Cowboys Concerned About QB Johnson's Limitations (1 Viewer)

[Andy Herron]

After a Week 8 in which Brad Johnson threw for a measly 122 yards and the Cowboys gained only 172 in all, their fewest ever in a victory, internal concerns are emerging at Valley Ranch about whether the NFL's oldest active quarterback can effectively incorporate Terrell Owens and Dallas' other receivers in the downfield passing game.

A high-ranking team source said the Cowboys will "probably" have Johnson, the backup to injured Tony Romo, start against the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants on Sunday. But the same source said Johnson's obvious limitations within the offense, on full display in Sunday's 13-9 win over Tampa Bay, might prompt coach Wade Phillips and his staff to consider other options, including third-stringer Brooks Bollinger.

In the two games with Johnson starting for Romo, none of the Cowboys' top three wide receivers or tight end Jason Witten has a reception for 20 or more yards. With Johnson in the lineup, Owens has just seven catches for 64 yards, Patrick Crayton four for 43 and newly acquired Roy Williams two for 10 yards. Witten has seven receptions for 52 yards. Williams is the only player among those mentioned with a touchdown catch.

Johnson is the only Cowboys player with a Super Bowl ring and the Cowboys were attracted to his experience, intelligence and reputation for being someone who could manage the game and avoid sacks and turnovers. Johnson has three interceptions and been sacked six times in his two starts.

Dallas (5-3) apparently has little interest in former Vikings quarterback Daunte Culpepper -- who excelled with the deep ball -- as he failed to impress for Cowboys offensive coordinator Jason Garrett while both were with the Miami Dolphins.

The daunting challenge of playing the Giants' defense on the road is another reason for the Cowboys to discuss replacing Johnson. With the Giants leading the NFL in sacks, Johnson's inability to escape the pass rush becomes an additional liability.

Bollinger's mobility could be important against the Giants, who sacked Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger five times and intercepted four of his passes in Sunday's 21-14 victory. The Giants (6-1) have a league-high 26 sacks.

-Ed Werder, ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?i...ce=NFLHeadlines

It will be interesting to see how practice reps go this week. Bollinger has gotten next to none thus far with the first unit.

 

[dgreen]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

 

[T Bell]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

Why is this even public knowledge? Who's gameplanning: Drew Rosenhaus?!?

 

[T Bell]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

Why is this even public knowledge? Who's gameplanning: Drew Rosenhaus?!?

I blame the GM. Jerry should fire him.

 

[Andy Herron]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

 

[Bankerguy]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

I won't play apologist here, but I would suspect they kept Johnson to help a "healthy" Romo. He is a veteran and someone who helped Tony prepare each week. The Cowboys rolled the dice and lost on this. As I have already stated in the Cowboys thread I really hope they both play.....Give Bollinger a 15-20 plays in this game (Say 10-12 passes and 5-7 runs) that are designed to his strengths and skill set. Give him some rollouts and some routes that go further then 8 yards for the love of god. The Giants don't have tape on him and anything to keep them on theirs toes couldn't hurt. I give the Cowboys a 20% chance to win the game with Johnson playing the whole thing. I would also like to see 1-2 trick plays.-Fleaflicker-End around option pass with Stanback-Fake punt-Surprise on sidesGotta try for an edge.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

This is the sort of "experienced backup" the dumb old Packers should have had on the roster, apparently.

 

[Bankerguy]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

In all fairness....he really doesn't say anything in the entire article that we didn't already know.-Brad stunk it up

-Cowboys "considering" options.

Not exactly earth shattering reporting there.

 

[Andy Herron]

When asked in today's press conference if Brad Johnson would start this week, Wade said "We haven't discussed that yet."

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

I said this from day one. When you have weapons like the Cowboys have... you have got to have a QB who can throw farther than 3 yards downfield.

 

[jaybebo]

I haven't seen Bollinger play in Minnesota...I would assume he is more mobile. How is his arm strength?

Based on his numbers from his nine starts in 2005 and one start in 2007; he has 1534 passing yards and five touchdowns and seven interceptions. Also, he has 32 carries for 124 yards.

 

[drew726]

A 40 year old statue against the giants pass rush. There will be pain.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I haven't seen Bollinger play in Minnesota...I would assume he is more mobile. How is his arm strength?

