Jean-Jacques Taylor: Henson Project Could Be Sacked

[Alexander]

I am not saying for one moment any game is worthless. Typically, this is another attempt by you to change things up. I said, exactly, the following, "The ones that are not going to get you any further in a race for a playoff spot.

I am not changing a thing up. I stated my position over and over again. NFL coaches probably aren't likely to agree with you. Again, yours is the opinion of a fan. To quote Herm Edwards: You play to win the game.

Coach Parcells, I go with the player who gives me the best chance to win.

Winning is what this business is all about. Is mop duty for a backup going to help win in a game that means much of anything? That's why you don't see a variety of teams pulling their starters in favor of some backup, just to satisfy curiousity.

Dismiss what these two say, but to a coach, any one of the other 30 in the league probably would agree with them and not you.

Call it speculation or whatever you want. Your opinion is duly noted.

They are meaningless. It is a perfect opportunity to see what you have. At that point, you should be building for the following year". Meaningless and worthless are two different word, spelled two different ways, meaning two entirely different things. Perhaps while you are busy conversing with all of your various NFL Exec type contacts, you can discuss the differences in those two words and then we can pick this up where you've left it. Deal?

I don't have any contacts. I speak from what the coaches say. I don't peer into their glass foreheads and imagine agendas or assume stupidity on their part becaus they don't play a backup QB in a game they want to win. That's their job and I don't expect them to play to lose.

I suppose your asking me then to provide info on instances when losing teams played young players instead of vets? OK, I can do that to. Honestly, your sad. San Fran played Alex Smith last year to get experience late in the season. They were not in playoff contention. Cleveland played Charlie Frye late in the year, in order to get him experience. They were not in contention. Rex Grossman played very late in the season for Chicago. They did the same thing with him in 03 and again in 04. There are lots of examples of coaches trying to get playing time in for young players when the opportunity presents itself and I'm only listing QBs here. Says nothing of other position players.

You really expect me to believe that playing your franchise first overall pick in the draft is the same as playing Tony Romo? A first round pick in Chicago? A player in Frye who they had every intention of starting? These were all midseason moves intended to evaluate sure. These were also a series of games. You may lose one, two or even three, but by game four, you have accomplished your mission of evaluation. One game is not evaluating much of anything. But playing one game without preparation is a complete worthless endeavor. Not a one of these instances bear any resemblence to what we are talking about with Romo and you know it or are too stubborn to see it.

I suppose I could insert a laugh or smile or what ever but to what end? It is clear to me that you are not willing to accept truth, even when it smacks you square between the eyes if it doesn't support your position.

What's the point?

You may think it hit me square in the eyes, but you never even came close.

You are the one saying Henson got no preparation and used that to try and say it's okay for Romo in the Ram game. Did you just pull that out of thin air? I will assume you did since you are now dodging the question and asking me if I have a point.

 

[Alexander]

OK Al, your right. He got so much work in, he was practically overworked by the time the game rolled around. That's why he played so poorly.

Doesn't change the fact that Backup QBs are supposed to be ready to play without much prep at all. Go ahead and just tell me how the backup can't play unless they get a complete weeks worth of practice in. Tell me how it's in the rule book. Get a clue, that's the way it is for a backup QB.

Who is saying weeks?

But you need repetitions leading up to a game otherwise the whole point of evaluation is worthless.

That's like trying to evaluate a student just to do it by making them take a test when they haven't had much of a chance to study. Sure, they took the test. You got to see how much they sweat and how they go through the manual procedures of taking test. Now, when you grade it, what on earth could you possibly take out of it?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am not changing a thing up. I stated my position over and over again. NFL coaches probably aren't likely to agree with you. Again, yours is the opinion of a fan. To quote Herm Edwards: You play to win the game.

Coach Parcells, I go with the player who gives me the best chance to win.

Winning is what this business is all about. Is mop duty for a backup going to help win in a game that means much of anything? That's why you don't see a variety of teams pulling their starters in favor of some backup, just to satisfy curiousity.

Dismiss what these two say, but to a coach, any one of the other 30 in the league probably would agree with them and not you.

Call it speculation or whatever you want. Your opinion is duly noted.



I don't have any contacts. I speak from what the coaches say. I don't peer into their glass foreheads and imagine agendas or assume stupidity on their part becaus they don't play a backup QB in a game they want to win. That's their job and I don't expect them to play to lose.



You really expect me to believe that playing your franchise first overall pick in the draft is the same as playing Tony Romo? A first round pick in Chicago? A player in Frye who they had every intention of starting? These were all midseason moves intended to evaluate sure. But playing one game without preparation is a worthless endeavor. Not a one of these instances bear any resemblence to what we are talking about with Romo and you know it or are too stubborn to see it.



