Romo Watch

[Bmurph]

Report: Broncos to 'at least discuss' bringing in Tony Romo
The Broncos could be a player for Romo's free-agent services.


If Tony Romo becomes a free agent, and only if he becomes a free agent, the Denver Broncos will give serious thought to bringing him aboard.

The Broncos say they're committed to young quarterbacks Trevor Siemian and Paxton Lynch, but underneath the surface lies general manager John Elway's ever-present itch for a splash move.

Mike Klis of 9 News reported Sunday that Denver will "at least discuss whether to pursue" Romo if he hits the open market, as expected. The Cowboys are likely to cut the veteran gunslinger, who turns 37 in April, within the coming weeks.

Depending on his financial demand, the Broncos could be a player for his services. Klis speculates they'll back out if his price tag reaches, say, $13 million per year. But if he'd give his pal Elway something of a discount, "it would be surprising if the Broncos didn’t listen."

This aligns with a previous report which claimed the Broncos' interest in Romo hinges on his release from Dallas. They want Romo at their price, and certainly won't give up draft picks on top of a hefty contract. He currently carries a 2017 salary cap figure of $24.7 million, a number that no team, including the Cowboys, will absorb.

A short-term deal with heavy incentives, based on playing time and wins, may be the best way to go. And Romo probably accepts such an offer to start on a contending club.

What's next for the Denver Broncos? Don’t miss out on any news, take a second to sign up for our FREE Broncos newsletter!

The addition of Romo would be a double-edged sword, though. He'd give Denver arguably its best chance of winning, but it'd also signal a supreme lack of confidence in Siemian and especially Lynch, who's faced with holding a clipboard for the second straight season.

Elway traded up for Lynch in the first round with the idea that he blossoms into the face of the franchise, the future at the position. It didn't happen in 2016, and now he's being counted on to make the leap in year two. Could Romo be a solid mentor for Lynch, who possesses similar throwing abilities? Sure.

But is it worth it? Is his documented injury history and propensity for an ill-timed mistake worth the trouble? Is his arrival worth delaying Lynch's progression? Those are the multimillion questions Elway needs to answer.

The Broncos revamped their coaching staff in short order to better suit their signal-callers. Three former offensive coordinators (Mike McCoy, Bill Musgrave, and Jeff Davidson) are being called on to mold Siemian and Lynch into quality starting options. Romo doesn't require such coaching. He's been around long enough and has the physical ability to succeed in most systems.

Here's the simple reality: It won't matter if Siemian, Lynch, Romo, or even Elway himself is under center, if those in front of them aren't better. The offensive line -- not the quarterback -- remains priority number one this offseason.

 

[Manster7588]

With his cap hit I doubt anyone will bite...they're going to have to release him and take the dead money hit.

Depends on when/if a trade is made. It would most likely require Romo agreeing to a pay cut though.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Kansas City has a much better defense than pretty much any year that Romo had in Dallas except for 2009. That was the one year that Romo had a decent defense to fall back on and they made the playoffs and won in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Most QB's have shown that they need more than just them to go win a Super Bowl or even just win in the playoffs. Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl when his defense finished outside I think the top-7 in scoring defense.

Top 8, but even then, they went to the Super Bowl with the 15th ranked scoring defense (31st in total defense).

And in the playoffs, the Pats defense has allowed 20.03 points per game (taking out Brady's pick-6). The average defense from 2001-2016 in the NFL, allowed 21.83 points per game. So in the playoffs, the Pats defense has been about 9% better than average. Pretty much the equivalent of being ranked between 12th and 13th this year.

 

[cdumler7]

Top 8, but even then, they went to the Super Bowl with the 15th ranked scoring defense (31st in total defense).

And in the playoffs, the Pats defense has allowed 20.03 points per game (taking out Brady's pick-6). The average defense from 2001-2016 in the NFL, allowed 21.83 points per game. So in the playoffs, the Pats defense has been about 9% better than average. Pretty much the equivalent of being ranked between 12th and 13th this year.

I guess to me I don't care too much about the rankings of the teams that lost. I mean when the Broncos went in 2013 they had a terrible defense.

As for the points per game yes it is usually going to be higher. The top teams are the only ones left so you are going to have better offenses usually than the average of what you played in the regular season. So no that is not a big deal to see the bump in points per game in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

Same thing with Manning of his points per game scored dropped in big part because of the quality of defense he was playing in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

So my point still stands that even the best QB's still need help to win Super Bowls. Manning's 2 Super Bowls he didn't exactly light the world on fire. The first one his defense played some of their best football of the season and of course this past one he had an elite defense that carried him. I don't view that as taking away from his greatness though as he did plenty to help his teams along the way. There were plenty of times that he played great but the rest of the team didn't. To win Super Bowls you have to have some things line up with people usually staying pretty healthy, maybe opponents that you play in the playoffs, a bounce here or there that go your way. I mean just look at this past Super Bowl. Patriots don't win that game without that nice fumble recovery in the 2nd half. I know you can point to breaks the Falcons got in the 1st half but that doesn't negate that it still took some breaks for the Patriots in the 2nd half to be able to make that come back.

