3rd for Quincy?

[Charles]

Okay, take it one step farther. Henson looks good in camp, looks just like any other rookie QB with great potential.

Carter starts and puts up numbers similar to 2003. The defense plays well and the OL and running game improve. We finish again around 10-6 and exit early in the playoffs.

Carter proves that improved players did not improve his play and we are going with Henson in 2005.

We enter 2005 with cap space and two first round picks. In other words plenty of ammo to fix what needs fixed to get us into serious contention.

Here is where I put you on the spot. If Carter shows that he is in fact a below average QB, even with weapons, and we again go 10-6 because of "TEAM" play. Would it not be better to get Henson playing time, so in 2005 we don't have all the pieces in place, but will start a QB with ZERO playing experience?

Under your argument we should not "throw away" 2004, but that track leads to needing a "football miracle" in 2005, doesn't it?

Nope if you paid attention to my post you'd know that a "Football miracle" entailed arookie Qb leading a play-off caliber team to success.

In 2005 Henson won't be a rookie coming off a 3 year lay-off. If Carter falters this season then Henson will at the begining on the 2005 season will have accrued atleast 4 to 5 Preseason starts and maybe 4 to 5 regular season starts. Hopefully he'll be under the same offensive system. He would have faced live NFL bullets.

If Carter is holding back the team, then by all means Henson or Romo should be given their at-bat, if they have earned "IT".

Marino didn't start his rookie year. He was inserted after Shula benched Woodley. I was at that game in Los Angeles. My dad was a Raider fan. I was only 6 years old. He went on to have a miracle season. Some forget how effecient and productive the Doplhins running attack was under Shula. That team was a jurgenaut. Marino had Pro Bowl O-linemen and RBs to protect him. The Dolphins were a dynasty. It would be the equvalent of plugging in a rookie Aikman on the 93 or 94 DallasCowboys team.

Should Henson play and be successful this season, he'll be closely compared to Marino. I just don't think the supporting cast will protect and assist Henson as well as Dwight Stephenson, Kuechenberg, Newman, Franklin and Foster etc did for Marino.

Carter and Vinny on the other hand have a better understadning of the game RIGHT NOW. They would be able to to do alot more with less because of their experience.

Answering your 1st question. If Cowboys go 10-6 under Carter again and bow out early in the play-offs again, than we go into the training camp and hope that either Romo or Henson can beat out Carter. You don't hand Romo or Henson the starting spot because Carter couldn't get past the 1st RD. You give them the chance to beat out Carter. They have the chance this year, but if Henson wins and leads us to the play-offs = Football miracle. I'd give Romo a better chance than Henson in 2004 and 2005 because atleast he's played competitve football and has been in the system and faced NFL type defenses in 2 Preseasons.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ChocolateLab stated that the 10-6 2003 DallasCowboys shouldn't have a problem starting Henson in 2004 because the 7-9 2002 Ravens started Kylle Boller in 2003.

The Ravens started 1st RD. pick Kylle Boller over journeymen Anthony Wright and Chris Redman.

Therefore the Cowboys should have no problem starting a 3 year lay-off QB in Henson over a 17 year seasoned veteran and a QB who took his team to the play-offs in his 3rd season.



I hope Henson becomes a very good NFL QB but I won't buy into the notion that he can lead a play-off caliber team in his rookie after 3 year lay-off. It has been done before. ONCE or TWICE in almost 80 years of Football on American soil. ONCE in the modern football era. NEVER since the begining of salary cap Era. If it does happened, I'll aplaud those that can predict Football miracles.



I agree we are a play-off team because of our team play.

Troy Aikman stated that if Henson plays this season it means that Carter flopped and the team doesn't have a chance to make a play-off run.

Your final question is ambiguous.

We're a playoff team primarily due to coaching and defense but if you would rather use a team concept, I am content to abide. If our offense does not produce more this year, we will not be a playoff team. If this should occure and we miss the playoffs, will we then say that it was a team effort that we took a step backwards?

Labs intent here was not to suggest that we start Henson over a 40 yr old QB or a 3 year vet that has never proven to be a superior QB and was along for the ride in our playoff appearance. Lab, as many other's, question was the following. If Carter does not perform well in camp and pre season and Henson performs at a simular or marginally better level, should Henson get starts?

I will simplify my last question so as to further clarify.

