Jean-Jacques Taylor: Henson Project Could Be Sacked

[BARRYRAY]

I haven't watched these guys enough to comment, but I will say that when you see these guys you just know they got it, saw Warren Moon one time and every ball came perfect, on ground level when they snap the ball honestly it looks like an ant hill stirred up guys go every which way, anyway the ball always came out in the perfect place, and they Cody Carlson comes in and suddenly all the balls are a little high or low, or behind the guy or ahead, in the NFL they don not lie the recievers only have a foot of separation at best and the speed of the game is incredible, everybody who thinks the game is simple should go to at least a scrimmage and see it at ground level, it is sooo different than 50 yard line tv shots. It really changed my view of the game. You cannot fake being a good qb in the NFL, it shows up real fast, agree though that journeyman are the way in the NFL becuase honestly as the poster said washout rate is high and at elast vets have shown something somewhere before..

 

[DLCassidy]

so 2 years ago when we were out with 3 games left in the season, doesn't that imply "sucks" enough to warrant gametime for a young qb? i said at the time if we never play them we'll never know how they react on the field and years later we'll have qb's with little to no nfl experience and THEN they'll have to take their lumps at the start of a season when it all matters.

I would have been ok if we went with Henson/Romo then. But I'm also ok that we didn't since even if we did it wasn't going to be for very long and in the opinion of the coach's neither guy was ready. Playing a guy before he's ready can do more harm than good. I also think BP had it in his mind at that point that he would be bringing in a vet the following year so it's not like he was auditioning a starter in the short run. In the end, the importance whether we did or didn't is highly overstated by some.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

yes, when the postseason was assured, I could also throw in that teams only do that if they already have an est. young veteran at QB such as Brady, which both situations have yet to transpire in Dallas for quite some time



here's why I don't think it's beneficial, what if that player doesn't pan out n the future? what if we're right, and 2 or 3 games won't make a bit of difference? are you willing to do that at the risk of losing games and maybe your whole team? I'm not, and I'm sure 90% of the coaches in the league will tell you the same



I only believe in that scenario if you already have your franchise QB for the next decade, like Favre, and why GB drafted qBs to develop w/ the hopes of trading them for a greater value, and the only team that had any success doing it

Your off base here. Ron Wolfe and Mike Holmgren have done it for some time. New England did it last year, as I mentioned earlier, way before anything such as playoffs or whatever were assured. It happens a great deal. This business of doing it only when the playoffs are sewn up is not entirely accurate. I would also point out that Brady is a product of this exact type of QB development model. I agree that Dallas has not been in position to do this for some years but then again, we really haven't tried this model for some time. We have an established QB. It makes no difference if he's old or young, where this is concerned. Actually, I'm probably wrong about that. Because he's older, it's probably more important to find out for certain how our young guys might play when the fur is flying IMO.

If the player doesn't pan out, then what difference? Nobody is asking that games be sacraficed. We're talking about getting game time when it's available to do so. We are talking about a backup QB here. Two or three games of experience are absolutly going to be of help when that player is needed. There is very little question of that IMO. It's the difference between seeing Hollywood and understanding what it's about and having to get it done in a real time situation when it turns Hollywood on you and your faced with it all at once. I just don't agree is all. I don't really see how you would lose your team over something like that. You would have to prove how that would work for me. As far as the 90% of coaches, well, I believe that that is subjective however, if it's 90%, I'm fine with that. After all, only one team wins the championship each year. Those odds are far less then 10% so it's a given that very few are going to get it in any case.

Well, I don't see how a Franchise QB for 10 years applies at all. If you only have a guy for a few years, seems like it would make more sense to find out what you have but here nor there. The reality is that your franchise QB is always one play away from on the shelf, maybe for good. I just don't believe that it's not in a teams best interests to develop young QBs and to play them when the opportunity is there to get them experience.

As for your last statement about developing QBs and Green Bay the only team to have success doing it, well, that's not a true statement at all. SF did it with some success in the Walsh era. Atlanta did it, in fact, with Favre. We did it with Walsh when Jimmy Johnson was here. San Diego just did it with Brees. It happens.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

ABQ, I'm not ignoring your last post, just i'm going to go back to it and answer it at another time

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ, I'm not ignoring your last post, just i'm going to go back to it and answer it at another time

Hey Summer, no big deal. It's just a discussion. If you get back, that's cool. If you get too busy, I completely understand. No big deal.

 

[jackrussell]

I've read long threads debating the value of the "garbage time" insertion of the backup and I admit I'm mostly on the side of "it doesn't tell you that much". I'm not saying there's no value in it, because there is, but I just don't think there's enought to make a judgement about a guy good or bad. I don't think we know anything more about Henson for his little bit of time in there other than he wasn't ready then.

