only came in when the Falcons were way behind and he had to wing it and take risks in an attempt to bring the team back.

They're similar because they've both been backups for most of their careers. They're different because Romo has started a good chunk of a season and played at a pro-bowl level, while Schaub has only started two games. In other words, Romo has a professional body of work to reflect on, albeit not very extensive, that is much larger and at this point more impressive than what Schaub has compiled. All I'm saying is one hen in the hand is worth two in the bush, I think it's safer to go with someone who's done it over someone who might do it.

That said, I'm still very happy to have Schaub as our starting QB, and I'm very excited to see what he can do.

HoustonFrog
03-28-2007, 03:56 PM
The problem is that as soon as teams had some film on Romo he struggled. A player has to adapt to defenses and Romo did not do that after his first several games.

I don't buy this and find this to be blah, blah rhetoric of people who were trying to explain his slump last year. It is no secret here, at least I've talked about it, that I grew up in Ft. Worth and thusly have been a Boys fan all my life(moved here in 93 and have been here long enough to be a dual citizen). I don't think Romo is a savior and I'm not going to pump him up to a ridiculous standard. However, I think most of his problems last year were self induced. The first 5 games he was an oddity and people didn't know what to expect but he also was making some crazy Favre like plays..ones that could have gone one way or another. I think as the season wore on he just kept attempting to make those plays yet the ball wasn't quite bouncing as it was before. It was a gunslinger mentality that paid off at times and failed miseribly other times. Overall though I think his upside is huge and once he starts this season as the man, he will be smart enough to stay within himself. Alot of guys started off up and down. He just needs to realize that he can't make every play. JMO. If he does fall out of favor, I'm sure JJ will pull some old bum out again..lol

I am excited about Schaub and will wait to see what we have to see. I do think the change in leadership and what he has done so far(calls, etc) is a step. I also think our offense is built for guys who can read and make the smart play, the accurate throw and he seems to fit the bill.

El Tejano
03-28-2007, 03:59 PM
We're not used to seeing a QB who can read a defense pre-snap and then put a ball where he wants it to go.




You said alot there. I remember a play in which Sage saw a blitz coming and threw a quick out to Johnson in Tenn. and we got some yardage out of it. I recall it was then I noticed Sage was doing things David never did like adjust the offense.

I think we are going to see more of that now.

HOOK'EM
03-28-2007, 04:43 PM
Romo a beast? He didn't play that well late in the year when teams kept him in the pocket.

Tell'em Vin, Romy SUCKS!

HOOK'EM
03-28-2007, 04:44 PM
What? Romo was undrafted and sat on the bench for 3-4 years before getting a chance to start. Schaub had been projected as a first rounder but dropped because he had a shoulder injury. Then he got stuck behind Vick who had a monster contract and even if they'd drafted Montana, Vick would have been starting. The Falcons fans that have seen Schaub in action have been impressed and they said part of the reason his stats were bad was because he usually only came in when the Falcons were way behind and he had to wing it and take risks in an attempt to bring the team back.

...............and you wonder where he got the blockhead?

South Texan
03-28-2007, 05:04 PM
Schaub's stats are influenced by some Hail Mary passes that were intercepted.

What excites me from what I have seen so far his leadership skills are far better than He Who Must Not Be Named. (Hey, put his name on here and it turns into one of THOSE threads.)

With his passing mechanics and height I think we will see way fewer passes batted down at the line.

As far as how he compares to Romo... My crystal ball is in the shop, so ask me again in a year when I have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

Bamaborn-Texasbred
03-28-2007, 05:35 PM
I think Romo should stick spotting field goal attempts.

HoustonFrog
03-28-2007, 05:35 PM
Schaub's stats are influenced by some Hail Mary passes that were intercepted.
What excites me from what I have seen so far his leadership skills are far better than He Who Must Not Be Named. (Hey, put his name on here and it turns into one of THOSE threads.)

With his passing mechanics and height I think we will see way fewer passes batted down at the line.