Question: The Ravens elected to start a Rookie QB last year in Boller. Because of this, he will be in a better position to lead there team this year and the following years. In relation to the Cowboys current situation with there QB position, would you say that if Carter fails to improve to the point of acceptance in the coaching staffs eyes, would Baltimore, having played Boller last year, be in a better situation, regarding QB position, then the Cowboys if they are forced to start Henson in 05 with no game experience?

 

[blindzebra]

Nope if you paid attention to my post you'd know that a "Football miracle" entailed arookie Qb leading a play-off caliber team to success.

In 2005 Henson won't be a rookie coming off a 3 year lay-off. If Carter falters this season then Henson will at the begining on the 2005 season will have accrued atleast 4 to 5 Preseason starts and maybe 4 to 5 regular season starts. Hopefully he'll be under the same offensive system. He would have faced live NFL bullets.

If Carter is holding back the team, then by all means Henson or Romo should be given their at-bat, if they have earned "IT".

Marino didn't start his rookie year. He was inserted after Shula benched Woodley. I was at that game in Los Angeles. My dad was a Raider fan. I was only 6 years old. He went on to have a miracle season. Some forget how effecient and productive the Doplhins running attack was under Shula. That team was a jurgenaut. Marino had Pro Bowl O-linemen and RBs to protect him. The Dolphins were a dynasty. It would be the equvalent of plugging in a rookie Aikman on the 93 or 94 DallasCowboys team.

Should Henson play and be successful this season, he'll be closely compared to Marino. I just don't think the supporting cast will protect and assist Henson as well as Dwight Stephenson, Kuechenberg, Newman, Franklin and Foster etc did for Marino.

Carter and Vinny on the other hand have a better understadning of the game RIGHT NOW. They would be able to to do alot more with less because of their experience.

Preseason is not live NFL bullets. By that argument ANY rookie QB that started all their team's preseason games would be experienced BEFORE the real bullets start flying.

You completely avoided a direct question. You semi-answered with that flippant earned it statement, but you still avoided the meat of my question.

Here it is again.

Would we not be better off in 2005, if Henson plays REAL games in 2004?

 

[Charles]

We're a playoff team primarily due to coaching and defense but if you would rather use a team concept, I am content to abide. If our offense does not produce more this year, we will not be a playoff team. If this should occure and we miss the playoffs, will we then say that it was a team effort that we took a step backwards?

Look at the area in bold. You just answered your own question. Of course the offense would be to blame, the assumption being the defense played just as well in 2004 as they did in 2003.

I always like mutiple choice questions

I agree that our team got to the play-offs primarily due to the coaching staff and defense.

Secondarily ........ I also give credit to Quincy Carter and the offense. It's not like we ran our Special teams on the field to take offensive snaps or punted the ball away on 1st down. The Offense led the league in time of possesion. PLayers play the game. Jerry Jones didn't praise Carter to sell tickets (wink). Staubach didn't praise Carter because he threw 21 INTs. Darren Woodson doesn't make a habit on Bsing the media. Remember this is all secondary.

Labs intent here was not to suggest that we start Henson over a 40 yr old QB or a 3 year vet that has never proven to be a superior QB and was along for the ride in our playoff appearance. Lab, as many other's, question was the following. If Carter does not perform well in camp and pre season and Henson performs at a simular or marginally better level, should Henson get starts?

Wow. Did you PM ChocolateLab to find out what he really intended or are you mind reading. This is exactly what Lab posted

Yuck. Now I remember why I haven't posted in a QB thead in a long time.

My one question is to the people who assume we'd be "throwing away the season" by playing Henson... Was Brian Billick throwing away the Ravens' season last year by starting Kyle Boller? Did he "lose the team" by starting a raw rookie? After all, he could have found some veteran to hold the fort for a year.

Just because Carson Palmer never got off the bench his entire rookie year doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. In fact, if he gets off to a terrible start and comes on at the end, but the Bengals are out of it by the time he gets the hang of things, they may well regret not getting him some experience last year.

He clarified his point after our little argu.....errr discussion.

To answer your question, he started Wright because Boller tore his quad and couldn't play any more.

I'm not saying Henson will or should play at all. I expect, like most people, that Quincy will start and play unless Vinny really beats him soundly. My point was just that there's more ways than one to skin a cat, and it's not a unanimous slam-dunk decision that rookie QBs HAVE to sit for a year -- even for good, solid teams like Baltimore.

I got his point long time ago. It appears you didn't. I agree there are more than one way to skin a cat or develop an NFL prosepct, but history has shown that rookie QBs don't fair well unless they are surrounded by proven Pro Bowl talent. Because of this fact I don't think it would be good business to start Henson on a marginal play-off team with his limited experience. History has shown that rookie Qbs in the salary cap Era never play at a play-off level, regardless of pedigree, draft status etc.