You may think it hit me square in the eyes, but you never even came close.

You are the one saying Henson got no preparation and used that to try and say it's okay for Romo in the Ram game. Did you just pull that out of thin air? I will assume you did since you are now dodging the question and asking me if I have a point.

So how do you explain the 3 examples I just gave you? I can give you more. It won't be real hard at all. Those coaches just don't know a damn thing about the game? There just "Fans" as opposed to real coaches? Clearly, they don't fit into your opinion of what and how young QBs should be worked. It would seem that it is not just my opinion. Note that.

Whatever you say Al. Personally, I doubt you can distinguish the difference between square between the eyes and points south on your anatomy.

No, you speak from quotes from one coach. Clearly, those are not the only opinions of how to do it in the NFL. I have already shown you that other coaches do it differently.

To be honest with you Al, I expect very little from you. Having said that, it happens. It doesn't matter if it's a number one pick or a mid round pick or an FA. I could probably give you examples of any of those situations. The opportunity was there to see if any one of our back up QBs could do something. Clearly, we threw Henson to the wolves, if you will, on Thanksgiving. Why then is it such a poor decision to see what Romo might have been able to do in a game that ment nothing? BTW, they were not Mid Season moves but they were intended to evaluate. That part is a true statment.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Who is saying weeks?

But you need repetitions leading up to a game otherwise the whole point of evaluation is worthless.

That's like trying to evaluate a student just to do it by making them take a test when they haven't had much of a chance to study. Sure, they took the test. You got to see how much they sweat and how they go through the manual procedures of taking test. Now, when you grade it, what on earth could you possibly take out of it?

This is not true. Some QBs have a right mentality to be back ups. Some don't. There is nothing at all wrong with putting in a QB to see how they react under pressure. BP has certainly done it, through out his career, with other QBs. At some point, you have to give them an opportunity. If by the time a guy is not ready to take a few snaps in his 4th year into the program, when is he going to be ready?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are the one saying Henson got no preparation and used that to try and say it's okay for Romo in the Ram game. Did you just pull that out of thin air? I will assume you did since you are now dodging the question and asking me if I have a point.

Call it what you will. Fact remains that Henson did not get proper preperation to start that game. Even if I'm generous, he might have gotten one half speed practice in. In a short week like that, teams don't hit. It's more likely they used the time to put in the game plan for the opposing team. Having said that, lets just say he got in one practice and a walk through. To you, I'm sure that's more then enough for Henson but for Romo, it's not fair to throw him out there? If Bledsoe were injured in the 1st quarter, he'd have to be ready to play. How can it not be OK for him to get time if nothing is on the line? But it's OK if it's Henson right? OK, I get it.

For reference only, I'm not asking you if you have a point. I'm telling you that it's pointless to explain it to you. I imagine you can see the difference.

 

[Alexander]

So how do you explain the 3 examples I just gave you?

I answered you.

But since you didn't read, here it is again:

You really expect me to believe that playing your franchise first overall pick in the draft is the same as playing Tony Romo? A first round pick in Chicago? A player in Frye who they had every intention of starting? These were all midseason moves intended to evaluate sure. These were also a series of games. You may lose one, two or even three, but by game four, you have accomplished your mission of evaluation. One game is not evaluating much of anything. But playing one game without preparation is a complete worthless endeavor. Not a one of these instances bear any resemblence to what we are talking about with Romo and you know it or are too stubborn to see it.

I can give you more.

More what? Examples that aren't close in comparison?

It won't be real hard at all. Those coaches just don't know a damn thing about the game? There just "Fans" as opposed to real coaches? Clearly, they don't fit into your opinion of what and how young QBs should be worked. It would seem that it is not just my opinion. Note that.

Noted, but only if it had any comparison to what Romo's case is. It doesn't.

No, you speak from quotes from one coach. Clearly, those are not the only opinions of how to do it in the NFL. I have already shown you that other coaches do it differently.

You showed me how coaches take a midseason move or even a move in week 12 and try to pawn that off as the same thing as starting your green UDFA QB (or one rusty after a layoff of years) in one game. Please.

To be honest with you Al, I expect very little from you.

Likewise.

All I can count on from you is a lack of reading comprehension and an insistance to stick to your impression even if it has next to nothing to do with the case at hand. That's poor debating.

Why then is it such a poor decision to see what Romo might have been able to do in a game that ment nothing? BTW, they were not Mid Season moves but they were intended to evaluate. That part is a true statment.

