With Talks Of Adding Bollinger, Simms To Expensive?

[Hostile]

Why do you like Beck? I don't really know anything about him other than he is a big QB......

Smart, accurate, could be someone we trade for a future pick. Good player to develop.

 

[Hostile]

he just isnt, and never has been very good Hos...

he was totally outplayed in college by Major Applewhite even though he was given every chance to be the guy...he's been nothing but mediocre in the pro's

I wouldnt mind him for the league minimum, but I wont lose any sleep over not getting him because he simply isnt very good

David

That's Texas. For the Bucs, which is the NFL, he was decent enough to put some trust in.

I could give a hang about what he did at Texas.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

Pretty sure Beck is on the smallish side. Qb'd at BYU. Too much of a choir boy for my taste. Think he would fit on THIS team like oil and water. Old for a second year guy due to the fact that he went on a mission for the Mormon church. I dunno what all the hubub is about him. IMO he looks like another ragarmed system QB put out by BYU.

It has been said that Beck is plenty smart though. So thats a positive. The 6 inches between the ears is what really makes a QB IMO, moreso than the arm or legs. Having said that im still not all that high on him. Certainly would nt trade anything over a 5th for him even though Miami was dumb enuff to draft him in the 2nd. Just think he's a system guy....

 

[Biggems]

Whats going on here is fairly simple. Chris Simms is a "SOMEWHAT'" recognizable name, Brooks Bollinger isnt. Chris isnt phil, heck Chris isnt even very good. Wasnt even all that good at Texas. Good kid, tries hard, been thru a rough time with injuries. STILL doesnt mean he is any good though. Fact is......If Chris had a name like Jones or Johnson, any other name besides Simms, and hadnt played his college ball at Texas, we probably wouldnt even be having this conversation.....

as much as I disliked the guy while he was at UT...he had a very nice winning percentage. UT went 22-4 in games he started. However, Major Applewhite had to win the bowl game in 2001 for him. So Simms was really 21-4.

in 2 seasons, he passed for 5,810 yds, 48 TDs, 23 INTs. He also ran for 10 TDs.

Had he been the QB after Peter Gardere or even James Brown, then everyone at UT would have loved him...or had he been Major's backup during Major's senior year and then started the next season........then I bet everyone at UT would have loved him. However, he will always be remembered as the spoiled pretty boy who took Majors job and then dropped the ball in big games that season.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

To top it all off, here we are all debating over QB's who are NEVER GONNA PLAY ANYWAY.... Yep,.....reminds me of the old Q/Hutch debates...

 

[Hostile]

To top it all off, here we are all debating over QB's who are NEVER GONNA PLAY ANYWAY.... Yep,.....reminds me of the old Q/Hutch debates...

Yet I have been talking about a QB who could develop enough for us to be able to garner interest in a trade.

I don't see that from Bollinger ever. That is the big difference.

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

as much as I disliked the guy while he was at UT...he had a very nice winning percentage. UT went 22-4 in games he started. However, Major Applewhite had to win the bowl game in 2001 for him. So Simms was really 21-4.

in 2 seasons, he passed for 5,810 yds, 48 TDs, 23 INTs. He also ran for 10 TDs.

Had he been the QB after Peter Gardere or even James Brown, then everyone at UT would have loved him...or had he been Major's backup during Major's senior year and then started the next season........then I bet everyone at UT would have loved him. However, he will always be remembered as the spoiled pretty boy who took Majors job and then dropped the ball in big games that season.

Now lets look at Bollinger. Was a 4 year starter from his freshman season on at Wisconsin. Record of 30-12. Guided his team to multiple big ten championships. Oh, and unlike Simms was 3-0 in Bowl games including a couple rose Bowls. Seems to me the bigger the game the better he performed. Vastly different from the Blonde Annointed one.....

 

[djtavo]

What a revolting turn of events at 3rd QB.

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

yeah i agree, anyways if Romo goes down why will anything else matter lol

 

[Avenging Hayseed]

Yet I have been talking about a QB who could develop enough for us to be able to garner interest in a trade.

I don't see that from Bollinger ever. That is the big difference.

