WHY didnt a backup QB play?

[Champsheart]

Pure and simple, Parcells did not put in Romo because he would have had no shot. There is no QB in the history of time that would have had a shot.

What would laying on his back have done for him? Really!

Many of you probably would have liked to see Romo go in and get sacked every play, that would have satisfied you I am sure.

Aikman even said he had never seen a QB under so much pressure.

Yhea lets put Romo in, he would learn how to take a good beating.

 

[Chuck 54]

1. You are not eliminated from playoff contention, so you don't want to mess with the head of your starter in this case; however,

2. He should have pulled Bledsoe at the end of the 3rd quarter and said, "The OL isn't blocking anyone...this one's over...no need to risk getting you hurt...I'm going to let Romo finish this mess, and you start thinking about Carolina next week...we're gonna need that one."

 

[Hostile]

1. You are not eliminated from playoff contention, so you don't want to mess with the head of your starter in this case; however,

2. He should have pulled Bledsoe at the end of the 3rd quarter and said, "The OL isn't blocking anyone...this one's over...no need to risk getting you hurt...I'm going to let Romo finish this mess, and you start thinking about Carolina next week...we're gonna need that one."

I totally agree.

 

[Hiero]

Which of course had nothing to do with the fact that Henson looked completely unprepared to lead an NFL football team, right?

Either way, I think the situation is apples and oranges - nobody has been calling for Romo to get into the game like Henson last year.

No Henson should have gotten evaluated at the least because that season was over, Parcells was just too stubborn to admit it and that cost us. We should have gotten a young QB for Henson to compete with this past offseason. I think Parcells is going to be too stubborn to get our QB of the future until its too late, i just hope I am wrong.

 

[Hiero]

1. You are not eliminated from playoff contention, so you don't want to mess with the head of your starter in this case; however,

2. He should have pulled Bledsoe at the end of the 3rd quarter and said, "The OL isn't blocking anyone...this one's over...no need to risk getting you hurt...I'm going to let Romo finish this mess, and you start thinking about Carolina next week...we're gonna need that one."

yep he should have. another regret/mistake.

 

[wileedog]

No Henson should have gotten evaluated at the least because that season was over, Parcells was just too stubborn to admit it and that cost us.

That was last year.

This is 2005. The situations are completely different.

We should have gotten a young QB for Henson to compete with this past offseason. I think Parcells is going to be too stubborn to get our QB of the future until its too late, i just hope I am wrong.

Who do you want?

Figuring we draft around 18-20, who are you going to pick that will be our 'savior' in the coming years?

About our only shot to land a 'marquee' QB will be to trade with SD for Rivers, and that will cost us at least 1 first round pick and probably much more, or trade a bunch of our picks to move up.

Given the obvious holes and lack of depth on this team, are you really prepared to do that?

Other than that you are probably looking at another 2-3 year development project, in which case you are better off sticking with Henson.

 

[Hiero]

That was last year.

This is 2005. The situations are completely different.



Who do you want?

Figuring we draft around 18-20, who are you going to pick that will be our 'savior' in the coming years?

About our only shot to land a 'marquee' QB will be to trade with SD for Rivers, and that will cost us at least 1 first round pick and probably much more, or trade a bunch of our picks to move up.

Given the obvious holes and lack of depth on this team, are you really prepared to do that?

Other than that you are probably looking at another 2-3 year development project, in which case you are better off sticking with Henson.

No, this game was the perfect game to get experience, just like last year was a good time for them to get experience. Theyre both the same, just different situations. Parcells showed he is too stubborn to let the young qb get anytime no matter what the costs are. He could have told Bledsoe he was taking him out for concern of injury, but he left him in and thank god Bledsoe didnt get his leg rolled on or anything like that.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

We don't need a "fair" evaluation as much as we need for them to face live fire.

That was not live fire...that was Custer's last stand.

Now...he should have pulled Drew...not to give Romo exp, not to give Henson exp...but to keep Bledsoe from getting hurt.

As far as it being a conspiracy...I don't buy it...but can agree to disagree.

 

[devotedfan]

If the Tuna comes on the PC today and says ' I didn't want to risk losing the player' as his excuse for not playing R or H, I'm going to puke. Romo is nothing but cannon fodder anyways. His only future is as a 'qualifying rabbit' on Mondays on the Nationwide Tour. Don't know if Henson has anything, but how will we ever know. Let's not have any assessment of these two so we are in the same position next season.!.!.!. :bang2:

 

[joseephuss]

1. You are not eliminated from playoff contention, so you don't want to mess with the head of your starter in this case; however,

2. He should have pulled Bledsoe at the end of the 3rd quarter and said, "The OL isn't blocking anyone...this one's over...no need to risk getting you hurt...I'm going to let Romo finish this mess, and you start thinking about Carolina next week...we're gonna need that one."

Well said.