As far as how he compares to Romo... My crystal ball is in the shop, so ask me again in a year when I have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

Glad you said that. I was getting tired of people saying his stats and QB rating weren't the best...the guy played very little and most was in mop up desperation mode where he was chucking it deep.

thunderkyss
03-28-2007, 05:49 PM
Honest answer, it's just that the likelihood of him being better than a pro-bowl quality guy seems much lower than the likelihood of him being worse. It seems to me if he had perennial pro-bowler written all over him, he wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round, sat behind a starter for 3 years, and have a 0-2 starters record with a 1:1 TD to INT ratio. A much exaggerated, but analagous situation would be for me to say had I played the lottery last week I would've won. Nobody can tell me I wouldn't have, since I never played, but the odds that I would have would be infinitesimal (that's a huge overstatement, but you get the picture hopefully). The other reason is I tend to be pessimistic as a Texans fan who's had almost every major acquisition in his favorite franchise's existence blow up in his face. It's called learning by association. I'm not saying Schaub is going to suck, I'm just saying I'd be very, and pleasantly, surprised if he came in and played at a pro-bowl level after being a back up for 3 years.

Every knock you have against Schaub, it's even worse for Romo. Schaub has been a back-up for three years.... well, at leat he's been the #2 guy for 2 years. Prior to '06, Romo was #3 on the dept chart behind Quincy Carter, Vinny Testeverde, Drew Henson, and most likely a few QBs I've already forgotten.

Schaub was drafted in the third round... because of a shoulder injury. Romo was a very healthy undrafted FA.

Schaub is 0-2 in career starts. Before Romo got the start, he threw for 2 TDs against the Texans in garbage time.

I've got nothing but love for Tony Romo...... he played like a probowler for 5 games... then he didn't for 4 games..... I'm not sold on Romo being the long term solution in Big D.

blockhead83
03-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Every knock you have against Schaub, it's even worse for Romo. Schaub has been a back-up for three years.... well, at leat he's been the #2 guy for 2 years. Prior to '06, Romo was #3 on the dept chart behind Quincy Carter, Vinny Testeverde, Drew Henson, and most likely a few QBs I've already forgotten.

Schaub was drafted in the third round... because of a shoulder injury. Romo was a very healthy undrafted FA.

Schaub is 0-2 in career starts. Before Romo got the start, he threw for 2 TDs against the Texans in garbage time.

I've got nothing but love for Tony Romo...... he played like a probowler for 5 games... then he didn't for 4 games..... I'm not sold on Romo being the long term solution in Big D.

Refer to my post above where I say I'll take a guy who's done it over a guy who might do it. Also, you said every knock is worse for Romo, that's false. Romo has a better starter's record than Schaub.

buckaroo_banzai
03-28-2007, 07:20 PM
i think people are forgetting that romo has to learn a new offensive system under "coach jones"...oops i mean coach phillips. this will be a good year to see how he adapts.
schaub is already familiar with the west coast offense, so i hope his learning curve is small. :drool:

D-ReK
03-28-2007, 07:35 PM
This is the same Kiper that said Mike Williams was the best player in the draft a couple of years back, right?

beerlover
03-28-2007, 07:38 PM
Kiper is a draft analyst. he studies film, talks with teams & is a NFL junkie w/years & years of experience. one would think that is a good thing :wacko:

where was Romo drafted again :confused: & DFW is knocking Schuab for lasting into the 3rd...........

I like Romo too but one thing Schuab has over him (Carr as well) along with his height is his throwing motion its text book straight over the top with excellent launch angle from the line of scrimmage, meaning his passes will be more difficult to knock down/tip so as long as the offensive line does its part to protect & give him time to read through his progressions, better results are sure to follow (nice to have a #2 WR too) :)

NFLforher
03-28-2007, 08:31 PM
Honest question....

How can you be sure that Schaub isn't going to be better than Romo if you haven't seen him play? Aren't you just as guilty as the guys you accuse of blindly liking Schaub over Romo? What's the difference? If neither of you guys have enough data to compile an opinion isn't your best bet to stay neutral instead of just assuming that there is no shot that Schaub can't be a better QB than an undrafted FA up in Jerryjonesville?


Agreed.

I hate the cowgirls...and Jerry.

NFLforher
03-28-2007, 08:32 PM
I don't care what anyone has to say about him or the trade. Until I see him play a full season or at least a few games, I am not going to make any decisions on if he is good or bad or a pro bowler or a flop or the trade was good or bad. I am taking the "wait and see" approach to the whole thing right now...


As we should but there is no reason not to be optimistic.

