Fire Gruden, Keep RGIII?

[Hank]

Dallas D is going straight for that calf.... BooooYaaa!

 

[Beta]

Right but, to be fair, those other guys had better teams around them than Romo has which I think was the point. I mean, Romo QB'ing, say, the 49'ers? Not hard to argue they'd have at least one SB over the last 3-4 years. Rogers SB team beat an amazing Steelers team and he did it with an outstanding O line, solid D and some super skill people.

Put another way, do any of those guys have a SB if they've been QB in Dallas the last 6-8 years? No way. Agreed?

What??? The Cowboys have had plenty of talent when compared to other teams and that was even before this season. How are the ex-Green Bay WRs doing away from Rodgers? How did the Colts do the season after they lost Manning? Brady had no OL, WRs, or RB this year. The best QBs make the offense great, consistently! If you need a top talent offense to have a good season then you're only an average to good QB. That's where Romo is in the QB pecking order, because he has better weapons than virtually anyone in the league and had a decent defense to support him...but it certainly helps the defense when you control the football, which is on the offense.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).

 

[Larry Gude]

What??? The Cowboys have had plenty of talent when compared to other teams and that was even before this season. How are the ex-Green Bay WRs doing away from Rodgers? How did the Colts do the season after they lost Manning? Brady had no OL, WRs, or RB this year. The best QBs make the offense great, consistently! If you need a top talent offense to have a good season then you're only an average to good QB. That's where Romo is in the QB pecking order, because he has better weapons than virtually anyone in the league and had a decent defense to support him...but it certainly helps the defense when you control the football, which is on the offense.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).

To an extent. Tom Brady does not make the playoffs as Redskins QB. Agreed? Probably doesn't survive the first 4 games. Agreed? Peyton doesn't stay upright for long as our QB.

Rogers, Brady, Peyton, there best seasons have ALL been with very good O lines. To prove this out, Romo didn't get better. Dez didn't get better. Whitten and what's his face, the RB, didn't get better. The O line got much better and the D got better by cutting some stars and adding some young depth.

 

[Larry Gude]

If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).

That's the thing; there are NO earth shattering moves. There is simply adding youth and depth. Look at Bree's. He was good and became great because Nola built a really good defense AND got him a bunch of good young people to throw the ball to.

 

[Beta]

To an extent. Tom Brady does not make the playoffs as Redskins QB. Agreed? Probably doesn't survive the first 4 games. Agreed? Peyton doesn't stay upright for long as our QB.

Rogers, Brady, Peyton, there best seasons have ALL been with very good O lines. To prove this out, Romo didn't get better. Dez didn't get better. Whitten and what's his face, the RB, didn't get better. The O line got much better and the D got better by cutting some stars and adding some young depth.

I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Like I said, the Colts had minimal personnel changes from when Peyton played to the year he got hurt to the following year. Yet they went from 10-6 to 2-14 to 11-5. How does a team do that if the QB doesn't make that much of an impact? There's a reason why the QB now gets all of the attention and the NFL is considered a QB-driven league. The Steelers went 6-10 in 2003 and 15-1 in 2004 once they found a QB. The Broncos went from a decent 8-8 to a Super Bowl contending 13-3. Cinci went from 4-12 to 9-7 with a solid QB (Dalton) at the helm. Do you honestly think Green Bay has had top talent in the NFL every year since Brett Favre became a starter? Do you think the Patriots have had top talent since Brady became the starter? Did the Colts magically have NOBODY for one season but have otherwise had top talent since ~1998? New Orleans went from 3-13 to 10-6 when they got Brees and have been pretty good ever since.

It's a QB-driven league and the top QBs rise to the top. Their teams come along for the ride. I know that you haven't personally watched a team with top QB play in all likelihood (as a Skins fan), but that's how the league has worked for 20+ years since Marino, Kelly, Montana, and others started the QB revolution.

That's the thing; there are NO earth shattering moves. There is simply adding youth and depth. Look at Bree's. He was good and became great because Nola built a really good defense AND got him a bunch of good young people to throw the ball to.

They add youth and depth every year. Brees became good in San Diego his final year. It had nothing to do with an infusion of talent. Then he took a TERRIBLE New Orleans team (3-13) and won the division the next season. Why? It wasn't because New Orleans was flush with talent. He turned a bad team around. Great QBs do that, regardless of their protection or the players on their team. It's all excuses. I think I remember recently hearing about the terrible OL in front of Rivers, but he gets the ball out so quickly that protection doesn't matter. Roethlisburger is running for his life all the time, but those are the plays where he escapes the pressure, extends the play, and hits the big one. You're giving a random what-if, I'm giving you example after example that proves my point. Even your attempted example (Brees) helps prove my point.

It's all about the QB, bout the QB (not his teammates).

 

[Monello]

In the 1970s, after the AFL & NFL merger, there were 26 teams. Now there are 32 teams. With each team fielding 53 players, today you have over 300 players in the league that would not otherwise be playing if the league did not expand. These players can be considered lower ability players. This dilutes the talent level of play on the field. Salary limits also further limit team's ability to stockpile talent. Free agency further leads to high rates of player turnover from year to year.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't know if that's necessarily the case. :

QB's matter. A lot. That said, do you think the Redskins make the playoffs this past season with Brady or Manning under center?

 

[Larry Gude]

In the 1970s, after the AFL & NFL merger, there were 26 teams. Now there are 32 teams. With each team fielding 53 players, today you have over 300 players in the league that would not otherwise be playing if the league did not expand. These players can be considered lower ability players. This dilutes the talent level of play on the field. Salary limits also further limit team's ability to stockpile talent. Free agency further leads to high rates of player turnover from year to year.

Disagree with the diluted talent argument. Sort of. With a larger roster you have more players, yes, and, on the surface, less talent but, if they go back to, say, 65 man and have 12 more guys developing over the years, a guy who, as a rookie, wouldn't make the cut on a 53 man, but does on a 65 and, at, say, year 3 or 4 has become, at the very least, a kid that knows his teams plays, the quality of play goes up. Or, at least doesn't fall as much when a guy goes down.

As is, the rookie who may be a little faster, a little stronger, is gonna stick over a kid who might be the better player in a few years given time.

 

[Grumpy]

Poor Tom Brady. Never had a chance to succeed in the NFL. No other player, or team, has EVER had a call go their way. The referees are PERFECT, just like all players never screw up or commit a foul.

That's how teams move on, and real teams don't dwell on it, especially those that the calls go against.

Sorry you missed the point...