Thoughts on back up QB for this season....

[Doomsday101]

Not just run, but run well enough to control the clock and play tight defense.

It won Baltimore and before them, Chicago some Super Bowls. Dilfer, Steve Fuller and Jim McMahon were hardly top shelf talents. They simply had to execute the basics and not make mistakes.

That is why I made sure to say a consistant running game. Not 1 big run now and then but an attack that can consistantly move the ball. If you can do that then you also help yourself and young QB's because it will slow down the pass rush and allow them a bit more comfort in the pocket.

 

[JackMagist]

Posted this in my previous but I go back to the idioligy that it is not a good idea to develop two young QBs. One is OK. Two slows progress IMO. Again, if you have a good defense and running game, how is that not going to work better in a situation where you have an average talented QB with good NFL experience as opposed to two young QBs who have no experience. In a situation where you have a great running game and defense, the thing that kills you is mistakes. Turnovers are the biggest disadvantage to winning games in that manner. It would seem to me that the experienced QB is going to be the better fit in that game plan. In that situation, you just need a QB who can execute the simple offense. Not the QB who may have more talent but has never seen the field IMO.

I completely disagree with that. I think it is the best idea to have no more than One vet who has played for another team and that vet should be the starter. If your primary backup is a vet with experience on other teams then he is a washed up has been (don't need that) or was never good enough to make it with another team (why would we think he was good enough for us?).

Nope, give me that one vet starter and a couple of young studs learning the ropes behind him and getting ready to go when their number is called. It always worked well for Tom Landry.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can't see us dumping a Romo, a guy who is well versed in our system, for an overpriced and underwhelming Collins who doesn't want to back up anyway. After Collins what seasoned vet is out there that you think we can go over .500 with? A bunch of flotsam and jetsam IMO. No, I think BP is pretty happy with Romo and he hasn't given up on Henson yet either.

The staff's interest in our backups has a LOT more to do with which of our 2 guys is future starter material, not which can play a few games for Bledsoe if he gets hurt IMO.

What does this have to do with Collins? There will be an experienced QB in FA that can be signed. There is always one out there. That's really not the point. As I said earlier, this is a matter of philosiphy as opposed to who can we sign today.

It is my experience that I could throw up any name and it would be shot down as too expensive or too old or whatever the case. We have had opportunity to sign lots of Vet QBs in the past. We had opportunity to sign Griese. We had opportunity to sign Johnson. We had opportunity to sign Warner. We did not do it for one reason or another. There will be QBs out there. I don't know if we will sign one but I know that I believe we should. If a guy like McNair became available, Iwould do it. I would have signed Harrington. Shawn King is available right now. He's definatly not my first choice but he is out there. I don't know what Kitna's story is but he too would be the kind of vet I'd be interested in. I mean, if you really look at it, I don't know how you couldn't look at Collins and say he's a better chance of winning then if you had to play Romo or Henson for 5 games. Not saying he's the best option but I think he would be better then what we have right now. Not long term but to play 4 or 5 games, absolutly. JMO

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I completely disagree with that. I think it is the best idea to have no more than One vet who has played for another team and that vet should be the starter. If your primary backup is a vet with experience on other teams then he is a washed up has been (don't need that) or was never good enough to make it with another team (why would we think he was good enough for us?).

Nope, give me that one vet starter and a couple of young studs learning the ropes behind him and getting ready to go when their number is called. It always worked well for Tom Landry.

Really, I don't remember it ever working particularly well for coach Landry. Besides that, you can't look at that situation and say it will work today. In those days, you had opportunity to develope players. Lets be clear here. Were not talking about young bucks ready to go when there called on. Were talking about two young QBs, one of which has never thrown a pass in the NFL and the other that has played one half. That's a great deal to overcome against a quality team and lets also make clear that in the NFC East, all you have are quality teams. I just don't agree.

 

[DLCassidy]

What does this have to do with Collins? There will be an experienced QB in FA that can be signed. There is always one out there. That's really not the point. As I said earlier, this is a matter of philosiphy as opposed to who can we sign today.