 

[es4m11]

Depends on when/if a trade is made. It would most likely require Romo agreeing to a pay cut though.

Nothing but speculation here.

Romo, at a $14m cap hit in 2017 -- which is what he would be playing for if a team trades for him under his current contract -- would have the 23rd highest cap hit at the QB position. How much cheaper do you think it's going to get?

Concerned about the $19.5m hit in 2018? Good thing teams don't have to make a decision on that until after 2017, allowing them to determine if he is worth the risk going forward.

 

[Manster7588]

Nothing but speculation here.

Romo, at a $14m cap hit in 2017 -- which is what he would be playing for if a team trades for him under his current contract -- would have the 23rd highest cap hit at the QB position. How much cheaper do you think it's going to get?

Concerned about the $19.5m hit in 2018? Good thing teams don't have to make a decision on that until after 2017, allowing them to determine if he is worth the risk going forward.

But all teams are concerned about 14M on a unjured QB let alone 19.5 and 20.5M.
You and I will have to agree to disagree and end our conversation on the subject.

 

[es4m11]

But all teams are concerned about 14M on a unjured QB let alone 19.5 and 20.5M.
You and I will have to agree to disagree and end our conversation on the subject.

That's fine, but I am curious, how much cheaper do you think it is going to get?

 

[cdumler7]

That's fine, but I am curious, how much cheaper do you think it is going to get?

I don't think it would get any cheaper. What teams will want though is more freedom if he can't make it through an entire season. The way I understand it the Broncos wouldn't mind Tony Romo coming to denver if he is willing to take a very incentive driven contract. So maybe only $7 million guaranteed with escalators based on percentage of playing time.

 

[Manster7588]

That's fine, but I am curious, how much cheaper do you think it is going to get?

Cut 5M per year with incentives to gain it back.

 

[Manster7588]

I don't think it would get any cheaper. What teams will want though is more freedom if he can't make it through an entire season. The way I understand it the Broncos wouldn't mind Tony Romo coming to denver if he is willing to take a very incentive driven contract. So maybe only $7 million guaranteed with escalators based on percentage of playing time.

Exactly, I dont see teams willing to waste 14M on a player who is questionable to make it through training camp.

 

[cdumler7]

Exactly, I dont see teams willing to waste 14M on a player who is questionable to make it through training camp.

Smart teams will always try to protect themselves against guys like Romo. I'm sure he could find some bottom feeding team that is willing to pay him $18 million a year with most of it guaranteed. If he wants to go to a contender it will be with him having to bet on himself.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I guess to me I don't care too much about the rankings of the teams that lost. I mean when the Broncos went in 2013 they had a terrible defense.

As for the points per game yes it is usually going to be higher. The top teams are the only ones left so you are going to have better offenses usually than the average of what you played in the regular season. So no that is not a big deal to see the bump in points per game in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

Same thing with Manning of his points per game scored dropped in big part because of the quality of defense he was playing in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

So my point still stands that even the best QB's still need help to win Super Bowls. Manning's 2 Super Bowls he didn't exactly light the world on fire. The first one his defense played some of their best football of the season and of course this past one he had an elite defense that carried him. I don't view that as taking away from his greatness though as he did plenty to help his teams along the way. There were plenty of times that he played great but the rest of the team didn't. To win Super Bowls you have to have some things line up with people usually staying pretty healthy, maybe opponents that you play in the playoffs, a bounce here or there that go your way. I mean just look at this past Super Bowl. Patriots don't win that game without that nice fumble recovery in the 2nd half. I know you can point to breaks the Falcons got in the 1st half but that doesn't negate that it still took some breaks for the Patriots in the 2nd half to be able to make that come back.

Yeah but there's a difference between the 2013 Broncos loss and the 2011 Patriots loss.

That is true, on average, defenses gave up 23.2 points per game in the playoffs since 2001. So Pats were 12.8% better than average in the playoffs.

And yes both Brady and Manning's offenses dropped in points scored during the playoffs. But Manning dropped 18.6% from 27.2 points per game in the regular season to 22.1 points per game in the playoffs, while Brady dropped 5.3% from 28.3 points per game in the regular season to 26.8 points per game in the playoffs.

