QB Johnson should be cut!

[Stautner]

I think with our current starter's background, you might want to consider dropping this one from your argument.

It actually strengthens his argument. Johnson was drafted in the 9th round of 1992 by the Vikings. Just like these young guys he wasn't highly sought out by teams. It took him a few years before he even became the #2 guy on the team. He wasn't even the #3 guy his first two seasons. That is what we can expect from the young guys on this team.

You guys are missing a couple of points:

First, we wouldn't have cut a veteran QB like Johnson in Romo's first year or two either - so why would we do it with Baker et al.

Second, the argument against dumping Johson and letting Baker, et al take the top backup spot is a combination thing - this isn't the sole argument. While Romo was undrafted and Johnson a very late pick, they now have some history behind them - they have proven they belong or have potential. On the other hand, Baker et al not only have yet to show any potential at all, they don't even have the argument that they are a quality prospect to fall back on.

Trade you Kolb for Johnson

If you can make that deal happen I'm all for it.

 

[joseephuss]

You guys are missing a couple of points:

First, we wouldn't have cut a veteran QB like Johnson in Romo's first year or two either - so why would we do it with Baker et al.

Second, the argument against dumping Johson and letting Baker, et al take the top backup spot is a combination thing - this isn't the sole argument. While Romo was undrafted and Johnson a very late pick, they now have some history behind them - they have proven they belong or have potential. On the other hand, Baker et al not only have yet to show any potential at all, they don't even have the argument that they are a quality prospect to fall back on.



If you can make that deal happen I'm all for it.

I said the same thing as you.

 

[joseephuss]

You missed my point.

In 2001, Q got injured and we started Leaf, Wright, Stoerner...

In 2002, Q got benched, not because of injury.

In 2003, Q for all 16.

In 2004, Vinny benched for Turkey day, but not so injured he couldn't play as we all saw him do.

In 2005, Bledsoe not injured.

In 2006, Bledsoe benched, not for injury.

So we have gone 5 years without starting QBs losing games ot injury. I find that remarkable, and a little daunting truth be told.

Unless you meant to say all of 2003 was an injury fill in.

Oops, my bad. I do agree. Injuries are part of the game. It is likely that Romo will miss some time. Just the nature of the league for QBs not named Favre, Manning or Brady to miss some time. Dallas will need someone they know they can count on. Right now they know nothing about the young QBs on the squad. There is still question as to whether any of them will be an adequate #3 guy.

 

[FLcowboy]

Zoners, I want you all to get serious a second.:starspin

If ROMO gets injured we are history for 07. Johnson cannot get the ball deep and the above report cut from another Zoners post just VERIFIES what I said when we signed this player.

Why cut one of the YOUNG GUNS just to keep this OLD over-the-hill guy?:starspin

GIVE ME SOME VALID REASONS WHY I AM WRONG!

There are a lot of young guns out there. None have the respect of his peers, not a super bowl ring to show for their history. Johnson won't take the team to the Super Bowl, but neither will the other guys, and at least Johnson has a chance of winning the game.

 

[Stautner]

I said the same thing as you.

Yes you did. I apologize - I didn't fully read your post and thought you were headed in a different direction when I identified it to quote. My mistake.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Well, just remind yourself this.

There is a reason you have your face painted in your sig picture. There is a reason Jones is standing there, looking important with a portfolio. And there is a reason Jones is an NFL GM/Owner and Ireland is a scout/Phillips is a coach.

There is a reason you are shaking Jones' hand...

While Jones has a "double you tee efff" expression on his face.

No offense....

Not that they are infallible....but they must have seen something in Johnson worth signing him for. And I will give them the benefit of the doubt until we see something to the otherwise...

No offense taken, and I want you to understand .......what did that same folks you mentioned above see in Chad Hutcheson, Quincy Carter and not to mention giving a 3rd rd pk for Drew Henson.......

Let me get this straight......Minn got rid of Johnson and said Hello to Henson....hum.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Zoners, I want you all to get serious a second.:starspin

If ROMO gets injured we are history for 07. Johnson cannot get the ball deep and the above report cut from another Zoners post just VERIFIES what I said when we signed this player.

Why cut one of the YOUNG GUNS just to keep this OLD over-the-hill guy?:starspin

GIVE ME SOME VALID REASONS WHY I AM WRONG!

I think you have a valid point about if romo goes down.
As I have said many times, season's over if Romo goes down because Johnson would have a hard time being a bus driver, let alone move the chains.

Respondents have valid concerns that the rookies without experience would fare no better.

I think the answer lies in FA. I just don't think there are any serviceable FA quarterbacks out there who could be had at this point of the season. After preseason ends there will be some experience QBs out on the street but they won't necessarily be any better.

Quite the dilemma between Johnson quarterbacking or inexperienced rookies (that is, two equally bad choices).

Hmmm. that Dante is looking better and better if he's truly rehabbed. (Kidding!)

 

[Alexander]

You guys are missing a couple of points:

First, we wouldn't have cut a veteran QB like Johnson in Romo's first year or two either - so why would we do it with Baker et al.

Second, the argument against dumping Johson and letting Baker, et al take the top backup spot is a combination thing - this isn't the sole argument. While Romo was undrafted and Johnson a very late pick, they now have some history behind them - they have proven they belong or have potential. On the other hand, Baker et al not only have yet to show any potential at all, they don't even have the argument that they are a quality prospect to fall back on.



If you can make that deal happen I'm all for it.

We don't know a thing about Baker or Bartel.

We just know they were undrafted. Given Romo's pedigree, I don't see how you can hold it against them.

Using that reasoning, we should never have bothered with Romo as the backup as he was undrafted.

Quarterbacks are very odd and in a lot of ways, they can defy the undrafted equals not so good hypothesis.

 

[Stautner]

We don't know a thing about Baker or Bartel.

We just know they were undrafted. Given Romo's pedigree, I don't see how you can hold it against them.

Using that reasoning, we should never have bothered with Romo as the backup as he was undrafted.

Quarterbacks are very odd and in a lot of ways, they can defy the undrafted equals not so good hypothesis.

I hold it against them in exactly the same way I would have held it against Romo 4 years ago.

You apparently didn't really grasp what I was saying.

You see, comparing Romo today to those guys now is not an apples to apples comparison. Being an undrafted FA without a strong pedigree I would not have wanted Romo over an experienced successful veteran, just the same as the way I feel about Baker and Bartel now.

But the Romo of today is not the same guy - he has experience and he has had success and he has shown a lot of potential, and since Baker and Bartel have done none of those things then I can't put the same faith in them as I do in Romo, now can I.

Do you really think I should just assume that because we have the hindsight ability to see that one undrafted FA has potential we should just automatically assumw all other undrfated FA QB's will fare as well - even to the point of dumping a very successful veteran QB to make room for them?

HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND: The only point about Baker/Bartel being low rated, undrafted FA's is that at least if they were high rated you might could make an argument for giving them a promotion over the successful veteran, but without that AND without any experience or hint of potential then there simply isn't any argument in favor of the promotion.

 

[Vintage]

No offense taken, and I want you to understand .......what did that same folks you mentioned above see in Chad Hutcheson, Quincy Carter and not to mention giving a 3rd rd pk for Drew Henson.......

Let me get this straight......Minn got rid of Johnson and said Hello to Henson....hum.

In Hutchinson, all they wasted was money and time. No draft pick was required.

In QC, it was the post Aikman years....and JJ was trying to run the show and failed. It happens.

Giving up a 3rd round pick for Henson wasn't good, but it wasn't a huge waste. It was a pretty safe gamble.

We wasted a 2nd in 2001 (is that when QC was drafted)? and a a 3rd for Henson a couple of years later.

Compare that to, say, the Giants who wasted 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd on Eli Manning and haven't gotten the production out of him that warrants being picked #1. Or consider many other teams that have used 1st rounders on QBs.....

Yeah, Minnesota dropped Johnson for Henson. They are going for a youth movement.

Brad Johnson also probably didn't want to stay in Minnesota either.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

In Hutchinson, all they wasted was money and time. No draft pick was required.

In QC, it was the post Aikman years....and JJ was trying to run the show and failed. It happens.

Giving up a 3rd round pick for Henson wasn't good, but it wasn't a huge waste. It was a pretty safe gamble.

We wasted a 2nd in 2001 (is that when QC was drafted)? and a a 3rd for Henson a couple of years later.

Compare that to, say, the Giants who wasted 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd on Eli Manning and haven't gotten the production out of him that warrants being picked #1. Or consider many other teams that have used 1st rounders on QBs.....

Yeah, Minnesota dropped Johnson for Henson. They are going for a youth movement.

Brad Johnson also probably didn't want to stay in Minnesota either.

But, when you consider we picked up ROMO as a FA four years ago....it blows your mind.....what was everyone thinking?

Pro Bowler in his 3rd year and only needed half the season.
MOXIE like none other
HE is so exciting to watch ....you never know what will happen...good or bad!

Zoners: we are lucky to have a great QB!

 

[cbfan55]

I'll cut him for 50 bucks! JK :laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

In Hutchinson, all they wasted was money and time. No draft pick was required.

In QC, it was the post Aikman years....and JJ was trying to run the show and failed. It happens.

Giving up a 3rd round pick for Henson wasn't good, but it wasn't a huge waste. It was a pretty safe gamble.

We wasted a 2nd in 2001 (is that when QC was drafted)? and a a 3rd for Henson a couple of years later.

Compare that to, say, the Giants who wasted 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd on Eli Manning and haven't gotten the production out of him that warrants being picked #1. Or consider many other teams that have used 1st rounders on QBs.....

Yeah, Minnesota dropped Johnson for Henson. They are going for a youth movement.

Brad Johnson also probably didn't want to stay in Minnesota either.

It's not exactly accurate to say Minnesota dropped Johnso for Henson. Henson is not the reason they dropped Johnson.

The Vikings just made the choice that Johnson wasn't their future - not that Henson was, or even that he was capable of replacing Johnson. The Vikings will be looking around.

 

[joseephuss]

But, when you consider we picked up ROMO as a FA four years ago....it blows your mind.....what was everyone thinking?

Pro Bowler in his 3rd year and only needed half the season.
MOXIE like none other
HE is so exciting to watch ....you never know what will happen...good or bad!

Zoners: we are lucky to have a great QB!

I don't agree that Romo is great. Still yet to be seen and I am hoping.

You do bring up the point about being lucky. If a team is lucky to have a good starter, they would also have to be very lucky to have a quality back up. One in which the season won't implode if forced to play significant minutes. Few teams are that lucky in today's NFL. I doubt the Cowboys are that lucky whether the back up is Johnson, Baker or whomever. The odds are slim.

 

[Hostile]

But, when you consider we picked up ROMO as a FA four years ago....it blows your mind.....what was everyone thinking?

Pro Bowler in his 3rd year and only needed half the season.
MOXIE like none other
HE is so exciting to watch ....you never know what will happen...good or bad!

Zoners: we are lucky to have a great QB!

5 years ago.

Small division school is not going to get the attention a Division I school will most of the time. In a 7 round draft, teams are less willing to use picks on QBs than years past. Talent is falling to UDFA status all the time now.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

It's not exactly accurate to say Minnesota dropped Johnso for Henson. Henson is not the reason they dropped Johnson.

The Vikings just made the choice that Johnson wasn't their future - not that Henson was, or even that he was capable of replacing Johnson. The Vikings will be looking around.

I stand corrected......you are right.....Henson did not really unseat Johnson, but it kinds worked out that way.