Am I the only one....(LAW)

[Chuck 54]

who hopes we don't sign Ty Law to a big contract?

I don't see it....not with the holes we have. Law is a great player, and he deserves a great contract, and if we were close to fielding a great team, I'd support this move, but not now, not us.

We have a ton of below average CB's who can continue to develop and learn to play the nickel...we have Newman, and all we need to do is add any decent NFL CB.

There are a couple of guys who are younger and healthier than LAW...I'd sign them, even though they aren't quite the players Law is.

Shore up the secondary with a decent CB, an experienced safety, and then continue to spend money on the DL and LB...don't blow the entire wad on an all-star CB like Ty Law....just my opinion.

[The30YardSlant]

I hope we dont sign Law PERIOD.....

[MichaelWinicki]

who hopes we don't sign Ty Law to a big contract?

I don't see it....not with the holes we have. Law is a great player, and he deserves a great contract, and if we were close to fielding a great team, I'd support this move, but not now, not us.

We have a ton of below average CB's who can continue to develop and learn to play the nickel...we have Newman, and all we need to do is add any decent NFL CB.

There are a couple of guys who are younger and healthier than LAW...I'd sign them, even though they aren't quite the players Law is.

Shore up the secondary with a decent CB, an experienced safety, and then continue to spend money on the DL and LB...don't blow the entire wad on an all-star CB like Ty Law....just my opinion.


I will say that contrary to the other players that Nors has shamelessly plugged over the past year like Eddie George, Chat Eaton and Bledsoe, I do think Law could add a lot to this football team with his experience. I see being able to help all the young corners that we have. BUT it has to be done realistically. Say a 4 year contract at $25 mil including a $ 6 mill signing bonus.

[TDHND]

He's washed up. He's past his prime. What's that mean? We'll probably sign him,lol...

[Gaede]

An upgrade is an upgrade

How can people be completely opposed to signing Law, with this in mind?

Obviously, it's in the best interest of the franchise to find young, cheap and talented players in free agency, but to oppose an upgrade because the player is old is foolish

If we sign Law, and he gets big money, sure, people should be upset.

But if that were to happen, you should at least undestand that the team has been immediately upgraded with talent, experience and leadership.

[Cbz40]

To be perfectly candid................I'll take the younger player....Smoot or Lucas.

[cowheel]

To be perfectly candid................I'll take the younger player....Smoot or Lucas.
...now that would make too much sense.

[Cbz40]

...now that would make too much sense.


Meeeeeeeeee........NA!...that would ruin my reputation. :)

[JackMagist]

An upgrade is an upgrade

How can people be completely opposed to signing Law, with this in mind?Because there are younger and better options available. Law has read too many of his own press clippings and has listened to his greed driven agent to the point that he will not take a reasonable contract for a player his age. There are just too many negatives about him to overcome the positives.

Would we be better at RCB with him? Yes

Would we be as good at RCB with him as we could get this offseason? NO!!

[The30YardSlant]

To be perfectly candid................I'll take the younger player....Smoot or Lucas.
The voice of reason strikes again :eek:

[Gaede]

Because there are younger and better options available. Law has read too many of his own press clippings and has listened to his greed driven agent to the point that he will not take a reasonable contract for a player his age. There are just too many negatives about him to overcome the positives.

Would we be better at RCB with him? Yes

Would we be as good at RCB with him as we could get this offseason? NO!!

Yes, I know...To be completely opposed to any upgrade though is ridiculous

We can do better, and Ithink we will, but Law is better than what we have now, thus he is an upgrade. He would make the team better than it is now

Which is why I can't understand it when people don't want Law at all.

[jimmy40]

Yes, I know...To be completely opposed to any upgrade though is ridiculous

.When did anyone ever say they were opposed to any upgrade?

[Tio]

OH, BTW, he has the postons as his agents...



STAY AWAY!!!

