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

[DFWJC]

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.

1 week

 

[big dog cowboy]

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.

 

[gimmesix]

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

OK, let's see.

I'm not going to include Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota or Blake Bortles because I don't think we've had time to see if their careers will be successful ... but please feel free to include them if you want.

That starts us with:

2012: Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III

2011: Cam Newton

2010: Sam Bradford

2009: Matthew Stafford

2008: Matt Ryan

2007: JaMarcus Russell

2006: Vince Young

2005: Alex Smith

2004: Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers

2003: Carson Palmer

2002: David Carr, Joey Harrington

2001: Michael Vick

I want to stop there because this gives us the same size sample as the previous group. The first problem we encounter is how do you measure success? To me, Vick, Bradford and Griffin were not successful first-round QBs, even though they have had some degree of success at times in their careers. The main reason I don't consider them successes is because they weren't a long-term solution to their teams' QB problems.

That gives me eight QBs who have had successful careers and seven who have not. Now, if you classify Vick, Bradford and Griffin as successes, the rate obviously goes up.

Possibly it goes up as well if you include more years into the equation (but maybe not because I just looked at the previous couple of years when there were none taken in the first five picks in 2000 and three — Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb and Akili Smith — in 1999.)

After researching this, it makes me feel like we might be better off taking one at 34 instead of 4 ... and I'm a little surprised at that. I expected the success rate of the top five to be much higher.

 

[big dog cowboy]

*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.

Quoted for truth. Huge difference.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

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.

Farve and Brees, are the only ones on the list who became starters and stars..... Even Cunningham had an on and off career. I guess Esiason, but still, that's 3 or 4 our of 15.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think Mosley is reading too much into Romo text. I'm glad Romo is healing nicely and feels he will be ready for OTA after all he is the starting QB. As for his activities, how is this any different from any other off season except for the fact he is no longer playing golf? I don't think Romo being ready to go this season has any impact pro or con on Dallas taking a QB or not.

 

[gimmesix]

Farve and Brees, are the only ones on the list who became starters and stars..... Even Cunningham had an on and off career. I guess Esiason, but still, that's 3 or 4 our of 15.

Success is relative. The same could be said of the first-round group I posted. Cam Newton became a star last year, Eli has two rings, Rivers, maybe?

I consider Favre, Brees, Dalton, Kaepernick, Cunningham, Esiason, Lomax and Jawroski all to have had successful careers.

I probably should not have included Carr because whether his career will be successful hasn't been determined.

Match up the two lists I've given, though, and I don't think we really can say there is a distinctive different in the levels of success.

 

[visionary]

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.

I prefer to look at things in the light of human nature and common sense

Show me a person who tells you he does not want 15 million dollars and I will show you a liar

I don't think I should have to connect the dots for you

But you are welcome to your 'holier than thou' statements

 

[Stash]

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.

Starting with the fact that nobody other than you is going to consider Rex Grossman a "positive example". You're trying to bluff people here by saying that Grossman "took his team to a Super Bowl" when the fact is that the guy did little if anything to contribute to it. In fact, he was nearly benched to start the season and was nearly replaced by Brian Griese! This "success" you want to try to point to consisted of a mediocre season of 23 TD's vs 20 INT's. That's not a "positive example".

*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.

And what does it say when both Brandon Weeden and Matt Cassel both got jobs with other teams? To me it says they're not as "terrible" as this staff made them look. The rest of the NFL doesn't agree with the fan theory that it's all on the players.

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.

I think that you need to "face it" that this bunch sucks at identifying, developing, and flat-out coaching quarterbacks. Instead of doing their jobs and putting players in the best position for success, they're actually part of the problem. Romo had four years of quality coaching and was this team's starting quarterback before any of these guys ever got here, but you want to credit them with his development. Sorry, no sell.

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.

I don't have to, their actual record as coaches does it for me.

 

[unionjack8]

yep draft wentz or goff and stop being so blase about the position

 

[Idgit]

Starting with the fact that nobody other than you is going to consider Rex Grossman a "positive example". You're trying to bluff people here by saying that Grossman "took his team to a Super Bowl" when the fact is that the guy did little if anything to contribute to it. In fact, he was nearly benched to start the season and was nearly replaced by Brian Griese! This "success" you want to try to point to consisted of a mediocre season of 23 TD's vs 20 INT's. That's not a "positive example".

And what does it say when both Brandon Weeden and Matt Cassel both got jobs with other teams? To me it says they're not as "terrible" as this staff made them look. The rest of the NFL doesn't agree with the fan theory that it's all on the players.

I think that you need to "face it" that this bunch sucks at identifying, developing, and flat-out coaching quarterbacks. Instead of doing their jobs and putting players in the best position for success, they're actually part of the problem. Romo had four years of quality coaching and was this team's starting quarterback before any of these guys ever got here, but you want to credit them with his development. Sorry, no sell.

I don't have to, their actual record as coaches does it for me.

I'm not holding up Rex Grossman as a shining example of QB play. I'm saying a 10 year NFL veteran and Superbowl-qualifying player is not a good example of *your* argument that NFL pro-bowl player and now QB coach Wade Wilson is so terrible he can't be trusted to develop a rookie QB. There's a big difference there.

13-3. Superbowl qualifier. You can't both pretend Dallas losses are all about QB play and the Bears wins were everything but QB play, stash.

