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

[Idgit]

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..

I don't know who you're specifically referring to, but I strongly suspect it's not true and that instead you'd be referring to a situation and comparing apples and oranges. But let me know what you're getting at, and I'll definitely look into it.

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

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.

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.

If you want to blame the organization for not taking the QB position seriously, I'm all on board with that. It's just got literally nothing to do with our ability to develop somebody once we bring a player with actual skills on board.

As for Rex Grossman, the guy was a borderline starter, but he did get his team to a Superbowl. His career was derailed by injuries as much as by his borderline ability, but he's not a good example of an abject failure given he hung around the league for 10 years or so and started for multiple teams.

As I said above, you can't just ignore the presence of Tony Romo and put all your weight on the players who didn't develop. You have to be fair and evaluate the entire body of work. Especially when so much work has specifically gone into our ten-year starting QB.

And, for the love of God, can we please have normal discussions without the jabs at accountability and expectations? You're a better poster than that, stash. I really like our coaching staff, for the record, but I'm torn on Wilson. I've said repeatedly that Tony had more good things to say about David Lee than I've ever heard him say about Wade. I happen to legitimately think it's absurd for you to look at a staff that includes three QBs who played in the NFL for a combined couple of decades, who have coached for a couple more combined decades, and a roster that's got a borderline allpro starter on in and conclude we don't have the talent or the experience to develop a rookie QB. And I don't use the term 'absurd' lightly.

Our issue has been not dedicating resources to the position group. I say that critically and with all the expectation and accountability I can muster. Put the blame where it belongs instead of burying your head in the sand just to have something else to complain about and then assuming the people you're talking to are the ones who are unwilling to be reasonable about the mistakes this team makes.

 

[Doc50]

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.

I think they'll swap firsts with someone in the mid first and take Lynch.

That's about as cute as they can afford to get.

 

[Idgit]

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.

They're probably going to better teams. It's tough to make decent chili when the meat spoils in the heat while you're shopping for the spices and the beans. (And yes, I know no self-respecting cook puts beans in chili, but the spices in this analogy are the skill players, and the beans are the offensive linemen. I couldn't think of a better analogy, so you'll get your gassy carbs and like it).

 

[gimmesix]

They're probably going to better teams. It's tough to make decent chili when the meat spoils in the heat while you're shopping for the spices and the beans. (And yes, I know no self-respecting cook puts beans in chili, but the spices in this analogy are the skill players, and the beans are the offensive linemen. I couldn't think of a better analogy, so you'll get your gassy carbs and like it).

Maybe I was misleading with the term success rate. Rather, 60 percent of those second-round QBs turned into at least decent NFL starters, while 50 percent drafted in the first round did. I don't think that depends on how good the team is, either a QB can play or he can't.

Now, in comparing that second-round group to the first-rounders, I want to point out that I'm sure if I limit the first-rounders to only those taken within the first four picks (since that's where we are drafting), that the rate of successful NFL careers climbs significantly.

 

[Idgit]

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.

It's an inefficient use of resources, to be sure. The thing is, you can't get a QB unless you're drafting in the top five, trade into the top five, or get lucky on a wing and a prayer. Franchise guys are almost never available in FA (Manning was the last obvious exception, but when before that? Brees, maybe?) We're past the point where a wing-and-a-prayer timeline makes sense. So it's either take one now, knowing you're giving up two years of a top-5 pick's first contract, or prepare to either suck again the next two years sometime, or prepare to give up the farm to trade up again in the next draft or three.

Throw in the fact that it's not a bad thing to give a guy a year or two to develop. And that you'd have a guy potentially ready to take some snaps by midseason or so--and that that alone might keep the team afloat for a week or two that could position Romo for a playoff run in a pinch--and I know which way I lean. Get a guy who can play. Devote resources to getting him ready. And fill the other positions that are a lot easier to fill elsewhere in the draft and FA elsewhere in the draft and in FA.

