Sabin: Results show Garrett's stance on having veteran backup QB is flawed

Sabin: Results show Cowboys coach Jason Garrett's stance on having veteran backup QB is flawed

By Rainer Sabin Follow @RainerSabinDMN rsabin@dallasnews.com

Staff Writer


Published: 29 September 2015 06:05 PM

Updated: 29 September 2015 06:09 PM




When the Cowboys acquired Matt Cassel last week in a trade with Buffalo and exchanged a higher pick in the 2017 draft for a lower one, head coach Jason Garrett explained why Dallas made the move with this standard line:

"It's just to have a veteran quarterback who has played in games," Garrett said.

Garrett has used this rationale when the Cowboys kept Jon Kitna ahead of Stephen McGee on the depth chart. Garrett relied on this reasoning again after Kitna retired and the Cowboys signed Kyle Orton to a three-year, $10.5 million contract in 2012. Even when Brandon Weeden came to Dallas as a free agent last year, Garrett acknowledged that he was intrigued by his experience.

But it's hard to see why the Cowboys, and Garrett in particular, are so adamant about having a failed starter serve as Tony Romo's understudy instead of drafting and developing a quarterback to back him up and maybe, just maybe, succeed him.

The results don't support Dallas' way of thinking on this matter.

Since Garrett rejoined the Cowboys as an offensive coordinator in 2007, the Cowboys are 5-10 when Brad Johnson, Kitna, Orton and Weeden have started.

In 2013, when a playoff berth was at stake against Philadelphia, Orton couldn't lead the Cowboys to victory. In fact, the last pass he threw in his career in Dallas was the interception that broke the Cowboys' backs that season. So what benefit did the Cowboys gain by having Orton? Not much. Orton ended up becoming disgruntled with his situation and Dallas was forced to eat the remainder of his signing bonus after cutting him the following summer.

When factoring in the Orton saga and the large sample size of outcomes in games sans Romo, there just isn't much justification for coveting a veteran backup as opposed to seeking out a college prospect in the draft. After all, what's the worst that could happen? He loses two-thirds of the time? That's the going rate of failure for the experienced passers who have lurked behind Romo on the depth chart since 2007.

Is this a joke? The thought process in this article couldn't be more flawed.

Genghis Khan said:

Is this a joke? The thought process in this article couldn't be more flawed.

Click to expand...

I think every coach wants an experienced guy.

But the real deal is, it does not matter what they have done or what they have seen.

The question becomes, does that veteran fit what you want your offense to do.

With Garrett, he loved him some Brad Johnson. A completely retarded choice because he could not make the throws necessary.

All in all, Garrett likes veterans but his system (or Linehan's if you think there is a fucking difference) is what, exactly?

It looks like something stolen out of Don Coryell's sock drawer in the 1980s.

Norv took that crap about as far as it can go. It's stale.

I don't think Garrett can get a backup to do what he does with the Cowboys because it is Tony Romo.

He has made Garrett. Garrett has no system. He has the things he likes to do, and frankly it pretty much requires a special player to make it work.

That makes it real hard to get a backup that can continue the system.

That is why you see a complete freak out gameplan like we saw Sunday. They either did not trust Weeden or knew he could not run our offense.

Hell, I see a guy like McCown doing the exact same shit Brees does. Maybe not as well, but the whole team is not disrupted.

That is a system.

Whether you agree with the logic of the article or not the results of the record for the Dallas backups is completely clear. There is a success rate of 33%. That's not good and probably could be attained by a draft project with good upside.

L.T. Fan said:

Whether you agree with the logic of the article or not the results of the record for the Dallas backups is completely clear. There is a success rate of 33%. That's not good and probably could be attained by a draft project with good upside.

Click to expand...

That's poor logic. Kitna went i think 4-3 in 2010 with an otherwise bad team. Mark Sanchez was a veteran backup last season and won some games. Same with drew stanton in Arizona.

