Could Cooper Rush be the catalyst that helps Trey Lance really become "the guy"?

[Flamma]

no, 10 games. 5 each year....so there is that. and then preseason. and then 2 years of practices.

I'm talking about games he played from beginning to end. I believe that's 3.

 

[Adreme]

Go head and compare those numbers to QB's in his era.

Top 10 played 15+ years

You missed my point entirely because you decided I was attacking Aikman and decided you must protect at all costs.

Cooper Rush’s numbers were horrible compared to the QBs of today (which is when he plays). For example his completion percentage would be outside the top 25 for that year (possibly outside of top 30 but I’m not paying to look further). It doesn’t matter that it is similar to what great QBs put up 30 years ago because this isn’t 30 years ago and the numbers have gone way up.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Little boy things?

LOL....

fat fingering..

thinks

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

So you support and cheer on lance?

sure. but I don't have my lips glued to his end like some of you all.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

sure. but I don't have my lips glued to his end like some of you all.

Stay classy.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm talking about games he played from beginning to end. I believe that's 3.

regardless. he is top 3. supposedly talented. preseason, he sucked. when he played he sucked. if you are talented, elite type, then it shows in your play a little. he showed nothing. nada. 50% completion rate. had a lot of trouble throwing. had a lot of trouble reading defenses. he was totally lost. so his ceiling is not elite. its a top 15 QB at best. we already have one of those and there is 184,493 threads and 13,498,383 comments about him. people complain he is not elite. so switching to another non-elite QB. what's that going to get us?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

You missed my point entirely because you decided I was attacking Aikman and decided you must protect at all costs.

Cooper Rush’s numbers were horrible compared to the QBs of today (which is when he plays). For example his completion percentage would be outside the top 25 for that year (possibly outside of top 30 but I’m not paying to look further). It doesn’t matter that it is similar to what great QBs put up 30 years ago because this isn’t 30 years ago and the numbers have gone way up.

THe backup played well enough for the defense to flourish and win games. To bad you didnt decide to stop paying right there.

 

[Chasing6]

You missed my point entirely because you decided I was attacking Aikman and decided you must protect at all costs.

Cooper Rush’s numbers were horrible compared to the QBs of today (which is when he plays). For example his completion percentage would be outside the top 25 for that year (possibly outside of top 30 but I’m not paying to look further). It doesn’t matter that it is similar to what great QBs put up 30 years ago because this isn’t 30 years ago and the numbers have gone way up.

Compare Troy's numbers to his era. They are not impressive. Averaging 200 a game and basically a 1 TD to 1 Int for a career is not impressive in any era.

 

[Flamma]

regardless. he is top 3. supposedly talented. preseason, he sucked. when he played he sucked. if you are talented, elite type, then it shows in your play a little. he showed nothing. nada. 50% completion rate. had a lot of trouble throwing. had a lot of trouble reading defenses. he was totally lost. so his ceiling is not elite. its a top 15 QB at best. we already have one of those and there is 184,493 threads and 13,498,383 comments about him. people complain he is not elite. so switching to another non-elite QB. what's that going to get us?

I'm not saying he's good, just saying not enough info in 3 full games. Elway was 40-77 in his first 3 starts. Not everyone is coming out of the gate like Kurt warner.

I agree we shouldn't pay a non elite QB to replace a non elite QB. I just don't think we should pay a non elite QB elite QB money.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm not saying he's good, just saying not enough info in 3 full games. Elway was 40-77 in his first 3 starts. Not everyone is coming out of the gate like Kurt warner.

I agree we shouldn't pay a non elite QB to replace a non elite QB. I just don't think we should pay a non elite QB elite QB money.

I disagree. there is enough info. he is not elite. nothing showed that he is elite.

so we know that. and thus we know his best is top 15 QB. which for a 4th round pick might be a good deal. but we already have a top 15 and people complain.

and what is Elite money? its a fan made thing to argue. the market set the value. did you think WRs will make 20-25M? no, but they do. Parsons is about to hit maybe 30M.
and 5 years from now, when one of the QBs make 80M average. then 50,60M would look like a bargain. just like 15M was a lot 6,7 years ago and today, its bottom 10 money.

