Jean-Jacques Taylor: Henson Project Could Be Sacked

[kartr]

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.

It's okay, we know what you meant, it happens to the best of us. Here, let me help you my friend, infallible, I didn't look it up, so I might be wrong too. But like I said, it happens to the best of us.

 

[iceberg]

I believe Parcells has already addressed this when he said 'this aint no practice league', meaning all the games count and that affects his legacy,ie, won-lost record. When and If the youngsters are ready, that's when they'll play, certainly not before they've demonstrated to him, and not us and our idle curiosity, that they're ready.

and i've said that's fine, i recognize that - just disagree.

HENCE MY FRUSTRATION w/bp.

pretty simple really.

 

[kartr]

No owner, GM or head coach would share this opinion. Well, some unemployed ones might. Professionals don't throw games. Nor do they put themselves in positions where they don't give themselves at least a fighting chance to win if they can help it.



He had half a week of prep and he was responding because of injury. That's not "no preparation".

Totally different circumstance that the Rams game last year, in which we didn't know was meaningless until minutes before kickoff. If that game was even close to being for a playoff spot, you have to give the repetitions to the starter. All of them.

And if you give Romo the start, how fair is it if he had no preparation at all? And what good would that do for your evaluation? If anything it puts the player in a bad position and defeats the purpose. If playing him late is the complaint, that's more valid. But again, there wasn't much to gain, but we also wanted the chance for ten wins and that was what Parcells told them before the game. Given the player's listless performance out there, Romo would have been killed and completely shellshocked. Parcells did the right thing.



Of course it doesn't. To a fan. An NFL head coach that views regular season games, no matter the record, as evaluation tools are not winning coaches in this league for long. If we had a playoff spot wrapped up, that's "meaningless".

Very impressive Simon, you're still going strong.

 

[kartr]

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. 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.



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.

Bravo Simon

 

[kartr]

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.

Everyone was pressuring Parcells to play Henson, he went against his better judgement. Jerry expressed disappointment when Henson was taken out and Parcells has declined go against his better judgement again. So many have criticized Parcells for playing Henson, now you're saying that Henson was being thrown to the wolfs. I think you and the other Hensonites are just frustrated that your guy has been disappointing. I understand that, but as much as I disagree with Parcells overall drafting and free agency strategy, I honestly believe he's handled the qb's he has now the right way.

 

[kartr]

I still think it was idiotic of BP to not play either Henson or Romo during the wasted year Intercepteverde was QB'ing, esp at the end of the season when we were out of the playoff race.
I would not have even cared which one it was....at least one of them, or both, would have SOME game experience now....

And if either of them had stunk it up, you would have cried how they were thrown to wolves with Julius Jones out hurt and Eddie George being washed up and Keyshawn being over-rated and Terry Glenn was hurt,etc. There's really a no win scenario when it comes to deciding which qb to play. Somebody is always unhappy.

 

[CowboyManDan]

So, back to this Henson project...

One of the things I liked from his play in NFLE, was how he wasn't afraid to attack the middle of the field in the passing game and threw aggresively at times. Many young QBs initially just attack the the outside of the field as opposed to the middle. Henson could have been a little more consitent, but I felt like he knocked a lot of rust off. The consistency should come with more playing in game situations.

I hope for him to have a strong camp and preseason. Though sounds like Romo will get more of a look since he's in his last year of his contract and Henson isn't.

 

[jackrussell]

just been a "sore argument" that some feel you get no value out of playing a qb in meaningless games and i just feel you get actual game footage to use and game speed to evaluate so it can help.

Can't help yourself, can ya? If you ever could get through a day without misrepresenting someone's view, it'd be a freaking miracle. Of course you'd glide over, and I quote:

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.

So as usual, when you claim no one but you allows for alternative thinking, when no one but you tries to understand, when no one but you tries to get to the middle ground, and everything to the contrary is a direct attack upon you........you ignore what's right under your nose because it makes the victim role lesss plausible.

And I'll save ya the trouble...the 'some' didn't mean me.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I still think it was idiotic of BP to not play either Henson or Romo during the wasted year Intercepteverde was QB'ing, esp at the end of the season when we were out of the playoff race.
I would not have even cared which one it was....at least one of them, or both, would have SOME game experience now....

 

[iceberg]

Can't help yourself, can ya? If you ever could get through a day without misrepresenting someone's view, it'd be a freaking miracle. Of course you'd glide over, and I quote:

So as usual, when you claim no one but you allows for alternative thinking, when no one but you tries to understand, when no one but you tries to get to the middle ground, and everything to the contrary is a direct attack upon you........you ignore what's right under your nose because it makes the victim role lesss plausible.

And I'll save ya the trouble...the 'some' didn't mean me.

you're assuming i've continued to read your tirades, jack. tired of your crap dude so let's just ignore each other and you go over there and hate me quietly now. but fyi - yes some - does *include* you but you're not the only one i've had this disagreement with but feel free to take all the credit if it ends this discussion.

 

[ghst187]

And if either of them had stunk it up, you would have cried how they were thrown to wolves with Julius Jones out hurt and Eddie George being washed up and Keyshawn being over-rated and Terry Glenn was hurt,etc. There's really a no win scenario when it comes to deciding which qb to play. Somebody is always unhappy.

I'm talking about the several games we were blown out and the games at the end of the year when our shot at the playoffs wasn't even mathematically possible. What was the benefit of playing VT? At least by throwing in one of the youngsters in those situations they'd have gotten some exp and we might have been able to better assess their potential and ability.

