Oh! Good Grief!!! Enough already!!

[RonBurgandy31]

The Brady/Manning debate is an interesting one. But to say you would rather have Brady because he is a winner isn't right. He also has something called DEFENSE. Case in point: Marino

The deal with Henson is simply this, how long? Apparently you feel close to 2 years (which isn't right by the way it has been just over 1 year) is enough. He could easily be a 3 year project. If that is what it takes then that is what it takes. Of course that isn't saying he will ever get it. Just because a guy doesn't get it within your time frame doesn't mean he won't. I remember the day when rookie QB's could be expected to carry a clipboard for 4-5 years before they were ready.

My mistake 1 year not 2, so let me get this stright if he is a 3 year project like you said his first year as a starter he'll be 27 going on 28. Isnt that kinda old?

A winner finds ways to win no matter if the have no D, no Wide outs. They'll still find a way to win

 

[big dog cowboy]

My mistake 1 year not 2, so let me get this stright if he is a 3 year project like you said his first year as a starter he'll be 27 going on 28. Isnt that kinda old?

Nah. I don't care if he is 29 and proves he is worthy of starting. Check this out my man:

In 1969 Roger Staubach joined the Dallas Cowboys as a 27-year-old rookie, became the starting quarterback in his third season in 1971, and for the next nine seasons he led the Dallas attack. The Cowboys played in six NFC Championship Games, won four of them, and also won Super Bowls VI and XII during Staubach's career.

We waited 3 years for Staubach and he didn't start until he was 30 years old. Kinda puts things in a different perspective doesn't it?

 

[Trag3344]

I was a big backer of Henson. When Bledsoe was signed it p*ssed me off cuz I thought it was holding Henson back again. Well Big Bill made the right choice.

If Henson would have shown some improvement from last year you wouldn't be seeing these slam posts. But the problem is Henson is WORSE then last year. I have last faith in the guy and I don't think he is a chance at ever making it here.

I am all for making a trade up in either the '06 '07 or '08 drafts for the top QB in that draft. Yeah it will cost us but we need a real QB of the future not some project.

Just get it done. Get a real QB of the future in here cuz we don't have anything close to a QB of the future on this roster.

It would be nice if we could get that QB in the '07 draft so he can learn for 1 year behind Bledsoe and then take over in 2008.

ah men brother, this is what most fans mindset should be.

 

[RonBurgandy31]

Nah. I don't care if he is 29 and proves he is worthy of starting. Check this out my man:

In 1969 Roger Staubach joined the Dallas Cowboys as a 27-year-old rookie, became the starting quarterback in his third season in 1971, and for the next nine seasons he led the Dallas attack. The Cowboys played in six NFC Championship Games, won four of them, and also won Super Bowls VI and XII during Staubach's career.

We waited 3 years for Staubach and he didn't start until he was 30 years old. Kinda puts things in a different perspective doesn't it?

Yea good call I didnt even think of that, he still has prove himself to get to that point. Hopefully he does

 

[dougonthebench]

Once upon a time, Aikman was a rookie quarterback, but he was never a mediocre one.

No kidding!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

yes he was. From about '97 til he retired.

 

[DallasEast]

yes he was. From about '97 til he retired.

'Mediocre quarterbacks' also don't make it into the Hall of Fame. Certainly, not those who wore the Star on their helmets. I can easily envision Peter King and other selectors from the Northeast and Midwest using that viewpoint to bar Aikman's entry for as long as possible. It would surely be strong enough to sway the voters next year--his first year of eligibility. They would simply rationalize that, if Cowboy fans themselves believe that he was a mediocre quarterback, who are they to say differently?

 

[Chuck 54]

Wayne, it's more complicated than an alleged 'franchise level talent' getting beat out by an undrafted free agent. And I know you know that.

If it was just a matter of learning curves, even tho Tony has the additional year in the system (and let's not forget he is reportedly a very bright kid), I would be concerned that Drew's getting 'beat' by him was not just an ominous sign, but a fatal one.

But for Henson it is also about an 'UNlearning curve'. The new QC coach, David Lee, didn't come in and just continue the dvelopmental plan. He mandated that Drew needed to change the most fundamental aspect of a QB'
s game..his throwing motion.

In no way would I second guess that decision..these coaches know what is a 'quirk', a 'variety', and a detriment to success.

But had that decision to 'undo' both Drew's natural and learned QB behavior not been made, this offseason would have been spent on automaticizing responses, read progression development, nuances as well as basics.

Instead, it was what? 5-6000 passes thrown to make the arm and body's neuromuscular response begin to kick in as "automatic'.

Of course, steps will be taken backward in the "QB I&I" department.

I know some will read this as a rationale for failure, or an excuse set-up in the making, but it is sincerely as I see it.

Drew can be 'beat out' for the second spot by a third year undrafted FA, and it not be the final decree on Henson's potential. It just means the team valued the 'project' enough to spend its time, resources, and coaching energy enough to do it right. This investment in Henson indicates to me no one is giving up on him.

But then, it all depends on what you think of Romo..as well as Henson. And I think he is a smart, scrappy kid with a decent arm and some leadership skills, not a scrub.

I respect your opinion Tuna, I just don't share it....I think a QB with the amount of ability that Henson was supposed to have, the probably #1 pick in the draft if he'd stayed in school, our supposed QB of the future and future star, should be able, after two off seasons in Dallas, two training camps, and a full season, be able to win the #2 spot over Tony Romo. Even Quincy Carter could beat out Tony Romo...Chad Hutchinson could beat out Tony Romo. Troy Aikman could come out of retirement and beat out Tony Romo.

I have no confidence in Tony Romo ever having much of a career in the NFL...if we were to cut him, I'm not even sure anyone would claim him at this point with their QB's already in camp and no reported injuries...he could possibly even make it to the practice squad.

I have never had any confidence that Henson could make it in the NFL after baseball....there's just too much to overcome for a QB who hasn't played much even in college.

Don't confuse that with wanting Henson to fail...I want him to be our #2 QB this year, and I'd love to see Romo cut and replaced with a veteran at the proper time.

There were many guys on this very board who claimed Henson would be starting last season by the end of training camp, or the middle of the year...surely he'd be starting this year...it was ridiculous...now suddenly they think it's okay that he be 3rd string for another couple of years. All things being equal, if he can't beat out Romo now, why would he catch up to Romo in the future when Romo will be the one getting the playing experience that comes up for grabs?

I fully expect Henson to take that #2 spot this year because talent should win out over much much less talent and even less actual game experience.

IF not, then I truly don't expect Henson to ever make it....your QB of the future, if he is indeed a rare talent, should at least be manning the #2 spot in his 2nd season, especially when there's no one of consequence in front of him....just my unpopular opinion...

 

[Chuck 54]

I don't know about that. Aikman was as wretched a player as I've seen on the field his first year in the pros. I wouldn't even call him good his second year. He got to serviceable his second year.

David.

wow....that's a shocking analysis....there's a difference between making rookie mistakes and adjusting to the NFL versus not showing talent....Aikman had some huge games as a rookie...he flashed the type of awesome talent in year 1 that convinced Jimmy to trade away WAlsh because he knew Walsh would never win that job.

 

[Chuck 54]

I guess you don't know the difference between talent and performance. 9TDs and 18INTs aren't mediocre stats, they stink.

David.

Let's not forget that our entire team finished 1-16 that year and that Jimmy and Jerry were the laughing stock of the league because they were starting new guys off the waiver wire almost weekly...they were what held us back that year after spending what would have at least been the top pick in the draft on Walsh.

Robert Palmer was our leading rusher one year and out of the league the next....I think Aikman was pretty impressive.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I respect your opinion Tuna, I just don't share it....I think a QB with the amount of ability that Henson was supposed to have, the probably #1 pick in the draft if he'd stayed in school, our supposed QB of the future and future star, should be able, after two off seasons in Dallas, two training camps, and a full season, be able to win the #2 spot over Tony Romo. Even Quincy Carter could beat out Tony Romo...Chad Hutchinson could beat out Tony Romo. Troy Aikman could come out of retirement and beat out Tony Romo.

I have no confidence in Tony Romo ever having much of a career in the NFL...if we were to cut him, I'm not even sure anyone would claim him at this point with their QB's already in camp and no reported injuries...he could possibly even make it to the practice squad.

I have never had any confidence that Henson could make it in the NFL after baseball....there's just too much to overcome for a QB who hasn't played much even in college.

Don't confuse that with wanting Henson to fail...I want him to be our #2 QB this year, and I'd love to see Romo cut and replaced with a veteran at the proper time.

There were many guys on this very board who claimed Henson would be starting last season by the end of training camp, or the middle of the year...surely he'd be starting this year...it was ridiculous...now suddenly they think it's okay that he be 3rd string for another couple of years. All things being equal, if he can't beat out Romo now, why would he catch up to Romo in the future when Romo will be the one getting the playing experience that comes up for grabs?

I fully expect Henson to take that #2 spot this year because talent should win out over much much less talent and even less actual game experience.

IF not, then I truly don't expect Henson to ever make it....your QB of the future, if he is indeed a rare talent, should at least be manning the #2 spot in his 2nd season, especially when there's no one of consequence in front of him....just my unpopular opinion...

Wayne, you've never been afraid of expressing an unpopular opinion, and I'd never imagine you to want anyone to fail.

But you haven't addressed the physical 'setback' inherent in the revamping of the throwing motion, and its repercussions on the mental aspect of the game.

If Drew was roughly even with Tony last season, and had even surpassed him on the depth chart, (or was on a seesaw with him) what could account for the step(s) backward? Because while we don't know if Tony has actually gained ground, we do know Drew has lost it.

I really think Drew could have at the very least kept pace with Tony had he not had to so radically change the fundamental mechanic, and if had not spent the spring throwing 5000 plus passes trying to get his neuromuscular system to unlearn old habits.

Really, Wayne, if the passing motion had not been tinkered with, and I were reading those reports from camp, I'd be seriously doubting the player can make the transition too.

But the three steps forward the higher 'pitch' should result in is now being overshadowed by the two steps backward the throwing motion change dictates.

Drew's 'regression' is qualified , imo, and highly.

We shall see!

 

[dwmyers]

wow....that's a shocking analysis....there's a difference between making rookie mistakes and adjusting to the NFL versus not showing talent....Aikman had some huge games as a rookie...he flashed the type of awesome talent in year 1 that convinced Jimmy to trade away WAlsh because he knew Walsh would never win that job.

This is the same Jimmy who supposedly didn't want to start Aikman after Beuerlein's performance in 1991? The same Jimmy who drafted Walsh in the first place? The stories I hear about what JJ the coach wanted are too conflicted to be entirely relied upon.

I've been a fan since the early 1970s, and Aikman in 1989 was nothing more or less than wretched. You can yap on about "awesome talent" all you want. Before a ball can be thrown, you have to make good decisions on the field; and he wasn't doing that at all. His 50-something QBR that year is proof enough of that.

My point, of course, is that a pretty bad looking quarterback, if given the right training, can become a pretty good quarterback. People seem to be missing that.

Further, I have to say, this is the irony: the same people who are throwing a fit about Henson's performance in pre-season practices and ignoring his potential are exactly the same group defending Aikman in 1989 not on his performance, but on the potential he supposedly displayed on a 1-15 team.

David.

 

[Wolverine]

Why can't we just make the big move up in one of the next drafts('06 '07 or '08) and get the best QB in that draft. We get a QB coming right out of college. A QB who has not been away from the game 3+ years. And one who would probaly only need 1 year behind Bledsoe to learn and then he would be ready to start the next year.

We need to make this move. We need a REAL future franchise QB. No more projects please.

 

[big dog cowboy]

We need a REAL future franchise QB. No more projects please.

What if one of those projects is ready to start in a year or two?

 

[Wolverine]

What if one of those projects is ready to start in a year or two?

What if my aunt had balls. Then she would be my uncle.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Here's another 2nd player, the 5th pick in the draft last year.

Hmmmm... I wonder how he's performing.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050807/news_1s7chargers.html

Rivers is realistic about job

Seeks experience, not fast promotion

By Kevin Acee
STAFF WRITER

August 7, 2005

* This time, Kaeding nails kick
* Gates' play could make Chargers pay

This is not a competition.