 

[DABOYZ]

Romo tweeting that things are great....Same story different year. I almost feel like he is in denial about his actual heath. He should walk away while he can still walk. Fact is not even he best offensive line can save him from himself. How many weeks will he miss due to injury this year.

 

[Miller]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/nfl-draft-round-round-quarterback-data



Leaders in Weighted Passing DVOA (1994-2013)
Rk Quarterback Round Total DYAR PASS DVOA
1 Peyton Manning 1 25,299 32.5%
2 Tom Brady 6 17,498 26.9%
3 Aaron Rodgers 1 7,693 23.1%
4 Drew Brees 2 14,827 20.3%
5 Philip Rivers 1 8,772 20.0%
6 Tony Romo UFA 7,809 19.1%
7 Matt Ryan 1 6,381 17.1%
8 Ben Roethlisberger 1 8,065 14.9%
9 Chad Pennington 1 4,581 14.8%
10 Kurt Warner UFA 7,151 14.4%
11 Jeff Garcia UFA 6,404 11.8%
12 Matt Schaub 3 4,886 11.1%
13 Steve McNair 1 7,764 10.5%
14 Carson Palmer 1 6,779 9.9%
15 Daunte Culpepper 1 4,919 7.0%
16 David Garrard 4 2,859 4.0%
17 Byron Leftwich 1 1,608 3.4%
18 Matthew Stafford 1 2,478 3.3%
19 Donovan McNabb 1 6,229 3.1%
20 Eli Manning 1 4,698 2.5%
21 Marc Bulger 6 2,864 2.0%
22 Cam Newton 1 1,689 1.5%
23 Brian Griese 3 2,527 1.5%
24 Andy Dalton 2 1,410 0.6%
25 Jay Fiedler UFA 1,581 0.6%
Only includes QBs who debuted since 1994 (min. 1,000 passes)
The cream really rose to the top here and 13 of the top 20 quarterbacks were first-round picks, not counting Brees who would be a first-rounder in the current draft (he went 32nd overall). We'll stick to drafted players for the rest of this article, but four undrafted guys cracked the list with a surprising appearance from Jay Fiedler.



Overall we have a better shot in Top 4 than any other time. After Rd 3 forget about it. This article is all about the "wait" scenarios

 

[Sydla]

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.

How about the success rate of drafting a QB in the Top 5?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I see the media continues to perpetuate the myth that drafting quarterbacks and sitting them on the bench to do nothing is a strategy, as well as the myth that this is the last year the NFL is holding a draft.

 

[pjtoadie]

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.

That's my nightmare too!

 

[Stash]

I don't know who you're specifically referring to, but I strongly suspect it's not true and that instead you'd be referring to a situation and comparing apples and oranges. But let me know what you're getting at, and I'll definitely look into it.

Each and every quarterback called upon by this team not named Romo since Troy Aikman retired. Anyone that this team has called upon outside of Tony Romo, from wherever they've looked, has been a failure.

If you want to blame the organization for not taking the QB position seriously, I'm all on board with that. It's just got literally nothing to do with our ability to develop somebody once we bring a player with actual skills on board.

And there it is, it's all on the players with zero accountability required of the coaches.

As for Rex Grossman, the guy was a borderline starter, but he did get his team to a Superbowl. His career was derailed by injuries as much as by his borderline ability, but he's not a good example of an abject failure given he hung around the league for 10 years or so and started for multiple teams.

He's a good example that details this theory that poor Wade Wilson has never had anything to work with. He had a first rounder and the only thing he developed was a journeyman backup.

As I said above, you can't just ignore the presence of Tony Romo and put all your weight on the players who didn't develop. You have to be fair and evaluate the entire body of work. Especially when so much work has specifically gone into our ten-year starting QB.

I'm not ignoring Romo, but I'm not giving Garrett or Wislon credit for the work that people like Payton and Parcells did either. Both of those guys have proven to be successful with other quarterbacks too, while Garrett and Wilson have failed with every other quarterback they've worked with.