Meanwhile the article mentions McGee but the guy simply couldn't play at the pro level. And that's true of the vast majority of drafted QBs.

The notion of having a veteran backup is not remotely flawed. That's a retarded conclusion to reach just because some fail.

If there's a problem with our backup QBs over the years, it's because we keep picking the wrong ones, not because they're veterans.

Genghis Khan said:

That's poor logic. Kitna went i think 4-3 in 2010 with an otherwise bad team. Mark Sanchez was a veteran backup last season and won some games. Same with drew stanton in Arizona.

Meanwhile the article mentions McGee but the guy simply couldn't play at the pro level. And that's true of the vast majority of drafted QBs.

The notion of having a veteran backup is not remotely flawed. That's a retarded conclusion to reach just because some fail.

If there's a problem with our backup QBs over the years, it's because we keep picking the wrong ones, not because they're veterans.

Click to expand...

The percentages don't lie. It not a conclusion of logic it's a mathematical outcome. A team with a drafted backup might do just as well as a, team with an experienced backup and the Dallas experience yielded the percentages even with Kitna. There is no absolute answer without charting every team'history but the Dallas example is one that shows a that an experienced backup doesn't necessarily give a better chance over a period of time.

Genghis Khan said:

If there's a problem with our backup QBs over the years, it's because we keep picking the wrong ones, not because they're veterans.

Click to expand...

This is true, although I think this is a problem across the NFL. Teams tend to fall in love with the veteran backup for little other reason then they have been around for awhile. The vast majority of NFL veteran QB's who bounce around from team to team just flat out suck. Guys like Flynn for example keep getting jobs when everyone knows they just can't get the job done. I know some people will claim it's just a result of their being no talent at the QB position in the NFL which is partially true as well. Personally I've always been a fan of the unknown over the guy I know sucks because he has had multiple chances in the NFL and done nothing.

Kitna and Orton were several tiers above Weeden and even they struggled with the offense. I'd kill for 2010 Jon Kitna right now.

Cowboysrock55 said:

This is true, although I think this is a problem across the NFL. Teams tend to fall in love with the veteran backup for little other reason then they have been around for awhile. The vast majority of NFL veteran QB's who bounce around from team to team just flat out suck. Guys like Flynn for example keep getting jobs when everyone knows they just can't get the job done. I know some people will claim it's just a result of their being no talent at the QB position in the NFL which is partially true as well. Personally I've always been a fan of the unknown over the guy I know sucks because he has had multiple chances in the NFL and done nothing.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's amazing how terrible Flynn is -- I still can't believe he beat us a couple of years ago -- and he still gets shots around the league.

I'm with you on preferring a more talented unknown to a proven dud, but you have to remember Garrett is extremely conservative and risk-averse. You can see this in everything from his punting on fourth and short around the 40s (IIRC he went for it less than any coach up to last year) to his generic cliches and non-answers in press conferences. He's overly concerned with not making mistakes and his image, so I'm not surprised he even more than most wants the safest QB possible with the first emphasis on not making mistakes.

boozeman said:

I think every coach wants an experienced guy.

But the real deal is, it does not matter what they have done or what they have seen.

The question becomes, does that veteran fit what you want your offense to do.

With Garrett, he loved him some Brad Johnson. A completely retarded choice because he could not make the throws necessary.

All in all, Garrett likes veterans but his system (or Linehan's if you think there is a fucking difference) is what, exactly?

It looks like something stolen out of Don Coryell's sock drawer in the 1980s.

Norv took that crap about as far as it can go. It's stale.

I don't think Garrett can get a backup to do what he does with the Cowboys because it is Tony Romo.

He has made Garrett. Garrett has no system. He has the things he likes to do, and frankly it pretty much requires a special player to make it work.

That makes it real hard to get a backup that can continue the system.

That is why you see a complete freak out gameplan like we saw Sunday. They either did not trust Weeden or knew he could not run our offense.

