Cowboys Draft 2009: Quantity or Quality?
In 1990, the Dallas Cowboys entered the draft with the most picks of any team, courtesy of the Herschel Walker trade. Many observers expected Jimmy Johnson to wheel and deal in order to secure the players of his choice.
Johnson shuffled his picks, but not in the way most Cowboys fans expected. He burned some to move up in the first round and select Emmitt Smith. He used more in the 3rd to obtain his former Miami DL Jimmie Jones. Then, he threw a handful of picks at the Oakland Raiders for the rights to Notre Dame DB Stan Smagala. The Cowboys picked just three players on the second day.
Jimmy knew what he was doing. Look at that '90 draft top to bottom and you'll see one of the weakest crops from that decade. Jimmy figured the late rounds were a waste of time and hit his favored salsa and chips early.
This year may bring a similar scenario. The Cowboys currently hold nine selections, thought none in the first round. The Cowboys should receive another two compensatory picks, for losing Jacques Reeves and Julius Jones in last year's free agent session, giving the team eleven picks overall.
The possibility of an uncapped 2010 means a solid team like the Cowboys could forego some of their picks. The team does not have eleven holes to fill. If it could produce another draft crop like 2008's, it would be happy. Dallas selected just six players last year, but the first five -- Felix Jones, Mike Jenkins, Martellus Bennett, Tashard Choice and Orlando Scandrick -- all made significant contributions their rookie seasons.
I was told this week that any draftees cut during trainin camp this year will have their salaries count against this year's cap. That means Dallas could accrue more dead money should it use all eleven picks and see only five or six make the final squad. A source hinted that Dallas might seriously consider packaging picks to move up, in order to lessen the risk with its early picks and perhaps trade for 2010 selections if it finds itself at an uninspring section of its draft board.
Regarding the draft, I was told that pro days end this week and that the scouting department will reconvene next week to put the final touches on its board.
Look at the usual suspects -- offensive line, nose tackle and linebacker. Wide receiver will also receive consideration if the team finds value and don't rule out another safety, even though Dallas has made many changes to that spot in recent days, moving Scandrick to free safety if only part time, and adding veteran Gerald Sensenbaugh.
Combine the new cap rules with Jerry's itchy phone fingers and we may see another active weekend of trading when the draft rolls around.
0 recs |
241 comments
|
Comments
I'm all about the packaging
we only need to draft 5-7 players tops to compete for roster spots.
by Kansas on Mar 11, 2009 6:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
me also.....
quality…package and move up if we have to.
by Boyzfan94 on Mar 11, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quality has my vote and the cap hit makes it doubly so.
The problem I see is that the other teams should be sailing the same tack thus reducing our availability to maneuver.
by GalTex on Mar 11, 2009 6:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
ditto
Which team wants to trade day 1 picks for a bunch of worthless day 2 picks?
by BishopWest on Mar 11, 2009 7:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
worthless?
Barber
Scandrick
Choice
Ratliff
Romo (end of day 2)
Canty (just signed 42 mil contract)
by DaBoys on Mar 11, 2009 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering what Raf said in his post...
Look at that ‘90 draft top to bottom and you’ll see one of the weakest crops from that decade. Jimmy figured the late rounds were a waste of time and hit his favored salsa and chips early.
This year may bring a similar scenario
Yes, worthless!
by BishopWest on Mar 11, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every draft is different...
It really depends on what you need too.
I dont’ think any pick is worthless.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are this year double
You can’t afford to waste picks on players that don’t make the team. Not only do they never contribute to the team’s success but they count against the cap in their failures or our inability to draft well.
11 rookies don;t make this team
by cow_fanatic on Mar 11, 2009 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BW " hit his favored salsa and chips early "?
Yes Emmitt was round 1.
Rd 2= Alexander Wright with the first pick in the second round. Traded to the Raiders for a fourth round pick 2 years later = first day bust
Rd 3=Jimmy Jones who started 16 games in 4 years then went to the Rams.
Rd 9=Ken Gant played for the Boys for 5 years. hummmm doesn’t look worthless to me when compared to the great second rounder or the quality third rounder.
I would take a guy that played five years over a guy that played years and cost more.
But it was a weak draft.
by DaBoys on Mar 11, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
Let’s pack up 5 studs and get the hell out of there.
Pour out some liquor for the homie T.O.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 11, 2009 7:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
At this point, quality all the way
If the Cowboys get three players of the quality of Bennet, Choice and Scandrick, I’ll consider myself served. If they are of a position of need, all the better.
by Sergio Padron on Mar 11, 2009 7:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I love the way Jerry is sifting through the bargain bin to patch the holes
We may not having any absolute needs come draft day.
FREEDOM
Pour out some liquor for the homie T.O.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 11, 2009 7:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the bargain bin pick ups as well...
But I’m still hoping he can find some o-line depth from somewhere as well.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 11, 2009 8:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raf, pro days don't end this week
they run all through March to April 1, when USC has their pro day which should be a real media circus.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 7:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So what do they really need?
OL – Check. Maybe two. Guard is needed. Center would be nice. Tackle is only needed if you don’t think Free or McQ won’t pan out.
DL – Yup, NT is a need. DE became lessened with Olshansky, but Bowen and Spears are UFAs next year. Still, there’s a lot of depth and talent.
LB – I think both ILB and OLB are needs. This year is really deep at LB in the draft. We’ll take two.
DB – You can never have enough. Enough said. We’ll take two.
QB, nope. RB, uh-uh. TE, nein. WR, nyet…wait. OK, we lost T.O. Austin has promise. Hurd and Crayton are just guys. Stanback is …what is he? So maybe we take one. Late.
My first inclination is to say we will not get a WR. You’ll hear it early and often from me. WRs are the single biggest bust position. It’s not even close. Further, GM Jerry has repeated often that WR is best filled in FA.
Yet a 4th or 5th round project with speed and athletic ability (like Stanback) would make sense.
So that’s 7 or 8 “needs”. 11 picks for 7 slots would seem to favor quality over quantity, but not by much. You could add a return specialist and special team demons to that list and easily get to 11 positions that will be available on the 53-man roster.
Tough question.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 7:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah, with 8 of those spots being on the PS
who cares about the practice squad? 4 draftees might make the 45 man squad next year so any picks 5-7 will be more valuable if they are used to move up a few spots to get the better quality players on your board. The most important positions are those in which the primary backup can’t be relied upon to be a starter (or in baseball lingo, is a below average replacement player) in case of catastrophic injury: Free/Mcquistan, Stewart, Carpenter, Stanback/Hurd, Bowen/Hatcher. So LT, MILB, MOLB, WR, DE, NT are the areas of need and likely the only positions that a draftee could make the club. However, since any sensible club drafts the BPA, those needs may go unfilled, instead displacing other backups at deeper positions, which adds talent and depth, but still leaves areas of need. I think the club should try to sign a few more vets to fill DL (holliday) and WR (holt) to add quality depth at postions of need to ensure, as much as possible, that those holes don’t remain after draft day.
by Goyogringo on Mar 11, 2009 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FB
I really think we need to take a look at a FB in this draft. Deon Anderson is limited as a fullback, IMO.
