Anquan has some value, but limited. Leinart is doing better, but is still not going to be connecting for many scores in a game, and is still INT vulnerable. I have Fitz and it's the same situation. Even if he was doing well in the passing game, you still have the throws being split between Anquan, Fitz, and their third guy.
Romo on the other hand is putting up the points each game due to his TD throws. TO and Glenn are taking them in, and don't forget Witten. DAL isn't a ground team, so Tony is a great QB to have now that he's starting and on a roll.
If you traded Romo earlier in the season, I could see it with Warner still QB at AZ, but that trade now wasn't a good tradeoff for you. Naysayers might point out Romo hasn't been tested yet against a good defense yet, but with these numbers these past couple of weeks, hold on to him until he gives you reason to doubt.
2006-11-26 10:48:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Cruel Angel 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
That all depends on who your other QBs are and what your receiver situation is. Lienart went big today and seems to be improving so Boldin should be a real good option as you head to the playoffs. Trading Romo is tough but if he is on your bench and you need receiver help then it was a great trade. Too many people worry about giving up talent but smart ones are willing to trade talent for talent if they can trade from strength to improve a weakness....That how you win or at least put yourself in the best position to win!!!!!
2006-11-26 18:41:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by viphockey4 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes! are crazy the way he is playing!!!! He is going to be the herp that leads the Cowboys to the super bowl...i even hate the cowboys!
2006-11-26 18:37:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by jzubov 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes you did
2006-11-27 14:37:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by valgal115 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes and no
2006-11-26 18:35:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bearsplayer42 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Romo is doing great!!!!!!!!!! Boldin is doing crap!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-11-26 18:39:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