It is my experience that I could throw up any name and it would be shot down as too expensive or too old or whatever the case. We have had opportunity to sign lots of Vet QBs in the past. We had opportunity to sign Griese. We had opportunity to sign Johnson. We had opportunity to sign Warner. We did not do it for one reason or another. There will be QBs out there. I don't know if we will sign one but I know that I believe we should. If a guy like McNair became available, Iwould do it. I would have signed Harrington. Shawn King is available right now. He's definatly not my first choice but he is out there. I don't know what Kitna's story is but he too would be the kind of vet I'd be interested in. I mean, if you really look at it, I don't know how you couldn't look at Collins and say he's a better chance of winning then if you had to play Romo or Henson for 5 games. Not saying he's the best option but I think he would be better then what we have right now. Not long term but to play 4 or 5 games, absolutly. JMO

BP is always looking to upgrade the team and backup QB is fair game- that's a given. But when it comes down to it, the player needs to be available, it needs to be an economic fit, a match of skills for our system, and it needs to be a guy who's willing to watch but good enough to play. I mention Collins because he's the only name I can think of that is worth a conversation (even though I wouldn't really want him). Lacking one of those unusual guys that I'm at a loss to name it goes back to the original point about back ups being backups for a reason and you generally don't win with them for any significant period of time anyway. Feel free to go down the list of the playoff teams from last year and make a case their backup QB's give their teams a significantly better chance to win than Romo/Henson. Bet you can't.

Dallas considered Harrington- in the end they felt he wasn't worth giving up a pick and a salary not too far below Bledsoe's. And if most of your experience says you suck, is that still a plus? Kitna is under contract and will likely start for Detroit. McNair supposedly has a deal waiting to be signed with the Ravens that includes a ridiculous 11m signing bonus. Shawn King is not an NFL QB- either of our guys are 10x better than he is IMO. What we did/didn't do years ago isn't really relevant to the backup QB question today, is it? So correct me if I'm wrong but it appears your list starts and ends with Collins.:laugh1:

 

[JackMagist]

Really, I don't remember it ever working particularly well for coach Landry. Besides that, you can't look at that situation and say it will work today. In those days, you had opportunity to develope players. Lets be clear here. Were not talking about young bucks ready to go when there called on. Were talking about two young QBs, one of which has never thrown a pass in the NFL and the other that has played one half. That's a great deal to overcome against a quality team and lets also make clear that in the NFC East, all you have are quality teams. I just don't agree.

Landry started off with Eddie LeBarron (vet from another team) and Dandy Don as his backup. Then Dandy Don became the vet starter and had Craig Morton and Jerry Rome behind him (both rookies in Dallas). Then Craig Morton became the vet starter and had Roger Staubach as his backup (a rookie with Dallas). Then Roger had Clint Longley (we won't go there but he was a rookie with Dallas) and then Danny White (a rookie with Dallas if you don't count a year of WFL). Let’s see...that's Merideth, Morton, Staubach, and White...that would be Four times it worked very well for Tom Landry. I'll go with the formula that produces that kind of results.

BTW of those 4 guys I think they were all starters by their 4th year (except White). So why would the formula not work now?

 

[baj1dallas]

If you go get an "experienced" QB, you're never going to find out about Romo or Henson. I think if Bledsoe gets hurt, you finally get your chance to see what (in all likelihood) Romo can do. If he fails, there's always Henson. If he fails, now you know you need to go after somebody else.

It doesn't make any sense to spend all this time developing these guys, then cut them for some overpriced has been, when odds are that Bledsoe is not going to go down for an extended period of time anyway.

 

[Angus]

Tom Landry did have a three year rule: for seeing progress toward a starting position, and Parcells has adopted it. But Landry also maintained that it took a young quarterback five years to really play the game well. Of course, until he plays he will not prove progress. Both young quarterbacks (not counting Mroz) have had years to imbibe Parcells' system by osmosis -- Romo more than Henson. I do not think Bledsoe will play 16 games this year, so we should all see how well they have learned the craft. I think the team will do well anyhow.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

BP is always looking to upgrade the team and backup QB is fair game- that's a given. But when it comes down to it, the player needs to be available, it needs to be an economic fit, a match of skills for our system, and it needs to be a guy who's willing to watch but good enough to play. I mention Collins because he's the only name I can think of that is worth a conversation (even though I wouldn't really want him). Lacking one of those unusual guys that I'm at a loss to name it goes back to the original point about back ups being backups for a reason and you generally don't win with them for any significant period of time anyway. Feel free to go down the list of the playoff teams from last year and make a case their backup QB's give their teams a significantly better chance to win than Romo/Henson. Bet you can't.

Dallas considered Harrington- in the end they felt he wasn't worth giving up a pick and a salary not too far below Bledsoe's. And if most of your experience says you suck, is that still a plus? Kitna is under contract and will likely start for Detroit. McNair supposedly has a deal waiting to be signed with the Ravens that includes a ridiculous 11m signing bonus. Shawn King is not an NFL QB- either of our guys are 10x better than he is IMO. What we did/didn't do years ago isn't really relevant to the backup QB question today, is it? So correct me if I'm wrong but it appears your list starts and ends with Collins.:laugh1:

I don't know how it could not be relivant but if you choose to view it as such, I'm fine with that. I do agree that the situation would likely have to be both economically and potentially right. That's the problem IMO. Your not going to get that because anybody who has those skills already has a job in the NFL. You gotta pay for that skill just like any other and it is a skill set.

You can't? Is that an opinion your giving there? I think it is. I would say that New England was better off. I would say that Pittsburgh was better off. I'd say the Commanders are better off. I'd say NY was better off. I'd say Tampa Bay was better off. I'd say Chicago was better off. This, of course, is just my opinion but I'd have to say that it's a far cry from not being able to say that no playoff team had a better situation then we currently have. Just can not agree with that.

I look at Harrington and if it is as you say, his salary demands were just a bit under Bledsoe's, then I honestly don't have a huge problem with that. I don't feel as if Bledsoe's contract is bad at all . In fact, it's pretty good IMO. Does Harrington Suck? That, I suppose is debatable. What are you looking for in a back up? His QB rating was 72. He 57% of his passes. He had 12 TDs and 12 INTs. How good do you want him to be, as the backup? Are we going to say that either of our two backup QBs are going to post better numbers then this if forced into action? Don't know how you could ever support a position such as that. Kitna is under contract now but clearly, he's just moved so evidently he was available at some point, had we elected to go that route. Shawn King may or may not be an NFL QB but that doesn't prove that our current QBs are any better. That's the whole point. This brings us back to Collins. I find it amuzing that you would laugh. Please show any proof that Collins would not, in fact, be a better back up solution to what we currently have. My list may start with Collins, as you put it, or end with him. Either way, you really don't have to go any further then Collins. What does that say about our back up QB situation? You may feel free to laugh now.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Landry started off with Eddie LeBarron (vet from another team) and Dandy Don as his backup. Then Dandy Don became the vet starter and had Craig Morton and Jerry Rome behind him (both rookies in Dallas). Then Craig Morton became the vet starter and had Roger Staubach as his backup (a rookie with Dallas). Then Roger had Clint Longley (we won't go there but he was a rookie with Dallas) and then Danny White (a rookie with Dallas if you don't count a year of WFL). Let’s see...that's Merideth, Morton, Staubach, and White...that would be Four times it worked very well for Tom Landry. I'll go with the formula that produces that kind of results.

BTW of those 4 guys I think they were all starters by their 4th year (except White). So why would the formula not work now?

.

In 1960, the Cowboys signed LaBaron. The back up was Don Heinrich, a 7 year vet who broke in with the Giants. Dandy Don eventually became the starter in, I want to say 63. That year, roles reversed and the Mad Boomer became the back up. The third QB was a guy by the name of Jim Steiger, I believe. He was actually a FB. In 65, we drafted two QBs. One was Rhome, the other was Craig. This lasted till 67. In 68, Rhome was injured, I believe and was subsequently traded to Cleveland. 69 was really the first year Morton became the starter. That's the same year Roger joined the Cowboys. In 71, Roger became the starter. In 72 he was injured. In 73, he again became the starter. In 74, Longly was drafted out of Abilene Christian. Staubach was the starter, Morton was the Vet and Longly was the rookie. In 75, Morton was shipped to Denver. In 76, Longly was gone, White was signed from the World League. In 78, Glenn Carano was drafted out of UNLV. This lasted until 79 when Roger retired. In 80, white was the starter and Glenn Carono the back up. In 80, Gary "Hogenbloom" was drafted out of Central Michigan. In 1984, Pelluer out of Washington was drafted. In 86, White was injured and Collier was drafted out of Souther Miss. That year, Pelluer was forced to play, having thrown a total of 5 passes in two seasons and we all know how that worked. In 87, Kevin Sweeney was drafted out of Fresno and White played the majority of snaps with Pelluer getting roughly a third of the playing time. In 88, Pelluer became the starter, White was the back up and Sweeny was the third guy. In 89, Sweeney was gone, White was gone and Pelluer was gone and so was coach Landry. It seems to me that in the years we were succesful, we had Starter, solid Vet. In the years we were not so good, we did not have this.

 

[JackMagist]

.