......On that point im in FULL agreement with you Hoss. Its just that the whole line of thinking doesnt make any sense to me. Would Simms garner more interest in trade???/Yep, probably. But so what. When is the last time, or any time you can think of that the Cowboys picked up a player so that they could try to trade him later? Just doesnt compute to me. Its about gathering and KEEPING talent, NOT nurturing talent to trade away for a draft choice who may or may not ever work out.

 

[Hostile]

......On that point im in FULL agreement with you Hoss. Its just that the whole line of thinking doesnt make any sense to me. Would Simms garner more interest in trade???/Yep, probably. But so what. When is the last time, or any time you can think of that the Cowboys picked up a player so that they could try to trade him later? Just doesnt compute to me. Its about gathering and KEEPING talent, NOT nurturing talent to trade away for a draft choice who may or may not ever work out.

QBs are hot commodities. We have used QBs in trades scenarios before. Steve Walsh for example. I admit it, I am greedy. My motives are always about how the team can benefit.

 

[Biggems]

Now lets look at Bollinger. Was a 4 year starter from his freshman season on at Wisconsin. Record of 30-12. Guided his team to multiple big ten championships. Oh, and unlike Simms was 3-0 in Bowl games including a couple rose Bowls. Seems to me the bigger the game the better he performed. Vastly different from the Blonde Annointed one.....

this wasnt about Bollinger....this was me showing that Simms had a very good college career.

I really didn't keep track of Bollinger. I will say though, when I think of Wisconsin, I think of power running game and massive OL. I don't really think of QBs. Ironically, for a team that doesn't pass all that much, they have had a nice string of WRs hit the NFL in the last decade or so.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

Are you serious?

The fans are going to be clamoring for Simms or Culpepper if Romo struggles in a game or two?

Romo with one arm and one leg is still better than these two JAGs.

 

[GhettoxCowboy]

I cant believe we got a brooks bollinger thread? hahah that alone is a joke :laugh2:

 

[Beast_from_East]

yeah i agree, anyways if Romo goes down why will anything else matter lol

Exactly, we are not winning jack if Romo goes down so all this debate is kinda useless.

That is the thing about franchise QBs, you usually have JAGs as backups because anybody that is really any good is not going to spend their career watching from the bench.

How many games will the Colts win if Manning goes down? How many games will the Pats win if Brady goes down?

 

[MWILL]

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.

With the right system, Bollinger may become a better QB.

Ya never know.

starspinstarspin:starspin

 

[jobberone]

They should be looking for a QB to groom. Is Bartel someone to groom? They say a big maybe. I'd like to think they will find someone to be the next Romoish QB for Dallas.

 

[iceberg]

They should be looking for a QB to groom. Is Bartel someone to groom? They say a big maybe. I'd like to think they will find someone to be the next Romoish QB for Dallas.

i'd like to think romo will be here more than 3 years. given that all we need is a decent backup for now. if we groom someone they just leave in 3 years to start elsewhere.

too soon to groom.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

.......What are you TALKING ABOUT? Brad Johnson would be coming in if there were an injury to Romo, NOT Bollinger. Only reason they want Bollinger is to groom for the POSSIBILITY of being the backup qb NEXT season, AND.....in case Romo missed extended periods of time this season they would need a young QB on the roster as Brad wouldnt hold up more than a couple few games.

Totally agree.

 

[jobberone]

i'd like to think romo will be here more than 3 years. given that all we need is a decent backup for now. if we groom someone they just leave in 3 years to start elsewhere.

too soon to groom.

You never know what will happen in 3-4 years. You should always be looking for the next starter at a position IMO. QB is only different in the fact its so high profile, so expensive and the most important. All reasons to have one. But I do understand what you're saying. Hopefully if you have two QBs that good you can unload the right one for picks.

 

[joseephuss]

Bollinger and Romo have similar size and mobility. So does Beck. Simms is a bigger QB and not quite as mobile as either Bollinger or Beck. Plus Simms is left handed. That makes a difference.

Brad Johnson is not similar to Romo and Dallas changes the offense when he is in the game. I think Garrett wants someone who has more similar qualities to Romo, so he doesn't have to change as much of the offense. Bollinger won't run the offense as well as Romo, but the same plays could be called.

I am not too concerned with Bollinger being the #3 guy. If Dallas is down to the #3 guy then things aren't going well anyway. I foresee them getting another young to develop next off season.