First off, Bledsoe's lack of mobility is not a secret. It did not just magically take place ovber the course of the last two months. Bledsoe is a big, strong, gunslinger of a quarterback who has little mobility (though enough to have scored a touchdown when he knew he would get crushed in the first half. So much for taking one for the team.) but lots of courage, and the team knew this entering the season. So if there is any blame to be handed out in this situation it really ought to go to the personnel folks, to the guys who are supposed to coach 'em up, and to the linemen who are not doing their jobs. Bledsoe's lack of mobility has become a crutch for bad line play -- of his four sacks in the first half against the Giants on Monday night, only one came as the result of him holding the ball for too long. The others happened so quickly that no quarterback could have reacted -- and on one, Bledsoe was declared to be in the grasp even though he was able to complete a pass to an outlet back that the referees called back.
Secondly, if the argument is that Romo is better for the Cowboys than Bledsoe because of the fact that the Dallas line sucks, the Cowboys don't have a game plan. They have a survival plan. The two are not the same, and this comes back to what I said above -- the blame lies with coaches and front office staff and the linemen, not with Bledsoe. If the argument is that Romo is a better choice because he can make more out of a broken play, then I will promise you that the Cowboys' season is done.
Third, did anyone watch the second half of the game? On the first play of the half, Romo threw an interception. Some have tried to mitigate the interception by arguing that a defensive lineman tipped the ball. But throwing the ball into the maw of the defensive line is hardly something that usually redounds to a quarterback's benefit. Romo threw two more interceptions, including one that went back 96 yards for a score. When Bledoe left, it was a 12-7 game. From that point on the Giants dominated, in no small part because of Romo. Romo threw a late touchdown that made the score respectable, but by that point, the Giants were playing a different defense that made throwing a touchdown easier. I have no idea how this decision is supposed to make any serious fan blieve that the Cowboys have a better chance to win.
And what is going to happen when the Carolina defense comes in licking their chops over facing a guy who has not started in his four years in the league as an undrafted free agent from Eastern Illinois? What will happen when Romo is sacked three times, fumbles the ball deep in his own territory, and throws another couple of interceptions? I have no doubt that Bledsoe will be ready to play, that he will continue to show class and professonalism. But Parcells threw him under the bus in the most pulic way possible. That is not how a veteran coach is supposed to treat a veteran and team leader, and certainly not his starting quarterback. I hope that the Cowboys get mauled in every game that Romo starts. And I am very much looking forward to when Romo misses a wide open TO a couple of times. That should make for a fun clubhouse. The backup quarterback is always the most popular guy in town. As long as he is the backup. But in all but the rarest of circumstances there is a reason why the backup is the backup. I suspect that Cowboys fans will begin to understand this fact starting this Sunday in Charlotte.
4 comments:
Remember that episode when Homer works for Hank Scorpio and Scorpio asks him what his life's dream is and he says "To own the Dallas Cowboys" and at the end Scorpio gives him the Denver Broncos and Homer is upset and Marge goes "I think owning the Denver Broncos is pretty good" and Homer goes "You just know nothing about football Marge." That was a great episode.
That was a damned good episode. I actually love that before they won two consecutive Super Bowls the Broncos were a bit of a punchline on the Simpsons, used a couple of times for comic effect.
dcat
Well, Romo panned out fairly well in the Carolina game as it turns out.
Obviously much too early to tell anything from it, though. Dallas was presumably pretty pumped for the game and it'll be interesting to see how things go as the team settles down into the new QB situation and they're not running on adrenalin so much.
I'm a Bledsoe fan, too, he seems like a good guy and has been a very good QB over the years, but I'm not too unhappy with having Romo start. There's something to be said for his apparently more expressive nature, for instance. Always got the feeling Bledsoe was a little flat, emotions-wise. I doubt Romo throws the ball better than Bledsoe (maybe it's not even close), but he looks excited in there, and he does have a very good release.
Pippin --
I was surprised not to get more mocking posts and appreciate that yours was more than that. I agree -- Romo played well, though people who think they won because of Romo are seeing what they want to see. His numbers at the half were almost identical to Bledsoe's the week he lost his job with Romo's interception being more damaging. Romo took fewer sacks, of course, but maybe the improved line play should have happened, oh, seven weeks ago.
Let's also keep in mind that three major turnovers in or near the red zone changed the complection of that game.Obviously Dallas deserves credit as a team, but I think people ought to chill out before jumping on the "Parcells has found his quarterback solution" bandwagon.
I also think that Cowboys fans more than maybe fans of any other team, have seen backup qbs become folk heroes based on one sterling performance, Think Clint Longley, Jason Garrett, etc. Let's be careful about anointing Romo the savior after one good game. Now the other teams will have film on him.
Post a Comment