ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I thought the Cowboys had already said that Bledsoe was the starter this year....isn't that why Jerry Jones said "this gives us a chance to reach the playoffs faster than Buffalo" or something like that?? I'm watching my Atlanta Braves spank the crap out of BFs team (yes, I know it's preseason....), when the reporter goes over and starts talking with Parcells. (I'm not really sure why he's at the game.....but go with it.) Anyway.......whoa, as I'm typing this some kid named "Snead" just made a highlight reel catch in center......check it out on sportcenter! Okay, so he asks Parcells about his starting QB and Parcells tries to get rid of him by making some joke about Harold Reynolds backing up Julius Jones this year.....the reporter goes back in again and directly asks Parcells if Bledsoe is the starter, or is Henson in the mix. Parcells declined to state that Bledsoe was the starter and said that Henson was definitely going to be considered as the starter next season. That would be pretty ironic if Drew refused to sign here, only to find himself in the same situation in Dallas that he did not want to be a part of in Buffalo.
Fezmid Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 That would be pretty ironic if Drew refused to sign here, only to find himself in the same situation in Dallas that he did not want to be a part of in Buffalo. 274198[/snapback] The difference being that all DB said was that he wanted a CHANCE to be starter, but MM said he'd be 2nd string and that's that. If what you're saying is true, DB is getting a chance to be the starter if he performs in training camp/preseason. That's all any of the people complaining about the DB release wanted for him here -- to have a proven veteran who can play should JPL turn out to suck (or break another bone). So there's quite a difference there. CW
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 The difference being that all DB said was that he wanted a CHANCE to be starter, but MM said he'd be 2nd string and that's that. If what you're saying is true, DB is getting a chance to be the starter if he performs in training camp/preseason. That's all any of the people complaining about the DB release wanted for him here -- to have a proven veteran who can play should JPL turn out to suck (or break another bone). So there's quite a difference there. CW 274203[/snapback] I hear ya, I just thought that they (read: Parcells) already had decided that Henson was not going to be the starter this year. I'm just curious as to why they seem to be backing off of this stance, especially after J.Jones said what he did about the playoffs.
Rico Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 That's all any of the people complaining about the DB release wanted for him here -- to have a proven veteran who can play should JPL turn out to suck (or break another bone).274203[/snapback] In other words, now that Drew's left town & Holcomb has been signed,everyone is happy about our QB situation. What a beautiful thing!
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 In other words, now that Drew's left town & Holcomb has been signed,everyone is happy about our QB situation. What a beautiful thing! 274209[/snapback] (I could say how much I'd have rather had Holcomb instead of Bledsoe last year, but that may create a stir )
Buftex Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Parcells declined to state that Bledsoe was the starter and said that Henson was definitely going to be considered as the starter next season. Did he actually say that Henson would be "definitely going to be considered as the starter", or that he would be considered for the starting job? There is a difference. Sounds like it could be selective hearing...I know how much you love Bledsoe.... Anyway, I do agree with you, unless Bledsoe really lghts it up in Dallas (which I think he could) he will likely find himself in the same situation again, in Dallas, or wherever...I would be willing to bet, however, opening day, Drew Bledsoe will be the starting QB for the Cowboys.........
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 Did he actually say that Henson would be "definitely going to be considered as the starter", or that he would be considered for the starting job? There is a difference. Sounds like it could be selective hearing...I know how much you love Bledsoe.... Anyway, I do agree with you, unless Bledsoe really lghts it up in Dallas (which I think he could) he will likely find himself in the same situation again, in Dallas, or wherever...I would be willing to bet, however, opening day, Drew Bledsoe will be the starting QB for the Cowboys......... 274215[/snapback] Honestly I can't say for sure his exact words. All I can say definitively is that he declined to name Bledsoe the starter when asked about it directly. The announcers were talking it over in the booth, so they went to get it straight for the horse's mouth. But it was no vote of confidence for Drew, and no closing of the door on Henson. That's just different than what I thought the situation was.
