I think......... the Chiefs would only be responsible for Romo's base salary, right? $14MM in '17 (+ whatever in '18 and '19). And then they'd absorb $7.2MM in Smith's remaining bonus? If correct, they'd be adding... ~$5MM............ I think Romo is worth IF - IF IF IF - healthy. Obviously: big if.
Romo is due 19.5M and 20.5M in '18 and '19 so believe the difference adds up to 17M over the 3 years which isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things, especially since the Chiefs could just cut him loose if things don't work out. But guess it comes down to whether Romo is actually a better QB than Smith at this point in their careers.
Which is why I'm not sure the Chiefs would do it. How would they look if they went from Smith to Romo and the team regressed due to Romo going down early?
Do you want to be a great organization or a scared one? Tony Romo is better than Alex Smith; if you can upgrade the most important position in football, you do it, end results be damned. Plus, the Chiefs have gone 41-20 with Smith, who is a very good - but not great - NFL QB; something tells me Andy Reid could probably drag Chase Daniels or Nick Foles or (insert back-up QB) to a decent record during Romo's absence, if forced to.
Taking a ton of risks like that is a great way to become a terrible organization though if they don't pan out. Putting all your money on one number in roulette is ballsy, but it'll almost always lead to you being broke.
It's not "taking a ton" of risks; hell, it's not even taking *a* risk because Romo is better than Smith.
Trading? No. They can't run him through their medical protocol or have him sit down with our coaches if they trade for him. If he's released? Absolutely. I'll be pissed if they don;t kick his tires and take him for a test drive, assuming he's interested in playing here.
It's taking one really big risk. It's putting all of your money on one number in roulette and planning to pay your bills with the winnings. If they go after Romo and he gets hurt, they are ****, they'll have traded a season of potential contention and turned it into a train wreck. In theory, a healthy Romo is better than Smith......but does a healthy Romo truly exist? I mean, even if it does exist as more than just a theoretical it's existence is fleeting at best. You'd be gambling the entire season on a guy who never stays healthy staying healthy.
I think you're vastly overstating the certainty of Romo getting hurt. Prior to 2015, he started 15, 15, 16 and 16 games. Then he broke a collarbone and last year, fractured a vertebra - two unrelated injuries that were as much bad luck as any sustainable issue. Frankly, assuming the fracture heals, his back will be in better shape than Watt's.
I just can't ignore the past 2 seasons and assume he finds the fountain of youth again.....I mean even before that he was playing hurt, so you can say he was physically out there 15 games, but he really shouldn't have been. The guy is fragile and old, not a good combination. It makes sense for the Texans to maybe pick him up because they don't really have anything to lose, the Chiefs do.
Do you know who Tony Romo is.....? I'm starting to wonder..... His best year as a pro was 2014, which was immediately "before" the past two seasons you're so concerned about. Between 2011 and 2014, he posted a near 3:1 TD:INT ratio; completed 66% of his passes at nearly 8 yards an attempt and finished with a 99.6 QB rating. And, while yes - he's technically old - he's only played 4 games + a series the past two years so that's less tread than most 37-year olds. If he passes every physical, it's a no-brainer upgrade for the Texans, Broncos and, yes, Chiefs - and they'd all be fools not to pursue him.
The Broncos and Texans have nothing to lose, the Chiefs do though. Hell the Broncos won the SB with worse QB play than the Chiefs have with Smith, throwing that away on a lottery ticket is the kind of move that gets GM's fired.
If healthy? No doubt about it.....but they know by now that there's no such thing as a healthy Romo at this point in time.
But neither would the Chiefs. So I don't think it's about being a "great or scared organization" or "simply upgrading a position." Trading for Romo is a risky proposition, no going around that. And I think it's actually a riskier proposition for them than us or the Broncos doing so. Agreed on signing him though. Every team in need should make a run.
The Chiefs dumping Smith and going with Romo would have been the equivalent of what the Texans could have done with Scahub and Manning. In the end, the Texans went with the "safe" move and still ended up going broke. Teams don't get great or stay great without either taking risks, striking gold, or having Belichick as your head coach. The Chiefs know their ceiling with Alex Smith. If they don't feel they can win the SB with him, what's the point of it all?
Glass-half-empty thinking also gets GMs fired. As a GM, your job is to make your team better. Tony Romo is better than Alex Smith. If you can upgrade for virtually free, in terms of assets... you'd be silly not to. This is what great organizations do; hell, it's what the Texans did with Osweiler... it didn't work out but the intent remains defensible. Sure, the Texans could have likely ridden Brian Hoyer (or Ryan Fitzpatrick, or insert any other capable veteran cast-off) to 9 wins and an annual postseason ass-smashing. But they saw Osweiler as a better prospect with a higher ceiling and swung for the fences. Only with hindsight would you not make that trade.
