The Upgrade Everyone Was Ranting About

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
My fault for actually taking you seriously until this post

I've got one word for you to look up in the dictionary: context

lmao....


I can't believe people are defending weeden... freaking weeden.... as if eyes don't matter.....
times are desperate.




New narrative, we benched our savior.
hi-res-184416322-quarterback-brandon-weeden-of-the-cleveland-browns_crop_exact.jpg



This is a new level of "I told U so"
 
Last edited:

DEMFAN

Well-Known Member
Messages
460
Reaction score
281
Offensive Touchdowns Scored
Games 3-5: 6
Games 6&7: 2

Pct Drives Ending in TD's
Games 3-5: 20%
Games 6&7: 10.5%

Average Starting Field Position:
Games 3-5: 21.4
Games 6&7: 27.14

Pct Passing/Running plays
Games 3-5: 63.8%/36.2%
Games 6&7: 45%/55%

Average Yards Per Carry
Games 3-5: 2.4 Yards
Games 6&7: 3.8 Yards

Average Points Scored by Opponent Offense
Games 3-5: 25.4
Games 6&7: 13

Opponents combined current record:

Games 3-5: 17-6
Games 6&7: 8-8

Starting Quarterback's combined rating:
Games 3-5: 92.2
Games 6&7: 58.5

Average Points Produced by Offense Per Game:
Games 3-5: 16

Games 6&7: 16
Cassell was given every singe advantage over Weeden to produce including:

Better Running Game
Better Defense
Better starting position
Easier Opponents
Better Receivers

....And there was zero improvement from what Weeden produced with far, far less.

Weeden would have helped the Cowboys to win that game. It may not have been big plays, but it would have been efficient and effective.
Just you WAIT until week 8!!!!!
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
I thought the point was a very simple one. The upgrade everybody was calling for has turned out to actually be a downgrade in terms of production. Pretty straightforward. And, agree or not, there's good data in the OP to support that position.

I'll add, for my own part, that the argument to start a player because 'he can't be any worse' is a bad one, because he obviously can be worse.

And I'll go further to say that, yes, I think there's a good chance Weeden might have been able to get the team past that Giants team if he didn't throw the stupid picks. Maybe not, because Cassel did make some really nice throws on that TD drive, and we'd still have given up the ST touchdown, which is hard to overcome. But the three picks and the pick-6 were backbreakers.

Why does all of this sound like a Quincy Carter vs. Chad Hutchinson debate? Both guys are horrible, there is no right answer with either of these guys. The only right answer disappeared in the offseason, when there was a chance to get a viable backup QB.
 

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
I knew this board
Why does all of this sound like a Quincy Carter vs. Chad Hutchinson debate? Both guys are horrible, there is no right answer with either of these guys. The only right answer disappeared in the offseason, when there was a chance to get a viable backup QB.

you sir are a genius...
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Why does all of this sound like a Quincy Carter vs. Chad Hutchinson debate? Both guys are horrible, there is no right answer with either of these guys. The only right answer disappeared in the offseason, when there was a chance to get a viable backup QB.

I agree that neither are good enough. And that's what I said at the time, too. The best we could hope for with Romo out was to not have a QB lose games for us. But that's not the point of the thread. The thread points out that everybody thought Cassel was an upgrade, but after two games, QB productivity has actually dropped.

Instead of just acknowledging it as we probably should have, it became another opportunity to backlash against Weeden. Because we want to homer-out and believe the issues have all been about the QB when the reality is that the issues were more wide-spread.
 

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
I agree that neither are good enough. And that's what I said at the time, too. The best we could hope for with Romo out was to not have a QB lose games for us. But that's not the point of the thread. The thread points out that everybody thought Cassel was an upgrade, but after two games, QB productivity has actually dropped.

Instead of just acknowledging it as we probably should have, it became another opportunity to backlash against Weeden. Because we want to homer-out and believe the issues have all been about the QB when the reality is that the issues were more wide-spread.

weeden deserves any backlash he's gotten...
 