Once again unless you got with Lab and discussed his point on another thread ot through PMs you are purposley interpreting his point to suite your side of the discussion. Anyway to answer your's and many others question. If Henson wins the job then it would mean that Carter has taken a step back and Vinny is a corpse. If they perform the same then Carter or Vinny should get the nod because they have the experience and a better understanding of the offense under real situations. Henson should be given the nod under some mythical assumption that he will be better late in December. He has to prove he can be better from day one not the same because only 2 QBs on our roster have proven they can "ride along" on play-off teams....................

I will simplify my last question so as to further clarify.

Question: The Ravens elected to start a Rookie QB last year in Boller. Because of this, he will be in a better position to lead there team this year and the following years. In relation to the Cowboys current situation with there QB position, would you say that if Carter fails to improve to the point of acceptance in the coaching staffs eyes, would Baltimore, having played Boller last year, be in a better situation, regarding QB position, then the Cowboys if they are forced to start Henson in 05 with no game experience?

The Ravens are already in a better situation (should Carter falter) because Boller didn't go into camp with 3 year lay-off spent taking grounders from 3rd base.

Of course game experience is invaluable. If Carter fails to elevate the offense to play-off caliber and the team falters down the stretch then either Romo or Henson should get their at bat. This doesn't mean we should start Henson because the Ravens started Boller. Henson's developement shouldn't be at the detriment of a play-off team especially if you have 2 QBs on the roster that have been "a long for the ride" on play-off teams before in their careers.

Boller was drafted to a team that released Jeff Blake and had Chris Redman and Anthony Wright on the roster. Couple that with Boller's $10 plus SB Wright and Redman knew they had to very exceptional to hold off Boller. They have never shown the knck to be more than average (stats no stats). Boller came back from his injury with 3 games lef tin the season.

Why didn't the coaching staff re-insert Boller into the starting position. Because the Ravens offense under Wright had put up 44, 44 and 31 points respectively. What is more important grooming the franchise QB or watching Wright lead the Ravens to the Play-offs. Bollers was a back-up from the rest of the season. His development became a moot point.

 

[Charles]

Preseason is not live NFL bullets. By that argument ANY rookie QB that started all their team's preseason games would be experienced BEFORE the real bullets start flying.

Did this statement fly right over you head"

In 2005 Henson won't be a rookie coming off a 3 year lay-off. If Carter falters this season then Henson will at the begining on the 2005 season will have accrued atleast 4 to 5 Preseason starts and maybe 4 to 5 regular season starts. Hopefully he'll be under the same offensive system. He would have faced live NFL bullets.

You completely avoided a direct question. You semi-answered with that flippant earned it statement, but you still avoided the meat of my question.

Here it is again.

Would we not be better off in 2005, if Henson plays REAL games in 2004?

No I didn't. you have a comprehension problem. See the above statement from a previous post. Wouldn't accruing 4 to 5 preseason games and 4 to 5 regular season games make Henson better off in 2005 if Carter falters.

Anyway to answer your question again .........Of course we would be better off in 2005 Henson got experience late in the season after Carter and Vinny failed to lead the Cowboys on a play-off run. Happy

BY THE WAY I AM STILL WAITNG ON THE QUOTE FROM PARCELLS WHERE HE STATED HENSON COULD MAKE THROWS THAT NOONE ON THE ROSTER COULD MAKE It's been month and a half since you spouted that lie to justify your point. I have answered your question. I am still waiting ..............

 

[junk]

Yep, let's start giving players who had crappy seasons a bunch of praise. I am now officially mad since nobody gives Andre Gurode enough credit for the 10 win season last year. Those people that are critical of him are obviously haters. I think they have an agenda. Maybe they don't like Colorado Buffaloes?

I mean, c'mon, sure he had a few stupid mental lapses, but is was basically his "rookie" year and it was his second year in a different system. He got zero help from the rest of the line. His WRs seemed to drop every pass thrown their way. The running game was terrible. Why can't you guys give Gurode some praise?

From now on, whenever anyone criticizes Gurode, I think I am going to whine and cry about it and call them haters.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Look at the area in bold. You just answered your own question. Of course the offense would be to blame, the assumption being the defense played just as well in 2004 as they did in 2003.

I always like mutiple choice questions

I agree that our team got to the play-offs primarily due to the coaching staff and defense.

