Now that we've had a dose of reality....

[wileedog]

I've watched football for many years and I know that eventually, time catches up with all of us. I just believe that Bledsoe is at or near that point in his career. I believed this when we signed him.

Which is all well and good, but I still don't understand how the team's chances are really any better having another has-been or never-was on the team. There is an extremely short supply of even semi-decent backup QBs in the league, primarly because if they are any good, there is someone who will start them.

Having a Vinny or Kerry Collins on this roster would do little for my peace of mind should Bledsoe falter - IMO its just more of the same.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, he just would have waited until Bledsoe sucked to post it.

How long do you think that would have taken Cassidy?

It is disingenious of you to imply something here. I am on record on my opinions and why I have them. Unfortunate that this is what it comes down to when you are simply restating what you have already said. I suppose it is what I should expect but not from you.

 

[cobra]

Sorry, not to be insulting, but thats a dumb question. Its like saying, would you still send a person to gallows if he didn't commit those crimes? I know its probably a rediculous analogy, but thats how that question is to me.

It's actually a very good question because it belies an important distinction: if the answer is "yes" and ABQ would have posted the same thing if Bledsoe had a good game ("I still hate him"), then that permits us to evaluate ABQ's argument as one that exists independent of Bledsoe's performance. If the the answer is "no" and ABQ would not have posted the same thing if Blesdoe had a good game ("Well, though I hate him, he played well"), then that permits us to evaluate this post as a knee jerk use of a single bad game to advance an agenda.

Either way, it shows that the poster in question, despite ostensibly trying to link his comments to the actual game, did not post based solely on this games performance or an evaluation of how Bledsoe looked or might look in the coming season. Rather, it shows that he was using this game as a pretext to ride his hobby horse about Bledsoe. And it is evident to anyone that you cannot expect a reasonable, balanced evaluation (that is, a reasonable perspective) from someone who is more concerned with the preconceived biases or agenda then actually and fairly interpreting the play in a game.

Now, if the answer is that his view of Bledsoe would have changed based on the game, then that is someone we might be interested in because that shows that its someone who is reasonably evaluating players based on their play.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Wow. I guess we only remember the good days.

Aikman had days that bad (and worse). They all do.

For instance, in 2000, Aikman put up the following numbers in a game against the NYG:

Comp: 22
Att: 42
Yards: 211
TD: 1
Int: 5

And in that game Aikman was throwing to who? A TO? A Glenn and a Whitten? And Cowboys were up and cruising along? Because I remember that game pretty well and Aikman had a bad game. But circumstances were totally different.

Heck you can bring up any QB and they will have bad games. Tom BRady had one yesterday? But why? Because he didn't have weapons, and Since Genious Bill Belichek figured Brady didn't need any weapons to succeed.

One Staple of Bledsoe always has been that he makes critical mistakes at wrong time. Thats not just me or some here saying. You can hear the same thing said by any NFL analyst or scout for that matter. Lets not pretend that, it doesn't happen frequently with Bledsoe.

Now, I don't like the option of ROmo there instead. I prefer Bledsoe even now, since I do think or hope that he can bounce back. But stop pretending that Bledsoe never had frequent issues like this. Heck last year a Buffalo writer was predicting this very same thing ( melt down in second half and then downhill from there next year, and I Hope he is wrong).

 

[Dough Boy]

It's actually a very good question because it belies an important distinction: if the answer is "yes" and ABQ would have posted the same thing if Bledsoe had a good game ("I still hate him"), then that permits us to evaluate ABQ's argument as one that exists independent of Bledsoe's performance. If the the answer is "no" and ABQ would not have posted the same thing if Blesdoe had a good game ("Well, though I hate him, he played well"), then that permits us to evaluate this post as a knee jerk use of a single bad game to advance an agenda.

