It's another day to write about quarterbacks. Three topics I want to clear up, in the wake of all the quarterback action in the last few days.
(For symmetry's sake, I used the won-lost record for seven full seasons prior to Romo and seven full seasons with Romo, even though Romo has started 93 of 112 games in his seven seasons. Dallas' record with Romo starting is 55-38. The quarterback rating for Romo's seven years is for Romo only.)
How do you look at those numbers and believe Romo is the problem? How do you look at those numbers and say, "Let's try a new guy who might be Tom Brady but also might be Gary Hogeboom?''
It's fair game to criticize Jerry Jones for lots of things. Signing Romo to be the quarterback of the Cowboys for the next five or six years isn't one of them.
Now onto your email:
GOOD QUESTION, JOHN.
Because the Raiders don't think Palmer is a premier quarterback, were never going to pay him like one, and didn't want to pay him $13 million this year when they knew he wasn't going to be their quarterback long-term. Arizona, meanwhile, has been searching for a competent quarterback with a good downfield arm ever since Bruce Arians took the head-coaching job in January. Palmer, clearly, was the best man on the market when those qualifications are applied to all the available quarterbacks. And the Cardinals, being the only team with a clear starting job available, could pay Palmer something near his market value and -- I'm assuming -- include incentives in the contract that will reward Palmer if he's as good as he thinks he still is.
SIGN OF THE TIMES.
Just simply a way to show how much the game has changed. I thought most football fans would be surprised to see that Rodgers in five years had thrown significantly more touchdown passes than Starr did in 14.
I'M SURE PALMER HAS THOUGHT OF THIS, BUT ...
No question the offensive line could get Palmer buried. But what are the alternatives? Robert Griffin III isn't available. You've got to play the hand you're dealt, and in my opinion, instead of drafting a quarterback who would be questionable long-term, I'd rather draft one of the three very good tackles available in the first round, and give Palmer a chance to throw it up for Larry Fitzgerald.
RICK DOESN'T THINK REVIS IS WORTH TWO HIGH DRAFT PICKS.
That's not going to get it done -- either in compensation paid to the Jets, or contract paid to Revis. You may be right about the Bucs not being close. But I will say that they were playing well at the start of last year, and if Josh Freeman can be a B quarterback, they acquire Revis, and Revis stays healthy, there is no reason why Tampa Bay can't win 10 games and be a playoff contender.
HE LIKED THE PALMER TRADE FOR OAKLAND.
-- David Ottosen, Edmonton.
David, I find three flaws here, though I have to say in the end, the best thing you say is no draft choice is ever guaranteed, so why not take a shot on a competent quarterback? Turns out the Raiders paid a one and a two for Palmer, then two low picks for his nominal successor, Matt Flynn. You don't know who Oakland would have taken with that first-round pick, the 17th pick, last year. New GM Reggie McKenzie might have beefed up his offensive line with Riley Reiff, or taken a young defensive end like Chandler Jones, or an outside rusher like Whitney Mercilus. And no matter who he took, how can you pass judgment on a player after one season? Finally, you got 1.5 seasons, and an 8-16 record, out of a quarterback you paid first- and second-round picks for. That, my friend, is terrible value.