FanPost

The Case for Cooper Rush for Backup QB



Going into training camp there were a number of story-lines worth watching for Cowboys observers. Jaylon Smith's return to action; the battle for the LG position, the numerous youngsters looking to fill key spots in the secondary. However, no one (that I'm aware of) was predicting that undrafted free agent quarterback Cooper Rush would be challenging Kellen Moore for the backup quarterback position.

If the collective opinion of Twitter carried any weight, the decision has already been made and it's a unanimous one: Cooper Rush is clearly better than Kellen Moore; Rush should be the backup quarterback and Moore should be thanked for his service and sent on his way.

And yet, if you listen to the mainstream media guys they've all been delivering the same message: Moore is the #2 QB and that isn't really up for debate:

I find this astounding. I see absolutely no reason why Kellen Moore should be the backup quarterback moving forward. First, let's establish a couple facts that maybe some are not recognizing:

  • Kellen Moore is participating in his sixth NFL training camp. He's been on an NFL squad since 2012; he's 28 years old.
  • Cooper Rush is participating in his first NFL training camp. He's been on an NFL squad since May 1st of 2017. He's 23.

Let's review the two player's performance in three pre-season games thus far:

Rush has clearly been more accurate than Moore; in fact, in his last two games only 3 of his 20 passes have failed to be caught.

Rush was not particularly effective his first game in terms of yards per attempt, averaging less than 5 yards per pass. Since then, however, his numbers are vastly superior to Moore's.

More importantly, Rush has been throwing touchdowns at astounding rates. He's thrown 3 in his last 20 attempts, and four in 38 overall. By comparison, Moore has thrown only a single touchdown in 55 attempts.

When you add it all up, the two do not compare when it comes to overall quarterback effectiveness:

Moore had a highly rated first game against the Cardinal but since then has been woeful. Meanwhile, Rush has put up eye-popping numbers every time he's had the opportunity.

Add the numbers up across all three games and the differences are stark:

Summarizing:

  • Rush completes passes at a significantly higher rate
  • Rush throws for more yards per attempt
  • Rush throws more than one touchdown per game while Moore has only 1 touchdown in significantly more attempts
  • Rush has yet to throw an interception while Moore has one

Perhaps no single chart illustrates how Rush has been clearly superior to Moore in every single performance metric than the following:

In short, the numbers illustrate what our own eyes have told us and what (seemingly) every fan can clearly see: Rush Cooper is a vastly better quarterback than Kellen Moore.

Now, there are those that will make a number of legitimate points that challenge this belief. Let's break them down one-by-one:

Moore is a veteran who has has the support of the coaching staff; he's a Linehan favorite

I would ask why is that? What in Moore's history demonstrates that he's anything other than a scrub training camp QB who can't succeed in the NFL? There's nothing in Moore's five years in the NFL that shows he's capable of playing in the NFL. Why has he played in only 3 games in five seasons? Why in 2015 when the Cowboys were desperate for any kind of competent play from the QB position was Moore not given a chance until the season was effectively over? Why did the Cowboys trade a 5th round draft pick for Matt Cassell rather than turn to the 27-year old, 4-year NFL veteran? The simple answer is they didn't have confidence Moore could succeed. Why should they now?

When the Cowboys finally did give Moore opportunities over the last three games of the season he compiled a 71 passer rating while throwing 6 interceptions and 4 touchdowns in 104 attempts. Summarizing, at no point in his six years in the NFL has Kellen Moore looked or performed like an NFL quarterback.

Pre-season games are fool's gold; many past pre-season heroes have proven to be illusions

This is probably the most legitimate critique. I often make the joke that pre-season games feature players who won't make the Cowboys winning or losing against opponents who won't make their team. But here's what we do know: Moore has been terrible in these circumstances and Rush has been outstanding. Perhaps Rush will turn into a pumpkin come midnight (the regular season) but we already know Moore is a pumpkin.

The backup quarterback position is more about preparing the starting quarterback

This is the no-doubt dumbest arguement I've heard. The idea goes that backup QB's aren't really there to perform on the field but instead perform various off-the-field roles that are more important than actually playing the quarterback position. What a load of you-know-what. If Moore has value in preparing Dak Prescott then make him a coach. Using a valuable 53-man roster spot on a player who can't actually perform on the field is the height of stupidity.

Now, we get to the arguments to be made in Rush's favor.

The "it" factor

I've written about this a number of times. The quarterback position is unique in professional sports. It requires the player to possess a huge number of different skills:

  • Athleticism
  • Leadership
  • Toughness
  • Intelligence
  • Dedication

A lot of players have excelled at being able to sling the ball all over the field, but can't seem to master the position. Jeff George is perhaps the poster child of this: a million dollar arm and a head worth a nickel. But those that have "it" are guys that somehow combine it all and it's just obvious. Roger Staubach had "it". Joe Montana had "it". Dak Prescott has "it" and it was obvious right away last season.

Similarly, Rush Cooper seems to have "it". I listened to the Colt's broadcast team last night and they talked about how Rush just brought an energy to the offense that was missing with Moore at the helm. Heck, anyone can see that one of the two inspires those around him and the other doesn't. That's the "it" factor.

A higher ceiling

We all know what Kellen Moore is. At best, he's a mediocre backup quarterback who will never be asked to win games and, hopefully, can avoid losing games. That's his ceiling. His floor is playing poorly against backups and leaving your team with absolutely no hope of winning, as we've seen on display the last two weeks.

We don't know what Rush is capable of. We have no idea. All we know is when he's been given opportunities he's excelled. His ceiling is unknown.

Athleticism

My biggest arguement against Moore has always been that he brings so little to the table in terms of capabilities. He's short. He's small. His arm isn't strong. That would all be mitigated to a large extent if he was mobile and athletic. If you have a quarterback who isn't strong in the passing game, it's extremely beneficial if he can make plays with his legs. Moore brings none of that.

Rush, by comparison, is bigger and stronger. His profile looks more like what you expect an NFL quarterback to look like. He's not known for making plays with his legs but as we've seen, he's much more capable of making plays with his arm.

Youth

Finally we get to my biggest issue. Which player makes more sense as an NFL backup:

  • A 28-year old, low-ceiling, unathletic, short, small player whose never accomplshed anything in five NFL seasons and has absolutely no value outside of the organization?
  • A 23-year old, unkown-ceiling, bigger, stronger player who has excelled every time he's been given an opportunity and has that dynamic "it" factor required of a successful quarterback?

I've read where some say "let's see what the next two weeks bring. Let Rush prove he can do what he's done so far again and again". That's a reasonable point. But what if he's just average? Or even terrible? How does that make him any worse than Moore? I'll say it again and again: Moore is 28 years old and in his sixth training camp. He is what he is; he's never going to be anything better. Would two bad performances from Rush really prove that somehow Moore is a better option?

I simply see no upside to keeping Moore and no downside to keeping Rush. The simplest way I can explain it: If Rush is terrible...well, he's no worse than Moore; but, there's at least a chance that he's better, perhaps significantly better.

This is a no-brainer decision in my opinion. And if the Cowboy's coaches can't see what's blatantly obvious to so many others I'll be severely disappointed.

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.