Mobility like Drew Bledsoe.Arm strength like Chad Pennington.Decision-making like Gus Frerotte.Emotional stability like Daunte Culpepper.In short, he's behind a near 50 year old on the depth chart.

 

[T Bell]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

I won't play apologist here, but I would suspect they kept Johnson to help a "healthy" Romo. He is a veteran and someone who helped Tony prepare each week. The Cowboys rolled the dice and lost on this. As I have already stated in the Cowboys thread I really hope they both play.....

I'm not sure that that explanation makes sense, even ignoring the severe risk involved as you pointed out. If BJ is there solely to be a coach-mentor type, and not because they really want him to play, then he'd be the 3rd string QB (if not a QB coach) rather than the 2nd stringer. By playing him over Bollinger, that says to me that the Cowboys evaluated BJ as being the better second choice at QB. Either that speaks very poorly of their player evaluation skills, or Bollinger's abilities, or both, but there's really no way around that. What leads me to believe that it was a player evaluation problem is the fact that BJ isn't even a good fit (and hasn't been for a decade) in the vertical type of Coryell-Zampese offense that Dallas runs. BJ's success in the last 10 years has come from playing in Gruden's timing-based, short passing WCO. He's really a very poor fit for Dallas' offense even ignoring his decline over the past several years.

 

[Bankerguy]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

I won't play apologist here, but I would suspect they kept Johnson to help a "healthy" Romo. He is a veteran and someone who helped Tony prepare each week. The Cowboys rolled the dice and lost on this. As I have already stated in the Cowboys thread I really hope they both play.....

I'm not sure that that explanation makes sense, even ignoring the severe risk involved as you pointed out. If BJ is there solely to be a coach-mentor type, and not because they really want him to play, then he'd be the 3rd string QB (if not a QB coach) rather than the 2nd stringer. By playing him over Bollinger, that says to me that the Cowboys evaluated BJ as being the better second choice at QB. Either that speaks very poorly of their player evaluation skills, or Bollinger's abilities, or both, but there's really no way around that. What leads me to believe that it was a player evaluation problem is the fact that BJ isn't even a good fit (and hasn't been for a decade) in the vertical type of Coryell-Zampese offense that Dallas runs. BJ's success in the last 10 years has come from playing in Gruden's timing-based, short passing WCO. He's really a very poor fit for Dallas' offense even ignoring his decline over the past several years.

The bottom line is that without Romo....whether Johnson or Bollinger come in, it doesn't really make a huge difference in comparison to Romo. IMO...they kept Johnson as I metioned for the veteran aspect. The Cowboys are paying the price for not having a legit #2.

 

[mozzy84]

This is the sort of "experienced backup" the dumb old Packers should have had on the roster, apparently.

do you do this type of thing is every thread? seems like it anyways...

 

[Ridgelake]

Dayum, Tatum is making sense!

I think part of their hesitancy with Bollinger is that he's had exactly ZERO reps with the first team until now. He's been running the scout team, which means he's been learning their opponent's plays every week, not Dallas'. Remember, he was signed after camp. So he's had no real chance to learn the Dallas offense or get any clue on timing of the first teamers. If he had been around during Camp, we'd probably have seen him already.

But given how bad BJ has looked with accuracy, I'm about ready to throw him in anyway. We all knew BJ had no arm strength. But at least get the damn ball in the same area code as the receiver. If he can't at least get reasonably accurate throws on all the short crap he throws, then maybe its time to give a few plays to Bollinger. I'm trusting he can at least throw the ball more than 10 yards with a modicum of accuracy..

 

[mozzy84]

I haven't seen Bollinger play in Minnesota...I would assume he is more mobile. How is his arm strength?Based on his numbers from his nine starts in 2005 and one start in 2007; he has 1534 passing yards and five touchdowns and seven interceptions. Also, he has 32 carries for 124 yards.

he was pretty bad all around in MN to put it nicely, his arm strength is obviously better than johnsons but he was far from accurate. he will have better options to throw too but also will have a worse OL...

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

This is the sort of "experienced backup" the dumb old Packers should have had on the roster, apparently.

do you do this type of thing is every thread? seems like it anyways...

No. Sometimes I mention that Aaron Rodgers is injury-prone.

 

[Big Daddy Kane]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

All you do is regurgitate news you find across the internet. At least Werder is a real reporter and not some internet poser hack who thinks he's actually important.