Dallas is going to need Bledsoe to win the next two games because he is the best current option. Why put that at an unecessary risk? Anyone, remember Campo leaving Joey Galloway in late in the game against Philly? There was no reason to leave Bledsoe in the game to take more of a beating. Sure it would be nice to get Romo some experience, but it was more important not to risk injury to Bledsoe. I was saying it going into the 4th quarter and I keep questioning why now. Just did not make sense. I guess Parcells is stubborn.

 

[iceberg]

I would have liked to see Romo or Henson too, but the way the Skins were blitzing, it would not have been a fair evaluation of either.

at that point it's more saving your own starting qb than evaluting. i TOTALLY agree parcells has allowed ZERO OPPROTUNITY for eval time, but yesterday wasn't about that, it was about getting your starter off the field for another day while you're still in the race.

if romo or hensen is too poor a player to play in that situation, then parcells is king-****** for having ONLY those two as our backups.

either way, parcells makes ZERO sense at qb other than his boys play, no matter what. if so, just say it. but don't lie and make up excuse after excuse to dance around the matter.

 

[wileedog]

No, this game was the perfect game to get experience, just like last year was a good time for them to get experience. Theyre both the same, just different situations. Parcells showed he is too stubborn to let the young qb get anytime no matter what the costs are. He could have told Bledsoe he was taking him out for concern of injury, but he left him in and thank god Bledsoe didnt get his leg rolled on or anything like that.

I've agreed with Hos on the injury issue, although it should be noted Bledsoe is a lot bigger and stronger than Romo and perhaps better suited to take the pounding.

But I don't see what 'experience' Romo was going to take from this game other than a royal and pointless beating.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Being honest here. The reason our young QBs get no playing time at all, even in garbage time, is because Bill Parcells is stubborn.

This is exactly what the media wants and he is smarter than the media. In his mind they wanted Henson last year, so he gave them Henson for 1 half of football and the kid struggled.

That was all the justification he needed to do exactly the opposite of what they want.

It is much the same as the conservative play calling. The media is on him to open it up, so he's going to do the opposite. He has acquiesced to Bledsoe's wishes to open it up a couple of times with good results. Yesterday it failed. He's smarter than Bledsoe. Look for the last 2 games to be ultra conservative.

I agree with last year, the part about the media but that doesnt explain a thing for this year. I havnt heard any one but a fan or two yesterday say Romo or Henson should be playing. No one from the media at all. maybe Im missing it.

 

[joseephuss]

I agree with last year, the part about the media but that doesnt explain a thing for this year. I havnt heard any one but a fan or two yesterday say Romo or Henson should be playing. No one from the media at all. maybe Im missing it.

No one in the media is pushing for another starter for this season. Howie Long did say at halftime that Dallas needs to find another QB for next year. He mentioned drafting Cutler or trading for Shaub. Actually, the first QB he mentioned was Brian Griese, so I stopped taking him seriously after that. Oops, I am sorry. I have never taken he or Terry Bradshaw seriously.

 

[blindzebra]

I don't buy the what would he get out of it BS.

What do you think a DC is gonna do if Bledsoe gets hurt during a game and Romo comes in?

I'd say coming into that mess would be a perfect evaluation tool and learning experience for a player who is most likely going to be a career back up QB.

 

[Givincer]

There really was 0 logic in leaving Bledsoe in to be eaten alive. I was angry about that no reason to not get the young guys some experience in a game like that. And if you don't get them experience in a game like that then when the hell are you going to get them experience...

 

[Hostile]

I agree with last year, the part about the media but that doesnt explain a thing for this year. I havnt heard any one but a fan or two yesterday say Romo or Henson should be playing. No one from the media at all. maybe Im missing it.

In PCs earlier this year Parcells said he wanted to get them playing time. When we blew out the Eagles he was questioned why they didn't in garbage time, and the same when we blew out the Cardinals.

If we had lost Bledsoe yesterday because we kept him in when it was out of reach that would have been stupid. People say Romo would have been killed. Or Henson could have been killed. Which of the 3 is most important to the rest of this season and any shot at the playoffs? Bledsoe being in there was foolish.

 

[Hostile]

I don't buy the what would he get out of it BS.

What do you think a DC is gonna do if Bledsoe gets hurt during a game and Romo comes in?

I'd say coming into that mess would be a perfect evaluation tool and learning experience for a player who is most likely going to be a career back up QB.

The DC is going to bring everyone that he can to rattle Romo or Henson. That has been happening for decades.

 

[iceberg]

I agree with last year, the part about the media but that doesnt explain a thing for this year. I havnt heard any one but a fan or two yesterday say Romo or Henson should be playing. No one from the media at all. maybe Im missing it.

1) romo should have played the 4th quarter. not for eval but for saving drew.
2) as soon as we're out of the race (could be next week) there will be a game or 2 left where we can eval and prep romo or hensen - whoever. the question is will bill allow it or will he fall back to "best chance to win" and NOT allow it?

if #2, then yes, i'll have the same issues as last year, just perhaps more company. : ) SUP DAVE?????

 

[iceberg]

The DC is going to bring everyone that he can to rattle Romo or Henson. That has been happening for decades.

and they've been doing that same thing to drew for his entire career as well. : )