Kiss the rings!
by VegasCowboysFan on Mar 11, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no holes to fill?
1) we lost Henry and Pacman fr last yr`s corner and now there`s talk of removing another corner and converting him to safety…maybe Ball fills in but my math still says down by 2, either 2 cb`s or 1 cb 1 safety if Scandrick stays corner and Ball fills in. (2 holes)
2)Last yr the team wanted a solid dt rotation and thought they had the answer with Rat and Tank, well they were half right and we have a hole behind Rat now. (3 holes)
3)Last yr we drafted Erik Walden and added free agent Tearrius George to add depth at the OLB position, this was done after a solid season by Spencer and a great season by Greg Ellis now in my mind Ellis play went down (age) and Spencer (injury) did n`t actually rise to the occassion but to me it would seem if the Boys wanted to address the position last yr then they will want to again this yr. (4 holes)
4) Burnett was a cover ilb last yr and is now gone and Brooking is not a long term solution, we could be looking for 2 ilb a cover and a Brooking clone but I`ll settle for only adding 1. (5 holes)
5)Tony Curtis was let go because he could n`t block and the team decided to use Witten to be the lead blocker on running plays, now in my opinion using your best passing weapon as a run blocker to take a pounding is not necessarily the wisest move so a te who can block or a true fb to upgrade over Anderson. (6 holes)
6)lets look at our wr`s as a group, are they all sure hits? they all show promise but the jury is still out…perhaps on all of them. There are many quality wideouts who should be available late in the draft and the Cowboys would be wise to select one even though it`s a pick that will only be ready to contribute 3 yrs down the road. (7 holes)
7)Did anyone watch Proctor play last yr?will Kosier be healthy this yr? Holland was let go in Denver because he was non commital at keeping himself in shape, Is Free ready to take over if Flo`s struggles continue?If Duke Robinson is there at 51 do we jump? did that answer outr backup C hole? our backup T hole? I`d like to see 2 picks for the o-line (9 holes)
8)Romo is the starter…he miss any time with injuries last yr? Kitna is the backup…he miss any time? we should try to develop a backup for the future and cross our fingers that we get by this season with 2 experienced qbs while the new guy learns the ropes. (10 holes)
9) the 2009 version of the Cowboys are supposedly going to be more committed to the run game which means more carries to Felix (hamstring,toe, ir) more carries to Barber (ribs,toe) and Choice, I`d like to see a late pick on a bruise who goes to the practice squad but is there if we need him. (11 holes)
10) Spears be back after this season? maybe a late pick on a 3-4 end could pay off (12 holes)
by ziggy19 on Mar 11, 2009 7:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Backups are hardly holes
1. Backup
2. Rotation – so that’s one
3. Backup
4. Carpenter
5. Hannah (sp)
6. Backup
7. Backup (Holland)
8. 3rd string
9. Are you kidding? Alonzo Coleman’s there, but seriously!
10. Backup (Bowen & Hatcher + Dixon from last year)
So that’s one hole and a slew of backups. True, backups are important, but hardly holes or absolute needs.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
games are not won on paper
or on madden, injuries happen.
guess instead of a 53 man roster we could just go with 40.
by ziggy19 on Mar 11, 2009 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your right not holes
lets call them roster spots maybe even practice squad players.
by ziggy19 on Mar 11, 2009 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
That was my point.
If you look at it, there are definitely 6-7 spots that could come from rookies, but in most cases you’d have to let go of a current player.
Rookie over Holland and/or Proctor? Sure, you bet. Free or McQuistan upgrade? No doubt, but not probable. Rotation NT (Dixon), 5th CB (open), 3rd S (Davis/Watkins), 5th WR (Hurd/Stanback), 4th OLB (Polk/Rogers), 4th ILB (Stewart), could all use an upgrade. But they better be special teams aces or they’re not upgrades. Only the Lines are immune.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah i think you are right on track here
we just have to go bpa and ignore qb, rb, fb, te. we should look for a te and fb late though (late 5th on)
by Becho on Mar 11, 2009 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Anybody thinking we only need five players out of this draft is smoking something; we need a new Dirty Dozen like 1975; which by the way went to the Super Bowl; think what this would and could do for our special teams.
by Iowacowboy on Mar 11, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i do not think we need a dirty dozen but we definitely need a solid crop
if we do not hit on at least half our picks i think the future is in trouble. my definition of hit BTW is solid this year and starter eventually. the way the CBA is structured there will not be much player movement the next 3 years
by Becho on Mar 11, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jimmy Johnson & Jerry Jones
Jimmy Johnson never made one damn draft pick or draft day trade while he was with the Dallas Cowboys. He was the Head Coach, not the General Manager. Jerry Jones made every one of those moves in the early 1990’s with input from many people in the organization, including significant input Jimmy Johnson. Jerry Jones, as General Manager, assumed the responsibility and authority for player acquisition since he took over the team. Every single player acquisition move since 1990 was his decision. It follows that Jerry should get the credit for the good moves as well as the blame for the bad ones.
Raf, I appreciate all the time and effort you put into composing this post (and all your other great work) and the content is excellent except for the difference noted above. I noticed that in the second part of your post, where you move from the past tense to the present, Wade Phillips’ name is never mentioned. Why is Jimmy lauded but Wade ignored? It is a huge pet peeve of mine when people hang Jerry for bad personnel decisions but conveniently ignore his good ones. His track record is up and down, but he must be given credit for the good as well as blame the bad. For whatever reason, I have made it a small crusade on my part to point out these inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Anyway, nothing personal, just one of my passionate, lengthily off-season posts
by Cowboy Louie on Mar 11, 2009 7:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Draft Day
I’ve read that Jimmy Johnson pretty much created the present day draft board and designed the system every team uses today for placing value on a particular draft spot. It was Johnson’s “Point System” that gave Dallas the opportunity to move up and down on draft day. I think Jerry just wanted the credit.
by Prime-Time on Mar 11, 2009 8:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't Jimmy that invented that.
It was Mike McCoy. A former minority owner of the Cowboys.
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close to accurate there Cowboy Lou
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 11, 2009 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen to you Gee-roj
This team hasn’t won a playoff game in what 12 or 13 years. It wasn’t Jerry at the wheel when the Cowboys bus took off on their Superbowl run in the 90’s. Jerry was just signing his name to what Jimmy was doing IMO.
by DaBoys on Mar 11, 2009 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jimmy made his picks
all of them.
Next rant.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a nice long post...
that you seemed to put alot of time and effort into writing.
Unfortunatly that’s incorrect.
Jerry might have been signing the paychecks and signing off on the moves, but Jimmy was the one that made the Walker deal happen.
Read Boys Will Be Boys by Jeff Pearlman.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jimmy
might have had a bigger role than Jerry in the draft, but make no mistake it was Jerry Jones who did the wheeling and dealing to seal the Walker trade.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Mar 12, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummmmm
No it wasn’t.
