What is the Big Deal?

[LittleBoyBlue]

You will feel the way you want to feel, I think Bledsoe along with this team can do the job. We will see what happens.

I wish it was just a feeling... then I would FEEL that I could be wrong....

but with Drew its all about History repeating itself again and again.... Romo will prob replace Drew... that will be 3x... there is a poster with that sig.... cant remember who? edit: check out TruBlueCowboy sig

 

[Angus]

And for all you know those could all be L if Romo was thrown out there. Dallas is not going to risk the season at this stage just so some fans can see for themselfs.

It would not be for the fans. The fans really don't matter that much so long as the team makes money. It is for the franchise, to find out for the team what must be done for not only this season, but especially for next season, because if Romo does not play this season there won't be any Romo experience to guide the decisions for next season. The team will be in the same boat all over again unless Romo plays enough to evaluate him in real games.

 

[Doomsday101]

I wish it was just a feeling... then I would FEEL that I could be wrong....

but with Drew its all about History repeating itself again and again.... Romo will prob replace Drew... that will be 3x... there is a poster with that sig.... cant remember who?

History is what it is but does not say what may happen in the future. I would think anyone who saw Dilfer would have said based on his history he would never get a ring on his finger but he did. Jim Plunkett history was horrid but he has a ring. History does not change but the future can. Sorry I'm not one who looks backwards and applies that to what may or may not happen down the road.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

History is what it is but does not say what may happen in the future. I would think anyone who saw Dilfer would have said based on his history he would never get a ring on his finger but he did. Jim Plunkett history was horrid but he has a ring. History does not change but the future can. Sorry I'm not one who looks backwards and applies that to what may or may not happen down the road.

Its cool. We can agree to disagree of course.

With Drew's declining play.. it is real easy to refer back to the past with him... real easy.

 

[WV Cowboy]

History is what it is but does not say what may happen in the future. I would think anyone who saw Dilfer would have said based on his history he would never get a ring on his finger but he did. Jim Plunkett history was horrid but he has a ring. History does not change but the future can. Sorry I'm not one who looks backwards and applies that to what may or may not happen down the road.

So we are to cross our fingers and hope that Bledsoe becomes an anamoly like Plunkett or Dilfer ??

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

So we are to cross our fingers and hope that Bledsoe becomes an anamoly like Plunkett or Dilfer ??

Yeah right LOL

Dilfer was pretty much told "dont you dare throw that ball" LOL

 

[Doomsday101]

So we are to cross our fingers and hope that Bledsoe becomes an anamoly like Plunkett or Dilfer ??

You do what you feel. You can cross your finger or whine about Romo not playing that is your choice. All I'm saying is history is what it is and that is past it is not going to determine what takes place in the future. Bledsoe made mistaks as did a lot of players in that game and if they continue then we will not do good this year, I think these guys are capable of more than what they did sunday aginst Philly so I'm still very optimistic about this season. For those who feel different I can respect that and relize nothing I'm going to say will change your feelings.

 

[DC Cowboy]

You are so right Doomsday...I gave my post about Q-Car ( which caused a pretty good ruckus) but the bottom line is BP will not make the switch just because we say so. He is looking at deadslow from a different lens.
I guess its upsetting because I truly believe that Romo is a better qb and the patriots go lucky when deadslow got hurt.
Think about how Brady was a sixth round pick and fourth stringer as a rookie. his second year, because of deadslow's injury, starts 14 games and the team goes 11-5. Deadslow gets healthy and NE elects to go with Brady in the SB and of course the MVP and rest is history.
The Bills had rather draft and start a rookie in J.P. Losman than commit to Deadslow.
I mean the proof is in the pudding and as a die hard its frustrating because we have a VERY talented team and BP stubborness will not allow us to witness a potential SB run.
But you are right we might as well bite that bullet and hope for the best.

Why not give the kid a half like he did Henson. One hald against the Texans shouldn't hurt us that much.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Why not give the kid a half like he did Henson. One hald against the Texans shouldn't hurt us that much.

