No backup QBs?

[Kalyan]

I don't know why either of Romo/Henson didn't play in this game when before kickoff, we know we are out of playoffs? why not give half a game to Romo and another half to Henson

 

[BigDFan5]

I don't know why either of Romo/Henson didn't play in this game when before kickoff, we know we are out of playoffs? why not give half a game to Romo and another half to Henson

Because you play to win the game. Please dont respond with "we need to know what we have ect ect" one game wouldnt show anyone a damn thing

 

[big dog cowboy]

Because we played to win (supposedly) and Bledsoe gives us the best chance for that.

 

[Clove]

I don't buy it, Bledsoe didn't give us a chance to do squat, and neither did Vinny T.

IMO, BP is not interested in the future of the Dallas Cowboys meaning (He could care less about seeing what Henson/Romo has, he's going with what he knows since he's in a hurry)

 

[Fletch]

Yeah okay! So why didn't any of our backup QB's play again? What would it have hurt? Honestly?

We are in the business of improving from top to bottom right? Isn't finding out whether Romo or Henson can play worth that?

:bang2:

 

[blindzebra]

Because you play to win the game. Please dont respond with "we need to know what we have ect ect" one game wouldnt show anyone a damn thing

We sure looked like we were playing to win.

 

[BigDFan5]

Yeah okay! So why didn't any of our backup QB's play again? What would it have hurt? Honestly?

We are in the business of improving from top to bottom right? Isn't finding out whether Romo or Henson can play worth that?

:bang2:

And would 1 game or 1 half for each shown us ANYTHING? heck no

 

[BigDFan5]

We sure looked like we were playing to win.

Just because you dont win does not mean you werent playing to win

 

[blindzebra]

Just because you dont win does not mean you werent playing to win

Yep, our OL gave it their all.

The entire offense came out flat and uninspired, it was pathetic.

But hey, rationalizations make the world go round.

 

[BigDFan5]

Yep, our OL gave it their all.

The entire offense came out flat and uninspired, it was pathetic.

But hey, rationalizations make the world go round.

Like I said just because the team played bad does not mean they werent playing to win. they played badly.


What good would 1 single game or 1 half for each backup QB done anyway?

 

[Clove]

Nothing for BP, cause he doesn't want to see it, or us to see it. If it sucks, then fine... We know slightly what we have. You have to turn over every stone when you're not an organization of championship caliber.

 

[blindzebra]

Like I said just because the team played bad does not mean they werent playing to win. they played badly.


What good would 1 single game or 1 half for each backup QB done anyway?

When one has thrown 18 passes and the other 0, what does it accomplish sitting them?

How many 2nd and 3rd string players were playing for teams in meaningless games today?

The game was meaningless and we played like it.

We should have played the back ups.

 

[BigDFan5]

When one has thrown 18 passes and the other 0, what does it accomplish sitting them?

How many 2nd and 3rd string players were playing for teams in meaningless games today?

The game was meaningless and we played like it.

We should have played the back ups.

your avoiding the question I am asking. Other than just playing them for the hell of it what would it have accomplished? I mean give me a solid reason that Parcells should have told his team instead of giving his team the best chance to win and play there starting QB he was gonna go with some backups. Would one game have done anything??? at all??

 

[Clove]

your avoiding the question I am asking. Other than just playing them for the hell of it what would it have accomplished? I mean give me a solid reason that Parcells should have told his team instead of giving his team the best chance to win and play there starting QB he was gonna go with some backups. Would one game have done anything??? at all??

My question to you is, is Bledsoe the future of this team? If not, then when are we going to search for him? What if he's Romo or Henson, how would we know? Maybe he's in the draft....

I know Bledsoe is not the answer, I've seen it all year long. He makes as many plays as any normal QB, but he doesn't have "IT". You know the "IT" that seperates you from the average guys.

 

[BigDFan5]

My question to you is, is Bledsoe the future of this team? If not, then when are we going to search for him? What if he's Romo or Henson, how would we know? Maybe he's in the draft....

I know Bledsoe is not the answer, I've seen it all year long. He makes as many plays as any normal QB, but he doesn't have "IT". You know the "IT" that seperates you from the average guys.

No Bledsoe is not the future but Say Romo or henson came in and sucked does that mean they arent the future?? Say they did really well does that mean they are the future?? Its one game playing them would have done 0 to show anything about the future of the team

 

[blindzebra]

your avoiding the question I am asking. Other than just playing them for the hell of it what would it have accomplished? I mean give me a solid reason that Parcells should have told his team instead of giving his team the best chance to win and play there starting QB he was gonna go with some backups. Would one game have done anything??? at all??

You are the one avoiding all the questions.

One game's experience is better than ZERO experience.

There was no logical reason not to have played Romo at the end of the WAS game, and there was no reason not to against STL.

None, nada, zip.

The best chance to win BS, is the lamest argument in the world. Followed closely by the what good would one game do.

 

[TunaFan33]

My question to you is, is Bledsoe the future of this team? If not, then when are we going to search for him? What if he's Romo or Henson, how would we know? Maybe he's in the draft....

I know Bledsoe is not the answer, I've seen it all year long. He makes as many plays as any normal QB, but he doesn't have "IT". You know the "IT" that seperates you from the average guys.

FWIW-it's also a head-scratcher how Brunell, despite not being the answer or future in DC either, is somehow getting the job done there. Isn't he like 35?

Sure-we can bicker all we want how many bad moves Parcells made. However-lots of teams in recent years have had big success with more glaring weaknesses than we have now-so why couldn't we do it?

 

[BigDFan5]

You are the one avoiding all the questions.

One game's experience is better than ZERO experience.

There was no logical reason not to have played Romo at the end of the WAS game, and there was no reason not to against STL.

None, nada, zip.

The best chance to win BS, is the lamest argument in the world. Followed closely by the what good would one game do.

1 game and zero is basically the same makes no difference.


Go tell the professional athletes having the best chance to win is lame. they lay their livleyhood on the line everytime they suit up and you call it lame that they wanna win instead of give some kid 1 game experience while they get their ***** kicked?

 

[kojak]

You know I have heard Parcells talk about some good things that Romo brings to the table. 1 thing he liked about the kid is that he could avoid the sack. Seems to have an instinct for it.

Well why not play him? We have nothing to gain at this point other than double didgit wins. Our O-line is playing pathetic. So why not bring out the statue and put the kid(who can aviod a sack) to try and win the game for you.

Maybe the Rams would back off the line, since they are stacking and blitzing just to get to Bledsoe. IF Parcells is playing to win, why not try to counter what the Rams are trying to do. It makes no sense to me. Hell just bring Romo in for a few series and see how it goes. At this point leaving Drew in the game isn't working.

 

[blindzebra]

You know I have heard Parcells talk about some good things that Romo brings to the table. 1 thing he liked about the kid is that he could avoid the sack. Seems to have an instinct for it.

Well why not play him? We have nothing to gain at this point other than double didgit wins. Our O-line is playing pathetic. So why not bring out the statue and put the kid(who can aviod a sack) to try and win the game for you.

Maybe the Rams would back off the line, since they are stacking and blitzing just to get to Bledsoe. IF Parcells is playing to win, why not try to counter what the Rams are trying to do. It makes no sense to me. Hell just bring Romo in for a few series and see how it goes. At this point leaving Drew in the game isn't working.

You bring logic to a rhetoric and cliche fight?

Shame on you.