I already hate Carson Wentz

[Dodger12]

What did you reasonably expect them to develop from that wealth of talent and ability?

I didn't say anything about developing those guys. I said we lack the ability to identify an existing QB to be an adequate back-up.

 

[dbair1967]

I didn't say anything about developing those guys. I said we lack the ability to identify an existing QB to be an adequate back-up.

Kitna was an adequate backup. Orton was an adequate backup. The fact Weeden won a couple of games for a team desperate to win to get in the playoffs tells me he was probably an adequate backup.

 

[MrB]

I didn't say anything about developing those guys. I said we lack the ability to identify an existing QB to be an adequate back-up.

So are you saying that the Cowboys should be picking from a better pool of QB's? All of the "experts" agree that there are three QB's in this draft that have potential to be Franchise QB's. Based on history it's very likely that 2 of those 3 will actually be very good to great players. And one of the players will be drafted by Cleveland so you know he's going to fail. It increases the odds that even if they have zero clue what they're doing they could by chance luck into a great QB.

 

[Dodger12]

Kitna was an adequate backup. Orton was an adequate backup. The fact Weeden won a couple of games for a team desperate to win to get in the playoffs tells me he was probably an adequate backup.

That's why I said "with the exception of Kitna....." Orton lost the only game he started and it was with the playoffs on the line so I'm not sure how you define that as adequate. And arguing if Weeden was an adequate back-up is beyond stupid.

 

[Dodger12]

So are you saying that the Cowboys should be picking from a better pool of QB's? All of the "experts" agree that there are three QB's in this draft that have potential to be Franchise QB's. Based on history it's very likely that 2 of those 3 will actually be very good to great players. And one of the players will be drafted by Cleveland so you know he's going to fail. It increases the odds that even if they have zero clue what they're doing they could by chance luck into a great QB.

My initial point was we just haven't drafted well overall and that extends to the QB position where we have a hard time identifying and developing any QB's. You pointed to a bunch of scrub TE's (without naming the players/position) as proof that this team drafts well; just some abstract statement about how guys are successful after they leave Dallas which just isn't true with the exception of a couple of players I've mentioned (maybe Dwayne Harris is another).

Certainly the fact that we're picking so high increases the chances that we'll hit on a QB if that's the direction we go but that's not a given seeing how they blew their evaluation of Claiborne. This team has no organizational philosophy when it comes to the QB position. None. Zilch. Zero. I could even make a case that they have no organizational philosophy when it comes to building a team. I would even argue that at the top of their QB qualifications checklist is the requirement that the QB was a former baseball player. It's insane.

 

[dbair1967]

That's why I said "with the exception of Kitna....." Orton lost the only game he started and it was with the playoffs on the line so I'm not sure how you define that as adequate. And arguing if Weeden was an adequate back-up is beyond stupid.

How many games did Orton win the next yr?

Orton played pretty damn well in that Philly game by the way. He had one bad pass that I recall.

 

[Dodger12]

How many games did Orton win the next yr?

Orton played pretty damn well in that Philly game by the way. He had one bad pass that I recall.

Who ares what Orton did after he left here? He was paid millions to be a back-up and he blew it against Philly with the playoffs on the line. He threw a pick intended for Witten that cost Dallas 7 points; blew a 4th and 1 screen in Philly territory and then threw an awful pick (Austin was pretty open) with under 2 minutes left to seal the game for Philly. That's just not good enough.

 

[MrB]

My initial point was we just haven't drafted well overall and that extends to the QB position where we have a hard time identifying and developing any QB's. You pointed to a bunch of scrub TE's (without naming the players/position) as proof that this team drafts well; just some abstract statement about how guys are successful after they leave Dallas which just isn't true with the exception of a couple of players I've mentioned (maybe Dwayne Harris is another).

Certainly the fact that we're picking so high increases the chances that we'll hit on a QB if that's the direction we go but that's not a given seeing how they blew their evaluation of Claiborne. This team has no organizational philosophy when it comes to the QB position. None. Zilch. Zero. I could even make a case that they have no organizational philosophy when it comes to building a team. I would even argue that at the top of their QB qualifications checklist is the requirement that the QB was a former baseball player. It's insane.

In all fairness that can happen with any player regardless of his position. Claiborne is a perfect example. He was highly rated by everyone. He was even considered by some as the best player in the draft. So even if the go with Myles Jack, or Treadwell, or any other player there is a chance they could fail. There is also a chance the person could develop into being a great player.

My point is that if you are going to draft the most important position on the team I want the greatest chance for success. This team does have a ton of needs (especially on defense) but you can't deny that they have to take care of the future. Some of you guys have been saying the middle rounds is where they should draft a QB but if they have their highest failures in the middle rounds why would you want them to draft a QB in round 3 or later? History also says that you have about a 90% chance of missing on a QB if you take him in the middle rounds. Just makes no sense to me.

 

[dbair1967]

Who ares what Orton did after he left here? He was paid millions to be a back-up and he blew it against Philly with the playoffs on the line. He threw a pick intended for Witten that cost Dallas 7 points; blew a 4th and 1 screen in Philly territory and then threw an awful pick (Austin was pretty open) with under 2 minutes left to seal the game for Philly. That's just not good enough.

So basically unrealistic expectations on your part.

The dude threw for almost 360 yds and completed 30 passes. We really had no run game that night. We barely lost the game.

