I've never believed that either Vinny Testaverde or Drew Henson are the answer for the team. Especially not Henson, he is nothing more than Chad Hutchinson...but if the Cowboys put him in and he just bombs I got this idea.
San Diego is in a bind. Drew Brees is probably the MVP so far. He is having an outstanding season but he can't stay on that club as the starter. Philip Rivers is their first rounder and they payed him alot of money.
I'm not sure if I'm right but Drew Brees IIRC is a free agent next year. If he isn't Philip Rivers is probably gonna be the starter next year if not then they will be wasting money by having him ride the bench for another year. So should the Cowboys try to pry one of these two guys away from the Chargers?
I think the Cowboys could possibly get Drew Brees and have a slim/none chance of getting Philip Rivers, but either one of these guys is potentially better than Testaverde or Henson.
use that #1 from Buffalo next year and get Cal's Aaron Rogers
don't trade for a QB now the Cowboys might get lucky and Buffalo might stay on track to finish in the lower level of the AFC.
unless Parcells passes on him and does another Julius Jones type of bonehead move.
I thought he should have drafted freakin Steven Jackson from Oregon State!
Not a bad idea. Brees will be a free agent, and the sad part about San Diego is that they are more excited about Brees playing well to increase his trade value than to actually help the team in the future. (Sort of the Cincy type of thinking)
The Cowboys will not pick up a big name QB. (They should, but won't) They will look for a big name RB (Travis Henry?) Look for Drew maybe to end up in 'Zona.
If Drew goes to AZ...Vinny stays? They have to know they can't win with him Have to disagree with ya bro. I think Henson starts next year.
Drew Brees is heavily rumored to be going to Green Bay and perhaps be Favre's succesor there.
I think thats where he'll end up likely, but you really can never tell. I just think that from all the rumors and stuff out there Brees to Green Bay is a possibility and a strong one.
Dallas i think will probably think about trading picks to get one?
I still say get either Aaron Rogers from Cal with that Bills #1 or trade for another QB sitting on a bench now....question is who? any suggestions?
I just came back from SD and watching the Chargers VS Saints with my fiance,
and the talk there is that they want to KEEP Drew Brees AND Phillip Rivers.
dont know where the talk about goin to Green Bay, or them liking this cause it increases his trade value comes from.
Well, T Park that stuff was early on also, before the Chargers put together this magnificent run.
With Brett Favre being injured early on thats where it was all coming from and Brees seemingly like the odd man out with that big Investment on the bench in Rivers...it all made sense then again, as does keeping both the QB's.
Just Ask Dallas, you need 2 good ones to go or else your up creek
I trade rivers
for 5 picks and a stud
I do not let rivers take a snap as a charger as a reward for holding out and that way it does not hurt his trade value
The Minnesota Vikings might make that deal, remember the Herschel Walker deal where they sent the Dallas Cowboys years of Draft Picks and pretty much gave the Cowboys the 90s Dynasty
also lt is not getting any younger
rivers will take atleast 1 full year to learn
I thought you were going to say redskins
Man Ducks,
The Skins should have pulled the trigger on Big Ben
He'd look great with a Washington Logo on his Helmet, too bad Joe bought into Brunell too much and still
bench his ass!!!!
tparks as dumb as san diego
the chargers can't have 40 million on the bench
San Diego may want to keep Brees, but with the season he is having they won't be able to afford him.
Duff, give Drew Henson a chance to take an NFL snap. I'm not saying he will be the savior, but he already looks better than Chad ever did. Also, unlike Chad, Drew was actually GOOD in college. Hutchinson was never anything more than a mediocre Pac-10 QB. Drew put up big time numbers in the Big 10.
I'm not too concerned about missing out on Steven Jackson. I feel the pick we pick up from the Bills will more than make up for not drafting Jackson. Especially if Buffalo can get low enough for us to pick up a pass rusher. that's the most critical area of need for the cowboys.
I totally agree. Henson hasn't even had the opportunity to be a bust.
