Cowboys need to stick with Bledsoe
By JENNIFER FLOYD ENGEL
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Let's squash this Drew Brees nonsense now. Immediately. Before somebody gets a crazy idea that he is what this Cowboys team needs.
I mean, why stop there?
Why not failed Redskins quarterback Patrick Ramsey?
I'll tell you why not: Because Brees does not make them better. Not next season. Not long term.
Let's start with the now.
The issue is: Is Brees better than the Drew they already have?
Drew Bledsoe does not think so and not because he is not high on Brees. He likes the kid.
"Well, you know, I was the new young guy once, so I've been on both sides," Bledsoe said Sunday when told crushing on Brees had become chic in our little slice of the wide, wide world of sports.
He is not aware that quarterback hunting is an official sport here. We usually like the ones we don't have.
Unless your name is Aikman.
"To be honest with you, it doesn't bother me," Bledsoe said. "I know I can play and, if you put me on the field, I am going to play real well. If there is a quarterback competition, at any time, I always welcome it, and I haven't lost one yet."
I tend to agree with Bledsoe.
Not because I am a devout Bledsoe backer either.
He remembers it, and I admit it. I went on record as saying the Cowboys should not sign Bledsoe last off-season. Then I had to backtrack and admit I made a mistake.
There were a lot of things wrong with the Cowboys in 2005. Bledsoe was not one of them.
He was actually pretty good.
And now I'm going to do something I rarely do. I'm going to the numbers. Mostly because they back me up.
Brees and Bledsoe had almost identical statistics last season.
Bledsoe had 63 more passing yards. Brees had one more touchdown. Bledsoe had two more interceptions. Don't forget that other little advantage Brees had -- LT in his backfield.
The only number where Brees has a significant advantage over Bledsoe is age. He is 27. Bledsoe is 34.
What is funny is the old guy feels good.
The younger one is coming off major shoulder surgery; a tidbit everybody seems to be forgetting in their rush to insist the Cowboys should be interested in a guy who is probably going to cost a decent chunk of change to sign.
If you are among those who believe this team is not far away from NFC contention, this does not get them closer. What does is a right tackle, a kicker, a safety and a linebacker or two.
Bledsoe believes.
"The two teams that were in the NFC Championship Game, we beat one and lost to the Seahawks on my play at the end," Bledsoe said. "If that is the standard in that conference, we are right there."
Of course, Bledsoe will not be around forever.
The Cowboys have to find their quarterback for whenever Bledsoe is gone, be it after this season or in two seasons.
This brings me to why Brees is not for later, either.
Much like Groucho Marx not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member, I do not think the Cowboys should want any quarterback that is available to be had.
They are available for a reason.
Ramsey struggled. Brees has the shoulder.
None has won or won big at their previous stops, which is why they are being jettisoned.
Teams do not let go of franchise quarterbacks. They are too hard to find. The ones on the street are other people's Quincys and Hutches.
Teams develop them. It is the sporting world's version of eating your vegetables.
You draft them. You groom them. Eventually you even play them.
The Cowboys have gotten away from this. They have tried quarterbacking on the cheap ever since Aikman retired.
Former baseball players.
Other teams' rejects.
Players on the sales rack.
What they need to do is go with Bledsoe this season and then get on with the business of figuring out whether Tony Romo and/or Drew Henson is the answer to "Who's next?"
In Indianapolis the past week for the big NFL meet and greet, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones had a one-word answer to the question: Is the future quarterback already on the roster?
"Yes."
He quickly added to this "yes."
"Short term, for sure," he said. "I would say it's very possible long term. As I sit here now, he's more likely on the roster than not on the roster."
Who he is not is Drew Brees.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Let's squash this Drew Brees nonsense now. Immediately. Before somebody gets a crazy idea that he is what this Cowboys team needs.
I mean, why stop there?
Why not failed Redskins quarterback Patrick Ramsey?
I'll tell you why not: Because Brees does not make them better. Not next season. Not long term.
Let's start with the now.
The issue is: Is Brees better than the Drew they already have?
Drew Bledsoe does not think so and not because he is not high on Brees. He likes the kid.
"Well, you know, I was the new young guy once, so I've been on both sides," Bledsoe said Sunday when told crushing on Brees had become chic in our little slice of the wide, wide world of sports.
He is not aware that quarterback hunting is an official sport here. We usually like the ones we don't have.
Unless your name is Aikman.
"To be honest with you, it doesn't bother me," Bledsoe said. "I know I can play and, if you put me on the field, I am going to play real well. If there is a quarterback competition, at any time, I always welcome it, and I haven't lost one yet."
I tend to agree with Bledsoe.
Not because I am a devout Bledsoe backer either.
He remembers it, and I admit it. I went on record as saying the Cowboys should not sign Bledsoe last off-season. Then I had to backtrack and admit I made a mistake.
There were a lot of things wrong with the Cowboys in 2005. Bledsoe was not one of them.
He was actually pretty good.
And now I'm going to do something I rarely do. I'm going to the numbers. Mostly because they back me up.
Brees and Bledsoe had almost identical statistics last season.
Bledsoe had 63 more passing yards. Brees had one more touchdown. Bledsoe had two more interceptions. Don't forget that other little advantage Brees had -- LT in his backfield.
The only number where Brees has a significant advantage over Bledsoe is age. He is 27. Bledsoe is 34.
What is funny is the old guy feels good.
The younger one is coming off major shoulder surgery; a tidbit everybody seems to be forgetting in their rush to insist the Cowboys should be interested in a guy who is probably going to cost a decent chunk of change to sign.
If you are among those who believe this team is not far away from NFC contention, this does not get them closer. What does is a right tackle, a kicker, a safety and a linebacker or two.
Bledsoe believes.
"The two teams that were in the NFC Championship Game, we beat one and lost to the Seahawks on my play at the end," Bledsoe said. "If that is the standard in that conference, we are right there."
Of course, Bledsoe will not be around forever.
The Cowboys have to find their quarterback for whenever Bledsoe is gone, be it after this season or in two seasons.
This brings me to why Brees is not for later, either.
Much like Groucho Marx not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member, I do not think the Cowboys should want any quarterback that is available to be had.
They are available for a reason.
Ramsey struggled. Brees has the shoulder.
None has won or won big at their previous stops, which is why they are being jettisoned.
Teams do not let go of franchise quarterbacks. They are too hard to find. The ones on the street are other people's Quincys and Hutches.
Teams develop them. It is the sporting world's version of eating your vegetables.
You draft them. You groom them. Eventually you even play them.
The Cowboys have gotten away from this. They have tried quarterbacking on the cheap ever since Aikman retired.
Former baseball players.
Other teams' rejects.
Players on the sales rack.
What they need to do is go with Bledsoe this season and then get on with the business of figuring out whether Tony Romo and/or Drew Henson is the answer to "Who's next?"
In Indianapolis the past week for the big NFL meet and greet, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones had a one-word answer to the question: Is the future quarterback already on the roster?
"Yes."
He quickly added to this "yes."
"Short term, for sure," he said. "I would say it's very possible long term. As I sit here now, he's more likely on the roster than not on the roster."
Who he is not is Drew Brees.
posted by The Gryphon at 6:28 PM
<< Home