Congratulations To Alex Tanney!

[Big D]

Bills have their own Tanney in Jeff Tuel. They're pretty happy with him as an undrafted FA. It'd have to be Orton, and we're not going to trade Orton this season.

We should. lol If Romo goes down the season is over. Orton won't help our chances like another og will.

 

[AsthmaField]

Do you even realize how many times he had to throw that pass. You are only seeing the one time he made it, not all of the attempts. Hell, I can do the same thing given enough attempts. Since you are so big on Tanney do you realize that we picked him up as a free agent? Do you even know that he was with the Chiefs last year? Do you know that he was undrafted last year?

Do not get hysterical.

I was being sarcastic. I don't like Tanney any more than you do, and I agree that his video is a gimmick.

 

[Idgit]

We should. lol If Romo goes down the season is over. Orton won't help our chances like another og will.

Depends what going down entails. If Romo misses two or three weeks, Orton can get you to 2-1 during that span under the right circumstances. A DIII QB is a lot less likely to do that. Those two wins could very well be the difference between playoffs or no.

Another OG isn't going to help very much, anyway. They're not going to give up a starter at the position for Kyle Orton. That means a backup OL that's got to be better than either Mack or Doug Free. I know we like to pretend here that that's every OG, ever, but it's really not. You're going to get a lesser player, in all likelihood, than who you already have, and, for the sake of argument, at best a marginal upgrade. That's not worth giving up your injury insurance for Tony.

Now, if Tony goes down all year, I'd work Tanney into the starting lineup over the course of a few weeks and give him a chance to develop. In that case, yeah, you're dead in the water, anyway, so you might as well figure out what you've got.

 

[Deep_South]

Rue what? What the hell has Matt Moore done in his career?

Matt Moore is a backup QB for Miami, and has a record of 13-12 as a starter. His career QB rating is 80.5.

This may not sound like much of a track record, but the guy we picked to develop instead of Moore, Stephen McGee, cost us a 4th round pick and for three years just never looked like he could even play in the NFL.

 

[Gadfly22]

Tanney is such a profound development project that I can't see any team grabbing him, other than for their own PS. Add to that the depth needs on the Oline and Dline, and the closer to NFL-quality players at other provisions (LB, secondary, WR), I see Tanney as lucky to be added to the Cowboys PS, which he might prefer to another team's. If not, then good luck to him.

Preseason enthusiasm is a pleasant semi-insanity, but reality (and the 53-man roster) is unforgiving.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wasting away again in Alex Tanneyville. Looking for his, lost roster spot. Some people claim that there's a QB Coach to blame...... but I know, it's my own damn fault.

 

[Idgit]

Tanney is such a profound development project that I can't see any team grabbing him, other than for their own PS. Add to that the depth needs on the Oline and Dline, and the closer to NFL-quality players at other provisions (LB, secondary, WR), I see Tanney as lucky to be added to the Cowboys PS, which he might prefer to another team's. If not, then good luck to him.

Preseason enthusiasm is a pleasant semi-insanity, but reality (and the 53-man roster) is unforgiving.

What about his game do you think needs to still be developed? From what I've seen, the guy has the tools and basically just needs reps to get faster and the experience to avoid the common rookie pitfalls like staring down his WRs. He's certainly has the physical tools you'd like to see. He's mobile. He's accurate. Those guys are pretty tough to find in this league. You don't overlook guys like that just so you can squeeze a Jeff Heath or a final year of David Arkin onto your roster.

 

[sacase]

Do not get hysterical.

I was being sarcastic. I don't like Tanney any more than you do, and I agree that his video is a gimmick.

Ok my bad, I thought you were serious....lol

 

[Gadfly22]

What about his game do you think needs to still be developed? From what I've seen, the guy has the tools and basically just needs reps to get faster and the experience to avoid the common rookie pitfalls like staring down his WRs. He's certainly has the physical tools you'd like to see. He's mobile. He's accurate. Those guys are pretty tough to find in this league. You don't overlook guys like that just so you can squeeze a Jeff Heath or a final year of David Arkin onto your roster.

Ah, the joys of preseason love.

Look at it this way: is Tanney so far above Matt Moore quality -- a guy who now looks like a career backup -- that you impair special teams or hurt essential depth or ignore a developmental player more likely to contribute and actually see the field in a couple years? I don't see it, but maybe Tanney will shock the world and be a second Romo eventually. But odds are very strongly against. So I wouldn't bother using a roster spot right now in the hopes of developing a career backup. That's what the PS is for.

I tend to adopt the Damon Runyon view: the race is not always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets.