As an aside, everybody in here talks like the Bills pick will be higher than the Cowboys actual pick. That is definitely not for certain(both teams are 3-5). Parcels has lost control of this team, IMO. I think you scrap this season and put Henson in there and see what he can do. Then you know what your needs will be for next season.
As for Brees, don't forget he is from Texas and if he is anything like me, he can't wait to get back here. And Dallas would be a pretty good fit. And seeing that he is a young FA, you just might be able to sign him without giving up your two first round picks.
^^I'm all for that Doc. I am just not sure if JJ is ready to admit defeat on Henson.
You'd have to take a look at Henson during the regular season before doing something stupid like unloading him. Brees is playing well right now, but he could be the next Jake Delhome...(spelling) a one-hit wonder. Dallas would be stupid to dump Henson right now.
I don't think it matters if the Cowboys are below the Bills, the Bills are gonna give us a pick in the teens at least. The Bills have five of their last eight games on the road against the Patriots (L), Seahawks (L), Dolphins (possible W), Bengals (L) and Niners (L) being the opponents while their home games include the Rams (possible W), Browns (L) and Steelers (L). They have a shot at beating the Rams but it's a stretch to say they'll beat the Browns or Steelers even at home. They haven't won a game on the road all season and the only game I see them having a chance of winning is the Dolphins. Otherwise, I see them losing all their remaining road games. At best, they're looking at a 6-10 record. Where that's measure against the rest of the teams, I don't know. At this point, I'm hoping for them to be 5-11 or 4-10. I'd have to think they'll win at least one more game before season's end.
Now if the cowboys come in above or below that, it matters little. AS long as we have two high draft picks in the first round, we are guaranteed to get two players who can contribute if we draft wisely.
Unfortunately Bill has delivered us two bad drafts in a row.
The only thing Hutchinson and Henson have in common is baseball. Hutchinson was mediocre in college, whereas Henson was a top QB.
And of course Vinny isn't the answer at QB...he was never intended to be. He's 41. He was a vet stopgap until Henson was ready.
Well, I've been very hessitant to knock henson out of consideration based on what I've seen in the preseason b/c he hadn't played football in such a long time. But from what I've seen so far, I haven't been impressed with henson. At this point, I'm hoping he can be a good quarterback. That's part of the reason I'd like to play him more. But with him in there, we'd have to protect him by running the ball a lot. Having him in there would really limit what we could do as a team on offense but we haven't done much thus far. We need to see what he has. He needs to be put out there.
You can't get ready by riding the pine and holding the clipboard.
Analysis from dallascowboys.com:
Nick Eatman
DallasCowboys.com Staff Writer
Nov. 9, 2004, 5:07 p.m. (CDT)
(Editor's Note: Throughout most Tuesdays this season, DallasCowboys.com staff writer Nick Eatman will provide an analysis on a certain aspect of the Dallas Cowboys.)
IRVING, Texas -- We've seen the emails and heard the radio calls.
The fans seem to have all the answers to fix the Cowboys problems these days. And it involves two players who have never started a game in this league.
If the Cowboys would just play Drew Henson and ReShard Lee, everything would be so much better.
Sure about that?
Certainly, the Henson backers aren't naive enough to believe he would step right in and guide this struggling team into the playoffs after not playing any football since 2000. It's assumed this move would be to get a head start on next year. That's right, next year, even though the Cowboys still must play as many games this year as they already have.
But for Lee, a couple of good kickoff returns and a few nice runs in a limited role have Cowboys followers ready to spit fire because the back, who has not started any sort of football game since 2002, is not in the game more.
So Henson needs to play because he's the future. And Lee needs to play because he's better.
Well, playing both would be conflicting.
If you're going to throw a rookie quarterback to the wolves, don't you want at least some veteran help at running back, someone who can at least be a reliable pass blocker? Isn't that the very reason Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells doesn't want Lee in the game in the first place?
And so if you did play Lee, wouldn't you think having a proven quarterback such as Vinny Testaverde in there would only help the young running back flourish?
Having both in the game would seem to be counter-productive. It's got to be one or the other, and it probably should be neither, for now.
