Twitter: Cowboys working on a deal to sign veteran guard

[Zekeats]

I love the signing and romo will love it too.....if free holds up we will be contenders now

 

[Idgit]

We should have signed Carl Nicks or Ben Grubbs last year and drafted David DeCastro after a trade down, instead of signing Carr to a megadeal and trading up for Claiborne.

Corner could have been addressed more than sufficiently with the money with gave Livings and Bernadeau with solid vets like Tracy Porter, and we could have used our 2nd round pick that we gave up for Claiborne on a CB like Casey Heyward, who had a better rookie year than Claiborne actually.

Claiborne and Carr are good players but the front office (1) overpaid for both of them even assuming that as CBs, they were worth the price of admission, and (2) the front office still doesn't get that building up front is more important than building in the back, so any time you have a decision to make between fixing a glaring hole on a line versus fixing a glaring hole in a skill position (other than QB), you should go line.

Blech. I'd have hated that. Put me in the camp that would address the positions that are most likely to keep you from winning games when you don't have capable starters in them with FA, and filling holes that are easier for fill with value picks (Leary) and stopgaps.

 

[BAT]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora4m
Dallas Cowboys finalizing a deal with G Brandon Moore. Excellent signing at a need position.

Details

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora3m
Cowboys had also been exploring G Brian Waters, who did not play last season. Moore seen by many evaluators as best OL available

Details

Cowboys should bring Waters in too. 2 proven vets besides Tyron and Free would improve both.

 

[BAT]

If true, this concerns me. Brian Waters at 36 over Brandon Moore at 33. Seems like Dallas wants the cheaper option. Hopefully this is not true.

Waters may be older, but he was the better player.

 

[jnday]

We should have signed Carl Nicks or Ben Grubbs last year and drafted David DeCastro after a trade down, instead of signing Carr to a megadeal and trading up for Claiborne.

Corner could have been addressed more than sufficiently with the money with gave Livings and Bernadeau with solid vets like Tracy Porter, and we could have used our 2nd round pick that we gave up for Claiborne on a CB like Casey Heyward, who had a better rookie year than Claiborne actually.

Claiborne and Carr are good players but the front office (1) overpaid for both of them even assuming that as CBs, they were worth the price of admission, and (2) the front office still doesn't get that building up front is more important than building in the back, so any time you have a decision to make between fixing a glaring hole on a line versus fixing a glaring hole in a skill position (other than QB), you should go line.

I disagree with signing any high price free agents, but I certainly think that the line could have been fixed a long time ago if smarter drafting had taken place. I didn't agree with the Mo trade up, but there has been several other draft prospects that could have prevented this mess. It is a damn shame that it took this long and it still will have problems. One preseason game hasn't proven anything. I remember Costa, Nagy etc looking very good during preseason a couple of years ago only to fall apart during the season. It least the line looks better on paper though.

 

[acer941]

We should have signed Carl Nicks or Ben Grubbs last year and drafted David DeCastro after a trade down, instead of signing Carr to a megadeal and trading up for Claiborne.

Corner could have been addressed more than sufficiently with the money with gave Livings and Bernadeau with solid vets like Tracy Porter, and we could have used our 2nd round pick that we gave up for Claiborne on a CB like Casey Heyward, who had a better rookie year than Claiborne actually.

Claiborne and Carr are good players but the front office (1) overpaid for both of them even assuming that as CBs, they were worth the price of admission, and (2) the front office still doesn't get that building up front is more important than building in the back, so any time you have a decision to make between fixing a glaring hole on a line versus fixing a glaring hole in a skill position (other than QB), you should go line.

Blah, blah, blah.... It's over with. What's in the past is in the past. All we can hope for now is that those draft picks pan out and we get the better end. . .

 

[Vintage]

If only it were 4/5ths

5/5 would be even better!!!

 

[gmoney112]

Blah, blah, blah.... It's over with. What's in the past is in the past. All we can hope for now is that those draft picks pan out and we get the better end. . .

In hindsight it was a brilliant move for the future. That guy just doesn't get it. Newman was getting paid far too much and Jenkins was in the last year of his contract.

You don't sign Carr and you don't draft Claiborne but you sign Grubbs and draft DeCastro. So you're trotting out who at CB? Jenkins? Assuming he was resigned, of course. And Orlando Scandrick as your #2? With our safeties we'd probably set a league record in passing yards given up.

Instead we hedged and signed Carr, who is/was a formidable corner and also young. He was like 25 when we signed him. We also drafted the best CB in his draft class in Claiborne so we are set at the CB position until Carr's contract is up, which is 4 years from now? Every team in the NFL would love to be in our position.

I was also one of the first advocating for Moore in an offseason mock draft so I approve of this signing.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

We should have signed Carl Nicks or Ben Grubbs last year and drafted David DeCastro after a trade down, instead of signing Carr to a megadeal and trading up for Claiborne.

