This Season has NOT been a success

[juice28]

So youre saying that Hensom would hold onto the ball longer than the man that holds onto the ball moreso than anyone ive ever seen?

He wouldn't have held on as long, but he sure as heck wouldn't have us in position to make the playoffs. Please don't say that "he would have" or "you don't know". Drew Henson isn't comparable to Bledsoe right now. We are on the brink of the playoffs and the only QB that could've gotten us this far is DB. End of story.

 

[Sarge]

I do deal with it but at the same time Ill still call it.

You've always been my hero.

 

[Cbz40]

Plenty of people had heart problems when Vinny wound up starter for the year.

You were discussing the board reaction to bringing in a backup.

So other than one blowout in Washington when the line was playing bullfighter (ole!), what opportunities have you seen to get Romo or Henson "NFL ready"?

and here is the problem.......we have not taken advantage of the few opportunities we have had to get them ready. The one this season or the at the end of the 2004 season.

Who do you suggest we get? And which guy should we get rid of for a useless castoff, Romo or Henson?

Take your pick but we need to do something to secure the backup QB position. Sign a young vet FA with some experience, draft a QB or both.

If indeed 2006 is the season we make our run then secure the QB position for now and the future. Now (this offseason) is the time not after the season is underway.

As far as I am concerned you are arguing a moot point; therefore, I stand by my original statement which you have failed to convince me is false.

"If Bledsoe would have gone down at any point during the season we would be comparing ourselves to the Jets. We were and are no better off in our QB sitiation than they are.

To continue this way we are playing Russian Roulette with the 2006 season the same as we were with the 2005."

 

[iceberg]

So youre saying that Hensom would hold onto the ball longer than the man that holds onto the ball moreso than anyone ive ever seen?

no, he's just saying "hey, i got my bledsoe underoos all ironed, aren't i spiffy?" : )

kidding nors, but you do defend a lot more than you should.

 

[iceberg]

Plenty of people had heart problems when Vinny wound up starter for the year.



So other than one blowout in Washington when the line was playing bullfighter (ole!), what opportunities have you seen to get Romo or Henson "NFL ready"?

Who do you suggest we get? And which guy should we get rid of for a useless castoff, Romo or Henson?

don't make me call horse caca.

we had TWO FULL GAMES last year when WE KNEW vinnie would NOT be back this year. WHY ON EARTH did we not use those games to eval EITHER qb?

butt-nugget stupid to me.

 

[Rockytop6]

Then get ready to cringe again. Parcells has had to build nearly every position on the team. This team is a playoff team. We havn't had a true playoff team in many years. I still think someway or other we will be in the playoffs.

Every team makes mistakes and every HC makes mistakes. These are not brain surgeons or they would be in the operating room. They are coaches and are very good at what they do. You are not a coach or you would be on somebody's sideline.

Am I disappointed we didn't play better and have a better record? Yes. Am I pleased at the influx of talent and the future of this team? Yes. I am always disappointed when we don't make the playoffs but I remember when having a winning record for 20 years wasn't enough, and just going to the NFC chamption game wasn't enough, and losing in the SB wasn't enough.

Now, I am happy for the progress we are making in building a good team. There are other holes to fill and many of them will be filled this off season.

 

[morasp]

Last time I checked, this season isn't over yet!!!

 

[iceberg]

Then get ready to cringe again. Parcells has had to build nearly every position on the team. This team is a playoff team. We havn't had a true playoff team in many years. I still think someway or other we will be in the playoffs.

Every team makes mistakes and every HC makes mistakes. These are not brain surgeons or they would be in the operating room. They are coaches and are very good at what they do. You are not a coach or you would be on somebody's sideline.

Am I disappointed we didn't play better and have a better record? Yes. Am I pleased at the influx of talent and the future of this team? Yes. I am always disappointed when we don't make the playoffs but I remember when having a winning record for 20 years wasn't enough, and just going to the NFC chamption game wasn't enough, and losing in the SB wasn't enough.

