Bash me now, but wrong QB

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
Weeden is no savior but we needed a Weeden performance yesterday. The problem is, with this team's luck if you start Weeden then the defense will give up 2 quick TDs and then we will need a Cassel type of performance. It just seems to not be our year.
 

CyberB0b

Village Idiot
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
14,106
Cassel opened up the running game with the threat of throwing. Something weeden couldnt do in 3 games. Sticking with Cassel.

t5kv3.jpg
 

BoysfanfromCanada

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
6,475
Absolutely no way our running game is as good as it is with Weeden in there. The Giants actually respected Cassels, no one respects Weeden.

Cassels has nothing on Romo but he's a big upgrade on Weeden. Despite the picks, he gave us a chance to win with his feet and pocket presence
 

CWR

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
37,107
I can see logical arguments for Weeden but with my eyes, sadly that is the best our offense has looked all year. Cassel threw picks but what he didn't do was go 3 and out all game like weeden has shown the propensity to do.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,036
Reaction score
37,194
Sadly...I don't think it mattered one way or another.
Weeden started, we probably would have still lost.

I agree. We might have lost differently, with a bunch of three-and-outs and not scoring enough, but we still would have lost.

I think people continue to be unrealistic about this QB situation in expecting much from either guy. I put some numbers in another thread about the lack of success overall by backup QBs, and our two backups have shown why those numbers are so low.

I'm still hopefully we can pull out two victories while Romo is out to stay in this thing, but that now means we have to go 2-2 over the next four. We've got to have all other parts of our game step it up if we're going to go .500. We can't have games like this where the running game succeeds, the defense plays well overall and the special teams suck when we don't have a QB who can overcome those things. (It's hard enough to do it with a QB like Romo.)
 

RunDMC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,286
I respect your opinion and I was quite frustrated by Matt and there's no excuses for that. Forcing it into double coverage and being late down the middle. Really two Cardinal sins for a quarterback. If you're not gonna look off the safety just throw the ball away or check it down. On 4th and 8 he had DMC wide open who would've easily picked up the first. Just inexcusable quarterback decision making.

However Brandon Weeden is not an NFL quarterback. I've never seen a quarterback with such poor pocket presence. Cassel had one sack for a loss of one. Weeden probably takes three or four as he did against New Orleans and New England that are back breakers for an already limited offense. He also can't make some of those throws Cassel made that were needed to extend drives and put points on the board. The ability to extend plays was apparent with Cassel. I hate that he threw three interceptions, but I stand by what I said before the game. I can at least live with the fact that Cassel tried to win that football game and didn't just concede like we know Weeden did. Matt needs to reign it in a bit clearly. Can't be so reckless with the football, but he showed signs of being good enough to win for Dallas. Just needs to find that middle ground between taking too many chances, but not being conservative.
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,515
Reaction score
12,532
Sadly...I don't think it mattered one way or another.
Weeden started, we probably would have still lost.

Probably....our offense just isn't good without Dez or a QB. It's 20/20 hindsight, but I believe we ran the ball so well that we'd have won if Cassel just hadn't forced the ball...the checkdowns would have likely been enough yesterday, definitely not this week.
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,515
Reaction score
12,532
You think the team ran for 255 by accident yesterday? It had plenty to do with the QB. The Giants had to at least respect Cassel, cannot say the same for Weeden.

Think they respected him much after that lollypop throw for the deep int, or did coverage shallow after that? Again, most of his passes were exactly what we'd been throwing...Williams still only caught 4 passes, and most of those were short ones.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,036
Reaction score
37,194
I forget which panel of experts it was, either Fox or NBC, but they gave all responsibility for two of the interceptions to the receivers for poor routes and not fighting for the ball. Haven't watched the game yet myself.

The first one was Williams' fault. He ran a sloppy route and didn't come all the way back to the ball. It should have been an incompletion at most. The other two were on Cassel.
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,605
Reaction score
9,989
Thanks. Though I feel like it's just more of the same thing I've been saying all along. It's true, though.

I think you have really nailed the evaluation of the back up position comparatively speaking and although the defense held the Giants to 13 points, the secondary has been horrible, in particular both S's and Carr.

LB play was bad yesterday as well, Rolando was horrid and of course no turnovers yet again.

ST killed our chances along with what most of us expected from Cassel but your evaluation is sound, good post!
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I thought it all week, and I still think it....we picked the wrong time to move from Weeden to Cassel.

Yes, Weeden is labeled check-down Charlie, but he's also the guy who Witten on a deep seam route vs. NO after missing him vs. Atlanta; the guy who hit the TD pass to Williams, the guy who hit the long sideline pass perfectly to Butler; and the guy who hit the deep slant td perfectly to Williams vs. PHilly....and the guy who missed the meaningless td pass to a wide open Williams vs. the Patriots.

He's also the guy with the best QB rating and very few turnovers.

We all knew that the Giants had the worst defense we might face all year due to injuries to all three areas, especially in a depleted secondary. As far as backup QB's go, we see very little upside in either of ours to ever be starters, but I thought this was the wrong game to replace Weeden. Most of Cassel's success came throwing to TE's and RBs, just like Weeden, and he hit some receivers who actually worked open vs. a poor secondary, something they hadn't been doing.

However, we also saw some terrible decisions by Cassel, throwing passes where guys weren't open, throwing passes too soon under pressure. He threw 3 poor ints. The long pass was absolutely pathetic...underthrown, and Williams did try to come back to the ball, but it was double coverage and the safety had better position. The pass on the sidelines was a typical pattern where Williams turns and looks for the pass to be there, in blanketed and assumes the pass is going elsewhere....you can argue that he should have run to the sideline and defended the pass, but Cassel didn't even look elsewhere...he could have simply thrown it out of bounds. The pass over the middle was into heavy coverage as well, and worse, he threw at least 3 other passes that could easily have been intercepted. Even two of the completed passes we were all wondering how the defender didn't pick those off.