Secondarily ........ I also give credit to Quincy Carter and the offense. It's not like we ran our Special teams on the field to take offensive snaps or punted the ball away on 1st down. The Offense led the league in time of possesion. PLayers play the game. Jerry Jones didn't praise Carter to sell tickets (wink). Staubach didn't praise Carter because he threw 21 INTs. Darren Woodson doesn't make a habit on Bsing the media. Remember this is all secondary.

Q-Card, you can give credit to Quincy and the offense... the fact is I can't. We were shut-out last year twice. Not once, but twice. I'll have to dig through the records but I know the Dallas offense went years without being shut-out once in a season, not even mentioning twice.

And yes, I'm going to blame the quarterback in that situation.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yep, let's start giving players who had crappy seasons a bunch of praise. I am now officially mad since nobody gives Andre Gurode enough credit for the 10 win season last year. Those people that are critical of him are obviously haters. I think they have an agenda. Maybe they don't like Colorado Buffaloes?

I mean, c'mon, sure he had a few stupid mental lapses, but is was basically his "rookie" year and it was his second year in a different system. He got zero help from the rest of the line. His WRs seemed to drop every pass thrown their way. The running game was terrible. Why can't you guys give Gurode some praise?

From now on, whenever anyone criticizes Gurode, I think I am going to whine and cry about it and call them haters.

But Junk didn't Bill Parcells say, "All an offensive guard needs to be in this league is a railroad engineer." Or maybe it was an astronaut. I forget.

 

[blindzebra]

Did this statement fly right over you head"

In 2005 Henson won't be a rookie coming off a 3 year lay-off. If Carter falters this season then Henson will at the begining on the 2005 season will have accrued atleast 4 to 5 Preseason starts and maybe 4 to 5 regular season starts. Hopefully he'll be under the same offensive system. He would have faced live NFL bullets.



No I didn't. you have a comprehension problem. See the above statement from a previous post. Wouldn't accruing 4 to 5 preseason games and 4 to 5 regular season games make Henson better off in 2005 if Carter falters.

Anyway to answer your question again .........Of course we would be better off in 2005 Henson got experience late in the season after Carter and Vinny failed to lead the Cowboys on a play-off run. Happy

BY THE WAY I AM STILL WAITNG ON THE QUOTE FROM PARCELLS WHERE HE STATED HENSON COULD MAKE THROWS THAT NOONE ON THE ROSTER COULD MAKE It's been month and a half since you spouted that lie to justify your point. I have answered your question. I am still waiting ..............

I told you three times where the quote came from, ol' king of the archives, so look it up.

I do not need to lie to make a point. Nor do I need to spin a simple quote of, "I like how hard he's worked," into PRAISE of Carter and proof that he could be our future. I also don't take a quote from week 9 of last year as PROOF that Parcells is sold on Carter; you see a lot has happened since week 9 and the most Parcells has said since is Carter is the starter going into CAMP. Praise worthy indeed.

As for Woodson, watch any Fact or Fiction with a player talking about his team and look at their answers. Freddy Mitchell said Andy Reid is a better coach than Gibbs and Parcells. Homerism or Ten Commandment-like, etched in stone TRUTH.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I do not need to lie to make a point. Nor do I need to spin a simple quote of, "I like how hard he's worked," into PRAISE of Carter and proof that he could be our future.

You know I really despise that "I like how hard he's worked" quote.

If someone lacks the ability to do something well... they just flat out lack it... they can work 24 hours a day and it won't make a difference.

 

[Hostile]

Where exactly in this thread did I disagree with this point. Infact where exactly did you make the point. I am in total agreement. Parcells and a top notch defense does favor Dallas by leaps and bounds.

Did I say you disagreed with it? No, I didn't. I said if we're going to dredge up running game to compare we dredge up those things too. To answer your question, I made this point in posts #124 and #131 on page 9 of this thread. You probably glossed over them.

I stated that a running attack (4.3 yards per cary by J-ville ) that featured Fred Taylor @ 4.6 AVG. is leaps and bounds better than a running attack (3.9 for Dallas) that features Troy Hambrick @ 3.5 AVG.

Got it. Understood you from the first time you brought it up. You don't need to bring it up 3, 4 or 10 more times. I simply introduced things that could possibly help Leftwich if he were in Dallas. If you remember that was the original thing you glossed over. How he would have done here.

