Romo v Henson from BP PC
- Thread starter Mr Cowboy
- Start date
Dale
Forum Architect
- Messages
- 7,785
- Reaction score
- 7,395
Wait, DBoys, I'm confused. Romo is in his fourth year. Henson is in his third.
It would seem to me that Romo has "passed" the three-year rule given that he is still here, while Henson is in the "prove it or bye bye" stage, as you called it.
It would seem to me that Romo has "passed" the three-year rule given that he is still here, while Henson is in the "prove it or bye bye" stage, as you called it.
YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
Clove: Dude, we don't need to see anymore Cowboys behind bars... 
Clove
Shrinkage
- Messages
- 64,894
- Reaction score
- 27,491
He's in a spare prison, and I hope to see him break out of that spare prison this year.nyc said:Clove: Dude, we don't need to see anymore Cowboys behind bars...
Back to Henson - At some point in 3 years, don't you need to have a dynamic game or practice, atleast 1?
Dale
Forum Architect
- Messages
- 7,785
- Reaction score
- 7,395
DBoys said:Yep your right my bad at least on the 3 year rule. Oh yeah Romo has proved a whole lot on the field
Don't get me wrong though I want to see Romo play just as I saw Henson in Europe. I will feel better about about giving an opinion.
Well obviously both players still must prove themselves, but one can easily surmise that Romo has proven himself on the practice field to a much greater extent than has Henson given Parcells' public position on the two (and their placement on the depth chart).
But, my original post dealt solely with the three-year rule, and how I couldn't understand how that applied to Henson still having more time while this being a put-up-or-shut-up year for Romo. As I said, if anything, the three-year rule would seem to indicate the opposite.
iceberg
rock music matters
- Messages
- 34,404
- Reaction score
- 7,932
Mr Cowboy said:
at least when parcells gives these types of answers, i DO believe what he said:
We are always looking for a back-up QB, but we will also go with what we have. If you try to read anything into it you would be wrong, so don't. (but we will!)
Henson is not in that equation, he is independent of that, so we will see with what we have in him too. (no! he's gone i tell you!)
Who said I don't think highly of Henson? That is a misconception on your part. I am trying to create a situation for him to get more exposure (NFLE) and we will evaluate him when the time comes.
so - is henson gone again now?
wileedog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 11,356
- Reaction score
- 2,393
Even if, as seems likely, Romo enters the season as the solid #2, why would they just kick Henson to the curb?
IMO they will keep him until Bledsoe hangs 'em up. Then they will draft another developmental guy behind Henson. If/When *that* guy passes Henson on the depth chart, that will probably be the end of the experiment. Or conversely Henson may have developed enough over that time to challenge Romo for the top spot.
Either way, I don't see a zero sum game here.
IMO they will keep him until Bledsoe hangs 'em up. Then they will draft another developmental guy behind Henson. If/When *that* guy passes Henson on the depth chart, that will probably be the end of the experiment. Or conversely Henson may have developed enough over that time to challenge Romo for the top spot.
Either way, I don't see a zero sum game here.
RCowboyFan
Active Member
- Messages
- 6,926
- Reaction score
- 2
trickblue said:
