3rd for Quincy?

[Dale]

Better question how many QBs in the league do you trade a 3rd rounder for?

Like the baiting question but at best put it into context.

Would you trade a 3rd for Gannon or Brooks? What about Kitna or Maddox? Harrington? Brunell or Green? Brees or Couch?

Some of these maybe but your blanket staement is just that. No logic no context just bias.

Fine you dont like him but you better deal with him.

You are right.

Being willing to spend a draft pick on a player as a rookie entering the league, and trading for a guy that has been in the league for a while are two different animals.

I think most are already willing to acknowledge that Quincy isn't in the top half of quarterbacks in the league. IMO, he's somewhere in that 22nd-24th range. But just because teams wouldn't be willing to trade a 3rd rounder for him doesn't really indicate much.

There are plenty of teams with starting quarterbacks that we, as fans, would cringe if we traded away a third round pick to acquire that quarterback. And many of these quarterbacks we wouldn't trade for, are actually pretty decent players.

 

[Dale]

This thread is going to draw fire. The intent will seem to be get him off the team no matter what. At the very least a pro Henson intent.

Having said that, let's try and salvage a topic.

Q's value coming off a 10 win season will never be higher. If the Cowboys were looking to trade one of our QBs he would get the most in return value. We don't know if they are looking to trade him at this point. Certainly there have been no signs of it.

A lot of trade value has to do with a team's needs. For example, I think San Francisco has a dire need at QB. Tim Rattay and Ken Dorsey is just pathetic. If Dallas offered and I was GM there I think I do that deal.

A team like Seattle has good QB depth and would not give up a 3rd for a QB who was going to be no better than 3rd on the depth chart. Any tiem you give up a day 1 draft pick you are expecting to get something down the road as far as starting potential in that player.

I am still shocked the Dolphins gave up a 2nd for Jay Feeley. No way that was worth it. If we had shopped them Q we might have received a 2nd or a 1st. No telling.

You have to look at team needs. If they have a QB need because of injury or something then there is a chance an offer could be made. QBs have real value.

Theoretically, if we were offered a pick for Quincy, we should probably make the trade and run if the organization is already leaning toward believing he is not the answer. My problem with such a trade though would be that it would reek too similar to the Tony Banks situation a few years back. You have a guy who you think is your starting quarterback, only to see him suddenly shipped away.

I don't think I'd like to see us enter training camp or the season with only Vinny Testaverde to rely on. Henson could have a nice future, but the second we commit to him as a rookie we are essentially throwing the year away. As we saw with the veterans in New York when it seemed like they were going to go with just Eli, I'm not sure starting over with a rookie is the best thing to do with the makeup of this team coming off a playoff season.

 

[Hostile]

Theoretically, if we were offered a pick for Quincy, we should probably make the trade and run if the organization is already leaning toward believing he is not the answer. My problem with such a trade though would be that it would reek too similar to the Tony Banks situation a few years back. You have a guy who you think is your starting quarterback, only to see him suddenly shipped away.

I don't think I'd like to see us enter training camp or the season with only Vinny Testaverde to rely on. Henson could have a nice future, but the second we commit to him as a rookie we are essentially throwing the year away. As we saw with the veterans in New York when it seemed like they were going to go with just Eli, I'm not sure starting over with a rookie is the best thing to do with the makeup of this team coming off a playoff season.

You never know what is in the mind of chess player or a poker player. I think Parcells has a little bit of larceny in him.

In chess sometimes you use a piece to bait a player into taking it so that you can attack. In poker it is the bluff.

I can't say starting Henson in 2004 is throwing away the season until I see him play. Is it sacrificing something? Yeah, of course it is. It could also be the fastest way to get him acclimated.

Take a step back so that you can make a big step forward. The truth is we don't know.

I said in my post there are no indications Q will be traded, just answering his scenario. I'm not too comfortable with Vinny or Q.

 

[Dale]

You never know what is in the mind of chess player or a poker player. I think Parcells has a little bit of larceny in him.

In chess sometimes you use a piece to bait a player into taking it so that you can attack. In poker it is the bluff.

I can't say starting Henson in 2004 is throwing away the season until I see him play. Is it sacrificing something? Yeah, of course it is. It could also be the fastest way to get him acclimated.

Take a step back so that you can make a big step forward. The truth is we don't know.

I said in my post there are no indications Q will be traded, just answering his scenario. I'm not too comfortable with Vinny or Q.

I agree with the taking a step back to take a step forward sentiment. I guess considering the lack of success that practically every rookie quarterback has, I would be interested in seeing how the team would react to a rookie being named the starter again -- especially for guys like Allen, Woodson, Coakley, etc that have been here when Quincy and Hutch were rushed into starting roles too soon.

It'd be entirely different if Henson went out there and beat the other guys on the field throughout training camp. But in any other scenario, I could see Parcells losing some of his tarnish in his players' eyes if he "handed" the job to Henson.

Again, like you said, we're just tossing out scenarios here...doubt any of this will really happen, anyway.

 

[Hostile]

I agree with the taking a step back to take a step forward sentiment. I guess considering the lack of success that practically every rookie quarterback has, I would be interested in seeing how the team would react to a rookie being named the starter again -- especially for guys like Allen, Woodson, Coakley, etc that have been here when Quincy and Hutch were rushed into starting roles too soon.

It'd be entirely different if Henson went out there and beat the other guys on the field throughout training camp. But in any other scenario, I could see Parcells losing some of his tarnish in his players' eyes if he "handed" the job to Henson.

Again, like you said, we're just tossing out scenarios here...doubt any of this will really happen, anyway.

Parcells promised Bledsoe's mom that he would nto throw him to the wolves as a rookie. When he decided to start Bledsoe she reminded him of that. Parcells replied, "I think he's the wolf."

Here's hoping Henson is the wolf.

 

[Dale]

Parcells promised Bledsoe's mom that he would nto throw him to the wolves as a rookie. When he decided to start Bledsoe she reminded him of that. Parcells replied, "I think he's the wolf."

Here's hoping Henson is the wolf.

Those Patriots were also coming off a season that earned them a top pick, and they subsequently only won five games with Bledsoe as the starter.

 

[Hostile]

Those Patriots were also coming off a season that earned them a top pick, and they subsequently only won five games the year they started Bledsoe.

Higher draft picks. It's how we built the dynasty of the 90's.

 

[Jimz31]

Agenda's, angenda's......

 

[Hostile]

Agenda's, angenda's......

I openly admit to mine. A rarity here in Shangri La.

Bring me the elite one at QB.

For the others give the old one Geritol, the hacker some new golf clubs, another season in Europe and some stick em for the fumbler, and another 2 seasons for the super rookie.

 

[Jimz31]

I openly admit to mine. A rarity here in Shangri La.

Bring me the elite one at QB.

For the others give the old one Geritol, the hacker some new golf clubs, another season in Europe and some stick em for the fumbler, and another 2 seasons for the super rookie.

I understand that you want Henson, but lets get down to it here.....WHY do you want to see Henson playing? Is it because it is your belief that QC is just plain bad that anybody (Henson) will be better than him? Or is it a belief generated due to the hype that he has received....justified or not (it really doesn't matter to me).

I just look at a guy (Henson) and see the limited amount of experience.....both in college and the NFL, and I say that he still isn't ready. I see the amount of hype poured on guys that had more stellar collegiate careers that totally bombed in the NFL. So I really don't care what the mediots have to say about ANY player really. Talent scouts? These are the same guys that said so-and-so would be a great NFL player.....only to have them out of the league a couple of short years later.

Do you really think Henson can be ready?

If so, fine. If he outplays QC and VT in the pre-season in games, then start him.....I no longer have any problem with anybody starting cuz it really isn't my decision. (I still have my opinion on who SHOULD start....at least at the beginning and who should be the #2 and #3 QB's, but I'm not letting it bug me anymore.)

I am just looking at QB's alot more skeptical if they have been out of action for an extended amount of time. (I would have been just as skeptical had it been Staubach, but his situation was different as he was always at camp, etc.)

 

[Hostile]

I understand that you want Henson, but lets get down to it here.....WHY do you want to see Henson playing? Is it because it is your belief that QC is just plain bad that anybody (Henson) will be better than him? Or is it a belief generated due to the hype that he has received....justified or not (it really doesn't matter to me).

Ah, thank you for the good debate stuff. I was going to use this in my last post but refrained. Now I wish I had.

"I'm the only guilty man in Shawshank." Great movie.

Why do I want to see Henson playing? I am a college football junkie. I look at it as a Christmas shopping. When players impress me I write Santa. I was sad when he chose to go play baseball because I just really like he way this kid plays and I am thrilled he's wearing our hat.

I just look at a guy (Henson) and see the limited amount of experience.....both in college and the NFL, and I say that he still isn't ready. I see the amount of hype poured on guys that had more stellar collegiate careers that totally bombed in the NFL. So I really don't care what the mediots have to say about ANY player really. Talent scouts? These are the same guys that said so-and-so would be a great NFL player.....only to have them out of the league a couple of short years later.