Just put him on blitzing downs

 

[WV Cowboy]

You do what you feel. You can cross your finger or whine about Romo not playing that is your choice. All I'm saying is history is what it is and that is past it is not going to determine what takes place in the future. Bledsoe made mistaks as did a lot of players in that game and if they continue then we will not do good this year, I think these guys are capable of more than what they did sunday aginst Philly so I'm still very optimistic about this season. For those who feel different I can respect that and relize nothing I'm going to say will change your feelings.

You say a lot of players made mistakes in the game, let's go with that.

If you saw a def back who had gotten old and slow, and WR's were running by him easily, you would say he needs to be replaced even if he has been a better corner with more experience than his replacement.

He lacks an important skill required as a def back.
He will never get any faster, or as fast as he used to be.
He can never show how good a cover guy he is because he isn't fast enough to stay with the recievers.

Now look at that scenario as a QB.

Bledsoe has gotten old and slow. He is still a good passer and a good QB, but like the def back, he lacks an important skill needed to play the position.

If you put the def back in, yes you will have growing pains as he learns the ropes, but WR's won't be running past him because they are faster than him.

The same with Romo, he will have growing pains, but all in all he brings some mobility to the position so defences can't blitz all of the time without feeling consequences.

I realize Parcells is not going to change soon, you are right, he has said as much, but I am just explaining why I don't see it getting any better as time goes on.

We are between a rock and a hard place here.

Bledsoe is too slow and immoble to show that he is still a good passer.

This better says what I have tried to say, ... http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66751

 

[Doomsday101]

You say a lot of players made mistakes in the game, let's go with that.

If you saw a def back who had gotten old and slow, and WR's were running by him easily, you would say he needs to be replaced even if he has been a better corner with more experience than his replacement.

He lacks an important skill required as a def back.
He will never get any faster, or as fast as he used to be.
He can never show how good a cover guy he is because he isn't fast enough to stay with the recievers.

Now look at that scenario as a QB.

Bledsoe has gotten old and slow. He is still a good passer and a good QB, but like the def back, he lacks an important skill needed to play the position.

If you put the def back in, yes you will have growing pains as he learns the ropes, but WR's won't be running past him because they are faster than him.

The same with Romo, he will have growing pains, but all in all he brings some mobility to the position so defences can't blitz all of the time without feeling consequences.

I realize Parcells is not going to change soon, you are right, he has said as much, but I am just explaining why I don't see it getting any better as time goes on.

We are between a rock and a hard place here.

Bledsoe is too slow and immoble to show that he is still a good passer.

This better says what I have tried to say, ... http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66751

I guess if Bill felt that way Romo would be starting but that is not the case.

 

[Stautner]

Your right 100 post of replace Bledsoe is good analysis? Give me a break. :laugh2:

No more than 100 posts of Bledsoe is fine ......

I can understand that someone thinks Bledsoe is the best option at the moment, but given the way he has played this year and given the promise that Romo has shown, do you really think there isn't a legitimate point of contention on both sides of the issue?

 

[ZeroClub]

I want Romo to start too. I think there are several good logical reasons to make the switch.

But there are also reasonable fans who are in favor of Bledsoe continuing to start, and those fans offer logical reasons for their position too.

IMO, most of the pro and con points that could be made have already been made in this forum.

At this point I'm in the "agree to disagree mode."

 

[Doomsday101]

No more than 100 posts of Bledsoe is fine ......

I can understand that someone thinks Bledsoe is the best option at the moment, but given the way he has played this year and given the promise that Romo has shown, do you really think there isn't a legitimate point of contention on both sides of the issue?

Sure there is and if it does not improve then a change could happen. I have never said the possibility was not there I only said now is not the time and it appears the organization feels the same way.

 

[Stautner]

Sure there is and if it does not improve then a change could happen. I have never said the possibility was not there I only said now is not the time and it appears the organization feels the same way.

