Mosley: Cowboys should ignore Tony Romo's 'I'm healthy' pleas and draft a quarterback

[Idgit]

Should have drafted a QB multiple times over the past ten years.

Whatever for?

 

[conner01]

I guarantee that our opponent on the first play of the first game will rush 11 men.

Hope so
Easy td to dez

 

[Fletch]

Its such a slam dunk decision to make...........you have an aging QB in his late 30s coming off multiple surgeries the past 2-3 years and you have been gifted a top 5 pick, the highest the team has drafted in over 2 decades.

To not draft a QB this year would be monumentally stupid.

This post is the post of the entire thread. Our luck, we pass on this opportunity to draft Wentz, Goff, or even Lynch, settle for more of a project QB in the 3rd or 4th, listen to Jerry, Stephen, and Jason try and convince everybody of the value of taking our new project QB at that spot and how awesome it is, only to watch the top choices at QB that we actually had a shot at have unreal, to very productive careers for their respective team. That's my nightmare.

 

[Doc50]

I hope you are not truly that naive
No matter how good a guy tony is, we are talking multiple millions of dollars here
You can bet your bottom dollar that Tony will do everything in his power to ensure cowboys don't take a QB at # 4

Why would he do that?
Is he feeling a bit insecure and greedy?
Has there been any indication from anyone that he isn't the on-field OC?
Does he want to play so long that he looks like Manning did toward the end?
Do you think he enjoyed watching the team flounder without him?

 

[plasticman]

They will draft a QB but taking him at #4 is such a no brainer that I have no doubt Jerry will get cute and take his guy in a later round, Connor Cook in the 2nd or Dak Prescott.

 

[big dog cowboy]

My one real hope for this offseason is that the team drafts its' future franchise quarterback at #4.

And if the Cowboys don't grade any of the QB's available that high, then what?

 

[Stash]

And if the Cowboys don't grade any of the QB's available that high, then what?

I'd re-examine the people doing the grading.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'd re-examine the people doing the grading.

With the success of their recent first round picks, I don't think that is necessary.

 

[DallasEast]

Incredible. Romo says, "My surgery has healed up nicely. Looking forward to OTA's and a full offseason. Let's go!" Mosley warps what he says into a sabotage conspiracy. There is no shame for some journalists. Yet some people lap up the **** anyway. Must credit him for that.

In my opinion, any team should evaluate and potentially draft quarterbacks every couple of seasons. I respect teams like Green Bay in this regard. Perhaps Dallas will do so this month in the early, mid or late rounds. We'll see but team observers should make up their minds about Jerry Jones regarding this decision. If he is the Jerry Jones some think will move heaven and earth to get Johnny Manziel, he's not drafting a quarterback. If he's the Jones others think obeys Romo's wishes--even though Romo hasn't said or implied anything of the sort--he's not drafting a quarterback. If he's the Jones whom those think is an idiot, there isn't any way possible he's drafting a quarterback.

Observers should make up their minds. Meanwhile, the team will act if a quarterback meets their criteria. We'll all see later this month.

 

[Stash]

With the success of their recent first round picks, I don't think that is necessary.

With their poor track record at quarterback, and virtually all positions outside of offensive line, I do.

 

[Idgit]

With their poor track record at quarterback, and virtually all positions outside of offensive line, I do.

They don't really have a poor track record at QB. No team in the NFL has invested fewer resources at the position than the Cowboys have during Romo's tenure. Neither missing on Steven McGee nor there not being an adequate backup QB on the team the last two years is an indictment of our ability to develop at that position.

We've got a ton of NFL QB experience on our roster and on our coaching staff. We're going to be able to develop a player just fine. Our problem is we haven't taken the position seriously in the draft in a long, long time, and we need to start. Actually, we needed to have started about three years ago, but that's moot.

 

[Stash]

They don't really have a poor track record at QB. No team in the NFL has invested fewer resources at the position than the Cowboys have during Romo's tenure. Neither missing on Steven McGee nor there not being an adequate backup QB on the team the last two years is an indictment of our ability to develop at that position.

They've failed at every turn, be it draft (or failure to draft), free agency, or undrafted rookies. You name it, they blew it.

