Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - 'Boys fan take on why Romo is in, but Campbell is out

offiss · 11-10-2006, 05:15 PM

I am curious what does 4 different offensive schemes in college have to do with an offensive scheme in the NFL?

Regardless if you played in the same system for 4 years in college is meaningless if you then go to the NFL and have to learn an entirely different scheme, the same scheme in college may have allowed for more success in college, but it's back to square one once you hit the NFL.

Now as far as a new offensive scheme in the NFL, doesn't every QB have to learn one at one time or another? How about Brunell hasen't he had to learn a whole new offensive scheme?

Now here's the difference between Romo and Campbell, Parcells had to get a QB and fast when he realized his starter was a crack head, so in comes Bledsoe and a quick fix, meanwhile dallas uses it's top picks to build thier team while grooming an undrafted QB which cost them nothing, [much easier to sit on a player under those circumstances] the word has been Parcells wanted to switch over to Romo much sooner but was afraid he may lose Bledsoe as a backup [retirement] and would be up a creek without a paddle if Romo struggled or was injured, but Bledsoe was basically doing the same things as Brunell only Bledsoe would take more hit's. What Mr. Cowboy fails to point out as well is the cowboy's were never committed to Romo early on, they were committed to Drew Henson in whom they gave up an early rd draft pick to get, they also tried to get him onto the field but as I predicted he was an utter failure, which left Dallas in search of a future QB, that is when they turned to Romo and started to give him some serious attention. We do not have a future backup with starter potential unless of coarse it's Campbell, which is not good news for us.

There is nothing wrong taking your time with a QB if he's a late round pick or a walk on, but to give up as much as we gave up for Campbell makes it much more difficult, those extra picks could have been used on another corner, perhaps line depth or starter, that pick has the potential to really set us back if it doesn't pan out, not only for what we gave up, but for the time wasted on a player who just doesn't have it. Theoreticly it could be 4 to 5 years before we really know about Campbell, considering his contract will be up around then, as well as the fact that we went about building a win now team the pick doesn't make sense. Further more I don't care how long he sits on the bench and "learns" I personally believe that almost alway's a QB has to spend 3 full years starting to really become a legitamate QB in the NFL, yes it has happened sooner but those are the exceptions. Meanwhile we continue to struggle with an over the hill QB, I do believe it would be much more beneficial to struggle with the future for future progress, than wrestle with the past for future failure!

11-10-2006, 05:15 PM	#11
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 61 Posts: 3,097	Re: 'Boys fan take on why Romo is in, but Campbell is out I am curious what does 4 different offensive schemes in college have to do with an offensive scheme in the NFL? Regardless if you played in the same system for 4 years in college is meaningless if you then go to the NFL and have to learn an entirely different scheme, the same scheme in college may have allowed for more success in college, but it's back to square one once you hit the NFL. Now as far as a new offensive scheme in the NFL, doesn't every QB have to learn one at one time or another? How about Brunell hasen't he had to learn a whole new offensive scheme? Now here's the difference between Romo and Campbell, Parcells had to get a QB and fast when he realized his starter was a crack head, so in comes Bledsoe and a quick fix, meanwhile dallas uses it's top picks to build thier team while grooming an undrafted QB which cost them nothing, [much easier to sit on a player under those circumstances] the word has been Parcells wanted to switch over to Romo much sooner but was afraid he may lose Bledsoe as a backup [retirement] and would be up a creek without a paddle if Romo struggled or was injured, but Bledsoe was basically doing the same things as Brunell only Bledsoe would take more hit's. What Mr. Cowboy fails to point out as well is the cowboy's were never committed to Romo early on, they were committed to Drew Henson in whom they gave up an early rd draft pick to get, they also tried to get him onto the field but as I predicted he was an utter failure, which left Dallas in search of a future QB, that is when they turned to Romo and started to give him some serious attention. We do not have a future backup with starter potential unless of coarse it's Campbell, which is not good news for us. There is nothing wrong taking your time with a QB if he's a late round pick or a walk on, but to give up as much as we gave up for Campbell makes it much more difficult, those extra picks could have been used on another corner, perhaps line depth or starter, that pick has the potential to really set us back if it doesn't pan out, not only for what we gave up, but for the time wasted on a player who just doesn't have it. Theoreticly it could be 4 to 5 years before we really know about Campbell, considering his contract will be up around then, as well as the fact that we went about building a win now team the pick doesn't make sense. Further more I don't care how long he sits on the bench and "learns" I personally believe that almost alway's a QB has to spend 3 full years starting to really become a legitamate QB in the NFL, yes it has happened sooner but those are the exceptions. Meanwhile we continue to struggle with an over the hill QB, I do believe it would be much more beneficial to struggle with the future for future progress, than wrestle with the past for future failure!