The Backup QB Spot

[Toruk_Makto]

I've seen the brain trust at Valley Ranch take a lot of beating over this single spot on the 53.

But really have the Cowboys been that negligent? What would you have done differently this offseason? People clamor about drafting a QB. But would a rookie QB have necessarily played better than our backups?

What QB taken in the draft would you have liked? We obviously had no shot at the top 2 guys.

The 3rd QB taken was Garrett Grayson by the Saints in the 3rd round. When Brees went down he didn't get the start.

The 4th QB taken was Sean Mannion by the Rams in the 3rd round . The Rams benched Foles at one point. Mannion didn't get the start.

Bryce Petty in the 4th?

Brett Hundley in the 5th?

Trevor Siemian (who) in the 7th?

Are we sure any of these guys are good? Yet alone would have been better than Weeden/Matty?

Honestly the Cowboys haven't been negligent in the backup qb spot. There just aren't a lot of humans on this Earth that can play the QB position well at this level. It is why they get the big bucks.

Before Weeden we routinely had one of the most expensive backups in the league (the Orton types). Then we went out and signed a former number 1 pick out of a bad situation hoping our personnel could be the difference. We then went out and traded for a former pro bowler who was in a offseason long fight for a starting position this year in the National Football League.

It's easy to say go get a guy. Much harder to do. Our front office has not been negligent.

 

[Sasquatch]

I don't think they've been negligent since they drafted McGee and brought in Orton, Weeden, and Cassell. I think the issue is more that they have been inaccurate in their assessments with exception of Orton.

 

[links18]

Weeden stinks, has always stunk and will always stink. It was folly to go into a Super Bowl aspiration season with him as the back-up. Almost on the level of thinking Brad Johnson could still play in 2008.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Weeden stinks, has always stunk and will always stink. It was folly to go into a Super Bowl aspiration season with him as the back-up. Almost on the level of thinking Brad Johnson could still play in 2008.

He is not a starting level player. That is why he is a backup. He is perfectly fine to play a game or two in a pinch. And for all his conservative faults he wasn't a dumpster fire.

Asking him....or any backup...to salvage a 7 game stretch to start the season is too much. You'd like to have done better than 0-7 but just sitting here and saying a guy stinks who is sitting on a 93 qb rating and a 58 QBR who came in on relief and won a game for us and had us in games in 2 of his other 3 starts deep into the 4th is obtuse.

 

[Tabascocat]

It should have been known that Weeden was not the answer after his one start against Arizona the year before. There were better alternatives out there to take a flyer on, such as:
Hoyer
Ponder
Flynn
McCown
Moore
Davis

I know these guys aren't all that but definitely have more upside than Weeden. Heck, I would have even gave Keenum a look.

Dallas could have traded earlier for Cassel and got him in camp, or even made a play for Fitzpatrick. Better to be proactive than reactive...........

 

[Hailmary]

It's been brought up on several occasions on the Break how the front office decided to sign Cassell as soon as Romo went down. You can interpret this as the FO not having any confidence in Weeden and they were just hoping that Romo would play the season injury free. That, I think is being pretty negligent.....going into a season with an injury prone-(ish) QB and a backup that you don't have confidence in.

I don't know who the blame should be directed at, but if the likes of a Fitzpatrick can win we should be better than 1-7. Are Weeden/ Cassell that bad? Is the staff to be blamed for having them play too conservatively early on (as some would suggest, myself included). Jerry/ Stephen definitely should get some of the blame, but how much is uncertain (assuming that both the staff and McClay were on board with heading into the season with Weeden as the backup).

 

[DoctorChicken]

Actually, the Broncos love Siemian and consider him a great option for their QB of the future.

 

[AbeBeta]

Weeden stinks, has always stunk and will always stink. It was folly to go into a Super Bowl aspiration season with him as the back-up. Almost on the level of thinking Brad Johnson could still play in 2008.

Weeden was a consensus first round pick who landed in a horrible situation in Cleveland. You confuse bad decisions with bad outcomes.

 

[AbeBeta]

Actually, the Broncos love Siemian and consider him a great option for their QB of the future.

Yeah, they say that but if the loae both Manning and Osweiler they are very clearly going to be singing another tune

 

[Tommy]

It's been brought up on several occasions on the Break how the front office decided to sign Cassell as soon as Romo went down. You can interpret this as the FO not having any confidence in Weeden and they were just hoping that Romo would play the season injury free. That, I think is being pretty negligent.....going into a season with an injury prone-(ish) QB and a backup that you don't have confidence in.