This isn’t my opinion, its documented that Jimmy was the guy who orchestrated the entire thing.
He basiclly told Jerry that he was doing that.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 13, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna side with Louie on this one....
Sure thing Jimmy Johnson was the Pro Personel guy and oversaw the top scouting director, whatever you wanna call him. He had his players he wanted, he coveted, and comprised the player charts to his liking, but he was never the GM, and he never make a selection Jerry wasn’t on board with………………..He probably knew of the players coming in through contacts at the college level, and was a major part of the evaluation proccess, and probably put together draft boards, and devised a draft pick trade chart, and I am sure it was him saying we should take this guy or that guy when it came to making our selection….but each and every prospect or eventual selection that has ever come through Valley Ranch has received Jerry Jones’ stamp of approval…Jimmy Johnson may have pursuaded Jerry to lean one way or the other, but it has always been Jerry Jones that had final say on every player who’s been here since 1989…………It was well documented back then, and that is a major reason why they split…..Jimmy Johnsopn was never going to be granted absolute final say…..so he split….Jimmy may have done all the work, suggested all the players, proposed all the trades, but it was Jerry’s signiture on every deal….good or bad……..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry wasn't not involved at all...
And he doesn’t get enough credit to have had the insight to listen to Jimmy, but Jimmy was pulling the strings.
Louie’s post tries to insenuate that Jimmy wasn’t making the trades, which is entirely unfactual.
I don’t think just giving your signature and signing a paycheck means you are a general manager.
Jimmy put the roster together, put his staff together, and orchestrated the Walker trade with Mike Lynn, the Vikings GM. He managed the entire team. So I’m not sure how he wouldn’t be considered the general manager.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're playing semantic games
Jimmy picked the players. He had his system and he picked the players.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's entirely true, Jimmy hand pick each player, presented that player to Jerry...but the trigger wasn't pulled unless Jerry signed off on it...
There was not one player here that Jerry didn’t want brought here. I don’t care what label was put on who, that’s how it worked here….same with Parcells…Jerry had final say on every decision Tuna made.
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly what I've read...
Now I wasn’t in the room with them, but when the 90’s Dallas Dynasty was built I don’t think it was much of a diplomacy.
Jimmy, at least at the first of the reign, was pretty much saying “this is what I’m going to do” not asking.
And once again, this is just what I’ve read, but Jerry was pretty much just around those first few years. He marketed the Dallas Cowboys, but Jimmy did all the football stuff.
Jimmy cut players, not Jerry. It wasn’t like Jimmy went up to Jerry and said, “hey think it would be ok to cut him”, he went up to him and was like “we’re cutting him Jerry, don’t want him on the team.”
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their is no way I can even entertain that Jerry picked anything other than his nose.
Jerry hadnt been involved in football since the 60s. Oh, his nose was in everything and like a sponge he was sucking in as much knowledge from Jimmy. I just know he wasnt the lead dog. He had been chasing oil and just wasnt watching tape or following young talent on the intense level it takes to succeed.
I think Jerrys problem was he thought he was ready to strike out on his own before he was ready. Hence, several years of moving up and down the draft and picking slugs. Jerrys best move was hiring Yoda(BP) and finishing his Jedi training. His picks since becoming a full blown Jedi master has been more impressive.
I think Jerry is actually a full blown “football guy” that everyone talks about getting. He has 20 years in the league with 9 years under BP and JJ. I look forward to another smart draft. I hope we get as lucky with the right guys falling to the right spots.
by squidlo97 on Mar 11, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not true
Jerry followed football during his money making days a lot more than you think. Try reading his book, “Play to Win”.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean "Playing to Win"
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He followed football...
But as we know there is a huge difference in following it and being actively involved.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry has been obsessed about owning a team
since he graduated from Arkansas, he used the oil business as a means to an end to achieve that goal. His heart has always been in football.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't doubt that...
but once again there is a difference between following something and looking from the outside and being inside of it.
Which isn’t really that different than any thing in life.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but he was chasing oil. Guys in the NFL arent distracted by anything but more NFL.
Part time aint gonna cut it in the NFL. Ask Spurier.
by squidlo97 on Mar 11, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
correction
you wrote:
Jerry Jones, as General Manager, assumed the responsibility and authority for player acquisition since he took over the team.
Jerry became GM after he fired Jimmy.
by 325424 on Mar 11, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
325424 – I don’t think that is correct, though I cannot factually back it up. It has always been my understanding that Jimmy Johnson was the Head Coach and Jerry Jones was the GM since the day he fired Gil Brandt.
Look, my post was never intended to insinuate that Jerry Jones made all the player acquisition decisions in a vacuum. The point I was making is that Jerry Jones had the authority and responsibility for player acquisition. So when I see text like “Johnson shuffled his picks” and “Johnson traded up for Emmitt Smith”, I call them out for what they are – factually incorrect. Again, he had significant input into the decision making process but – unless I’m mistaken that he was not the GM – they were not his decisions to make so he simply could not have made them.
Jerry has always been a hands on GM – from Day One. His personality simply will not allow him to operate any other way.
by Cowboy Louie on Mar 11, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry didn't become GM until Jimmy left
Jimmy made all the football decisions. Jerry sat next to him on draft day, and the story is that jerry asked Jimmy to look like he was consulting him on trades, picks, etc. but it was Jimmy doing all of that. Temas caled Jimmy to inquire about trades, not Jerry
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Mar 11, 2009 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
They aren’t factually incorrect.
Jimmy was making all personell decisions.
He wasn’t just making significant input, he was making the decisions.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
jerry did not have the gm title
until after jimmy left.
read boys will be boys
by 325424 on Apr 5, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I`ll take the 11 picks
rd 2 Robinson, Duke (OG), Oklahoma
rd 3 Scott, Dorell (DT), Clemson
rd 4 Vaughn, Chip (SS), Wake Forest
rd 4 Martin, Sherrod (CB), Troy
rd 5 Pascoe, Bear (TE), Fresno State
rd 6 Phillips, Jason (ILB), TCU
cp Knox, Johnny(WR), Abilene Christian
rd 6 Lang, T.J. (OG), Eastern Michigan
rd 7 Brown, Nathan (QB), Central Arkansas
rd 7 Vaughan, Josh (RB), Richmond
cp Reed, Nick (OLB), Oregon
by ziggy19 on Mar 11, 2009 7:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Robinson or Brace
That’s my biggest debate. If both are available, I’d trade my left nut to package most of the remaining picks to get both.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude....that's a lil too much devotion...
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Brace will be gone by 51.....not that i think he's worthy...but teams ahead of us know we'd be interested, and won't get a shot at him in the third...
It’s very conceivable that nearly every team ahead of us may go DT-Brace in rd 2, and are looking at that position…
Det
NE
Clev
Seatt
Cincy
Jax
GB
San Fran
Miami
Denver
All could very well be interested…and one probably very much so…I’m not a fan, so I hope someone does select him before us to eliminate that option…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not impressed with Brace Numa1....
