With Talks Of Adding Bollinger, Simms To Expensive?

[Avenging Hayseed]

While I agree with you, I'm curious as to why you're so negative about the prospects of a Bollinger, ol' buddy... from what I've seen, when given the chance the last coupla years, he's put up some pretty fair numbers while getting very little in the way of pass protection... this leads me to wonder what he could do with a good offensive line in front of him, and with the caliber of receiving talent that the Boys have to offer...

Unlike the rock-head, I know when you're negative, there's a reason, and I'm curious as to what your thinking is on Bollinger... I know my initial reaction was that he was kinda small for the position, and had bounced around some...

Let me note for about the jillionth time that I'd still prefer Simms... but Bollinger isn't NEAR as bad as some of the uninformed in here are trying to make him out to be, IMO...

............Bingo! Hammer and nail Baby, hammer and nail....! I too trust Hostiles opinion when it comes to the Cowboys or football in general.

 

[Hostile]

While I agree with you, I'm curious as to why you're so negative about the prospects of a Bollinger, ol' buddy... from what I've seen, when given the chance the last coupla years, he's put up some pretty fair numbers while getting very little in the way of pass protection... this leads me to wonder what he could do with a good offensive line in front of him, and with the caliber of receiving talent that the Boys have to offer...

Unlike the rock-head, I know when you're negative, there's a reason, and I'm curious as to what your thinking is on Bollinger... I know my initial reaction was that he was kinda small for the position, and had bounced around some...

Let me note for about the jillionth time that I'd still prefer Simms... but Bollinger isn't NEAR as bad as some of the uninformed in here are trying to make him out to be, IMO...

It's real simple, I am looking for someone to be the #2 when Brad Johnson retires. Bollinger at #3 is no big deal to me.

Bollinger as #2 next year...hate the idea. Can't even begin to tell you how much I hate the idea.

 

[silverbear]

It's real simple, I am looking for someone to be the #2 when Brad Johnson retires. Bollinger at #3 is no big deal to me.

Bollinger as #2 next year...hate the idea. Can't even begin to tell you how much I hate the idea.

Let's try to quantify this-- do you hate it as much as going to the medicine cabinet at midnight and finding out you're out of Nyquil??



I'm gonna kid you out of this dark place you're in if it's the last thing I do...

 

[DCBoysfan]

Its a reason the are not looking at Simms, he may be too expensive or he may feel that he wants to start, but something changed their course of thinking from a couple of weeks ago.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Personally, I would rather have Simms;

I think some of it is money, because the Cowboys are being reported to wanting to sign Bollinger next week, that way they dont have to guarantee his contract. That right there suggests such a thing.

Next, Bollinger and Brad Johnson were buddies as teammates in Minnesotta, when Johnson was there. I look at it like Brad Johnson knows that bollinger cant push him for the number 2 quarterback spot, but Simms could.

Again, though I could be totally wrong, and the Cowboys sign Simms or have looked at his physical records and determined he cant stay healthy or something.

I am like Hostile in that, I would rather the Cowboys if they dont sign Simms, not to have Bollinger at all, but save that roster spot for a player that can help us. Then, keep Bartel on the practice squad, and if need be then you can bring him up onto the roster.

I just think Bollinger stinks, he is way too short at 6-1, even shorter than Romo. Even Jamie Dukes who has played football, said on NFL Network that forget Bollinger, this guy cant play QB, that he has been here 6 years and done nothing.

 

[cowboyjoe]

i just got this from brady tinker on dfw sports beat, this is what he had to say about bollinger and simms.

: bradyctinker@hotmail.com
To: ohcates@cs.com
Received from Internet: click here for more information


I will find out...but I don't think its as big a deal as you do.
Do you really think Simms is the answer to anything either? I think they want to save money for positions that really matter this year...maybe o-line, lb, wr.
B

 

[silver]

Personally, I would rather have Simms;

I think some of it is money, because the Cowboys are being reported to wanting to sign Bollinger next week, that way they dont have to guarantee his contract. That right there suggests such a thing.

