Shouldn't Dallas trade Orton?

[percyhoward]

They invested in 7 qbs since 1989.

That's four from 1989-91, and three since then.

1. Troy Aikman 1989
2. Steve Walsh 1989
3. Steve Beuerlein 1991
4. Bill Musgrave 1991
5. Quincy Carter 2001
6. Drew Henson 2004
7. Stephen McGee 2009

 

[khiladi]

It is fair to say 2009 Jon Kitna is of the caliber of 2013 Kyle Orton. And the trade there was for Anthony Henry. So the answer is likely we couldn't get much value for him.

Kitna was an int machine... Orton was and is a much better player, especially as a backup, though your point is well taken.

 

[Kristen82]

Orton is making $1.35 Million this season. By contrast, Chase Daniel just got a 3-year $10 mil deal. Think we're doing OK with Orton.

 

[silver]

They invested in 7 qbs since 1989.

1. Troy Aikman
2. Steve Walsh
3. Steve Beuerlein - trade involving a draft pick
4. Bill Musgrave
5. Quincy Carter
6. Drew Henson - trade involving 3rd round pick
7. Stephen McGee

OK wrong choice of words. By the same token we have invested in 16 TE's since 1989.

1. Keith Jennings
2. Rob Awalt - trade involving a draft pick
3. John Davis
4. Kendell Watkins
5. Eric Bjornson
6. David LaFleur
7. Rod Monroe
8. Mike Lucky
9. OJ Santiago -trade involving a draft pick
10. Bob Slowikowski
11. Jason Witten
12. Sean Ryan
13. Anthony Fasano
14. Martellus Bennett
15. John Phillips
16. James Hanna

 

[DFWJC]

Orton is making $1.35 Million this season. By contrast, Chase Daniel just got a 3-year $10 mil deal. Think we're doing OK with Orton.

Yeah. he's good value at that price and a season can get wrecked quickly if you don't have a capable backup QB.

 

[KB1122]

I don't particularly want a good backup quarterback. If your starter is out three games, then a real contender should be able to survive on running and defense. If your starter is gone for a long time, you're in trouble, anyway, and it's better to get the higher draft choice.

 

[myslamsareolder]

I don't particularly want a good backup quarterback. If your starter is out three games, then a real contender should be able to survive on running and defense. If your starter is gone for a long time, you're in trouble, anyway, and it's better to get the higher draft choice.

this. I have never understood having a "good" backup. IMO the backup should ALWAYS be a young developmental guy that way if your starter is hurt for a few games and he shows promise you can get picks out of him. if hes bad then its only a few games and you should be able to pull out at least one win and still be ok. If your starter is hurt for the year you may get a top 10 pick. imo there is no bad in that situation. Orton would NEVER lead the team to a superbowl if romo went down for the last half of the year, so why bother? get a capable minimum vet like Grossman or Lienhart and only use them if Romo is out 1 or 2 games if hes out for the season use a youngin' I absolutely think Buffalo would trade for Orton to compete with Nassib. They are gonna draft a rookie in a poor class they need a borderline starter to compete. they only cut Fitz because of how much $ he would cost them.

 

[gimmesix]

I mean this is a backup qb that is eating up a good chunk of cap space that probably could start in Arizona or Buffalo or...........? Definitely a luxury this team cannot afford.

There could be a good case for playing Orton and trading Romo too. I just think that Romo's mobility makes the line look better than it really is.

Dallas should also spend a reasonably high pick on a QB to groom post Romo IMO.

Matt Cassel just signed with Minnesota as a backup. I would think teams view Orton similarly ... and it showed last year when he chose to be a backup in Dallas because no team was knocking down his door to give him a starting role.

 

[myslamsareolder]

Matt Cassel just signed with Minnesota as a backup. I would think teams view Orton similarly ... and it showed last year when he chose to be a backup in Dallas because no team was knocking down his door to give him a starting role.

thats actually not true. he signed even before carr. he signed right away. he was sick of having to deal with never knowing what his role would be so he CHOSE to be a backup. The chiefs wanted him back. Pioli said as much, but he was going to compete with Cassel (yes i know Pioli said Matt was the starter, but come on) I think he was just over always having to compete for the starting spot of a bad team. Dallas gave him a good deal with no worries.

 

[Disturbed]

That's four from 1989-91, and three since then.

1. Troy Aikman 1989
2. Steve Walsh 1989
3. Steve Beuerlein 1991
4. Bill Musgrave 1991
5. Quincy Carter 2001
6. Drew Henson 2004
7. Stephen McGee 2009

That is horrible. Most teams are wise enough to draft a QB every other year knowing that many will not work out, and it takes time to groom a QB to be a starter.

Unless you go 1-15 and get the first pick in a year with great QB's coming out, you should probably draft more than 3 QB's in twenty years...and sad to say McGee is the best QB drafted by Cowboys in 20 years.

