Cowboys Sign Romo to $108M Deal: Skins Fans Rejoice!

As I stated earlier. I think either Jason Witten, DeMarcus Ware, or Miles Austin will be gone in two years.

Considering thier age that would likely happen anyway

I dont want a QB who is going to win me Regular season games, if RG3 went undefeated every season and lost the first playoff game for the next 5 years, I would have to say he doesnt deserve 100 million

As I stated earlier. I think either Jason Witten, DeMarcus Ware, or Miles Austin will be gone in two years.Austin will likely be gone by this time next year. But it won't be just Austin. There will be a max exodus.

Should it be a factor...HELL YES, as I said before in the NFL you get paid to produce and that means win and make and win playoff games SUPER BOWLS too. The man has had his opportunities and blown them. I would take 2 other QB's in the NFC east before I would take Romo, you have one and we have the other.So, so wrong. You don't get paid in the NFL based on past production. You get paid for repeatable skills.

Since winning "event" games isn't a skill, i.e. no player is more or less likely to win a single event in the future than the past, it is not valued. The abilities that translate to wins are valued, but past record (particularly team record) doesn't mean anything.

I mean what is Dallas supposed to do? He's good enough to keep (who do you replace him with?) and bad enough to know there's a good chance you never win with him. Money wise he got a market deal. Dallas can thank Baltimore. So can we...of course if he is worth that much imagine what we'll be paying our QB in a couple years. At least I hope he's been good enough o have that type of problem.

So, so wrong. You don't get paid in the NFL based on past production. You get paid for repeatable skills.

Since winning "event" games isn't a skill, i.e. no player is more or less likely to win a single event in the future than the past, it is not valued. The abilities that translate to wins are valued, but past record (particularly team record) doesn't mean anything.

100% right...in bizarro land. ALL that matters is what you have done. Romo has won...a lot. Just not when it matters most. But enough that they had no choice but to pay him. Part of his repeatable skills is not getting the job done in the playoffs. They're not paying him for that but it comes with the bundle. Or o it seems.

No but the fans and media sure do. Fair or not, it's always going to be a big part of the discussion.No factors in the market are part of the discussion though.

The discussion can be as smart or as dumb as we want it to be. While it's factually correct that Tony Romo has been a starting quarterback a long time to have one playoff win, that stat is consistent with a dysfunctional team. I know it's fun to argue Romo's culpability in the Cowboys lack of success, and it's frankly funny to watch the Cowboys not change anything about the way they do business, Tony Romo's career record and playoff record aren't really a very major part of the story. It's more of an "it is what it is" thing.

I think the state of the Cowboys roster and future winning potential is a much bigger story, because that's what will determine whether they just wasted a ton of money or not.

I think we all (myself certainly) thought that the Giants dumped a ton of money into Eli in 2009 when he was a mediocre player on a mediocre team and couldn't understand that $100 million deal. But of course, that extension looks great now. The Giants look a lot better because of Eli's contract going forward. I think the Cowboys are hoping for the same thing, and I don't think they are going to get it.

100% right...in bizarro land. ALL that matters is what you have done. Romo has won...a lot. Just not when it matters most. But enough that they had no choice but to pay him. Part of his repeatable skills is not getting the job done in the playoffs. They're not paying him for that but it comes with the bundle. Or o it seems.I think it seems that way, but its not true. NFL teams spend so much time trying to fit player x into hole y that the relative history of player x almost never comes up in the discussion. What does come up are repeatable skills, whether physical or statistical. If a player can repeat a characteristic over and over, I think he gets paid for it. His QB W/L record? No one gives a crap.

Kevin Kolb got $4-6 million annually today. Nothing in Kevin Kolb's past suggest he's worth that much. But you can project him to be worth that since his prime years in terms of age, experience, and skill set are ahead of him. It's not a great deal for the Bills, but they're not "hoping" he can repeat the last two years, as the "you get paid for what you've done" argument would suggest.

So, so wrong. You don't get paid in the NFL based on past production. You get paid for repeatable skills.

Since winning "event" games isn't a skill, i.e. no player is more or less likely to win a single event in the future than the past, it is not valued. The abilities that translate to wins are valued, but past record (particularly team record) doesn't mean anything.

Whhhhhhhhhhaaaaatttt? Lol.

He has to be trolling. Nobody could post something this arrogantly wrong and mean it

Whhhhhhhhhhaaaaatttt? Lol.

He has to be trolling. Nobody could post something this arrogantly wrong and mean itI mean, I've seen you do it a lot.

Unless you were trolling, in case, nice job sir.