 

[jackrussell]

you're assuming i've continued to read your tirades, jack. tired of your crap dude so let's just ignore each other and you go over there and hate me quietly now. but fyi - yes some - does *include* you but you're not the only one i've had this disagreement with but feel free to take all the credit if it ends this discussion.

This kills ya, doesn't it?

Of course playing time will help in evaluation

Doesn't go along with that lone wolf syndrome you're experiencing. It just belies all the 'hate' and 'attack' drivel.

Excellent job of doing exactly what I say you do, ignore anything that remotely would show you aren't the only one that would concede an inch, though you haven't shown you will, just claim it.

Tirades, lol, looks like that 'theater experience' brings out the drama queen.

 

[wileedog]

At least by throwing in one of the youngsters in those situations they'd have gotten some exp and we might have been able to better assess their potential and ability.

As has been said ad nauseum, there was almost nothing to be gained by putting in either of two QBs who clearly were not ready to be on the field, especially with a bad team around them playing out the string.

THere's nothing to "assess" in that situation. There's nothing that would come out of those games that would tell us anything about their long-term potential or ability, especially if they don't have a clue what is going on out there (as basically Henson didn't against Chicago)

We would be exactly where we are today even if they had gotten some meaningless snaps in those games. It was too small a sample size under terrible conditions to make any meaningful judgement on. ANd you risk injury, loss of confidence, and most of all the media and fan backlash should they (understandably) struggle.

This is a complete non-issue, yet amazingly it still gets brought up a year and a half later as some monumental mistake that is the sole reason we are unsure of our backup situation.

 

[5Stars]

As has been said ad nauseum, there was almost nothing to be gained by putting in either of two QBs who clearly were not ready to be on the field, especially with a bad team around them playing out the string.

THere's nothing to "assess" in that situation. There's nothing that would come out of those games that would tell us anything about their long-term potential or ability, especially if they don't have a clue what is going on out there (as basically Henson didn't against Chicago)

We would be exactly where we are today even if they had gotten some meaningless snaps in those games. It was too small a sample size under terrible conditions to make any meaningful judgement on. ANd you risk injury, loss of confidence, and most of all the media and fan backlash should they (understandably) struggle.

This is a complete non-issue, yet amazingly it still gets brought up a year and a half later as some monumental mistake that is the sole reason we are unsure of our backup situation.

Exactely! You said it well....here is five Beautiful Stars for you...

:starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin

I get the impression that the posters, iceberg and jackrussell are in love...you know, that little lover quarrel...

 

[jackrussell]

As has been said ad nauseum, there was almost nothing to be gained by putting in either of two QBs who clearly were not ready to be on the field, especially with a bad team around them playing out the string.

THere's nothing to "assess" in that situation. There's nothing that would come out of those games that would tell us anything about their long-term potential or ability, especially if they don't have a clue what is going on out there (as basically Henson didn't against Chicago)

We would be exactly where we are today even if they had gotten some meaningless snaps in those games. It was too small a sample size under terrible conditions to make any meaningful judgement on. ANd you risk injury, loss of confidence, and most of all the media and fan backlash should they (understandably) struggle.

This is a complete non-issue, yet amazingly it still gets brought up a year and a half later as some monumental mistake that is the sole reason we are unsure of our backup situation.

Good assessment right there, though it won't fit the BP hater agenda. You know I lost my job 3 1/2 years ago after 23 years, and haven't whined nearly as much about that as some have about Henson getting a few snaps 2 years later.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Under almost any circumstance, playing time on the field can not be replaced. Anything best standing on the sideline.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I clearly said, obviously BP has better idea than any of us yahoos on the internet. Having said that, I am pretty sure, he is not 100% certain either, if he was, he wouldn't be saying, hum and haw about where his backup QBs are in their development.

BP does know what he has in his backup QBs, which is why he throws around the phrase, "he needs to show me more", and he starts veterans who have shown that they are capable of playing, same with all the other positions, so if he will start a raw Ware at OLB, and not Henson or Romo, then that must show you how far off they are, it can also be attributed to how far off they are from the competition, such as Ware only had to beat out Kalen Thorton, while the 2 youngins have BLedsoe to beat, plus draft status plays a role, Ware: 1st round pick, Romo: UFA, Henson: 3rd

but you get my point

 

[Bob Sacamano]

playing time on the field can not be replaced.

2 or 3 games can be replaced

 

[Bob Sacamano]

As has been said ad nauseum, there was almost nothing to be gained by putting in either of two QBs who clearly were not ready to be on the field, especially with a bad team around them playing out the string.

THere's nothing to "assess" in that situation. There's nothing that would come out of those games that would tell us anything about their long-term potential or ability, especially if they don't have a clue what is going on out there (as basically Henson didn't against Chicago)

We would be exactly where we are today even if they had gotten some meaningless snaps in those games. It was too small a sample size under terrible conditions to make any meaningful judgement on. ANd you risk injury, loss of confidence, and most of all the media and fan backlash should they (understandably) struggle.

This is a complete non-issue, yet amazingly it still gets brought up a year and a half later as some monumental mistake that is the sole reason we are unsure of our backup situation.

but alas, you'll just end up repeating yourself, I've been saying this on 2 forums, this and another, for 2 years now

 

[RCowboyFan]

Not really, to compare Henson and Romo to first round calibre qb's is a whole nother story. Parcells said that the reason he took Henson out of the Bear game was that he was missing some simple stuff, that told him that Henson was way in over his head, plus he really didn't want to play Henson anyway.

Yeah, like I would care what your opinion is, from a guy who thinks Crankcase is still going to be all-pro in NFL.