Obviously we start Johnson, ...

[Iamtdg]

At least Bollinger can throw the ball more than 30 yards without the aid of a rocket launcher.

Hell, Brad can throw it 30 yards. But, when he does, TO is 17 yards down the field.

 

[AbeBeta]

no, contrarian would mean you're just here to disagree

easy to disagree when others are painting Brooks freaking Bollinger as the messiah

 

[Bob Sacamano]

easy to disagree when others are painting Brooks freaking Bollinger as the messiah

noone is painting him as the messiah, just not a statue w/ a limp noodle for a throwing arm

 

[Juke99]

easy to disagree when others are painting Brooks freaking Bollinger as the messiah

Who the heck is doing that?

My take is, that it's about match ups. Versus the Bucs, I think Johnson was the right choice. The Tampa defense is smallish...so even if they stacked against the run, the Cowboys had a decent chance of having an effective running game. Their offense isn't very good, so the Cowboys didn't need a lot of points.

The Giants are going to be a very different story. I'd like to see a QB who would at least force them to respect that he could complete a 20 yard pass so that they can't stack up against the run.

Plus Johnson vs the Giant's pass rush is going to be a problem. Even Pierce said that today when interviewed on WFAN. He said that they'll know exactly where Johnson is going to be.

Finally, the Giants are going to score more than 3 FG's.

It's about match ups. Not messiahs.

 

[JonJon]

noone is painting him as the messiah, just not a statue w/ a limp noodle for a throwing arm

Or someone that is going to make the inevitable interception return a bit longer with a pass of over 30 yards instead of one for 15 yards...

yep, that was low...

 

[theogt]

Actually the bottom line is this. Both Johnson and Bollinger suck. Nothing is going to change that and playing Bollinger over Johnson isn't going to make a difference.

Sure it will. I provided an argument as to why.

 

[AbeBeta]

Sure it will. I provided an argument as to why.

argument does not mean it is correct. going with your #3 is and will always be a desperation move.

I sincerely hope your "argument" is correct. But it will more likely be just picking a different poison

 

[AbeBeta]

It's about match ups. Not messiahs.

We don't "match up" well with either. Both suck and both will likely give similar outcomes

 

[big dog cowboy]

Finally, the Giants are going to score more than 3 FG's.

Well, we need to prepare for that to likely to happen.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I am not sure it is obvious.

 

[Vertigo_17]

BJ starts, but no guarantee that he will even make it through the 1st Q. They will either carry him off the field or the coaching staff might be forced to make a change. He gives new meaning to "sitting duck" against the Gints pass rush. Not to be confused with his "lame duck" passes

 

[WV Cowboy]

argument does not mean it is correct. going with your #3 is and will always be a desperation move.

Especially since he has not started a game since 2005, I think.

I would like to use him in certain situations though, ... come on Jason, pull out all of the stops, for just one game, what do we have to lose??

Flea flicker, reverse pass, fake punt, direct snap to a RB, ... try something, I don't think we can beat them straight up with all of our injuries.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

argument does not mean it is correct. going with your #3 is and will always be a desperation move.

I sincerely hope your "argument" is correct. But it will more likely be just picking a different poison

you don't understand that Bollinger is only #3 because he's the new guy

he was brought in to be the future #2

 

[jdnelson103]

Out of every post I've read today, I still haven't heard a good reason to stay with Brad. We already know what we're going to get with the guy, and it's not good enough. If we're going to leave him in, we might as well take TO and RW out of the game and add two extra blockers. The receivers will be as useful on the bench as they would be on the field with BJ at quarterback.

What do we have to lose by starting Brooks?

 

[links18]

There is a reason Johnson was employed and Bollinger looking for work week 1.

Yeah, here is the reason: Our management and coaches blew it!:bang2:

 

[Romo2Dez4six]

i am not seeing this 3-4 days stuff. he has been here the whole season and he has a playbook.......if you would have said get chemistry in 3-4 days maybe, but Brad hasn't done that in 2 weeks.

 

[VThokie7]

I don't know if this has been said already, but do you think Gurode could do a direct snap to a RB? He can't even get it to the QB's on a regular basis.

 

[AbeBeta]

you don't understand that Bollinger is only #3 because he's the new guy

he was brought in to be the future #2

future #2 b/c Johnson is gone after this year. No reason other than that.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

future #2 b/c Johnson is gone after this year. No reason other than that.

no, because Garrett knew that Johnson has lost alot, that's why he wanted to get Bollinger in here

Tony's injury only excaberates the situation and the need for Bollinger to get ready to play in this O

 

[AbeBeta]

no, because Garrett knew that Johnson has lost alot, that's why he wanted to get Bollinger in here

Tony's injury only excaberates the situation and the need for Bollinger to get ready to play in this O

or that Johnson is 40 freaking years old.

if Garrett sincerely felt that Johnson had lost a lot then we likely would have worked much harder much earlier to find another guy so that he could be ready to play.