Looks like sludge on the line…I would like my NT’s to be a little more mobile.
by Boyzfan94 on Mar 11, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only hang-up with Brace is his back...
The last thing we need is pile of injury-prone potential on our IR year after year…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Mar 11, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 If you've been reading along with my comments over the weeks..I am NOT a Ron Brace fan....
Besides his obvious bulk, I have no idea why he’s projected as a 2nd-3rd round prospect. People will soon find out his worth once he’s removed from the shadow of BJ Raji……..and as Aikman points out…Back Injuries are the biggest red flag in my book….This coming from an overweight guy with several degenerative vertabrae, and bulging discs like myself…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch
I guess I give my parts to much value because I don’t know if I give up one of my guys to become the next GM of the Boys.
by DaBoys on Mar 11, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
heck...you could castrate me if I could become GM...
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's good Ziggy, but...
your 2nd rd 4 pick shouldn’t be CB, it should be Jarrett Dillard. Not that we don’t need CB (we do) but I don’t believe we are done at FA. 2 players we should look at are if Torry Holt is released, as well as Dre Bly. We need a vet at CB, not another rookie. We also have to look at Darcel McBath, Reshard Langford, Wiley, as well as other 2nd tier safeties other than Chipn Vaghn. He might not be there.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Mar 11, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Reed!
Gosh, I hope they draft him somewhere. He’s raw, but is just a good football player.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
great article about reed
http://oregon.scout.com/2/822438.html
late round steal. yeah he is slow but for some reason the boy gets tackles
by Becho on Mar 11, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like the nick reed pick
ton of production but this guy keeps falling out of the draft
by Becho on Mar 11, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Real nice mock ziggy
Except for Nathan Brown, I like it.
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 11, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
QB-Brown won't even be drafted....imo..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
His stock plummeted after Senior Bowl week
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 11, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my first
2nd round – FS Rashad Johnson
3rd round – OG Kraig Urbik
4th round – NT Dorell Scott
4th round – WR Brooks Foster
5th round – ILB Scott McKillop
5th round – CB Bruce Johnson
6th round – OC/OG A.Q. Shipley
7th round – FS/SS Reshard Langford
7th round – QB Mike Reilly
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course Jerry will move up...
That’s the biggest thing I don’t like about mock drafts. There’s no consideration for that, and they’re can’t be. Others around here have said it, but there’s no way 11 rookies will come in here and make our squad. My only concern is if Jerry plans on moving into the first or not. Cause if he does, then money becomes a bit of an issue…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Mar 11, 2009 8:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah he will.
Jerry realized last year the same thing as this year. We still have such a talented squad that 11 rookies are not making the team. So last year he traded and moved up in some rounds and came out with picks for the next year. Now, if every cut draftee is going to count against the cap even more than in years past, we surely don’t want to take 11 rookies.
I’ll be willing to bet that he moves up to great positioning and gets some serious quality in the rounds 2-5. Then, if anything is left over, he’ll make some moves to come away with extra picks next year again. Last year we ended up with 6 selections. I’d say we take 7 this year and call it a day.
by KaceOFbass on Mar 11, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't speak for Raf, but
when Jimmy was here, he DID do a lot of the phone calls to negotiate with other teams. I recall him talking about their first draft and the 2nd round came on. JImmy was on the phone with Al Davis. Oakland wanted guard Steve Wisniewski (sp?). Dallas came on the clock. Al told Jimmy to take Wisniewski and they’d finalize the details later. And thats what happened.
So it was Jimmy, not Jerry, on the phone with Al Davis.
It was Jimmy who evaluated the draft board and tried to figure out where the value was. I recall him telling stories about him talking to other coaches about how to draft. They said, “if you have the 35th pick, then take the best guy on your board when that pick comes up.” Jimmy’s reply was, “Well, what if I don’t like that player at that spot?” This led him to create his Draft Value chart. And they wheeled and dealed to move to the places in the draft where Jimmy felt the real value was.
This story doesnt even address the real issue though. And thats player evaluation. There are/were many reports that Jimmy, with all his contacts with college coaches, was able to get inside info on many, many of the prospects. This was credited with helping a lot of the later-round picks become successful.
This is not to undercut or diminish Jerry. Jerry encouraged all this. He’s a very smart man. And he was more than happy to wheel and deal, I’m sure. Its one of the things he does better than perhaps any other owner or GM. I can tell you, it wasnt too long before other NFL execs realized that Jerry was a darn good deal maker and to watch your proverbial wallet. Jerry and Jimmy came out well ahead on many, many of their early trades. Its a credit to both of them.
by Ridgelake on Mar 11, 2009 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jimmy went on to drafts the likes of...
Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas in Miami as well.
Had he stuck around for just 5 or 6 more years I’m convinced that Jimmy and Jerry would have won at least 5 super bowls together; Jimmy would be in the hall of fame and the Cowboys of the 90’s would be the team that all other great teams from future eras would be compared against.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 11, 2009 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops... As much as I like Jimmy
I think he was gone before the salary cap started. That was a big problem for the Boys to dig themselves out of as I recall.
by DaBoys on Mar 11, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO!
Not another Saint Jimmy debate. Please, God, no.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 8:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Fighter!
Where have you been bud?
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I'm back...full of optimism
some would say full of something else, but I digress
Just created a Fan Post on who I think will step up from our backups. A truly optimistic outlook.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So is it 16-0 or bust again Fighter?? lol
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That rule is garbage if you ask me
A cut trainee counts against the cap? I don’t like that at all. That’s going to make trading up harder you’d think, especially if you want to trade up significantly. Nobody is going to want all those extra picks in the later rounds. Maybe more so in an uncapped NFL but for this year it’s pretty lame..
by sublimezg on Mar 11, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
You are more then likely trading up with teams that need more then what Dallas needs.
Like Cleveland for instance, who seems like they need pretty much everything that isn’t the o-line.
Plus they’ve been good trade partners with Dallas in the past.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and...
I agree, that is a garbage rule.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that because we opted out of the CBA??
So if we get another deal it’ll fix that rule, won’t it??
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just because you draft them doesnt mean you sign them though..
dont they hold rookie OTA before they are signed?
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 11, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True...
But rookie OTA’s are a joke.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
those rules are incentives for the players and management to hammer out a a new CBA
they’re intended to be nuisances.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, didn't read your post on this Raf.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't we need two linebackers?
Okay, we need a backup ILB, that’s obvious because we only have Carp and that gives me indigestion. IMO we need another tweener outside linebacker. Ellis is old and Spencer is our only relief. We definately need another, sooner than later.
by torchindefenses on Mar 11, 2009 11:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Especially since Walden didn’t work out.
