I'm on the Jon Kitna Bandwagon

[KJJ]

If you don't like the argument I'm making, you don't have to listen to it.

You have no argument that's what makes this entire discussion a waste of time.

 

[KJJ]

No matter who was at QB.

Did you see anything in Weeden in that game that gave you hope that he could lead the team to victory? I didn't give up on the game at halftime; I gave up on Weeden being able to provide what's necessary to win the game, which proved to be true. As I said, I would have removed him at 21-10 because it was obvious that if Dallas did anything to win it would be despite of him not because of him.

With Murray in the backfield and another great defensive play I still had hope regardless of how bad Weeden was playing. As long as the team remained within a couple of scores of taking the lead anything could have happened. As awful as Weeden played the Cowboys only lost by 11 points. What you would do and what those who've spent most of their lives playing and coaching football would do are two different things.

Your thought process is that of a typical armchair football fan who has never been faced with that decision. I wouldn't remove a QB from the game and replace them with a rookie project and expect them to handle the blitz and help the Cowboys overcome an 11 point deficit. You only make that kind of move when a game is completely out of reach.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Rather be on the Brett Favre or Kurt Warner band wagon.

I still think Aikman could have came down out of the booth and led us to victory. It wouldn't surprise me to hear him say that either.

 

[KJJ]

You brought up that elimination game junk not me. I just brought up the fact that you use that crap to disparage Romo, then come to the defense of a QB who can't even carry his jock strap, which seems kind of funny to me.

I know you're not saying Weeden is better than Romo, but you do seem to think we could possibly win with Weeden when the real evidence, not that elimination game fluff, says no way.

I brought up Romo's elimination game record because you said that Orton gave us a 50% chance of beating Philly in last season's week 17 elimination game. I didn't bring it up to disparage Romo that's just you trying to stir trouble up and get the discussion going in another direction that will cause a disruption. Enough with that! I'm not saying we can win with Weeden I'm saying he gives the team a better chance of winning than Vaughan due to him having some starting experience. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? There's been teams that have reached the SB losing their starting QB during the season due to the experience of a veteran QB. Miami won several games in 72 with Earl Morrall after Griese went down.

The Giants won a SB with Hostetler due to his 7 years in the NFL that gave him some game experience. Doug Williams was a QB who had been given up on and after starting the 87 season as a backup led the Commanders to a championship. There's examples of experienced backup QB's stepping in and keeping their teams in contention but nowhere will you find an undrafted rookie free agent ever doing it. I know what you're saying about Vaughan and I don't agree with it.

 

[KJJ]

Giving up is relative. If you have a horse that is lame, would you rather shoot it now or shoot it later hoping that somehow it miraculously recovers?

You seem to hang on to the fact that even with Romo being out Dallas would still be in contention without acknowledging the fact that with Weeden at QB, the Cowboys would stand no chance of making the playoffs. That's why I say you're delusional.

It's not delusional to think that a rookie QB isn't going to lead us to the playoffs, but it's certainly delusional to think Weeden is. I'd rather give the rookie a chance to possibly play beyond expectations than to see a QB who has proven he is what he is live up to expectations.

This has nothing to do with a lame horse that's suffering there's no comparison to that and a QB who's struggling in a football game. A struggling QB can recover a lame horse can't. The longer we go with this the worse your analogies. I think you need to take a break. lol You're using the word "delusional" because you're frustrated. You're going to become even more frustrated if we keep this going. I gave you an out the other day just like I did reboot and he was sensible enough to move on. You're not going to outlast me I have staying power. lol Again you're welcome to have the last word but don't say something to draw me back in. Just say you're done and we'll move on.

 

[gimmesix]

Rather than responding to all your posts separately, I put them all into this post so we don't just pad our post counts.

You have no argument that's what makes this entire discussion a waste of time.

I guess you like wasting your time then.

With Murray in the backfield and another great defensive play I still had hope regardless of how bad Weeden was playing. As long as the team remained within a couple of scores of taking the lead anything could have happened. As awful as Weeden played the Cowboys only lost by 11 points. What you would do and what those who've spent most of their lives playing and coaching football would do are two different things.

Your thought process is that of a typical armchair football fan who has never been faced with that decision. I wouldn't remove a QB from the game and replace them with a rookie project and expect them to handle the blitz and help the Cowboys overcome an 11 point deficit. You only make that kind of move when a game is completely out of reach.

Ineffective is ineffective. Tell me at what point in time after watching Weeden for three quarters you felt he could actually help us make up those points? You talk about the running game and "another great defensive" play, but if the QB is not part of the solution, then a different answer is needed.

