The other Roy coming to Dallas?
by nzach54 on Apr 1, 2008 7:49 PM CDT
27 comments
FWST saying that Lions WR Roy Williams reportedly "wants to play in Dallas". I think they should make it happen and dealing away the 28th pick should be more than enough.
Chad Johnson could potentially be too much of a headache and the Bengals seem ready to take a hardline stance with him so it appears unlikely he'll be leaving Cincinnati.
"The Legend" is from Texas so I'm sure he would be welcomed home with open arms. I would LOVE to see this happen.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
0 recs |
27 comments
Email
Print
Comments
A 1st rounder?
Why would we give up a 1st round pick for a player entering the final year of their contract? If he wants to play here that badly, he can come next spring.
by ChrisRichey on Apr 1, 2008 7:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
he doesn't, he would sign with the
highest bidder next year so why would you want to overpay for his services when you can re-sign him now for less money.
by Terry on Apr 1, 2008 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, Roy certainly is light years better
than any WR in this draft, thats for sure, being a top 10 pick in the 2004 draft.
by Terry on Apr 1, 2008 7:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't do it
So essentially we'd be trading the number 28th pick for CASH?
If he wants to play here he'd take a little less money.
Considering his age, he is a top 5 most valuable reciever for a franchise
by Mirky Waters on Apr 1, 2008 8:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do it
I would absolutely do it. Are we getting someone better than Roy Williams with the 28th pick? I don't think so.
He's only 26. He could be a great WR for the Cowboys for a long time. We already know he's good. You don't know that for the draft.
by rhbgsherb on Apr 1, 2008 9:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm getting tired of making this point
We simply don't have money. We can't afford to pay Ken Hamlin and Marion Barber what they want; why should we trade draft picks for a high priced player who will command even more money in a year-and may leave us in that short span?
by BudLight on Apr 1, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why?
because a 6th ring is worth any price.
by CowboyBawler4 on Apr 1, 2008 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in what way
Would we have a better chance of winning it all with, hypothetically... Roy on the team and Stanback backing him up with no Newman, than we would with T-New being T-New and Devin Thomas or Malcolm Kelly playing alongside Eldorado?
by BudLight on Apr 1, 2008 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Point is Very Subjective
Your point of "We simply don't have the money" is very subjective, and by no means inherently correct. In fact, is only correct when based on your opinion of how salary cap dollars should be prioritized. Yes, if we resign Hamlin, Barber, Canty, Newman, Ware, TO etc. to long-term monster contracts then there will likely be no dollars available for signing Roy Williams.
However, there are some of us who are of the opinion that cap dollars are far better spent on signing a stud WR than resigning some of the guys listed above. The money absolutely is there. It is simply a matter of where one thinks it is best spent.
Regarding your second point about trading a draft pick for a player that may be leaving us in a year....why in the world would Jerry make this trade without agreeing to a multi-year contract with Roy Williams before the trade is finalized? He wouldn't of course, and we would get five years out of Roy Williams just like we would get five years out of a draft pick.
by Cowboy Louie on Apr 2, 2008 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, let me reiterate my hypothetical.
Behind Door #1, you have one premier player at nine million dollars and one young first round pick, likely a stud, at around three.
Behind Door #2, you have one premier player at ten million dollars.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but the decision appears to be pretty black-and-white. Mind you, I'm very much of the belief that it is preferable to spend money on WRs than draft them, because the bust rate for young wideouts is quite high and quality vets can perform at a high level for a long time. However, when the cost involved includes a first round selection, I'd have to balk.
by BudLight on Apr 2, 2008 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
An Equally Valid Hypothetical
Well, if you characterize the decision that way, then it is a black and white decision. However, I characterize it very differently. For example, another way to characterize the decision is as follows:
Behind door #1: Way overpay a running back who is not irreplaceable or vital to the success of the offense and pay $3M to a draft pick that is at best a 50/50 proposition to be a good player and unlikely to be a stud (check the draft history – players selected in the bottom third of the first round turn out to be studs infrequently, and there are a lot of busts there)
Behind door #2: Pay for a dynamic, proved stud wide receiver that would make the Cowboys offense virtually unstoppable in 2008. After the 2008 season, the team has the luxury of not resigning the current aging #1 WR (TO) and move up to that slot a proved #1 guy who is six years or so younger.
If the decision is characterized that way, it also appears black and white.