In 1960, the Cowboys signed LaBaron. The back up was Don Heinrich, a 7 year vet who broke in with the Giants. Dandy Don eventually became the starter in, I want to say 63. That year, roles reversed and the Mad Boomer became the back up. The third QB was a guy by the name of Jim Steiger, I believe. He was actually a FB. In 65, we drafted two QBs. One was Rhome, the other was Craig. This lasted till 67. In 68, Rhome was injured, I believe and was subsequently traded to Cleveland. 69 was really the first year Morton became the starter. That's the same year Roger joined the Cowboys. In 71, Roger became the starter. In 72 he was injured. In 73, he again became the starter. In 74, Longly was drafted out of Abilene Christian. Staubach was the starter, Morton was the Vet and Longly was the rookie. In 75, Morton was shipped to Denver. In 76, Longly was gone, White was signed from the World League. In 78, Glenn Carano was drafted out of UNLV. This lasted until 79 when Roger retired. In 80, white was the starter and Glenn Carono the back up. In 80, Gary "Hogenbloom" was drafted out of Central Michigan. In 1984, Pelluer out of Washington was drafted. In 86, White was injured and Collier was drafted out of Souther Miss. That year, Pelluer was forced to play, having thrown a total of 5 passes in two seasons and we all know how that worked. In 87, Kevin Sweeney was drafted out of Fresno and White played the majority of snaps with Pelluer getting roughly a third of the playing time. In 88, Pelluer became the starter, White was the back up and Sweeny was the third guy. In 89, Sweeney was gone, White was gone and Pelluer was gone and so was coach Landry. It seems to me that in the years we were succesful, we had Starter, solid Vet. In the years we were not so good, we did not have this.

Yeah there were a lot of others that came and went but the Four guys that I mentioned were all rookies for Dallas who were or soon became the primary backup and then became the starter. It is the formula that created the most success for Dallas under Landry. That was my point.

All these other guys that you have to go look up to even know that they were on the team are irrelevant. I don't recall any of them saving us in a big game (except Longley) or saving our season back then. The system did fall apart there at the end of the Landry era because he (Landry) started second-guessing his starters after White failed to get past the NFC Title game three years running and the team began to go into decline. Then Tom started playing young QB's before they were ready (Hogeboom and Pelluer) which is part of the reason that we were in the position to draft Aikman.

But in his Hey Day Landry more often than not had young developmental QB's as his primary backup...or at least backup's who started out as young developmental QB's. I still prefer that system over having the Has Been/Never Was vet as a backup.

 

[DLCassidy]

I don't know how it could not be relivant but if you choose to view it as such, I'm fine with that. I do agree that the situation would likely have to be both economically and potentially right. That's the problem IMO. Your not going to get that because anybody who has those skills already has a job in the NFL. You gotta pay for that skill just like any other and it is a skill set.

You can't? Is that an opinion your giving there? I think it is. I would say that New England was better off. I would say that Pittsburgh was better off. I'd say the Commanders are better off. I'd say NY was better off. I'd say Tampa Bay was better off. I'd say Chicago was better off. This, of course, is just my opinion but I'd have to say that it's a far cry from not being able to say that no playoff team had a better situation then we currently have. Just can not agree with that.

I look at Harrington and if it is as you say, his salary demands were just a bit under Bledsoe's, then I honestly don't have a huge problem with that. I don't feel as if Bledsoe's contract is bad at all . In fact, it's pretty good IMO. Does Harrington Suck? That, I suppose is debatable. What are you looking for in a back up? His QB rating was 72. He 57% of his passes. He had 12 TDs and 12 INTs. How good do you want him to be, as the backup? Are we going to say that either of our two backup QBs are going to post better numbers then this if forced into action? Don't know how you could ever support a position such as that. Kitna is under contract now but clearly, he's just moved so evidently he was available at some point, had we elected to go that route. Shawn King may or may not be an NFL QB but that doesn't prove that our current QBs are any better. That's the whole point. This brings us back to Collins. I find it amuzing that you would laugh. Please show any proof that Collins would not, in fact, be a better back up solution to what we currently have. My list may start with Collins, as you put it, or end with him. Either way, you really don't have to go any further then Collins. What does that say about our back up QB situation? You may feel free to laugh now.

Hey I'm just joshing you, no offense intended. I can see where you're coming from- it just appears you're uncomfortable with our guys lack of experience. That's understandable. My reason for not being worried is BP sees our guys in practice every day and he appears comfortable- that's good enough for me. Especially since I feel very comfortable with Bledsoe's durability and if he was hurt for a significant period of time I think we're pretty much screwed anyway. So eat, drink and be merry I say!

I wasn't laughing at Collins BTW, it was mostly at the fact that he is the only real possibility out there now and it's rumored he's seriously considering retirement. If he was willing to come in for relatively short money with the understanding it was as a backup only, sure I wouldn't mind it. But I just can't see that as being likely. So I think we're "stuck" with what we have.