And of course it matters that he won games the next yr. It further proves my argument that he was an "adequate" backup here. He was capable of winning games.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I guess the lesson is that we're forced to find and pay someone like a Kitna or Orton who has many years of starting and winning in this league, because we're absolutely incapable of developing anyone who isn't a completely finished product. But you don't get credit for talent evaluation with those guys. It's just a matter of paying them.

And even then we can fail miserably, like with Cassel or Brad Johnson.

 

[onlyonenow]

This team has shown no ability to get it right as regards QB since we got Tony. The only backup that whole time that was good was Kitna. So to think they have any kind of cred as regards QB is to be either a fool or flat out lying. This last year alone proves all that.

I happen to think that Wentz is way over rated considering how little he has actually played. There are not many QBs that have made it in the NFL that last 20 years that had only 23 starts. Big red flag to me; almost as much as where and who he played against. You can talk about Flacco basically coming from the same level but honestly how much of a reference is that? Tony Romo is a once in a generation find.

 

[dbair1967]

I guess the lesson is that we're forced to find and pay someone like a Kitna or Orton who has many years of starting and winning in this league, because we're absolutely incapable of developing anyone .

Thats fine, but I keep going back to how anyone would really know this. They've attempted to develop one drafted QB since this offensive staff has been in place.

People said the same stuff about OL too, and what happened there? As soon as they started using premium draft picks on the position, the results were far better. They need to put an early pick into the QB position if they are serious about getting someone ready for the future.

 

[MrB]

Thats fine, but I keep going back to how anyone would really know this. They've attempted to develop one drafted QB since this offensive staff has been in place.

People said the same stuff about OL too, and what happened there? As soon as they started using premium draft picks on the position, the results were far better. They need to put an early pick into the QB position if they are serious about getting someone ready for the future.

If they don't spend a premium pick on a QB then get ready for the Chad Hutchinson and Drew Henson years again within the next 2 years.

 

[ZeroClub]

Thats fine, but I keep going back to how anyone would really know this. They've attempted to develop one drafted QB since this offensive staff has been in place.

People said the same stuff about OL too, and what happened there? As soon as they started using premium draft picks on the position, the results were far better. They need to put an early pick into the QB position if they are serious about getting someone ready for the future.

I think you are right. No one knows.

At the same time, I can't blame anyone for having little confidence in the front office and coaching staff.

I'd be about a "6.75" on a 1 (dejected) to 10 (ecstatic) happiness scale if the Cowboys drafted a QB in round 1. Cautiously optimistic.

 

[Doomsday]

I'd be about a "6.75" on a 1 (dejected) to 10 (ecstatic) happiness scale if the Cowboys drafted a QB in round 1. Cautiously optimistic.

It would show that at the very least they are aware they have a serious problem at the position.

 

[Dodger12]

In all fairness that can happen with any player regardless of his position. Claiborne is a perfect example. He was highly rated by everyone. He was even considered by some as the best player in the draft. So even if the go with Myles Jack, or Treadwell, or any other player there is a chance they could fail. There is also a chance the person could develop into being a great player.

My point is that if you are going to draft the most important position on the team I want the greatest chance for success. This team does have a ton of needs (especially on defense) but you can't deny that they have to take care of the future. Some of you guys have been saying the middle rounds is where they should draft a QB but if they have their highest failures in the middle rounds why would you want them to draft a QB in round 3 or later? History also says that you have about a 90% chance of missing on a QB if you take him in the middle rounds. Just makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure a lot of people here were advocating for a QB in the middle rounds (maybe dbair but consider the source). I'd bet most of us here want one with our 1st round pick.

I agree with your post and I'll go a step further. I'd take QB in the 1st round each and every year until I got it right. There's no position more important and there is no building without a QB.

 

[cmd34]

(maybe dbair but consider the source)

Early lead for 2016 Post of the Year.

 

[Dodger12]

So basically unrealistic expectations on your part.

The dude threw for almost 360 yds and completed 30 passes. We really had no run game that night. We barely lost the game.

And of course it matters that he won games the next yr. It further proves my argument that he was an "adequate" backup here. He was capable of winning games.

Why are my expectations unrealistic? Is it too much to ask for one of the highest paid back-up QB's in the NFL to win a game (just ONE) against a flawed team? He threw the game away and I counted at least 3 occasions where we could have taken the lead and gained some momentum but he didn't make the play. So you stating that he was capable of winning games here is bullshit since, well, he didn't win any games here.

And along those same lines, didn't Stephen McGee win a game here? And no one in his right mind would think he was adequate.

 

[Iamtdg]

I'm not sure a lot of people here were advocating for a QB in the middle rounds (maybe dbair but consider the source). I'd bet most of us here want one with our 1st round pick.

I agree with your post and I'll go a step further. I'd take QB in the 1st round each and every year until I got it right. There's no position more important and there is no building without a QB.

This is exactly how I feel. Even the dbair part. God bless his little heart.

 

[dbair1967]

Why are my expectations unrealistic? Is it too much to ask for one of the highest paid back-up QB's in the NFL to win a game (just ONE) against a flawed team? He threw the game away and I counted at least 3 occasions where we could have taken the lead and gained some momentum but he didn't make the play. So you stating that he was capable of winning games here is bullshit since, well, he didn't win any games here.

And along those same lines, didn't Stephen McGee win a game here? And no one in his right mind would think he was adequate.

In case you hadnt noticed, we were an extremely flawed team and still are.

McGee did win a game, but it was the last game of that season and I'm not sure how much real effort the other team put up. I dont think he was "adequate", especially compared to Kitna & Orton or even Weeden