We've got a ton of NFL QB experience on our roster and on our coaching staff. We're going to be able to develop a player just fine. Our problem is we haven't taken the position seriously in the draft in a long, long time, and we need to start. Actually, we needed to have started about three years ago, but that's moot.

All evidence to the contrary. Despite this QB experience, they haven't been able to identify, develop, or obtain a capable player.

 

[gimmesix]

Another question is whether the people in charge actually agree with your first statement. Drafting a QB to develop as a backup is very different from believing you need to draft an heir to your franchise QB.

I'm not sure it's about drafting a QB to develop as a backup if Dallas doesn't draft one at No. 4.

I do think if the Cowboys believe that someone like Goff or Wentz is "can't miss" as a franchise QB, then they can and will take one.

However, if they don't believe they are "can't miss" or much better than someone like Lynch or Cook, then I believe they should take one of them to develop as a possible heir to Romo. Quarterback success rate does fall off after the first round, but drafting early in the second can mean you end up with someone like Dalton or Brees or Favre or Derek Carr.

Here are all of the quarterbacks taken in the 30s since Favre in 1991:

1991: Favre, Browning Nagle

2001: Drew Brees

2007: Kevin Kolb

2011: Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick

2013: Geno Smith

2014: Derek Carr

So it seems (from that small sample size) that teams have a good chance of finding at least a solid starter if there's a QB worth taking in that range.

Decided to go back even further for a greater sample size:

1989: Mike Elkins

1985: Randall Cunningham

1984: Boomer Esiason

1981: Neil Lomax

1973: Gary Huff, Ron Jaworski

1970: Dennis Shaw

Suddenly, I'm feeling better about our chances of possibly finding the future at QB with that 34th pick, if there's one worth taking there.

 

[Idgit]

They've failed at every turn, be it draft (or failure to draft), free agency, or undrafted rookies. You name it, they blew it.

All evidence to the contrary. Despite this QB experience, they haven't been able to identify, develop, or obtain a capable player.

Which sounds impressive (assuming you give the current staff no credit for Romo, and discount the help Romo could provide a young player completely), until you realize that the 'evidence' doesn't include anybody who would reasonably be assumed to develop into an NFL starter to begin with. And you can't throw 'obtain' in there like it's Wade Wilson's job to go out and obtain a decent QB prospect for him to develop.

That's like saying you think I can't make a decent bowl of chili because I've failed to do so so far given all I obtained was a bag of dried lima beans, a ball of dung, and a tooth somebody found in my backyard. Sure, all evidence suggests I can't make chili, but it's not very good evidence.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

I'm keeping a samuri sword next to my TV so that if Jerry doesn't take a QB at #4 I can commit hari kari. It's such a no-brainer.

 

[SDCowboy]

Drafting a QB at 4 (assuming one of the top two is there) seems like a no brainer to me. If Tony truly is healthy and ready to go, that makes it even more perfect to draft one so he can sit and learn behind an elite QB for a year or two.

 

[Jstopper]

I think taking a qb at 4 is stupid because of romo's contract. The EARLIEST we would be able to cut Romo without crippling our cap is 2018. Even in 2017 he has a 20 million dollar cap hit. So unless Romo gets a career ending injury in the next 2 seasons he will be our qb that goes without saying. Here's the kicker tho. If Romo is still playing at a high level in 2018 then He isn't going to be benched for who ever we drafted. Let's say he does retire before the start of the 2019 season. You now have to judge your new qb off of one year of year playing time and determine whether he will be your franchise or not. Then it's time for the big mega contract. What happens If he is a 1 year wonder like Nick Foles was in 2013? We have set our franchise back now because of an obsession with mediocre qbs that are available right now. And my scenario is much more realistic than the people saying Romo is going to retire in the next 2 years.

 

[Stash]

Which sounds impressive (assuming you give the current staff no credit for Romo, and discount the help Romo could provide a young player completely), until you realize that the 'evidence' doesn't include anybody who would reasonably be assumed to develop into an NFL starter to begin with.

Please. The list includes players who were successful elsewhere. It's only during their stay in Dallas where they become 'awful'. Funny how this staff that people want to credit for Romo (who was identified, obtained, and coached before any of these guys ever got here), and yet any blame for everyone else being terrible is all thrown on the players. Praise for one good QB out of 10, but no blame for the other 9 failures.