[Cbz40]

Would not Lucas are Smoot be an upgrade to the position? Not that I'm that I am opposed to Law but I do question his durability. ;)

[notherbob]

Law has not doubt been an excellent CB, but with the new rules I wonder if he will be nearly as good as before when he could basically mug an receiver. If he's not athletic enough to keep up with them without interferring, then he could be a very expensive addition. At 31, he may not be able to keep up with the young speed burners. If we need a designated interferrer, let's resign Mario. He has been very good in man coverage but is he the best value available for zone coverage? That's assuming his injury has really healed.

At the right price, he could certainly be attractive, but at a big signing bonus and high salary, I would pass on him at his age, with his style of play in the league at this time, even if his foot, knee or whatever has healed.

[JackMagist]

Yes, I know...To be completely opposed to any upgrade though is ridiculous

We can do better, and Ithink we will, but Law is better than what we have now, thus he is an upgrade. He would make the team better than it is now

Which is why I can't understand it when people don't want Law at all.Sure he is an upgrade (or I beleive he is; it remains to be seen) to what we have now. But I do not want to sign him until we have had a chance to explore the more favorable options. In fact I don't want to sign him except as a last resort; certainly not as a first option.

[Gaede]

When did anyone ever say they were opposed to any upgrade?

I hope we dont sign Law PERIOD.....

My logic: Law=Upgrade

Thus, not wanting Law=not wanting the 'upgrade' he would bring

It seems people on this board pick one or two players they feel are good options, and consequently 'damn' the rest. I'm not opposed to signing Law because he's better than what we have.

When people say they don't want Law at all, to me, it's excluding a viable option.

I'll take whatever makes the team better.

[JackMagist]

My logic: Law=Upgrade

Thus, not wanting Law=not wanting the 'upgrade' he would bring

It seems people on this board pick one or two players they feel are good options, and consequently 'damn' the rest. I'm not opposed to signing Law because he's better than what we have.

When people say they don't want Law at all, to me, it's excluding a viable option.

I'll take whatever makes the team better.That is why I don't want Law. There are too many other options that would make the team better than Law would make it. If you are going to upgrade go for the Best upgrade not the marginal one with question marks all around him.

[Gaede]

That is why I don't want Law. There are too many other options that would make the team better than Law would make it. If you are going to upgrade go for the Best upgrade not the marginal one with question marks all around him.

I understand what you're saying...Personally, the guy I want is Lucas. BUT, if we were to sign Law, I wouldn't be upset

Because (and this is what I've been saying all along) he's better than what we have!

Sometimes you have to settle for the 'marginal' upgrade, because you can't always get the best possible option. People who don't want Law at all should consider this; Law is better than Frazier, Hunter, Thornton, Reeves, and Jones. Though he may not be the best option available, he is nonetheless better than what we have.

To exclude the second, third or fourth best guy because you only want the first is thus ridiculous; all options are upgrades

[diehard2294]

My logic: Law=Upgrade

Thus, not wanting Law=not wanting the 'upgrade' he would bring

It seems people on this board pick one or two players they feel are good options, and consequently 'damn' the rest. I'm not opposed to signing Law because he's better than what we have.

When people say they don't want Law at all, to me, it's excluding a viable option.

I'll take whatever makes the team better.makes the team better,yes short term. But that's the problem,a quick fix works if you are close to competing for a SB, does anyone here think that's a realistic goal in the next 2 years
:rolleyes:

[Gaede]

makes the team better,yes short term. But that's the problem,a quick fix works if you are close to competing for a SB, does anyone here think that's a realistic goal in the next 2 years
:rolleyes:

ugh...Lets try it again:

Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

He would be a quick fix, yes...But he is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

You get it?

He's probably not worth the money he's going to want

But Ty Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

So many people on this board preach conservative spending but complain when the front office actually does it! So many people want to win games but complain when the front office signs players that can help the team to do just that!

Everybody wants a talented, young and cheap player. You're not going to get that. If you have to sign an old player, who is nonetheless BETTER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE, so be it! You're making the team better and putting the team in a better position to win games!