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Mar 11, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Ware or Spencer go down and we’re in serious trouble. You’re looking at having to move Carpenter back outside and give him heavy snaps there…not a very appealing prospect.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Mar 11, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ware goes down and this team is done
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Mar 11, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
......i don't know
I admit we suffer a great deal, but I don’t know about done.
by MdFan24 on Mar 11, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the offense would have to carry the team
it could be done.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
Good teams win championships.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cant argue with the obvious but teams with great Ds and average to poor Os have done overwhelmingly better than teams with
Great Os and average to poor Ds. Rams is all I can think of. Dont let the old 49ers fool your either. Their D was ranked top 5.
by squidlo97 on Mar 11, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
The simple answer is that teams with average to poor offenses aren’t usually very good and don’t usually make it to the Super Bowl.
My point is that one or the other don’t win anything—you just need a really good overall team.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See the Ravens!
Look your right you dont get in the playoffs without a good team but Defense wins championships.
by squidlo97 on Mar 11, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's one team with an excellent running game.
That can’t continue to be the rallying cry for people who think you can win with a shitty quarterback. They were an excellent overall team.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their offense was average and 1 diminsional.
Correct me if Im wrong but didnt they win several games(6?) without an offensive TD. They were a good team but they werent winning the SB without that D.
I have watched and loved football since the early 70s. They have been saying and proving that mantra before I was born.
by squidlo97 on Mar 11, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a lot more
2000 Bucs
’85 Bears
Pittsburgh nearly every year
Look at the dominant teams of the 70’s. The Purple People Eaters, Doomsday, Steel Curtain, and Fearsome Foursome (Rams) owned the decade.
The Naughties have returned to that mantra with Pitt, Balt, TB, Giants & NE. If you say NE had an offense, you’re reaching.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's ridiculous.
You’re trying to tell me that all of those teams had poor offenses?
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Average at best. Only late in the 70’s run were Dallas and Pittsburgh decent on offense. The Rams were awful and there’s a reason why Tarkenton had to scramble so much.
Just review Super Bowl XIII. Great D’s, No Offense.
NFL Network just had a review of an 85 Green Bay – Chicago game. It was brutal to watch. 7-3 late in the 4th. Both scores came as a result of turnovers.
NE won their 3 Lombardis on FGs.
You’re just making an argument based on most Super Bowl winning teams having good balance. But the truly great teams have all had great defenses, whether or not they had an offense to match.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
New England had a good offense
in 04, they were top ten.
They weren’t ever a juggernaut though until they aquired Moss.
But most teams have had very good defenses to win championships.
Even the Rams had a good defense that year they won with the greatest show on turf.
People forget about it because the offense was so good, but the defense was top ten in total yards and top 5 in points allowed.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very questionable to say those 70's teams had no Offenses..
The who’s who of Pro Bowlers..All Pro’s, and Hall of Famers
Minny-QB-Tark, RB-Chuck Foreman WR-Ahmad Rashad, Sammy White
Dallas-QB- R Staubach, RB- T Dorsett, WR- D Pearson, T Hill TE- BJ DuPree
Pitts- QB- T Bradshaw, RB- F Harris, R Bliar, WR-L Swann, J Stallworth
Rams- never won much in that era, but since you brought them up:
QB’s- J Hadl, P Haden RB- Law McCutcheon WR-Harold Jackson, Ron Jessie
You forgot to mention the winningest team of the 70’s
Oakland- QB- K Stabler, WR- F Biletnikoff, D Casper, C Branch
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The winningest team of the 70's wasn't the raiders!
Cowboys 105 regular season wins
Raiders 100 regular season wins
Playoff wins
Cowboys 14
Raiders 8
by DaBoys on Mar 12, 2009 12:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
gee..i guess i should have written "one of the winningest teams of the 70's"
job well done my friend….since i knew it took you time to research all that….which is usually not done by many here…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 12, 2009 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the subject of Super Os vs. Super Xs
I was of the mind that offense is just as important as defense in reaching the Super Bowl but I wanted something to either back up my belief or prove it wrong. Let’s see if this settles anything here. Check out this guy’s research results:
http://arrowheadaddict.com/2009/01/28/offense-vs-defense-super-bowl-study/
Oh... Oh, that's giving me a clue. Yeah, ye-yeah, I've got a raging clue right now.
I was StarStruck at TBB/BSR, now...
by icStars on Mar 11, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice study, but flawed
He accepted an appearance as being a championship. I don’t. You must win the game.
Looking only at the Number 1’s (I’m not going to re-analyze the top 5s, but I bet it’s even more skewed to the D), it’s clear that Defense does indeed win championships.
The 15 teams with the top D went 14-1 (Philthy of course)
The 17 teams with the top O went 8-8 (Don’t know who was top O in 1983, but the ‘Boys didn’t play) Further, in 3 victories, the team also had the best D.
So Offense may get you there, but Defense still wins championships.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, the '83 Cowboys is a glaring flaw
should have seen it myself.
Oh... Oh, that's giving me a clue. Yeah, ye-yeah, I've got a raging clue right now.
I was StarStruck at TBB/BSR, now...
by icStars on Mar 11, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can just as easily argue that a team must have an excellent QB to win a Super Bowl..
Just look at the list of teams to win multiple championships for example:
Green Bay – Bart Starr (hall of fame)
Dallas (70’s) – Roger Staubach (hall of fame)
Pittsburgh (70’s) – Terry Bradshaw (hall of fame)
San Francisco – Joe Montana & Steve Young (both hall of fame)
Dallas (90’s) – Troy Aikman (hall of fame)
Denver – John Elway (hall of fame)
New England – Tom Brady (sure fire first ballot hall of famer)
Pittsburgh (00’s) – Ben Roethlisberger (may be also be in the hall of fame discussion some day).
That list of 9 QB’s right there adds up to 19 Super Bowl championships.
Then there is a long list of one-offs that had great individual championship seasons at QB like Kurt Warner in ’99 or Mark Rypien in ’91 for the Skins or Phil Simms in ’86 for the Giants.
It’s actually very rare that a team wins the Super Bowl with bad QB play even if their defense is great. Just ask the 2006 Bears and Rex Grossman.
The truth of the matter is the really great teams are good at all phases of the game.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 13, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Colts were bridesmaids and never the bride
until that year. If you remember correctly they got Sanders back for the playoffs and played lights out Defense thoughout the playoff that year. The one year they played great D they won.
by squidlo97 on Mar 13, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True...
I’d call it good D though.
Which is all they really needed.
It’s always the run defense that has just been dreadful. Since 2002 they’ve only finished in the bottoma half of pass defense only once.
The run defense however has been dreadful.
They stiffened up against the run and had some nice luck against the Patriots like Reche Caldwell having the hands of a statue and finally secured a super bowl birth.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 13, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And with BOTH the Bears and the Colts playing good 'D
In that post season it was the team with the better QB that won.
Again it’s best to be strong in ALL phases of the game.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 14, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Broncos back to back in ’97 &’98...
… are a great example of a team that won the Super Bowl with an overwhelming offense and average defense.