And the Weeden Cassel stuff we've hashed over and over. No, the fact that they were picked up by other QB needy teams doesn't imply that our coaches were especially bad in any way, shape or form. It illustrates that there are not enough capable backup QBs to go around in this league. Which we all know. Why would it suggest anything else? Unless we're conveniently forgetting the other half of the winning-football equation again for some reason: you have to stop the bad guys from passing, too.

I forgot that holding the team accountable for play on both sides of the ball is considered bad form in these QB discussions.

You need to face the fact that there has been exactly one quality starting player in the QB lineup in Dallas in recent years. That nobody in their right minds would ding a coach for not developing Stephen McGee or Brooks Bollinger into a 10 year starter. And that, between the three of coaches here there's a string of coached QBs that includes Tony Romo, Matt Stafford, Marc Bulger, Trent Green, Kyle Orton (both as a rookie with the Bears and as a backup in Dallas) and even Troy Aikman. That's a lot of experience.

And, for the record,Tony Romo got here in 2006. Wade Wilson returned in 2007.

 

[AzorAhai]

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.

The part about his contract is completely untrue. They can cut him as soon as next year and save 5-6 million on the cap. More so if they June 1st cut him. Even an outright cut + plus a QBs taken at 4 salary would be a push for Romos cap hit alone in 2017.

The only way it kills the cap is if they try to sign a replacement via FA.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

The problem is when it comes to rounds 2-7..................Dallas has been abysmal in those rounds in recent years

Most of the guys drafted either suck, are developmental, or never see the field (the famous 2nd round TEs as an example).

Teams that can only draft in the first round end up with good starters, but very little to no depth. As a result, a few injuries can decimate the team. Sound familiar?

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

I don't know about all 11, but you dam well can be sure that defenses are going to "test that clavicle out" if you know what I mean.

I fully expect teams to go after Romo, to not only test the stability of the clavicle but to also test if Romo is at all gun shy about stepping into a hit or will he have happy feet?

Its what I would do if I was an opposing DC.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Whatever for?

So the team doesn't go 1-11 when the starter goes down?

Denver's backup QB played 7.5 games and they won the SB..............our backup QBs played 12 games and lost 11 of them.

One team spent a 2nd round pick on their backup and the other team picked up players from the scrap heap for their backups.....guess who is who.

 

[Stash]

And, for the record,Tony Romo got here in 2006. Wade Wilson returned in 2007.

Check your "record". Romo was here since 2003.

 

[Doc50]

I prefer to look at things in the light of human nature and common sense

Show me a person who tells you he does not want 15 million dollars and I will show you a liar

I don't think I should have to connect the dots for you

But you are welcome to your 'holier than thou' statements

The condescension isn't necessary -- I'm not holier than anyone.

That dollar figure is relative. Tony has plenty of money already, enough that hiding it becomes a challenge.

I'm sorry, but I'm more into respect instead of disrespect -- that's the reason for my common sense support of Romo's efforts and commitment so far. And he'll play well as long as he can.

But again, the payment is for services rendered.
If he's physically or emotionally done, it won't be his decision to draw a paycheck or not - he'll be released.

 

[Idgit]

Check your "record". Romo was here since 2003.

Oops! My bad. I was only looking at his starting seasons.

 

[Idgit]

So the team doesn't go 1-11 when the starter goes down?

Denver's backup QB played 7.5 games and they won the SB..............our backup QBs played 12 games and lost 11 of them.

One team spent a 2nd round pick on their backup and the other team picked up players from the scrap heap for their backups.....guess who is who.

It's almost like one of those teams had the other side of the equation to lean on when their starter went down, and the other one did not. Or one of them got a passing efficiency boost when the starter went down, and the other did not. Weird.

And you know I'm all with you on the backup QB thing. We blew that. My whole point here is that the issue was not having an adequate player in place and not a problem with a coaching staff that could make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[Beast_from_East]

It's almost like one of those teams had the other side of the equation to lean on when their starter went down, and the other one did not. Or one of them got a passing efficiency boost when the starter went down, and the other did not. Weird.

And you know I'm all with you on the backup QB thing. We blew that. My whole point here is that the issue was not having an adequate player in place and not a problem with a coaching staff that could make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Denver made have had a great defense, but Osweiller put up some dam good numbers himself......that is why he is a very wealthy man right now.

I get that the backups we had were complete crap and so there was nothing to really coach up, but I do hold the coaching staff responsible for not recognizing such a huge hole in the roster.

If the head coach stands there in practice every day watching Weeden take first team reps with the offense, he doesn't get a pass when the crap hits the fan. If Garrett cant judge talent and has no idea if a QB is any good or not, that is on him just as much as its on the player. Weeden didn't just show up one day, he was here for 2 entire seasons and everybody from Garrett on down sung his praises.

Now when Weeden turns out to suck, Garrett cant say that he had nothing to work with...........maybe he should have realized it over the past 2 seasons.

I think this is one area where criticism of Garrett and the coaching staff is warranted. This is not a "Garrett sucks" post either, I am simply saying that as a former offensive coordinator and QB coach himself, that Garrett deservers criticism when there are tangible outcomes that he is directly responsible for and if 3 different backups combine for a 1-11 record, the head coach doesn't get a pass, he should be asked why he didn't realize the backups all sucked.