Romo or Bledsoe?

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Bledsoe isn't mobile enough for their offense. With him they have to play max protect all the time to keep him from getting sacked all the time, and that hasn't worked too well. They need the mobility of Romo so they can open up the offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Since when does the Dallas offense need all sorts of fixing?

The Colts have played a very similar schedule to the Cowboys. In fact you could remove one odd game from each of their results, and they've played the exact same five teams (NYG, HOU, WAS, TENN, JAX), the Colts actually having one more home game (4) than the Cowboys (3). So which offense has scored more points in those 5 games vs. the same opponents? The answer might surprise you.

Granted, that's kind of a handwaving argument, but it should be valid enough to make the point that the Dallas offense hasn't exactly been sputtering.

[HajiShirazu]

Like all teams that have crap offensive lines, it doesn't matter who they play, they're still screwed. For that matter, the opposite is true. If they had a good offensive line, it wouldn't matter either, they could win with either one. There is basically no difference between the #5 and #25 QB. Look at basically every team that is good and every team that is bad. All the good teams have good o-lines (at least by reputation) and the same is true for the bad teams that all have bad o-lines. This has also been true when you look at SB's over the past couple of decades, heck, Dallas is the best example, they had the sickest line in the league. Same can be said that good dline basically = good defense, although this isn't as important to winning really. QB, WR, RB, CB, barely even matter unless you have somebody really awful filling in-there are a large # of guys at these positions that are very close to league average, and a much wider distribution of talent up front.

[JasonK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bledsoe isn't mobile enough for their offense. With him they have to play max protect all the time to keep him from getting sacked all the time, and that hasn't worked too well. They need the mobility of Romo so they can open up the offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Since when does the Dallas offense need all sorts of fixing?

The Colts have played a very similar schedule to the Cowboys. In fact you could remove one odd game from each of their results, and they've played the exact same five teams (NYG, HOU, WAS, TENN, JAX), the Colts actually having one more home game (4) than the Cowboys (3). So which offense has scored more points in those 5 games vs. the same opponents? The answer might surprise you.

Granted, that's kind of a handwaving argument, but it should be valid enough to make the point that the Dallas offense hasn't exactly been sputtering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their passing offense is mediocre at everything except throwing interceptions, at which they're horrible. And their O-line stinks. If it wasn't for playing Washington, Houston and Tennessee (all bottom ranked D's) they'd be less than mediocre.

[PokerFink]

While I agree that the lines are extremely important, and you build a successful football team from the lines out, you're taking this WAY too far. A great offensive line won't do you much good if your quarterback is Kyle Orton and your recievers are a couple UFA scrubs.

[ QUOTE ]
There is basically no difference between the #5 and #25 QB.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding right?

According to DPAR:

#4: Rivers
#5: Huard (who is actually having a great year, go figure)
#6: Brees
#7: Delhomme
#8: Brady

#23: Gradkowski
#24: Vince Young
#25: Warner
#26: Culpepper

Yeah, no difference there.

[Jeff W]

Pretty funny that #25 on the list is a two time MVP and #5 is a career backup.

Anyway, yeah, saying #5 QB=#25 QB is retarded.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Like all teams that have crap offensive lines, it doesn't matter who they play, they're still screwed. For that matter, the opposite is true. If they had a good offensive line, it wouldn't matter either, they could win with either one. There is basically no difference between the #5 and #25 QB. Look at basically every team that is good and every team that is bad. All the good teams have good o-lines (at least by reputation) and the same is true for the bad teams that all have bad o-lines. This has also been true when you look at SB's over the past couple of decades, heck, Dallas is the best example, they had the sickest line in the league. Same can be said that good dline basically = good defense, although this isn't as important to winning really. QB, WR, RB, CB, barely even matter unless you have somebody really awful filling in-there are a large # of guys at these positions that are very close to league average, and a much wider distribution of talent up front.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. There is no position that is more important to a team's success than QB.

Trade Bledsoe for Manning and the Cowboys would be 6-0 and the Colts 2-4.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Granted, that's kind of a handwaving argument, but it should be valid enough to make the point that the Dallas offense hasn't exactly been sputtering.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Colts are not as good as their record, nor are the Cowboys as bad as theirs:

Colts PF 171 PA 122
Cowboys PF 169 PA 128

Yet the Colts are 6-0 and the Cowboys are 3-3.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Their passing offense is mediocre at everything except throwing interceptions, at which they're horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think that's going to get better with Romo at QB?

[ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't for playing Washington, Houston and Tennessee (all bottom ranked D's) they'd be less than mediocre.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can only play who's on your schedule, and it's not like Dallas's gets a whole lot tougher (they still have non-divisional games against Arizona, Atlanta, and Detriot). It's an offense's job to put up points, and the Cowboys' offense has scored the 2nd most points in the conference (and like I said, more points than the Colts in 5 common games). Generally, you don't switch quarterbacks when that's the case.

For all of Bledsoe's shortcomings, at least defenses had to respect his deep ball, which opened up room for Jones to run. I think the Romo advocates who think his mobility gives them another dimension don't realize the offense will probably become much more *one* dimensional.

I think Parcells just got so incensed at Bledsoe's endzone INT (which was absolutley horrible) that he made a rash decision that will probably hurt the team. But I guess time will tell.

[Artdogg]

I cant see Parcells going back to Bledsoe now at all. In Romo's first nfl start he was put in a come-from-behind position where he basically had to be superman. You have to expect some mistakes, I didnt see him throw a single ball away probably because he felt he had to make every play. Some of the good things I saw from Romo are the things I didnt expect, its just going to take some time to limit those mistakes. Bledsoe played ok last year, but there has been a significant decline this year.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I remember hearing these exact same words when it was Bledsoe versus Brady. And at the time, the guy who said it convinced me too.

That's right, I just compared Romo to Tom Brady. The inappropriate comparison police will be stopping by my house shortly. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just the individual comparison that is inappropraite, the situation was completely different. Bledsoe got hurt, Brady filled in and played well for two months before Bledsoe came back. If Romo leads the Cowboys to the playoffs, then you might have something to compare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was actually just making an amusing observation, and even including the remark about how silly it would be to compare any human to Tom Brady, IF I WERE ACTUALLY DOING THAT. The fact that Romo != Brady doesn't make the Bledsoe saga, which remind me of 5 years ago, any less amusing.

I have no opinion on who should be the starting quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. Frankly, both of them could be the next Troy Aikman.