Buftex Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Honestly I can't say for sure his exact words. All I can say definitively is that he declined to name Bledsoe the starter when asked about it directly. The announcers were talking it over in the booth, so they went to get it straight for the horse's mouth. But it was no vote of confidence for Drew, and no closing of the door on Henson. That's just different than what I thought the situation was. 274216[/snapback] Well, from the way it appears, the owner wants to see Henson play, and the coach wants his guy...Parcells will likely get his way...unless Bledsoe completely blows, and the Cowboys get off to a crap start. Just remember, JJ got his wish last season, and Parcells let Henson start on Thanksgiving Day. He was awful, and Pacrcells yanked him, only to put Vinny back in....
Dan Gross Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 He could have avoided all the controversy by simply saying: "Write this down: Drew will be our starting QB next year. End of statement."
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 He could have avoided all the controversy by simply saying: "Write this down: Drew will be our starting QB next year. End of statement." 274280[/snapback] Exactly, that's what I thought even Jones had already done......that's why I thought it was odd seeing Parcells back down from what I thought was the company stance on the issue.
Seasontixfromcleve Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Exactly, that's what I thought even Jones had already done......that's why I thought it was odd seeing Parcells back down from what I thought was the company stance on the issue. 274307[/snapback] you missed his sarcasm, Henson = Drew as well
kota Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I like injury prone QB's on my team it does wonders.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Exactly, that's what I thought even Jones had already done......that's why I thought it was odd seeing Parcells back down from what I thought was the company stance on the issue. 274307[/snapback] To take this back to an issue that is relevant to the Bills, I find it stupid that any team sees fit to anoint any player the starter unless there is such a stark difference in the quality and level of play that there is no question whatsoever who is the starter (for example Kelly/Reich). It strikes me as so clear cut that Bledsoe has had enough problems and that Losman has shown litle or nothing but potential that neither of these men should be handed the starting regardless of their performance and that of their #2. If Henson is great in pre-season and Bledsoe sucks then I hope Parcells/Jones have no trouble starting Henson. If Losman sucks and Holcomb is great, I hope MM has no trouble starting Holcomb. I agree with Marv that generally when you have two starting QBs you have no starting QB, but this is very different from anoiniting a player starter regardless of how poorly he plays or how well the #2 plays. Any player who needs to be deemed the starter regardless of the fact he plays crappy should not be your starter probably anyway. If both JP and Holcomb play horribly then you probably go with JP, and take your lumps to develop the younger guy, but i hope the Bills have no problem benching JP if he can't win and Holcomb can. Just win baby. I'm rooting for the 2005 Bills not the 2006 or 2007 Bills.
IDBillzFan Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 The difference being that all DB said was that he wanted a CHANCE to be starter, but MM said he'd be 2nd string and that's that. 274203[/snapback] Zactly. Though I give MM credit for not dicking Drew around. You know...like Parcells is about to...
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 you missed his sarcasm, Henson = Drew as well 274332[/snapback] Wow, you're right.......I couldn't have missed that one more than I did
VABills Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Honestly I can't say for sure his exact words. All I can say definitively is that he declined to name Bledsoe the starter when asked about it directly. The announcers were talking it over in the booth, so they went to get it straight for the horse's mouth. But it was no vote of confidence for Drew, and no closing of the door on Henson. That's just different than what I thought the situation was. 274216[/snapback] Well damn it Jim, if you had Tivo you could rewind it and give us the exact wording.
Astrobot Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Was anyone else expecting a picture? Oooh! I think I just got that picture! Not a pretty one. Flat Statue...
ajzepp Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 Well damn it Jim, if you had Tivo you could rewind it and give us the exact wording. 274422[/snapback] Was that a subtle Star Trek reference, VA??
VABills Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Was that a subtle Star Trek reference, VA?? 274431[/snapback] Yes, very good.
Recommended Posts