Now, I am happy for the progress we are making in building a good team. There are other holes to fill and many of them will be filled this off season.

i don't care if i'm a fan, coach, hot dog salesman at ranger games who screams out HOTDOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS as the highlight of my life or some scandinavian insurgent - it's STUPID to NOT give your backup qb's playing time WHEN the option comes up.

if neither qb was good enough to get scrub time then it's even stupider to back up your "aging vet" qb w/players YOU WILL NOT PLAY.

i tire of the "you're no coach so what do you know!!!???" junk. some seem to think it's the "final blow" to fans they disagree with who love to coach-jock-carry (and by all means, carry it) but that does NOT mean i'm stupid, lack common sense, can't understand or comprehend, and in the end there is no great mystery in qb play. like anything, you learn as you go.

now i'm sure parcells DOES know more than me about football, let's not be dense for the sake of being dense. this however does NOT give him or ANY coach carte blanche to do ignorant things and *not* be called on it.

many people in defense of parcells have said "when would he put the qb's in while we're in a playoff run!" and with that I DO NOT DISAGREE. play bledsoe as long as we have a shot cause like him or not, he IS the best qb we have on the roster *that we know of*. but if we get in a position to where say both carolina and the skins win (and both play before we do) then our game *is* pointless.

given we know NOTHING about either qb in a game, and given we SELDOM get the chance to see what they *can* do, if that situation comes up and we play drew, you're gonna see a lot more like me - "simple fans" pissed to no end at bp's refusal to allow growth at the qb position.

he did it last year, this year in the ONE GAME where he COULD HAVE easily let romo play, he let drew make the call. would you come out if that's how you lost your last starting gig??? it's up to parcells to watch out for the team, not a player. i view it as just another excuse for him to say he let drew make the call cause i doubt he'd let many other players make the self-same call.

so i may just be mr. ignorant the fan, but his *logic* at qb obviously leaves a LOT OF US lost and wondering just what is on his "hall of fame" mind.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

i don't care if i'm a fan, coach, hot dog salesman at ranger games who screams out HOTDOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS as the highlight of my life or some scandinavian insurgent - it's STUPID to NOT give your backup qb's playing time WHEN the option comes up.

if neither qb was good enough to get scrub time then it's even stupider to back up your "aging vet" qb w/players YOU WILL NOT PLAY.

i tire of the "you're no coach so what do you know!!!???" junk. some seem to think it's the "final blow" to fans they disagree with who love to coach-jock-carry (and by all means, carry it) but that does NOT mean i'm stupid, lack common sense, can't understand or comprehend, and in the end there is no great mystery in qb play. like anything, you learn as you go.

now i'm sure parcells DOES know more than me about football, let's not be dense for the sake of being dense. this however does NOT give him or ANY coach carte blanche to do ignorant things and *not* be called on it.

many people in defense of parcells have said "when would he put the qb's in while we're in a playoff run!" and with that I DO NOT DISAGREE. play bledsoe as long as we have a shot cause like him or not, he IS the best qb we have on the roster *that we know of*. but if we get in a position to where say both carolina and the skins win (and both play before we do) then our game *is* pointless.

given we know NOTHING about either qb in a game, and given we SELDOM get the chance to see what they *can* do, if that situation comes up and we play drew, you're gonna see a lot more like me - "simple fans" pissed to no end at bp's refusal to allow growth at the qb position.

he did it last year, this year in the ONE GAME where he COULD HAVE easily let romo play, he let drew make the call. would you come out if that's how you lost your last starting gig??? it's up to parcells to watch out for the team, not a player. i view it as just another excuse for him to say he let drew make the call cause i doubt he'd let many other players make the self-same call.

so i may just be mr. ignorant the fan, but his *logic* at qb obviously leaves a LOT OF US lost and wondering just what is on his "hall of fame" mind.

"you're no coach so what do you know!!!???"

So there mr smart guy.

Just kidding...I don't agree with all of your post but I do agree with most of it.

I have no problem if the game is out of hand and you bring the guy in for a few snaps...on the other hand I don't mind if it is going so bad that it will not really help the guy either....however in that case it is smarter to have your backup nobody in at QB to risk an injury...then it is your starter who is getting killed.

 

[iceberg]

"you're no coach so what do you know!!!???"

So there mr smart guy.

Just kidding...I don't agree with all of your post but I do agree with most of it.