Now understandably, if Henson is the future, he needs to play football to get better at football. That makes sense. But why does the future have to be today? That's the present, right? So if Henson is supposed to be the starting quarterback here in 2005 or possibly 2006, why does he have to start playing right here in November of 2004? And don't say because he needs to get through the bumps and bruises to become a pure and polished player by next year. Yeah, Chad Hutchinson took so many bumps and even more bruises in his nine games in 2002 that he never made it out there again.
Hutchinson's confidence appeared so shaken and his psyche so destroyed, that he couldn't beat out even Quincy Carter last year. He couldn't handle Bill Parcells, and now he's holding a clipboard, wearing a baseball cap in Chicago as the Bears' third quarterback.
Sure that's only one example. I know Peyton Manning went 3-13 as a starter in 1998 before blossoming into the best quarterback in the game today. I know Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick and even Troy Aikman, with his 1-15 season in 1999, had slow starts before turning the corner.
But there is so much more at stake then just a simple change in the quarterback order.
"I'd be giving them a sign to my team that I'm giving up on the season," Parcells said of why he wouldn't make a change at quarterback just to get a guy playing time. "That's why. If I did that now, I would be giving them a signal that OK we're going on for next year, and I'm not ready to do that."
The Cowboys are 3-5 after the first eight games and still have eight more to play. So if the Cowboys find themselves trailing 24-7 at halftime Monday night against the Eagles, that means they're not going to bother coming out for the second half? Just get the Baltimore tapes out and start working on the next game?
Are you serious?
If there is a Parcells quote standing out more than any others in the past few weeks, it would be, "Let's worry about next year, next year."
It's not like the Cowboys will finish this season Jan. 2 against the Giants and then start playing preseason games a week later.
There is an off-season, remember. And if Henson shows then he is better than Testaverde or Tony Romo or anyone else who might be around, then play him then. Who is to say he has to play now? There isn't a rule. There are countless examples to support both sides, so let's just trust Big Bill on this one. Remember, he's still a good coach. We haven't changed our theories on that one yet, have we?
Then there is Lee, and let's be honest here:
Sure, this kid has some intriguing qualities and has already flashed some skills worthy of earning more playing time. But it's not as if the Cowboys are keeping Barry Sanders on the bench.
He comes in with fresh legs to make a few nice runs here and there. And this reminds me more of Troy Hambrick when he was spelling Emmitt Smith in 2001 and 2002 - and oh yeah, in 2004 again. But then make him the 16-game starter as the Cowboys did last year and suddenly the undrafted running back out of Savannah State emerges. Diminishing returns set in.
Now after a month of wondering why Lee hasn't received more playing time, Parcells finally came clean on Monday, saying he simply doesn't trust the first-year back in all phases of the game.
The media doesn't watch practice, at least not anything past stretching and some thrilling walk-through drills.
But we don't see what Parcells is talking about when it comes to his lack of trust in Lee's blocking. In fact, the coach said anytime he doesn't have the ball in his hands he's a liability.
"I thought he was headed along but when I watch him practice, it's hard to put him in there," Parcells said of Lee. "Now, I'm hopeful for him that he can still come along. This is a guy that has trouble paying attention to other details besides running the ball. Now that's the best way I can explain in a nice way. I really am. I'm trying to be as candid as I can. When he's not returning the ball on kickoffs, he's a liability, not an asset.
"The most pertinent thing to his position . . . if you're a running back in this league and you cannot pass protect, or you do not look like you can follow the blitz scheme well, you can't play."
And that's probably why Lee hasn't been playing.
Now Parcells' reasoning certainly won't satisfy the fast-growing members of the ReShard Lee Fan Club, which likely added a few supporters Sunday with Eddie George and Richie Anderson struggling to gain yards and Lee rushing for 38 yards in mop-duty late in the game.
But it doesn't appear Parcells is in the club.
The season might be halfway over and the Cowboys' playoff chances might be slipping away game by game. But playing Lee and Henson now won't do anything to help their cause this year.
And remind me, it's still this year, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
