Verdict
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,230
- Reaction score
- 20,501
The one area that seems to consistently be a problem for the Cowboys is that when one of our starters goes down with an injury, his replacement is seldom satisfactory. A case in point is that of Tony Romo's injury and absence from the lineup. His replacement arguably cost us a shot at the playoffs.
While Scandrick served as a very suitable replacement while the "starters" were injured this year, that seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Likewise Choice also served as a suitable starter, in MBII's absence.
The Patriots lost Tom Brady for the season, and early in the year, it looked like Cassell sucked as the starter. As the season progressed, he obviously improved as the starter to the point where the Pats almost unbelieveably made the playoffs.
I'm not kicking the Cowboys while they are down, but this "mentality" of needing experienced backups is just not practical. I bring up this point mailnly because we seem to be set on needing an experienced player like Chris Simms to be our backup, but it would not appear to me at least that Simms is not a starting quality QB in the NFL. Neither was Brad Johnson.
It would seem to be more prudent to obtain a backup QB either thru the draft, a trade, or free agency that has the potential to be a quality "starter" in the NFL at some point rather than just being a lifetime backup. Otherwise I think you have to take a guy like Sims AND ALSO obtain a developmental QB to groom to be a potential replacement for Romo. I'm not opposed to having 3 QB's on the roster, and in fact it is probably a good idea, but having Brad Johnson on the roster probably wasn't much different than calling Crayton or Stanback your number two QB.
When I see a team like the Ravens succeed with a rookie like Flacco, or the Falcons succeeding with Matt Ryan, the idea that you must have a veteran to be your backup seems to have a little bit less validity.
While Scandrick served as a very suitable replacement while the "starters" were injured this year, that seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Likewise Choice also served as a suitable starter, in MBII's absence.
The Patriots lost Tom Brady for the season, and early in the year, it looked like Cassell sucked as the starter. As the season progressed, he obviously improved as the starter to the point where the Pats almost unbelieveably made the playoffs.
I'm not kicking the Cowboys while they are down, but this "mentality" of needing experienced backups is just not practical. I bring up this point mailnly because we seem to be set on needing an experienced player like Chris Simms to be our backup, but it would not appear to me at least that Simms is not a starting quality QB in the NFL. Neither was Brad Johnson.
It would seem to be more prudent to obtain a backup QB either thru the draft, a trade, or free agency that has the potential to be a quality "starter" in the NFL at some point rather than just being a lifetime backup. Otherwise I think you have to take a guy like Sims AND ALSO obtain a developmental QB to groom to be a potential replacement for Romo. I'm not opposed to having 3 QB's on the roster, and in fact it is probably a good idea, but having Brad Johnson on the roster probably wasn't much different than calling Crayton or Stanback your number two QB.
When I see a team like the Ravens succeed with a rookie like Flacco, or the Falcons succeeding with Matt Ryan, the idea that you must have a veteran to be your backup seems to have a little bit less validity.