The Cowboys know how ineffective Weeden was, otherwise they would be in no real rush to get Romo back on the field against the 1-8 Jaguars.

You like to throw that armchair football fan phrase around as if that somehow makes your points superior when we are just all armchair football fans. How often exactly has Dallas followed your advice?

I brought up Romo's elimination game record because you said that Orton gave us a 50% chance of beating Philly in last season's week 17 elimination game. I didn't bring it up to disparage Romo that's just you trying to stir trouble up and get the discussion going in another direction that will cause a disruption. Enough with that! I'm not saying we can win with Weeden I'm saying he gives the team a better chance of winning than Vaughan due to him having some starting experience. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? There's been teams that have reached the SB losing their starting QB during the season due to the experience of a veteran QB. Miami won several games in 72 with Earl Morrall after Griese went down.

The Giants won a SB with Hostetler due to his 7 years in the NFL that gave him some game experience. Doug Williams was a QB who had been given up on and after starting the 87 season as a backup led the Commanders to a championship. There's examples of experienced backup QB's stepping in and keeping their teams in contention but nowhere will you find an undrafted rookie free agent ever doing it. I know what you're saying about Vaughan and I don't agree with it.

Dallas is neither good enough on defense or able to run the ball effectively with a lame-duck QB to be compared to those teams. If you have a Trent Dilfer at QB (who BTW is still better than Weeden), you better be great in some other aspect of the game. We've been great in the running game, but that's partly the product of having a passing game.

What hasn't sunk in with you yet is that Weeden gives us so little chance of winning that it doesn't matter whether he's in there or Vaughan ... we're still not going to make the playoffs. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in?

If you knew that Romo was done for the year, you would play Weeden until Dallas is officially eliminated apparently. I see no need for the pretense. If Romo was out, Dallas is no longer a contender and it's time to get Vaughan some experience ... because ultimately he has a chance (based on the intangibles he showed in the preseason) to be an NFL QB of some caliber while Weeden will go the way of Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell, etc.

That does not mean in any way, shape or form that Vaughan will pan out. It simply is an indictment of everything we've seen from Weeden.

This has nothing to do with a lame horse that's suffering there's no comparison to that and a QB who's struggling in a football game. A struggling QB can recover a lame horse can't. The longer we go with this the worse your analogies. I think you need to take a break. lol You're using the word "delusional" because you're frustrated. You're going to become even more frustrated if we keep this going. I gave you an out the other day just like I did reboot and he was sensible enough to move on. You're not going to outlast me I have staying power. lol Again you're welcome to have the last word but don't say something to draw me back in. Just say you're done and we'll move on.

That's where we don't agree. Weeden is not a struggling QB who can recover. He is what he is, a bad QB who has had a very few good moments. The team that plays him is suffering and he needs to be shot.

I don't know why you feel people are frustrated when they debate you ... maybe you think of yourself as a frustrating person. I don't get frustrated on a message board because ultimately you can walk away from those conversations, if you desire.

I say you're delusional about Weeden because you appear to be delusional about Weeden. You think he would give us the best chance to remain contenders if Romo is out despite his abysmal work up to this point in his career as a QB. That's delusional, my friend. Maybe I need to define that word for you "a belief held with a strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." What evidence have you seen from Weeden, here or in Cleveland, that makes you think Dallas would stand any chance of making the playoffs with him?

I have not once said Dallas stands a chance of making the playoffs with Vaughan, just that the Cowboys should go ahead and make him the primary backup because they aren't going anywhere with Weeden, either. I would rather see what he has than watch the team flounder under Weeden. There's no delusion there that an undrafted rookie QB stepping in would keep us in contention, just like there is no delusion that 5-16 QB with no field awareness would.

Weeden is a 55 percent carrer passer with more interceptions than touchdowns who couldn't remain the starter of a team with a No. 1 pick at running back, an offensive line similar to what we have now, a No. 1 receiver close to what we have now and a much better defense.

That's the reality. That's the evidence. Couple that with what we saw with our own eyes in the preseason, and it was pretty clear that playing Weeden is a waste of time.

 

[KJJ]

Rather than responding to all your posts separately, I put them all into this post so we don't just pad our post counts.

What difference does padding ones post count make?

Ineffective is ineffective. Tell me at what point in time after watching Weeden for three quarters you felt he could actually help us make up those points?

You make it sound like the Cowboys were being buried by 21. They were only down by 4 points with just over 9 minutes to play and you wanted to replace Weeden for Vaughan at that point? It wasn't until the 4:20 mark that AZ took an 18 point lead but Weeden did lead the Cowboys on a 12 play TD drive late in the game. The Cowboys were in the game for too long to ever consider yanking Weeden especially for a rookie developmental QB.