Case in point: We needed a quarterback. How about Garcia? No, too brittle. How about Griese? No, not tough enough. How about Bledsoe? No, sucks too much. How about Kurt Warner? No, sucks too much. How about Vinny Testeverde? No, too old, and definitely sucks too much.

The point is: Too many people here are extraordinarily picky. They want to win games but don't want the players (veterans, usually) who can do that. They want upgrades but only want the best possible, and youngest options. They want the best possible, and youngest options but don't want to pay the necessary amount of money to do so.

If you get more players who are better than your current players without mortgaging the franchise (I doubt signing one player would do that) then you are in a better position to win games.

If Law costs alot of money, who are we to complain then, if the acquisition puts the team in a better position to win games?

Isn't that the goal? Win as many games as possible?

[Derinyar]

ugh...Lets try it again:

Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

He would be a quick fix, yes...But he is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

You get it?

He's probably not worth the money he's going to want

But Ty Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

So many people on this board preach conservative spending but complain when the front office actually does it! So many people want to win games but complain when the front office signs players that can help the team to do just that!

Everybody wants a talented, young and cheap player. You're not going to get that. If you have to sign an old player, who is nonetheless BETTER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE, so be it! You're making the team better and putting the team in a better position to win games!

Case in point: We needed a quarterback. How about Garcia? No, too brittle. How about Griese? No, not tough enough. How about Bledsoe? No, sucks too much. How about Kurt Warner? No, sucks too much. How about Vinny Testeverde? No, too old, and definitely sucks too much.

The point is: Too many people here are extraordinarily picky. They want to win games but don't want the players (veterans, usually) who can do that. They want upgrades but only want the best possible, and youngest options. They want the best possible, and youngest options but don't want to pay the necessary amount of money to do so.

If you get more players who are better than your current players without mortgaging the franchise (I doubt signing one player would do that) then you are in a better position to win games.

If Law costs alot of money, who are we to complain then, if the acquisition puts the team in a better position to win games?

Isn't that the goal? Win as many games as possible?
The goal is to be as good of a team as possible over as long of a term as possible. Signing players in their 30's to big money contracts is not a way to do that.

Yes Ty Law would be an upgrade. So would Ken Lucas, Gary Baxter or Fred Smoot. All are years younger and other than Smoot likely to take much less of a contract.

Ty Law could in effect be less of an upgrade than say Lucas, cause the money of Law could prevent the signing of another player who could be an upgrade. Say Law wants 5-6 a year. Lucas will probably be 3-4. What if someone like Ferguson, DT from NYJ, ends up commanding 3-4. The difference between Law and Lucas could in essence be most of another good solid starter. Is Law so great of a CB that hes going to be able to make more of an impact than 2 solid players? His name is Ty and not Deion so the chances are no hes not going to make more of an impact.

[JackMagist]

I understand what you're saying...Personally, the guy I want is Lucas. BUT, if we were to sign Law, I wouldn't be upset

Because (and this is what I've been saying all along) he's better than what we have!

Sometimes you have to settle for the 'marginal' upgrade, because you can't always get the best possible option. People who don't want Law at all should consider this; Law is better than Frazier, Hunter, Thornton, Reeves, and Jones. Though he may not be the best option available, he is nonetheless better than what we have.

To exclude the second, third or fourth best guy because you only want the first is thus ridiculous; all options are upgradesI think we all understand what you are saying about he is better than what we have. Great, he is (probably/maybe) but that is hardly enough to break the bank for him.

The thing about Law is not if he would be better than what we have now but:

(1) Would he be better than what we can get otherwise?

(2) Would he be enough better than what we have now to be worth what he would cost us?

I think the answer toi both of those questions is NO. And that being the case I don't want him except as a last resort (and maybe not even then).

[Gaede]

Whatever...I would sign Lucas, Rolle, Smoot before Law, because they have more to offer long term obviously...Yes, he would be 'less of an upgrade' than those guys.

