Why no Henson? This is preseason?

Hostile said:
I also read that he never aired one out so my questions about his arm strength are still unanswered. Doesn't change the fact that Parcells wanted to test the kid and that's why no one else played.

I disagree with this. The deep ball has nothing to do with arm strength. Most NFL QB's can throw the ball 50-60 yards or so in the air. Even Danny Wuerffel was capapble of that. Arm strength is measured in velocity on the intermediate routes, and from the highlights I saw last night, he showed more than adequate arm strength.
 
I think the one thing we've learned by now is to not try to figure out what Parcells is doing.

We will know what Romo's playing the entire games meant when the regular season begins.
 
Juke99 said:
I think the one thing we've learned by now is to not try to figure out what Parcells is doing.

We will know what Romo's playing the entire games meant when the regular season begins.


Very true old wise one......;)
 
Hailmary said:
If BP hasn't already crushed his spirits and confidence, he has last night.

BP is quite possibly the worst thing that could have happened in Drew's football career. Best possisble scenario now for Drew is to either be cut or have us win the SB where BP steps down on a winning note so he can start fresh w/ a new coach.

Don't get me wrong, I too am very excited over Romo's performance last night and would like to see him push Bledsoe for PT, but the way BP has been treating Henson seems a bit cruel and unusual. JMO.
The worst thing that happened to his Football career is the Yankees. Not BP....
 
twa said:
Is there some reason I'm missing that we can't root for all of them?:confused:

Not to me, I'm rooting for both. But there are some who only like one or the other, it's childish.

This game was all about evaluating Romo...the kid hadn't played a full game in 4 years. Henson had like 9 NFLE games.
 
Unforgiven said:
I disagree with this. The deep ball has nothing to do with arm strength. Most NFL QB's can throw the ball 50-60 yards or so in the air. Even Danny Wuerffel was capapble of that. Arm strength is measured in velocity on the intermediate routes, and from the highlights I saw last night, he showed more than adequate arm strength.
There was one play I think in the third where he threw a ball on a rope on a (looked like a Hitch to the outside shoulder) the announcer stated most QB's loft the pass but Romo didn't and had such velocity on the ball the DB didn't really have anything he could do. The pass was to Hurd or Crayton.... That was a para-phrase.....

BTW I thought he played a great game showed mobility, and good decision making. now most of the game was against a second string D but even early on he looked great....
 
summerisfunner said:
I just want to see how Henson responds to this


So do I......if he responds well we find ourselves in a very good situation.
 
Actually, I see this a different way. Romo succeeding as a QB could very well end up being the means that keeps Henson on the team. Or another way of saying that, Romo "saved" Henson's job.

Think about it this way. If Romo proved that he could not handle being a QB, Parcells would not hesistate to cut Henson in order to bring in a vet QB (like Vinny???). Now that we see Romo can ball, we can buy some time to further evaluate Henson. Remember, Henson's contract was specified for this very reason: development and evaluation.
 
Sandman52 said:
Actually, I see this a different way. Romo succeeding as a QB could very well end up being the means that keeps Henson on the team. Or another way of saying that, Romo "saved" Henson's job.

Think about it this way. If Romo proved that he could not handle being a QB, Parcells would not hesistate to cut Henson in order to bring in a vet QB (like Vinny???). Now that we see Romo can ball, we can buy some time to further evaluate Henson. Remember, Henson's contract was specified for this very reason: development and evaluation.
Wait, wait, wait. If Romo couldn't handle the job, he'd keep his job and Henson would be cut?
 
Hostile said:
I also read that he never aired one out so my questions about his arm strength are still unanswered. Doesn't change the fact that Parcells wanted to test the kid and that's why no one else played.
He did not air one out deep but I don't think that a deep play was ever called and Terry Glenn (our only real deep threat in the game) was not on the field for very long. However, he did hit several 10 to 15 yard fade routes up the sideline and he was throwing them on line. And those throws, just like a deep out pattern, take a good arm. He doesn't have Bledsoe's type of arm strength but there are not many QB's that do. I am not concerned about his arm strength.
 
Did you guys watch the same game I did? I saw Romo do fair to good against a very vanilla defense. Seattle did not game plan nor did they throw any blitzes at Romo. Only one good drive in the game that came away with a TD. I was not impressed at all with the second half. The kid did play smart, I believe he will do fine as a backup or short term starter. Henson's time will be next year, after Romo has signed here or else where.
 
SultanOfSix said:
It's simple. He wanted to see his possible backup QB go the entire game without losing focus.

It has nothing to do with Henson.
That's it.
 
Hostile said:
Wait, wait, wait. If Romo couldn't handle the job, he'd keep his job and Henson would be cut?
He's saying that Parcells still would like Romo better than Henson and if either got cut it would be Henson. But since Romo played well we can keep Henson as a number 3 and let him develop more. I'm not sure I agree with that logic but I see where he is going with it.
 
skicat1898 said:
Did you guys watch the same game I did? I saw Romo do fair to good against a very vanilla defense. Seattle did not game plan nor did they throw any blitzes at Romo. Only one good drive in the game that came away with a TD. I was not impressed at all with the second half. The kid did play smart, I believe he will do fine as a backup or short term starter. Henson's time will be next year, after Romo has signed here or else where.
He had only one drive ending in a touchdown...that is true. But he had 3 drives of over 70 yards which make s three good drives. He also had a misque on a possible touchdown because Copper turned the wrong way in the endzone.

And while it is true that he was playing against vanilla defenses it is also true that he was playing with some second/third stringers. The fact still remains that he did a very good job with the situation that he was in...that is all you can ask.
 
JackMagist said:
He's saying that Parcells still would like Romo better than Henson and if either got cut it would be Henson. But since Romo played well we can keep Henson as a number 3 and let him develop more. I'm not sure I agree with that logic but I see where he is going with it.
Man, I don't see it. That just doesn't add up for me.
 
All I am saying is don't read too much into this one performance.... The true test for Romo will be if and when he gets to play in a real game against a defense that has game planned for him. I like what I saw lastnight, I am just still a bit skeptical because lastnight was nothing more than 4 quarters of practice.
 
skicat1898 said:
All I am saying is don't read too much into this one performance.... The true test for Romo will be if and when he gets to play in a real game against a defense that has game planned for him. I like what I saw lastnight, I am just still a bit skeptical because lastnight was nothing more than 4 quarters of practice.
I agree with this. Pre season against a lot of backups is not the regular season against a fully staffed and ready squad. Lots of QBs have had good games. A good game doesn't mean they can do the same every time. It's still a refreshing thing to read about one of our young QBs getting a decent shot.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,034
Messages
13,844,600
Members
23,786
Latest member
waycooljr
Back
Top