For the record, Romo himself is the only one I have faith in helping any young quarterback.

And you can't throw 'obtain' in there like it's Wade Wilson's job to go out and obtain a decent QB prospect for him to develop.

It's the entire organization's job to help in this area. Any system that doesn't include feedback from the QB coach is a broken one.

That's like saying you think I can't make a decent bowl of chili because I've failed to do so so far given all I obtained was a bag of dried lima beans, a ball of dung, and a tooth somebody found in my backyard. Sure, all evidence suggests I can't make chili, but it's not very good evidence.

Despite the well-known fact that the guy did have quarterbacks with pedigree including a first round pick in Rex Grossman and failed to develop any of them. He's a failure plain and simple and the fact that Parcells excised him during his tenure here clearly illustrates it.

We can go through this team's awful record with any quarterback not named Romo. But I'm sure that all of the blame will go to the players and the coaches will skate by blame free. Must be great to have zero expectations or accountability for doing your job.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm not sure it's about drafting a QB to develop as a backup if Dallas doesn't draft one at No. 4.

I do think if the Cowboys believe that someone like Goff or Wentz is "can't miss" as a franchise QB, then they can and will take one.

However, if they don't believe they are "can't miss" or much better than someone like Lynch or Cook, then I believe they should take one of them to develop as a possible heir to Romo. Quarterback success rate does fall off after the first round, but drafting early in the second can mean you end up with someone like Dalton or Brees or Favre or Derek Carr.

Here are all of the quarterbacks taken in the 30s since Favre in 1991:

1991: Favre, Browning Nagle

2001: Drew Brees

2007: Kevin Kolb

2011: Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick

2013: Geno Smith

2014: Derek Carr

So it seems (from that small sample size) that teams have a good chance of finding at least a solid starter if there's a QB worth taking in that range.

Decided to go back even further for a greater sample size:

1989: Mike Elkins

1985: Randall Cunningham

1984: Boomer Esiason

1981: Neil Lomax

1973: Gary Huff, Ron Jaworski

1970: Dennis Shaw

Suddenly, I'm feeling better about our chances of possibly finding the future at QB with that 34th pick, if there's one worth taking there.

Just to do the numbers on this: That's 15 QBs drafted in the 30s since 1970, with nine at least having decent careers for a 60 percent success rate. Based on some sites I've looked at, QBs drafted in the first round have around a 50 percent success rate.

 

[Stash]

I think taking a qb at 4 is stupid because of romo's contract.

I think what's "stupid" is basing any quarterback decision on anything to do with Romo's contract. It is what it is. The money isn't changing either way. If you're basing the future of this franchise on the money you've already decided to pay Romo, you're a fool.

The EARLIEST we would be able to cut Romo without crippling our cap is 2018. Even in 2017 he has a 20 million dollar cap hit. So unless Romo gets a career ending injury in the next 2 seasons he will be our qb that goes without saying.

What "goes without saying" is that Romo will be getting paid. If he's in effective, or in and out of the lineup, this team would be much better served by having a capable alternative than not having one.

Here's the kicker tho. If Romo is still playing at a high level in 2018 then He isn't going to be benched for who ever we drafted.

So our 'problem' will be quarterback play at a "high level" with insurance for injury? Sign me up for that problem!

Let's say he does retire before the start of the 2019 season. You now have to judge your new qb off of one year of year playing time and determine whether he will be your franchise or not. Then it's time for the big mega contract. What happens If he is a 1 year wonder like Nick Foles was in 2013? We have set our franchise back now because of an obsession with mediocre qbs that are available right now. And my scenario is much more realistic than the people saying Romo is going to retire in the next 2 years.

I guess the three years of seeing the young quarterback before then means nothing?

And are you forgetting about the 5th year option for 1st round picks? The team would be able to keep any 1st round quarterback from hitting the market until 2020. More than enough time to know everything about him.

The only thing that would "set our franchise back" is to miss on the opportunity staring us in the face. By going back to being one of the league's have-not's at the quarterback position and go back to the days of Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, and Drew Henson. You want to "set a franchise back"? That's how you do it.

And our owner has already written that book.