Qb Going Into The Playoffs - Page 2 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Nors · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

This will shock you. I put Q back in.

Call me old fashioned but I do subscribe to the "you don't lose your job because of injury." I think that may be why I still give Bledsoe too much credit.

Don't get me wrong, if Tuna kept Vinny in, I'd support it, but in my mind it would be wrong.

I'd put who I thought gave us the best opportunity to win.
I can't quantify the scenario but we need to be thinking long term and thats not Vinnie. You can debate till the cows come home if Quincy is the answer. I sense Quincy would get that nod.

Jimz31 · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

This will shock you. I put Q back in.

Call me old fashioned but I do subscribe to the "you don't lose your job because of injury." I think that may be why I still give Bledsoe too much credit.

Don't get me wrong, if Tuna kept Vinny in, I'd support it, but in my mind it would be wrong.

I guess I used to be an adherent to the "can't lose your job" belief, but BP and others have said something that pretty much made sense and changed my mind about it. He even used examples of injuries happening to a "star" who's replacement turned out years later to become an even bigger "star" than who he replaced.

Now, that being said, if Vick's replacement last year would have gotten them to the Superbowl and lost.....I think that I would again put Vick back in there the next year.....maybe.

LaTunaNostra · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

This will shock you. I put Q back in.

Call me old fashioned but I do subscribe to the "you don't lose your job because of injury." I think that may be why I still give Bledsoe too much credit.

Don't get me wrong, if Tuna kept Vinny in, I'd support it, but in my mind it would be wrong.

TH, the "never lose your job to injury" philosophy is a wonderful example of sportsmanship and fair play.

But I think it's trumped by the "never sit a hot hand" idea.

I want the QB who's on a roll, who's got his mojo goin, got the current chemistry and juices flowin, and who in Vinnie's case, has seen prior play off experience, in that situation.

I'm not chancing a sudden death scenario on possible "injury rust".

No matter who it is.

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALADIN

Shades of Hos and Simms in 90-91

Really good point.

Matt · 07-11-2004

LOL, wow, I didn't know this got posted.

I guess I'll re-do the thread.

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimz31

I guess I used to be an adherent to the "can't lose your job" belief, but BP and others have said something that pretty much made sense and changed my mind about it. He even used examples of injuries happening to a "star" who's replacement turned out years later to become an even bigger "star" than who he replaced.

Now, that being said, if Vick's replacement last year would have gotten them to the Superbowl and lost.....I think that I would again put Vick back in there the next year.....maybe.

I'd start Q and if there was any rust I'd send in the aged Vet who had got us there.

Let's say for the sake of this theory that we were 5-3 under Q, and 5-3 under Vinny. Virtually identical stats. No clear cut superior option.

I start the planned starter and leave him in unless he is just too rusty to move it.

There is one caveat for me though. If the offense (team) feels Vinny gives us the better chance I might alter that feeling. I don't know whether that happened with Brady and Bledsoe or not, but that has always bugged me a bit.

Matt · 07-11-2004

Well, who's your choice of QB if we reach the playoffs?

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

TH, the "never lose your job to injury" philosophy is a wonderful example of sportsmanship and fair play.

But I think it's trumped by the "never sit a hot hand" idea.

I want the QB who's on a roll, who's got his mojo goin, got the current chemistry and juices flowin, and who in Vinnie's case, has seen prior play off experience, in that situation.

I'm not chancing a sudden death scenario on possible "injury rust".

No matter who it is.

I can't fault anyone for that feeling LTN. I really can't.

As i just said to Jimz31, I start Q and even the slightest hint of rust I switch, but I start the guy who was the planned starter in that scenario.

Oh who am I kidding? I put in the rookie elite option.

Just kidding.

LaTunaNostra · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

I'd start Q and if there was any rust I'd send in the aged Vet who had got us there.

Let's say for the sake of this theory that we were 5-3 under Q, and 5-3 under Vinny. Virtually identical stats. No clear cut superior option.

I start the planned starter and leave him in unless he is just too rusty to move it.

There is one caveat for me though. If the offense (team) feels Vinny gives us the better chance I might alter that feeling. I don't know whether that happened with Brady and Bledsoe or not, but that has always bugged me a bit.