And, for the love of God, can we please have normal discussions without the jabs at accountability and expectations? You're a better poster than that, stash. I really like our coaching staff, for the record, but I'm torn on Wilson. I've said repeatedly that Tony had more good things to say about David Lee than I've ever heard him say about Wade. I happen to legitimately think it's absurd for you to look at a staff that includes three QBs who played in the NFL for a combined couple of decades, who have coached for a couple more combined decades, and a roster that's got a borderline allpro starter on in and conclude we don't have the talent or the experience to develop a rookie QB. And I don't use the term 'absurd' lightly.

While I think it's more "absurd" to look at a staff hoping to see results that aren't there because you wish that they were. It's not a jab at you and you shouldn't take it that way. What it is, is openly questioning the accountability for coaches who aren't doing their jobs. There's simply no excuse for this 'collection of quarterbacks' to be so bad at having capable resources at the position, save for one undrafted free agent they were gifted with by other coaches, proven to be more capable, when they showed up.

Our issue has been not dedicating resources to the position group. I say that critically and with all the expectation and accountability I can muster.

And nobody's trying to make some case otherwise. But the fact is that Garrett, Wilson, and Linehan have been a part of this entire process as well. And any assumptions that they're 'victims' of this process is ridiculous. But you want so very badly for this thing to work that you'll continue to try to absolve these coaches of their share of the blame. The same guys who thought Weeden was 'good enough' or that Cassel was 'the answer' when that failed.

Put the blame where it belongs instead of burying your head in the sand just to have something else to complain about and then assuming the people you're talking to are the ones who are unwilling to be reasonable about the mistakes this team makes.

You don't get to use phrases like this when you're the guy "burying your head in the sand" when it comes to a staff built on your own hopes rather than their actual results of doing their jobs. I know full well about the mistakes this team makes. And I also know about the significant role these coaches are playing in those mistakes.

I'm just tired of everyone else being scape-goated while the coaches that people continue to 'hope' eventually work out fail to do their own jobs.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

That's my nightmare too!

And mine.

 

[Idgit]

Each and every quarterback called upon by this team not named Romo since Troy Aikman retired. Anyone that this team has called upon outside of Tony Romo, from wherever they've looked, has been a failure.

And there it is, it's all on the players with zero accountability required of the coaches.

He's a good example that details this theory that poor Wade Wilson has never had anything to work with. He had a first rounder and the only thing he developed was a journeyman backup.

I'm not ignoring Romo, but I'm not giving Garrett or Wislon credit for the work that people like Payton and Parcells did either. Both of those guys have proven to be successful with other quarterbacks too, while Garrett and Wilson have failed with every other quarterback they've worked with.

While I think it's more "absurd" to look at a staff hoping to see results that aren't there because you wish that they were. It's not a jab at you and you shouldn't take it that way. What it is, is openly questioning the accountability for coaches who aren't doing their jobs. There's simply no excuse for this 'collection of quarterbacks' to be so bad at having capable resources at the position, save for one undrafted free agent they were gifted with by other coaches, proven to be more capable, when they showed up.

And nobody's trying to make some case otherwise. But the fact is that Garrett, Wilson, and Linehan have been a part of this entire process as well. And any assumptions that they're 'victims' of this process is ridiculous. But you want so very badly for this thing to work that you'll continue to try to absolve these coaches of their share of the blame. The same guys who thought Weeden was 'good enough' or that Cassel was 'the answer' when that failed.

You don't get to use phrases like this when you're the guy "burying your head in the sand" when it comes to a staff built on your own hopes rather than their actual results of doing their jobs. I know full well about the mistakes this team makes. And I also know about the significant role these coaches are playing in those mistakes.

I'm just tired of everyone else being scape-goated while the coaches that people continue to 'hope' eventually work out fail to do their own jobs.

These threaded discussions become too unwieldy, so I'll condense my response. I'll just categorically dismiss the idea that QBs who've failed here have been successful elsewhere, since you won't specify who you're talking about. Like it or not, this game does come down the players, and like it or not, we've had very good QB play in Dallas during the period you're complaining about here. You can't just point at a late first QB who played 10 years in the league and got his team to the Superbowl, discount Tony Romo by giving all the credit for him to other coaches who were also instrumental in his development, and conclude a guy can't coach.