Next, Bollinger and Brad Johnson were buddies as teammates in Minnesotta, when Johnson was there. I look at it like Brad Johnson knows that bollinger cant push him for the number 2 quarterback spot, but Simms could.

Again, though I could be totally wrong, and the Cowboys sign Simms or have looked at his physical records and determined he cant stay healthy or something.

I am like Hostile in that, I would rather the Cowboys if they dont sign Simms, not to have Bollinger at all, but save that roster spot for a player that can help us. Then, keep Bartel on the practice squad, and if need be then you can bring him up onto the roster.

I just think Bollinger stinks, he is way too short at 6-1, even shorter than Romo. Even Jamie Dukes who has played football, said on NFL Network that forget Bollinger, this guy cant play QB, that he has been here 6 years and done nothing.

excelent post. I also think that adding Simms could eventually create some sort of QB controversy with all the Texas fandom down here which is something WP and JG want to avoid. the same applies if they add somebody like culpepper. pretty soon fans will start clamoring for him to get PT if something happens or romo has a less than perfect outing. if it aint broke why fix it. having said that i hate going with bollinger. i rather they go with 2 and sign bartel to PS

 

[cowboyjoe]

me too silver, and thanks

 

[Rockytop6]

What a revolting turn of events at 3rd QB.

Let's just go with 2 like last year and save the roster spot.

Amen. I haven't watched Bollinger very much but I haven't been impressed with him. Of course, neither am I a Simms fan either.

 

[cowboyjoe]

i woudnt say i am a simms fan, i am leaning on what some of the regulars like Hostile and DC have said about Simms, (I have watched him just alittle, but thats about as much as i have seen of bollinger, but just didnt like bollinger last night).

Back to the money thing, I understand possibly what Brady said about Simms and Bollinger and cowboys wanting to save money on offensive line or wr etc. Yet, the Cowboys have about 10 million in cap money so far, so whats the holdup with Simms, he couldnt cost to much money to me, because he hasnt played in 2 years hardly due to his serious injury.

 

[MCIWEST]

SIMMS, RAVENS TALKING
Posted by Mike Florio on September 1, 2008, 2:25 p.m.
Aaron Wilson of the Carroll County Times reports that the Ravens and quarterback Chris Simms currently are meeting regarding the possibility of Simms joining the team.

Per Wilson, no deal is imminent. But, with Kyle Boller (shoulder) and Troy Smith (tonsilitis) out indefinitely, the Ravens might need a No. 2 quarterback behind rookie Joe Flacco.

Since Simms is a vested veteran, the Ravens might merely elevate Casey Bramlet from the practice squad for Week One and then add Simms next Monday. If Simms is on the opening-day roster, his salary for the entire season will be essentially guaranteed.

 

[bounce]

Boy you guys are unreal.Bollinger flatout stinks. and we will not win one game if he starts.this is a stupid move by Jerry.

Most teams won't win games with their 3rd QB. That's why they're the 3rd QB.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

Again I say, we can only base our opinions on these guys by their own body of work as NFL qb's. Bollinger has a Career QB rating of 75.2, Simms 71.2. Furthermore Bollinger is far more mobile and less injury prone. Yet some here think Bollinger stinks and Simms is soooooooo much better. What are you basing that on, perception or reality?? Granted, Simms has had more of a chance to fail then Bollinger has due to having more starts then Bollinger, but its not like Simms has a long track record to go off of either. Simms may well be the better QB, then again he may not be. No one can say for sure based upon such limited stats/starts. All im saying is there sure seems to be alot of talk based upon pure perception instead of the reality of the situation.....

 

[Hostile]

Let's try to quantify this-- do you hate it as much as going to the medicine cabinet at midnight and finding out you're out of Nyquil??



I'm gonna kid you out of this dark place you're in if it's the last thing I do...

I'm out of NyQuil? Are you kidding?