In the late 90’s to early 2000’s the NFL was in a period of transition as teams were trying to figure out how to manage their rosters with free agency and the salary cap. Nobody at that time had a team that was good on both sides of the ball. As this decade has progressed teams have figured out how to be balanced again and we’re seeing more and more teams that are good on both sides of the ball. The Ravens of 2000 would never win a Super Bowl in today’s NFL and I’ve thought that they are a poor example to use by those who want to claim that all you need is a good defense and no other aspect of the game matters.
I never want to see Dallas become a team that aspires to win punting contests.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 13, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if we lose our best player
we’d tank less than if Indy lost theirs
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of cap.
Didn’t know about cutting players from draft affecting cap from this year. I knew they added some things to basically punish both sides for not having a CBA in place. Which brings up, what happens bext year, with an uncapped year, in accelerated dead money from cutting a high dollar player? In other words, let’s say we have a high dollar player that isn’t worth the contract, if they cut him would that put all his hit into that same year or would it carry over to the next year assuming that an agreement will be reached? Don’t want Snyder benefitting in any way from loopholes…and covering his stupidity.
by shaneshot on Mar 11, 2009 11:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Even if he does
what’s the penalty? They gonna send one of the Hogs over to spank him? Just like Jerry Snyder flirts with the Cap every year.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 11, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Raf, is this draft board considered weak?
the lack of speed at RB, the fact that a LB is one of the best Def players to pick, and that the QBs are kind of underwhelming makes me think this draft board is weak
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 12:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Scott Wright Of Draft Countdown
seems to think It’s a better crop than last year’s. Obviously there are different strengths and weaknesses; It’s a far weaker crop of RBS, for example, but an exponentially stronger crew of WRs. One odd thing we’ve seen is consecutive years without a real first round grade safety.
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Mar 11, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
from what I've heard, this draft may be heavier at the top
but not as strong in the middle.
I find that hard to believe. Last year was weak at WR, but at OT and RB it was phenomenal.
Look at the first round. Some guys didn’t do much, but a lot of future stars were in the bunch.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The top 10 was pretty underwhelming
Obviously, these are all rookies, so we can’t buy into it too much, but…
Jake Long-Solid pick
Chris Long-underwhelming
Matt Ryan-ROTY
Darren Mcfadden-Big dissapointment
Glenn Dorsey-Big dissapointment
Vernon Gholston- Huge dissapointment
Sedrick Ellis-Pretty good
Derrick Harvey-Underwhelming
Keith Rivers- Good until injured.
Jerod Mayo-DROTY
After that, there was the sensational RB crop and Clady was tremendous, with McKelvin and DRC playing fairly well. Dustin Keller was pretty good.
But some guys were flat-out terrible (Cherilus, Duane Brown, Lawrence Jackson).
This isn’t as comprehensive as I’d like it to be, I don’t have that much time right now, exacerbated by the fact that I’m supposed to be studying for a test that takes place at 3, but… last year’s draft was OK. Not phenomenal. And the bottom line is that as much as we evaluate them before they take place, most of the time things end up evening out once It’s all said, done, and written down.
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Mar 11, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't think
It’s a little early to pronounce the booms and busts?
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, these are all rookies, so we can’t buy into it too much, but…
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Mar 11, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Razorback alumn
and never bought a college jersey until D-Mac. I knew this was going to happen. Oakland, where careers go to die. We’ll never know how good he could have been while he’s there
by cow_fanatic on Mar 11, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to the self-appointed experts at BSPN
Deep draft for OL & LBs
Decent DBs, thin at the top.
Decent WRs
Poor RB. MIxed DL but very strong at the top of the board.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Highly off topic...
…but I thought this Dwight Freeney story was pretty funny:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090311/SPORTS03/903110365/1058/SPORTS03
As was mentioned on Football Outsiders, you would think that any experiment Dwight Freeney was utilized in would involve spinning.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Mar 11, 2009 1:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It sounds as if
moving up this year will be more expensive then in other years because of the dead money aspect of the draftees. Teams won’t be as apt to move down this year which means it will probably cost more to move up.
I’m all for reducing the amount of draft picks, especially considering the comp picks can’t be traded so you will probably be forced to draft at the end of the 4th and 5th rounds, depending where those comp picks land.
by cow_fanatic on Mar 11, 2009 1:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They might be more willing to move down for less
because if the pick doesn’t work out it will cost them less money. Never know
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
while they don't need to use all 11 picks,
on the Lunch Break yesterday they were talking about the draft and noting that perhaps RB is the only position (non-special teams) you could say we really couldn’t reasonably use a draft pick on. Every other position there would at least be some need of depth. With some of the major starting holes plugged during FA, what this means is that they can focus on value and pick the best players at that point on the board regardless of position, or trade around to target the players they think are the best fit overall, rather than reaching to fill any particular positional need.
by scottmaui on Mar 11, 2009 1:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
All value picks.
I like that.
I would like them to take 3 LBs (outside or inside—whatever combo)
2 DBs (some sort of safety/CB combo)
2 DL (preferably one END and one NT)
2-3 OL (focus on the inner guys—maybe find a backup LT)
I’d also rather they spend a pick on a WR than a QB.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about...
TE, QB, and DE. No real need at those positions.
You could add CB, but at least one will be taken (always are).
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
still some need
TE – they let Curtis go. Hannah could take the 3rd spot, but we know they love TEs, and if there was a quality one in the draft for good value, I’m sure they would take him and give him a chance to compete for the third spot, or even Hannah’s spot on the PS.
QB – Kitna is the backup, but they let Bollinger go, and again if there was a guy they liked with value, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t look for a developmental QB who could be the #3 guy behind Kitna.
DE – not a big need, but they still could use a guy to compete with Bowen and Dixon if they found a good value.
by scottmaui on Mar 11, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
They need to get another TE who can block.
If a DE they like is available, I’m sure they would take him, especially if he could move inside in the nickel D.
The QB, I’m not sure, because this crop is underwhelming. They could wait until the 7th round or sign a rookie FA.
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 11, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uncapped year???
If the year is uncapped, why the cap concerns?
by rha on Mar 11, 2009 2:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
because NEXT year would be the uncapped year
but it triggers rules that hurt THIS YEARS cap.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus there is no guarantee that 2010 will be uncapped year.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 13, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question???
Anyone know the progress or status of Siavii or Marcus Dixon?
by AZ Cowboy on Mar 11, 2009 3:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
nope - we're going to have to wait for Phillips to say something
or a source to give us insight
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that's funny
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 11, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE
we need to do it every year especially no that we got good depth
by Chad Hutchinson on Mar 11, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
TB is Ripe for a trade
The Glazers playing small ball, and the talk here in Fla. is they are cheep, cheep, cheep and may not want to pay the bonuses and salaries that 1st rounders demand, especially in a small market city ; however, would the Cowboys have the cap room to sign the #19 pick in the 1st round? I know that I would Love a top 3 OT or ILB.
by bad knees on Mar 11, 2009 3:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would take the best Safety available at that spot...