 

[zoonation]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

All you do is regurgitate news you find across the internet. At least Werder is a real reporter and not some internet poser hack who thinks he's actually important.

Stay classy guy.Andy's contirbution to this board and thread are exponentially better than the the drivel you churn out.

 

[Big Daddy Kane]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

All you do is regurgitate news you find across the internet. At least Werder is a real reporter and not some internet poser hack who thinks he's actually important.

Stay classy guy.Andy's contirbution to this board and thread are exponentially better than the the drivel you churn out.

I don't parade myself around here like I'm some important, knowledgeable person. And if I spent 9 hours a day sifting through internet new stories then running here and acting like I have some insider info for you guys then I'd be him. Find some other monkey to do that, no wait, we already have one.

 

[oddball]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

All you do is regurgitate news you find across the internet. At least Werder is a real reporter and not some internet poser hack who thinks he's actually important.

Stay classy guy.Andy's contirbution to this board and thread are exponentially better than the the drivel you churn out.

I don't parade myself around here like I'm some important, knowledgeable person. And if I spent 9 hours a day sifting through internet new stories then running here and acting like I have some insider info for you guys then I'd be him. Find some other monkey to do that, no wait, we already have one.

Andy quotes news and stories people that follow football would like to read about. Not idiotic 'Dallas is gonna punch New England in the Mouth' drivel. If you were any sort of semi-respectable poster on here, you would have gone back into that thread and taken your lumps. No, as usual you are just a classless fool.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

This is the sort of "experienced backup" the dumb old Packers should have had on the roster, apparently.

Yes, even with his limitations he is better than what the Packers would be putting out there.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

No I'm pretty sure Flynn and Brohm could manage to get 100 yards and/or throw 3 picks.

 

[Routilla]

Cowboys fan here and if Romo and Witten are out for the G-men then I don't know why we wouldn't give BB a shot. His arm must be stronger than BJ's and the Giants will probably win regardless. So.....I say run a 4WR set with MBIII in the backfield and tell BB to throw the ball downfield. What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Manster]

Dayum, Tatum is making sense!I think part of their hesitancy with Bollinger is that he's had exactly ZERO reps with the first team until now. He's been running the scout team, which means he's been learning their opponent's plays every week, not Dallas'. Remember, he was signed after camp. So he's had no real chance to learn the Dallas offense or get any clue on timing of the first teamers. If he had been around during Camp, we'd probably have seen him already. But given how bad BJ has looked with accuracy, I'm about ready to throw him in anyway. We all knew BJ had no arm strength. But at least get the damn ball in the same area code as the receiver. If he can't at least get reasonably accurate throws on all the short crap he throws, then maybe its time to give a few plays to Bollinger. I'm trusting he can at least throw the ball more than 10 yards with a modicum of accuracy..

you cant just step in and perform at QB in the NFL. BB prolly shouldnt have his Cowboys debut in a hostile NY. i think the Cowboys have a better shot rollin with BJ. the Cowboys actually have a good shot at this game. the Boys will goin in as underdogs. the defense is gonna be fired up. i think this team might have finally awoken. the key will be getting to eli.

 

[Manster]

Hey Andy, I thought Ed Werder was one of the haters who likes to stir the pot at Valley Ranch and couldn't be trusted for reliable reports. What gives?

I'm simply posting a report. Take from it what you like.I don't deem Werder so much as a hater, just that he isn't always accurate.

All you do is regurgitate news you find across the internet. At least Werder is a real reporter and not some internet poser hack who thinks he's actually important.

Stay classy guy.Andy's contirbution to this board and thread are exponentially better than the the drivel you churn out.

agreed. just being a Cowboys fan, and posting stuff is enough to get you attacked most of the time. i always enjoy Andy's posts, personally.

 

[yesitsme]

Dayum, Tatum is making sense!I think part of their hesitancy with Bollinger is that he's had exactly ZERO reps with the first team until now. He's been running the scout team, which means he's been learning their opponent's plays every week, not Dallas'. Remember, he was signed after camp. So he's had no real chance to learn the Dallas offense or get any clue on timing of the first teamers. If he had been around during Camp, we'd probably have seen him already. But given how bad BJ has looked with accuracy, I'm about ready to throw him in anyway. We all knew BJ had no arm strength. But at least get the damn ball in the same area code as the receiver. If he can't at least get reasonably accurate throws on all the short crap he throws, then maybe its time to give a few plays to Bollinger. I'm trusting he can at least throw the ball more than 10 yards with a modicum of accuracy..