I don't know who the blame should be directed at, but if the likes of a Fitzpatrick can win we should be better than 1-7. Are Weeden/ Cassell that bad? Is the staff to be blamed for having them play too conservatively early on (as some would suggest, myself included). Jerry/ Stephen definitely should get some of the blame, but how much is uncertain (assuming that both the staff and McClay were on board with heading into the season with Weeden as the backup).

I interpret that as that they had no confidence in Moore. They have no intention of him seeing the field in 2015 as long as we are in contention. If something happened to Weeden they did not want to play Moore. With Romo out an extended time they needed another QB.

 

[Hailmary]

I interpret that as that they had no confidence in Moore. They have no intention of him seeing the field in 2015 as long as we are in contention. If something happened to Weeden they did not want to play Moore. Without Romo out an extended time they needed another QB.

I do think that was partly the case, but at the same time, it seemed to me that they couldn't wait to get Cassell up to speed to take over the backup duty.

 

[reddyuta]

Other than Mcgee we haven't drafted anybody since Romo started.this team is afraid to draft a QB because they can't evaluate them.who thought Mcgee could play in the NFL?.Wade Wilson is another problem, that guy is useless and just stealing money from Jerry.

 

[Hailmary]

Other than Mcgee we haven't drafted anybody since Romo started.this team is afraid to draft a QB because they can't evaluate them.who thought Mcgee could play in the NFL?.Wade Wilson is another problem, that guy is useless and just stealing money from Jerry.

Yea. If we draft a QB, we should bring in a new QB coach along with him. The fact that Tony's been so good has masked the fact that Wade's contributed 0% from a coaching perspective.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's been brought up on several occasions on the Break how the front office decided to sign Cassell as soon as Romo went down. You can interpret this as the FO not having any confidence in Weeden and they were just hoping that Romo would play the season injury free. That, I think is being pretty negligent.....going into a season with an injury prone-(ish) QB and a backup that you don't have confidence in.

I don't know who the blame should be directed at, but if the likes of a Fitzpatrick can win we should be better than 1-7. Are Weeden/ Cassell that bad? Is the staff to be blamed for having them play too conservatively early on (as some would suggest, myself included). Jerry/ Stephen definitely should get some of the blame, but how much is uncertain (assuming that both the staff and McClay were on board with heading into the season with Weeden as the backup).

Negligent? Or did they realize they needed to have 2 qbs active on the gameday roster with Romo down for 2 months minimum.

 

[wileedog]

I've seen the brain trust at Valley Ranch take a lot of beating over this single spot on the 53.

But really have the Cowboys been that negligent? What would you have done differently this offseason? People clamor about drafting a QB. But would a rookie QB have necessarily played better than our backups?

What QB taken in the draft would you have liked? We obviously had no shot at the top 2 guys.

The 3rd QB taken was Garrett Grayson by the Saints in the 3rd round. When Brees went down he didn't get the start.

The 4th QB taken was Sean Mannion by the Rams in the 3rd round . The Rams benched Foles at one point. Mannion didn't get the start.

Bryce Petty in the 4th?

Brett Hundley in the 5th?

Trevor Siemian (who) in the 7th?

Are we sure any of these guys are good? Yet alone would have been better than Weeden/Matty?

Honestly the Cowboys haven't been negligent in the backup qb spot. There just aren't a lot of humans on this Earth that can play the QB position well at this level. It is why they get the big bucks.

Before Weeden we routinely had one of the most expensive backups in the league (the Orton types). Then we went out and signed a former number 1 pick out of a bad situation hoping our personnel could be the difference. We then went out and traded for a former pro bowler who was in a offseason long fight for a starting position this year in the National Football League.

It's easy to say go get a guy. Much harder to do. Our front office has not been negligent.

If you are talking in terms of this particular offseason, you are probably correct. I think you can make an argument that their assessment of Weeden was completely off, and if they had brought in Cassel before camp than that was probably the best they could have done from a veteran standpoint.

However, I do think they have have always gone with the stopgap veteran who has already pretty much proven they are not starting QB material, and that is the problem when Romo goes down for a long stretch. Or even in a must win game in Orton's case. Look at the Broncos and Patriots. Osweiler is a 2nd round pick who has sat behind an all time great for 3 years, and when Manning went down the team didn't miss a beat. In fact you could argue they have improved due to Manning falling off a cliff this year (which at the rate Romo is getting beat up the last couple of years, could happen to him too).

Garappolo is only in his 2nd year, but again he is a high round pick selected to sit on the bench and learn despite the Pats having arguably the best ever starting at the position still playing at an extremely high level. And the Pats have done this Brady's entire career. They are practically a QB farm - note our current backup. They emphasize constantly grooming potential QBs more than anyone, and their record reflects it.