~runs to check. NyQuil is there on shelf taunting me.~

Don't ever say that again. I nearly panicked.

 

[Hostile]

Again I say, we can only base our opinions on these guys by their own body of work as NFL qb's. Bollinger has a Career QB rating of 75.2, Simms 71.2. Furthermore Bollinger is far more mobile and less injury prone. Yet some here think Bollinger stinks and Simms is soooooooo much better. What are you basing that on, perception or reality?? Granted, Simms has had more of a chance to fail then Bollinger has due to having more starts then Bollinger, but its not like Simms has a long track record to go off of either. Simms may well be the better QB, then again he may not be. No one can say for sure based upon such limited stats/starts. All im saying is there sure seems to be alot of talk based upon pure perception instead of the reality of the situation.....

In 2010 is a team likely to contact us seeking to acquire a Simms or a Bollinger?

I look at backup QBs as more than just stats and a game or 2 fill in. No one is ever going to give us anything for Bollinger and whether you are a Badgers fan or not, you know that is the truth. Beck or Simms might have been worth a Draft pick.

I want a stockpile of usable (that includes trade bait) QBs, not just a starter and 2 warm bodies.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

I understand what your saying Hostile. Heck, I even agree with it. Fact is though,....it still doesnt make Simms any better than Bollinger. Simms has this perception somehow of being a good QB, truth is....he's not very good at all. Ive watched this thread unfold and to be honest at certain times even LMAO! Heres just one of the type of posts that have caused me to bust a gut,,,......Simms Backer...." Well if Bollinger is so good then why did Minnisota cut him".........Gee, I dont know, why dont you ask Tampa that question because they too CUT SIMMS!....LMAO.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think they're just more familiar w/ Bollinger

Garrett that is, and that counts alot

 

[Bob Sacamano]

In 2010 is a team likely to contact us seeking to acquire a Simms or a Bollinger?

I look at backup QBs as more than just stats and a game or 2 fill in. No one is ever going to give us anything for Bollinger and whether you are a Badgers fan or not, you know that is the truth. Beck or Simms might have been worth a Draft pick.

I want a stockpile of usable (that includes trade bait) QBs, not just a starter and 2 warm bodies.

they weren't this year, what makes next year so different?

 

[Doomsday]

It's real simple, I am looking for someone to be the #2 when Brad Johnson retires. Bollinger at #3 is no big deal to me.

Bollinger as #2 next year...hate the idea. Can't even begin to tell you how much I hate the idea.

I agree, that is exactly my point. I dont see him as a long term solution as a backup QB so why waste a roster spot on him?

 

[cowboyjoe]

i base what i have read on Simms on the cowboys boards from Hostile and DC, etc.

Next, I base it on a guy that played pro football Jamie Dukes that knows football. To me you would tend to believe a pro football player that has played the game, when Dukes said that Bollinger just cant cut it at QB.

LIke Hostile says, if Simms plays for the Cowboys, shows that he has fully recovered from his football injury, then you would have a greater chance of a trade and a draft pick for Simms then you would Bollinger.

Next, I dont want a player that has been in the league for 6 years like Bollinger and basically done nothing. Like the Vikings needed a QB the last 3 years for sure, where was Bollinger?

The Vikings have that great offensive line to keep defenders off of Bollinger when he played for the Vikes, where was he?

Why did the starting QB for the vikes beat out Bollinger who has been there longer, that says something right there.

whereas, simms was starting for tampa bay and doing fairly well before he had that terrible spleen injury.

Its kinda like Parcells said, you are what you are. Bollinger is what he is, a 3rd string QB and nothing else to me.

But Simms still has potential and possibilities. Which would you rather have, say Bollinger whom cant beat out Brad Johnson and in 2010 or so, no one will trade a draft pick for him, or would you rather have a QB like Simms that might get you a draft pick later, and possibly play if needed if something happened to Romo in a year or so.

And history has shown that QB that are 6-1 or less have a hard time making it in the NFL< they are too short.