ROMO gets his $$$

[MahiMike]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...y-than-flacco/

Yikes!

The Cowboys and quarterback Tony Romo have a deal, and it’s reportedly a deal that will guarantee Romo even more money than Joe Flacco just received in his blockbuster contract with the Ravens.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the Cowboys and Romo reached an agreement on a six-year extension that contains even more guaranteed money than the six-year, $120.6 million contract that Joe Flacco got from the Ravens.

As is always the case, the contract details will come out in time. But the initial indication is that Jerry Jones backed up the Brink’s truck to pay Romo. Schefter says the total value of the deal is a six-year contract worth $108 million.

The Cowboys have been trying for weeks to get a new deal done with Romo, who would have counted $16.8 million against this year’s salary cap if he didn’t have a new contract. The new deal will reduce Romo’s cap number for 2013.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has long said he believes Romo can lead his team to a Super Bowl, and that he wants Romo to remain a Cowboy for the rest of his career. It appears that will happen: Romo and the Cowboys are tied together for years to come.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Meanwhile in Green Bay



Say hello to 130 mill Rodgers

Yep, the Packers might as well give him the key to the Treasury Department. He's going to break the bank.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Dave

A lot of swallowing for a guy with 1 playoff win.

Yeah, who needs one of the most efficient passers in NFL history on their roster?

We should go after Mark Sanchez instead - more playoff wins.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

How the **** did "bleachaneedle report" scoop the planet? Where is the Chilly thread? You DO know he's on board now, yes?
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, who needs one of the most efficient passers in NFL history on their roster?

We should go after Mark Sanchez instead - more playoff wins.

I really thought you were smarter than this.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

sadly, "the snatchz" would be the best QB on the roster at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by -King-

At his contract, no. But you're stupid if you'd "never" want Romo. The guy shits out 4,000 yard 25 TD seasons.

And shits on the field when it matters.

If I want a QB that wins, it's not Romo.

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Originally Posted by Sweet Dick Willie

sadly, "the snatchz" would be the best QB on the roster at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device

[bevischief]

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Dave

I really thought you were smarter than this.

And I knew that a vast majority of posters on this board aren't smarter than the idiocy being spouted in this thread.

I've made any number of logical arguments, but all you guys seem capable of understanding is "more playoff wins = better" so I'm just trying to dumb it down to your level.

Rational analysis of the play of the respective quarterbacks wasn't doing the job so I've resorted to speaking in clicks and whistles in the hopes that it may resonate with some of the less evolved among you.

[Hootie]

I don't respect the posters who correlate the worth of a QB with playoff success like that...

I just referenced a game in which Romo played his heart out/played good enough to win/made plays that would have won the game...

but they lost because his teammates let him down

yet no one wants to look at that; all they look at is the fact he lost

A tale of two QB's: Tom Brady had a kicker who made pivotal field goals in the tuck rule game in a god damn blizzard where no kicker had any business making those kicks...and then a kicker who made 3 game winning Super Bowl kicks as well.

Peyton Manning needed his kicker to extend a game one time against the Steelers the year the Steelers won their first Super Bowl with Big Ben...yep...just a 46 yarder. Piece of cake for Vinatieri. Vanderjagt?

This is what he got from Vanderjagt:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HPEd_PPAA

Probably the worst kick I've ever seen.

But Brady is super clutch because his kicker never let him down but Manning is a choker because he was never afforded that luxury.

These are just small examples. There isn't a whole lot of NFL games where a QB chokes so terribly that that is the sole reason why his team lost. If you want to argue some QB's rise to the occasion more than others, then so be it...

but this idea that Tony Romo and Peyton Manning are "chokers" but Joe Flacco is "clutch" is a ****ing joke and a terrible argument.

But that's ok...we'll throw facts at you and debate with REASON...but you can just fall back on something genious and witty and super creative like:

"oh you have a thing for QB's who swallow cock in big moments."

Great point.

[Stewie]

Hamas = Gholst-buster

Romo = Hamas genious

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by -King-

At his contract, no. But you're stupid if you'd "never" want Romo. The guy shits out 4,000 yard 25 TD seasons.

I'd take Romo over Smith.

Why would anyone ever take a 33 yr old with 1 playoff win over a 28 yr old with 9 wins including a SB?

[Hootie]

Mark Sanchez has beaten both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady in playoff games despite having a piss poor regular season every single season of his career...and the year he beat Brady (I think) was the year the Colts decided to let Painter play when they had the Jets down and out and would have eliminated them from the playoffs.

Just because a QB gets "hot" or turns in a good performance in the playoffs means NOTHING to me. Every single ****ing game is pretty much a playoff game...when 6 out of 16 teams make the playoffs, and where (at least it used to be) home field means something...

you're supposed to leave it all on the field every single week

I have a hard time trying to have any respect for a poster who tries and tells me they'd take Flacco over Manning and Flacco has a similar career arc to Manning when, and I truly don't put much into PFF but it's a useful stat in this argument...

a Peyton Manning coming off a gazillion neck injuries posted like a +60 on PFF for the season and Flacco was at like +6 (which is pretty terrible for a QB who is now considered ELITE by ChiefsPlanet.com because of Rahim Moore)...

Hilariously enough...if we posted a poll for 2013 only and said:

"Which QB would you take for one year in 2013. Flacco or Manning?"

70% would choose Flacco.

That's how dumb this board is.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Dave

I'd take Romo over Smith.

Why would anyone ever take a 33 yr old with 1 playoff win over a 28 yr old with 9 wins including a SB?

Why would anyone ever take a 33 yr old with 1 playoff win over a 26 yr old with 4 playoff wins including 2 4th quarter playoff comebacks?

{clicksnapwhistlegrunt}

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Dave

I'd take Romo over Smith.

Why would anyone ever take a 33 yr old with 1 playoff win over a 28 yr old with 9 wins including a SB?

because, before this postseason, Joe Flacco MAYBE was the BEST player in 1 of those playoff wins in year's previous.

Peyton Manning is always the key to his team winning in the postseason.
Tom Brady is always the key to his team winning in the postseason.
Tony Romo is always the key to his team winning in the postseason.
Aaron Rodgers is always the key to his team winning in the postseason.

Before this season, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez WERE NEVER the key to their teams winning in the postseason. Now, their play in some games ended up being the key...but going into the game, no one said "this is Joe Flacco's team! This is Flacco's game to win!"

No. Those two simply were instructed to manage the games and not **** up.

So just because they were surrounded with tremendous defenses and not given the responsibilities of elite QB's like Manning and Brady doesn't mean because they won those games that their playoff record is an indicator of what kind of caliber QB they are...

and unfortunately the casual fan dipshits on this board don't understand that

In order for Manning to win in the postseason, he has to play 100% up to Peyton Manning standards.

Peyton Manning standards are much, much, much, much higher than Joe Flacco standards.

The only argument for Peyton being a choker is Peyton not ever playing up to Peyton in the playoffs. The reason why I can't call him a choker is because it's not his fault that 80% Peyton Manning isn't good enough when 80% Peyton Manning would still be better than 99% of the QB's to ever play the game.