The Cowboys know how ineffective Weeden was, otherwise they would be in no real rush to get Romo back on the field against the 1-8 Jaguars.

The Cowboys were in a rush to get Romo back even after Weeden looked good replacing Romo vs Washington. They were in such a rush to get Romo back they put him back in the Washington game despite Weeden leading the Cowboys to 10 of their 17 points.

You like to throw that armchair football fan phrase around as if that somehow makes your points superior when we are just all armchair football fans. How often exactly has Dallas followed your advice?

I'm a football fan but an educated football fan who looks at the game like those who play and coach the game. The Cowboys have followed some of my advice and the times they didn't they would have been better off if they had.

Dallas is neither good enough on defense or able to run the ball effectively with a lame-duck QB to be compared to those teams. If you have a Trent Dilfer at QB (who BTW is still better than Weeden), you better be great in some other aspect of the game. We've been great in the running game, but that's partly the product of having a passing game.

Hostetler was certainly nothing special but the Giants won a championship with him due to a solid running game and a great defense that allowed him to manage games. The Cowboys have been great in the running game because of their young OL. The Cowboys have always had a great passing game under Romo and were never able to run the ball nearly as effectively as this season due to their OL. Naturally you have to have some resemblance of a passing game or defenses will stack the box against the run putting your offense in 3rd and long situations.

If Weeden could provide some efficiency in the passing game the Cowboys running game will still be effective. As bad as Weeden was last week you can't put the "entire" blame on him some of it has to fall on the receivers primarily Dez who continues to have issues separating from defenders and he's had an issue with drops lately. Weeden hit Dez in the end zone vs Washington and Dez should have made the catch. It forced the Cowboys to have to settle for a FG.

What hasn't sunk in with you yet is that Weeden gives us so little chance of winning that it doesn't matter whether he's in there or Vaughan ... we're still not going to make the playoffs. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in?

What hasn't sunk in your head and never will is Vaughan is far too inexperienced to give the Cowboys any chance he's a project! You can repeat the same crap all you want you don't have a clue. If you knew what you were talking about Weeden would have been cut and the Cowboys would have gone with Vaughan as their backup. If you knew what you were talking about Weeden would have been benched last week in favor of Vaughan.

If you knew that Romo was done for the year, you would play Weeden until Dallas is officially eliminated apparently.

You got that right.

If Romo was out, Dallas is no longer a contender and it's time to get Vaughan some experience ... because ultimately he has a chance (based on the intangibles he showed in the preseason) to be an NFL QB of some caliber while Weeden will go the way of Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell, etc.

If Romo is out the Cowboys are still in contention until their W/L record says they're not. They're in contention regardless who their QB is until the math says they're not. Glad you're not a coach or a motivational speaker. Vaughan showed in the final preseason game his reads and accuracy aren't nearly where they need to be to lead an NFL team on a playoff run in Nov/Dec. If Romo were done right now and you want to give up on the season with the Cowboys at 6-3 with some beatable teams left even with Weeden at QB go right ahead.

The Cowboys are capable of beating JAX. Giants, Chicago and Washington with Weeden which would give them a 10-6 record. If Weeden can improve over what we saw last Sunday and play like he did vs Washington in the limited snaps he got the Cowboys would have a chance to survive the final 7 games with him. With the top runner in the league it's possible just look at Minn in 2012 with Peterson. The Vikings had a bad QB situation with Ponder but made the playoffs running Peterson.

That's where we don't agree. Weeden is not a struggling QB who can recover. He is what he is, a bad QB who has had a very few good moments.

Like we've been agreeing on everything else? Weeden struggled last Sunday if a poor performance like that was the norm for him he wouldn't have a roster spot with any team right now. Any NFL QB can recover from that kind of performance. The fact he's had some good moments gives the Cowboys a chance with him having the top rusher in the league in the backfield.

I don't know why you feel people are frustrated when they debate you ... maybe you think of yourself as a frustrating person. I don't get frustrated on a message board because ultimately you can walk away from those conversations, if you desire.

That comment right there shows you're frustrated. When someone starts attempting to steer a topic in another direction that they know will draw the ire of others leading to a flame war and use a fans username in an attempt to make a discussion personal that's frustration. I can walk away from this as easy as you can but if you keep baiting me back in I'll keep returning.

I say you're delusional about Weeden because you appear to be delusional about Weeden. You think he would give us the best chance to remain contenders if Romo is out despite his abysmal work up to this point in his career as a QB. That's delusional, my friend. Maybe I need to define that word for you "a belief held with a strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." What evidence have you seen from Weeden, here or in Cleveland, that makes you think Dallas would stand any chance of making the playoffs with him?