If the Cowboys had Fred Taylor's production and threat in the backfiled last year I doubt Carter would have put up similar numbers. If Leftwich had Troy Hambrick and his production last year...................... Let's take a poll

Go ahead. It won't change my opinion of the two, but whatever bakes your cookies.

I am not surprised you'd try to pull this kind of move.

What move is that? I followed your lead and brought up things surrounding a team that could benefit a QB. Isn't that what you did by introducing the RB angle? Uh, that would be yes.

You couldn't prove your last accusation of hatred because of the Jpeg. I took my time to double check the past post because you said I was in denial (selective Amnesia). I did this out of respect. So far you haven't extended the same respect to justify your claim. I don't exepct you to do so because it will be a futile search.

I stand by my statement that for some reason the picture I had of Henson super imposed over Aikman upsets you, and you've made an issue of it. I have no idea why, but you are not alone so don't feel targeted.

p.s. I don't really care for the long winded stuff. Just show me where I stated you hated Quincy Carter because of the Henson/Troy Jpeg.

Show me where I have ever said I hated Q. You interpret that of me all the time. You're the only one allowed to interpret insinuations? Quite the pedastal you stand on.

I don't know. He is a very good NFL prospect. I think he the purest passer in the NFL or a close 2nd to Bledoe. His weight has always been a problem. I hope he'll be able to hold up (njury wise). He is not a Gym rat. He relies too much on his arm strenght. There are too many factors that go into becoming a successful QB. I have bias towards Leftwich because he's a hometown kid, but the learning curve is brutal. I just don't know. Check back in 3-4 years

Yeah, I recognize the 3 year now 4 angle. Nice try.

I agree. And any QB worth a damn would hope for the above conditions. Ya think?

Have I said otherwise? Nope. Or are you now assuming I don't think that? Clarify.

Look at what happened to Peyton Manning and Leftiwch when they played the Patriots. They left "IT" in the locker room.

Look at what happened to Jake Delhomme and Donovan Mcnabb when they played the Bucs. They left "IT" in the locker room.

It's a funny league isn't it. Both Manning and Kordell looked like crap against the Patriots in the AFC championship game.

So, I took the angle you used, and used it right back against your point, using your exact verbiage, and now it is silly? Bravo. Way to tear down your own tactics. Saves me the trouble.

I think Leftwich is a great passer. He's yet to prove he's a far superior QB. Those accolades are yet to be earned. I didn't want the Cowboys draft him because we had Chad Hutchinson and Quincy Carter. I don't believe in acquiring more prospects unless the Prospects on the roster have proven they can't get over the hump. Henson is another option because Chad Hutchinson and Parcells are like oil and water. Henson is also an option should Carter fail to get over the hump. Everyone will get their turn to bat. Whoever hits the homerun 1st is the winner.

I have no doubt at all that Leftwich will turn out to be a superior QB to both Q and Hutchinson. No doubt Henson will either. There's just a difference between steaks and hamburgers for some palates.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Look at the area in bold. You just answered your own question. Of course the offense would be to blame, the assumption being the defense played just as well in 2004 as they did in 2003.

I always like mutiple choice questions

I agree that our team got to the play-offs primarily due to the coaching staff and defense.

Secondarily ........ I also give credit to Quincy Carter and the offense. It's not like we ran our Special teams on the field to take offensive snaps or punted the ball away on 1st down. The Offense led the league in time of possesion. PLayers play the game. Jerry Jones didn't praise Carter to sell tickets (wink). Staubach didn't praise Carter because he threw 21 INTs. Darren Woodson doesn't make a habit on Bsing the media. Remember this is all secondary.



Wow. Did you PM ChocolateLab to find out what he really intended or are you mind reading. This is exactly what Lab posted
Yuck. Now I remember why I haven't posted in a QB thead in a long time.


He clarified his point after our little argu.....errr discussion.



I got his point long time ago. It appears you didn't. I agree there are more than one way to skin a cat or develop an NFL prosepct, but history has shown that rookie QBs don't fair well unless they are surrounded by proven Pro Bowl talent. Because of this fact I don't think it would be good business to start Henson on a marginal play-off team with his limited experience. History has shown that rookie Qbs in the salary cap Era never play at a play-off level, regardless of pedigree, draft status etc.

Once again unless you got with Lab and discussed his point on another thread ot through PMs you are purposley interpreting his point to suite your side of the discussion. Anyway to answer your's and many others question. If Henson wins the job then it would mean that Carter has taken a step back and Vinny is a corpse. If they perform the same then Carter or Vinny should get the nod because they have the experience and a better understanding of the offense under real situations. Henson should be given the nod under some mythical assumption that he will be better late in December. He has to prove he can be better from day one not the same because only 2 QBs on our roster have proven they can "ride along" on play-off teams....................