Wolf
03-28-2007, 08:38 PM
question is: can Matt be a holder for a field goal? (wait we got sage) .:heh: just kidding ..I feel bad for romo for that ..things happen all the time like that.yet his was the worst possible time(however landry would have kicked on 3rd down )

Aiden
03-28-2007, 08:38 PM
Romo a beast? He didn't play that well late in the year when teams kept him in the pocket.


Thank you.

aproberts03
03-28-2007, 09:04 PM
The problem is that as soon as teams had some film on Romo he struggled. A player has to adapt to defenses and Romo did not do that after his first several games.

i agree

thunderkyss
03-28-2007, 09:16 PM
The problem is that as soon as teams had some film on Romo he struggled. A player has to adapt to defenses and Romo did not do that after his first several games.

I'm sure some of that was true. But if you remember what that OL was like when Bledsoe was taking the snaps, you've got to agree that they weren't any better than ours(They gave up 37 sacks, even though Romo dodged a dozen). Romo was having to deal with things on a regular basis, that he shouldn't have to. Much like David.

If the OL improves, & Romo only has to be Romo every now and then, and not every play.

ReliantTexan
03-28-2007, 10:29 PM
P.S. They Romo played like a pro-bowl performer last year and saved the Cowboys seasonsaid the one big strike on Schaub is that the Texans like him....Yeah but he also ended the cowboys season with a botched snap,which was a make or break game-winner.

ReliantTexan
03-28-2007, 10:53 PM
Refer to my post above where I say I'll take a guy who's done it over a guy who might do it. Also, you said every knock is worse for Romo, that's false. Romo has a better starter's record than Schaub.Yeah that's because Romo played almost a whole season, compared to Schaub's 2 starts which against the pats he threw for 300 yds and he was a rookie then still learning the offense.Now he's been under the same offense as ours for 3 years.He's more of a physical specimen than romo he's accurate,prpbably has a stronger arm.And above all he'll be under the tutelage of Gary Kubiak.Of course you'll take a guy who's done it over a guy who might do but who would'nt.

A Texan
03-29-2007, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE=Texans_Chick;645949]Nicely put.

The only test of a QB is how they play once teams have seen them play for a while and have seen their strengths and weaknesses.

It is something that makes evaluating backup quarterbacks very difficult if you have only been able to look at them in spot situations. Teams have to make educated guesses.
QUOTE]
This point is brought up a lot. But what you also have to realize is that most QB's are going to get better when they start. Experience is an excellent teacher.

Specnatz
03-29-2007, 02:15 AM
I'm sure some of that was true. But if you remember what that OL was like when Bledsoe was taking the snaps, you've got to agree that they weren't any better than ours(They gave up 37 sacks, even though Romo dodged a dozen). Romo was having to deal with things on a regular basis, that he shouldn't have to. Much like David.

If the OL improves, & Romo only has to be Romo every now and then, and not every play.

Of course the O0line played a huge role in his decline. But so did actually having game film on him. It is just that I did not see any adjustments made by him as a player, when he did start to stuggle he just kept doing the same mistakes over and over again.

South Texan
03-29-2007, 09:56 AM
A little off subject but...

Did anyone else get visions of the movie North Dallas Fourty (with Nick Nolte) when Romo fumbled the snap?

GP
03-29-2007, 10:08 AM
I'm sure some of that was true. But if you remember what that OL was like when Bledsoe was taking the snaps, you've got to agree that they weren't any better than ours(They gave up 37 sacks, even though Romo dodged a dozen). Romo was having to deal with things on a regular basis, that he shouldn't have to. Much like David.

If the OL improves, & Romo only has to be Romo every now and then, and not every play.

You know what, the more I look at these sort of topics that involve QBs and O lines...the more I think that the o line's level of success is in direct proportion to the level of the QB's ability to produce on an ongoing basis.

Show me an o line that is struggling to keep the QB upright, and I'll show you a QB who isn't (a) effectively reading defenses pre-snap, and (b) getting rid of the ball to the best WR/TE/RB available for that specific play.

Bledsoe IS a statue, but he also needs what seems to be an eternity in the pocket just to get rid of the ball. Once he does, he's extremely lethal and can hit his target--don't get me wrong--as opposed to Peyton and Tom Brady who seem to be winging the ball sometimes even before they hit their last step on their dropback.

