Dallas Cowboys random articles

by Dave Halprin on Mar 31, 2008 12:08 PM CDT in News Comment 32 comments

Peter King reports this from the owner’s meetings.

"The next 24 hours are crucial,'' a source close to the {Pacman} talks told me this morning. The Cowboys are offering a late 2007 draft choice and a minor player; ESPN's Ed Werder reported last night Tennessee wants two draft choices, one in 2008 and another next year.

Minor player? Here we go again. For some reason Rotoworld has inserted two names in parentheses which aren’t in King’s original story for the minor player. (Bobby Carpenter or Isaiah Stanback).

Long article on Jonathan Stewart.

Stewart tells us he has a scheduled visit with the Cowboys coming up in early April. A Marion Barber/Stewart combination could be scary. With Barber unsigned past this year, it would make a lot of sense.

Romo didn’t close very well at his golf tournament. (Insert playoff collapse joke here). I Kid!

Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo finished T-34 at 19-over 303, a shot ahead of former U.S. Amateur runner-up and Walker Cup captain Buddy Marucci. Romo shot 2-under 69 in the third round, but closed with an 81.

Hashmarks reminds us we’ll be mixing it up with the Broncos in training camp. Remember last year the big dustup about the Cowboys/Broncos pre-season game, with the Cowboys blitzing and acting unseemly and all? Good times.

Speaking of offseason workouts. The Breerman has a good post on the rules around OTA’s and such.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

uhhh...

Isaiah Stanback

I certainly hope not. I'd hate to give up on him after just one season, and then potentially see him become Vince Young's Favorite Target.

There are two Adrian Petersons, but there is only one Marion Barber.

by Nelson on Mar 31, 2008 12:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, especially if Pacamn

continues down his path of self-destruction, that would be the worst trade Jerry could ever make.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Werent you against bringing in TO as well?

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

only because I didn't like him

since he disrepected the star, I was actually at that game and really developed a severe disliking of T.O. after that.

I still don't really like him and will only forgive him if he gets us that elusive 6th SB title.

However, I really didn't have the reservations about him like I do Pacman because his issues were always internal with the team, he never broke the law and always kept his nose clean in that regard.

The big reason I'm against signing Pacman is because of his past arrests and Goodell's strict enforcement of the players conduct policy. The combination of the 2 just gives me really bad vibes about him actually making it for the long haul.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your concern

I look at it a bit like wasting a 4th round pick on Sklyer Green. Late round choices tend to be a 60/40 proposition that they will ever contribute. I think those are about the chances Adam Jones stays on the field for the whole year.

I am not as concerned about him getting suspended as I am Goodell making an example of the Cowboys as he said he would for teams that sign players with behaviour issues.

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have heard the threats,

but I don't understand how Goodell can (or should) punish the Cowboys if they trade for Pacman and he ends up doing something wrong that has nothing to do with the team and that the team couldn't prevent.

It's absolutely ridiculous. He should punish himself for reinstating Pacman under that logic. Otherwise he's just encouraging teams to enter into an illegal, tacit, collusive agreement not to sign players that they think they can reform. Reformation should be the goal here, not saying to someone who has the potential to turn his life around that they're unofficially banished from the league.

There is a difference between teams (like the Bengals, or the Cowboys in the mid-late 90s) who don't care about what players do and don't take much action to encourage law-abiding behavior, and those teams (like us, now) who see a troubled but talented player and say, we think this guy can help us, and we think that we can help him by giving him an opportunity to help himself. I think it's actually BETTER for the reputation of everyone involved for the league to be tough with these guys and punish them when appropriate, but still give them a chance to come back and make something of their lives if teams do their diligence and still find them to be a worthy risk. Otherwise they're just encouraging collusive relationships and flushing these guys down the tubes, where they will end up hurting who knows how many people on their downward spiral.

It's times like these that I miss having a lawyer like Tags as commish.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So then

do you accept the trade with reservations or are you completely against it?

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have any reservations

I think a 60% chance of getting Pacman and keeping him in line is well worth the risk. I only have reservations to the extent that there is still a 40% chance of it failing, but that's at least the same chance that a player we draft with that pick won't work out, and even if they did, the odds of that player being as good as Pacman are virtually nil.

I agree with your take on the risk. I think that saying a 4th round pick has a 60% chance of contributing is probably pretty generous. Sorry for the Goodell tangent off of your post.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 60% chance was that they wont make it;-)

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand how being a lawyer

makes a difference, please explain that one to me.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isnt Goodell a lawyer too?