Not another LB pleaseeee……. I would trade to send Bobby Carpenter to the Fins for 3rd rounder and see if we can make another package and grab a good Olinemen in the 2nd round. To me those are the biggest needs. Maybe a good FB would help also.
by ManTab on Mar 11, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know that this is off subject, so excuse me but.....
DMN is saying that an NFC East team is interested in Keith Davis. I’ve been gone for a fews days so does anybody know who that is?
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 3:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Interested?
Panthers released CB Ken Lucas.
Carolina began the day with $24,042 in cap space. The move saves $2.4M, so GM Marty Hurney can now sign his rookie class. Lucas was nearly traded two weeks ago, so clearly the 30-year-old is going to have a market. Perhaps if he was three years older the Broncos would be a potential suitor.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Mar 11, 2009 3:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
dammit i was just about to ask about Lucas and what everyone thought not too familiar with him except that he made a ton of money a few years ago.
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Mar 11, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always he was the FA we should have signed in 2005
instead of Anthony Henry.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 11, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
winfield
Pour out some liquor for the homie T.O.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 11, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too.
I was SURE he was the guy Jerry was going to sign. The Henry signing came out of nowhere
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No thanks.
CB seems to be a position that the Cowboys are addressing through the draft instead of FA.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have gone for Leigh Bodden....
unfortunately he went to the Pats for around 1mil. He would have been a great addition at an affordable price.
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bodden? Me 2.
Darnit—I didn’t know he went to the Pats! I thought the Browns would want him back.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that really ticks me off....
If we could have gotten him on the cheap, we would have had so many options. I can’t believe the Pats got both Springs and Bodden.
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had to do something...
with all that money that was lying around after Cassell got traded.
Haha.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark this down....
they are gonna be a beast this year in the AFC East. They are reloading with Bodden,Springs and now probably Jason Taylor.
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm more impressed that they have a mid-1st rounder and three 2nds,
all evenly spaced — one at the top, one in the middle and one near the botttom.
They’re going to rebuild that LB corps.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 11, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
4 of the top 58. That’s impressive.
Pour out some liquor for the homie T.O.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 11, 2009 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those names aren't exactly reloading
But as Carl pointed out, the amount of draft picks they have should put fear into those of the AFC East.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Mar 11, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha....
Not exactly going out on a limb.
I don’t think anyone doesn’t think they are going to be good.
They were 11-5 without the best QB in the NFL.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me rephrase this then....
what I was implying or attempting to, is the fact that they lose someone and then they get someone to plug right into their system. They have such a great reputation that guys are willing to take less money to go play for them because they have already made lots of money with other teams and they just want to win a championship. These guys are all about winning/not how much money they are going to make.
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see how much Bodden's contract was?
It was misreported last night at 750K for a year (which I thought was a great deal for NE) but it turned out to be 2.25 mil for one year which is more like starter’s money.
I still think the Cowboys should sign a cheap vet CB who’s ok with being 4th on the depth chart (but could move up in case of injury)
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 12, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but I've heard that only a mil is guaranteed....
the rest is incentives. I very well could be wrong. I’m probably just being paranoid, but I was not real impressed with Jenkins last year to be a starter. I guess the thing that makes me cautious is the fact that we have 2 young-uns to develop and not just one. If it was just one, you can cover up for their mis-cues. It’s a little harder to cover up for two guys plus the uncertainty of the safety position. Throw in Newman’s recent injury questions and you could have a very inexperienced secondary if you are not careful.
by texstar on Mar 12, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Just to shore up the depth, they should be looking at a vet. The problem is the good ones want a chance to start and get a decent contract. Bodden wouldn’t have come here because the starters are set and he needs to rehab his value by showing what he can do as a starter. I have confidence in Jenkins, and he needs to play to get better. I think it’s much better to let him play and make mistakes if it makes him better in the long run.
If the Boys suffer injuries at CB, they will have to sign a street FA.
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 12, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed.....
that’s why it would have been nice if PacMan had worked out. That would have been the perfect scenario-but it didn’t. I wonder if Dre Bly would be too expensive-31 yrs. old. Newman makes me nervouse with his sudden injury prone situation.
by texstar on Mar 12, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
We don’t need a high-priced vet, we need Scandrick and Jenkins getting playing time. We’ve invested resources into our young DBs and they’re an asset; there’s no sense in letting them go to waste. I’d support going after a vet backup, but not a high-profile, expensive corner.
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Mar 11, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
We need the best players we can get while using our resources efficiently.
If the difference between Jenkins and Lucas is negligible, and makes the money counterproductive, especially considering the draft position of Jenkins last year, then that’s one thing.
Just saying we need to develop players at the expense of production is quite another, though, and it’s wrong.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both Jenkins and Scandrick are already pretty developed.
Their seasoning last year along with their savvy skills would rival anything that a guy like Ken Mucas would bring to the team.
If Scandrick is moving though, I do see CB being a position of need. If Newman doesn’t play in all 16 games (has he ever?), then experience at CB would be thinner than Alan Ball’s torso.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 11, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?
You think 1 year of decent play from one guy and injured, spotty play from another is really equivalent to a very good, proven, vet who just turned 30?
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather roll with youth
it’s been a hallmark of most succesful teams of late. the only one that is not true of is NE… and their success has been lesser as they’ve gotten older
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Youth
Hasn’t been the reason anybody’s won. It’s been because of talent. That a very talented guy happens to be young doesn’t mean youth is per se better. You have to look at every case individually.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think Lucas gets a similar deal to McFadden?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Mar 11, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd assume
Less base and more guaranteed.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
old guys cost money
you can get two young guys for 1/3 the price and find one that works. Look how the Colts turn over their roster. Pittsburg.
Youth is less prone to injury. I don’t see Pitt or Indy out there chasing down FA CBs, ever
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're talking generally.
And there’s really no reason to generalize. Like I said, it’s an ad hoc kind of thing.
As for those two teams you mentioned, they’ve drafted well the last decade. They haven’t had to make a splash in free agency. Not everyone else drafts so well, and just because two teams out of 32 have done well at one position recently, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea for the Cowboys to sign a free agent.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well the counter point is, if Mike Jenkins isn't suited
to be a starting NFL corner, like Bobby Carpenter isnt a LB, then Dallas has far reaching systemic talent-evaluation problems that no amount of FA will help. I am pushing to start these guys because, if I were something like a GM, I’d want to move on to my next problem and find a solution.
Also, I think Scandrick was a lot better than OK, I feel good about our top 4 corners. Alan Ball, he’s about where a 4th corner should be, a 2nd or 3rd year bottom of the draft development player. I’d rather 2 7th round-youngins
by AustonianAggie on Mar 11, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Like I said, if the difference between Lucas and Jenkins is negligible—or at least you reasonably believe the difference is negligible, then I’m fine with starting Jenkins with no competition.
But I wouldn’t extend that logic to mean that any guy who we really hope is good should be given an opportunity over a guy who we know is good.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like...
Lucas, but Dallas won’t have the money to sign him even if they did have interest.