 

[Flamma]

and what is Elite money? its a fan made thing to argue. the market set the value. did you think WRs will make 20-25M? no, but they do. Parsons is about to hit maybe 30M.
and 5 years from now, when one of the QBs make 80M average. then 50,60M would look like a bargain. just like 15M was a lot 6,7 years ago and today, its bottom 10 money.

Elite money is top market value for the best players at their position. The only position in football making top market value while not being elite is the quarterback position. Michael Gallup wasn't making top market value at his position. Parsons probably will, But Armstrong and Fowler wouldn't. Diggs does, Anthony Brown didn't.

When you draft a QB today, if you want to give him a long term extension past his rookie contract, it has to be at or near top market value whether the QB is elite or not. If you don't pay them, they'll play somewhere else for less.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Elite money is top market value for the best players at their position. The only position in football making top market value while not being elite is the quarterback position. Michael Gallup wasn't making top market value at his position. Parsons probably will, But Armstrong and Fowler wouldn't. Diggs does, Anthony Brown didn't.

When you draft a QB today, if you want to give him a long term extension past his rookie contract, it has to be at or near top market value whether the QB is elite or not. If you don't pay them, they'll play somewhere else for less.

and QB is different than any other position. teams will over draft, over pay for QBs.

so as you said, its the QB market.

 

[Chasing6]

Elite money is top market value for the best players at their position. The only position in football making top market value while not being elite is the quarterback position. Michael Gallup wasn't making top market value at his position. Parsons probably will, But Armstrong and Fowler wouldn't. Diggs does, Anthony Brown didn't.

When you draft a QB today, if you want to give him a long term extension past his rookie contract, it has to be at or near top market value whether the QB is elite or not. If you don't pay them, they'll play somewhere else for less.

Simple supply and demand. If you are the top FA on the market and their are multiple teams in need, then it is going to be a big pay day.

 

[CowboyStar88]

In the role of a backup and mentor who can get you a couple of wins if needed, Rush fits the bill. Will he be a catalyst? No, if Trey becomes anything it will be because of the work he’s put in.

 

[Adreme]

Compare Troy's numbers to his era. They are not impressive. Averaging 200 a game and basically a 1 TD to 1 Int for a career is not impressive in any era.

Yes but the reason is that you could win back then without elite QB play. Terry Bradshaw has 3 Super Bowl wins and is not a top 25 all time QB. The NFL has shifted to if you do not have top 15 level QB play you are not going to contend for a title without an all time great defense. Troy's numbers were mediocre for back then but that was good enough, and he had a much higher completion rate and fairly low interceptions for the era. You can say he did not throw for a lot of yards but you had Emmit so you were not going to throw for a lot of yards. Just another one of the differences between the 90s and today: back then you could be a team lead by a RB and now you have to be a team lead by a QB to win. Back then you would run to set up the pass whereas now you pass to set up the run.

 

[Adreme]

I never ever ever ever quote stats. They re irrelevant in the modern game. They are for losers

All that matters is when the game is on the line the player steps up to the occasion

So by your logic Rush was a failure because the only time they needed him to step up and win the game was against the Eagles and he bombed that game from start to finish.

Lets not ignore the problem with your metric: a player who plays great for 4 quarters is inferior in your eyes to a player who plays like trash for 3 quarters, gets carried by the defense to keep the game close, and has 1 good drive at the end. That is simply lunacy. Peyton Manning lost a playoff game without ever punting. Did that make him a bad player because he couldn't "step up" in the clutch and magically also play defense? Of course not. Similarly you would argue that a QB who plays awful and barely wins 17-14 is superior to the QB who plays good from start to finish and wins 35-14. Terry Bradshaw was not a better QB than Dan Marino. Nick Foles was not the same level of QB as Drew Brees.

The reason we know this is because we can both watch the games and see the numbers. I know this might shock you but "loser" GMs, scouts, and coaches who win Super Bowls use those metrics when they evaluate players. They build Super Bowl rosters around it. So you can call the Super Bowl winners "losers" and act like you know better than them and everyone else can have a good laugh at you for that arrogance.