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I looked it up earlier

and as far as I can tell, he is not...he's an economics guy.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, I don't believe so

I know he's a graduate of Washington and Jefferson college in Washington ,PA and majored in economics, but I don't think he went to law school.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It can make a difference

when it comes to concepts like due process (in this case, treating players the same in similar circumstances) and the potential collusive effects of such punishment in terms of the league getting sued by the NFLPA and the teams punished (which would surely happen). The NFL has a great legal department I'm sure, so I doubt these things will slip through the cracks entirely. But Goodell clearly has struggled already with the due process issue; look at how he has treated Pacman vs other players, or look at how he punished Belichick relative to, say, Wade Wilson. The Commissioner's most important asset is legitimacy, and screwing up things like this erodes it over time with the players, owners, and fans.

Tagliabue was a lawyer, David Stern and Gary Bettman are lawyers. While many people view lawyers negatively, the training that goes into it is helpful when being put in a position with that sort of power. Goodell's intern-to-commish story is great, but I think he's had some significant failures when it comes to dealing with issues of fairness.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure his legal advisors tell him

what he can and can not do so obviously treating players differently must be legal within the confines of the league or he wouldn't do it.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure they do

But there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. Goodell can ban Pacman until a court forces his reinstatement, and he can not suspend Joey Porter for getting into a public brawl in Vegas (not the best example, but it jumps to mind). He's not a government official, he isn't legally obligated to make punishments proportional. However, treating similar situations differently erodes his legitimacy. I am questioning his judgment moreso than anything else.

The best way I can illustrate this is to say look at Bud Selig. It's not good when the commissioner of a sport is a living joke. Tagliabue was a fantastic commish in my mind, and I hope Goodell can fill his shoes. Popping off about punishing teams for exercising their rights is not the best way to get the point across. He's already staked his reputation on being a law-and-order guy, and he can get himself into trouble for overreaching.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Goodell's legacy will be

cleaning up the league's image with so many players getting arrested like Chris Henry and Pacman. Goodell wants players to realize they will not play in the league if they don't conduct themselves professionally both on and off the field.

I think using one player as a whipping boy to get his point across is fair, especially when that player has such a horrible record with off the field incidents and an, "I'm above the law" attitude.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we stilll talking about pacman?

or belichek?

by Tuna Helper on Mar 31, 2008 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely disagree

I do agree that it's fair to penalize Pacman for what he has done, but it is completely unfair to come down much harder on one player to set an example than you do on other guys making similar bad moves. You punish the conduct, and when the person has a history of doing bad things, you can impose stiffer sanctions. As long as you do it across the board, there's legitimacy. I'm not sure we're seeing that from Goodell. That's the kind of thing that gets the NFL (successfully) sued, and it's also morally repugnant in my opinion.

That is clearly what Goodell wants his legacy to be, and cleaning up the league is a good thing. You have to do it the right way, and so far Goodell has been playing favorites, in my opinion.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was at the game

Where Leon Lett touched that blocked field goal but I gave him a second chance. ;-) just kidding Terry, I know its a totally different thing...

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Leon was very talented but dumb

the show off move that cost us the record for the most points scored in SB history pissed me off much more than the boneheaded play on Thanksgiving in 2003.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry, I obviously meant 1993

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Mar 31, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way

they'd give up Stanback this soon. Tennessee probably doesn't even know he's on the roster. Stupid rumors.

And Bobby Carpenter? He would be about $2.5 million worth of dead money against the cap. He's gotta be a special teams captain this year. Rumors-- leave him be.

Neither of these guys are minor players in the Cowboys eyes (Stanback a project/Bobby a 1st round pick).

Minor players that make sense would be guys like Justin Rogers, Miles Austen, Evan Oglesby, or Pat McQuistan.

That #38 sure can hit!

by Aaron Novinger on Mar 31, 2008 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Akin Ayodele!

he started last year, but his rojected role for the '08 season would be minimal at best.

http://heartbreakplex.blogspot.com/

by BudLight on Mar 31, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Akin makes most sense.

Given cowboys add on of Thomas. Itll give Bobby a chance to step up and play like he always plays in the playoffs. Plus burnett. Akin defn makes the most to be traded

by thebigham on Mar 31, 2008 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone mentioned Miles Austin

and I think that makes the most sense of all of the "Minor Players"

by Impatient on Mar 31, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was my suggestion

As he's unlikely to make the roster, and the Titans need WR's badly. Plus he's a decent returner.

With the Titans having no leverage, Dallas can throw them a bone and help them save face a bit.

There is no way Stanback or Carp is the "low level" player. Since when is a 1st round pick considered low level? Ridiculous.

"On my signal...unleash Hell." Demarcus Maximus Decimus Ware

by APerfectStar on Mar 31, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't resist...

There is no way Stanback or Carp is the "low level" player. Since when is a 1st round pick considered low level? Ridiculous.

When that player is named Pacman? I kid.

by grapejoos on Mar 31, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im no NFL talent evaluator but..

Dont wr's break out in their 3 year? I think thats why cowboys didnt press the need of getting a FA wr. I really believe or hope i guess haha that hurd or austin will become a starter for the cowboys.

Really akin makes the most sense to me.

by thebigham on Apr 1, 2008 7:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs