Romo-meter...

[InmanRoshi]

I don't really need to test him and see if he is the starter in a 3 to 4 game situation. I already believe he is probably our long term starter. In fact, if it were not for the odd pass that he seems to just up and throw that makes me shake my head and ask my self why, I would say that he could be our starter right now.

So, just for the sake of consistency, I assume you were in 100% in favor of bringing back Testeverde to be our backup last year when Henson was here for the sake of having a "proven backup"?

I don't seem to remember that being your stance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, just for the sake of consistency, I assume you were in 100% in favor of bringing back Testeverde to be our backup last year when Henson was here for the sake of having a "proven backup"?

I don't seem to remember that being your stance.

I'm not surprised. It is my experience that you remember what you want to and that which fits whatever agenda you may currently be working on.

For the record, yes. I was in favor of keeping Vinnie as an experienced QB. I have never been one who believes that developing two inexperienced QBs is the way to go. One at a time, I support 100%. Two at the same time, not so much.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

As is some of the denial.

The bottom line is that he was issued a challenge by Parcells going into camp. Not only did he meet the bar, he exceeded it.

The debates are no longer "Does Romo have the ability to be an NFL Quarterback?" or "Romo is auditioning to show Parcells he's worth keeping around." That time has long passed.

Now the debate is whether he's ready to start this year. That's how good he's been this preseason.

Agreed. The denial is thick in this thread. I just think folks don't want to cheer for anyone they dismissed from the get-go.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I'm not surprised. It is my experience that you remember what you want to and that which fits whatever agenda you may currently be working on.

For the record, yes. I was in favor of keeping Vinnie as an experienced QB. I have never been one who believes that developing two inexperienced QBs is the way to go. One at a time, I support 100%. Two at the same time, not so much.

Oh okay...

Its just posts like this that get me confused...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33159&page=2&highlight=Vinny

In the Bears game, our OL played horribly. Henson wasn't given many opportunities to go down field in that game.

If you recall, Vinnie came in and almost threw two interceptions right out of the gate. Vinnie didn't play well in that game. The difference was that the game plan was opened up for Vinnie and he was able to make a couple of plays. I'm not saying Henson was all world but he was far from the picture many try to paint here.

In short, nothing happened to Henson. He was getting valuable playing experience.

It just sounds to me like you're in favor of going with the untested young guy to get them experience over the proven veteran..... in this case, anyway. Not only do you want to play the young unproven guy, but you want Parcells to "open it up" and put more responsibility and risks on his shoulders. Which is strange, with the stance you're taking now with Romo, considering he's infinitely more prepared to play than Henson was at that time.

That's why I'm confused over your stance now that now a proven veteran should take priority over Romo.

But, please, feel free to accuse me of an agenda while stating your objectivity one more time.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh okay...

Its just posts like this that get me confused...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33159&page=2&highlight=Vinny



It just sounds to me like you're in favor of going with the untested young guy to get them experience over the proven veteran.

.... in this case, anyway. Which is strange, because Romo is infinitely more prepared to play than Henson was.

That's why I'm confused over your stance now that Romo shouldn't see the field, but a proven veteran should.

Saddest part about this is that you haven't even made a good effort to try and prove I'm working off agenda. This thread, in particular, is about a game that happened 3 years ago when we were not a good football team. When we had no chance of competing at all. In this game, the thanksgiving day game against Chicago, I was very much in favor of letting an injured Vinnie rest and letting Henson play the game he started, as opposed to pulling him at half. If Vinnie was injured enough not to start, then why play him at half in a tie game? That was my reasoning then and under the same circumstances, I'd say the same thing again. This year is different. I believe, based on what I've seen thus far, that we do have a chance to compete for a championship and playoffs. I believe that we might have a future QB on the roster and thus, we don't have to find out if the guy can play. He can play. He just needs to mature a bit. Those same questions around 3 years ago, are not around any longer.

Honestly, the lengths you go to are rediculous.

Why don't you try this one on for size and then get back to me about what you think you know.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30691&page=3&highlight=Vinnie+backup

 

[peplaw06]

Oh okay...

Its just posts like this that get me confused...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33159&page=2&highlight=Vinny



It just sounds to me like you're in favor of going with the untested young guy to get them experience over the proven veteran..... in this case, anyway. Not only do you want to play the young unproven guy, but you want Parcells to "open it up" and put more responsibility and risks on his shoulders. Which is strange, with the stance you're taking now with Romo, considering he's infinitely more prepared to play than Henson was at that time.