Either way, it shows that the poster in question, despite ostensibly trying to link his comments to the actual game, did not post based solely on this games performance or an evaluation of how Bledsoe looked or might look in the coming season. Rather, it shows that he was using this game as a pretext to ride his hobby horse about Bledsoe. And it is evident to anyone that you cannot expect a reasonable, balanced evaluation (that is, a reasonable perspective) from someone who is more concerned with the preconceived biases or agenda then actually and fairly interpreting the play in a game.

Now, if the answer is that his view of Bledsoe would have changed based on the game, then that is someone we might be interested in because that shows that its someone who is reasonably evaluating players based on their play.

Very well balanced, reasoned and logical approach.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Which is all well and good, but I still don't understand how the team's chances are really any better having another has-been or never-was on the team. There is an extremely short supply of even semi-decent backup QBs in the league, primarly because if they are any good, there is someone who will start them.

Having a Vinny or Kerry Collins on this roster would do little for my peace of mind should Bledsoe falter - IMO its just more of the same.

Possably but we took the same approach with Griese and Johnson and even the last couple of weeks with Volek. Listen, none of them are HOF QBs but then were not talking about replacing QBs who are playing like HOF QBs. Our situation is unique, in that I believe we have some talent to do some things this year. If we have the chance to sign a very decent QB with starting experience, we should do that. If we are serious about trying to make a run, that is. If we are not, then OK. We should just sit back and let it unfold. If the long range goal for this year is to go with Bledsoe and hope he can stay healthy, then that's OK. I don't believe the chances of this are very good but OK. If the back up plan is that if Bledsoe goes down, then move to development mod with Romo and get him ready, again OK. I'm fine with this too but hell, whey don't we just do that from the start. This is not the plan that I feel has been represented to the fan base. The plan was to win this year, if at all possible. I do not believe that if Bledsoe goes down, Romo can step in and QB us to the playoffs. I believe that young man has talent and with playing time could develope but I hold no expectation of him being able to step in and get it done this year. What could it have hurt to go out and see if we could obtain a guy who might be able to win games for us? I guess to much.

 

[dboyz]

Actually, my response will be that if Bledsoe is, in fact hurt, and can't go, we will be forced with the option of playing Barker as our backup or paying too much for a player that is not very good. Neither is very appealing to me. I don't dispute what the team believes about Romo. In fact, if Bledsoe can not go, I'm probably in favor of putting Romo in and letting him get experience in preperation for the next season. Having said that, I definatly believe it means giving this one up in the process.

I'm not sure I really understand your position then. I thought your initial point was that we should have a vet on the roster so we had a decent option to Bledsoe if Bledsoe stinks. Is that not right?

If your point is that if Bledsoe goes down and Romo plays the backup will be a poor option. Yeah that is true and is the case with about 31 other teams. Nobody wants to play their 3rd QB and if you have to play your 3rd QB, basically the season is over.

Let say if Bledsoe is lost for the season, Romo plays and then we either promote Baker if we have any confidence or we go out and sign someone to backup, possibly someone with experience in our system like a Quincy Carter, Henson, Testaverde, Ray Lucas, etc. Or a Tim Couch or Mike McMahon.

 

[Stautner]

Which is all well and good, but I still don't understand how the team's chances are really any better having another has-been or never-was on the team. There is an extremely short supply of even semi-decent backup QBs in the league, primarly because if they are any good, there is someone who will start them.

Having a Vinny or Kerry Collins on this roster would do little for my peace of mind should Bledsoe falter - IMO its just more of the same.

Obviously it's all in perception. While you obviosly don't believe in Romo's potential, many others do. I personally don't see how any reasonable person could have watched the preseason and not admit that Romo has potential and at least has a chance to succeed. Obviously that doesn't mean that he will - the only way to know will be when and if he gets the chance to prove it, but it sure seems that any reasonable person would have to agree he at least has a chance.

By the way, a guy can't be a "has been" when he has yet to get a chance to play, and he can't be a "never was" until he retires without getting that chance or failing upon being given the chance. Right now he is only a "wait and see" or a "time will tell" - take your pick.