 

[Idgit]

Ah, the joys of preseason love.

Look at it this way: is Tanney so far above Matt Moore quality -- a guy who now looks like a career backup -- that you impair special teams or hurt essential depth or ignore a developmental player more likely to contribute and actually see the field in a couple years? I don't see it, but maybe Tanney will shock the world and be a second Romo eventually. But odds are very strongly against. So I wouldn't bother using a roster spot right now in the hopes of developing a career backup. That's what the PS is for.

I tend to adopt the Damon Runyon view: the race is not always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets.

Ah, the joys of putting a roster together with your best players. Tanney might very well not be even Matt-Moore quality. And he doesn't deserve the roster spot if he doesn't continue his strong preseason play.

That said, you put a QB who might be Matt Moore on your roster, every time, if you can. You do it because you don't know what his ceiling is actually going to be. You do it because a career backup QB is more valuable in terms of cap space alone than a 7th LP or 6th WR or 4th RB. You do it because, if you think you have the right guy, you save yourself a higher pick on a developmental QB in next year's draft. You do it because teams would have traded mid-round draft picks for a player like Matt Moore had Dallas continued to develop him and played him sparingly in preseason and he played well.

Most of all, you do it because the other players you'd keep on the roster instead all very likely *will* make it to the PS. If they didn't, you'd be able to replace them with a street veteran FA they way we did last season with Frampton, or Poppinga, or Armstrong.

Alex Tanney doesn't hurt your team's depth all that much being on the roster, since you're not bringing all 53 to the games, anyway. He ends up being one of the guys who you don't dress every week, so you just have one less player to choose from for your game day roster. But every team is leaving guys off the game day rosters. One of yours just happens to be a QB.

As to the strong and the swift winning races and fights, I agree. Keeping the most valuable resources on your roster is what a strong team does. Tanney hasn't proven yet that he's valuable enough to deserve a spot on the 53, but he's got one game left to do it. If he plays well, he'll make this team, and we'll have to endeavor to persevere without the Caleb McSurdys or Jeff Heaths or Phillip Tanners of the world. Somehow, I think we'll manage.

 

[Gadfly22]

Ah, the joys of putting a roster together with your best players. Tanney might very well not be even Matt-Moore quality. And he doesn't deserve the roster spot if he doesn't continue his strong preseason play.

That said, you put a QB who might be Matt Moore on your roster, every time, if you can. You do it because you don't know what his ceiling is actually going to be. You do it because a career backup QB is more valuable in terms of cap space alone than a 7th LP or 6th WR or 4th RB. You do it because, if you think you have the right guy, you save yourself a higher pick on a developmental QB in next year's draft. You do it because teams would have traded mid-round draft picks for a player like Matt Moore had Dallas continued to develop him and played him sparingly in preseason and he played well.

Most of all, you do it because the other players you'd keep on the roster instead all very likely *will* make it to the PS. If they didn't, you'd be able to replace them with a street veteran FA they way we did last season with Frampton, or Poppinga, or Armstrong.

Alex Tanney doesn't hurt your team's depth all that much being on the roster, since you're not bringing all 53 to the games, anyway. He ends up being one of the guys who you don't dress every week, so you just have one less player to choose from for your game day roster. But every team is leaving guys off the game day rosters. One of yours just happens to be a QB.

As to the strong and the swift winning races and fights, I agree. Keeping the most valuable resources on your roster is what a strong team does. Tanney hasn't proven yet that he's valuable enough to deserve a spot on the 53, but he's got one game left to do it. If he plays well, he'll make this team, and we'll have to endeavor to persevere without the Caleb McSurdys or Jeff Heaths or Phillip Tanners of the world. Somehow, I think we'll manage.

Reasonable people are free to disagree. Though I think Stephen Jones agrees more with my view than with yours:

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.co...wnplays-loss-of-matt-moore-six-years-ago.html

I'm by no means an experienced scout nor have I been particularly accurate with my roster predictions in the past, but -- especially given the injury situation on the O-line and D-line -- I think you have to roll the dice and see if you can get Tanney on the PS. If so, he has a chance to develop for the club. If not, there will be more QBs coming out of small schools or with sterling resumes to try your luck with next year.

 

[Idgit]

Reasonable people are free to disagree. Though I think Stephen Jones agrees more with my view than with yours:

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.co...wnplays-loss-of-matt-moore-six-years-ago.html

I'm by no means an experienced scout nor have I been particularly accurate with my roster predictions in the past, but -- especially given the injury situation on the O-line and D-line -- I think you have to roll the dice and see if you can get Tanney on the PS. If so, he has a chance to develop for the club. If not, there will be more QBs coming out of small schools or with sterling resumes to try your luck with next year.