It's not delusional to think Weeden gives the Cowboys a better chance of survival over an undrafted rookie free agent developmental project at QB who's never take a regular season NFL snap. That's just common sense which apparently you don't have. Weeden was a first round draft pick that has at least won a few games in the NFL. He played well subbing for Romo vs Washington. Many on the board were impressed with his performance vs Washington so much so they felt good about the Cowboys chances with him vs AZ. What did you see in Vaughan during his final preseason performance against low grade talent in which he displayed poor reads and accuracy to make you think he gives the Cowboys a better chance of survival than Weeden? Dude Vaughan is a PROJECT that gives the team no chance in Nov/Dec to survive even against a weak opponent. As long as Murray stays healthy and Weeden can perform like he did vs Washington that gives the Cowboys a chance.

I have not once said Dallas stands a chance of making the playoffs with Vaughan, just that the Cowboys should go ahead and make him the primary backup because they aren't going anywhere with Weeden, either. I would rather see what he has than watch the team flounder under Weeden. There's no delusion there that an undrafted rookie QB stepping in would keep us in contention, just like there is no delusion that 5-16 QB with no field awareness would.

No, you haven't said the Cowboys stand a chance of making the playoffs with Vaughan because even you know they don't. You feel if Romo is done this season is done and you want to throw Vaughan in and give him some experience as if the remaining games are meaningless. That's where your head is at. You're a typical armchair fan. There's no doubt in my mind that if Weeden can play decently (which he's shown he's capable of) vs JAX, Giants, Chicago and Washington the Cowboys can win those games behind Murray's running. Have fun chewing on all that. lol

 

[Plankton]

I brought up Romo's elimination game record because you said that Orton gave us a 50% chance of beating Philly in last season's week 17 elimination game. I didn't bring it up to disparage Romo that's just you trying to stir trouble up and get the discussion going in another direction that will cause a disruption. Enough with that! I'm not saying we can win with Weeden I'm saying he gives the team a better chance of winning than Vaughan due to him having some starting experience. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? There's been teams that have reached the SB losing their starting QB during the season due to the experience of a veteran QB. Miami won several games in 72 with Earl Morrall after Griese went down.

The Giants won a SB with Hostetler due to his 7 years in the NFL that gave him some game experience. Doug Williams was a QB who had been given up on and after starting the 87 season as a backup led the Commanders to a championship. There's examples of experienced backup QB's stepping in and keeping their teams in contention but nowhere will you find an undrafted rookie free agent ever doing it. I know what you're saying about Vaughan and I don't agree with it.

The Chiefs in 1969 lost Len Dawson to a leg injury during the season, and had Mike Livingston, a second year player with no experience, step in over a vet like Tom Flores, and with six games to help them make the playoffs, and ultimately, win the Super Bowl.

It has happened both ways with experienced vs inexperienced backups.

 

[KJJ]

The Chiefs in 1969 lost Len Dawson to a leg injury during the season, and had Mike Livingston, a second year player with no experience, step in over a vet like Tom Flores, and with six games to help them make the playoffs, and ultimately, win the Super Bowl.

It has happened both ways with experienced vs inexperienced backups.

Livingston may have been inexperienced but he was a 2nd round draft pick in his second year and was the Chiefs backup QB due to an injury to Jacky Lee. He was learning from the sidelines and receiving backup snaps. During that era teams played 6 preseason games which gave players like Livingston more work to gain some experience. Vaughan is an undrafted rookie free agent who just suited up last week. Can you find where an undrafted rookie free agent ever stepped in during a season and led a team to the playoffs?

 

[KJJ]

There's been plenty of QB's through the years that were drafted in the 1st and 2nd round that stepped in as rookies and played at least decently. Russell Wilson was a 3rd round pick in 2012 and played well. These QB's came from bigger programs than most undrafted rookie free agents and were much more NFL ready. Most received snaps in preseason vs starters and backups. They were groomed during their rookie camps and preseason to be able to step in during the regular season and have some success.

 

[Plankton]

Livingston may have been inexperienced but he was a 2nd round draft pick in his second year and was the Chiefs backup QB due to an injury to Jacky Lee. He was learning from the sidelines and receiving backup snaps. During that era teams played 6 preseason games which gave players like Livingston more work to gain some experience. Vaughan is an undrafted rookie free agent who just suited up last week. Can you find where an undrafted rookie free agent ever stepped in during a season and led a team to the playoffs?

Backups did not play that much during the preseason games in that era - those games were used for the starters to get back into a rhythm. There were no mini-camps or QB schools back in 1969. And, whether Livingston was a second rounder or an undrafted FA has nothing to do with his experience level at the time he played. Prior to 1969, he hadn't thrown a pass in the league.