Bollinger blows, that's why he's not in there. As bad as Johnson is....he hasn't LOST the game for them. Bollinger will look absolutely ridiculous starting against the Giants this week.......that's why he's NOT going to start.Brad Johnson will look 10 years older than his age this week as the Giants will rush him like no other. The guy can't move and he's going to get pounded this week.The good news for Cowboys fans is they'll enter the bye 5-4 with Romo coming back and hopefully some defensive help. They'll be out of the division race but if they can put a run together down the stretch, they should still be able to make the wild card and as we all know, you just have to make the tourney to have a shot at winning the SB.

 

[Mustang Man]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

I won't play apologist here, but I would suspect they kept Johnson to help a "healthy" Romo. He is a veteran and someone who helped Tony prepare each week. The Cowboys rolled the dice and lost on this. As I have already stated in the Cowboys thread I really hope they both play.....

I'm not sure that that explanation makes sense, even ignoring the severe risk involved as you pointed out. If BJ is there solely to be a coach-mentor type, and not because they really want him to play, then he'd be the 3rd string QB (if not a QB coach) rather than the 2nd stringer. By playing him over Bollinger, that says to me that the Cowboys evaluated BJ as being the better second choice at QB. Either that speaks very poorly of their player evaluation skills, or Bollinger's abilities, or both, but there's really no way around that. What leads me to believe that it was a player evaluation problem is the fact that BJ isn't even a good fit (and hasn't been for a decade) in the vertical type of Coryell-Zampese offense that Dallas runs. BJ's success in the last 10 years has come from playing in Gruden's timing-based, short passing WCO. He's really a very poor fit for Dallas' offense even ignoring his decline over the past several years.

The bottom line is that without Romo....whether Johnson or Bollinger come in, it doesn't really make a huge difference in comparison to Romo. IMO...they kept Johnson as I metioned for the veteran aspect. The Cowboys are paying the price for not having a legit #2.

Very true but if you think Dallas has a 20% chance to win with BJ as their QB plus Witten, Henry, Newman, F.Jones etc not playing wow I would take that. I think they have about a 1% chance and maybe 5% with Bollinger. Now let Eli be out for the Giants I would say 50-50.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I haven't seen Bollinger play in Minnesota...I would assume he is more mobile. How is his arm strength?Based on his numbers from his nine starts in 2005 and one start in 2007; he has 1534 passing yards and five touchdowns and seven interceptions. Also, he has 32 carries for 124 yards.

When he was needed with the Jets after Pennington and Fiedler went down he played much better than expected but does have serious limitations. He's a very tough QB that has some nice mobility, but lacks arm strength (although he's beat out BJ in that reagrd) and isn't terribly accurate. He's the type that can come in and provide a quick spark to a team for brief periods but is exposed when starting multiple games. The Cowboys might as well give him a shot as Johnson will be a sitting duck against the Giants pass rush. Brooks has played in the Meqadowlands before at least and can escape th epocket and gain some yards.

 

[Manster]

Why did it take this game for their concerns to emerge? Was he throwing 20-yard outs on a line in practice? Was he throwing 60 yard bombs in practice? Did they really not know that Johnson was limited until this week's game?

I won't play apologist here, but I would suspect they kept Johnson to help a "healthy" Romo. He is a veteran and someone who helped Tony prepare each week. The Cowboys rolled the dice and lost on this. As I have already stated in the Cowboys thread I really hope they both play.....

I'm not sure that that explanation makes sense, even ignoring the severe risk involved as you pointed out. If BJ is there solely to be a coach-mentor type, and not because they really want him to play, then he'd be the 3rd string QB (if not a QB coach) rather than the 2nd stringer. By playing him over Bollinger, that says to me that the Cowboys evaluated BJ as being the better second choice at QB. Either that speaks very poorly of their player evaluation skills, or Bollinger's abilities, or both, but there's really no way around that. What leads me to believe that it was a player evaluation problem is the fact that BJ isn't even a good fit (and hasn't been for a decade) in the vertical type of Coryell-Zampese offense that Dallas runs. BJ's success in the last 10 years has come from playing in Gruden's timing-based, short passing WCO. He's really a very poor fit for Dallas' offense even ignoring his decline over the past several years.

