Revisiting The Cassel-Weeden Decision

[big dog cowboy]

Neither one throws more than 15 yards. Doesn't really matter. They are both completely worthless.

The primary reason I don't see any reason to debate this issue.

They are just different kinds of crap but in the end they are both exactly that.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Brandon Weeden rueage, I've seen it all. I don't remember reading one post saying it was a kneejerk reaction, etc

I'm not ruing the Weeden decision, I'm just wondering what makes Cassel so much better. I will admit I was excited at the time to see Cassel take over. Looking back, the only reason for my excitement was the fact he wasn't the 0-3 Brandon Weeden.

This coaching staff says they don't make changes for the sake of making changes. But this time I believe they did.

 

[cowboyblue22]

it don't matter neither one can get out of his own way hope they stick with cassel the rest of the season at least we can compete for the number one draft pick.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Arguing Weeden vs. Cassel...

It's like arguing who's "better" Hitler or Stalin.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

There is nothing to revisit. These threads are a monumental waste of time. You would have the exact same record either way. Both are QBs you pray never see the field and showed you exactly why. Why is this so hard to comprehend.

Yes, it is a waste of time. I fully comprehend the Cowboys would still be bad, Weeden or Cassel. But if Weeden pulled out the Giants and/or Bucs games- and Cassel's play in both suggests he'd have to try to be worse- this is possibly a 6-6 team or better right now. Hindsight is 20-20.

As Troy Aikman once said, the difference between 10-6 and 6-10 in this league is razor-thin.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Arguing Weeden vs. Cassel...

It's like arguing who's "better" Hitler or Stalin.

You're right. But in the NFC East this year, a little bit better than terrible would have had the Cowboys in the driver's seat. I realize both quarterbacks are awful.

 

[craig71]

I agree, but the tangible results from Cassel haven't been there either.

Cassel hasn't shown much in five years and has a sub 80 career QBR rating, I don't know who thought that he would be a viable option. To me, IMO, bringing in Cassel was a panic move. Instead of coming out and saying they botched the backup QB roster spot (from the get go) they brought in Cassel trying to salvage the season and/or to appease the fan base. In hindsight, they should have stuck with Weeden or given Moore a shot instead of bringing in Cassel. While I can understand part of the logic behind the moves I also understand that you need to know when to fold and walk away.


Craig

 

[Wolfpack]

Just the fact that you have to have this debate, casts light into the depth of disorganization that exists in the Dallas Front Office.

 

[RS12]

Yes, it is a waste of time. I fully comprehend the Cowboys would still be bad, Weeden or Cassel. But if Weeden pulled out the Giants and/or Bucs games- and Cassel's play in both suggests he'd have to try to be worse- this is possibly a 6-6 team or better right now. Hindsight is 20-20.

As Troy Aikman once said, the difference between 10-6 and 6-10 in this league is razor-thin.

Think of this way. Even Jerry sobered up long enough to basically say the back up QB situation was abysmal and it was his fault. Were talkin about the guy who normally puts a positive Cowboy spin on anything. Even he knew the emperor had no clothes.

 

[Bleu Star]

Let me apologize beforehand if this has already been discussed. But to me, the Cowboys pulled the rug out from under Brandon Weeden far too soon, and it may have cost them the season just as much as Tony Romo's fractured left clavicle.

Yes, Weeden was 0-3, but Scott Linehan's playcalling went noticeably conservative in Weeden's starts. The defense truly let them down in losses to the Falcons and Saints. Against New England, the Cowboys were totally outclassed; so it's hard to pin that all on Weeden. Plus, he never had Dez Bryant when he played.

I'm not suggesting Weeden was a superb quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. But he was benched for Matt Cassel because.....well, nobody really knows why, do we? Weeden had two offseasons, two OTA's, two training camps, and two preseasons in this offense. So the Cowboys go and look for a spark from Cassel, who had about a month in the scheme, and cut Weeden.

I may be in the minority here, but I believe the Cowboys may have won a few games if they stuck with Weeden. And they could have waited a couple more weeks to bring Romo back for a stretch run for the playoffs. Instead, well, we have this.

This is like standing in the restroom and arguing with the person in the next stall that my poop smells better than his poop.

 

[Sasquatch]

Let me apologize beforehand if this has already been discussed. But to me, the Cowboys pulled the rug out from under Brandon Weeden far too soon, and it may have cost them the season just as much as Tony Romo's fractured left clavicle.

Yes, Weeden was 0-3, but Scott Linehan's playcalling went noticeably conservative in Weeden's starts. The defense truly let them down in losses to the Falcons and Saints. Against New England, the Cowboys were totally outclassed; so it's hard to pin that all on Weeden. Plus, he never had Dez Bryant when he played.

I'm not suggesting Weeden was a superb quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. But he was benched for Matt Cassel because.....well, nobody really knows why, do we? Weeden had two offseasons, two OTA's, two training camps, and two preseasons in this offense. So the Cowboys go and look for a spark from Cassel, who had about a month in the scheme, and cut Weeden.