MrPhil

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
1,456
Weeden was the starter for the Cleveland Browns Day #1 his rookie year in 2012. He was 5-15 as a starter. .The Browns were 4-8 the rest of the games those two seasons.

Troy Aikman was 3-17 in his first 20 starts. He had an 11 game losing streak.

I am sorry, but I couldn't get past the above quote. Were you really trying to make a comparison between Weeden and Aikman? If so, and I mean no disrespect by this, but I can't take anything else you say seriously.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
weeden deserves any backlash he's gotten...

Not really.

He's not a very good QB, but he played safe. He secured the PHI game, which was huge. And there's zero arguing that. 7-7 of the bench and a td...that's good production.

Had we played better around him in ATL, we'd likely have won that game, too. That was the game Gregory was out and Hardy was not back yet and we tried to get by with Russell, who couldn't manage containment and we got beat giving up almost 40 points at home. Weeden didn't have an incompletion in that game until almost halftime, I think. He threw the one dumb pick, and that was it. We scored 28 points that week.

The NE game he was completely helpless. Anyone care to bet Belichick could have done the same to Cassel after seeing Matt last week? I don't. He did the same thing to Cassel in 2014 when he was at MIN. 30-7 or whatever it was, with 3-4 picks. Because that's what Belichick does.

And I'm not necessarily defending Weeden, because I've felt all along he was not good enough. I'm just saying fans are overstating the QB problems because they want to believe it's all on the QB because we have Tony Romo coming back. The reality is, it's not all on the QB. We're playing better around the QB now than we were earlier, but the problems have been more widespread than that. You have to be honest with what you're seeing on the field.
 

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
Not really.

He's not a very good QB, but he played safe. He secured the PHI game, which was huge. And there's zero arguing that. 7-7 of the bench and a td...that's good production.

Had we played better around him in ATL, we'd likely have won that game, too. That was the game Gregory was out and Hardy was not back yet and we tried to get by with Russell, who couldn't manage containment and we got beat giving up almost 40 points at home. Weeden didn't have an incompletion in that game until almost halftime, I think. He threw the one dumb pick, and that was it. We scored 28 points that week.

The NE game he was completely helpless. Anyone care to bet Belichick could have done the same to Cassel after seeing Matt last week? I don't. He did the same thing to Cassel in 2014 when he was at MIN. 30-7 or whatever it was, with 3-4 picks. Because that's what Belichick does.

And I'm not necessarily defending Weeden, because I've felt all along he was not good enough. I'm just saying fans are overstating the QB problems because they want to believe it's all on the QB because we have Tony Romo coming back. The reality is, it's not all on the QB. We're playing better around the QB now than we were earlier, but the problems have been more widespread than that. You have to be honest with what you're seeing on the field.

ok, so let me rephrase myself...
management deserves his backlash for not recognizing his failures last year.


And yes, this team has issues, as does the coaching staff..... I've sang this song all season...
offsides, defensive failures, poor special teams is not weeden.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
ok, so let me rephrase myself...
management deserves his backlash for not recognizing his failures last year.


And yes, this team has issues, as does the coaching staff..... I've sang this song all season...
offsides, defensive failures, poor special teams is not weeden.

I said all offseason that QB2 was a much bigger problem for us than RB1. Problem was, there weren't a lot of good alternatives out there for us. We apparently liked Shaun Hill, but he wanted to go back to MIN, instead. The guy I liked for us was actually Cassel, so there goes my credibility in finding a true upgrade.

That said, I'm not hearing a lot of names I like any better, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. You can't really fault the team all that much for not signing a player who doesn't really exist.
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
I agree that neither are good enough. And that's what I said at the time, too. The best we could hope for with Romo out was to not have a QB lose games for us. But that's not the point of the thread. The thread points out that everybody thought Cassel was an upgrade, but after two games, QB productivity has actually dropped.

