Archive - Random Cowboys Related Stuff Thread...

[Genghis Khan]

It's also retarded to commit $16M to someone coming off a 6 sack season.

It's also retarded to judge an all-timer on one down season at age 31.

 

[Genghis Khan]

In a scheme thats not suited for him.

I don't think I'm convinced of that.

 

[ravidubey]

Ware's full recovery is enough of a question mark to not commit 16 mil to while compromising 2015's cap as well.

Recall he was fully healthy to start OTA's in 2013 and didn't make it out of camp. At age 31, that's too much of a risk for anything but a team loaded with talent and ready for a Superbowl run.

Denver proved they are just that, while Dallas struggled to field an NFL caliber DL and LB corps.

Each franchise made a good decision on Ware based on where they are now.

 

[Clay_Allison]

It's also retarded to judge an all-timer on one down season at age 31.

One down season after a long history of injuries that he's been battling, successfully until last year, since at least 2009. You can't just get selective amnesia with the number of times he's been listed on the injury report if you are assessing risk.

You'd have a point if it was a single fluke injury, like an ACL tear in TC, but he has had issues for years.

 

[Genghis Khan]

One down season after a long history of injuries that he's been battling, successfully until last year, since at least 2009. You can't just get selective amnesia with the number of times he's been listed on the injury report if you are assessing risk.

You'd have a point if it was a single fluke injury, like an ACL tear in TC, but he has had issues for years.

Not about just injuries. This is also about production. And he's been extremely productive until this one last year. You can't just get selective amnesia about how productive he's been prior to this past year. Despite the injuries. Given his track record of Hall of Fame type production, it is too early to give up on that type of player.

 

[Genghis Khan]

it would be one thing if we had a legitimate replacement. But we don't.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Clay_Allison]

Not about just injuries. This is also about production. And he's been extremely productive until this one last year. You can't just get selective amnesia about how productive he's been prior to this past year. Despite the injuries. Given his track record of Hall of Fame type production, it is too early to give up on that type of player.

it would be one thing if we had a legitimate replacement. But we don't.

How many years should we have paid him All Pro money for far less production on an 8-8 team running a defense that didn't suit his skills?

What were we going to win with him when we were 8-8 when he got 19.5 sacks, 8-8 when he got 11.5 and 8-8 when he got 6 sacks? Even if he was the comeback player of the year was he going to get us over some kind of hump. I don't see even a glimmer of upside to bringing him back.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Genghis Khan]

How many years should we have paid him All Pro money for far less production on an 8-8 team running a defense that didn't suit his skills?

What were we going to win with him when we were 8-8 when he got 19.5 sacks, 8-8 when he got 11.5 and 8-8 when he got 6 sacks? Even if he was the comeback player of the year was he going to get us over some kind of hump. I don't see even a glimmer of upside to bringing him back.

Just because the team around him isn't good enough doesn't mean you just dump a good player. It means you should try to improve the team around that good player.

I get the money part but I think they could have made that work in a way that makes sense.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Umm, 1.

Just because the team around him isn't good enough doesn't mean you just dump a good player. It means you should try to improve the team around that good player.

I get the money part but I think they could have made that work in a way that makes sense.

You mean two? Because we already paid him one. But why stop there? Why not let him play out the whole deal even if he doesn't record a sack? You never know, he could bounce back in the final year.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cotton]

 

[1bigfan13]

We don't need a dominant safety we just need one who's not a liability.

I think safety can wait until round 2 or 3.

 

[dallen]

We don't need a dominant safety we just need one who's not a liability.

I think safety can wait until round 2 or 3.

The same can be said for most positions that are not QB, LT, or pass rush

 

[Cotton]

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[boozeman]

We don't need a dominant safety we just need one who's not a liability.

I think safety can wait until round 2 or 3.

If you wait longer than that, why bother...nobody would be better than what we have. We either do it early or not at all.

 

[Genghis Khan]

You mean two? Because we already paid him one. But why stop there? Why not let him play out the whole deal even if he doesn't record a sack? You never know, he could bounce back in the final year.

Damn you jumped on that quick. I took that part out after like 30 seconds. I misread what you said.

That said, you are extrapolating the point to ridiculous proportions (that no one is advocating) and then criticizing the result. When has Ware ever gone without a sack? Never? Oh.