Nope.

The QB who hasn't been playing has to take the back seat.

He's not just not an asset, but a detriment at this time.

It's like you're on the blackjack table with four or five players, and everyone's gotten on the same page. No jerks drawing cards when the dealer's showing six, and no idiot splitting nines. The guy playing anchor is your QB and he's getting the dealer to break. Consistently.

Then some passerby elbows in and plays one hand. He gets the blackjack but everyone else goes bust. Now that extra unwanted hand interrupted the flow of good hands and the dealer is pulling 20s. Your chips dwindle fast.

It's about team.

Make it up to the injured QB some other way.

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

Nope.

The QB who hasn't been playing has to take the back seat.

He's not just not an asset, but a detriment at this time.

It's like you're on the blackjack table with four or five players, and everyone's gotten on the same page. No jerks drawing cards when the dealer's showing six, and no idiot splitting nines. The guy playing anchor is your QB and he's getting the dealer to break. Consistently.

Then some passerby elbows in and plays one hand. He gets the blackjack but everyone else goes bust. Now that extra unwanted hand interrupted the flow of good hands and the dealer is pulling 20s. Your chips dwindle fast.

It's about team.

Make it up to the injured QB some other way.

Okay, very good. Now, let me change the scenario.

Q is the starter. Leads us to 5-2, then gets injured. Vinny is in. He leads us to 5-3 by playing very well. Q comes back for the last game and plays fair but we lose by a point or two.

Now who do you start?

LaTunaNostra · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Okay, very good. Now, let me change the scenario.

Q is the starter. Leads us to 5-2, then gets injured. Vinny is in. He leads us to 5-3 by playing very well. Q comes back for the last game and plays fair but we lose by a point or two.

Now who do you start?

You opened the door by letting him play that last game.

Now you're effectively benching him.

You can't get into QB musical chairs, especially not that late in. Everything gets screwed up.

Still, it would depend on what the fair consisted of.

If it was fair because he started off shaky and then got steadier as the game went on, started to show timing with receivers, etc, ok, play him next week.

But I'd hold him out that last week of the season under some shady pretext that the doc said he wasn't 100 percent ready. LOL

G'nite.

Jimz31 · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Okay, very good. Now, let me change the scenario.

Q is the starter. Leads us to 5-2, then gets injured. Vinny is in. He leads us to 5-3 by playing very well. Q comes back for the last game and plays fair but we lose by a point or two.

Now who do you start?

OK, OK, how about....

Q leads us to a 5-3 record but all wins were by 20 or more points and losses were by 3 or fewer. Then he gets injured.

VT comes in and gets 6-2 but his wins were by 3 or fewer points and the losses were due to INT's being returned to TD's and the losses were all over 10 points.

Now who? Hehe

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

You opened the door by letting him play that last game.

Now you're effectively benching him.

You can't get into QB musical chairs, especially not that late in. Everything gets screwed up.

Still, it would depend on what the fair consisted of.

If it was fair because he started off shaky and then got steadier as the game went on, started to show timing with receivers, etc, ok, play him next week.

But I'd hold him out that last week of the season under some shady pretext that the doc said he wasn't 100 percent ready. LOL

G'nite.

None of these scenarios are easy.

Trust me when I tell you that choosing a starter in Training Camp will be just as hard on the Coaching Staff.

If we had a clear cut no doubt about it player it would be different. Until Henson is ready i don't think we have that. That is exactly why I say any of 3 players could start in 2004. It will simply depend on what the goal is in 2004, how it affects 2005 and beyond.

Hostile · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimz31

OK, OK, how about....

Q leads us to a 5-3 record but all wins were by 20 or more points and losses were by 3 or fewer. Then he gets injured.

VT comes in and gets 6-2 but his wins were by 3 or fewer points and the losses were due to INT's being returned to TD's and the losses were all over 10 points.

Now who? Hehe

Jim, you need to be serious. I already said that I start Q. If the discrepency in level of play is that drastic it isn't even a question anymore.

Jimz31 · 07-11-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Jim, you need to be serious. I already said that I start Q. If the discrepency in level of play is that drastic it isn't even a question anymore.

I know, I know...it was a joke. Just putting out another "scenario".