I have no problem if the game is out of hand and you bring the guy in for a few snaps...on the other hand I don't mind if it is going so bad that it will not really help the guy either....however in that case it is smarter to have your backup nobody in at QB to risk an injury...then it is your starter who is getting killed.

oh, i've come to the conclusion long ago that people like cbz40, hos and me are in the minority - but none of us (that i can tell) see any logic in what we're doing at the qb spot. true no one "stellar" has been available, but we've had chances at mcmahon and griese who BOTH could have been backups with MUCH more experience than romo or hensen.

i just don't understand backing up a 44 year old qb, then a 35 year old qb with players you refuse to play when it doesn't matter. in the skins game, drew should have been pulled simply because the game was over but the season was not - and the skins defense was out for blood. why risk hurting drew in a meaningless game when he "is" our best chance for the rest of the season?

it made no sense, but it fell in line with the rest of parcells logic that doesn't make sense UNLESS he's just going to protect his qb's at all costs. by "his" i mean vinnie and bledsoe. so far he's had:

1) chicago game - pulled hensen at the 1/2 while tied and put in a qb who was NOT playing because of "injury". (smells all around here)
2) 2 games at the end of last season - winning or losing was meaningless, but giving valid qb time to either player, even if ugly, is vital to overall evaluation (to me) and we didn't do it. now the "pro-bp-logic" crowd harps that actual gametime is hard to come by when in a playoff run. i do not disagree, but that stance ignores the 2 points above.
3) 1/2 skins game. no way should drew have been in there for reasons stated above, yet he was. some call it competitor, i call it selfish and not advancing "the team" by giving experience *when valid opportunities" to arise.

i'll agree to stay with drew while in the hunt, but i also agree at any "valid opportunity" you should give your backup qb's some time.

bp has failed at letting hensen adjust and finish, 2 games after that, and another 1/2 this year.

now if carolina and the skins win, will he once again refuse to give romo or even hensen some playing time in a game that just doesn't matter to us?

i'm betting yes, but i kinda hope we don't find out, ya know?

 

[Cbz40]

I'll say it again......

In our present state at the QB position.....I say some playing time is better than no playing time.

It would be in Romo's best interest to wait until Drew goes down in the middle of a crucial drive, Fed Ex stadium, 4th quarter......lets throw him to the wolves then. Yea, I see that logic....??????? Baptism under fire....yea that make sense.???????

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

oh, i've come to the conclusion long ago that people like cbz40, hos and me are in the minority - but none of us (that i can tell) see any logic in what we're doing at the qb spot. true no one "stellar" has been available, but we've had chances at mcmahon and griese who BOTH could have been backups with MUCH more experience than romo or hensen.

i just don't understand backing up a 44 year old qb, then a 35 year old qb with players you refuse to play when it doesn't matter. in the skins game, drew should have been pulled simply because the game was over but the season was not - and the skins defense was out for blood. why risk hurting drew in a meaningless game when he "is" our best chance for the rest of the season?

it made no sense, but it fell in line with the rest of parcells logic that doesn't make sense UNLESS he's just going to protect his qb's at all costs. by "his" i mean vinnie and bledsoe. so far he's had:

1) chicago game - pulled hensen at the 1/2 while tied and put in a qb who was NOT playing because of "injury". (smells all around here)
2) 2 games at the end of last season - winning or losing was meaningless, but giving valid qb time to either player, even if ugly, is vital to overall evaluation (to me) and we didn't do it. now the "pro-bp-logic" crowd harps that actual gametime is hard to come by when in a playoff run. i do not disagree, but that stance ignores the 2 points above.
3) 1/2 skins game. no way should drew have been in there for reasons stated above, yet he was. some call it competitor, i call it selfish and not advancing "the team" by giving experience *when valid opportunities" to arise.

i'll agree to stay with drew while in the hunt, but i also agree at any "valid opportunity" you should give your backup qb's some time.

bp has failed at letting hensen adjust and finish, 2 games after that, and another 1/2 this year.

now if carolina and the skins win, will he once again refuse to give romo or even hensen some playing time in a game that just doesn't matter to us?

i'm betting yes, but i kinda hope we don't find out, ya know?

Last year is one thing...however this year Henson would have NO REASON to be in under mop up duty as that is Romos job now.

There is a fine line between...why doesn't bill play the backup...and why doesn't bill play Henson in mop up duty.

I am not trying to be nors here...but Henson has earned nothing and he is not the backup. And until he can even beat Romo he has no business getting any time other than in NFL Europe or in pre-season.

I honestly think the only reason he got some time last year is because Jerry pushed for it. People want to say that bill has ultimate say but it has also came out that Jerry wanted bill to see what we had in QC and Chad instead of bringing in another QB...so it would not shock me in the least if Jerry did not push for it.

I would have to see some major shifts in the coaches and in preseason games before I even think Henson has a chance to be on the opening (regular season) game roster.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'll say it again......

