Brooks Bollinger/Cowboys

[Avenging Hayseed]

As a Badger fan Ive seen every game Bollinger has played in at Wisconsin. NO,....He's NOT longterm starting material. But I tell ya, he very well can make a good solid backup. Of that I have no doubt. Makes very good decisions, only takes chances if he has to as the game dictates. Excellent athlete with good arm. VERY mobile. On the smallish side, 6-1 210. Throws well on the run. Like I say.....think Billy Volek. Heres the key.....IN THE RIGHT SYSTEM can make for a good career backup. Isnt gonna wow you with big passing numbers but wont throw the big int either, can AND WILL take off and run with it to keep drives alive. In other words= good backup material.

 

[Hostile]

You're also not claiming he's a bum, either... thus, I see no arrogance in your stance, even if I don't entirely understand it...

I'm telling myself that Jerry saw Colt McCoy play yesterday (man, he was BRILLIANT), and has now decided that he's gonna draft the kid when he comes out, to back up Tony and eventually replace him, years down the road... thus, he just needs a cheap stopgap...

If I can't get one Horns QB in here, I'm gonna get another, by Gawd...

You know how much I like Colt. I don't want a QB early though.

I was a big time supporter of John Beck in 2007 if you remember. I had him early in just about every mock draft. I still think he's the perfect backup to Tony Romo.

I was hopeful we were going to land him. I would have settled for McCown or Simms, but to go from those 3 as prospects for the future #2 to Brooks Bollinger is just a real letdown.

I don't hate him. I have no reason to. But I won't say it is exciting either, because frankly it isn't. I totally appreciate Avenging Haystack's assessment of the future and Paul Chryst, but that isn't going to change the fact that it's still Brooks Bollinger.

I was never excited about Clint Stoerner. This is the equivalent move from my view. A so the hell what, we have a warm body at 3rd QB, kind of move.

I'd rather just stick with 2 QBs and use the roster spot for another position than to do this. I don't see Bollinger as a legit #2 QB behind Romo. I used to laugh at the Jets when he was their #1 QB because of injuries. Why should I change my tune now that he may don the star?

I just feel almost betrayed on this whole thing Bear. From the posibility of halfway exciting future QB prospects to more hodge podge crap we've had post Troy Aikman.

But no, I'm not going to call him a bum.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

Bollinger couldn't cut it as the #3 QB on a QB starved team where his HC was his former college OC and brought him to Minny to begin with. You don't get a much better chance at a roster spot than that. Thanks but no thanks.

................Nope, Brad Childress was already gone by then. Childress took the job with the Philly eagles in 1999, the same year Bollinger started his career as a freshman at U of Wisconsin.

 

[silverbear]

As I said I have not seen him play enough to make a personal determination. I was only commenting on the interpretation of the stats...and stats do not provide the empirical answers that they are purported to give...they are always open to interpretation.

I understood, and was just offering you an informed opinion not my own that was relevant... your questions were legitimate, so I thought I'd take a shot at answering them...

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

You know how much I like Colt. I don't want a QB early though.

I was a big time supporter of John Beck in 2007 if you remember. I had him early in just about every mock draft. I still think he's the perfect backup to Tony Romo.

I was hopeful we were going to land him. I would have settled for McCown or Simms, but to go from those 3 as prospects for the future #2 to Brooks Bollinger is just a real letdown.

I don't hate him. I have no reason to. But I won't say it is exciting either, because frankly it isn't. I totally appreciate Avenging Haystack's assessment of the future and Paul Chryst, but that isn't going to change the fact that it's still Brooks Bollinger.

I was never excited about Clint Stoerner. This is the equivalent move from my view. A so the hell what, we have a warm body at 3rd QB, kind of move.

I'd rather just stick with 2 QBs and use the roster spot for another position than to do this. I don't see Bollinger as a legit #2 QB behind Romo. I used to laugh at the Jets when he was their #1 QB because of injuries. Why should I change my tune now that he may don the star?

I just feel almost betrayed on this whole thing Bear. From the posibility of halfway exciting future QB prospects to more hodge podge crap we've had post Troy Aikman.

But no, I'm not going to call him a bum.