That's why I'm confused over your stance now that now a proven veteran should take priority over Romo.

But, please, feel free to accuse me of an agenda while stating your objectivity one more time.

Two years agowned

 

[InmanRoshi]

Here's another thing I find kind of funny...

I seem to remember a certain segment of posters who were very upset at the Drew Blesdoe signing in the offseason of 2005. They wanted to Drew Henson to be "nudged" into the starting spot that season. They were in favor of bringing in lesser veteran QB's like Jeff Garcia, but not Bledsoe. Why? Because Bledsoe was a "Parcells guy", and there would be no fair competition for the starting spot. No matter how well Henson performed in camp, Bledsoe was going to be the starter because he's Parcells Guy.

Now, these same people seem to be Bledsoe's biggest backers. He's downright irreplacable. And the thought of Romo stealing snaps from Bledsoe in the regular season? Well .. that's just ridiculous. Yes, Romo played excellent in training camp ... but now preseason mean nothing. This job is not open. Don't even talk about it. Case closed.

 

[wileedog]

I just would like it if we had some NFL game experience on the roster. A proven back up, if you will.

I understand what you're saying.

But my problem with Volek is that Tennessee just discovered his ceiling. A 30 year old backup. I don't think he's a guy who would drive us far into the playoffs either.

We don't know Romo's yet. It might be the same as Volek's. It might be lower than Volek's. But it could be much higher too.

For years I've been arguing that no, Romo (and Henson) didn't need to play in garbage time because they weren't ready yet. Nothing good would have come from the experience. Ironically, after what I've seen this preseason, I think this is where I switch places and argue its time for him to play. He realistically could not have had much better of a pre-season. He passed Bill's tests with flying colors. I think he's got his game to the point where he's gone as far as practice is going to take him. Its time.

Bringing in a Volek is a progress stopper IMO. Romo is not going to mature anymore with a clipboard in his hand. He needs to guage his decisions on the field and get more experience with which of his 'impulses' are going to work and which are not.

Note: I'm not advocating starting him over Bledsoe, who "gives us the best chance to win" (to bring up that old phrase). But if something happens to Drew at least something positive will come out of the scenario, and we may find a good deal of upside as well that I don't think Volek has.

 

[peplaw06]

Here's another thing I find kind of funny...

I seem to remember a certain segment of posters who were very upset at the Drew Blesdoe signing in the offseason of 2005. They wanted to Drew Henson to be "nudged" into the starting spot that season. They were in favor of bringing in lesser veteran QB's like Jeff Garcia, but not Bledsoe. Why? Because Bledsoe was a "Parcells guy", and he would just be handed thestarting job. Henson would never been given a fair competition. No matter how much he outperformed Bledsoe in training camp, stubborn, pigheaded Parcells would go with "his guy".

Now, these same people seem to be Bledsoe's biggest backers. He's downright irreplacable. And the thought of anyone else stealing snaps from Bledsoe in the regular season? Well .. that's just ridiculous. Yes, Romo played excellent in training camp ... but now suddenly training camp means nothing.

I seriously doubt any fans expected Bledsoe to perform as well as he did last year. He answered a lot of his critics. If he's the best option to get the job done, I say go with him. We know what we've got at least.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I understand what you're saying.

But my problem with Volek is that Tennessee just discovered his ceiling. A 30 year old backup. I don't think he's a guy who would drive us far into the playoffs either.

We don't know Romo's yet. It might be the same as Volek's. It might be lower than Volek's. But it could be much higher too.

For years I've been arguing that no, Romo (and Henson) didn't need to play in garbage time because they weren't ready yet. Nothing good would have come from the experience. Ironically, after what I've seen this preseason, I think this is where I switch places and argue its time for him to play. He realistically could not have had much better of a pre-season. He passed Bill's tests with flying colors. I think he's got his game to the point where he's gone as far as practice is going to take him. Its time.

Bringing in a Volek is a progress stopper IMO. Romo is not going to mature anymore with a clipboard in his hand. He needs to guage his decisions on the field and get more experience with which of his 'impulses' are going to work and which are not.

Note: I'm not advocating starting him over Bledsoe, who "gives us the best chance to win" (to bring up that old phrase). But if something happens to Drew at least something positive will come out of the scenario, and we may find a good deal of upside as well that I don't think Volek has.

