Archer: How Brock Osweiler could influence Cowboys' QB decision

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,134
The Texans didn't mind paying him based on 7 games, and unlike the Texans, the Broncos had 4 years of practice to evaluate.

The downside with Osweiler in Denver may have been that he wasn't the current coaching staff's guy. He was brought up mostly in the Jon Fox era. If Fox and Gase were still there they might have been more interested in keeping him.
Texans are desperate to win with JJ Watt in his prime, so they're willing to gamble. Denver's defense allows them to not have to gamble. I think they think they can win with a game manager, so why pay a fortune to a kid you aren't sure can win long term when that defense gets old?

And practice can only tell you how good a practicer a player is.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Texans are desperate to win with JJ Watt in his prime, so they're willing to gamble. Denver's defense allows them to not have to gamble. I think they think they can win with a game manager, so why pay a fortune to a kid you aren't sure can win long term when that defense gets old?

And practice can only tell you how good a practicer a player is.
This is only relevant in Dallas if you actually think Romo will play another four to five years. I don't, Do you?
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,134
This is only relevant in Dallas if you actually think Romo will play another four to five years. I don't, Do you?
You're right, of course.

But if he plays three years, a definite possibility, then you've got one year with a 2nd round pick or two with a 1st rounder after Romo's gone. You still have to eat growing pains for that player, too, especially if the team sucks.

So at that point why not draft the next guy when Romo is truly done?

The exception is an opportunity to land a surefire franchise QB. If that opportunity arises you have to take it.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
You're right, of course.

But if he plays three years, a definite possibility, then you've got one year with a 2nd round pick or two with a 1st rounder after Romo's gone. You still have to eat growing pains for that player, too, especially if the team sucks.

So at that point why not draft the next guy when Romo is truly done?

The exception is an opportunity to land a surefire franchise QB. If that opportunity arises you have to take it.
Whether they have growing pains or not depends on the player, Rodgers was ready to roll pretty much immediately. I doubt Romo plays 3 years here. If we draft a guy we like, we're not going to want to pay a broken Romo 19.5 million in 2018. We have an offensive line to pay. Having a cheap rookie contract QB instead of an expensive vet can help with that. I honestly don't know if you keep him in 2017 if he ends 2016 on IR and the rookie finishes the season playing well.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
You're right, of course.

But if he plays three years, a definite possibility, then you've got one year with a 2nd round pick or two with a 1st rounder after Romo's gone.
Yeah and then after those two years you extend him. If he refuses you franchise him. This is easy stuff.

If you wait until Romo is done to draft someone you will guarantee your team is horrible for a couple years. And if that draft sucks for QBs you may end up having to reach horribly for a shitty QB like Blaine Gabbert.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Yeah and then after those two years you extend him. If he refuses you franchise him. This is easy stuff.

If you wait until Romo is done to draft someone you will guarantee your team is horrible for a couple years. And if that draft sucks for QBs you may end up having to reach horribly for a shitty QB like Blaine Gabbert.
Or signing an Osweiler clone like Mike Glennon.
 

dallen

Senior Tech
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
8,466
Yeah and then after those two years you extend him. If he refuses you franchise him. This is easy stuff.

If you wait until Romo is done to draft someone you will guarantee your team is horrible for a couple years. And if that draft sucks for QBs you may end up having to reach horribly for a shitty QB like Blaine Gabbert.
Not to mention the fact that we need a good backup QB anyway. Getting one of the top 3 QBs is so obviously the move to me. I am going to be pissed like I've never been pissed before at this front office when we end up with Myles Jack and a TE with our first 2 picks.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,270
Not to mention the fact that we need a good backup QB anyway. Getting one of the top 3 QBs is so obviously the move to me. I am going to be pissed like I've never been pissed before at this front office when we end up with Myles Jack and a TE with our first 2 picks.
Even if the TE is Hunter?
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,134
Not to mention the fact that we need a good backup QB anyway. Getting one of the top 3 QBs is so obviously the move to me. I am going to be pissed like I've never been pissed before at this front office when we end up with Myles Jack and a TE with our first 2 picks.
Jack or Ramsey would seriously piss me off. Do they think Jack is the next Cornelius Bennett or LT?

What also concerns me is settling on one of the QB's on the assumption that is the 2004 draft.

Most of the time when there's a 1 and 1a duo touted pre-draft at QB, one of them is a good player and the other one not so much. If there is any suspicions that Goff/Wentz (whoever Clevland doesn't choose) is not that guy, then we must pass at pick #4.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,270
Yeah because Cleveland has a history of choosing the right QB.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I think it's fair at this point to say that Cleveland could make a draft bust out of Andrew Luck.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
It would anger me immensely if we spent more than a fifth round choice on him.
If we draft him at all it will set us back years.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
If we draft him at all it will set us back years.
Literally. They will "develop" him under the expert tutelage of Wade Effin' Wilson and bypass others while wasting time with him.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
Literally. They will "develop" him under the expert tutelage of Wade Effin' Wilson and bypass others while wasting time with him.
Yep, and by virtue of his being drafted we'll have to waste at least a year seeing his suckass start
 
Top Bottom