But I am not opposed to bringing in Law just because he's old and costs alot of money. As I said, he is a viable option that should not be excluded from consideration...I don't want to say it again, but an upgrade is an upgrade. Lets not forget how frustrating it is to see the like of Frazier, Reeves and Jones on the field.

[diehard2294]

ugh...Lets try it again:

Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

He would be a quick fix, yes...But he is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

You get it?

He's probably not worth the money he's going to want

But Ty Law is better than hunter, frazier, thornton, reeves and jones.

So many people on this board preach conservative spending but complain when the front office actually does it! So many people want to win games but complain when the front office signs players that can help the team to do just that!

Everybody wants a talented, young and cheap player. You're not going to get that. If you have to sign an old player, who is nonetheless BETTER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE, so be it! You're making the team better and putting the team in a better position to win games!

Case in point: We needed a quarterback. How about Garcia? No, too brittle. How about Griese? No, not tough enough. How about Bledsoe? No, sucks too much. How about Kurt Warner? No, sucks too much. How about Vinny Testeverde? No, too old, and definitely sucks too much.

The point is: Too many people here are extraordinarily picky. They want to win games but don't want the players (veterans, usually) who can do that. They want upgrades but only want the best possible, and youngest options. They want the best possible, and youngest options but don't want to pay the necessary amount of money to do so.

If you get more players who are better than your current players without mortgaging the franchise (I doubt signing one player would do that) then you are in a better position to win games.

If Law costs alot of money, who are we to complain then, if the acquisition puts the team in a better position to win games?

Isn't that the goal? Win as many games as possible?Yeah,I get it,good thing your so sharp and can point it out for me
:rolleyes:

typical reaction when someone doesn't agree with your point!

I am not against Law,rather I am thinking of JJ an BP building a team that will be around for a couple of years after BP leaves. Dare I say the Eagles have done this!

[Doomsday]

I dont want to see Dallas sign Law / Woodson or any over priced over the hill veteran.

[Chuck 54]

I will say that contrary to the other players that Nors has shamelessly plugged over the past year like Eddie George, Chat Eaton and Bledsoe, I do think Law could add a lot to this football team with his experience. I see being able to help all the young corners that we have. BUT it has to be done realistically. Say a 4 year contract at $25 mil including a $ 6 mill signing bonus.
He's already a 10 year vet....if he were to make it another 4 years, he'd be one of the exceptions....I'd prefer a younger player.

[Chuck 54]

Would not Lucas are Smoot be an upgrade to the position? Not that I'm that I am opposed to Law but I do question his durability. ;)
Any real NFL cb would be an upgrade CB...the guys we ran out last year should be camp fodder on most teams...imo.

[TRIPLETS]

No Law= No Problems.

[Chuck 54]

I understand what you're saying...Personally, the guy I want is Lucas. BUT, if we were to sign Law, I wouldn't be upset

Because (and this is what I've been saying all along) he's better than what we have!

Sometimes you have to settle for the 'marginal' upgrade, because you can't always get the best possible option. People who don't want Law at all should consider this; Law is better than Frazier, Hunter, Thornton, Reeves, and Jones. Though he may not be the best option available, he is nonetheless better than what we have.

To exclude the second, third or fourth best guy because you only want the first is thus ridiculous; all options are upgrades
I wouldn't be upset either, because I don't pretend to know more than the coaches and gm...but I think it's silly to pay a 10 year vet money at the cb position when you could run out just about any CB in the nfl or draft and have an upgrade over the bums we used last year.

[yesfan]

Please,if they get anything better,take it.Don't want to
replay last year's disaster at cb.Sign where you can,otherwise another
cast of misfits.

[notherbob]

I dont want to see Dallas sign Law / Woodson or any over priced over the hill veteran.
10-4 on that.

Was the injured Law even missed by his team last year? Do we want to overpay him - or anyone else?

[SuspectCorner]

i really like law and the idea of vet leadership infusion he could bring. but shop for value. with a 31-year old corner - i'd rather see dallas pay a bigger bonus and get a shorter contract.

there's some good corners on the FA market. it sure doesn't HAVE to be law.