They need to add CB depth, but I think that Lucas might be out of their price range.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you have to have reservations...
About signing a CB who has been released by two teams.
To me it says, he’s good, but for whatever reason teams have found him replaceable.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah.
I’d have the same skepticism of anybody not currently under contract.
There are a multitude of circumstances at play in every situation.
by brettgardner on Mar 11, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
And I know that he was released mainly due to salary cap implications for Carolina.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing...
And I know this isn’t a total showing of his ability, but Carolina’s pass defense ranked 19th last year, and it wasn’t because of a lack of pass rush.
Where as Dallas was 5th against the pass.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 11, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and he was a free agent with Seattle
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.....
that’s why I was saying someone like Bodden would have been perfect. It was all over the place that Bodden was trying to redeem himself because he played in Detroit. He was willing to sign for low dollars to get his reputation back. I don’t know why we didn’t pursue him when it looked like we were going to cut Henry. Bad move if you ask me.
by texstar on Mar 11, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
I meant to put my reply here, texstar. Go back upstream, I wrote a reply.
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 12, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would have been a good pickup.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 12, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry can't be set...
with our current DBs. Surely we will not begin the season in Sept with our present crop! There’s got to be another DB in free agency or the draft, Please!
by BishopWest on Mar 11, 2009 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My man
come in off the ledge. It’s March for heavens sake. I happen to think we are O.K. at corner. They obviously must like Jenkins and we have to see if the guy can play or not. Ball has been O.K. There’s plenty of time to see if a vet or a young player is the better option. I say at least give the kids a chance since we signed them.
by jevans1729 on Mar 11, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jenkins will be fine
Pour out some liquor for the homie T.O.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 11, 2009 5:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
CB?
Two guys that played a lot of corner last year………….Henry and Jones aren’t even on our roster.
Williams RW1 who played some SS ain’t on the roster.
Keith Davis ain’t on the roster.
There has to be some additons to the DBs. Ball didn’t look bad and maybe he can play.
by Jon B. on Mar 11, 2009 7:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
there should be a vet CB signed here before the season begins....i'm sure of it..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see NE got Bodden for cheap
1 year for 2.5 Mil, I think it was..
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
by Wmillion on Mar 12, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second that Jenkins will work for us.
He’s got all the tools; he’s just a bit of a knucklehead. I loved when he jumped that bad pass against the Giants and picked Eli off. Not to mention, that great leaping pass deflection against the Eagles(?).
by zapruder on Mar 11, 2009 7:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post.
I think the TO move right, wrong, or indifferent proves Jerry is listening to the people around him. I think the people around him helped him pull off last years draft, I expect Dallas to turn out another quality draft.
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
by Wmillion on Mar 11, 2009 10:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Fellas
Any guesses on who Dallas will face in the 1st game in the new stadium???
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
by Wmillion on Mar 11, 2009 10:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Should be a NFC East team....and I'd guess Washington
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 11, 2009 11:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree, should be a Beast team
I’ll guess the Midgets.
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 12, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone w/tickets told me Redskins.
seems obvious.
But have they announced yet? How’d she know? Notice the ‘she’ part, wife of a fan , at my work.
by Realist Larry on Mar 12, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll bet it is the Skins...
That would suck though because the skins seem to be home for the 2nd game every year.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 13, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Smith struggled on his Pro Day...oh my.....he may slip out of the first round...wow!!
Alabama offensive tackle Andre Smith’s campus workout today in front of NFL scouts was a "disaster," according to Tony Pauline of SI.com.
Quoting an unnamed scout, Pauline writes that Smith’s lack of preparation was obvious as he was overweight. One scout called the performance, "one of the worst workouts I’ve ever seen."
Another AFC East scout told Pauline: "He lost millions today." As a league source told us earlier today, Smith ran with his shirt off.
According to Pauline, comments were made about "the flab and the rolls on his body" during Smith’s 40-yard dashes as he posted times between 5.21 and 5.29 seconds.
Per the article, several scouts weren’t happy to travel a long way only to witness a bad workout. And Smith’s trainers were not pleased, either.
by Boyzfan94 on Mar 12, 2009 1:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They said don't be fooled, Nate Newton showed the same kind of thing.
However, Nate Newton played in the interior of the line, and this guy plays at the end. I think this guy would get eaten up at the tackle spot in the NFL. I don’t mind that he is fat, however, if your slow and fat that moves you from LT to RT or OG in the NFL. But not only is this guy Slow and Fat, he is also weak, he only had 19 reps at 225 lbs. These sound like Rob Petitti numbers to me. 19 reps? Man, this guy is either a joke or has no heart. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him drop out of the 1st day; then again what do I know?
by bad knees on Mar 12, 2009 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he won't slip out the first rd, thats plain silly
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 12, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He won't....but he is no longer the top OT in the draft like he was pre-Combine...
I like him, but he really hurt his himself by this poor workout.
by Boyzfan94 on Mar 12, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could...
O-line depth is pretty big in the first round of the draft this year.
I didn’t think he would to begin with, but the fact that his workout was so bad, and that he was out of shape REALLY raises a red flag with teams.
His workout doesn’t concern me as much as his being out of shape. Being lazy and immature is not a good way to look.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 12, 2009 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no doubt he'll fall, but not that much
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 12, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not...
But I’ve seen stranger…
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 12, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL.Com has dropped him from 10th over all pick to out of the 1st round!
Wonder how far he drops before he becomes a value pick? Like I said before my belief is anything before the 4th is reaching on a guy you won’t here from until at least 2012.
by bad knees on Mar 12, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.
Couldn’t resist, that’s all I heard in my head when I read your last sentence.
"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time." -Max McGee
by BigDinSC on Mar 12, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flounder!

Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Mar 12, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won't take this guy in the first day!
It will be 3 years before he could even make a decent guard! Sounds to me like he is the product of a lot of hype, but I don’t know anything other than what I read, and the scouts and NFL teams will show us what they think his worth is; then the years will show them whether they were right or not.
by bad knees on Mar 12, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geeeeezzz...It never ceases to amaze me how some fool can be sooooo friggin stupid...
I can’t get the vision of “man boobs” flopping around while he waddles down the track…
Goes from 50+ million (over 30 guaranteed) contract down to about 15 million (5-8 guaranteed)………way to go dip shit !!
His agent should be shot, but you can’t even blame it on him….This dud has just fallin’ off a cliff.
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 12, 2009 9:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Some are even saying that he may go as a guard now.....
which, as you know, will be a lot less of the green stuff. One reason that he could be drafted as a guard is because he can eat to his little heart’s content-lol. They even compared him to Leonard Davis-ouch!!!
by texstar on Mar 12, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always looked at him as a Guard anyways...or a Right Tackle...He's no franchise LT...that's for sure..
He’ll still go top 15 or so…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 14, 2009 9:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah the latest I saw was at 12.....
but that could change
by texstar on Mar 14, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