I don't know that Volek is a great QB but I do think he can be proficiant if supported. Look at his career numbers and he does a pretty good job. He can win games in the NFL. Lets face it, if Bledsoe went down for any length of time, we would be done. However, if we needed a guy who could hold out for 4 or 5 games till Bledsoe could get back, I'd like Voleks chances better then Romo's. It is not that I don't like Romo's skills. I just don't believe that the Romo we are seeing today is going to be the same Romo we see when were playing good teams and there throwing a real scheme at him. Volek, at least, has seen and played against good defensive teams in real game situations. To be honest with you, if Bledsoe went down long term, I'd rather let Romo play because at that point, I'd look at building Romo for the next year. To me, that would be the situation that would make more sense to play Romo in. The NFC is going to be very tight this year. I would really like to have experience on the roster.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't know that Volek is a great QB but I do think he can be proficiant if supported. Look at his career numbers and he does a pretty good job. He can win games in the NFL. Lets face it, if Bledsoe went down for any length of time, we would be done. However, if we needed a guy who could hold out for 4 or 5 games till Bledsoe could get back, I'd like Voleks chances better then Romo's. It is not that I don't like Romo's skills. I just don't believe that the Romo we are seeing today is going to be the same Romo we see when were playing good teams and there throwing a real scheme at him. Volek, at least, has seen and played against good defensive teams in real game situations. To be honest with you, if Bledsoe went down long term, I'd rather let Romo play because at that point, I'd look at building Romo for the next year. To me, that would be the situation that would make more sense to play Romo in. The NFC is going to be very tight this year. I would really like to have experience on the roster.

We really don't know that. I don't think it is fair to say Romo would play lights out on the other hand there is nothing there to prove he would fail. Dallas did not spend these last 3 years working with Romo to sign Volek as our backup. Romo is the backup no 2 ways about it and as I said you nor I know how he would do. One thing for sure he knows this offense better than Volek or any other player we could bring in. Romo deserves a chance

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here's another thing I find kind of funny...

I seem to remember a certain segment of posters who were very upset at the Drew Blesdoe signing in the offseason of 2005. They wanted to Drew Henson to be "nudged" into the starting spot that season. They were in favor of bringing in lesser veteran QB's like Jeff Garcia, but not Bledsoe. Why? Because Bledsoe was a "Parcells guy", and there would be no fair competition for the starting spot. No matter how well Henson performed in camp, Bledsoe was going to be the starter because he's Parcells Guy.

Now, these same people seem to be Bledsoe's biggest backers. He's downright irreplacable. And the thought of Romo stealing snaps from Bledsoe in the regular season? Well .. that's just ridiculous. Yes, Romo played excellent in training camp ... but now preseason mean nothing. This job is not open. Don't even talk about it. Case closed.

I was totally against it because I did not feel he was a QB who would last long or be able to get us to a championship. I was in favor of drafting a high profile option and bringing in others. What does that have to do with bringing in a Vet this year? Guess what, that question is still out there.

I was against signing Bledsoe, long before Henson ever came into the picture. Your reaching here.

As our team stands now, today, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win. There is no question of this. You cloud the issue, you kick up dust, you muddy the water as best you can but in the end, Bledsoe does give us the best chance to win. I have never been a big believer that Bledsoe will lead us to a champoinship and I still don't believe he will but I believe he is the best chance we have right now.

I have my opinions on personel, QBs, etc. However, they never come before what I believe to be best for the team. I do not claim all my opinions are correct but I will always say that I always believe we should do whats best for the team.

It is sad to me that you try and twist words, reach back to try and find posts that will support your effort to discredit and totally ignor the substance of the threads. There are many threads that support what I am saying now but you don't post those. Instead, you search for anything that might be twisted to prove your points. Not the intent of the threads themselves.

Disingenouis is all I can say about that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We really don't know that. I don't think it is fair to say Romo would play lights out on the other hand there is nothing there to prove he would fail. Dallas did not spend these last 3 years working with Romo to sign Volek as our backup. Romo is the backup no 2 ways about it and as I said you nor I know how he would do. One thing for sure he knows this offense better than Volek or any other player we could bring in. Romo deserves a chance

That's kinda the point. We don't know. How many chances does a team really have at a championship? Not really very many. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to sign a Vet. I'm saying I don't care. Bringing in a proven Vet would only help improve your chances of survival in the NFC East. If we have any chance of a championship run at all, I'm in favor of helping that cause in whatever way possible. Romo may know our offense better then anybody else we could bring in but he hasn't seen opposing defenses in real time. Romo does deserve a chance and I think he'll get it in short order but do you really want to do this experiment if the division hangs in the balance?