The Ravens are already in a better situation (should Carter falter) because Boller didn't go into camp with 3 year lay-off spent taking grounders from 3rd base.

Of course game experience is invaluable. If Carter fails to elevate the offense to play-off caliber and the team falters down the stretch then either Romo or Henson should get their at bat. This doesn't mean we should start Henson because the Ravens started Boller. Henson's developement shouldn't be at the detriment of a play-off team especially if you have 2 QBs on the roster that have been "a long for the ride" on play-off teams before in their careers.

Boller was drafted to a team that released Jeff Blake and had Chris Redman and Anthony Wright on the roster. Couple that with Boller's $10 plus SB Wright and Redman knew they had to very exceptional to hold off Boller. They have never shown the knck to be more than average (stats no stats). Boller came back from his injury with 3 games lef tin the season.

Why didn't the coaching staff re-insert Boller into the starting position. Because the Ravens offense under Wright had put up 44, 44 and 31 points respectively. What is more important grooming the franchise QB or watching Wright lead the Ravens to the Play-offs. Bollers was a back-up from the rest of the season. His development became a moot point.

Yes, then we agree. Yes your correct, I did answer my own question, but in fairness, this same question was asked many times with no apparent answer. Forgive me if it seems dim of me but it would seem that it was necessary to at least establish the fact that the offense is not the primary reason for our success. To say that Carter lead his team to the playoffs is, IMO, at best half truths.

I will make a mental note. If it seems that Q is intentianally avoiding a question, give him multiple choice and he will always answer correctly. Note taken.

I will give little credit to our offense simply because I do not feel as if they played very well at all. I will not say that it was soley because of Carter but I will not over look his contribution to a dismal offensive season either. I think that's fair. Time of possesion is more a statement of the combined running game and the offensive line together with the commitment to run more then a statement on our QB play but I will acknowledge the fact. The offense, all the offense, should be commended for this. As for statements of support, Jerry Jones said good things about Hambrick last season as well but he's gone. Jones has said good things about lots of players, Wright, Leaf and Hutchinson included but that sometimes means very little. As for Staubach, I've never heard him say a negative word about any player ever. I don't know what that means. I believe Staubach believes Carter has a chance to be a good QB, as do I, all be it slim. Staubach encouraged the situation but I would not say he completely endoursed Carter. If that is what you got out of that interview, then it's clear we have very different views of it. Woodson said good things about Carter and that's a good thing. I would expect the team to support Carter as the starter. After all, he is that going into the season. However, if he does not improve, I would be very surprised to see this support continue. As you said, players play. It is time for Carter to play if he is indeed a player.

I did not PM Lab but I think it's fairly clear what he ment. However, I have known Lab for some time and I expect he will clarify the situation if I am indeed mis representing his intent. Can you agree that we should give Lab the final say on this or would you like to continue this less then mature behavior of implying I'm clarvoient? Please remember, it was you who initially tried to explain to the board what Lab was trying to say. I simply pointed out that your inturpritation was not what I got out of it. I am willing to conceed that I am not the final word on Labs intentions if you are willing to do the same.

I would not agree with your assesment of what history shows where QBs are concerned. History is against starting rookie QBs in there very first games as starter but there are many examples of rookies coming in and playing, at least, OK in there rookie season. After all, is that not what this conversation is about? have I not previously said that I think it would be 8 games if there were a change at QB. How is it that you can clearly "Get something long ago" that other posters said but you fail to grasp something as clearly stated as that? Perhaps we can get back to that.

I think Carter gets the starts early and if he takes care of business, then he earns the right to continue but this means that we win games offensively and defensively. This does not mean that the defense holds the score to 10 all season, our offense puts up 7 and our defense/special teams gets 7 as well. If Carter does not show improvement by mid season, then I think you play Henson assuming he knows the offense. Playing Vinny doesn't really help anything. If Carter does not play well, then chances are, were probably not winning and then why would you play Vinny? He's not the future and there would likely be nothing to gain by playing him as we wouldn't be in the playoff hunt. Makes more sense to play Henson if he's ready in my mind. It would be stupid to wait on Henson if he understands the offense and Carter is tanking. What is the possible upside to not playing him and putting in Vinny instead?

I agree, the Ravens would be in a better situation if Carter should tank.