I dunno guys....the more I think about it, the more I read stuff on here, the less I am inclined to lay blame on an o line. The play of the QB can make an o line look Pro Bowl caliber.

I mean, how much separation is there when you get right down to it? Show me teams that have QBs getting sacked all the time, or teams that are ranked last in pass offense. etc., and I bet you'll see teams whose QB is not exactly the best in the world.

Cleveland...

Miami...

Houston...

Oakland...

Get the picture?

Please_Evolve
03-29-2007, 12:30 PM
You know what, the more I look at these sort of topics that involve QBs and O lines...the more I think that the o line's level of success is in direct proportion to the level of the QB's ability to produce on an ongoing basis.

Show me an o line that is struggling to keep the QB upright, and I'll show you a QB who isn't (a) effectively reading defenses pre-snap, and (b) getting rid of the ball to the best WR/TE/RB available for that specific play.

Bledsoe IS a statue, but he also needs what seems to be an eternity in the pocket just to get rid of the ball. Once he does, he's extremely lethal and can hit his target--don't get me wrong--as opposed to Peyton and Tom Brady who seem to be winging the ball sometimes even before they hit their last step on their dropback.

I dunno guys....the more I think about it, the more I read stuff on here, the less I am inclined to lay blame on an o line. The play of the QB can make an o line look Pro Bowl caliber.

I mean, how much separation is there when you get right down to it? Show me teams that have QBs getting sacked all the time, or teams that are ranked last in pass offense. etc., and I bet you'll see teams whose QB is not exactly the best in the world.

Cleveland...

Miami...

Houston...

Oakland...

Get the picture?

Of those 4 teams if you ask me its an unhealthy mixture of both. Though at least Cleveland has went out and tried to improve the line...then injuries happen. Maybe the last two expansion franchises have some bad OL voodoo over them ATM.

Silver Oak
03-29-2007, 01:45 PM
You could take the argument one step further and question the routes run by the receivers. Are they breaking free of the LOS and running their routes as practiced? Timing is critical and if a qb looks downfield and the guy isn't where he is supposed to be, then he is more likely to force the ball where it isn't smart.

Bottom line...all parts must work together to have a good offense.

thunderkyss
03-29-2007, 02:06 PM
Show me an o line that is struggling to keep the QB upright, and I'll show you a QB who isn't (a) effectively reading defenses pre-snap, and (b) getting rid of the ball to the best WR/TE/RB available for that specific play.


It is my opinion, that most Pro Bowl Linemen earn that status in the run game. Guys like Salaam can handle Dwight Freeney, Jason Taylor, Demarcus Ware etc.. and not much is going to be said. I mean basically they just stood in front of a guy with bad intentions.

But when You've got a Steve Hutchinson or Walter Jones bowling over DEs & Lbs... making huge holes.. it's really something to watch.

But I've seen Hasselbeck look like Elway in the '05 NFC Championship game. I mean he scrambles because his protection broke down, and it was usually on his left side. Same thing with McNabb.... people talk about how good his line is. Well if they were that good, he wouldn't be one of the most prolific running QBs in this league over the last six years or so.

real
03-29-2007, 02:10 PM
Romo a beast? He didn't play that well late in the year when teams kept him in the pocket.

I've liked Romo, and thought he was gonna be good when I saw him in a pre-season game two years ago....

JMPO, but I think Romo is going to be a beast....

HoustonFrog
03-29-2007, 02:11 PM
Of those 4 teams if you ask me its an unhealthy mixture of both. Though at least Cleveland has went out and tried to improve the line...then injuries happen. Maybe the last two expansion franchises have some bad OL voodoo over them ATM.

Cleveland has always bothered me. They were an expansion team when Couch came aboard. They had a front office that screwed up some decisions and they had serious injury problems or hexes as you will that led to a horrible O-line and team. Couch had the same stats as Carr. So how does he get run out on a train and never catches back on and is labeled a bust yet Carr got so much slack and still gets the benefit?There is nothing different about it.

real
03-29-2007, 02:13 PM
It is my opinion, that most Pro Bowl Linemen earn that status in the run game. Guys like Salaam can handle Dwight Freeney, Jason Taylor, Demarcus Ware etc.. and not much is going to be said. I mean basically they just stood in front of a guy with bad intentions.