 

[wileedog]

Possably but we took the same approach with Griese and Johnson and even the last couple of weeks with Volek. Listen, none of them are HOF QBs but then were not talking about replacing QBs who are playing like HOF QBs. Our situation is unique, in that I believe we have some talent to do some things this year. If we have the chance to sign a very decent QB with starting experience, we should do that. If we are serious about trying to make a run, that is. If we are not, then OK. We should just sit back and let it unfold. If the long range goal for this year is to go with Bledsoe and hope he can stay healthy, then that's OK. I don't believe the chances of this are very good but OK. If the back up plan is that if Bledsoe goes down, then move to development mod with Romo and get him ready, again OK. I'm fine with this too but hell, whey don't we just do that from the start. This is not the plan that I feel has been represented to the fan base. The plan was to win this year, if at all possible. I do not believe that if Bledsoe goes down, Romo can step in and QB us to the playoffs. I believe that young man has talent and with playing time could develope but I hold no expectation of him being able to step in and get it done this year. What could it have hurt to go out and see if we could obtain a guy who might be able to win games for us? I guess to much.

Parcells got to the playoffs with Quincy. I really do believe he could do it with Romo.

And I'm sorry I just don't see any upside in Volek or Greise. If we can't win with Romo than I don't think we'll win anything with those guys either, and I would hate to give up a draft pick just to have some sort of non-reassuring insurance.

 

[RCowboyFan]

It's actually a very good question because it belies an important distinction: if the answer is "yes" and ABQ would have posted the same thing if Bledsoe had a good game ("I still hate him"), then that permits us to evaluate ABQ's argument as one that exists independent of Bledsoe's performance. If the the answer is "no" and ABQ would not have posted the same thing if Blesdoe had a good game ("Well, though I hate him, he played well"), then that permits us to evaluate this post as a knee jerk use of a single bad game to advance an agenda.

I actually understood what you were trying to get at. Sorry, thats the same old argument of prompting Agenda anytime someone doesn't like an argument. Its one thing, if a person consistantly shows that.

Quite a number of people seem to be bent on proving a Agenda, when something is not to their liking. Its not to say some people don't have agendas, but usually thats quite apparent, and they are usually consistant in what they say. Sure some are good at hiding it, but thats also easy to spot out.

 

[wileedog]

Obviously it's all in perception. While you obviosly don't believe in Romo's potential, many others do. I personally don't see how any reasonable person could have watched the preseason and not admit that Romo has potential and at least has a chance to succeed. Obviously that doesn't mean that he will - the only way to know will be when and if he gets the chance to prove it, but it sure seems that any reasonable person would have to agree he at least has a chance.

By the way, a guy can't be a "has been" when he has yet to get a chance to play, and he can't be a "never was" until he retires without getting that chance or failing upon being given the chance. Right now he is only a "wait and see" or a "time will tell" - take your pick.

I think you are confusing my point.

I don't want another guy who is basically a backup on the team, because I don't think they bring anything more than Romo will. Certainly not if we have to trade a decent draft pick to Tenn to get him.

I'm fine with 2 QBs because I think any team that gets to their 3rd QB is hosed anyway, and yes, I do think Romo can win in this league. I think he certainly can play a lot better than Drew did yesterday.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure I really understand your position then. I thought your initial point was that we should have a vet on the roster so we had a decent option to Bledsoe if Bledsoe stinks. Is that not right?

If your point is that if Bledsoe goes down and Romo plays the backup will be a poor option. Yeah that is true and is the case with about 31 other teams. Nobody wants to play their 3rd QB and if you have to play your 3rd QB, basically the season is over.

Let say if Bledsoe is lost for the season, Romo plays and then we either promote Baker if we have any confidence or we go out and sign someone to backup, possibly someone with experience in our system like a Quincy Carter, Henson, Testaverde, Ray Lucas, etc. Or a Tim Couch or Mike McMahon.