The point I’m trying to make is that your e-mail seemed to characterize ""We simply don't have the money" as a fact whereas I believe it is not a fact at all – it represent your valid opinion that if the Cowboys spend their money in the manner that you think they should, then there won’t be any left for others. My equally valid opinion is that spending a significant part of salary cap and a late first round draft for a proven #1 WR is a good use of resources, and a better use than signing some of the players whose contract are up now or in the near future.
by Cowboy Louie on Apr 2, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A valid point
however, I have a few problems with it. Firstly, Barber is every bit the contributor Roy Williams is. When he's on the field, the offense produces in every way imaginable. It's not only directly correlated to his ability to gain yards on the ground, but his abilitis as a receiver and sparkplug for the entire unit. Am I stating that to insinuate that I'd be agreeable with paying MB3 7 million a year to stay in silver and blue? Not at all. If market value is indicative of his next contract, I regret to say that he will be let go. Why? Because that's a smart decision.
Roy, for all of his undeniable merits, is an injury-prone wideout. We've got too many of those already. He will make big money, and we've got one of those as well. Is he worth 10 million dollars per season to the offense? Perhaps. But look at the free agent market; premium players still pop up there. Moss tested the market this year and took a deal that was not at all outrageous for a player of his caliber. TO signed with us two seasons ago and nothing but sunshine and smiles have resulted from that happy coupling. My point? I'm OK with potentially paying Roy that money. But when the proposition becomes 'Give Roy a lot of money and give away a primo draft selection', I refuse. Great teams are not built by trading draft picks. This has been proven time and time again through this league's past. The Cowboys of the 90s were built largely because of terrible season that resulted in #1 picks like Aikman, and partially because they built the bulllet and got a massive return on investment on Herschel Walker. The Ravens, Patriots, and Colts have all built perennial contenders by scouting and selecting better than everyone else. Why? Because walking the salary cap tightrope is extremely difficult to do without young, cheaper players filling your gaps.
by BudLight on Apr 2, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
My greatest knock on Roy Williams is that he cannot stay on the field. The risk of paying him $10 m per then is threefold:
- Losing a first-round draft pick, which could even net us a future starter at RB (Stewart) while,
- Our current starter might have to walk because we will not be able to pay above market value
- Crayton still lines up opposite T.O. while Roy rides the bench
by goodjobtimmyheresabluestar on Apr 2, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree with Louie....
I'd give up #28 without a doubt if we could sign him long term and settle our receiving woes for years to come...I am not sold on any WR available in this draft....
by BoyzRback07 on Apr 3, 2008 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy for the 28th pick? Are you kidding me?
Jerry hasn't drafted an offensive player since David LaFleur in the first round. I don't buy that he will do it this year either.
Roy is FAR SUPERIOR to any WR in this draft. Not only would him and T.O. be one of the most deadly WR tandems in the NFL next year, Roy would be our future #1 if T.O. wants too much money after next year.
If the Lions are retarded enough to do this, Jerry would be braindead not to do it right away.
by mhuff13 on Apr 1, 2008 9:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Highly doubtful
Marinelli (correct spelling?) has said countless times that they are not interested in trading him. Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love for this trade to happen, but I'm just being a realist.
Although, pick #28 may be more appealing in the middle of the draft...
by CowboyBawler4 on Apr 1, 2008 10:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure a coach has never lied
About stuff like this before. The Lions would be crazy to NOT trade him IF THEY KNOW that he won't resign with them long-term.
Is Roy a free agent after the 08 or 09 season?
by mhuff13 on Apr 2, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure this is his last year
So, he'd be a FA after the 08 season.
by grapejoos on Apr 2, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
This is it for Roy in Detroit, after 2008 he is a FA, unless the Lions franchise him. So his trade value will never be higher for DET, than it is this month.
But let's remember it is the Lions and Millen, so who knows what they are thinking.
by APerfectStar on Apr 2, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While we are talking about Texas receivers
I would be more apt to draft Limus Sweed then trade for Roy dub.
by Impatient on Apr 1, 2008 11:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sweed has bust written all over him
by Terry on Apr 2, 2008 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
He was supposed to be "the next Roy Williams" at Texas" and it never came to fruition. Why not just trade the 28th pick and get the real deal, and avoid drafting someone that may or may not pan out.
by groves on Apr 2, 2008 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather
have Sweed's contract and the risk he MAY bust then Roy dub's contract problems next year. I have watched a lot of Texas games and Sweed has come up big. Remember the catches against USC in the title game, and the Ohio State game the year after. Those were two nationally televised games where he came up big.
by Impatient on Apr 2, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The money is the sticking point for sure
Is it better to take a pick with potential, but no NFL experience for a much lower price, or go for Roy Williams and sign him to a big contract because he's a proven commodity (even though, he does have a problem staying on the field).
by APerfectStar on Apr 2, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two Roy Williams on one team?
Good God, who can live at that speed.
by Impatient on Apr 1, 2008 11:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hobbs?
by Mullin on Apr 2, 2008 4:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hah
Josh Hamilton is Superman.
by BudLight on Apr 2, 2008 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