I may be in the minority here, but I believe the Cowboys may have won a few games if they stuck with Weeden. And they could have waited a couple more weeks to bring Romo back for a stretch run for the playoffs. Instead, well, we have this.

Co-signed.

 

[punchnjudy]

After tony's second injury, the backup qb issue lost its luster for me. Even a normal back up couldn't be expected to save a season where the starter misses 12 games. And even if he did, then what?

With the benefit of hindsight, I would take weeden but neither changes my desire for Dallas to find a young qb. And this team wasn't going anywhere this year regardless.

 

[DenCWBY]

Let me apologize beforehand if this has already been discussed. But to me, the Cowboys pulled the rug out from under Brandon Weeden far too soon, and it may have cost them the season just as much as Tony Romo's fractured left clavicle.

Yes, Weeden was 0-3, but Scott Linehan's playcalling went noticeably conservative in Weeden's starts. The defense truly let them down in losses to the Falcons and Saints. Against New England, the Cowboys were totally outclassed; so it's hard to pin that all on Weeden. Plus, he never had Dez Bryant when he played.

I'm not suggesting Weeden was a superb quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. But he was benched for Matt Cassel because.....well, nobody really knows why, do we? Weeden had two offseasons, two OTA's, two training camps, and two preseasons in this offense. So the Cowboys go and look for a spark from Cassel, who had about a month in the scheme, and cut Weeden.

I may be in the minority here, but I believe the Cowboys may have won a few games if they stuck with Weeden. And they could have waited a couple more weeks to bring Romo back for a stretch run for the playoffs. Instead, well, we have this.

Ultimately I think our fate this year was sealed when Romo went down against the eagles however I tend to agree with you in that Weeden looks better than Cassel overall. I was expecting to see some improvement in Cassel's game over these next couple of weeks but there has been none.
They are both just bad choices as backup QB's in this system.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You're right. But in the NFC East this year, a little bit better than terrible would have had the Cowboys in the driver's seat. I realize both quarterbacks are awful.

A little better turnover differential and a couple less pick 6's would have given this team a couple more wins also.

Yeah, but backup QB position is atrocious, but the god-awful turnover percentage and the obscene number of pick-6's has doomed the season.

 

[links18]

Well, the coaches see them in practice, have to trust the coaches evaluation of the talent or something like that, yada, yada.....

 

[Rogerthat12]

Let me apologize beforehand if this has already been discussed. But to me, the Cowboys pulled the rug out from under Brandon Weeden far too soon, and it may have cost them the season just as much as Tony Romo's fractured left clavicle.

Yes, Weeden was 0-3, but Scott Linehan's playcalling went noticeably conservative in Weeden's starts. The defense truly let them down in losses to the Falcons and Saints. Against New England, the Cowboys were totally outclassed; so it's hard to pin that all on Weeden. Plus, he never had Dez Bryant when he played.

I'm not suggesting Weeden was a superb quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. But he was benched for Matt Cassel because.....well, nobody really knows why, do we? Weeden had two offseasons, two OTA's, two training camps, and two preseasons in this offense. So the Cowboys go and look for a spark from Cassel, who had about a month in the scheme, and cut Weeden.

I may be in the minority here, but I believe the Cowboys may have won a few games if they stuck with Weeden. And they could have waited a couple more weeks to bring Romo back for a stretch run for the playoffs. Instead, well, we have this.

Not again...

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/092815-Falcons-Cowboys-Footb_Hopk.jpg

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/1443463999-NS_27cowsfalcons78.jpg

 

[ConstantReboot]

You're right. But in the NFC East this year, a little bit better than terrible would have had the Cowboys in the driver's seat. I realize both quarterbacks are awful.

Both are terrible. Both are knee-jerk reactions to an otherwise preventable situation. If the Cowboys would have looked for a real backup rather than the scrubs they have now, we wouldn't have been in this situation.

 

[rynochop]

I'm not ruing the Weeden decision, I'm just wondering what makes Cassel so much better. I will admit I was excited at the time to see Cassel take over. Looking back, the only reason for my excitement was the fact he wasn't the 0-3 Brandon Weeden.

This coaching staff says they don't make changes for the sake of making changes. But this time I believe they did.

I was mildly excited about him coming in too. I'm sure Jerry and Stephen were too, it clearly wasn't working with Weeden and I'm sure they thought he could maybe be a spark when we were still sort of in the hunt. I'm just saying anyone calling out management for bringing in Cassell and cutting Weeden is a hypocrite, not a soul on here was sorry to see him replaced

 

[foofighters]

Lol...comparing dog poo to cat poo...

 

[kevm3]

We wouldn't have won anything with Weeden. Weeden was figured out. He was lucky that Randle was getting monumental gains in the first half of games. Cassell isn't much better, but having Weeden here would have done nothing different. There's a reason nobody picked him up after his awesome qb rating.