I agree, there are multiple factors that play into winning a Super Bowl, that's why I give credit, not for just winning a Super Bowl, but for having a consistent playoff run when the defense didn't have to bail them out at all. Brady has done it twice (2004/2014) and Manning never did it.

 

[es4m11]

I don't think it would get any cheaper. What teams will want though is more freedom if he can't make it through an entire season. The way I understand it the Broncos wouldn't mind Tony Romo coming to denver if he is willing to take a very incentive driven contract. So maybe only $7 million guaranteed with escalators based on percentage of playing time.

If, and this is a big if, Romo were to play for that little guaranteed money in 2017, the escalators would have to be potentially pretty large - why would Romo play for little guaranteed money and little incentive? Those escalators would create a whole new set of cap issues for a team if reached. Since these would be considered "Not Likely To Be Earned" incentives in year 1 of the deal (2017), based on last years (2016) playing time, the cap hit for the incentives doesn't take effect until the following year (2018). It becomes a potentially really big hit in 2018 if Romo is on a multi year deal. 2018 would be a double whammy cap hit if Romo achieves his incentives in 2017, because then the incentives in the following year of the deal (2018) would become "Likely To Be Earned" incentives and would count against that year's salary cap (2018). So, an incentive laden deal like that is not without it's potential snags.

 

[cdumler7]

Yeah but there's a difference between the 2013 Broncos loss and the 2011 Patriots loss.

That is true, on average, defenses gave up 23.2 points per game in the playoffs since 2001. So Pats were 12.8% better than average in the playoffs.

And yes both Brady and Manning's offenses dropped in points scored during the playoffs. But Manning dropped 18.6% from 27.2 points per game in the regular season to 22.1 points per game in the playoffs, while Brady dropped 5.3% from 28.3 points per game in the regular season to 26.8 points per game in the playoffs.

I agree, there are multiple factors that play into winning a Super Bowl, that's why I give credit, no for just winning a Super Bowl, but for having a consistent playoff run when the defense didn't have to bail them out at all. Brady has done it twice (2004/2014) and Manning never did it.

There is also a big difference between the 2013 Seahawks and the 2011 Giants.

And if we are factoring multiple factors how about we add Belichick to that picture then. Manning has never had close to that caliber of coach working with him.

As for 2004 I'm not sure I would call what Brady did earth shattering in those playoffs. His top game was throwing for 236 yards and 2 touchdowns. In the game they won 41-27 over the Steelers Big Ben threw 3 interceptions so the defense still did plenty. The offense got short field opportunities and took advantage.

I really don't get why you are fighting me so much on all of this. Brady is easily a top-3 QB of all time. I have no problem saying that. Doesn't mean he hasn't gotten plenty of help along the way and I'm sure he would be the first to say that.

 

[cdumler7]

If, and this is a big if, Romo were to play for that little guaranteed money in 2017, the escalators would have to be potentially pretty large - why would Romo play for little guaranteed money and little incentive? Those escalators would create a whole new set of cap issues for a team if reached. Since these would be considered "Not Likely To Be Earned" incentives in year 1 of the deal (2017), based on last years (2016) playing time, the cap hit for the incentives doesn't take effect until the following year (2018). It becomes a potentially really big hit in 2018 if Romo is on a multi year deal. 2018 would be a double whammy cap hit if Romo achieves his incentives in 2017, because then the incentives in the deal would become "Likely To Be Earned" incentives and would count against that year's salary cap (2018). So, an incentive laden deal like that is not without it's potential snags.

Couple of things...

1) I don't think teams would worry too much about those escalators being pushed to next year because if they did kick in then it meant he stayed healthy and good chance helped whatever team he went to quite a bit. I mean when healthy Romo has shown in the past to be a top-5 QB so yeah I have no problem with those escalators getting kicked to next season. I would hope he would reach them as good chance at least for the Broncos they are a top-3 team in the NFL if Romo were to stay healthy.

2) I'm guessing if a team is redoing Romo's deal his cap hits are not big in 2018. Good chance they are working to keep his hits in that $14-15 million range for the rest of the deal. And good chance they are only doing a 2-year deal. So even say you add that extra $7 million to next season then he is getting paid the next year cap hit wise with the top-7 QB's in the league.

Bonus) Just thinking about this from a Broncos stand point they would be bringing in Romo because they think that Paxton Lynch is not quite ready and needs another year. Wouldn't shock me to see the Broncos cut Romo even after a good season as that $7 million in dead money wouldn't be too crazy with a QB still on his rookie deal starting the next season. They would still have only around a $10 million cap hit for the QB position in total which would be ridiculously low for the NFL.

 

[soxfan1468927]

There is also a big difference between the 2013 Seahawks and the 2011 Giants.

And if we are factoring multiple factors how about we add Belichick to that picture then. Manning has never had close to that caliber of coach working with him.