You assume that if Carter failed, we would still be a playoff team. I, on the other hand, assume that if Carter fails, we will not be in the playoff hunt. However, if by some miracle of fate, we are in the playoff hunt with Carter playing dismal football, then I would probably elect to go with the vet as well. However, I do not dismiss the idea that Henson may be able to play well. Not likely, but possible. In regards two only two QBs proving they can QB in the playoffs, I would submit that there is currently only one QB that has proven that on our roster. Semantics I suppose. No matter, there is a difference in proving you can do it and actually having the opportunity to prove you can do it. Henson has never had that opportunity so it is a bit premature to say he can't. Let us hope that it doesn't come to that.


If we are in the playoffs, then your theory of not playing Henson may have some merrit. If we are not playing for a playoff spot, then it makes no sense not to play Henson if he understand the offense.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

One of these days I'm going to do the research to show each and every one of you that the correlation between a team having OR needing a good running game to have a good passing game is quite frankly crap. Pro-Quincy or Anti-Quincy I truly believe the running game is the running game and the passing game is the passing game.

One quick example would be Dan Marino. There is no man on the planet that was blessed with a worse running game than that him and yet he excelled. On the opposite side of the street are the Walter Payton Chicago Bears. Here you have an excellent running game that did diddly-squat for the passing game.

And I'm sure I can find example after example. Even last year, look up the running stats for Tennessee and compare those to their passing stats.

On the opposite end, look at the Buffalo Bills, solid running game with Travis Henry and a putrid passing game.

The connection between running game and passing game is much less than you believe. And the folks that think Quincy's success is dependent upon what Julius Jones does or does not do may be in for an awakening.

 

[Charles]

Q-Card, you can give credit to Quincy and the offense... the fact is I can't. We were shut-out last year twice. Not once, but twice. I'll have to dig through the records but I know the Dallas offense went years without being shut-out once in a season, not even mentioning twice.

And yes, I'm going to blame the quarterback in that situation.

Try the year 1989. 3 times.....

And No, I'm not going to blame the quaterback in that situation. He's only 1 of 11 players on offense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Try the year 1989. 3 times.....

And No, I'm not going to blame the quaterback in that situation. He's only 1 of 11 players on offense.

I do not believe that the 89 season is relavent in this situation. The 89 team was terrible on both sides of the ball. In addition, I don't believe that Aikman was the starter for two of the three shut outs. I believe Aikman was knocked out in the AZ game and Walsh was the starting QB for the final two shut outs. Philly 27-0 and the Giants 15-0. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that this is not a good comparison.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And No, I'm not going to blame the quaterback in that situation. He's only 1 of 11 players on offense.

And that's precisely why your argument is full of holes Q-card. The quarterback is the offense for all intensive purposes. He handles the ball on virtually every play. If the offense breaks down at that position, which it has, then everything breaks down. "Bad quarterbacking" and "bad offense" are usually synonymous.

 

[Charles]

I told you three times where the quote came from, ol' king of the archives, so look it up.

No you didn't. You gave some vague response. Where exactly did you see the quote. I'll go fishing immediately. I where the crown proudly. Hopefully I can get Hos to put "King of Archivces" under my handle.

I do not need to lie to make a point. Nor do I need to spin a simple quote of, "I like how hard he's worked," into PRAISE of Carter and proof that he could be our future. I also don't take a quote from week 9 of last year as PROOF that Parcells is sold on Carter; you see a lot has happened since week 9 and the most Parcells has said since is Carter is the starter going into CAMP. Praise worthy indeed.

In no way did I assert that this quote meant Carter is the future. I use the quote to refute those who say Carter went along for the ride. I find it ironic you make up a quote about Henson from Parcells to justify a point, but when I use a FACTUAL quote from Parcells in print you get all bent out of shape.

ONCE AGIN WHERE CAN I FIND THE QUOTE.

As for Woodson, watch any Fact or Fiction with a player talking about his team and look at their answers. Freddy Mitchell said Andy Reid is a better coach than Gibbs and Parcells. Homerism or Ten Commandment-like, etched in stone TRUTH.

Cool Does Roger Staubach fit into this category or are his praises swept unde rthe rug.

p.s. ONCE AGAIN WHERE CAN I FIND THE QUOTE. I know Hos would like to know where Parcells stated Henson can make throws no other QB on our roster can make

 

[Charles]

And that's precisely why your argument is full of holes Q-card. The quarterback is the offense for all intensive purposes. He handles the ball on virtually every play. If the offense breaks down at that position, which it has, then everything breaks down. "Bad quarterbacking" and "bad offense" are usually synonymous.