Outside of a half-hearted attempt with McGee we have done nothing like this since Romo became the established starter. Jerry has always gone with has beens and washouts and tried to ignore the fact that the team might have to produce with someone other than Romo behind center. And it has bit this team in the arse more than one time.

So yes, when looking at the position in a long term view, the FO has been completely negligent of the QB position, other than praying that Romo doesn't miss more than a game or two, and if he does it is not a win and in type game like in 2013.

 

[Hailmary]

Negligent? Or did they realize they needed to have 2 qbs active on the gameday roster with Romo down for 2 months minimum.

Negligent if you consider how they rushed Cassell to take over. I think the staff realized what they had in Weeden but were hoping that Tony would remain injury free.

 

[lostar2009]

Yes they have been negligent in finding a back up. Their first option is always to bring in a veten back up that really haven't done much in the league. We have zero growth or development behind Romo. Teams all across the league gave drafted qbs and develop them. I never saw a reason to be highly invested in Romo. I know we can win with him but he isn't means no Tom Brady.

 

[reddyuta]

If you are talking in terms of this particular offseason, you are probably correct. I think you can make an argument that their assessment of Weeden was completely off, and if they had brought in Cassel before camp than that was probably the best they could have done from a veteran standpoint.

However, I do think they have have always gone with the stopgap veteran who has already pretty much proven they are not starting QB material, and that is the problem when Romo goes down for a long stretch. Or even in a must win game in Orton's case. Look at the Broncos and Patriots. Osweiler is a 2nd round pick who has sat behind an all time great for 3 years, and when Manning went down the team didn't miss a beat. In fact you could argue they have improved due to Manning falling off a cliff this year.

Garappolo is only in his 2nd year, but again he is a high round pick selected to sit on the bench and learn despite the Pats having arguably the best ever starting at the position still playing at an extremely high level. And the Pats have done this Brady's entire career. They are practically a QB farm - note our current backup. They emphasize constantly grooming potential QBs more than anyone, and their record reflects it.

Outside of a half-hearted attempt with McGee we have done nothing like this since Romo became the established starter. Jerry has always gone with has beens and washouts and tried to ignore the fact that the team might have to produce with someone other than Romo behind center. And it has bit this team in the arse more than one time.

So yes, when looking at the position in a long term view, the FO has been completely negligent of the QB position, other than praying that Romo doesn't miss more than a game or two, and if he does it is not a win and in type game like in 2013.

The packers have drafted 2 QBs since Rodgers started , our FO has been negligent in not even trying to develop a QB.

 

[black label]

FO failure at the backup qb position. This alone would have gotten any other GM fired this year.

 

[visionary]

I've seen the brain trust at Valley Ranch take a lot of beating over this single spot on the 53.

But really have the Cowboys been that negligent? What would you have done differently this offseason? People clamor about drafting a QB. But would a rookie QB have necessarily played better than our backups?

What QB taken in the draft would you have liked? We obviously had no shot at the top 2 guys.

The 3rd QB taken was Garrett Grayson by the Saints in the 3rd round. When Brees went down he didn't get the start.

The 4th QB taken was Sean Mannion by the Rams in the 3rd round . The Rams benched Foles at one point. Mannion didn't get the start.

Bryce Petty in the 4th?

Brett Hundley in the 5th?

Trevor Siemian (who) in the 7th?

Are we sure any of these guys are good? Yet alone would have been better than Weeden/Matty?

Honestly the Cowboys haven't been negligent in the backup qb spot. There just aren't a lot of humans on this Earth that can play the QB position well at this level. It is why they get the big bucks.

Before Weeden we routinely had one of the most expensive backups in the league (the Orton types). Then we went out and signed a former number 1 pick out of a bad situation hoping our personnel could be the difference. We then went out and traded for a former pro bowler who was in a offseason long fight for a starting position this year in the National Football League.

It's easy to say go get a guy. Much harder to do. Our front office has not been negligent.

I know you are trying to find any way to excuse away the poor decision making by our FO and HC so let me spell it out for you:

Everyone and their mother knew that Weeden could not play QB after the game in Arizona last year. This year Weeden lost games against some bottom dwellers.

Going in to the season this team had SB aspirations

Romo had missed games every year for last few years so it was VERY probable that the back up QB would need to start and win at least 1-2 games this year either to qualify for playoffs or for home field

Many vet QBs had come available in the off season that other teams signed that are way better options than Weeden

That is pretty much the definition of negligence