We aren't talking about the necessity to evaluate. Of course you want to evaluate. But it doesn't do any good whatsoever to evaluate off of one game and when the player had no preparation.

In the case of Frye, Grossman and Smith all three were named "starters" and given the repetitions due to a starter in the weeks leading up to their games. Seneca Wallace? That was a game that indeed was worthless and fits the profile of a worthless game because the Seahawks had no reason to win because they were already in the playoffs and again, I doubt Holmgren threw him out there with just a "walk through". That's how Jim Sorgi has more playing time in his career than Romo, its because the Colts were good enough to be able to afford to play him. When we start clinching playoff spots, then you can have all the worthless games you want and Coach Parcells would probably insert all the inexperienced QBs to make the fanbase happy.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I answered you.

But since you didn't read, here it is again:





More what? Examples that aren't close in comparison?



Noted, but only if it had any comparison to what Romo's case is. It doesn't.



You showed me how coaches take a midseason move or even a move in week 12 and try to pawn that off as the same thing as starting your green UDFA QB (or one rusty after a layoff of years) in one game. Please.



Likewise.

All I can count on from you is a lack of reading comprehension and an insistance to stick to your impression even if it has next to nothing to do with the case at hand. That's poor debating.



We aren't talking about the necessity to evaluate. Of course you want to evaluate. But it doesn't do any good whatsoever to evaluate off of one game and when the player had no preparation.

In the case of Frye, Grossman and Smith all three were named "starters" and given the repetitions due to a starter in the weeks leading up to their games. Seneca Wallace? That was a game that indeed was worthless and fits the profile of a worthless game because the Seahawks had no reason to win because they were already in the playoffs and again, I doubt Holmgren threw him out there with just a "walk through". That's how Jim Sorgi has more playing time in his career than Romo, its because the Colts were good enough to be able to afford to play him. When we start clinching playoff spots, then you can have all the worthless games you want and Coach Parcells would probably insert all the inexperienced QBs to make the fanbase happy.

Amazing how mid season move now suddenly becomes week 12. I imagine that's what you ment the whole time right?

I guess we can go around and around all day on this. Lets not. The truth is that BackUp QBs are expected to be ready to go at a moments notice. The backup may hot get all the reps but they get all the game plan. Coaches do play backups to get them work in situations where nothing is on the line. You can say all you like that all of these guys were expected to be starters but what of a guy like Ken Dorsey in San Francisco? He was not ever going to be the starter there but they played him when opportunity was there to do so. They wanted to see what they had. What of Matt Cassel in New England? Brady was healthy the whole year. Flutie was the back up and yet, Cassel, the third string QB who will never be expected to start over Brady, got playing time in two different contests. One in the 4th game of the season, where nothing was decided yet and also in a lossing cause against Miami. I would add that New England finished one game ahead of Miami to win the division. I can find more if I really look.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And Henson was largely terrible and pulled at halftime.

What exactly did we learn about Henson playing with no prep time?

Exactly nothing.

Exactly right. But some people believe that was his chance to show us something. Whatever.

 

[jackrussell]

actually, JR - all i want and would hope for is some acknowledgement that i could be right that actual game time is valuable to the QB and to help evaluate what the player can do.

So all you want is an acknowledgement, yet, you want Parcell's job for not taking the opportunity to play him. You have in fact said that you haven't liked BP since the 3 game stretch of 'meaningless' games in which he didn't play Henson. (let's see, meaningless games would give us what, meaningful results?) Of course playing time will help in evaluation, our difference is you have deemed it NECESSARY, and more to the point ,for you to see, and I have not at this point. I've already stated in this thread that I feel it's no big deal, and I truly don't think it is.

yet every time i say that you're there to tell me i'm wrong as if there is *only* right or wrong and i'm just stupid about this. at least that's how it's coming across - 'berg bad, 'berg, stupid. whole idea stupid... nowhere do you ever even say "yea, it "could" help even if only a little. i understand you may disagree but that alone doens't make you right and me wrong. well, not to me anyway but to you i sure seem to be wrong.

Poor poor persecuted Icey. Your perception doesn't neccessarily equate to the reality. Now while it may be true that "nowhere do you ever even say "yea, it "could" help even if only a little", that's a 2 way street. I've noticed that nowhere do you ever even say that BP has a grasp of Henson's abilitiies or inabilities without seeing garbage time in a meaningless game. That it is entirely possible that they could see him not make necessary check downs in 7 on 7s let alone in a game time situation.

also - if you're gonna follow me around and tell me how wrong i am, please also understand i don't care if henson OR romo got that time - i just view it as wasted time, NOT a henson apology.

