Signed by Cowboys *** Cowboys extend Lamb for 4 years / $136 million ***

Floatyworm

The Labeled One
Messages
21,869
Reaction score
19,804
He just wants to take care of his family.
Pfffff...Totally expecting he joins the Zeke 6 game suspension club @ some point. Or he's the next Terrence Williams on a bicycle @ midnight. What else can a WR do to join the 88 club?

Mike.....nailed for blow and hookers
Dez....lockeroom meltdown...
CD....??? I can see him eating himself out of the league in 3 years. Or we will try and make him a TE.
 

Retro88

Well-Known Member
Messages
421
Reaction score
409
What proof do you have that he was going to sign an extension last offseason? The plan for CeeDee is the plan all star Cowboys players do. Force the the Joneses to overpay.
He was eligible to be extended. That's why I said what I did. As far as proof there's no proof either way. Words are just words but there was A number.

But this is all off track bc once again I was speaking of the contract he signed today....could have been done much earlier.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
59,169
Reaction score
36,791
what a crock of crap. He chose to take a ten year deal because it was enough for him. Just two years later his deal was like the fourth highest for a tackle; and in two more he was barely top ten. THAT is history no matter what you want to think. and claiming that it was not foreseen that salaries would continue to go up as the cap did is beyond idiocy.
You don’t know what he was thinking. Starting around 2016 he began having injury issues causing him to miss multiple games every season. Hard for any player to ask for more money when they’re struggling to stay in the field due to injury. The Cowboys catered to him in every way to try and keep him healthy, even having him miss practices. A couple years ago, Jerry said he moved on from some players because of their lack of availability. Not about to waste all day arguing this.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
59,169
Reaction score
36,791
THE ORIGINAL rule decreed once you had control of the ball and either two feet or another part of your body touched the ground it was a catch.

I think one change that came early was about being shoved out of bounds so that you could not touch the ground; if in the judgement of the official you had control it was still a catch. That was a long time ago but I think it came in the nineties. There were only minor tweaks like that now and then until the idiots decided to screw things up.
No, the original rule was that you had to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. Even if the receiver had control of the ball and a body part touched the ground, if the ball came free after contacting the ground, it was a no catch. Not about to spend all day arguing that damn rule again.
 

triplets_93

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,413
Reaction score
6,027
if you have to ask lol

but last year's top 2.. but for his career he's been landing in the top five for a few years now... do you remember when everyone said when we lost Amari cooper he won't be the same player? umm he was BETTER a true 1, not this hes lucky to be 2 at best but needs protection..no that Sanders in Philly LOL

I just remember CD dropping some balls that he shouldn't in crucial games.
The Stat of Winning... Is Everything!!
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,334
Reaction score
4,531
Pfffff...Totally expecting he joins the Zeke 6 game suspension club @ some point. Or he's the next Terrence Williams on a bicycle @ midnight. What else can a WR do to join the 88 club?

Mike.....nailed for blow and hookers
Dez....lockeroom meltdown...
CD....??? I can see him eating himself out of the league in 3 years. Or we will try and make him a TE.
so tell me what terrible thing the original 88 Drew Pearson did?
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,334
Reaction score
4,531
No, the original rule was that you had to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. Even if the receiver had control of the ball and a body part touched the ground, if the ball came free after contacting the ground, it was a no catch. Not about to spend all day arguing that damn rule again.
Well I saw many times where a receiver was laying on the ground and the ball was torn from him it was not ruled a fumble but a catch and down. You do not know the rules as well as you think.



If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble.
 

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,539
Reaction score
20,146
Cee Dee's contract is like we just ate a massive burrito with rancid beef and now we're just waiting for what we all know will come next when the announce Dak.
I'm interested to see how they structure Dak's contract. They don't need the extra cap space.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
59,169
Reaction score
36,791
Well I saw many times where a receiver was laying on the ground and the ball was torn from him it was not ruled a fumble but a catch and down. You do not know the rules as well as you think.



If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble.
I’ve heard the old rule explained a zillion times by NFL officials and we went through it a zillion times after the Dez catch. If the player is laying on the ground and the ball is torn free, then they were down by contact. We’re not talking about a fumble here or a ball being ripped away by a defender, we’re talking about what constituted a completed catch under the old rule. The old rule became so controversial because even if the receiver caught the ball and made what appeared to be a football move, if they lost the ball as they were going to the ground or contacting the ground, it was ruled a no catch. This is what happened to Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant. Both receivers did everything right except hang onto the ball when they contacted the ground. It was an insane rule that angered many, which is why it was changed.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
59,169
Reaction score
36,791
if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble.
To be clear, we’re not talking about a fumble. Like I said we’re talking about what constituted a completed catch under the old rule. The ground has never been able to cause a fumble under any rule. The old rule forced the receiver to maintain control of the football, all the way through the contact of the ground. If they lost possession of the ball at any point before they contacted the ground or after they contacted the ground, it was ruled a no catch. It was a ridiculous rule.
 
Top