Maybe you need a guy to take risks vs. NE, but against these poor teams, like the Giants, I would have been perfectly happy with a QB taking the open man. ONe pass Cassel got away with throwing down the field, McFadden was wide open shorter, but was passed up. Personally, with the pass protection being very good, I didn't see a QB willing to stand in the pocket and wait to make the right decisions either.

Weeden stinks as a starting QB, but I think we win that game with him instead of Cassel....just my opinion, and I'd rather have Weeden vs. Philly as well.

Linehan finally stuck with a RB and gave him the ball over and over even after 2-3 yard gains, and it paid off. Protecting the ball and hitting the open receivers was the correct strategy vs. the Giants. Instead we got 3 turnovers and a 17.9 QBR. Will he get better? He had a few weeks including the bye with the receivers, and at his age, that's a good question. Personally, vs. the pass rush of the Seahawks, I predict at least 3 more interceptions from Cassel making rushed and poor decisions, along with floating passes.

I do understand what you're saying. The Cowboys offensive performance from the Falcons games would have won the Giants game now that the defense has all hands on deck.

I think the problem is that they encouraged Cassel to be aggressive while they encouraged Weed to be conservative. That should have been opposite. They needed to encourage Weed to be aggressive or encourage Cassel to be conservative.
 

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
I thought it all week, and I still think it....we picked the wrong time to move from Weeden to Cassel.

Yes, Weeden is labeled check-down Charlie, but he's also the guy who Witten on a deep seam route vs. NO after missing him vs. Atlanta; the guy who hit the TD pass to Williams, the guy who hit the long sideline pass perfectly to Butler; and the guy who hit the deep slant td perfectly to Williams vs. PHilly....and the guy who missed the meaningless td pass to a wide open Williams vs. the Patriots.

He's also the guy with the best QB rating and very few turnovers.

We all knew that the Giants had the worst defense we might face all year due to injuries to all three areas, especially in a depleted secondary. As far as backup QB's go, we see very little upside in either of ours to ever be starters, but I thought this was the wrong game to replace Weeden. Most of Cassel's success came throwing to TE's and RBs, just like Weeden, and he hit some receivers who actually worked open vs. a poor secondary, something they hadn't been doing.

However, we also saw some terrible decisions by Cassel, throwing passes where guys weren't open, throwing passes too soon under pressure. He threw 3 poor ints. The long pass was absolutely pathetic...underthrown, and Williams did try to come back to the ball, but it was double coverage and the safety had better position. The pass on the sidelines was a typical pattern where Williams turns and looks for the pass to be there, in blanketed and assumes the pass is going elsewhere....you can argue that he should have run to the sideline and defended the pass, but Cassel didn't even look elsewhere...he could have simply thrown it out of bounds. The pass over the middle was into heavy coverage as well, and worse, he threw at least 3 other passes that could easily have been intercepted. Even two of the completed passes we were all wondering how the defender didn't pick those off.

Maybe you need a guy to take risks vs. NE, but against these poor teams, like the Giants, I would have been perfectly happy with a QB taking the open man. ONe pass Cassel got away with throwing down the field, McFadden was wide open shorter, but was passed up. Personally, with the pass protection being very good, I didn't see a QB willing to stand in the pocket and wait to make the right decisions either.

Weeden stinks as a starting QB, but I think we win that game with him instead of Cassel....just my opinion, and I'd rather have Weeden vs. Philly as well.

Linehan finally stuck with a RB and gave him the ball over and over even after 2-3 yard gains, and it paid off. Protecting the ball and hitting the open receivers was the correct strategy vs. the Giants. Instead we got 3 turnovers and a 17.9 QBR. Will he get better? He had a few weeks including the bye with the receivers, and at his age, that's a good question. Personally, vs. the pass rush of the Seahawks, I predict at least 3 more interceptions from Cassel making rushed and poor decisions, along with floating passes.

I certainly understand what your saying. But in my view, Weeden is the guy playing to not lose. Cassel is the guy playing to win. And Romo's is the latter guy as well. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind the guy playing not to lose, even if it means he'll have the better QB rating at the end of the game.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,654
Reaction score
43,000
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Probably....our offense just isn't good without Dez or a QB. It's 20/20 hindsight, but I believe we ran the ball so well that we'd have won if Cassel just hadn't forced the ball...the checkdowns would have likely been enough yesterday, definitely not this week.

I agree to an degree. I don't think he had to force it like he did a couple of times, but I do think he had to show them he was going to throw it down the field unlike Weeden.
 

Jenky

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,671
Reaction score
4,252
I certainly understand what your saying. But in my view, Weeden is the guy playing to not lose. Cassel is the guy playing to win. And Romo's is the latter guy as well. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind the guy playing not to lose, even if it means he'll have the better QB rating at the end of the game.

Well said sir. :hammer:
 

bark

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
7,404
Not gonna bash your opinion chuck cause really that's all any of us are giving. That said, I feel more comfortable with cassel.
I think weeden is just completely shell shocked. I may be on here admitting I was wrong in three weeks but I'm on board with Matt
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,605
Reaction score
9,989
I certainly understand what your saying. But in my view, Weeden is the guy playing to not lose. Cassel is the guy playing to win. And Romo's is the latter guy as well. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind the guy playing not to lose, even if it means he'll have the better QB rating at the end of the game.

Nice post and so very true, Cassel just needs to make better decisions and have better accuracy.
 
Top