And they're great points. But it's a futile debate, which is what I wanted to point out by suggesting this all sounds a lot like Quincy vs. Chad. But hey, I guess there is nothing better to do during a five-game losing streak, so we might as well continue to discuss which QB gives us a better chance of not losing. I would submit a mannequin, mannequins don't throw pick-6's.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
And they're great points. But it's a futile debate, which is what I wanted to point out by suggesting this all sounds a lot like Quincy vs. Chad. But hey, I guess there is nothing better to do during a five-game losing streak, so we might as well continue to discuss which QB gives us a better chance of not losing. I would submit a mannequin, mannequins don't throw pick-6's.

I agree with you. It's incredibly frustrating to have a team that could contend, and to watch it not contend at all.
 

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
I said all offseason that QB2 was a much bigger problem for us than RB1. Problem was, there weren't a lot of good alternatives out there for us. We apparently liked Shaun Hill, but he wanted to go back to MIN, instead. The guy I liked for us was actually Cassel, so there goes my credibility in finding a true upgrade.

That said, I'm not hearing a lot of names I like any better, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. You can't really fault the team all that much for not signing a player who doesn't really exist.

The backup Qb has been an issue for more than one year. The opportunity to develop a QB should be approached with aggression if you know you have an injury prone QB, who is aging, and you have Super Bowl aspirations. So I can't agree with you, they've seen this before..hence beuerlein, & kosar........... I would rather see the organization try, than give up/ act delusional.

Ill use the steelers (yuk), as an example.... they drafted landry to develop, and wasn't happy with his results, so they signed vick.
now are these guys the answer? no, but the organization recognizes a problem, and attempts to repair it... the Boys just ignore it, and attempt to sell you a yacht.

Fitzbeard would look good with a star on his helmut btw.
 
Last edited:

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The backup Qb has been an issue for more than one year. The opportunity to develop a QB should be approached with aggression if you know you have a injury prone QB, who is aging, and you have Super Bowl aspirations. So I can't agree with you, they've seen this before..hence beuerlein, & kosar........... I would rather see the organization try, than give up/ act delusional.

Ill use the steelers (yuk), as an example.... they drafted landry to develop, and wasn't happy with his results, so they signed vick.
now are these guys the answer, no, but the organization recognizes a problem, and attempts to repair it... the Boys just ignore it, and attempt to sell you a yacht.

Fitzbeard would look good with a star on his helmut btw.

I don't see what the Steelers did as any different from what we did. We've had a problem for two seasons now. We brought in Weeden at the last minute when Orton went sideways. That was in March of that year, so we could have drafted somebody if we liked them, I guess. We tried to develop Vaughan, who had the physical tools. We kept him on the roster, which was unusual at the time. We brought in Cassel when Romo went down as insurance, and stashed Moore as a guy they apparently like as a developmental guy. The only thing we didn't do is draft somebody with a high pick, but again, I don't see a lot of guys with ability we passed on in the last two drafts. Manziel? No, thanks. We reportedly liked Savage a couple years back. He was overdrafted. Who else was there?

And, I like Fitz for what he is, too, but don't think he's a much better option that Cassel was, honestly. I liked Hoyer as a backup to Tony, too, but think the opportunity to start there was probably too much to expect him to pass up. Other than that, the recycled QB market is a big steaming bowl of 'meh' or 'yuck.'
 

RonSpringsdaman20

Hold The Door!
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
3,861
I don't see what the Steelers did as any different from what we did. We've had a problem for two seasons now. We brought in Weeden at the last minute when Orton went sideways. That was in March of that year, so we could have drafted somebody if we liked them, I guess. We tried to develop Vaughan, who had the physical tools. We kept him on the roster, which was unusual at the time. We brought in Cassel when Romo went down as insurance, and stashed Moore as a guy they apparently like as a developmental guy. The only thing we didn't do is draft somebody with a high pick, but again, I don't see a lot of guys with ability we passed on in the last two drafts. Manziel? No, thanks. We reportedly liked Savage a couple years back. He was overdrafted. Who else was there?

And, I like Fitz for what he is, too, but don't think he's a much better option that Cassel was, honestly. I liked Hoyer as a backup to Tony, too, but think the opportunity to start there was probably too much to expect him to pass up. Other than that, the recycled QB market is a big steaming bowl of 'meh' or 'yuck.'

so we disagree... allgood...
we still good;)
 
Top