The bottom line is that without Romo....whether Johnson or Bollinger come in, it doesn't really make a huge difference in comparison to Romo. IMO...they kept Johnson as I metioned for the veteran aspect. The Cowboys are paying the price for not having a legit #2.

Very true but if you think Dallas has a 20% chance to win with BJ as their QB plus Witten, Henry, Newman, F.Jones etc not playing wow I would take that. I think they have about a 1% chance and maybe 5% with Bollinger. Now let Eli be out for the Giants I would say 50-50.

come on. they have more of chance than that. the giants are beatable. the Cowboys led by BJ would have to play flawless, ball control football. and the defense would need to play like last wk. but it can happen. i'm tellin ya, if they can get to eli he'll make mistakes.

 

[Andy Herron]

It's funny reading through some of the posts in this thread. I get beat up when I provide links, and I get beat up when I don't. It's like getting hate mail. I must be doing something right! LOL!

Moving on, I'm with what JJT of the DMN had to say on this whole QB thing this morning-

Let's not fool ourselves. A repeat of Sunday's performance by Johnson, and the Giants will beat Dallas by three touchdowns.

Maybe four.

You know I'm right. So do the Cowboys, which is why Wade Phillips tried his best not to deal with the issue of whether Brooks Bollinger will make his Dallas debut Sunday against New York.

"We'll talk about that as it comes along," Phillips said when asked whether he might use Bollinger this week.

"Brad won the game as quarterback, and I think that's the most important thing."

So he's the starter?

"We'll see," Phillips said. "We hadn't talked about that yet. I would expect that. I don't know why it would change. He won. He's been playing. He's had all the work."

Why don't you just say he's the starter?

Phillip's smiling response: "OK, he's the starter."

Like I said, it was hardly a ringing endorsement. Nor should it have been.

The smart thing for the Cowboys to do is spend a portion of the week studying Bollinger in practice to determine whether he can help them beat the Giants this week.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...or.3dfed55.html

They really need to explore all of their options for this week.

 

[zoonation]

I hate to say it, but the Boys have no shot this week. The Giants are a tough matchup for them with everyone healthy.

 

[Ridgelake]

Here's this from Jerry Jones during his weekly radio show:

Jones did compliment Bollinger's playmaking ability, but said he felt the best way to beat the Giants would be with good defense, ball control and no turnovers. With the win against Tampa Bay in the books because the Cowboys played that style, Johnson would seem like the owner/president/general manager's preferred choice to be under center.

"Even in this day and time, you can win games with field position and no turnovers," Jones said. "You trade that off against being really limited in terms of what you can do downfield, being maybe limited in your accuracy and certainly limited in your mobility. Then you've got to pick your poison.

"So I think the real question here is what is our best way to win. My gut is our best way to win is to not turn the ball over, as opposed to go out there and try to create more offense. While Brooks has got some real skill mobility-wise and can throw that ball, you've got to look at his track record and look at the limited amount of time that he's had under center this year, and you've got a serious chance of turnovers."

Sounds like BJ will get the start at least. And he'll stay in the game as long as Dallas is within striking distance. But if they get behind, you'll probably see Bollinger.

 

[Phurfur]

Here's this from Jerry Jones during his weekly radio show:

Jones did compliment Bollinger's playmaking ability, but said he felt the best way to beat the Giants would be with good defense, ball control and no turnovers. With the win against Tampa Bay in the books because the Cowboys played that style, Johnson would seem like the owner/president/general manager's preferred choice to be under center.

"Even in this day and time, you can win games with field position and no turnovers," Jones said. "You trade that off against being really limited in terms of what you can do downfield, being maybe limited in your accuracy and certainly limited in your mobility. Then you've got to pick your poison.

"So I think the real question here is what is our best way to win. My gut is our best way to win is to not turn the ball over, as opposed to go out there and try to create more offense. While Brooks has got some real skill mobility-wise and can throw that ball, you've got to look at his track record and look at the limited amount of time that he's had under center this year, and you've got a serious chance of turnovers."

Sounds like BJ will get the start at least. And he'll stay in the game as long as Dallas is within striking distance. But if they get behind, you'll probably see Bollinger.

Thanks for the update. My concern here is that it looks like JJ has taken over complete control of all aspects of the game. This is not good news for the Cowboys.

 

[T Bell]

Oops!