Believe me, if he would have played in one of those games, or 2 quarters, or whatever, there just would have been an entirely different issue to whine about from those with the Parcells hate slate.

He played against Baltimore, does that tell us he's great? No.
He played against Chicago, does that tell us he sucks? No.

People want to ignore he's got about as much playing time as he merits, and all that playing time did was reaffirm what they already knew...project needs more work.

And they're working on it.

 

[Alexander]

I see your point but most NFL coaches are only going to play the backup QB in the event of an injury to the starter or possibly late game garbage time which tells you basically nothing. We've been fortunate here not to have injury problems with our starters. I hope that trend continues this year because we need to win as many games as we can and Bledsoe gives us the best chance of doing that. But there is a cost of not knowing what you've got at backup. Nature of the beast.

Good post.

We have not had much "worthless time" in the Parcells era. Not in the way that Seattle and New England have used it in the examples that have been brought up.

We haven't clinched playoff spots (that's why Wallace played). We haven't had games that were so out of hand for the most part (that's why Cassel played). That's what the big difference is. They are winning teams. They have built the tradition and they have earned "worthless" time.

Coach Parcells has been trying to foster a winning attitude here since the day he set foot in Valley Ranch. If he chooses to let the team think games were worthless (like the NYG 2004 game), then he is sending the wrong message.

About the only time where we had a legitimate opportunity and passed was the blowout loss in Washington. And in that case, I suppose you could fault him for not putting Romo in.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Good post.

We have not had much "worthless time" in the Parcells era. Not in the way that Seattle and New England have used it in the examples that have been brought up.

We haven't clinched playoff spots (that's why Wallace played). We haven't had games that were so out of hand for the most part (that's why Cassel played). That's what the big difference is. They are winning teams. They have built the tradition and they have earned "worthless" time.

Coach Parcells has been trying to foster a winning attitude here since the day he set foot in Valley Ranch. If he chooses to let the team think games were worthless (like the NYG 2004 game), then he is sending the wrong message.

About the only time where we had a legitimate opportunity and passed was the blowout loss in Washington. And in that case, I suppose you could fault him for not putting Romo in.

Could have easily gotten him time in the Rams game but I suppose we were too busy trying to win it. Earn the wasted time? Don't know about that but I know that I don't consider getting your backup QB field experience a waste of time. Now, I'm not Parcells so my point of view means next to nothing. Having said that, I don't see it as such. No reason to. It's a part of the game, like anything else.

 

[Alexander]

Could have easily gotten him time in the Rams game but I suppose we were too busy trying to win it. Earn the wasted time? Don't know about that but I know that I don't consider getting your backup QB field experience a waste of time. Now, I'm not Parcells so my point of view means next to nothing. Having said that, I don't see it as such. No reason to. It's a part of the game, like anything else.

The Rams game wasn't a blowout though. We had the opportunity to win that game (yes, I realize that Petitti couldn't give Little much of a fight), but we still were in that game until the bitter end. Plus, again, Romo got little practice time all week. In our losses, Coach Parcells let "the captain go down with the ship". And you have to like the way that builds his power as a leader. To me, having an uncontested leader is better than having some trashtime evaluation of a player we are just curious about.

Having Romo in for a series or two wouldn't tell me much. If he did poorly, do you look too hard at it? If he did well, you have a few players wondering why Romo isn't competing and that creates acrimony in the lockerroom.

 

[DLCassidy]

..and if we had played Romo in the Rams game it would have been "he didn't get the reps in practice" or "the team was flat with nothing to play for" if he did poorly and "the Rams suck anyway" if he did well. The coaches can't win.

 

[Alexander]

..and if we had played Romo in the Rams game it would have been "he didn't get the reps in practice" or "the team was flat with nothing to play for" if he did poorly and "the Rams suck anyway" if he did well. The coaches can't win.

Well, there is a direct correlation between the amount of griping about not playing the backup to a general impression of our coaching staff as a whole.

 

[DLCassidy]

Well, there is a direct correlation between the amount of griping about not playing the backup to a general impression of our coaching staff as a whole.

Here we go.:laugh1:

 

[Alexander]

Here we go.:laugh1:

Not trying to start anything, but it's true.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Rams game wasn't a blowout though. We had the opportunity to win that game (yes, I realize that Petitti couldn't give Little much of a fight), but we still were in that game until the bitter end. Plus, again, Romo got little practice time all week. In our losses, Coach Parcells let "the captain go down with the ship". And you have to like the way that builds his power as a leader. To me, having an uncontested leader is better than having some trashtime evaluation of a player we are just curious about.