Hey, I know it's 50/50 as to whether Tanney gets on the roster. I'm only arguing that I think the team is intending to do that based off of their actions.

I saw the Stephen Jones quotes in the other thread. I think it's a good example. Going back to Matt Moore, which outcome would you have honestly preferred? Keeping Brad Johnson that extra year and saving the roster spot, drafting McGee the next year as the developmental guy and giving him three years on the active roster. Or, keeping Matt Moore, cutting whichever bottom roster player we kept in his place, having him as an option to replace Johnson when his arm was clearly shot, not spending the 4th on McGee and instead spending it on a mid-round pick at the position you cut the year before in order to make room for your QB, and then shopping Moore for a 3rd-4th rounder after he looked Matt-Moorish in the snaps he got in place of the ineffective Johnson that season?

Because, by my reckoning, you'd have saved a 4th and traded a player for another pick (possibly) at the cost of using a developmental QB3 roster spot that you ended up using the next three seasons, anyway. That's my way of saying that Stephen Jones is wrong here, and that the right way to look at the equation is to look at more than just what Matt Moore was able to do as a starter in the league. You have to look at what it cost you to lose him, and what you could have gotten for keeping and developing him.

 

[Gadfly22]

Hey, I know it's 50/50 as to whether Tanney gets on the roster. I'm only arguing that I think the team is intending to do that based off of their actions.

I saw the Stephen Jones quotes in the other thread. I think it's a good example. Going back to Matt Moore, which outcome would you have honestly preferred? Keeping Brad Johnson that extra year and saving the roster spot, drafting McGee the next year as the developmental guy and giving him three years on the active roster. Or, keeping Matt Moore, cutting whichever bottom roster player we kept in his place, having him as an option to replace Johnson when his arm was clearly shot, not spending the 4th on McGee and instead spending it on a mid-round pick at the position you cut the year before in order to make room for your QB, and then shopping Moore for a 3rd-4th rounder after he looked Matt-Moorish in the snaps he got in place of the ineffective Johnson that season?

Because, by my reckoning, you'd have saved a 4th and traded a player for another pick (possibly) at the cost of using a developmental QB3 roster spot that you ended up using the next three seasons, anyway. That's my way of saying that Stephen Jones is wrong here, and that the right way to look at the equation is to look at more than just what Matt Moore was able to do as a starter in the league. You have to look at what it cost you to lose him, and what you could have gotten for keeping and developing him.

There's just way too much speculation about past and future in your hypotheticals. My view is just based on the team's situation right now, taking into account injuries, depth and special teams needs -- and the preseason has shown that special teams has some pretty serious needs.

And I don't really think Tanney has shown another NFL team enough for them to offer him a roster spot based on what they have seen in preseason. I prefer to go with what the Cowboy coaches have seen in lots of practices that other coaches have not. If they've seen enough that they don't want another Matt Moore situation, I'm OK with that. If Tanney is offered a PS slot, I'm OK with that too. And if he's simply released -- well, I'd prefer the PS, since I think he may have potential, and I'd always have a QB on my PS if possible.

 

[Gadfly22]

Though, I'd add that releasing Stephens before the last preseason game might be an argument that they are putting Tanney on the roster. By releasing him, they're giving Tanney a long look -- a look that they;re sharing with other teams. If he looks too good in that showcase, they might well lose him.

If they were trying to slip him onto the PS, they might have kept Stephens a while longer to give him some playing time in that last game and keep Tanney off-stage.

 

[Idgit]

I'll take that reply to indicate that you'd agree that keeping Matt Moore was the better option between the two hypotheticals. I agree, they're hypotheticals; that's what you have to deal with when you're deciding whether or not you're going to keep a developmental QB on your roster.

And I'm all for ST depth. I don't think keeping the QB3 has that significant an impact on your gameday roster. Every team in the league has seven players on their roster that are inactive on game days. For keeping a third QB on your active roster to impact that, he's got to be taking a spot you intend to use in your gameday ST rotation. That means a team would need to be using a different combination of those seven ST guys throughout the year in order to need that 7th spot that badly. That's not much at all to give up in order to keep the developmental QB around.

The question is really 'do you want to give one of your 1-2 developmental roster spots to the QB.' And again, I think it's too soon to answer it. But, judging from their actions this season in giving him so many snaps and elevating him on the roster over a guy who had the benefit of a full off-season, if Alex Tanney plays well on Thursday, I believe the team intends to keep him. We'll see.