I think that is a fair reason to have doubts. Why is it any different than my doubts of Q not measuring up after he's had 3 years to show something?

[qyote]Do you really think Henson can be ready?[/quote]
I'd call it more a hope than a belief. I have a lot of faith in pedigree and talent. This kid was special.

If so, fine. If he outplays QC and VT in the pre-season in games, then start him.....I no longer have any problem with anybody starting cuz it really isn't my decision. (I still have my opinion on who SHOULD start....at least at the beginning and who should be the #2 and #3 QB's, but I'm not letting it bug me anymore.)

I don't want anything handed to him. I want him to be the best option from the get go.

I am just looking at QB's alot more skeptical if they have been out of action for an extended amount of time. (I would have been just as skeptical had it been Staubach, but his situation was different as he was always at camp, etc.)

I don't see anything wrong with that. Is there anything wrong with my looking at QBs (all players actually) based upon what their expected ceiling for potential is? Knowledgable football people have rated this kid ahead of Vick, Leftwich, Eli Manning, Palmer, et al. Why is it wrong to be excited about potential?

 

[Jimz31]

Ah, thank you for the good debate stuff. I was going to use this in my last post but refrained. Now I wish I had.

"I'm the only guilty man in Shawshank." Great movie.

Why do I want to see Henson playing? I am a college football junkie. I look at it as a Christmas shopping. When players impress me I write Santa. I was sad when he chose to go play baseball because I just really like he way this kid plays and I am thrilled he's wearing our hat.


I think that is a fair reason to have doubts. Why is it any different than my doubts of Q not measuring up after he's had 3 years to show something?

[qyote]Do you really think Henson can be ready?

I'd call it more a hope than a belief. I have a lot of faith in pedigree and talent. This kid was special.


I don't want anything handed to him. I want him to be the best option from the get go.


I don't see anything wrong with that. Is there anything wrong with my looking at QBs (all players actually) based upon what their expected ceiling for potential is? Knowledgable football people have rated this kid ahead of Vick, Leftwich, Eli Manning, Palmer, et al. Why is it wrong to be excited about potential?[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with you wanting Henson to start and I can see why you would want him to....ESPECIALLY if he is truly THE franchise player that he is touted as being. Get him in there now and get him the experience so that it pays off at least a year quicker. If we start him next year, you can pretty much throw out next year as an "acclimation" year.

See, I understand someof the reasonings behind wanting Henson to start this year. I just am not sure how others are looking at it. That's why I asked.

 

[Jimz31]

Oh, yeah.....the potential thing.....I like what BP says about potential.

Seriously, the NFL is FULL of "potential" players and a few "stars".

 

[crazylegs]

Spin, spin, spin away out of a simple question. A question with an answer that MAY not be to the liking of SOME. Wouldnt it just be better to be straightforward? I guess for some folks the game is if you dont like the answer to a question, JUST DONT ANSWER IT!...LOL

Don't waste your breath on these women that post here 99.999% of the time!

They are delusional when it comes to football.

 

[Hostile]

I have no problem with you wanting Henson to start and I can see why you would want him to....ESPECIALLY if he is truly THE franchise player that he is touted as being. Get him in there now and get him the experience so that it pays off at least a year quicker. If we start him next year, you can pretty much throw out next year as an "acclimation" year.

See, I understand someof the reasonings behind wanting Henson to start this year. I just am not sure how others are looking at it. That's why I asked.

I hate to imagine myself hoping we draft a QB in 2005. I think I'd rather be kicked in the nads.

If he starts this year I want it to be because he is that good. I'm pretty consistent in that I expect every Dallas Cowboy player to be good until I simply grow tired of them not being good enough. The all time example for me was Robert Thomas at FB. That guy is a straight up theif if he cashed his paychecks in my opinion. He sure didn't earn them.

There were people who wanted Emmitt gone and Hambrick given his shot. I can't even tell you how many times I saw his 5.2 yards per carry stat in posts to me. I never liked Hambrick, I never wanted him to be the starter, I never saw the potential in him people kept telling me was there. "Just look at his yards per carry."

I may be overly opinionated and outspoken, but I am consistent. If I doubt a player's ability I rarely move from that stance. See no reason to. Not even when coahces, owners, teammates, and media types have a different opinion. Until someone actually erases the doubts, why cut them any slack? The odds are heavily stacked that they can't erase them anyway. How many players come from nowhere to be stars as opposed to guys who were college stars? At any position?

Concerning your 2nd post about potential, do you honestly think Parcells looks for players with no potential?