......................Good fair assessment. Logical too. Like I say, in NO WAY do I consider Bollinger longterm starting material. He's not. Do think he can be a solid backup though. And I do see what you mean about planning for the post Romo era, agree with it too. I just think its a bit early is all. If I were JJ I'd be looking to draft Romo's replacement 3 years from now.

 

[silverbear]

You know how much I like Colt. I don't want a QB early though.

I was a big time supporter of John Beck in 2007 if you remember. I had him early in just about every mock draft. I still think he's the perfect backup to Tony Romo.

I was hopeful we were going to land him. I would have settled for McCown or Simms, but to go from those 3 as prospects for the future #2 to Brooks Bollinger is just a real letdown.

Ahhhh, this is one of those "pet cat" things...

Seriously, I now understand where you're coming from... I don't entirely disagree, I'm just not quite as negative on the guy, now that I've looked into him a bit...

 

[Dodger12]

................Nope, Brad Childress was already gone by then. Childress took the job with the Philly eagles in 1999, the same year Bollinger started his career as a freshman at U of Wisconsin.

Obviously, the timing was close but I wonder if there was ever any overlap when both Childress and Bollinger were in Wisconsin where Childress may have seen him practice/play before he got the Eagles job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Bollinger

NFL career

Bollinger was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2006 for Defensive Tackle C.J. Mosley and a draft pick where he was reunited with new head coach Brad Childress, his Offensive Coordinator in college. After a game against the Chicago Bears in which Vikings starting QB Brad Johnson threw 4 INTs, Bollinger came in and replaced him. He threw for 70 yards (with seven completions on nine attempts), before he was injured and replaced by rookie Tarvaris Jackson. The injury kept him sidelined through most of his 2006 season.

 

[silverbear]

Obviously, the timing was close but I wonder if there was ever any overlap when both Childress and Bollinger were in Wisconsin where Childress may have seen him practice/play before he got the Eagles job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Bollinger

NFL career

Bollinger was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2006 for Defensive Tackle C.J. Mosley and a draft pick where he was reunited with new head coach Brad Childress, his Offensive Coordinator in college. After a game against the Chicago Bears in which Vikings starting QB Brad Johnson threw 4 INTs, Bollinger came in and replaced him. He threw for 70 yards (with seven completions on nine attempts), before he was injured and replaced by rookie Tarvaris Jackson. The injury kept him sidelined through most of his 2006 season.

Wikipedia has been known to get things wrong, hoss... I mean, I use them for reference, I like them, but they are an open source "encyclopedia"...

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

Obviously, the timing was close but I wonder if there was ever any overlap when both Childress and Bollinger were in Wisconsin where Childress may have seen him practice/play before he got the Eagles job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Bollinger

NFL career

Bollinger was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2006 for Defensive Tackle C.J. Mosley and a draft pick where he was reunited with new head coach Brad Childress, his Offensive Coordinator in college. After a game against the Chicago Bears in which Vikings starting QB Brad Johnson threw 4 INTs, Bollinger came in and replaced him. He threw for 70 yards (with seven completions on nine attempts), before he was injured and replaced by rookie Tarvaris Jackson. The injury kept him sidelined through most of his 2006 season.

...................You know, you may be right. May well have been an overlap but I really dont think so. Cant remember it anyway. If there was it was only his freshman year, but again, dont think so.

 

[ChrisCanty99]

So he only attempted a pass 2/3rds of the times he went back to pass?

I don't have the numbers but that seems like "protection" far worse than David Carr got in Houston.

Drew Bledsoe got sacked far more than Tony Romo behind the same line.

And we know Bollinger's fairly mobile and athletic. So maybe he just doesn't see the field too well and holds the ball far too long.

Again, this is not a study of film or data, just another way to explain the fact the guy doesn't get a pass off 33% of the time he drops back.

I was expecting Simms or Anthony Wright because of the Garrett connections. Bollinger's fine as a #3, but he doesn't have the skins on the wall like BJ. Brooks also will never be much better than he is now, which ain't terrific.

 

[Dodger12]

...................You know, you may be right. May well have been an overlap but I really dont think so. Cant remember it anyway. If there was it was only his freshman year, but again, dont think so.