 

[Echo9]

That is horrible. Most teams are wise enough to draft a QB every other year knowing that many will not work out, and it takes time to groom a QB to be a starter.

Unless you go 1-15 and get the first pick in a year with great QB's coming out, you should probably draft more than 3 QB's in twenty years...and sad to say McGee is the best QB drafted by Cowboys in 20 years.

Do you have the records that show most other teams drafting a QB every other year? The Stellers draft 10 QBs since 1991. Other than Kordell Stewart and Ben Rothlisburger, they got absolutely NOTHING out of those guys. That's 8 wasted picks.

They was no reason to WASTE a pick on QB then we had Troy Aikman in his prime. That whole 'develop and trade' idea is rare enough to be pretty silly unless a guy is sitting there who's dropped in the draft. If you have other needs, then picking a QB just to pick one is a waste.

We went through a period from the late 90's to 2005, when we should have been looking and that was a mistake. We decided to try a different route since AT the TIME, few QBs were succeeding unless they were high picks, plus a BUNCH on QBs had busted out even though they were high round guys. Akili Smith, Cade McNown and others. It was a bad plan to try to go cheap at QB even though that eventually worked out with Romo, but it still doesn't make sense to keep using limited resources on a NEW QB every 2 years.

This data is skewed to serve an agenda, discounting the 3rd we gave for Henson (who was highly touted) and the other useless guys we brought in. We tried out a number of QBs, but because they weren't attached to a Draft pick, they don't count?

 

[sonnyboy]

I mean this is a backup qb that is eating up a good chunk of cap space that probably could start in Arizona or Buffalo or...........? Definitely a luxury this team cannot afford.

There could be a good case for playing Orton and trading Romo too. I just think that Romo's mobility makes the line look better than it really is.

Dallas should also spend a reasonably high pick on a QB to groom post Romo IMO.

Hate to sound like a jerk, but I can;t think of of worse idea.

How much trade value do you think a borderline starter like Orton would have???

Do you not see the value in a back up like Orton? Just say we actually put it togther and contend this season. Start out 7-3 or 8-2 and Romo goes down for 3 weeks.

You want an uproved QB that might go 0-3 or a proven vet who give s you a chance?

You come off like an impatient child. Yes FA has started and other teams are acquiring some players......give it a break, we'll be fine. Maybe better than fine.

 

[percyhoward]

This data is skewed to serve an agenda...

No agenda, and there's nothing skewed about the data either.

 

[jnday]

Do you have the records that show most other teams drafting a QB every other year? The Stellers draft 10 QBs since 1991. Other than Kordell Stewart and Ben Rothlisburger, they got absolutely NOTHING out of those guys. That's 8 wasted picks.

They was no reason to WASTE a pick on QB then we had Troy Aikman in his prime. That whole 'develop and trade' idea is rare enough to be pretty silly unless a guy is sitting there who's dropped in the draft. If you have other needs, then picking a QB just to pick one is a waste.

We went through a period from the late 90's to 2005, when we should have been looking and that was a mistake. We decided to try a different route since AT the TIME, few QBs were succeeding unless they were high picks, plus a BUNCH on QBs had busted out even though they were high round guys. Akili Smith, Cade McNown and others. It was a bad plan to try to go cheap at QB even though that eventually worked out with Romo, but it still doesn't make sense to keep using limited resources on a NEW QB every 2 years.

This data is skewed to serve an agenda, discounting the 3rd we gave for Henson (who was highly touted) and the other useless guys we brought in. We tried out a number of QBs, but because they weren't attached to a Draft pick, they don't count?

The data is not skewed. It is facts. They are facts that you must not care for. Thr whole problem is that Dallas is always without their future QB. Romo has the Cowboys in a bind because of it and let's face it, Romo won't be here forever. It would be a different story if a young QB like Dalton or Mallet was ready to step in and start. It is poor management and planning. There is no other way to look at it. If Romo doesn't resign, your opinion will change.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Hate to sound like a jerk, but I can;t think of of worse idea.

How much trade value do you think a borderline starter like Orton would have???

Do you not see the value in a back up like Orton? Just say we actually put it togther and contend this season. Start out 7-3 or 8-2 and Romo goes down for 3 weeks.

You want an uproved QB that might go 0-3 or a proven vet who give s you a chance?

You come off like an impatient child. Yes FA has started and other teams are acquiring some players......give it a break, we'll be fine. Maybe better than fine.

It's not just that. Your backup QB runs the scout team which practices against the starterting defense during the week to get them ready for what the opponent will likely show them.

I don't see how anyone would want a marginal QB handling that role when you have a guy like Orton -- not to menetion what you said about him coming off the bench should the starter go down.

People seem to think that backup players do nothing if the starters in front of them are healthy, and that is simply not the case.

The better your backups are to push the starters the better prepared your starters will be on gameday. This is why depth at every position is so important and, the lack of it has clearly hurt Dallas over the years.