Backup for Pollard

blueblood70 · Aug 21, 2019

first of all they arent handing the keys to the car to a rookie right out of the gate.. IF Zeke isnt there game 1 MORRIS will start,,period..Pollard will back him up and do the muti use tool gadget guy thing..once he proves he can run against real defense game planning and using disguised schemes, he will NOT STSART..i promise toy uthat..

if for some reason Morris didnt make the squad Djax would start.. im telling you right now they wont throw a rookie right into the fire with no proven background..

Im betting Zeke will be back but who really knows..

McKDaddy · Aug 21, 2019

Jackson
Morris

BTW - happy & surprised to see so many thinking that Jackson deserves a chance to show what he can or can't do.

Melonfeud · Aug 21, 2019

funkytown said:
Not sure we saw anything special with Rod. He was more Jaylon's brother than anything else. Glad we moved on from him with Pollard. But with this Zeke situation we possibly need a backup for Pollard.

Ya well the N.Y. Gnats are fixing to force feed us a heapin' helpin' of our former& their current #45,,, he's about 3.5 years older than his little brother, our #54 of "PAYDAY" fame,,, $100 sez' big bro bowls over his little brother if given half a chance

funkytown · Aug 21, 2019

Melonfeud said:
Ya well the N.Y. Gnats are fixing to force feed us a heapin' helpin' of our former& their current #45,,, he's about 3.5 years older than his little brother, our #54 of "PAYDAY" fame,,, $100 sez' big bro bowls over his little brother if given half a chance

Lets hope he gets about 15 chances per game. That would mean Barkley is unavailable! Don't want him to get hurt. Just don't want him on the field against us!

reddyuta · Aug 21, 2019

i dont like any of these guys(even alfred morris),i am in favor of making a trade if Zeke is out for extended time

Melonfeud · Aug 21, 2019

funkytown said:
Lets hope he gets about 15 chances per game. That would mean Barkley is unavailable! Don't want him to get hurt. Just don't want him on the field against us!

pretty sure the elder Brother Smith is only gonna be needing that of the singular opportunity,,, just sayin' :lmao:

funkytown · Aug 21, 2019

reddyuta said:
i dont like any of these guys(even alfred morris),i am in favor of making a trade if Zeke is out for extended time

One guy i'd look at for trade, Devontae Booker from the Broncos. 4th rounder from a few years back.

They have:
Phillip Lindsey
Royce Freeman
Theo Riddick.

McKDaddy · Aug 21, 2019

blueblood70 said:
IF Zeke isnt there game 1 MORRIS will start,,period..Pollard will back him up and do the muti use tool gadget guy thing

don't disagree with your logic but in that scenario I believe Pollard will be the focal point of the offense regardless of how many places he lines up or whether he got the "start".

dogberry · Aug 21, 2019

Just looked it up.

The Patriots spend more than the Cowboys at RB.

I incorrectly assumed otherwise.

KingintheNorth · Aug 21, 2019

xwalker said:
NFL contracts are like regular people that have jobs with base salary plus a bonus structure.

The guaranteed portion of NFL contracts are the equivalent of "base salary" and the addition money above guaranteed is the bonus structure.

It they don't perform, then the get cut and don't get the remaining bonus money.

Except they are not.

The signing bonuses are "bonuses" and the base salary is "salary"

We cant just change the definitions of words to fit our agendas.

A player under a 4-year contract can not go negotiate a higher contract with another team, because he is under contract.

A team can negotiate with a player's potential replacement and then cut him at any time under that 4-year deal, and the player is not owed anything (unless they had guaranteed money left).

The player is expected to "honor" his contract, even if he feels (rightly or wrongly) he has outperformed the original deal.

The team does not have to "honor" the contract if they feel the player has under-performed the original deal.

You don't really have this issue in the NBA or MLB because player contracts are guaranteed, and MLB uses an independent arbitrator to make rulings on players thinking they deserve more money.

Melonfeud · Aug 21, 2019

KingintheNorth said:
Except they are not.

The signing bonuses are "bonuses" and the base salary is "salary"

We cant just change the definitions of words to fit our agendas.

A player under a 4-year contract can not go negotiate a higher contract with another team, because he is under contract.

A team can negotiate with a player's potential replacement and then cut him at any time under that 4-year deal, and the player is not owed anything (unless they had guaranteed money left).

The player is expected to "honor" his contract, even if he feels (rightly or wrongly) he has outperformed the original deal.

The team does not have to "honor" the contract if they feel the player has under-performed the original deal.

You don't really have this issue in the NBA or MLB because player contracts are guaranteed, and MLB uses an independent arbitrator to make rulings on players thinking they deserve more money.

Honest ( no B.S. ) question I'd like to get your esteemed & valued take on,as I'm of the understanding you are heavily involved in this, our passion, the game of Football& I possibly recall your mentioning as to being a COACH of the game in some capacity?
Well,Chris, reading your above post ( that I pulled the quote on) really got me to pondering as to just what YOU would consider to be the viable ,negative monetary impacted cost breakdown per fumble,Interception ,sack for loss(q.b.) or tackled for loss? (r.b.) say for either position that a player is contracted to fulfill at
( ,,,er,,, for E-Z math purposes) say, a cool 20 million dollars per season? What amount
( if any) would you deem equitable per them doing
( not what the agreed upon $20 mil) that their receiving in good faith for be leveled at? ,a $100 thou per interception? A 1/4 mil per fumble?,,,as it was the very reading of your post the spawned this (albeit) abstract question.

xwalker · Aug 21, 2019

KingintheNorth said:
Except they are not.