You set the standard of keeping a team in contention, not making the playoffs. Don't change the argument now. Only nine rookie QB's have led a team to the playoffs in the Super Bowl era.

 

[KJJ]

Backups did not play that much during the preseason games in that era - those games were used for the starters to get back into a rhythm. There were no mini-camps or QB schools back in 1969. And, whether Livingston was a second rounder or an undrafted FA has nothing to do with his experience level at the time he played. Prior to 1969, he hadn't thrown a pass in the league.

You set the standard of keeping a team in contention, not making the playoffs. Don't change the argument now. Only nine rookie QB's have led a team to the playoffs in the Super Bowl era.

The starters did play more in preseason during that era but the backups got plenty of work as well due to having 6 preseason games and because teams still had to trim rosters and prepare those who might have to play. Any player who may have to be called on to play during the regular season needed work during preseason. There is a difference between being a 2nd round draft pick and an undrafted free agent. A high draft pick is looked at as being farther along in their development than an undrafted player who likely played at a small school vs lesser competition. When a player is drafted in the first 2 rounds they're looked at as a player who can step in immediately and contribute. The game has changed a lot since the late 60's it's more complex and many of the rules have changed. Much more is asked of QB's today due to the NFL being a QB driven passing league. QB's look like they're conducting an orchestra at the line of scrimmage in todays game.

Livingston may not have thrown a pass in the league prior to 69 but he participated in 2 training camps/preseasons and was on the Chiefs active roster. He was suited up on the sidelines learning during games. Romo had never attempted a regular season pass prior to 06. He only attempted 2 passes a week prior to taking over for Bledsoe but he gained experience in practice and from the sidelines. Were any of those 9 rookie QB's who led their team to the playoffs undrafted rookie free agents? To keep a team in contention you have to have a QB who's shown they're prepared to play and are able to handle the pressure of a playoff run. I'm sure most of those 9 rookie QB's that led their team to the playoffs during the SB era showed at some point during practice they could handle the situation and their coaches had faith in them.

 

[Plankton]

The starters did play more in preseason during that era but the backups got plenty of work as well due to having 6 preseason games and because teams still had to trim rosters and prepare those who might have to play. Any player who may have to be called on to play during the regular season needed work during preseason. There is a difference between being a 2nd round draft pick and an undrafted free agent. A high draft pick is looked at as being farther along in their development than an undrafted player who likely played at a small school vs lesser competition. When a player is drafted in the first 2 rounds they're looked at as a player who can step in immediately and contribute. The game has changed a lot since the late 60's it's more complex and many of the rules have changed. Much more is asked of QB's today due to the NFL being a QB driven passing league. QB's look like they're conducting an orchestra at the line of scrimmage in todays game.

Livingston may not have thrown a pass in the league prior to 69 but he participated in 2 training camps/preseasons and was on the Chiefs active roster. He was suited up on the sidelines learning during games. Romo had never attempted a regular season pass prior to 06. He only attempted 2 passes a week prior to taking over for Bledsoe but he gained experience in practice and from the sidelines. Were any of those 9 rookie QB's who led their team to the playoffs undrafted rookie free agents? To keep a team in contention you have to have a QB who's shown they're prepared to play and are able to handle the pressure of a playoff run. I'm sure most of those 9 rookie QB's that led their team to the playoffs during the SB era showed at some point during practice they could handle the situation and their coaches had faith in them.

Again, you are changing your argument. You initially said keep the team in contention, not leading them to the playoffs. Livingston played six games in the middle of the season, and won all six. Technically, he didn't lead them to the playoffs, but he sure had a lot to do with it. He did though, using your initial statement, keep the Chiefs in contention.

Of the rookies who led a team to the playoffs, Dieter Brock was the only undrafted one, but he had played 12 years in the CFL before playing in the NFL. He was also awful with the Rams, who made it on Eric Dickerson's back. Lowest draft pick appears to be Andy Dalton, a second rounder. Bernie Kosar did it after the supplemental draft.

 

[KJJ]

Again, you are changing your argument. You initially said keep the team in contention, not leading them to the playoffs. Livingston played six games in the middle of the season, and won all six. Technically, he didn't lead them to the playoffs, but he sure had a lot to do with it. He did though, using your initial statement, keep the Chiefs in contention.

Of the rookies who led a team to the playoffs, Dieter Brock was the only undrafted one, but he had played 12 years in the CFL before playing in the NFL. He was also awful with the Rams, who made it on Eric Dickerson's back. Lowest draft pick appears to be Andy Dalton, a second rounder. Bernie Kosar did it after the supplemental draft.

