Truth Serum

[CATCH17]

Hurns is the only one I’m fairly impressed with, although Fleming is probably a shrew move. I’m not impressed honestly, but I’m more comfortable

Some of you are easily satisfied..


A WR we will not even use and who knows if Fleming is any good.

 

[OmerV]

I agree with this statement, but you guys have to be honest with yourselves. Every year we go through this same stuff and the result is the same. I have GOOD reason to be skeptical.

The draft has been pretty good to the Cowboys in recent years.

 

[OmerV]

Some of you are easily satisfied..


A WR we will not even use and who knows if Fleming is any good.

Why in the world would you believe we won't use Hurns, and considering Flemming was a starting OT for a Super Bowl team, why would we put him down before giving him a chance? These things make no sense except to a fan who wants to make sure he gets the chance to complain now in case the complaints don't prove to be valid later. Hell, even if Flemming is no more than strong depth as a swing tackle, that's a big upgrade over what we had.

 

[OmerV]

This honestly is what I expected, for the most part.
Btw, these aren't genius moves or anything.
But they do show some applied rationality to the whole FA process, preceding the draft.

Most moves by most teams aren't genius moves. In most cases teams are just solidifying the roster and filling holes. Big splash, high profile moves are not the norm.

 

[waldoputty]

Be honest here.... How many of you expected the Cowboys to have this many free agents of this caliber this year?

I know I didn't. Some of these guys should actually be really good signings at good value. Might be the opposite of the dumpster diving we did last year.

i think the fo learned its lesson. better to go 2nd tier than garbage pile because they lost so much money last year.

 

[Proof]

Why in the world would you believe we won't use Hurns, and considering Flemming was a starting OT for a Super Bowl team, why would we put him down before giving him a chance? These things make no sense except to a fan who wants to make sure he gets the chance to complain now in case the complaints don't prove to be valid later. Hell, even if Flemming is no more than strong depth as a swing tackle, that's a big upgrade over what we had.

Agreed. Hurns and Fleming are solid pieces and should pay dividends. I don’t think either move deserves any special praise, but there’s really no way to spin them negatively

 

[CATCH17]

Why in the world would you believe we won't use Hurns, and considering Flemming was a starting OT for a Super Bowl team, why would we put him down before giving him a chance? These things make no sense except to a fan who wants to make sure he gets the chance to complain now in case the complaints don't prove to be valid later. Hell, even if Flemming is no more than strong depth as a swing tackle, that's a big upgrade over what we had.

Because we don’t use Dez or T. Will either.


I like Hurns as a player. He’s good. But Dallas coaches will not maximize his ability so it’s just a waste of resources.

This move was made because there is a divide between the staff and WRs.

 

[Verdict]

Agreed. Hurns and Fleming are solid pieces and should pay dividends. I don’t think either move deserves any special praise, but there’s really no way to spin them negatively

Not without the benefit of hindsight. Not sure about the contract numbers on Fleming.

 

[OmerV]

Because we don’t use Dez or T. Will either.


I like Hurns as a player. He’s good. But Dallas coaches will not maximize his ability so it’s just a waste of resources.

This move was made because there is a divide between the staff and WRs.

Dez was targeted 133 times last season, and T-Will was targeted 78 times, so that is 211 targets for an average of 13.2 balls thrown to those players per game.

It may be fair to say we aren't using them as well as we could, but to say we aren't using them is just plain ignoring facts in order to fabricate a complaint.

 

[CATCH17]

Dez was targeted 133 times last season, and T-Will was targeted 78 times, so that is 211 targets for an average of 13.2 balls thrown to those players per game.

It may be fair to say we aren't using them as well as we could, but to say we aren't using them is just plain ignoring facts in order to fabricate a complaint.

They are used by default because their WRs and they are out on the field.

We don’t use them in a way that maximizes their talent and we won’t use Hurns either.

Dallas also runs the ball more then any team too so it’s iust a waste of resources.

 

[OmerV]

They are used by default because their WRs and they are out on the field.

We don’t use them in a way that maximizes their talent and we won’t use Hurns either.

Dallas also runs the ball more then any team too so it’s iust a waste of resources.

You said they weren't used , now you are back peddling and now saying they were used, but only because they were the players the team put on the field, as if that's somehow an argument. That's how it works for every team - the players every team chooses to put on the field are the players every team uses.

And yes, the Cowboys do run the ball more than other teams, but they still throw the ball 50% of the time, and surely you aren't suggesting that a 50% element of our offense doesn't need resources. The offense doesn't work if only the running game is successful, and of course, the running game is less successful if the passing game isn't successful enough for the opposing defense to have to worry about.

 

[CATCH17]

You said they weren't used , now you are back peddling and now saying they were used, but only because they were the players the team put on the field, as if that's somehow an argument. That's how it works for every team - the players every team chooses to put on the field are the players every team uses.