Thats funny. I seem to recall a certain head coach stating the less reliant the offense is on the QB....................but then I know my argument is full of holes when I expect every aspect of the offense to function effectively and consistently for the QB to be successful.

The Quaterback position is the 1 of only 2 positions that depends on everyother position on the offense. If you can tell me without a doubt that every other position played effectivley and consistently well throughout the entire season, I'll lay the blame at the feet of Quincy Carter. If you can't then move along BECAUSE I WON'T WASTE TIME TRYING TO SWAY YOU BULLET PROOF ARGUMENT.

 

[Hostile]

One of these days I'm going to do the research to show each and every one of you that the correlation between a team having OR needing a good running game to have a good passing game is quite frankly crap. Pro-Quincy or Anti-Quincy I truly believe the running game is the running game and the passing game is the passing game.

One quick example would be Dan Marino. There is no man on the planet that was blessed with a worse running game than that him and yet he excelled. On the opposite side of the street are the Walter Payton Chicago Bears. Here you have an excellent running game that did diddly-squat for the passing game.

And I'm sure I can find example after example. Even last year, look up the running stats for Tennessee and compare those to their passing stats.

On the opposite end, look at the Buffalo Bills, solid running game with Travis Henry and a putrid passing game.

The connection between running game and passing game is much less than you believe. And the folks that think Quincy's success is dependent upon what Julius Jones does or does not do may be in for an awakening.

You had to go and throw water on everything didn't you?

 

[Hostile]

Look at the area in bold. You just answered your own question. Of course the offense would be to blame, the assumption being the defense played just as well in 2004 as they did in 2003.

I always like mutiple choice questions

I agree that our team got to the play-offs primarily due to the coaching staff and defense.

Secondarily ........ I also give credit to Quincy Carter and the offense. It's not like we ran our Special teams on the field to take offensive snaps or punted the ball away on 1st down. The Offense led the league in time of possesion. PLayers play the game. Jerry Jones didn't praise Carter to sell tickets (wink). Staubach didn't praise Carter because he threw 21 INTs. Darren Woodson doesn't make a habit on Bsing the media. Remember this is all secondary.



Wow. Did you PM ChocolateLab to find out what he really intended or are you mind reading. This is exactly what Lab posted


He clarified his point after our little argu.....errr discussion.



I got his point long time ago. It appears you didn't. I agree there are more than one way to skin a cat or develop an NFL prosepct, but history has shown that rookie QBs don't fair well unless they are surrounded by proven Pro Bowl talent. Because of this fact I don't think it would be good business to start Henson on a marginal play-off team with his limited experience. History has shown that rookie Qbs in the salary cap Era never play at a play-off level, regardless of pedigree, draft status etc.

Once again unless you got with Lab and discussed his point on another thread ot through PMs you are purposley interpreting his point to suite your side of the discussion. Anyway to answer your's and many others question. If Henson wins the job then it would mean that Carter has taken a step back and Vinny is a corpse. If they perform the same then Carter or Vinny should get the nod because they have the experience and a better understanding of the offense under real situations. Henson should be given the nod under some mythical assumption that he will be better late in December. He has to prove he can be better from day one not the same because only 2 QBs on our roster have proven they can "ride along" on play-off teams....................





The Ravens are already in a better situation (should Carter falter) because Boller didn't go into camp with 3 year lay-off spent taking grounders from 3rd base.

Of course game experience is invaluable. If Carter fails to elevate the offense to play-off caliber and the team falters down the stretch then either Romo or Henson should get their at bat. This doesn't mean we should start Henson because the Ravens started Boller. Henson's developement shouldn't be at the detriment of a play-off team especially if you have 2 QBs on the roster that have been "a long for the ride" on play-off teams before in their careers.

Boller was drafted to a team that released Jeff Blake and had Chris Redman and Anthony Wright on the roster. Couple that with Boller's $10 plus SB Wright and Redman knew they had to very exceptional to hold off Boller. They have never shown the knck to be more than average (stats no stats). Boller came back from his injury with 3 games lef tin the season.

Why didn't the coaching staff re-insert Boller into the starting position. Because the Ravens offense under Wright had put up 44, 44 and 31 points respectively. What is more important grooming the franchise QB or watching Wright lead the Ravens to the Play-offs. Bollers was a back-up from the rest of the season. His development became a moot point.

I thought you said you hated long winded posts. Did you mean writing them?