In our present state at the QB position.....I say some playing time is better than no playing time.

It would be in Romo's best interest to wait until Drew goes down in the middle of a crucial drive, Fed Ex stadium, 4th quarter......lets throw him to the wolves then. Yea, I see that logic....??????? Baptism under fire....yea that make sense.???????

The thing I have a problem with is the idea of....IF we are going to lose no matter what...ala the Skins game, if the other team is just killing our O-Line and QB...then there really is no exp except being nailed that a backup could get...HOWEVER....would you rather your starting QB who gives you the best chance to win in a season go down because he was kept in....or would you rather have a backup QB go down for the season?

Sounds crazy but it goes beyond all of the guys out there screaming that the backups need playing time...IMO it is more important not to get the best QB you have killed and end any chance you have of a remainder of a season.

 

[Cbz40]

The thing I have a problem with is the idea of....IF we are going to lose no matter what...ala the Skins game, if the other team is just killing our O-Line and QB...then there really is no exp except being nailed that a backup could get...HOWEVER....would you rather your starting QB who gives you the best chance to win in a season go down because he was kept in....or would you rather have a backup QB go down for the season?

Sounds crazy but it goes beyond all of the guys out there screaming that the backups need playing time...IMO it is more important not to get the best QB you have killed and end any chance you have of a remainder of a season.[/QUOTE]


Sounds logical too me.......

Plus if nothing else.....the backup is at least working on his "run for your life" skills.

 

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Second-guessing game

Season's close calls leave team wondering

By MAC ENGEL

Star-Telegram Staff Writer



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/football/13499727.htm

IRVING -- The questions inevitably arise on the plane ride home, usually after a loss, and Cowboys quarterback Drew Bledsoe and tight end Dan Campbell start a risky game that features no winners.

"What if we had done this there?" Bledsoe asks Campbell. "What if ...?"

In a season in which six of the Cowboys' nine victories have been decided by four points or less and five of their six losses by seven points or fewer, 2005 has been the Big What If?


After reading this article not only was your season a step in the right direction it could have been a leap in the right direction.

 

[iceberg]

Last year is one thing...however this year Henson would have NO REASON to be in under mop up duty as that is Romos job now.

There is a fine line between...why doesn't bill play the backup...and why doesn't bill play Henson in mop up duty.

I am not trying to be nors here...but Henson has earned nothing and he is not the backup. And until he can even beat Romo he has no business getting any time other than in NFL Europe or in pre-season.

I honestly think the only reason he got some time last year is because Jerry pushed for it. People want to say that bill has ultimate say but it has also came out that Jerry wanted bill to see what we had in QC and Chad instead of bringing in another QB...so it would not shock me in the least if Jerry did not push for it.

I would have to see some major shifts in the coaches and in preseason games before I even think Henson has a chance to be on the opening (regular season) game roster.

hensen just happens to be our #3 qb, i'm in no way advocating a hensen bandwagon. if he fell to 3, fine. he fell and put romo in. of that i agree and am not out here to cheerlead my favorite player. i think we coulda and shoulda done for more hensen but that's the past, sorry it didn't happen.

but it does seem odd that someone w/bp's experience would hinge our playoff hopes BOTH YEARS on a former baseball player who has less than a year of college experience (therabouts) and a FA we signed not many others teams wanted, but a few yes, did.

i don't understand how you can call yourselves a play off team when you don't hedge your bets better than that.

yes, i agree that if your #1 qb goes down, odds are your team chances do as well.
yes, i agree it's tough to get your younger guys in there and they shouldn't be put in just to make a fan happy. if valid opportunities arise through the course of the year, YES they SHOULD be played.

but, we could have had mcmahon or griese and didn't even make a move for them - why?

we're set at qb.
then why won't we play them and if *all positions* are subject to upgrades when you can, why does backup qb seem to be the exception to this rule?

so i don't buy that we're set at qb despite how it may be sold to me.

carter was a valid backup qb who led us to the playoffs the year before. be aware i was a hutch fan and didn't care for carter, but he was an experienced qb we could have put in for a backup to vinnie if he chose to make that move.

he was cut. why?
drugs. we coulda lost him during the course of the year then where will we be? that was what i understood the answer to be.

well, so we cut him and while yes a CHANCE is covered, but why eliminate a possiblity at qb because you MAY have a problem if another possibility is your qb gets hurt and you NEED someone then NOT have someone there? it's hedging your bets and placing them all at the same time and still in the end leaves you naked in the wind.