That's really what it comes down to IMO. If the answer is yes, OK, I understand your reasoning. For me, the answer is no. If we have a chance for a run, I'd rather have a proven player on the roster who has proven he can win games. At least at that point, if you play Romo and he's not working out, you have an option.

 

[wileedog]

I don't know that Volek is a great QB but I do think he can be proficiant if supported. Look at his career numbers and he does a pretty good job. He can win games in the NFL.

I'm sure that is exactly what the Titans were thinking coming into the season - if Volek is supported he could hold down the fort until Vince is ready. Signing Collins is a blatant admission they were wrong.

Looking at his stats, Volek became everyone's favorite backup with some good games in 2003. He got worse in 2004, progressively worse in 2005. It seems the more teams were exposed to Volek, the worse he has played. Last year he only completed 57% of his passes with a 5.2 or so YPA, mostly in 3 games. He tossed 2 INTS and had 3 Fumbles in those games as well.

He's topped it off with a terrible camp this year.

Keep in mind that at this point you still have to trade a draft pick to Tenn for this 'insurance'. Is he that much of a sure thing over Romo that he's worth a mid-day pick? Cause your not getting a QB for a 7th.

And even if they let him walk, there is no way he is coming here as a FA with Drew in front of him and Romo who just had the camp he had behind him.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's kinda the point. We don't know. How many chances does a team really have at a championship? Not really very many. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to sign a Vet. I'm saying I don't care. Bringing in a proven Vet would only help improve your chances of survival in the NFC East. If we have any chance of a championship run at all, I'm in favor of helping that cause in whatever way possible. Romo may know our offense better then anybody else we could bring in but he hasn't seen opposing defenses in real time. Romo does deserve a chance and I think he'll get it in short order but do you really want to do this experiment if the division hangs in the balance?

That's really what it comes down to IMO. If the answer is yes, OK, I understand your reasoning. For me, the answer is no. If we have a chance for a run, I'd rather have a proven player on the roster who has proven he can win games. At least at that point, if you play Romo and he's not working out, you have an option.

I don't think the team looks at it that way or we would not have given him an extention. I think they feel he can do the job and there is nothing to show that he can't. If Bledsoe goes down I'm sure BP will have someone brought in to back up Romo. I just don't see this as an experiment Romo has been with us long enough for the staff to have a pretty good ideal of what he can do.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm sure that is exactly what the Titans were thinking coming into the season - if Volek is supported he could hold down the fort until Vince is ready. Signing Collins is a blatant admission they were wrong.

Looking at his stats, Volek became everyone's favorite backup with some good games in 2003. He got worse in 2004, progressively worse in 2005. It seems the more teams were exposed to Volek, the worse he has played. Last year he only completed 57% of his passes with a 5.2 or so YPA, mostly in 3 games. He tossed 2 INTS and had 3 Fumbles in those games as well.

He's topped it off with a terrible camp this year.

Keep in mind that at this point you still have to trade a draft pick to Tenn for this 'insurance'. Is he that much of a sure thing over Romo that he's worth a mid-day pick? Cause your not getting a QB for a 7th.

And even if they let him walk, there is no way he is coming here as a FA with Drew in front of him and Romo who just had the camp he had behind him.

I think that Volek's progress is directly correlated to the talent level in Tennessee. When they had talent, he played well. Now, the talent level is not nearly as good. Volek's results are not either but at least you have some date with which to make a judgement with Volek. I don't think the Volek thing will ever happen but I know that I would feel much better if it did. That's just me.

 

[wileedog]

I don't think the Volek thing will ever happen but I know that I would feel much better if it did. That's just me.

Fair enough. I don't think its happening either though.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think the team looks at it that way or we would not have given him an extention. I think they feel he can do the job and there is nothing to show that he can't. If Bledsoe goes down I'm sure BP will have someone brought in to back up Romo. I just don't see this as an experiment Romo has been with us long enough for the staff to have a pretty good ideal of what he can do.

Perhaps, but I'll go on record right now and say that I don't believe Parcells figured he'd see what he saw from Romo last night.

 

[wileedog]

Perhaps, but I'll go on record right now and say that I don't believe Parcells figured he'd see what he saw from Romo last night.

Yeah, I don't think anyone expected that play when the snap went over his head....

 

[chinch]

Perhaps, but I'll go on record right now and say that I don't believe Parcells figured he'd see what he saw from Romo last night.

Clarify please... you're on record that Parcells expected to see more or less from Romo?