I'm not changing the argument you're trying create one. I've been saying all along to keep the team in contention and try and make the playoffs. The whole point of staying in contention is to try and qualify for the playoffs.. The fact Brock played 12 years in the CFL gave him a lot of football experience. The experience he gained in the CFL helped Warren Moon succeed in the NFL and it helped Doug Flutie become a viable starter in the NFL. Brock being awful with the Rams but them still being able to make the playoffs on Dickerson's back gives the Cowboys a chance with Weeden riding the back of Murray.

I pointed out that the 2012 Vikings made the playoffs on the back of Peterson despite the average to poor play of Ponder. Dalton was a second round pick who was much more highly touted than Vaughan who most of us had never heard of prior to his signing with the Cowboys. As for Kosar he was one of the top QB prospects coming out of college and would have gone in the first round of the regular draft.

 

[gimmesix]

You make it sound like the Cowboys were being buried by 21. They were only down by 4 points with just over 9 minutes to play and you wanted to replace Weeden for Vaughan at that point? It wasn't until the 4:20 mark that AZ took an 18 point lead but Weeden did lead the Cowboys on a 12 play TD drive late in the game. The Cowboys were in the game for too long to ever consider yanking Weeden especially for a rookie developmental QB.]

Dallas was down by 11 at the point that I would have replaced Weeden. Dallas left Weeden in and he promptly threw an interception, which led to Arizona taking its 18 point lead and the game being over. Could Vaughan have done any worse at that point?

The Cowboys were in a rush to get Romo back even after Weeden looked good replacing Romo vs Washington. They were in such a rush to get Romo back they put him back in the Washington game despite Weeden leading the Cowboys to 10 of their 17 points.

Yes, but if Weeden had turned around, looked great and led Dallas to victory, I don't think there's any way the Cowboys would have rushed Romo. The Washington game was a result of Romo fighting to get back on the field. Cooler heads would have prevailed if Weeden had played well.

Hostetler was certainly nothing special but the Giants won a championship with him due to a solid running game and a great defense that allowed him to manage games. The Cowboys have been great in the running game because of their young OL. The Cowboys have always had a great passing game under Romo and were never able to run the ball nearly as effectively as this season due to their OL. Naturally you have to have some resemblance of a passing game or defenses will stack the box against the run putting your offense in 3rd and long situations.

If Weeden could provide some efficiency in the passing game the Cowboys running game will still be effective. As bad as Weeden was last week you can't put the "entire" blame on him some of it has to fall on the receivers primarily Dez who continues to have issues separating from defenders and he's had an issue with drops lately. Weeden hit Dez in the end zone vs Washington and Dez should have made the catch. It forced the Cowboys to have to settle for a FG.

Again, what have you seen in Weeden's career that makes you believe he can proovide some efficiency in the passing game?

What hasn't sunk in your head and never will is Vaughan is far too inexperienced to give the Cowboys any chance he's a project! You can repeat the same crap all you want you don't have a clue. If you knew what you were talking about Weeden would have been cut and the Cowboys would have gone with Vaughan as their backup. If you knew what you were talking about Weeden would have been benched last week in favor of Vaughan.

Weeden was not going to be cut because Dallas values experience so much that it desperately grabbed a vet backup when it knew Orton was going to bail. Teams can overvalue first-round choices, experience, etc. Remember at one point in time, this is the same team that gave Ryan Leaf a shot or do you also think keeping him around was a good move simply because Dallas didn't cut him at the end of camp?

If Romo is out the Cowboys are still in contention until their W/L record says they're not. They're in contention regardless who their QB is until the math says they're not. Glad you're not a coach or a motivational speaker. Vaughan showed in the final preseason game his reads and accuracy aren't nearly where they need to be to lead an NFL team on a playoff run in Nov/Dec. If Romo were done right now and you want to give up on the season with the Cowboys at 6-3 with some beatable teams left even with Weeden at QB go right ahead.

The Cowboys are capable of beating JAX. Giants, Chicago and Washington with Weeden which would give them a 10-6 record. If Weeden can improve over what we saw last Sunday and play like he did vs Washington in the limited snaps he got the Cowboys would have a chance to survive the final 7 games with him. With the top runner in the league it's possible just look at Minn in 2012 with Peterson. The Vikings had a bad QB situation with Ponder but made the playoffs running Peterson.

You keep throwing Vaughan's final preseason game against him when it was the only subpar performance he had with the line not protecting him at all. Vaughan had a 3-1 preseason while Weeden had a 1-3, which is par for the course for him.