You're probably right. I'm assuming that Childress had some background on Bollinger or at least helped to scout him, prior to Childress being hired by the Eagles. I'm also assuming that Bollinger being traded to Minny where a former Badger is a HC was also no coincidence. Childress probably gave Bollinger every opportunity to succeed and it still didn't work out. I just think we can do better as a #3 developmental QB. And while Bartell is a work in progress, I think he played better than Bollinger the other night.

 

[Hostile]

Ahhhh, this is one of those "pet cat" things...

Seriously, I now understand where you're coming from... I don't entirely disagree, I'm just not quite as negative on the guy, now that I've looked into him a bit...

It is a pet cat thing, but it isn't. I think Beck can be a #2 QB who if he develops could have rendered us a future Draft pick. I am always greedy.

I don't think Bollinger is anything other than a warm body #3. I'm not looking for a #3 QB. I'm looking for a future #2 who may add value in other ways. I don't see the value of adding Bollinger.

 

[JackMagist]

I understood, and was just offering you an informed opinion not my own that was relevant... your questions were legitimate, so I thought I'd take a shot at answering them...

Thanks I appreciate the info. It does make me feel a little better about him but I have to admit that I am still uneasy with this signing. However, since he will only be the #3 and I hope to hell we never see him on the field anyway I will reserve judgement.

 

[Deep_South]

I bet we're looking at Bollinger because Jason Garrett is looking for a backup like Jason Garrett. I think it boils down to the fact that we're not going to find a great qb who will be willing to sit on the bench and watch Romo play for the rest of his career. We need a guy who is willing to just sit there and watch, but who is also enthusiastic and professional enough to be prepared and ready to go every game - a guy who won't cost an arm and a leg.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

You know what I dont get sometimes about our fanbase.....There were fans, and I use that term VERY LOOSELY who were just crazy about Quincy Carter or Chad Hutchinson, Fans of certain players instead of the TEAM. just ga ga over those two BUMS.." I myself detested both of them as I knew neither was ever gonna be the answer",...Anyway, some fans just loved those two, yet Bollinger with better numbers, and better longevity is considered a bum. Ummmm....How can that be? Shows how far weve really come in the last few years doesnt it! Glad those sadsack days are gone.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

I like bringing up the old Q Carter/ Hutchinson days. I always found it funny as hellll that people were actually willing to argue about those no talent stiffs. Funny, yet sad. Kinda like having to pick between Rosie O'donnell and Rosanne Barr to be stranded on a desert island with. No matter which one ya pick........it aint gonna be pretty!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Who is himself Quincy Carter-esque! :laugh2:

Except Bollinger seems to be progressing... again, look at his numbers the last two years; they're hardly "Jason Campbell-esque"... 67.6 completion percentage, 7.9 YPA, 84.0 quarterback rating...

I'm trying to make a funny, damnit, you're just being mean!

You're also not claiming he's a bum, either... thus, I see no arrogance in your stance, even if I don't entirely understand it...

I'm telling myself that Jerry saw Colt McCoy play yesterday (man, he was BRILLIANT), and has now decided that he's gonna draft the kid when he comes out, to back up Tony and eventually replace him, years down the road... thus, he just needs a cheap stopgap...

If I can't get one Horns QB in here, I'm gonna get another, by Gawd...

I smell failure in your quest :

 

[JackMagist]

I smell failure in your quest :

Just wait till Colt McCoy comes out!!!

Okay...I'll go back to my corner and eat my Christmas Pie now :

 

[Alexander]

Once again, there are some in here who are so unbelievably arrogant as to believe their quarterback evaluation skills are superior to Jason Garrett's...

Excuse me while I LMAO at that arrogance; if Garrett decides that Bollinger is the guy, I'll trust his judgement...

Precisely.

Bollinger has been a very very solid backup for quite a while and has started (and won). In many ways, he would be a great third QB for anyone and I am sure that is what he is being viewed as.

It is not like Johnson is being benched right now for him. And I am certain that if Johnson retires next year, we would have a young signalcaller for him to compete with.

In many ways, he is much like Garrett himself used to be. Physically limited but smart as a whip and could get the job done in a pinch.

Why it is assumed that Simms is a better option is beyond me, especially if he is pricing himself out of our range which is supposedly what is happening.