Cowboys "Neglected" QBs before/after Aikman retired

[Dodger12]

We can talk about franchise QB's all day. Folks can show us all the top rated QB's that failed. We still need to make an attempt to find the next franchise QB.

But the bottom line is that we've had a franchise QB the past 10 years in Dallas and we didn't know what to do with him. We gave him Wade Phillips and then an inexperienced HC who benefited more from Romo than Romo did from him.

 

[ShiningStar]

I went ahead and liked this, even though it wasn't on my like-bomb page because of the lack of replying recipient.
And "blathering moron". lol.

Aren't we all guilty of being that from time to time?
Me more than many...

im a big moron too, i can admit that.

 

[Corso]

We can talk about franchise QB's all day. Folks can show us all the top rated QB's that failed. We still need to make an attempt to find the next franchise QB.

But the bottom line is that we've had a franchise QB the past 10 years in Dallas and we didn't know what to do with him. We gave him Wade Phillips and then an inexperienced HC who benefited more from Romo than Romo did from him.

Arrow shot to the gut. Gunshot to the knee.

 

[ShiningStar]

Drafting a QB when you don't have a proven one is a no brainer. Drafting a QB when one you have highly rated falls to you is a no brainer(Rodgers). Reaching for a QB when you have a franchise QB is frequently a way to limit what your current team is able to do in the 2-3 year window. There's no right answer.

you also need to find a career back up. Keep drafting them.

 

[Corso]

im a big moron too, i can admit that.

Hey man- I'm a fan.
You're a fav of mine around these here parts.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Read the thing. It shows how hard it is to get a franchise QB. Anyone else can interject their own thoughts and share them from there. I thought it was a good read.

Yessirie it ist hard to get a franchise QB. It do not help when Jerra is so star-struck with aikman und Romo that he dont do nothing and suddenly,duh, we needs a QB.

We need a QB| for the future! Git her done Jerra!

 

[Corso]

Yessirie it ist hard to get a franchise QB. It do not help when Jerra is so star-struck with aikman und Romo that he dont do nothing and suddenly,duh, we needs a QB.

We need a QB| for the future! Git her done Jerra!

Und Stephen! Und Eine Kleine Nacht Music!

 

[AzorAhai]

you can't unscrew the top of someone's head and look inside. That is why the draft is truly a lottery. ESPECIALLY FOR QBS. You need so many things to get a top one
1) football instincts
2) courage to stand and take hits
3)ability in a second to read a D correctly
4)dedication beyond great
5) ability to sense pressure and move without thinking
6)and the necessary physical attributes- Pennington had just about all of that but such a weak arm it did not matter.

That is completely true. With Pennington he could have been great if he had an arm like Vick or J. Russell. Really even if he had an average arm. He's a perfect example of at QB, you can have everything required to be good at QB, lack a single tool and not be good enough.

 

[CWR]

Great post. I for one absolutely see your point. It is or can be a crap shoot. I think the important thing is to begin looking a few years out and plan to develop. Alot of guys have the tools, you have to be able to gauge heart and intellect. From there you coach them up and hope for the best. Easier said than done.

 

[dallasdave]

Wait, so the idea here is to look at the organization's failure in the past to secure a QB to do what---provide a soft cushion for when it happens again?

I understand retroactive peeks into the past to wish what we could have done, but to look back only to provide excuses for what we didn't do?

What?

 

[Derinyar]

you also need to find a career back up. Keep drafting them.

To have a chance of finding an NFL capable player at QB it feels like you have to be putting in a 3rd round or better pick. That's a starter or primary backup pick at most positions. After you spend that pick on the QB how do you develop him? You likely only have him for 3 years before you have to make a big decision on the player. You're hoping that you never have the guy see the field, the one place you can actually determine if he's good enough to keep. And if you're a good team you very well might go and pick up an older guy like Weeden, Cassell, Hasslebeck, Orton, or the like because you think you're a good team and want a guy you think has the chance to win you a few coin flip games while your starter is down.

I agree that in theory the idea of keep drafting a QB is a good one, its just hard to see how it likely pays off. While you have your franchise QB it seems a bit foolish to spend a high pick on his backup, when you probably have issues as a team if he gets injured. When you don't have a franchise QB then you absolutely should put a high pick into a QB about every three years until you find a franchise QB.

 

[Nightman]

No, It's a waste of time to go back and research and document everything only to come up with the obvious.- It is hard to find a franchise QB. Don't need another pointless thread telling us you could hit on a Tom Brady or you could miss on a Ryan Leaf. It is a pointless waste of time.

QBs are the most important pieces on a NFL team. Examining how to come up with a good one is never a waste of time, mainly because it hasn't been determined yet.

But if the answer was to simply draft a QB every year I think the Browns, Vikings, Titans and Texans might have tried that.

It is seems the best way is to draft one in the top 5 but the Commanders can tell you that doesn't work all the time either.

Finding a really good QB is so hard that a team that has one like Romo shouldn't waste valuable resources on trying to find his eventual replacement. But they shouldn't screw around changing coaches and OCs every year either.

Draft a few guys, sign some UDFAs and pay for a veteran backup.

 

[dallasdave]

I went ahead and liked this, even though it wasn't on my like-bomb page because of the lack of replying recipient.
And "blathering moron". lol.