Obviously the organization doesn't feel that way, YET. That's all Parcells would commit to in his press conference Monday, that he didn't think a change was the answer YET.

I could see your point if all evidence pointed to Bledsoe getting 5-6 more starts, but it doesn't. The only thing the evidence tells us is that Bledsoe is the QB this week, and considering Parcells choice of words - choosing not to throw long term support behind Bledsoe, we can't count out the possibility of Romo taking over in the next game if Bledsoe plays poorly this week.

With there being at least a possiblity of a change that quickly, I can't see that discussing it is premature.

 

[Doomsday101]

Obviously the organization doesn't feel that way, YET. That's all Parcells would commit to in his press conference Monday, that he didn't think a change was the answer YET.

I could see your point if all evidence pointed to Bledsoe getting 5-6 more starts, but it doesn't. The only thing the evidence tells us is that Bledsoe is the QB this week, and considering Parcells choice of words - choosing not to throw long term support behind Bledsoe, we can't count out the possibility of Romo taking over in the next game if Bledsoe plays poorly this week.

With there being at least a possiblity of a change that quickly, I can't see that discussing it is premature.

"if it does not improve then a change could happen. I have never said the possibility was not there I only said now is not the time and it appears the organization feels the same way."
Where do you see that I said 5 or 6 games? I have not said how many games one way or the other I have said now is not the time and yes the organization evidently feels that way as well because at this time he is still the starting QB. I have also said most coaches are reluctant to pull their starting QB this early in a season but if things do not improve it could happen.

 

[Stautner]

"if it does not improve then a change could happen. I have never said the possibility was not there I only said now is not the time and it appears the organization feels the same way."
Where do you see that I said 5 or 6 games? I have not said how many games one way or the other I have said now is not the time and yes the organization evidently feels that way as well because at this time he is still the starting QB. I have also said most coaches are reluctant to pull their starting QB this early in a season but if things do not improve it could happen.

I know you didn't say a change couldn't happen, all I'm saying is that considering it could happen any time I don't see why you don't understand that the change to Romo is a legitimate topic of discussion.

As for the 5-6 games, I didn't say YOU came up with that. That was my number, and it was kind of arbitrary at that. I was merely saying that if there was any certainty that Bledsoe would keep his job that long then discussing Romo now would be premature, but since Parcells left it open for a change to take place at any time then talk about Romo is justified.

That's the reason for the "100 posts".

 

[Doomsday101]

I know you didn't say a change couldn't happen, all I'm saying is that considering it could happen any time I don't see why you don't understand that the change to Romo is a legitimate topic of discussion.

As for the 5-6 games, I didn't say YOU came up with that. That was my number, and it was kind of arbitrary at that. I was merely saying that if there was any certainty that Bledsoe would keep his job that long then discussing Romo now would be premature, but since Parcells left it open for a change to take place at any time then talk about Romo is justified.

That's the reason for the "100 posts".

I never said it wasn't a legit topic but when you have 99 other post about the same thing then why not just continue on the 1 post? It is like having a thread that reads Bench Bledsoe and another saying Play Romo 2 different title but what is being said is the same in both. You think by adding more threads on the same issue changes anything? That is all I was questioning, there were pleanty of others on the same topic why create another?

 

[Stautner]

I never said it wasn't a legit topic but when you have 99 other post about the same thing then why not just continue on the 1 post? It is like having a thread that reads Bench Bledsoe and another saying Play Romo 2 different title but what is being said is the same in both. You think by adding more threads on the same issue changes anything? That is all I was questioning, there were pleanty of others on the same topic why create another?

And my point is that the same thing is happening on the pro Bledsoe side.

Realistically that's just human nature when there are two legitimate sides to an issue - people harp and complain and argue and rationalize and push their point of view as hard as they can, and the result is a lot of repetative stuff. We all think we can make our side of the case better than everyone else because it seems so clear to us.