We can disagree on what's absurd. I've said already that we're a team that's devoted fewer resources to the QB position in the Romo era than literally every other team in the league. And we've had good QB play during that time. If that's grounds for an indictment of the coaches somehow in your mind, it is what it is.

And I'll use the phrase 'buried in the sand' whenever you chose to bury your head in the sand, thank you. If you think I've got it buried in the sand re: this coaching staff, that's a debate we can definitely have again in the appropriate thread. Unsurprisingly, I think I'm on pretty good footing there, as well, and I don't mind a bit if 95% of the forum vehemently disagrees with that. But I guess we'll find out at some point.

 

[silver]

I think they'll swap firsts with someone in the mid first and take Lynch.

That's about as cute as they can afford to get.

I could live with this.

 

[Stash]

These threaded discussions become too unwieldy, so I'll condense my response. I'll just categorically dismiss the idea that QBs who've failed here have been successful elsewhere, since you won't specify who you're talking about. Like it or not, this game does come down the players, and like it or not, we've had very good QB play in Dallas during the period you're complaining about here. You can't just point at a late first QB who played 10 years in the league and got his team to the Superbowl, discount Tony Romo by giving all the credit for him to other coaches who were also instrumental in his development, and conclude a guy can't coach.

But you can point to Grossman and throw out the blanket statement that he " got his team to the Super Bowl", hoping I guess that people don't actually look into the how and why the Bears actually got there and how pedestrian Grossman's numbers were throughout his career. He had as much to do with his team being there as Trent Dilfer did for his. Both got there due to a dominant defense. Like it or not, it's a coaches job to put players in position to succeed.

We can disagree on what's absurd. I've said already that we're a team that's devoted fewer resources to the QB position in the Romo era than literally every other team in the league. And we've had good QB play during that time. If that's grounds for an indictment of the coaches somehow in your mind, it is what it is.

Other than Romo himself, where is this "good QB play" you're claiming? Support that with facts. Show me the wins. The fact is, that until that gift from Desean Jackson, this team hadn't won a game with a backup quarterback in 5 years!

And I'll use the phrase 'buried in the sand' whenever you chose to bury your head in the sand, thank you. If you think I've got it buried in the sand re: this coaching staff, that's a debate we can definitely have again in the appropriate thread. Unsurprisingly, I think I'm on pretty good footing there, as well, and I don't mind a bit if 95% of the forum vehemently disagrees with that. But I guess we'll find out at some point.

And you'll get the phrase turned back on you when it's obviously the case.

All talk with nothing to support it. You can go ahead and think whatever you want, but the fact is that you've got nothing tangible to support it. All it consists of is what you hope happens and what you'd like to happen. There's no "footing" there at all.

 

[Idgit]

But you can point to Grossman and throw out the blanket statement that he " got his team to the Super Bowl", hoping I guess that people don't actually look into the how and why the Bears actually got there and how pedestrian Grossman's numbers were throughout his career. He had as much to do with his team being there as Trent Dilfer did for his. Both got there due to a dominant defense. Like it or not, it's a coaches job to put players in position to succeed.

Other than Romo himself, where is this "good QB play" you're claiming? Support that with facts. Show me the wins. The fact is, that until that gift from Desean Jackson, this team hadn't won a game with a backup quarterback in 5 years!

And you'll get the phrase turned back on you when it's obviously the case.

All talk with nothing to support it. You can go ahead and think whatever you want, but the fact is that you've got nothing tangible to support it. All it consists of is what you hope happens and what you'd like to happen. There's no "footing" there at all.

Oh, I've readily admitted TrainRex Grossman was a mediocre football player. My point was that if he's good enough to get any team to a Superbowl, then he's not great support for your argument that his QB coach bombed in his development.

And I'm obviously claiming Romo is the good QB play. And reiterating that you can't simply discount the one player who's dominated that position in Dallas for the period we're talking about. I didn't think I really needed to support the fact that we've had good QB play in Dallas under Romo with facts. We both know it's the case.