If you think Dallas could reach 10-6 with Weeden at QB, you are truly out of your mind. Weeden can play like he did vs. Washington on a limited basis. His career shows he will play more like he did last Sunday if he's left out there. Dallas does not have the defense to contend with that. It held out longer than we deserved Sunday before succumbing to Arizona and has looked better than it is because of the offense's ability to control the clock, which would disappear with Weeden at QB.

Like we've been agreeing on everything else? Weeden struggled last Sunday if a poor performance like that was the norm for him he wouldn't have a roster spot with any team right now. Any NFL QB can recover from that kind of performance. The fact he's had some good moments gives the Cowboys a chance with him having the top rusher in the league in the backfield.

Cleveland cut him after two seasons. You don't give up on a first-round pick after two years unless you feel there is no way to redeem him. Dallas would not have brought him in if it had not been on the verge of losing Orton. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I actually had hope that maybe the Cowboys saw something in him that just did not surface in Cleveland and would be able to bring it out. The preseason showed why the Browns gave up.

It's not delusional to think Weeden gives the Cowboys a better chance of survival over an undrafted rookie free agent developmental project at QB who's never take a regular season NFL snap. That's just common sense which apparently you don't have. Weeden was a first round draft pick that has at least won a few games in the NFL. He played well subbing for Romo vs Washington. Many on the board were impressed with his performance vs Washington so much so they felt good about the Cowboys chances with him vs AZ. What did you see in Vaughan during his final preseason performance against low grade talent in which he displayed poor reads and accuracy to make you think he gives the Cowboys a better chance of survival than Weeden? Dude Vaughan is a PROJECT that gives the team no chance in Nov/Dec to survive even against a weak opponent. As long as Murray stays healthy and Weeden can perform like he did vs Washington that gives the Cowboys a chance.

Weeden does give Dallas a better chance of going 2-5 in the final seven games instead of 0-7 if that's what you want. Personally, there isn't a difference to me in being somewhat competitive and losing and not being competitive and all and losing.

You remain delusional as long as you believe that Weeden would give us any chance to make the playoffs. We haven't even made them very often with Romo.

 

[KJJ]

Dallas was down by 11 at the point that I would have replaced Weeden. Dallas left Weeden in and he promptly threw an interception, which led to Arizona taking its 18 point lead and the game being over. Could Vaughan have done any worse at that point?

You would have replaced Weeden at that point because you're a typical armchair football fan. No team would replace an experienced QB with an undrafted rookie developmental project in a come from behind situation vs a blitz happy defense and expect them to pull the game out. With the game still in the balance Vaughan could have done a lot worse which is why his name has not come up to replace Weeden by the ones who get paid to talk about football. They're smart enough to know you have no chance with an undrafted rookie developmental project especially facing a blitz happy team that's one of the best teams in the league.

Yes, but if Weeden had turned around, looked great and led Dallas to victory, I don't think there's any way the Cowboys would have rushed Romo. The Washington game was a result of Romo fighting to get back on the field. Cooler heads would have prevailed if Weeden had played well.

The Cowboys were rushing to get Romo back for AZ despite Weeden looking good vs Washington. It was a wait and see all week to see how he progressed but he couldn't practice. This past week started off the same way with a wait and see approach and Romo finally got back to practice and has been listed as probable for tomorrow's game. Naturally they want Romo back on the field he's the Cowboys starting QB and this is a very important game with the team having dropped their last 2 straight. The Cowboys can ill afford to lose to a poor JAX team and drop 3 games in a row it would signify the wheels are coming off.

Again, what have you seen in Weeden's career that makes you believe he can proovide some efficiency in the passing game?

I've seen 9 games where he's completed over 60% of his passes and 4 games where he's had better than a 90.0 passer rating which is a lot more than I've seen with Vaughan. Weeden is the second best QB on the Cowboys roster and he has some experience which is why he's the backup. It's not easy for teams to find an efficient starting QB much less an efficient backup. Say what you will about Weeden but he has some experience which is very valuable when you're trying to stay in contention and make the playoffs with an ailing starting QB.

Weeden was not going to be cut because Dallas values experience so much that it desperately grabbed a vet backup when it knew Orton was going to bail. Teams can overvalue first-round choices, experience, etc. Remember at one point in time, this is the same team that gave Ryan Leaf a shot or do you also think keeping him around was a good move simply because Dallas didn't cut him at the end of camp?

You just backed what I've been saying for at least the second time in this thread that the Cowboys value experience at the backup QB position as do all NFL teams. All the Cowboys could do when Orton bailed was grab whatever experienced QB was available who would accept a backup job. It was pretty much Weeden or Sanchez who's been ranked lower than Weeden the past couple of years in most QB rankings. The Cowboys gave Ryan Leaf a shot in 01 because he had great potential coming out of college and they didn't have a quality starting QB. They just drafted Quincy Carter who was a long shot. Aikman was released a year prior and all the team had at the QB position was Carter a rookie, Anthony Wright, Clint Stoerner and some other stiff.

