/ Editor's Note: Each weekday, DallasCowboys.com's writers will field two questions from the fans. Click here to email your question now. **
JEREMY JENNINGS MONROE, LA:What do you think the Cowboys' level of interest in Kyle Orton was, and what would it say about their quarterback depth chart if they did actually put in a waiver claim on him?
Nick:I think they had some interest, mainly as a backup for next year. If they did have interest and signed him, it would signal to me that maybe they aren't ready for Stephen McGee to be the primary backup. But they didn't put a claim in for Orton, so there's really not much there.
Rob:Sounds like they probably were (and should have been) interested, especially if there is real concern about Jon Kitna's health the rest of the season. If so, claiming Orton wouldn't necessarily have been a poor reflection on Stephen McGee. Orton would be replacing a No. 2, not a developmental No. 3. With Tony Romo already suffering one serious injury this season, acquiring a veteran backup with starting experience makes sense to me.
DON BOWERS BUCHTEL, OHAfter being released so soon after the game, do you think Tashard Choice was only signed by the Redskins for his knowledge of the Cowboys' offensive system and schemes?
Nick:I guess that could be the case. I would think less of Mike Shanahan if that was the case. Maybe they just let him play a game and figured out he's not the answer either.
Rob: Eh, maybe in part, but they signed Choice three weeks before the game. I think it had more to do with Washington being down to two healthy running backs, Roy Helu and Ryan Torain, who weren't really producing. Now, it is surprising to me that Choice got cut two days after his debut. He hadn't been healthy and he wasn't effective Sunday (six carries, seven yards), so maybe Mike Shanahan had seen enough to go with their rookie draft pick, Evan Royster, instead.