An old adage says, "Life's battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man." I agree, but that's the way you win more bets. Underdogs are great. I prefer the top dog. If you are not the lead dog the view never changes. Henson is my dog in the fight. See, now because of me this debate has gone to the dogs.

 

[Tio]

Don't waste your breath on these women that post here 99.999% of the time!

They are delusional when it comes to football.

There is no need for that talk.

 

[blindzebra]

I have no problem with you wanting Henson to start and I can see why you would want him to....ESPECIALLY if he is truly THE franchise player that he is touted as being. Get him in there now and get him the experience so that it pays off at least a year quicker. If we start him next year, you can pretty much throw out next year as an "acclimation" year.

See, I understand someof the reasonings behind wanting Henson to start this year. I just am not sure how others are looking at it. That's why I asked.

I look at it this way.

Hutchinson, sans fumbles, put up numbers equal to Carr and Harrington and not much different than Carter's in 2002.

I've yet to see any NFL people that would not put Henson way above Hutchinson as far as "potential", and unlike Hutchinson, Henson has played QB since pee wee ball. While both have had a gap, Henson has had a lot more experience playing QB.

We have questions at QB, RB, WR, RG, RT, DE, and RCB. That is a lot of questions.

We have cap room and 2 firsts and a second next year, and that is plenty of fire power to fix some holes.

If Henson looks good in camp and preseason, and shows that he will seriously challenge to start in 2005, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to get him playing time in 2004?

Wouldn't it be better to fix the holes and have Henson with playing time, then filling them and going with an untested QB?

For me it is entirely on Carter, he needs to blow away the competition in camp and preseason, or Parcells will have a tough call on his hands.

 

[Bill the Butcher]

Just to clear up a little misunderstanding. NOWHERE did I ever say we should trade Carter for a 3rd or anything else for that matter. My original question was would any team give up a 3rd for Carter. Brought it up because SOME bash on Henson without seeing him play yet and a 3rd is what we gave up to get him. Also, thought I layed out my senario pretty clearly on why I thought Henson would be starting by the 10th game or so. Go back and look, its all there. Just dont like it when my words are twisted.

 

[Bluefin]

Just to clear up a little misunderstanding. NOWHERE did I ever say we should trade Carter for a 3rd or anything else for that matter. My original question was would any team give up a 3rd for Carter. Brought it up because SOME bash on Henson without seeing him play yet and a 3rd is what we gave up to get him. Also, thought I layed out my senario pretty clearly on why I thought Henson would be starting by the 10th game or so. Go back and look, its all there. Just dont like it when my words are twisted.

Is it unrealistic to believe no team would surrender a third for Quincy Carter?

The Dolphins gave up a second for the Eagles emergency quarterback this off-season.

Bill Parcells will play Drew Henson if he's ready and the best man for the job, but the season will almost assuredly have to go in the tank to get him on the field for serious snaps, IMO.

I don't want to see that.

I have zero interest in tanking the season to allow a talented rookie quarterback to get snaps and I don't believe in starting rookie signal callers as a rule, especially with a three year layoff.

The best thing for the team and Henson is to immerse him as the scout team quarterback and only allow for mop up action in a few late games that have been decided.

Dallas can win now with Carter or Testaverde at quarterback and allow Henson to take his time re-adjusting to the game.

Why rush that development and increase the odds for screwing up?

I do not believe in haste when it comes to preparing quarterbacks for NFL duty.

Maybe Henson's good enough to pull off starting as a rookie despite playing baseball for three years, I don't know.

I don't think Henson will be ready this year and I really doubt Parcells will give him much of a chance to win the starting job.

If Parcells keeps four quarterbacks, I don't think he will, Henson won't even be the emergency quarterback, it appears.

Drew is a fine prospect and he has a bright future learning the pro game under Parcells and his staff, but I don't believe immediate playing time is the best plan.

Even with 5 or 6 starts as a rookie, would that make Henson ready to captain a Super Bowl contender in '05?

Gee, there's an easy learning curve.

OK, kid, you had 6 starts as a rookie and I know you watched the game on TV because baseball was so freaking boring, take us to the Super Bowl in your first full year as a starter.

No wonder Parcells has the rep for being so tough on quarterbacks.

 

[Sarge]

Geee, yet another thread dedicated to the bashing of our starting QB (albeit indirectly).


It's a good thing too, cuz we haven't had enough QC bashing threads around here lately. Got to keep 'em coming so that they stay fresh. Lord knows we haven't discussed every possible angle about QC 100 times over.


QUOTE]

Amen.