As for 2004 I'm not sure I would call what Brady did earth shattering in those playoffs. His top game was throwing for 236 yards and 2 touchdowns. In the game they won 41-27 over the Steelers Big Ben threw 3 interceptions so the defense still did plenty. The offense got short field opportunities and took advantage.

I really don't get why you are fighting me so much on all of this. Brady is easily a top-3 QB of all time. I have no problem saying that. Doesn't mean he hasn't gotten plenty of help along the way and I'm sure he would be the first to say that.

Yes the Seahawks were definitely the better team, but we're talking about losing by 35 and losing by 4. Agreed, Manning hasn't had anything close to Belichick, although Belichick had 3 No.1 pick QBs prior to Brady and was not nearly as successful.

I didn't say 2004 was earth-shattering. I said he had a consistent playoff run where the defense didn't have to bail him out. I'm not saying the defense didn't play well and he made up for it, I'm saying he had consistent good games (and this was against two top-tier defenses in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) so the defense didn't have to do much. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do much, I'm saying they didn't HAVE to.

And I didn't know we were fighting, I thought we were having a conversation.

 

[es4m11]

Couple of things...

1) I don't think teams would worry too much about those escalators being pushed to next year because if they did kick in then it meant he stayed healthy and good chance helped whatever team he went to quite a bit. I mean when healthy Romo has shown in the past to be a top-5 QB so yeah I have no problem with those escalators getting kicked to next season. I would hope he would reach them as good chance at least for the Broncos they are a top-3 team in the NFL if Romo were to stay healthy.

2) I'm guessing if a team is redoing Romo's deal his cap hits are not big in 2018. Good chance they are working to keep his hits in that $14-15 million range for the rest of the deal. And good chance they are only doing a 2-year deal. So even say you add that extra $7 million to next season then he is getting paid the next year cap hit wise with the top-7 QB's in the league.

Bonus) Just thinking about this from a Broncos stand point they would be bringing in Romo because they think that Paxton Lynch is not quite ready and needs another year. Wouldn't shock me to see the Broncos cut Romo even after a good season as that $7 million in dead money wouldn't be too crazy with a QB still on his rookie deal starting the next season. They would still have only around a $10 million cap hit for the QB position in total which would be ridiculously low for the NFL.

All that makes perfect sense if Romo is willing to sign the type of deal you suggest. But I have to believe that if Romo proves healthy year 1 of a new deal, he is going to be seeking market value in year 2 and will have such provisions built into his contract. I don't think he would go to a team like the Broncos without some assurances that year 2 of the deal is attainable. Romo himself has said he wants to play at least 2-3 more years. Whoever he goes to next will be his last IMO - whether he finishes injured or retired.

 

[soxfan1468927]

And in the two TDs that Brady threw, one was a 60 yard TD pass to Branch and the other, the drive started on their own 30. So not really a short field.

 

[cdumler7]

Yes the Seahawks were definitely the better team, but we're talking about losing by 35 and losing by 4. Agreed, Manning hasn't had anything close to Belichick, although Belichick had 3 No.1 pick QBs prior to Brady and was not nearly as successful.

I didn't say 2004 was earth-shattering. I said he had a consistent playoff run where the defense didn't have to bail him out. I'm not saying the defense didn't play well and he made up for it, I'm saying he had consistent good games (and this was against two top-tier defenses in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) so the defense didn't have to do much. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do much, I'm saying they didn't HAVE to.

And I didn't know we were fighting, I thought we were having a conversation.

Fighting was maybe too harsh of a word. I'm trying to give Brady a ton of credit but also making sure the rest of the team gets their due as well. I'm not big into the QB getting all the credit and all the blame. A great example is that Brady has had 3 3 interception games in the playoffs. The won two of those games. I would say they won in spite of how Brady played. During the 2013 playoffs the Patriots lost but I would say Brady was one of the few reasons they were even still in the game.

 

[cdumler7]

All that makes perfect sense if Romo is willing to sign the type of deal you suggest. But I have to believe that if Romo proves healthy year 1 of a new deal, he is going to be seeking market value in year 2 and will have such provisions built into his contract. I don't think he would go to a team like the Broncos without some assurances that year 2 of the deal is attainable. Romo himself has said he wants to play at least 2-3 more years. Whoever he goes to next will be his last IMO - whether he finishes injured or retired.

I get that Romo wants that. I'm saying that if he is going to a contender then he is going to have to come on their terms. He can go play for a bottom feeder that will pay him market value and not even bat an eye at the idea. If he wants to compete for a Super Bowl though he better be prepared to take a deal that highly favors the team over him personally but still allows him to get paid very well if he can stay healthy.