you *may* lose your qb to a suspension. ok, i understand that. cut him.
you *may* lose your qb to injury, he is 44. you know how much he can squat???

the only logic i do see is elimination of competition for the #1 spot. now whether it's for just not having to go through the pain of controversy, fine. say so and move on. i can even understand that IF that were the reason. disagree but at least the logic "lines up" or is it because he simply wants his former boys to play and doesn't want them to have someone looking over their shoulder...

in any event, i *do* see parcells actions as putting the qb position ahead of the team and not FOR the team.

and yea, that "irks" me.

 

[Fletch]

The Cowboys went from 6-10 to 9-7/10-6. They had a great draft [An understatement, really.] and consequently have a great, young core of defensive players. Yeah, what a failure.

"Agree. We've improved, but if we're not playing in January, it hasn't been a success."

That's another thing. I realize Cowboys fans have higher standards, but realize that it's a process. The Cowboys are on their way, and patience is a virtue.

As the old saying goes... "Rome was not built in a day."

 

[iceberg]

As the old saying goes... "Rome was not built in a day."

sup fletch???

i think the vast majority of us that seem impatient are VERY patient IF we were buiding things in unison. what we're building is a team around drew and that has an inherant ~2 year lifespan. then we do it again. we don't see drew taking us there so to some of us these are "wasted" years and patience is hard to ask for OR give on that.

if we put in say romo or hensen, or any qb we got for a long term committment, and put valid backups there, i'd be patient for years see what that kid could do. that's what you do. but when you see yourself on a path you feel won't be where you want to be, it's hard to sit there and go "rah rah, go team" when one week you're proven the prophet and the next a fool and while you try not to "gloat" when right, you sure get it rubbed in your face when bledsoe has his good week(s). WHEN he f's up the following week it's to be forgiven cause "that's drew".

we know. it's why many don't think he's our answer and wonder why there's NO ONE behind him who has at least a full game under their belt.

patience is easy and hey, i'll give it. but when i feel as strongly as i do that this path will NOT get us there, it's not a lack of patience speaking, but a lack of faith. we've in the end got no choice but TO be patient till our philosophy comes back again and we're happy.

democrats are unhappy when a repub is in the house, and vice versa. so when we're on a path we don't like, it's only natural we're not going to agree with the choices on that path.

faith.

not patience.

 

[Rockytop6]

I was upset last year when we were out of the playoffs and neither Henson nor Romo were given any playing time.
I thought Romo should have played in the Washington blowout. However, I try to make judgments on the overall picture. I don't always do that and many times my frustration comes bleeding through on my posts.

That being said, I get tired of all the negative posts. Every day there is a question whether we should have drafted Merriman, should we have drafted Clayton, is Burnett a bust, should this player or this coach done this or that? Every move is questioned and criticised. If some of the posters had access to Parcell's toilet, we would have a post on whether he should be using white or colored toilet paper.

Landry made moves that I didn't understand and drafted people that flabbergasted me but he is the greatest coach in the history of the Cowboys. When Johnson was hired I was upset with Jones but after talking with one of the assistant coaches I had a better appreciation for Jones and Johnson. Johnson did a great joy drafting but also drafted some busts. My point is everybody is human even coaches. I would like to see Parcells coach another year and then see where we are.

I certainly didn't like the picks C Johnson, T Rogers and G Peterman. I posted it during the draft and got blistered for it. Yet it seems that Johnson was a decent pick and the jury is still out of Peterman. Rogers would have been a good pick had he stayed healthy.

The title of this thread asked the question if we were disappointed in the season. While there are different things that I am disapppointed in, I can't say that I am disappointed in a 10-6 season should we win this week end.

I don't care who the coach is during a season there will be disappointments. Then when all are added up how did the season stack up? If we win against S.L. we will have the best record or tie for the best record in years.

My second point is there are intangibles that don't always meet the eye. Parcells explained that he wanted to take Bledsoe out in the 4th quarter of the Washington game, but Bledsoe felt like he would be letting his teammates down and wanted to stay in the game. I wanted Romo/Henson to take some snaps in the 4th quarter but I can understand Bledsoe's feelings in the matter.

Only the coaches and players know all of these nuances. Yes we have intelligent posters on here but none are privy to all the information and the behind closed door interaction. At least I don't.