Signed by Cowboys Cowboys Sign FB Olawale

Whyjerry said:
I did clue you in to the actual snap count of the player. Perhaps you are a modern Rip Van Winkle - FBs are not what they used to be.
Click to expand...

And I clued you in to the fact that you have to have a competent NFL player out there for that 10.9 percent of the snaps. That you believe the team can find a competent NFL player around any corner is on you.
 
gimmesix said:
And I clued you in to the fact that you have to have a competent NFL player out there for that 10.9 percent of the snaps. That you believe the team can find a competent NFL player around any corner is on you.
Click to expand...

The Cowboys did precisely this when they lost Smith. They pulled a FB out of thin air in a minor trade.
 
cern said:
the Kellen moore makeover continues. I say this seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. We don't know what to expect but those in the FO and elsewhere obviously believe he's God's gift to Dallas! ;)

Honestly, I think our HC and Linehan short-changed the offense by not allowing him to be an active part of it.

I've seen him do various things in the past in both the running and passing game that speak very well of him.
 
Last edited:
gimmesix said:
We had to trade a draft pick to replace Smith, so you're OK with doing that each time, trading down a round to get a fullback when we could have just re-signed our own. And then there's no guarantee that you are going to find a fullback to trade for.

We had to fill the position with someone capable of being out there. The cost relative to the position is not high. We've got the position secured for the next three years. And frankly, if we use him better, Olawale can be a decent weapon for us from the spot.
Click to expand...

We traded a low round pick (a 5th) and got said FB and a 6th round pick back. We didn't actually lose a draft pick, just a little bit of value on the pick in the trade. So yeah, I'd have no problem with something like that. Late round picks are largely fungible and part luck anyway.

The reality here is that you are trying to make the acquisition of a FB something that is really tough to justify what is a peculiar deal when in reality, getting a FB to play the limited snaps we use him for really wouldn't be that hard.
 
gimmesix said:
ome of you would rather just throw a body out there thinking anybody can handle that low number of snaps when it just isn't true. Romo's injury history started because he had an incompetent fullback on the field. Olawale is far from being an incompetent fullback. He's better in pass protection than run blocking, but he's not a bad run blocker. He's also a good receiver and decent runner if we would actually use him in those roles.
Click to expand...

I wanted to upgrade that spot but its entirely possible that last year was just a down year for a guy that has been in the league a while, he did have some good seasons in Oakland.

Also fans will mostly remember that one terrible play when he dropped a sure TD pass, but the coaches are judging him off game film.

I wanted a better guy at FB, but this isn't a big deal either way. We could also draft a FB late and move Olawale for a conditional pick if that guy pans out.
 
Sydla said:
The Cowboys did precisely this when they lost Smith. They pulled a FB out of thin air in a minor trade.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. They traded for a player who was a starter for the team that signed an FA (who happened to be our fullback). There are 32 starting fullbacks in the league (assuming every team has one, but I'd have to look at rosters to make sure of that). There are relatively no backup fullbacks and probably very few kept on practice squads.
 
Sydla said:
We traded a low round pick (a 5th) and got said FB and a 6th round pick back. We didn't actually lose a draft pick, just a little bit of value on the pick in the trade. So yeah, I'd have no problem with something like that. Late round picks are largely fungible and part luck anyway.

The reality here is that you are trying to make the acquisition of a FB something that is really tough to justify what is a peculiar deal when in reality, getting a FB to play the limited snaps we use him for really wouldn't be that hard.
Click to expand...

It's tough for you to justify. I can do it fairly easily.

1) Dallas plays a fullback even if it is sparingly.

2) Dallas likes for its fullback to be a core special-teammer.

3) Olawale is a proven starter.

4) The vet minimum for his number of years in the league is $915,000. (This includes players who are strictly backups/special-teammers.)

5) To secure the position for three years, the Cowboys paid twice the vet minimum with some of the money guaranteed.

It's silly to think just because he plays a limited number of snaps that you don't have to pay him to do it. It's either that or pick another competent fullback on the list and do the same.

If all of the other fullbacks considered to be in his class as a fullback (among the top four) get vet minimum deals for a similar number of years, then we can talk about it being a bad move.
 
He's now the 2nd highest paid FB in the NFL, FWIW.
 
Again, just like the announcement of the Futures contract for the scrub TE. It's the timing of it all. Tone deaf, narcissistic front office - "hey look what we just did" !
When everybody is losing their ever-loving minds in Cowboy land.
Dumb is as Dumb does.
 
Did they teach that guy how to catch a ball yet? At least stop throwing it to him until he does. That's my only beef with him.
 
4 plays a game times 16 = 64 plays a year, multiply that times 3, 194 then divide that by 5.4 million and thats a little over $28,000 a play. Not too shabby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 25 more.
Total: 3,203 (members: 125, guests: 3,078)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,766
Messages
13,830,276
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top