I believe that Bledsoe is our best option to win, make the playoffs and and outside chance (very outside IMO of a Super Bowl). I don't believe that Bledsoe had a bad game because he sucks. I believe he had issues with his health. Something was not right with him. Further, I think we are taking a big risk if we are betting everything on the hope that Bledsoe is not going to get hurt this year. Bledsoe is what he is. If we had the opportunity to bring in a guy like Volek, I would like to do that. I don't think Henson is the guy because he would be a lessor version of Romo. He has no experience either. I would probably take any of the QBs mentioned over Henson in that situation. See, this to me is the root of the problem. We are in a situation where we are faced to look at the Vinnies, and the Lucas' and the McMahon's of the world because we elect not to actively go out and spend money on a guy who might have been available to actually help us. This is the whole thing for me. I just don't understand why we wouldn't do this if we were serious about trying to win this year. We have the cap.

 

[Dough Boy]

I'm not sure I really understand your position then. I thought your initial point was that we should have a vet on the roster so we had a decent option to Bledsoe if Bledsoe stinks. Is that not right?

ABQ's initial points where:

Now that we've had a dose of reality....


Are there still those who contend that Bledsoe is a HOF QB?

Are there still those who believe Bledsoe will somehow carry us to a Super Bowl?

Are there those who still believe it was a good decision to go into the season with only two QBs?

For me, the answers to these questions are No, No and No. They were prior to the season and yesterday only confirmed these points even more so in Jacksonville.

He's inital point had nothing to do with Drew being injured. They were, Drew is not a HOF QB and Drew can't lead us to the SB. Becasue of the 1st 2, we need another QB on the roster.

 

[Stautner]

I think you are confusing my point.

I don't want another guy who is basically a backup on the team, because I don't think they bring anything more than Romo will. Certainly not if we have to trade a decent draft pick to Tenn to get him.

I'm fine with 2 QBs because I think any team that gets to their 3rd QB is hosed anyway, and yes, I do think Romo can win in this league. I think he certainly can play a lot better than Drew did yesterday.

I'm sorry, I obviously didn't read back far enough to realize that you were discussing the possibility of bringing in a new QB. I agree wholeheartedly that woudn't make sense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's actually a very good question because it belies an important distinction: if the answer is "yes" and ABQ would have posted the same thing if Bledsoe had a good game ("I still hate him"), then that permits us to evaluate ABQ's argument as one that exists independent of Bledsoe's performance. If the the answer is "no" and ABQ would not have posted the same thing if Blesdoe had a good game ("Well, though I hate him, he played well"), then that permits us to evaluate this post as a knee jerk use of a single bad game to advance an agenda.

Either way, it shows that the poster in question, despite ostensibly trying to link his comments to the actual game, did not post based solely on this games performance or an evaluation of how Bledsoe looked or might look in the coming season. Rather, it shows that he was using this game as a pretext to ride his hobby horse about Bledsoe. And it is evident to anyone that you cannot expect a reasonable, balanced evaluation (that is, a reasonable perspective) from someone who is more concerned with the preconceived biases or agenda then actually and fairly interpreting the play in a game.

Now, if the answer is that his view of Bledsoe would have changed based on the game, then that is someone we might be interested in because that shows that its someone who is reasonably evaluating players based on their play.

This line of thinking pressumes that I hate Bledsoe for the player. Here in lies the falicy. It is not a matter of like or dislike. HE IS WHAT HE IS. It is a matter of believing that if we set ourselves up to win this year, then what happens if the most important piece of the equation is no longer available? What happens if the linchpin turns up missing?

Look deeper then the base BS of I don't like this guy or that guy.

Now, if you've went out and spent big money on OLs and TO and whomever else because this is the year you intend to make your run, then why would you not address the issue of Bledsoe's ability to say healthy and what happens if he can't?

While very entertaining, your line of reasoning is less then complete. It takes a certain line of thought and extrapilates contingencies based on that specific line of thought. It doesn't account for any contigency or reasoning that do not fall into this convenient A/B representation.