To recognize it as one would be an insult to Drew Brees and to our intelligence.

Even Marty Schottenheimer – who with a subliminal wink at the start of Chargers training camp said the quarterback spot was up for grabs – knows that.

Philip Rivers certainly knows that, which is why he is able to look past what happened Thursday and so greatly look forward to this coming Thursday.

Rivers was, in a word, bad on Thursday. And he wasn't great on Friday either.


Philip Rivers
"No question," he acknowledged.

Rivers simply lacked sharpness. He missed receivers with his throws and his eyes. He was intercepted three times in about as many minutes.

Since everyone knows you can tell everything about a QB by his first week into his 2nd year, maybe the Chargers will dump him to us for a conditional 7th at the end of training camp. Then again Losman and Manning aren't exactly lighting it up in camp either, so I guess its pretty clear that the QB class of 2004 is horrible. The results are in.

 

[Zaxor]

I'm reconciled now to Bledsoe being the starter for a minimum of the next two years. And I hope it's not just via default, but that he makes a serious statement about reclaiming his former 'elite' status.

Henson I have wrapped up and put into my 'tomorrow' drawer....like lingerie that no longer fits but is too valuable to throw away. I have every expectation some hard work and patience will pay off down the road.

Romo I am PRAYING can keep us from looking outside for a vet backup this summer.

It's Drew Bledsoe for the extended present now.

And I'm not nearly as disappointed as I thought I'd be.

You and me both

 

[cml750]

Wayne, you've never been afraid of expressing an unpopular opinion, and I'd never imagine you to want anyone to fail.

But you haven't addressed the physical 'setback' inherent in the revamping of the throwing motion, and its repercussions on the mental aspect of the game.

If Drew was roughly even with Tony last season, and had even surpassed him on the depth chart, (or was on a seesaw with him) what could account for the step(s) backward? Because while we don't know if Tony has actually gained ground, we do know Drew has lost it.

I really think Drew could have at the very least kept pace with Tony had he not had to so radically change the fundamental mechanic, and if had not spent the spring throwing 5000 plus passes trying to get his neuromuscular system to unlearn old habits.

Really, Wayne, if the passing motion had not been tinkered with, and I were reading those reports from camp, I'd be seriously doubting the player can make the transition too.

But the three steps forward the higher 'pitch' should result in is now being overshadowed by the two steps backward the throwing motion change dictates.

Drew's 'regression' is qualified , imo, and highly.

We shall see!

Excellent post!! That was my point exactly in starting this thread. Drew has the pedigree, now he needs to get his mechanics lined out. I'm not really sure if they shouldn't have left them alone to begin with. The man could deliver the ball just fine the way he was. Sure there may be a slightly higher chance of having a ball batted down at the line of scrimmage with a lower delivery, but I doubt that that would have ever been a major problem. DH could really chunck a football. Hopefully this change in delivery want ruin his career. I personally think he will pull out of this and be the QB we all hope he can be!!

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Since everyone knows you can tell everything about a QB by his first week into his 2nd year, maybe the Chargers will dump him to us for a conditional 7th at the end of training camp. Then again Losman and Manning aren't exactly lighting it up in camp either, so I guess its pretty clear that the QB class of 2004 is horrible. The results are in.

Memo to the Henson bashers. You'd do well to follow 'Roshi's lead. Something tells me that, deep down, he pulls for Romo (apologies 'Roshi, if I'm mischaracterizing your allegiances -- I base this only on some of the more subtle features (including what goes unsaid) in your other posts). But, as his well-placed sarcasm illustrates, he doesn't allow that to cause him to write off Henson on the basis of a few sub-par practices in only his second season. Imagine that.

 

[sacase]

I am curious, what "Pedigree" does an 8 game starter (in college) posses? I mean dang QC had more wins in college than Henson and played in a tougher conference. I can also think of a few Heisman winners who have done poorly in the NFL. But since we are bringing in project QB's, anyone seen Charlie Ward running around?

A couple bad practices could leave you without a job. Remember what Bill said "Winning is our business."