Having Romo in for a series or two wouldn't tell me much. If he did poorly, do you look too hard at it? If he did well, you have a few players wondering why Romo isn't competing and that creates acrimony in the lockerroom.

In truth, I don't understand the Rams game at all. We may only have know an hour or whatever it was, before kick off that we had no chance but still, I don't see there reason you wouldn't get experience for Romo. The practice time thing makes no difference IMO. If Romo is the backup for us again this year, he is never going to get practice time. That's just not how it works for the backup. He is always going to get very little time with the first team, in season. That's the deal so to me, it's irrelivant how much practice he got. Bledsoe is a vet. His position on this team is not in jeopardy regardless of what anybody does. This isn't even debatable. Bledsoe is the starting QB for the Dallas Cowboys and will be until such time as he elects to retire IMO. Had Romo played, it would have made little difference if he had done poorly or not. The season was over and his performance in a game like that would have faded by this time, had he done poorly. However, if he had shown well, that gives you an idea for the future. It also gives him a chance to see the elephant. I'd rather that happen in a game that means nothing as opposed to a game where Bledsoe goes down and Romo has to play to win it.

Here is a direct quote from Belichek on playing Cassel against Miami in the 14th game of the season, a loss to Miami 26-28. You may view this as a meaningless game or a luxary that we don't have but in the end, what difference? As you so clearly state, we don't get many chances to get experience for our QBs. Why would you not take the opportunity to play a guy like Romo for a half? If we win, what difference? If we don't, it's valuable experience for a guy we may need to depend on this year.

"We played guys to get them experience, get them out there to play," coach Bill Belichick said, "give them a chance so they will be better prepared to play if they are called upon."

I just look at it differently. Nothing could be had by beating the Rams with Bledsoe, IMO. The time on the field for Romo is more valuable to me.

 

[Alexander]

Here is a direct quote from Belichek on playing Cassel against Miami in the 14th game of the season, a loss to Miami 26-28. You may view this as a meaningless game or a luxary that we don't have but in the end, what difference? As you so clearly state, we don't get many chances to get experience for our QBs. Why would you not take the opportunity to play a guy like Romo for a half? If we win, what difference? If we don't, it's valuable experience for a guy we may need to depend on this year.

"We played guys to get them experience, get them out there to play," coach Bill Belichick said, "give them a chance so they will be better prepared to play if they are called upon."

I just look at it differently. Nothing could be had by beating the Rams with Bledsoe, IMO. The time on the field for Romo is more valuable to me.

It would have been had the circumstances been different. New England winning or losing that game to Miami was pretty much worthless in regards to their playoff position. I think a game when he lets Flutie try a dropkick shows how worthless that game was viewed. I just don't think it's a good example to compare to.

Getting ten wins was important to us. Now did Bledsoe need to take every snap of that game? No. But I view the fact Romo not playing due to the idea that we geared everything with the intention that the game was going to be for a playoff spot. He didn't get much practice time. For all we know Cassel did. And we know players like Seneca Wallace and Jim Sorgi have.

 

[iceberg]

Good post.

We have not had much "worthless time" in the Parcells era. Not in the way that Seattle and New England have used it in the examples that have been brought up.

We haven't clinched playoff spots (that's why Wallace played). We haven't had games that were so out of hand for the most part (that's why Cassel played). That's what the big difference is. They are winning teams. They have built the tradition and they have earned "worthless" time.

Coach Parcells has been trying to foster a winning attitude here since the day he set foot in Valley Ranch. If he chooses to let the team think games were worthless (like the NYG 2004 game), then he is sending the wrong message.

About the only time where we had a legitimate opportunity and passed was the blowout loss in Washington. And in that case, I suppose you could fault him for not putting Romo in.

in his 2nd year, w/vinnie at the helm. we were out of the playoffs w/3 games left in the season still.

golden opportunity we pissed away. now 2 years later we still no nothing of romo and henson only cause he volunteered to go to europe.

as for "playing to win" great. i want to also. but when you know a 41 year old QB is NOT your "long term" answer (or even short term) what's the point of playing him vs. giving players who *could be* that long term answer a chance to get that experience that bellichek was talking about.

i, and apparantely others, feel strongly that if you have those games it's a good opportunity to get your young guns in. teams already in the playoffs do it to rest up their stars. why is it ok to NOT put forth that "best chance to win" every game? foster that "winning" attitude?

i also disagree it sends the "wrong message" to the rest of the team. i think that's fan talk / fluff and the players know in the end it's a business and in the world of business you gotta know what you have before you go in fighting. so it's not the 1 game when we knew drew would be back the next year as the 3 at the end of the season before when we were pretty sure vinnie wouldn't be back that irks me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It would have been had the circumstances been different. New England winning or losing that game to Miami was pretty much worthless in regards to their playoff position. I think a game when he lets Flutie try a dropkick shows how worthless that game was viewed. I just don't think it's a good example to compare to.