Trust me the Cowboys weren't thinking "backup" with Leaf they were hoping he might be able to resurrect his career and become the QB everyone projected him to be coming out of college. What was wrong with rolling the dice and bringing him in? Gambling is what teams do when they don't have a quality starting QB. You seem to think there's a bunch of good QB's sitting on their couch available. There's been castoff QB's through the years that have provided some value to a team. A new team and new surroundings can sometimes make a difference. There's nothing wrong with signing a still developing QB who failed with another team. Every QB fails with Cleveland we'll see how long Hoyer lasts. There has been teams that have given up on players too quick and have lived to regret it.

You keep throwing Vaughan's final preseason game against him when it was the only subpar performance he had with the line not protecting him at all. Vaughan had a 3-1 preseason while Weeden had a 1-3, which is par for the course for him.

It was his final preseason game against scrubs and he appeared to regress. He wasn't seeing the field good and was hanging on to the ball too long. He played the entire game and had issues with his reads and accuracy. He didn't look comfortable and certainly didn't look like a QB ready to take over the backup job.

If you think Dallas could reach 10-6 with Weeden at QB, you are truly out of your mind. Weeden can play like he did vs. Washington on a limited basis. His career shows he will play more like he did last Sunday if he's left out there. Dallas does not have the defense to contend with that. It held out longer than we deserved Sunday before succumbing to Arizona and has looked better than it is because of the offense's ability to control the clock, which would disappear with Weeden at QB.

JAX, Giants, Chicago and Washington are all winnable games even with Weeden if he can play decently. With Murray on a 2000 yard pace those games are winnable. All those teams are struggling and none are getting real consistent QB play. It's been proven in the past with a good running game and a solid defense you can win games with an average QB. A lot of QB's with experience can win games if they're able to manage them behind a strong running game. Romo has looked excellent this season because he hasn't had to do as much. One of the problems the Cowboys faced last week was Weeden having to put the ball up too much.

His 33 attempts were more than Romo's attempted in his last 3 games. Romo has only had 2 games this season where he attempted more than 33 passes. If the Cowboys can control the ball that helps the defense. I'm not giving up on a season that has the Cowboys 6-3 with an RB on pace for 2000 yards regardless if they end up being stuck with Weeden. If the Cowboys can get back to controlling the ball, not turn it over and reduce Weeden's attempts there's 4 winnable games with him at QB.

Cleveland cut him after two seasons. You don't give up on a first-round pick after two years unless you feel there is no way to redeem him. Dallas would not have brought him in if it had not been on the verge of losing Orton. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The regime gave up on him they never gave him a chance. I would rather take my chances on a still developing QB who was given up on after only 2 seasons than a QB who's likely reached their ceiling and was given up on after 4 or more seasons. Of course Weeden wouldn't have been brought in had Orton not wanted out. Weeden was a desperate move but replacing him with Vaughan with the Cowboys at 6-3 with 7 games left would be a far more desperate and stupid move. It would be a move that would be puzzling and likely heavily criticized due to Vaughan's lack of development and experience. It would be a move that would backfire in the Cowboys face.

I actually had hope that maybe the Cowboys saw something in him that just did not surface in Cleveland and would be able to bring it out. The preseason showed why the Browns gave up.

He had one excellent preseason game where he was 13-17 for 107 yards and a TD. He was up and down but he is on a new team learning a new offense. He's an average QB but you can't ignore the times he's looked good and just focus on his bad moments. If the Cowboys were stuck with him from week one they would be lucky to be 3-6 right now but the fact the Cowboys have established themselves as a pretty good team at 6-3 and have the top running game in the league gives the Cowboys a chance with Weeden with 7 games left. The preseason showed why Vaughan is not ready to play.

You remain delusional as long as you believe that Weeden would give us any chance to make the playoffs. We haven't even made them very often with Romo.

Weeden gives the Cowboys a better chance to make the playoffs than Vaughan. You always leave that part out because you want to keep arguing. We haven't made the playoffs very often with Romo because he hasn't had the running game like the Cowboys have had this season and he's had some poor Weeden like performances in do or die games. He's had to do too much which has caused him to have some awful turnover filled elimination games. The more passes he attempts the more chances he could have a bad outing. He's had several games this season where he's had less than 30 attempts. The Cowboys have been a better team when their passing attempts have been down and their rushing attempts have been up.