Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   2014 NFL Draft Forum (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=47)
-   -   Would You Give Up a 1st Rounder for Tony Romo? (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54019)

D-Unit 10-02-2012 02:29 PM

Would You Give Up a 1st Rounder for Tony Romo?
 
Lot of QB prospect talk in this forum. So my question to you guys with teams who need a QB. Would you give up a 1st rounder for Tony Romo?

Raiderz4Life 10-02-2012 02:31 PM

If Carson Palmer could fetch a 1st and a 2nd...so can Romo

bucfan12 10-02-2012 02:35 PM

Romo is what 33 years old? No. But only because of age. He's got about 4 yrs in him but that's the only reason why I wouldn't.

Todd Bertuzzi 10-02-2012 02:43 PM

Who would be the potential landing spots? Jets and Bills? Bucs?

I mean if a 28 year old Weeden and a 31 year old Palmer are worth it then no doubt a 32 year old Romo is. 3-4 years out of a top ~10 QB is worth it imo for teams like the Jets and Bucs who might think they're on the cusp and a top QB is all that's holding them back.

BuckeyeDan17 10-02-2012 02:51 PM

This is messy. It really depends for me - are the skill positions set in place for him? Offensive line? If the team is solid-quarterback-play-away from serious contention and I'm the GM, then sure I'd probably fork it out.

Other end of the spectrum: If we don't have the pieces in place (weak receivers, average to below average OL) then no, I'd draft a 22 year old top-flight prospect and address the surrounding issues early in the same draft and following draft to hope for long-term success.

Trogdor 10-02-2012 02:54 PM

Keep in mind also that Tony Romo started late so the wear and tear factor is lessened even though he has played behind some of the worst offensive lines in the league.

I think he'd bring more than the Palmer deal but I also think the chances of a flock of flying pigs nesting on top of the Eiffel Tower is more likely than Romo being dealt.

Babylon 10-02-2012 02:54 PM

You'd have to be good in most phases to want to invest a #1 in Tony at this stage of his career. Hello Seattle.

Having said that they'd probably have him and Flynn as their backups on Sundays.

Todd Bertuzzi 10-02-2012 02:55 PM

You better make sure you get a shot at one of Barkley, Wilson or Smith too because I wouldn't want to deal Romo just to wind up with one of Manuel, Bray or Landry Jones.

SuperPacker 10-02-2012 03:00 PM

The only reason Carson Palmer went for that much, is because the Raiders are stupid. That deal shouldn't be used as guide to what QB's should go for.

y.f.s. 10-02-2012 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon (Post 3137922)
You'd have to be good in most phases to want to invest a #1 in Tony at this stage of his career. Hello Seattle.

Having said that they'd probably have him and Flynn as their backups on Sundays.

Intriguing proposition for both Seattle and Arizona IMO.

Todd Bertuzzi 10-02-2012 03:05 PM

It's also funny that we say the only teams who would be generally interested in an aging starter like Romo would be the ones with pieces already in place to help him succeed. If the Cowboys deal Romo they immediately become one of those teams haha. I just don't think it makes sense for them to trade him at this point. He's still a top QB and shouldn't be written off based on one bad game. I mean two weeks ago people were asking the same questions about Cutler after a terrible primetime performance vs GB. Romo's just the whipping boy of the week atm.

Raiderz4Life 10-02-2012 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker (Post 3137933)
The only reason Carson Palmer went for that much, is because Hue Jackson is a stupid prick. That deal shouldn't be used as guide to what QB's should go for.

Get your **** straight.

It shouldn't be the guide but you'd be naive to not think it will be. Like the DeAngelo Williams contract.

WCH 10-02-2012 03:06 PM

If I had the rest of the team in place and QB was the only thing holding me back, I'd gladly trade a first for Romo. The point of draft picks isn't to throw a party in April, it's to acquire good players so you can make a Super Bowl run.

I don't see Romo being traded at this point, though.

Todd Bertuzzi 10-02-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y.f.s. (Post 3137935)
Intriguing proposition for both Seattle and Arizona IMO.

I would say Arizona is a perfect fit but they'll probably be hesitant to give up another high pick and a big extension to a QB(Of course Romo is way more proven than Kolb so it's not exactly a gamble but the principle remains). The fact that Kolb hasn't been terrible so far this year doesn't help either. Could be interesting to follow in the offseason depending on how the season shakes out though.

SuperPacker 10-02-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life (Post 3137940)
Get your **** straight.

It shouldn't be the guide but you'd be naive to not think it will be. Like the DeAngelo Williams contract.

The Cowboys would try to use it as a guide, but teams aren't going to see what Carson Palmer went for and then give up more for Romo. That's what i'm saying.

And yeah, that's what I meant. Reggie McKenzie to the rescue!

Halsey 10-02-2012 03:30 PM

The trend for teams in need of a QB is to get a young guy. Romo has trade value, but I think a team with a top 20 would rather just keep the pick and try to find a young QB.

MassNole 10-02-2012 03:41 PM

I don't think he's worth a First Round pick, but I believe some NFL team would be dumb enough to use one to get him.

Babylon 10-02-2012 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey (Post 3137968)
The trend for teams in need of a QB is to get a young guy. Romo has trade value, but I think a team with a top 20 would rather just keep the pick and try to find a young QB.

I agree. In this case though we're talking the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry isn't going to sign off on anything that looks like a rebuild job. I think he'd go with someone in the Andrew Luck or Matt Stafford category out of college but not sure how they'd be able to get to that position.

vidae 10-02-2012 04:43 PM

In a word, no. In two words, hell no. But I'd give up a 5th for him probably.

G Mobile 10-02-2012 04:48 PM

I wouldn't but that doesn't mean some team isn't stupid enough to do it. I'd rather have him than Palmer. Even if I had an established team I'm not sure Romo would take me all the way. I'd be more worried about the contract he needs than the picks.

brat316 10-02-2012 05:19 PM

jags should take him

asdf1223 10-02-2012 05:29 PM

Yes yes yes for Seattle. 0 chance Dallas trades him. Nobody will give up a high enough pick for Dallas to get a good rookie QB. They wont trade Romo without a succession plan in place.

P-L 10-02-2012 06:12 PM

I would have absolutely no problem if someone traded a 1st round pick, but I wouldn't be that person. I believe Romo is one of those guys who is good enough to keep you in playoff contention every year, but not good enough to ever win a Super Bowl.

descendency 10-02-2012 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucfan12 (Post 3137896)
Romo is what 33 years old? No. But only because of age. He's got about 4 yrs in him but that's the only reason why I wouldn't.

And maybe 1 good year. Or two max.

Giving a first round pick up for that is nuts.

rawdawg 10-02-2012 09:41 PM

It's a long shot, but I could actually see this happening. Like has been mentioned, teams that feel they are a QB away (Arizona, NY Jets- need OL help too, Oakland, etc) could like Romo. 33 isn't that bad for a QB with only 2700 throws (about 600 more than Matt Ryan, basically a season more wear and tear). He could clearly have 4 solid seasons left. Kurt Warner was left for dead and basically became a Hall of Famer after age 35 with a similar number of throws as Romo has now.

With Dallas' schedule, they should easily be picking in the top 15 again this year. Throw in a 2nd first rounder and Dallas could again move up to get the guy they want.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.