And yes, the Cowboys do run the ball more than other teams, but they still throw the ball 50% of the time, and surely you aren't suggesting that a 50% element of our offense doesn't need resources. The offense doesn't work if only the running game is successful, and of course, the running game is less successful if the passing game isn't successful enough for the opposing defense to have to worry about.

I'm not backpedaling. I didn't know that I had to be so specific. Apologies to you for me not being so specific.

Yes, they do get thrown to because they are WR's and we will throw to Hurns because he's a WR too.


But we won't use him in any way that matters. He'll get pigeon holed to a few things he does well and that will be that because that's what we do.

The unit does need resources but the resources on the field are not the problem. It's a coaching problem and to be fair it's on Dak as well.

"Better" WR's in our case will not bring better results because of usage, QB play, and coaching.

 

[OmerV]

I'm not backpedaling. I didn't know that I had to be so specific. Apologies to you for me not being so specific.

Yes, they do get thrown to because they are WR's and we will throw to Hurns because he's a WR too.


But we won't use him in any way that matters. He'll get pigeon holed to a few things he does well and that will be that because that's what we do.

The unit does need resources but the resources on the field are not the problem. It's a coaching problem and to be fair it's on Dak as well.

"Better" WR's in our case will not bring better results because of usage, QB play, and coaching.

Oh - so when you said they weren't using Dez and T-Will I should have been able to interperet that as meaning they actually were using Dez and T-Will. I got it now - I need to interpret your words in a way that would be illogical to interpret your words, and quit expecting you to mean what you said.

I'll give it a try. When you say they won't use Hurns, what you really mean is they will use Hurns because he is a wide receiver, and they will use their wide receivers.

I think I'm getting the hang of it!

As for the rest of your post, I'm wondering if you think we can win more games with better talent, or if you think that because of coaching problems the team can win just as many games even if they don't worry about talent at all? After all, it seems you think there is zero point to improving the talent - so why not sign the offense from some Divisios III college to the league minimum contract and save money? They could have one 9 games in the NFL last year, and 13 games the year before, right? After all, that's your argument - that adding talent doesn't matter.

 

[CATCH17]

Oh - so when you said they weren't using Dez and T-Will I should have been able to interperet that as meaning they actually were using Dez and T-Will. I got it now - I need to interpret your words in a way that would be illogical to interpret your words, and quit expecting you to mean what you said.

I'll give it a try. When you say they won't use Hurns, what you really mean is they will use Hurns because he is a wide receiver, and they will use their wide receivers.

I think I'm getting the hang of it!

As for the rest of your post, I'm wondering if you think we can win more games with better talent, or if you think that because of coaching problems the team can win just as many games even if they don't worry about talent at all? After all, it seems you think there is zero point to improving the talent - so why not sign the offense from some Divisios III college to the league minimum contract and save money? They could have one 9 games in the NFL last year, and 13 games the year before, right? After all, that's your argument - that adding talent doesn't matter.

Talent in the right spots.


Defense, Oline, TE, QB, RB. That is where we will get our bang for our buck.

WR's will just sit out there and get paid a lot to do nothing on this team.

 

[OmerV]

Talent in the right spots.


Defense, Oline, TE, QB, RB. That is where we will get our bang for our buck.

WR's will just sit out there and get paid a lot to do nothing on this team.

So, now the interpretation of you saying they won't use Hurns is supposed to be that they will use him, but we should've signed someone at another position instead. I thought I was figuring you out, but I'm sorry, with these rotating definitions I really am going to have to ask you to be more specific after all.

I'm wondering who we should have signed at RB though. After all, Zeke is kind of the workhorse, and we have a lot of resources tied to the position. And I'm wondering if you think if we hadn't signed Hurns to a 2 year $12 million deal we could have used the money to sign Cousins to that 3 year $84 million dollar deal he got? Oh, and we signed 2 O-Linemen already, so I'm not sure how your argument on that even applies.

Besides free agency isn't over, and the draft is still to come. You still have never understood that free agency isn't designed to fill all needs with standout players - it doesn't work that way. And you also have never understood that these signings free up draft picks to use on other positions. It takes a combination of things to address needs.

 

[Aviano90]

Some of you are easily satisfied..


A WR we will not even use and who knows if Fleming is any good.

Hopefully he can help us out when we go shotgun, empty backfield on 3rd and 1 and/or inside the red zone.

 

[Clove]

The draft has been pretty good to the Cowboys in recent years.

Now if we can somehow turn this into success.

 

[OmerV]

Now if we can somehow turn this into success.

Yep - and more than just regular season success.

 

[KJJ]

We’ll find out after the 2018 season if any of these players were good signings. With veteran free agents you expect immediate dividends unlike the draft where it’s going to take a little time for young players to develop.

 

[Gameover]

I always take a wait and see approach

It beats the ........ and whinnying