Yes I am following you around, and I know where you live and am waiting for just the right time! Paranoia settin' in there Jer?

as for "showcasing for my approval" - why do you feel that's what i'm after? i've said time and again *I* just feel that time would have been better spent on qb evaluation than trying to win 7 vs. 8 games that season. if you disagree fine but i recall you've gotten upset with me before when i'd take such a hard stance on *your* views. now when i'm trying to find that middle ground, it just doesn't seem to be there in return. you seem hellbent on trying to make me look foolish for my own views. isn't that what got you upset w/*me* awhile back?

And again, *I* don't feel like a one game is going to tell anyone anything they already do or do not know. And no, it wasn't the hard stance as you put it, it's the 'one thing is right for Ice but it's different for anyone else.' An example would be SilverBear's story is good and relevant, JR's story is bad and irrelevant. Another example is I've seen you as a self described one of the most argumentive people in this forum, yet, dressed me down as the most argumentive poster in your forum. Good for Ice, baaaad for JR.

I realy don't understand why you're so heck bent on the issue. You've already said that even if Dallas were to win the Super Bowl this year, you still wouldn't be happy. So what's the point?

 

[iceberg]

So all you want is an acknowledgement, yet, you want Parcell's job for not taking the opportunity to play him. You have in fact said that you haven't liked BP since the 3 game stretch of 'meaningless' games in which he didn't play Henson. (let's see, meaningless games would give us what, meaningful results?) Of course playing time will help in evaluation, our difference is you have deemed it NECESSARY, and more to the point ,for you to see, and I have not at this point. I've already stated in this thread that I feel it's no big deal, and I truly don't think it is.



Poor poor persecuted Icey. Your perception doesn't neccessarily equate to the reality. Now while it may be true that "nowhere do you ever even say "yea, it "could" help even if only a little", that's a 2 way street. I've noticed that nowhere do you ever even say that BP has a grasp of Henson's abilitiies or inabilities without seeing garbage time in a meaningless game. That it is entirely possible that they could see him not make necessary check downs in 7 on 7s let alone in a game time situation.



Yes I am following you around, and I know where you live and am waiting for just the right time! Paranoia settin' in there Jer?



And again, *I* don't feel like a one game is going to tell anyone anything they already do or do not know. And no, it wasn't the hard stance as you put it, it's the 'one thing is right for Ice but it's different for anyone else.' An example would be SilverBear's story is good and relevant, JR's story is bad and irrelevant. Another example is I've seen you as a self described one of the most argumentive people in this forum, yet, dressed me down as the most argumentive poster in your forum. Good for Ice, baaaad for JR.

I realy don't understand why you're so heck bent on the issue. You've already said that even if Dallas were to win the Super Bowl this year, you still wouldn't be happy. So what's the point?

except i'm not trying to start an argument, jr. i'm not even trying to be in one. and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster? what am i supposed to do when you just start making stuff up, jr? either that or show me where i said that.

"poor persecuted icey..." - again, lots of sarcasm at my expense. : ) i just try to be civil and raise a point and you just throw sarcasm back at me.

fine. you win. i guess the only way i can prove to you i'm not arguing with you is to just quit talking to you when you've got this "slap down the berg" mode going on.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And you are proving my point with your post, on the second paragraph. I am not sure what point you are trying make with that second statement? Or you are contradicting yourself?

I'm actually in agreement w/ both you and Alexander, if coaches couldn't tell by the performance of their QBs, by charting them in practice, they would give up the process, but on the otherhand, practice will only tell you so much, as the pace is MUCh slower than a real live game, and you don't know what the opposition is going to throw at you by practicing against your own D

He might have better idea than any of us, but its still up in the air. Thats why he obviously clings to his old Qbs.

I don't understand, if you're saying Parcells doesn't know about his QBs, from watching them in practice, then he must not know about the rest of the players at different positions then, that they're up in the air too, I certainly hope you're not saying that

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Who is saying weeks?

But you need repetitions leading up to a game otherwise the whole point of evaluation is worthless.

exactly, and look at the practice snaps Henson has had to work with, he's had to share 20% of them with Romo because Bledsoe was taking the rest

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Call it what you will. Fact remains that Henson did not get proper preperation to start that game.

if Henson didn't get the proper preparation, why did Parcells start him? remember this phrase, "you don't practice, you don't play" ?

 

[silverbear]

I am a terrible speller, so I will make my apoligy and leave it at that. On occasion, I can laugh at myself right along with the rest of the world.

Not to worry, it was funny... I only rag on trolls when they misuse the English language, and you're not a troll...

 

[jackrussell]

except i'm not trying to start an argument, jr. i'm not even trying to be in one. and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster? what am i supposed to do when you just start making stuff up, jr? either that or show me where i said that.