The signing bonuses are "bonuses" and the base salary is "salary"

We cant just change the definitions of words to fit our agendas.

A player under a 4-year contract can not go negotiate a higher contract with another team, because he is under contract.

A team can negotiate with a player's potential replacement and then cut him at any time under that 4-year deal, and the player is not owed anything (unless they had guaranteed money left).

The player is expected to "honor" his contract, even if he feels (rightly or wrongly) he has outperformed the original deal.

The team does not have to "honor" the contract if they feel the player has under-performed the original deal.

You don't really have this issue in the NBA or MLB because player contracts are guaranteed, and MLB uses an independent arbitrator to make rulings on players thinking they deserve more money.

You are confusing common terms and emotional meanings of words with legal definitions of words.

Example:
Company A: Annual Compensation = Salary + Commissions.
Company B: Salary = Fixed pay + Variable Pay (commissions).

The example is from real companies I've worked with.

One defined your total annual pay as Salary while the other defined total annual pay as Annual Compensation with Salary as a component of the total.

The reason legal contracts are long and wordy is because they definite the meanings of terms or reference other documents that define the meanings.

For the NFL that is a combination of the contract and the CBA.

The true meaning of contracts is the end result of the contract.
- The end result of NFL contracts is that if a player is cut, he gets the guaranteed money in the contract.

Apple could hire a contract employee and the end result would be that if Apple terminated the employee, the employee gets any money coming to him as defined by the contract.

The end result would be the same as with an NFL player but the terms used in the contracts would likely be much different.

MizzouCowboy4 · Aug 21, 2019

Zeke doing this is not a total shocker. Guy was a jackwagon in high school and college tbh

charron · Aug 21, 2019

I'm only keeping either weber or jackson while zeke holds out and when that is done its back to the P.S. for one of them. 3 rb's seems too much for a system that primarily only uses 1 guy.

xwalker · Aug 21, 2019

blueblood70 said:
first of all they arent handing the keys to the car to a rookie right out of the gate.. IF Zeke isnt there game 1 MORRIS will start,,period..Pollard will back him up and do the muti use tool gadget guy thing..once he proves he can run against real defense game planning and using disguised schemes, he will NOT STSART..i promise toy uthat..

if for some reason Morris didnt make the squad Djax would start.. im telling you right now they wont throw a rookie right into the fire with no proven background..

Im betting Zeke will be back but who really knows..

They handed the keys to Dak and Zeke as rookies...

xwalker · Aug 21, 2019

charron said:
I'm only keeping either weber or jackson while zeke holds out and when that is done its back to the P.S. for one of them. 3 rb's seems too much for a system that primarily only uses 1 guy.

Pollard can be on the field with Zeke.

He played more of his snaps in college with another RB on the field.

charron · Aug 21, 2019

xwalker said:
Pollard can be on the field with Zeke.

He played more of his snaps in college with another RB on the field.

Whatever Moore wants to do is cool but i'm tired of hearing about a backup RB/FB being so good but only get a few snaps at offense.

Alexander · Aug 21, 2019

I don't think there is a lot of mystery here. Pollard, Morris and Jackson. Jackson played the most snaps on special teams so he is pretty close to a lock unless Chunn does a little more on teams. Both seem to be competing for that particular role moreso than being much of an offensive factor.

buybuydandavis · Aug 21, 2019

quickccc said:
When (not if) zeke returns, Morris (Alf) should be immediately cut. that's just a waste of a roster spot. they can talk about his vision, but he doesn't have the burst to get to the openings and edges
I never bought this we wanted to keep him after he left in FA, . lol he was out there available forever at one time, he never signed up with anyone.
they could have re-signed him if they wanted to, but they wanted more burst,, big chunk, big play splash as a RB. Morris doesn't offer you that.

its very important to have a runner that has the necessary burst and run vision to be able to make things happen on his own when there's a stalemate in the trenches
Morris may have the feel and vision, but his burst cannot get him to where he needs to be quickly, he's pedestrian, a plodder.

and I would hate to see a valuable player elsewhere released in the final roster cut down.. just for the sake of Alfred Morris, who we know he's not going to last very long.

Maybe Morris doesn't make final cuts, but is cut and brought back for week 2 to save the roster spot and avoid paying him for the full season.

They did that with some other vet not too long ago.

Yeah, and don't keep him on the roster if Zeke is back. Pollard can take snaps from tailback to spell Zeke.

Pollard at TB, Austin at jet sweep makes the warp speed version of our run game. I'd like to see what that looks like.

buybuydandavis · Aug 21, 2019

cowboyec said:
if 21 remains a no-show....Ive got Alf and Weber backing up Tony P.

I think just one. Probably Alf.

Backup for Pollard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Copy!,,, er,,,I guess,,,ah,,,maybe.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Copy!,,, er,,,I guess,,,ah,,,maybe.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chris in Arizona

I Copy!,,, er,,,I guess,,,ah,,,maybe.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

What's it going to be then, eh?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member