Bryan Broaddus on Cowboys Break this morning

Primetime42

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,492
Reaction score
835
I haven't read through all the posts, but here's my take.

First, we need to evaluate what we want to see in a QB, starting or otherwise. Here are the things I want to see in order of importance:

1. Football IQ. The greatest asset I want my QB to have is his ability to read defenses. Moore's football IQ is very high, I don't think anyone doubts this. He passes this criteria with flying colors.

2. Accuracy. From what I've seen of him at Boise and the few opportunities he's had in preseason, his ball placement seems good to very good. Not only does he give a chance for the receiver to make a play, but he has the ability to hit the receiver in stride to maximize his YAC potential.

3. Pocket presence. Although he's not a "mobile" QB, I believe he can move around the pocket enough not to take a costly sack or has the sense to throw the ball away to see another play. You can file this under footbal IQ as well.

4. Physical stature/ arm strength. This is what's kept him out of games, imo. You don't necessarily need a rocket arm to succeed and in comparison to football IQ and accuracy, I think the whole "golden arm" assessment in evaluating a QB is overrated. His lack of height and weight concerns me more. GM's tend to fall in love with the "arm" far too often only to have it bit them in the @$$.

If you judge Moore by these criteria, who does he remind you of? Romo? Breeze? And in some respects, Wilson? I forget if it was Broaddus or Eatman who said that ideally you want your backup to be as close to your starter so the offense doesn't have to dramatically change in case the starter goes down. This made all the sense in the world to me and it changed my perception of Moore. Kellen Moore is the closest thing we have on the roster to Tony Romo. It's too late in the process to give him a start (the N.O. game would've been my choice), but it wouldn't shock me to see him as our backup next season.

Well, aside from the fact that he throws with the other hand, which causes a pretty big change in how you run things.

I think that's the biggest issue here, honestly.
 

Yakuza Rich

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,043
Reaction score
12,385
I don't believe that for one second. The reality is, QBing at the NFL position is so entirely different than college QBing, it might as well be a different profession altogether. And I'm not saying that the NFL is just better, it is different. As such, no way to evaluate QBs based on their college success, one has nothing to do with the other. But this idea that QBs are "ruined" by less than ideal environments is absurd. No, they just weren't good at the NFL game to begin with. It doesn't matter what environment guys like Rodgers and Romo started in, they were always going to be great QBs. They get it, they truly see the field, can process what they're seeing extremely quickly and react. It doesn't matter if guys like Harrington or Weeden sat for years learning behind a veteran, they just don't get the nature of the NFL game and they never will.

I'll take Bill Parcells word for it when they asked why he didn't want to start Henson or Romo right away because we were so bad as a team and the media was saying 'what do you have to lose?'

Parcells' reply was:

'You can lose your future quarterback.'

I really think that if we had started Romo right away he would been terrible and he would have never recovered.

I also believe that Parcells did the right thing (something he did with all of his QB's) in getting a good Tight End and establishing at least a serviceable run game.

And Parcells is the best developer of QB's that I've ever seen. Walsh is second and he sat Montana for 3 years and sat Young for a while before they were ready.





YR
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
I'll take Bill Parcells word for it when they asked why he didn't want to start Henson or Romo right away because we were so bad as a team and the media was saying 'what do you have to lose?'

Parcells' reply was:

'You can lose your future quarterback.'

I really think that if we had started Romo right away he would been terrible and he would have never recovered.

I also believe that Parcells did the right thing (something he did with all of his QB's) in getting a good Tight End and establishing at least a serviceable run game.

And Parcells is the best developer of QB's that I've ever seen. Walsh is second and he sat Montana for 3 years and sat Young for a while before they were ready.





YR

And Troy Aikman started right away, got annihilated, went 1-15...and turned into a 3-time SB champ. I realize my stance on this probably goes against the grain, but the skills Romo (and other great QBs) possess would eventually translate on the field, regardless of the environment they were initially put in. Conversely, if guys like Weeden and Cassell are given time to develop behind a starter, they never get better, they never get "it." It is blatantly obvious that despite Cassell's experience and time in the league, under the tutelage of some great coaches, he still has no clue what he's looking at down the field. So many coaches believe they can "coach a QB up." Look at Chip Kelly, arrogantly thinking that HE could make Sam Bradford into a real QB. Guess what? Sam Bradford, despite all the hype entering the league, despite all the Chip Kelly coaching, continues to show what he is, a QB incapable of consistently and competently running an offense.