Aren't we all guilty of being that from time to time?
Me more than many...

Guilty---what --I didn't do it , I was not even near the place it happened !!!

 

[HoustonSucks]

I'll say this like I did in another thread I think the QB landscape has changed dramatically. IE You actually MIGHT be able to find a future franchise QB in the mid to late rounds these days like you never have before. Why? Bc College QBing SUCKS these days. With the spread offense and UTTER lack of development when it comes to reading a defense there are kids who are being held back in their respective college offenses from finding out if they can hack the position or not. And these days most college coaches trot out QBs who rely on their legs and "athletic ability" more than their brains b/c you don't need brains more often than not in the new trendier offenses. I read an article where Pro scouts have lamented "interviewing" prospect QBs and quizzing them on how they would react in certain situations/defenses only to receive a blank stare.

Therefore, I think there are more gems in the later rounds than ever before. They are just undeveloped. I think it's fine to really do the due diligence to look at kids who may not be STARS in the college world but perhaps display at least some potential to bring them in and groom them. College QB play for the most part is awful these days. My opinion and makes me sad.

 

[AzorAhai]

QBs are the most important pieces on a NFL team. Examining how to come up with a good one is never a waste of time, mainly because it hasn't been determined yet.

But if the answer was to simply draft a QB every year I think the Browns, Vikings, Titans and Texans might have tried that.

It is seems the best way is to draft one in the top 5 but the Commanders can tell you that doesn't work all the time either.

Finding a really good QB is so hard that a team that has one like Romo shouldn't waste valuable resources on trying to find his eventual replacement. But they shouldn't screw around changing coaches and OCs every year either.

Draft a few guys, sign some UDFAs and pay for a veteran backup.

This was a point I wanted to make but didn't want the thread to be too long and unreadable. There was very little that the Cowboys could have done slightly before and right after Aikman. With the benefit of hindsight, it was probably prudent to push all the chips in on Aikman and try for another SB, not chip away at the team trying to find his replacement early(Not the Galloway trade. I don’t condone that).

I feel the same about Romo. It could very well be 5+ years before we see a real opportunity at a franchise caliber QB after Romo retires. Do we really want to pull resources away from a very good team to put into his replacement, even though history tells us that player has a 95% chance of not being the future QB anyways? Is that 5% chance that player is the heir worth losing a very good chance at adding a contributor? I would say no for the most part. The only exception for me is if a stud QB prospect is unexpectedly on the board. If so, you probably have to take him just because it is so hard to find them. Otherwise, wait for Romo to either retire or decline enough where the need os apparent.

 

[ShiningStar]

To have a chance of finding an NFL capable player at QB it feels like you have to be putting in a 3rd round or better pick. That's a starter or primary backup pick at most positions. After you spend that pick on the QB how do you develop him? You likely only have him for 3 years before you have to make a big decision on the player. You're hoping that you never have the guy see the field, the one place you can actually determine if he's good enough to keep. And if you're a good team you very well might go and pick up an older guy like Weeden, Cassell, Hasslebeck, Orton, or the like because you think you're a good team and want a guy you think has the chance to win you a few coin flip games while your starter is down.

I agree that in theory the idea of keep drafting a QB is a good one, its just hard to see how it likely pays off. While you have your franchise QB it seems a bit foolish to spend a high pick on his backup, when you probably have issues as a team if he gets injured. When you don't have a franchise QB then you absolutely should put a high pick into a QB about every three years until you find a franchise QB.

doesnt always have to be a high pick, can be a flyer on a guy. Just do it. your franchise preferably should be 1 or 2 ok dallas has been lucky. but if they know someone will fall ok fine. but each draft until you are solid, you keep drafting. if you are solid at both take a flyer on a late rounder, doesnt hurt.

 

[CyberB0b]

You can't hit the target if you don't fire the bullet.

 

[Nightman]

This was a point I wanted to make but didn't want the thread to be too long and unreadable. There was very little that the Cowboys could have done slightly before and right after Aikman. With the benefit of hindsight, it was probably prudent to push all the chips in on Aikman and try for another SB, not chip away at the team trying to find his replacement early(Not the Galloway trade. I don’t condone that).

I feel the same about Romo. It could very well be 5+ years before we see a real opportunity at a franchise caliber QB after Romo retires. Do we really want to pull resources away from a very good team to put into his replacement, even though history tells us that player has a 95% chance of not being the future QB anyways? Is that 5% chance that player is the heir worth losing a very good chance at adding a contributor? I would say no for the most part. The only exception for me is if a stud QB prospect is unexpectedly on the board. If so, you probably have to take him just because it is so hard to find them. Otherwise, wait for Romo to either retire or decline enough where the need os apparent.

Right, if a Rodgers ever falls to 24 again you take him at 23 instead of a Martin, TFrederick or BJones.

But you have to move either Romo or Rodgers and get full value for that pick and then some. You still can't keep two franchise QBs.

 

[ShiningStar]

Right, if a Rodgers ever falls to 24 again you take him at 23 instead of a Martin, TFrederick or BJones.

But you have to move either Romo or Rodgers and get full value for that pick and then some. You still can't keep two franchise QBs.

yup thats what you do.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

So we all know drafting QB's is a crapshoot. Knowing that, it's better to do nothing than to try beating the odds?