And again, this discussion is not a referendum on the entire coaching staff. This thread is about drafting and developing a QB. I can support my coaching staff argument--the same way I always do and with the expectation that it'll get completely ignored the same way it always is--in an appropriate thread for that discussion. If you want to have that conversation right now, pick your favorite Idgit post in the Coaches/Front Office Zone and we can pick things up there.

 

[Stash]

Oh, I've readily admitted TrainRex Grossman was a mediocre football player. My point was that if he's good enough to get any team to a Superbowl, then he's not great support for your argument that his QB coach bombed in his development.

And if you think he "got his team there" you're selling a bill of goods nobody is buying.

And I'm obviously claiming Romo is the good QB play. And reiterating that you can't simply discount the one player who's dominated that position in Dallas for the period we're talking about. I didn't think I really needed to support the fact that we've had good QB play in Dallas under Romo with facts. We both know it's the case.

And one 'hit' who was here before any of these guys got here - doesn't erase the other history of failure after failure after failure.

And again, this discussion is not a referendum on the entire coaching staff. This thread is about drafting and developing a QB. I can support my coaching staff argument--the same way I always do and with the expectation that it'll get completely ignored the same way it always is--in an appropriate thread for that discussion. If you want to have that conversation right now, pick your favorite Idgit post in the Coaches/Front Office Zone and we can pick things up there.

I don't need to bother with yet another conversation based on nothing more than what someone wants to happen vs what has in fact happened. You can keep that to yourself.

 

[Idgit]

And if you think he "got his team there" you're selling a bill of goods nobody is buying.

And one 'hit' who was here before any of these guys got here - doesn't erase the other history of failure after failure after failure.

I don't need to bother with yet another conversation based on nothing more than what someone wants to happen vs what has in fact happened. You can keep that to yourself.

We're not getting anywhere. I can keep saying 'you're ignoring two positive examples on one of the coaches' resumes, and then pointing at failure with a bunch of very low probability players' all afternoon. If you won't recognize that, that's fine, but it means that your argument in this case is not a good one.

*This* topic we're discussing is the ability of this staff/team to develop a quality player into an NFL starting QB. You're saying the Alex Tanney's and Dustin Vaughan's and Brandon Weeden's and Matt Cassel's of the world prove that they cannot. I'm saying that's not a very fair measurement because it's a string of street free agents, failed draft picks, and old players past their primes. I'm saying that where the organization has failed is in bringing in adequate talent and not in not being able to 'coach up' inadequate talent.

Sure, players like Grossman or Stafford or Stanton or Bulger aren't great players, but they're not awful. Throw in Romo--as any reasonable person would given the amount of time these coaches have spent working with Romo--and there's absolutely no reason be categorically insisting the staff will fail with a talented young rookie. And less to suggest that I'm the one not able to be objective. Face it, stash. You're overreacting here again because you've got a bone in your mouth and you don't want to let go of it. You don't know what this staff might do with a quality QB prospect because you haven't seen it other than what they've done with Tony Romo.

As for the coaching debate, that's perfectly fine if you don't want to actually have that discussion. But then don't drag it into this topic in a lame attempt to paint me as somebody who won't see reality.

 

[visionary]

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?

All these questions are completely irrelevant to the fact that he is set to make millions and millions more as long as the cowboys don't have a legitimate top 5 potential starter behind him

 

[Doc50]

All these questions are completely irrelevant to the fact that he is set to make millions and millions more as long as the cowboys don't have a legitimate top 5 potential starter behind him

Yes, he will get reimbursed as long as he can fulfill the terms of his contract, which requires a high level of performance -- a level that all interested parties will still be happy with. He will be the first one to recognise when he can no longer lead the team, and his level of expertise has become inadequate.

If that doesn't make sense, then you don't understand the mind of an elite athlete and team leader.

Your premise would suggest that most anyone would be content with their own insufficient performance in order to get paid.
That doesn't seem visionary.