Dallas needs to draft a QB at some point.

[zeromaster]

He is and they didn't. Wade Phillips himself made the comment a while back that it was an unfortunate blunder letting Matt Moore go. When the Cowboys waived him, they took a chance that he wouldn't be claimed and it backfired. Moore needed seasoning, as it's obvious he's a work in progress, but his upside is considerable. He most likely would have provided good backup security for many years to come, assuming Romo continues his high level of play. To anyone watching Johnson toward the end of the '07 TC practices when his familiarity with the offense should have been sufficient, it was obvious his ability to move the offense was woefully inadequate.

While I see where you're coming from, these two statements in red are at odds with each other. If any backup QB has considerable upside, his competitive nature will not allow him to be satisfied being a backup for many years unless perhaps he's getting a championship ring every other year or so. At some point either he or his agent are likely to conclude that it's time to not sign the next contract and test the free agent waters.

The dilemma is: if the backup is that good, he's going to see some playing time, and the league will have some film on which to judge him. If it's in relief of an injured starter and the results are positive, it tends to increase interest.

Now if you can do this sort of thing regularly and develop QBs that later wind up biting you, it may mean something in terms of trades/picks, but the talent is still paying dividends somewhere else. What the team needs is a Garret-like player that knows he can play, but overcomes a lack of natural talent with smarts, and is willing to play second fiddle. It's a hard combo to get.

I agree they should look at QB in the draft, but not sooner than the 5th round.

 

[Stautner]

If Johnson was really that bad, the Cowboys would have kept Moore.

Oh, so you feel like the Cowboys never make a wrong decision?

 

[Fletch]

What if the unthinkable happens? Say we're in a tight divisional race with the Giants, Tony goes down for a couple of games. Do you let Brad Johnson come in and try and win two games to keep us in it? Do you trust Brad? Practice squad QB Baker?

 

[Stautner]

What if the unthinkable happens? Say we're in a tight divisional race with the Giants, Tony goes down for a couple of games. Do you let Brad Johnson come in and try and win two games to keep us in it? Do you trust Brad? Practice squad QB Baker?

Well, if you don't trust Brad than he has to go, because the only reason to have a veteran backup with years of starting experience is because you trust him to help the team win games in a pinch.

A developing QB is a different deal. It can make sense to have a young guy that isn't quite ready to step in should your scenario arise, but if that's the case we still need a veteran who can step in as insurance.

 

[ctrous25]

Josh Johnson

 

[Bullflop]

While I see where you're coming from, these two statements in red are at odds with each other. If any backup QB has considerable upside, his competitive nature will not allow him to be satisfied being a backup for many years unless perhaps he's getting a championship ring every other year or so. At some point either he or his agent are likely to conclude that it's time to not sign the next contract and test the free agent waters.

The dilemma is: if the backup is that good, he's going to see some playing time, and the league will have some film on which to judge him. If it's in relief of an injured starter and the results are positive, it tends to increase interest.

Now if you can do this sort of thing regularly and develop QBs that later wind up biting you, it may mean something in terms of trades/picks, but the talent is still paying dividends somewhere else. What the team needs is a Garret-like player that knows he can play, but overcomes a lack of natural talent with smarts, and is willing to play second fiddle. It's a hard combo to get.

I agree they should look at QB in the draft, but not sooner than the 5th round.

Oftentimes, players have enough upside to provide highly capable assistance as backups, and not quite enough as starter. You're correct about there being a dilemma keeping good backups. There's a possible solution there, though . . . that's why some NFL teams make it a point to draft QBs on the 2nd day almost every year to keep reasonably talented QBs on the roster on an ongoing basis, even when their starter is established. It pretty much assures a steady supply of decent backups.