Hell, I see a guy like McCown doing the exact same shit Brees does. Maybe not as well, but the whole team is not disrupted.

That is a system.

Click to expand...

I think Garrett loves a veteran because they are superior clipboard holders. Since our QB coach may or may not be lucid after the experimental drugs he's taking to try to get his dick hard, Garrett wants someone to be the guy he used to be.

Clay_Allison said:

I think Garrett loves a veteran because they are superior clipboard holders. Since our QB coach may or may not be lucid after the experimental drugs he's taking to try to get his dick hard, Garrett wants someone to be the guy he used to be.

Click to expand...

HEYOOOO?

Tyrod Taylor in the late rounds of the 2011 draft sure would look fucking good right now.

Good lord. There is no right answer here. It's a total crapshoot. Weeden == snake eyes. Time for Cassel. The sure things are starting somewhere.

Some backups who had been average before suddenly become fine in relief. Steve Beuerlein for example.

For every Ty Taylor who flashes something there's a dozen retards.

ravidubey said:

Good lord. There is no right answer here. It's a total crapshoot. Weeden == snake eyes. Time for Cassel. The sure things are starting somewhere.

Some backups who had been average before suddenly become fine in relief. Steve Beuerlein for example.

For every Ty Taylor who flashes something there's a dozen retards.

Click to expand...

May be Ravi but the underlying question is why not go with developmental materiel as backup if they have an up side. Veteran QB that are available are usually proven non starting materiel.

L.T. Fan said:

May be Ravi but the underlying question is why not go with developmental materiel as backup if they have an up side. Veteran QB that are available are usually proven non starting materiel.

Click to expand...

Can't disagree, but the odds of success are equally poor either way. NFL has only around 30 legit starters at any given time. Vick won. McCown lost. Weeden won then lost.

Bottom line you go with a backup you aren't going far.

ravidubey said:

Can't disagree, but the odds of success are equally poor either way. NFL has only around 30 legit starters at any given time. Vick won. McCown lost. Weeden won then lost.

Bottom line you go with a backup you aren't going far.

Click to expand...

Another portion of the bottom line you are grooming a potential starter with draft materiel who has an upside.

L.T. Fan said:

Another portion of the bottom line you are grooming a potential starter with draft materiel who has an upside.

Click to expand...

You know how I feel about this. It just doesn't happen.

Inexperienced QB's are rarely a suitable backup for a team with any playoff hopes, and you don't get experience unless you play. At least established players have flaws you can coach around. You don't know a rookie's flaws yet or if he even has any strengths at all.

Late rounder/UDFA: Backup reps, no experience, and if he shows any promise at all he's gone in 4 years. You've basically trained someone else's QB (Ryan Mallet). Even then he probably is no good (Warner, Brady, Romo the exceptions from the last two decades).

Top draft pick: Needs starting reps asap, shouldn't even be considered a backup. Take him when you are ready to replace or rebuild. Essentially he's your franchise from the moment you draft him.

What's happening in Buffalo is pure winging it by necessity, and it took a meltdown of two QBs before Taylor even got his chance.

Late rounder/UDFA: Backup reps, no experience, and if he shows any promise at all he's gone in 4 years. You've basically trained someone else's QB (Ryan Mallet). Even then he probably is no good (Warner, Brady, Romo the exceptions from the last two decades).

Click to expand...

Also Jeff Garcia, Trent Green, Marc Bulger, John Kitna, Matt Hasselbeck, Brad Johnson, and Jake Delhomme.

BipolarFan said:

Tyrod Taylor in the late rounds of the 2011 draft sure would look fucking good right now.

Click to expand...

Garrett wouldn't know what the hell to do with a mobile QB.

ravidubey said:

What's happening in Buffalo is pure winging it by necessity, and it took a meltdown of two QBs before Taylor even got his chance.

Click to expand...

And we actually traded for one of them.

Isn't that exciting?