So yes, I absolutely disagree with Parcells on this -- I also think Parcells (and other highly successful coaches) have pretty big egos and that plays into his comments.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,018
Reaction score
37,158
One thing this season demonstrates, well to me at least, we have to look for a Romo's successor.

Not sure it does. I wouldn't go out of my way to try to find a successor for Romo because he could play another three or four years. However, it does show us we need a better backup plan.
I'm fine with drafting a QB, but no matter who we draft, we need to go vet QB shopping for the No. 2 spot when the offseason begins. Since I doubt we're going to spend our first-round pick on the position as long as Romo is here, there's not telling if whomever we draft will turn out any better than Weeden or Cassel.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I get that it's a natural human reaction to think the backup QB or the backup RB *could* be better than the bad or mediocre player you're seeing out there starting. Hope springs eternal, and all that. But you'd think that after seeing it time and time again not turnout to be the case, it would start to sink in.

When a coach says player such-and-such is in the lineup because he's earned the reps through his work in practice, then you're seeing a developing player improve. When player-so-and-so is getting benched because he sucks, you're seeing a player come in who the team originally thought sucked even more, and they're changing it up because, what the hell, maybe the pig will actually look kissable with a little lipstick.

It won't. It's a pig. Kellen Moore is a different shade of lipstick. If you're still in line at the kissing booth after all this time, you deserve what you're going to get. Seriously.
 

Yakuza Rich

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,043
Reaction score
12,385
And Troy Aikman started right away, got annihilated, went 1-15...and turned into a 3-time SB champ. I realize my stance on this probably goes against the grain, but the skills Romo (and other great QBs) possess would eventually translate on the field, regardless of the environment they were initially put in.

I just think that I have never thought 'gee, if only they started this guy from the get-go he would have been really great.' Instead, I usually think that guys are brought into the starting position too quickly.





YR
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
I just think that I have never thought 'gee, if only they started this guy from the get-go he would have been really great.' Instead, I usually think that guys are brought into the starting position too quickly.





YR

That's fine, philosophical differences. I think if Romo started from Day 1, we'd have a few more victories, a few less losses and Romo would still be the great QB he is today. In other words, he should have been starting a lot earlier than he did. Who knows for sure.
 

Ender

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,970
Reaction score
515
Not sure it does. I wouldn't go out of my way to try to find a successor for Romo because he could play another three or four years. However, it does show us we need a better backup plan.
I'm fine with drafting a QB, but no matter who we draft, we need to go vet QB shopping for the No. 2 spot when the offseason begins. Since I doubt we're going to spend our first-round pick on the position as long as Romo is here, there's not telling if whomever we draft will turn out any better than Weeden or Cassel.

Im not sure if you just agreed or disagreed, you seem to take both sides.
 

Ender

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,970
Reaction score
515
Although I agree with you 100% it'll never happen. This team refuses to address/admit that the backup QB is an issue or admit that Romo isn't invisible. Even now they'll turn a blind eye to it and refuse to address it next off season.

I don't think they're blind to it. I think this season has demonstrated that this is an immediate need.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,018
Reaction score
37,158
Im not sure if you just agreed or disagreed, you seem to take both sides.

I didn't think that I did, but I'll try to be clearer.

We don't need to go into this draft looking for Romo's successor. We need to go into this offseason looking for a better No. 2 option than Weeden and Cassel. That option needs to be a veteran because I doubt we're going to draft a QB very high while Romo is still playing.

That doesn't mean we don't draft a QB who can be groomed as the No. 3 to supplant the backup and eventually take over for Romo. I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on that even as early as the second round. However, I could easily buy into the plan of waiting until Romo retires, spending a first-round pick then on a QB and letting him immediately step in as a starter.

What this year shows us is only that we need a better backup. The plan that seems to have worked best for us in the past is getting former starters who are nearing the end of their career but still want to play (like Jon Kitna). However, it isn't always easy to find and sign those guys.
 
Top