 

[dboyz]

ABQ's initial points where:


He's inital point had nothing to do with Drew being injured. They were, Drew is not a HOF QB and Drew can't lead us to the SB. Becasue of the 1st 2, we need another QB on the roster.

What I was getting at was his point about keeping two QB's and his reasoning for that. Is it because we need a backup better than Romo or is it because we need an emergency 3rd string player that would backup Romo if Bledsoe goes down.

 

[dboyz]

I believe that Bledsoe is our best option to win, make the playoffs and and outside chance (very outside IMO of a Super Bowl). I don't believe that Bledsoe had a bad game because he sucks. I believe he had issues with his health. Something was not right with him. Further, I think we are taking a big risk if we are betting everything on the hope that Bledsoe is not going to get hurt this year. Bledsoe is what he is. If we had the opportunity to bring in a guy like Volek, I would like to do that. I don't think Henson is the guy because he would be a lessor version of Romo. He has no experience either. I would probably take any of the QBs mentioned over Henson in that situation. See, this to me is the root of the problem. We are in a situation where we are faced to look at the Vinnies, and the Lucas' and the McMahon's of the world because we elect not to actively go out and spend money on a guy who might have been available to actually help us. This is the whole thing for me. I just don't understand why we wouldn't do this if we were serious about trying to win this year. We have the cap.

The question though as I see it is would a Volek or Griese or whoever you want to pull out, be any better than Romo. We don't know, but Romo has been in the same system for four years and looked like a real live NFL quarterback in the preseason. Other players have sat on the bench for a few years and once their time came, they have played well.

Maybe I'm missing you on this one, but it seems to me that you are assuming that Volek or whoever else would be a better option than Romo.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Parcells got to the playoffs with Quincy. I really do believe he could do it with Romo.

And I'm sorry I just don't see any upside in Volek or Greise. If we can't win with Romo than I don't think we'll win anything with those guys either, and I would hate to give up a draft pick just to have some sort of non-reassuring insurance.

The difference between you and I comes down to our belief in Romo and where he is at in his QB evolution. While I do believe that Romo has the skills to evolve into a pretty decent starting QB, I do not believe that he can play up to the level neccesary to get us to the playoffs, this year. I believe there is much to the point of having experience at QB. I believe that Griese or Volek would be a much better option then an inexperienced Romo at QB.

I have nothing against starting Romo but if we do that, I believe our season is done and we would be playing for 07.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ's initial points where:


He's inital point had nothing to do with Drew being injured. They were, Drew is not a HOF QB and Drew can't lead us to the SB. Becasue of the 1st 2, we need another QB on the roster.

I would appriciate it if you would post the whole post rather then just part of it.

I go on to say that it is possible for Bledsoe to succesfully lead us to the playoffs. In all honesty, I do not believe that he will lead us to the SuperBowl because I do not believe we are good enough but it is a possability.

Bledsoe may eventually be elected to the HOF. I don't know, I don't think he ever will be unless he wins a championship but at this point in his career, he is not a HOF QB. He is what he is. Not more, not less. Many have contended that he is going to have the best career of his life this year and I do not see that happening. I would simply like him to stay healthy and throw twice as many TDs as INTs. I would like him not to fumle 17 times this year but bring that total to something closer to 10. In short, I am asking everybody to get a good idea of what we honestly have at QB and stop with this whole unrealistic, IMO, view of what our offense and Drew Bledsoe are going to be. If he does have the best year he's ever had, that's great but I don't believe it will happen. That is basically what I'm saying with my original post.

 

[wileedog]

The difference between you and I comes down to our belief in Romo and where he is at in his QB evolution. While I do believe that Romo has the skills to evolve into a pretty decent starting QB, I do not believe that he can play up to the level neccesary to get us to the playoffs, this year. I believe there is much to the point of having experience at QB. I believe that Griese or Volek would be a much better option then an inexperienced Romo at QB.

I have nothing against starting Romo but if we do that, I believe our season is done and we would be playing for 07.

Fair enough.

One or two more stinkers like that from Bledsoe and we may find out who is right.