But when You've got a Steve Hutchinson or Walter Jones bowling over DEs & Lbs... making huge holes.. it's really something to watch.

But I've seen Hasselbeck look like Elway in the '05 NFC Championship game. I mean he scrambles because his protection broke down, and it was usually on his left side. Same thing with McNabb.... people talk about how good his line is. Well if they were that good, he wouldn't be one of the most prolific running QBs in this league over the last six years or so.


This is the NFL...

There is going to be pressure....

The athletes on defense are too good to not get some kind of pressure if given enough time...

I have yet to see a line who keeps their QB from atleast sliding in the pocket...

Errant Hothy
03-29-2007, 02:29 PM
Cowboys | Romo no longer holder
Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:21:23 -0700

Charean Williams, of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reports Dallas Cowboys QB Tony Romo will not be holding for kickers on field goals and extra points next year because he is now the starting quarterback.

There's that problem solved. B. Johnso will be the holder next year.

blockhead83
03-29-2007, 03:20 PM
Yeah that's because Romo played almost a whole season, compared to Schaub's 2 starts which against the pats he threw for 300 yds and he was a rookie then still learning the offense.Now he's been under the same offense as ours for 3 years.He's more of a physical specimen than romo he's accurate,prpbably has a stronger arm.And above all he'll be under the tutelage of Gary Kubiak.Of course you'll take a guy who's done it over a guy who might do but who would'nt.

Somehow you managed to disagree with my post while still agreeing with it in principle. I tip my hat to you sir.

MATRIX
03-29-2007, 03:39 PM
Honest answer, it's just that the likelihood of him being better than a pro-bowl quality guy seems much lower than the likelihood of him being worse. It seems to me if he had perennial pro-bowler written all over him, he wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round, sat behind a starter for 3 years, and have a 0-2 starters record with a 1:1 TD to INT ratio. A much exaggerated, but analagous situation would be for me to say had I played the lottery last week I would've won. Nobody can tell me I wouldn't have, since I never played, but the odds that I would have would be infinitesimal (that's a huge overstatement, but you get the picture hopefully). The other reason is I tend to be pessimistic as a Texans fan who's had almost every major acquisition in his favorite franchise's existence blow up in his face. It's called learning by association. I'm not saying Schaub is going to suck, I'm just saying I'd be very, and pleasantly, surprised if he came in and played at a pro-bowl level after being a back up for 3 years.

Let me mention a name and see what you say...Tom Brady. Drafted 6th round...and now a multi-SB winner and probably the best big game QB in the NFL. Sure, Manning won a SB...but not alone. Brady did his with A WR playing CB and his WR's being decent at best(most would be 3rd WRs on another team). The D kept them in it, and Brady won.

So, Schaub in the 3rd...3 higher than Brady. Schaub has all the tools, and Romo might just be a 1 yr wonder...I saw as you did watching him alot of unsure moments.

blockhead83
03-29-2007, 04:51 PM
Let me mention a name and see what you say...Tom Brady. Drafted 6th round...and now a multi-SB winner and probably the best big game QB in the NFL. Sure, Manning won a SB...but not alone. Brady did his with A WR playing CB and his WR's being decent at best(most would be 3rd WRs on another team). The D kept them in it, and Brady won.

So, Schaub in the 3rd...3 higher than Brady. Schaub has all the tools, and Romo might just be a 1 yr wonder...I saw as you did watching him alot of unsure moments.

First off, I am familiar with and like Tom Brady quite a bit. More than Manning. But Brady's the exception, not the rule, which is the real crux of my argument for taking Romo over Schaub at this juncture. Sure, Brady was a no name who came in and knocked everyone's socks off, but the reason it's such a great story is because it's so incredibly rare for a QB to come out of relative anonymity and tear it up so early in their career. Schaub has many of the characteristics you look for in a starting QB, but the fact of the matter is you don't know how good they'll be until they get out there and play, and if it were so easy for a back up QB to step in and play at an All-Pro level you wouldn't see so many franchise's struggling to find a solid QB. You're rolling the dice anytime you let a player have a shot at being a starter, and it's statistically much more prevalent for that player to flame out than it is for them to light it up. Seeing as Romo's already shown that he can light it up, my opinion is he's a safer choice to begin a franchise with right now.