 

[Gadfly22]

I'll take that reply to indicate that you'd agree that keeping Matt Moore was the better option between the two hypotheticals. I agree, they're hypotheticals; that's what you have to deal with when you're deciding whether or not you're going to keep a developmental QB on your roster.

No, my point was that those hypotheticals were entirely too speculative to have any relevance to the current situation. And I disagree that hypotheticals are what the Cowboys are dealing with in deciding whether to keep a developmental QB on their roster.

I think they are considering a number of factors, among which are:

1. What is the actual injury situation of players like Rat or Livings and how to deal with the depth that might be needed -- even if only short term?
2. How has Tanney looked overall and not just in the games that we fans have seen? (One answer to that is "better than Stephens".)
3. What do the coaches who count think about Tanney's potential and how long it might take to develop him?
4. Do the coaches think Tanney is a possible starter or is he, at best, a career backup guy?

Some of those factors require educated assumptions about the future, since "potential" is a difficult thing to measure. But those assumptions can be aided by actual evidence that the coaches have on film and not some assumption that a guy with "potential" can be traded for value at some point in the distant future.

 

[Idgit]

No, my point was that those hypotheticals were entirely too speculative to have any relevance to the current situation. And I disagree that hypotheticals are what the Cowboys are dealing with in deciding whether to keep a developmental QB on their roster.

I think they are considering a number of factors, among which are:

1. What is the actual injury situation of players like Rat or Livings and how to deal with the depth that might be needed -- even if only short term?
2. How has Tanney looked overall and not just in the games that we fans have seen? (One answer to that is "better than Stephens".)
3. What do the coaches who count think about Tanney's potential and how long it might take to develop him?
4. Do the coaches think Tanney is a possible starter or is he, at best, a career backup guy?

Some of those factors require educated assumptions about the future, since "potential" is a difficult thing to measure. But those assumptions can be aided by actual evidence that the coaches have on film and not some assumption that a guy with "potential" can be traded for value at some point in the distant future.

I don't disagree with any of that. Items 1, 3, and 4 are clearly the types of hypotheticals I was referring to, though.

The more we chat here, though, the closer it seems our positions are, anyway. Tanney's got a shot. It's dicey. And it's going to come down to his play on Thursday. If they keep him, it's because they think they can trade or develop him into something valuable, and guys with that kind of potential are rare in this league.

 

[Verdict]

Ah, the joys of preseason love.

Look at it this way: is Tanney so far above Matt Moore quality -- a guy who now looks like a career backup -- that you impair special teams or hurt essential depth or ignore a developmental player more likely to contribute and actually see the field in a couple years? I don't see it, but maybe Tanney will shock the world and be a second Romo eventually. But odds are very strongly against. So I wouldn't bother using a roster spot right now in the hopes of developing a career backup. That's what the PS is for.

I tend to adopt the Damon Runyon view: the race is not always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets.

In a perfect world, we cut Tanney, he makes it to the practice squad and then becomes the next Romo a few years on down the road. On the other hand, we have kept Arkin for two years already and he hasn't played any meaningful amount, so I'm not sure how valuable the number 52 or 53 spot on this roster is worth. LOL But in all seriousness, I think the bottom roster spots are becoming more valuable because our depth of talent on our roster is increasing little by little.

 

[Verdict]

Is it possible that cutting Tanney in the first wave of cuts would have increased the likelihood of him making it to the practice squad?

 

[Gadfly22]

I don't disagree with any of that. Items 1, 3, and 4 are clearly the types of hypotheticals I was referring to, though.

The more we chat here, though, the closer it seems our positions are, anyway. Tanney's got a shot. It's dicey. And it's going to come down to his play on Thursday. If they keep him, it's because they think they can trade or develop him into something valuable, and guys with that kind of potential are rare in this league.

Well, I think now we're just disagreeing about what constitutes a "hypothetical". I treat that term as dealing with "what is the result if X happens" or "what would have happened if X had happened in the past". I don't consider the injury situation, for example, as a "what if". It's more a "what is" -- what is the medical prognosis for Rat's injuries? What is the coaches opinion of Tanney's talent level -- starter quality or backup?

But I agree that Tanney has a shot, and if he improves the team more than another down-roster player does, I'm all for it. However, I think the decision has already been made -- to keep or to cut (with the PS in mind). I just doubt that the coaches will leave that decision up to a performance in any one preseason game. They'll certainly continue to evaluate based on his performance. I just think the final decision is already a done deal, with neither a stellar performance nor a flop having any impact.

Not that we'll ever know.