 

[Bullflop]

Trey Lance will ideally be judged upon his ability and merits to determine his eventual fate with the Cowboys. Cooper Rush is a capable backup to Dak but not one likely to win more than his share of games as a starter. He's not very likely to overcome capable pass rushes by elite teams in the heat of battle, since his ability to scramble is practically non-existent. He tends to freeze when the pass rushing heat gets intense, more often than not. That's not likely to stand him in a good way under pressure. A good starter won't do that for his team to likely find reliable success.

Whether or not Trey Lance is able to avoid the pitfalls that Rush is victimized by when the heat of a good pass rushing team is present remains to be seen. He'll be afforded a great deal of attention in training camp to prove whether or not he's able to stand up to pressure situations. Let's see what eventually happens in the heat of battle, when the pass rushing pressure becomes intense. If he's able to operate effectively when that happens, perhaps his presence will become something that this team would want to ensure for the long haul. That situation should lead to a quite interesting training camp that's about to get underway pretty soon. Stay tuned, folks!

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

So by your logic Rush was a failure because the only time they needed him to step up and win the game was against the Eagles and he bombed that game from start to finish.

Lets not ignore the problem with your metric: a player who plays great for 4 quarters is inferior in your eyes to a player who plays like trash for 3 quarters, gets carried by the defense to keep the game close, and has 1 good drive at the end. That is simply lunacy. Peyton Manning lost a playoff game without ever punting. Did that make him a bad player because he couldn't "step up" in the clutch and magically also play defense? Of course not. Similarly you would argue that a QB who plays awful and barely wins 17-14 is superior to the QB who plays good from start to finish and wins 35-14. Terry Bradshaw was not a better QB than Dan Marino. Nick Foles was not the same level of QB as Drew Brees.

The reason we know this is because we can both watch the games and see the numbers. I know this might shock you but "loser" GMs, scouts, and coaches who win Super Bowls use those metrics when they evaluate players. They build Super Bowl rosters around it. So you can call the Super Bowl winners "losers" and act like you know better than them and everyone else can have a good laugh at you for that arrogance.

oh, don't be dramatic like MC.

Rush didn't play great. he was good enough for cowboys to win a few games with defense. he didn't do anything special. the team knew with him, we ain't scoring much, so defense leaned in. for that defense it was not sustainable. the schedule helped a bit too.

but there are times when you don't have a Ravensque defense, you have to win a high scoring game. that offense was not capable of that.

nobody in the NFL would take Rush and make him a starter. how do I know that? he was FA. nobody picked him up. same season we put him on PS to start the season and make some player moves. nobody tried to pick him up. nobody wanted him even for a back up. now, he is the Saviour, the Jesus of the anti-Dak group who mostly don't have a clue about football.

disclaimer: by no means I am defending Dak, or supporting him, saying he is any good in form or manner. this was only about Rush.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Compare Troy's numbers to his era. They are not impressive. Averaging 200 a game and basically a 1 TD to 1 Int for a career is not impressive in any era.

That’s because you think the game of football and a player’s capability and importance to the team is based on the stats they put up regardless of context. Aikman was extremely efficient. He rarely if ever needed to put the team in his back. And if you want to complain about how his stats deteriorated beyond 1997, so did the coaching and drafting of those Larry Lacewell teams which were downright awful. One of the worst in the league. Aikman led a timing based offense where he threw the ball to a spot before the receiver even made his break. That requires superior accuracy. There were many times in practice that Norv Turner remarked that his accuracy was so good the ball never even hit the ground. If those names don’t sound familiar it’s probably because you’re a Dak fan and not a Cowboys fan. When you can’t do anything else, you rely on stats. After all, it’s the only quantitative measure that an agent can point to and say, “yeah it’s true my client threw two crucial picks, but he fought back and threw for over 400 yards! Never mind that it was against the second team and they started playing soft, he deserves a gazillion dollars.”

 

[fairviewfarmer]

If Trey Lance was any good, he would still be playing in SF and would have beaten out, "Mr. Irrelevant".
Lance could be the next Ryan Leaf.
All I need to know is Jerruh did the deal to get Trey Lance here all by himself......