Getting ten wins was important to us. Now did Bledsoe need to take every snap of that game? No. But I view the fact Romo not playing due to the idea that we geared everything with the intention that the game was going to be for a playoff spot. He didn't get much practice time. For all we know Cassel did. And we know players like Seneca Wallace and Jim Sorgi have.

Perhaps but there are many examples of QBs getting very little to no practice and having to come in and play. It happens as a backup. This can not be disputed. This is a fact of life in the NFL.


A dropkick that worked and was practiced on BTW.

 

[Alexander]

Perhaps but there are many examples of QBs getting very little to no practice and having to come in and play. It happens as a backup. This can not be disputed. This is a fact of life in the NFL.

And?

But when you put them in for the express purposes of evaluation, you want to put them in a situation best suited for that. In other words, they are prepared that way.

Going up to a player five seconds before the game and saying "oh, we are out of the playoffs, Romo, go get a tighter chinstrap, you are starting" is hardly a fair thing to do, nor would you get much out of it. Sure we could have played him some, I don't deny that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And?

But when you put them in for the express purposes of evaluation, you want to put them in a situation best suited for that. In other words, they are prepared that way.

Going up to a player five seconds before the game and saying "oh, we are out of the playoffs, Romo, go get a tighter chinstrap, you are starting" is hardly a fair thing to do, nor would you get much out of it. Sure we could have played him some, I don't deny that.

No. Part of evaluation is also adaptation. Can a player adapte to a situation and be effective? IMO, nothing is given to you in sports. When an opportunity arises, you have to meet the challenge. If you don't, then next guy might. If that happens, you don't get an opportunity. I understand not rushing a QB into a bad situation for fear of losing the player but lets be honest here. He's 4 years in. He's the backup QB. If he can't handle coming in to back Bledsoe up against the Rams of all teams, he doesn't need to be here. The difference here is that your viewing this from the perspective of Romo as the franchise. I am not. I view Romo as the back up guy. In that scenario, not only should he be ready to come in and play, we should know if he can. It's a different thing to face the rush down in a game. He is the backup. There is nothing at all wrong with finding out if he can actually back somebody up. He could easily have come in and played a half. Nobody would have been harmed by it. He only could have benifited from the experience. This is my opinion on the matter.

 

[Alexander]

in his 2nd year, w/vinnie at the helm. we were out of the playoffs w/3 games left in the season still.

golden opportunity we pissed away. now 2 years later we still no nothing of romo and henson only cause he volunteered to go to europe.

WE know nothing. The team knows exactly what they want to know. This is a case where our curiousity is far greater than theirs.

as for "playing to win" great. i want to also. but when you know a 41 year old QB is NOT your "long term" answer (or even short term) what's the point of playing him vs. giving players who *could be* that long term answer a chance to get that experience that bellichek was talking about.

i, and apparantely others, feel strongly that if you have those games it's a good opportunity to get your young guns in. teams already in the playoffs do it to rest up their stars. why is it ok to NOT put forth that "best chance to win" every game? foster that "winning" attitude?

You and apparently others also have the axe to grind. And even if Parcells played Henson or Romo, there would be something else to complain about or form theories over. Like the Thanksgiving game for example. Some people actually find fault in yanking Henson, who clearly wasn't ready and was ripe to get his confidence shattered, not to mention lose the game. The final game of the year was also exposed on national television against a division rival. Who wants to lose one of those games. Oh, that's right. Fans who are curious.

Take an example from way back when in the Landry days. He did that with Kevin Sweeney and Reggie Collier. All we found out as fans is that they were both pretty bad. It obviously hasn't crossed many people's minds that maybe, just maybe, we have a couple of QBs who aren't even ready for that, particularly Henson.

i also disagree it sends the "wrong message" to the rest of the team.

It sends the wrong message if you are trying to get players passionate about winning and who hate to lose. We had games in Campo's final year and we started players like Pete Hunter. That got the fans all excited about nothing because he was playing out the string against a playoff team that truly wasn't giving it a competitive effort. Again, what is the point.

i think that's fan talk / fluff

Fan talk and fluff is what all this "DAMN PARCELLS FOR STARTING VINNY" nonsense is, actually. Funny you should mention it.

so it's not the 1 game when we knew drew would be back the next year as the 3 at the end of the season before when we were pretty sure vinnie wouldn't be back that irks me.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I spoke of the correlation.