Whoa now. Read it again. It didn't say that, and you know it.

After you read it again, you tell me who is making things up.

again, lots of sarcasm at my expense. : ) i just try to be civil and raise a point and you just throw sarcasm back at me.

Oh please, that's pretty fresh coming from someone that uses 'Senior Smart***' in his identity.

 

[iceberg]

Whoa now. Read it again. It didn't say that, and you know it.

After you read it again, you tell me who is making things up.

Oh please, that's pretty fresh coming from someone that uses 'Senior Smart***' in his identity.

i said:
Originally Posted by iceberg
except i'm not trying to start an argument, jr. i'm not even trying to be in one. and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster? what am i supposed to do when you just start making stuff up, jr? either that or show me where i said that.

you refuted this with:
Whoa now. Read it again. It didn't say that, and you know it.
After you read it again, you tell me who is making things up.


what you said that i made this statement from:
Another example is I've seen you as a self described one of the most argumentive people in this forum, yet, dressed me down as the most argumentive poster in your forum. Good for Ice, baaaad for JR.

so, you say i dressed you down as the most argumentative poster, i commented on that and asked you to show me where *i* said this, then all of a sudden you never said it.

you win jack. but for someone who kinda tore into me once before (and rightfully so) for my lack of "give" on another persons views politically, you're sure not giving me any room for my views here.

shine that trophy up, jack. i hope it's pretty.

 

[jackrussell]

i said:
Originally Posted by iceberg
except i'm not trying to start an argument, jr. i'm not even trying to be in one. and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster? what am i supposed to do when you just start making stuff up, jr? either that or show me where i said that.

you refuted this with:
Whoa now. Read it again. It didn't say that, and you know it.
After you read it again, you tell me who is making things up.


what you said that i made this statement from:
Another example is I've seen you as a self described one of the most argumentive people in this forum, yet, dressed me down as the most argumentive poster in your forum. Good for Ice, baaaad for JR.

so, you say i dressed you down as the most argumentative poster, i commented on that and asked you to show me where *i* said this, then all of a sudden you never said it.

you win jack. but for someone who kinda tore into me once before (and rightfully so) for my lack of "give" on another persons views politically, you're sure not giving me any room for my views here.

shine that trophy up, jack. i hope it's pretty.

Jerry Jerry Jerry. Does tense mean anything at all to you in your world? If you read it a few more times, PERHAPS it can sink in, but I'm not holding my breath.

Word for word, here we go, hold my hand, we can do this together....."Another example is I've seen you as a self described"

I've seen= I have= past tense= meaning in the past, you have described yourself as potentially the most arguementive poster in (let's be very clear on this) THIS forum. THIS= CowboysZone.

yet,dressed=once again, PAST tense, meaning, at one time in the past, you had dressedme down as the most argumentive poster in(again, let's be very clear on this, the most important one, hold on, here we go!) YOUR forum. YOUR= Detox

Now, how in this world, or yours, does that equate to you saying, in the PRESENT tense, "and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster."

It doesn't. But once again, nice try in putting your words in someone else's mouth.

 

[iceberg]

Jerry Jerry Jerry. Does tense mean anything at all to you in your world? If you read it a few more times, PERHAPS it can sink in, but I'm not holding my breath.

Word for word, here we go, hold my hand, we can do this together....."Another example is I've seen you as a self described"

I've seen= I have= past tense= meaning in the past, you have described yourself as potentially the most arguementive poster in (let's be very clear on this) THIS forum. THIS= CowboysZone.

yet,dressed=once again, PAST tense, meaning, at one time in the past, you had dressedme down as the most argumentive poster in(again, let's be very clear on this, the most important one, hold on, here we go!) YOUR forum. YOUR= Detox

Now, how in this world, or yours, does that equate to you saying, in the PRESENT tense, "and now - you *say* i'm dressing you down as THE MOST argumentative poster."

It doesn't. But once again, nice try in putting your words in someone else's mouth.

whatever.

 

[jackrussell]

whatever.

How typical of you. Some things never change.

 

[iceberg]

How typical of you. Some things never change.

what would you like for me to do, jack? i've tried to understand, tried to be reasonable, tried to get what you were saying - yet any time i say anything at all it only sets you up to "attack" and i'm just tired of it. if thinking i'm that bad a person is that important to you i can't stop you. but i do find it ironic as hell that when you talked to me about being open to other alternatives, you've spent the last few days beating the hell out of me for mine. since this is a "no win" no sense in playing anymore.

and that makes me a bad person.

got it, moving on now.