Corner could have been addressed more than sufficiently with the money with gave Livings and Bernadeau with solid vets like Tracy Porter, and we could have used our 2nd round pick that we gave up for Claiborne on a CB like Casey Heyward, who had a better rookie year than Claiborne actually.

Claiborne and Carr are good players but the front office (1) overpaid for both of them even assuming that as CBs, they were worth the price of admission, and (2) the front office still doesn't get that building up front is more important than building in the back, so any time you have a decision to make between fixing a glaring hole on a line versus fixing a glaring hole in a skill position (other than QB), you should go line.

Ugh, I absolutely hate these hindsight 20/20 posts. So wait, the Cowboys should have known Decastro would fall to them when they traded up? Wait, they should have known they could have traded DOWN and still landed Decastro? Oh wait, they should have known Heyward would have had a better season than Claiborne???

Oh, and why don't we allow Decastro to actually play in more than a couple games before crowning him?

What you described sounds terrible and I much, much prefer what the Cowboys did. We now have great depth in virtually every position except safety (and we may have depth there too if Wilcox and MJ improve)

 

[mschmidt64]

Blech. I'd have hated that. Put me in the camp that would address the positions that are most likely to keep you from winning games when you don't have capable starters in them with FA, and filling holes that are easier for fill with value picks (Leary) and stopgaps.

You can't make a credible argument that Nicks/Grubbs, DeCastro, Porter and Heyward would have been worse than Livings, Bernadeau, Carr and Claiborne.

 

[mschmidt64]

Blah, blah, blah.... It's over with. What's in the past is in the past.

Well, someone asked what we "should have done." So I was answering them.

If someone asks what we should have done, I'm not going to say "Exactly what we did!"

 

[mschmidt64]

Ugh, I absolutely hate these hindsight 20/20 posts.

It's not hindsight.

I was against signing Carr to that deal from when it happened and I very heavily advocated Nicks followed by Grubbs. I also advocated DeCastro all offseason and preferred that to the trade up for Claiborne.

So wait, the Cowboys should have known Decastro would fall to them when they traded up? Wait, they should have known they could have traded DOWN and still landed Decastro? Oh wait, they should have known Heyward would have had a better season than Claiborne???

They should have known that spending money on an All-Pro level guard and drafting along their lines, and finding value DBs later, is almost always the more effective strategy. And low and behold, there was a path for them to do that which would have made this team better today than it otherwise is.

Oh, and why don't we allow Decastro to actually play in more than a couple games before crowning him?

Why don't we let Claiborne play in more than 1 season before crowning him? No one is crowning anyone. Saying that's the path I would have taken and where the players are respectively right now, we'd be better off. We also could have signed a CB this offseason.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

It's not hindsight.

I was against signing Carr to that deal from when it happened and I very heavily advocated Nicks followed by Grubbs. I also advocated DeCastro all offseason and preferred that to the trade up for Claiborne.



They should have known that spending money on an All-Pro level guard and drafting along their lines, and finding value DBs later, is almost always the more effective strategy. And low and behold, there was a path for them to do that which would have made this team better today than it otherwise is.



Why don't we let Claiborne play in more than 1 season before crowning him? No one is crowning anyone. Saying that's the path I would have taken and where the players are respectively right now, we'd be better off. We also could have signed a CB this offseason.

To be fair, your path sounds pretty terrible. I'd much, much prefer Carr and Claiborne to anything you've suggested, and I'd also prefer our current interior to any scenario you've proffered.

 

[mschmidt64]

To be fair, your path sounds pretty terrible. I'd much, much prefer Carr and Claiborne to anything you've suggested, and I'd also prefer our current interior to any scenario you've proffered.

You'd prefer Leary and Moore over Nicks and DeCastro?

Conversation over. Should have remembered what board I'm at, sorry.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

You'd prefer Leary and Moore over Nicks and DeCastro?

Conversation over. Should have remembered what board I'm at, sorry.

Are you assuming that, had we drafted DeCastro, we would have drafted Frederick? You mean you're assuming we would spend three first round picks in three years on the oline? Because that's a heckuva assumption.

 

[burmafrd]

Blech. I'd have hated that. Put me in the camp that would address the positions that are most likely to keep you from winning games when you don't have capable starters in them with FA, and filling holes that are easier for fill with value picks (Leary) and stopgaps.

yeah and that has worked so well for us

 

[tupperware]

Ugh, I absolutely hate these hindsight 20/20 posts. So wait, the Cowboys should have known Decastro would fall to them when they traded up? Wait, they should have known they could have traded DOWN and still landed Decastro? Oh wait, they should have known Heyward would have had a better season than Claiborne???

Oh, and why don't we allow Decastro to actually play in more than a couple games before crowning him?

What you described sounds terrible and I much, much prefer what the Cowboys did. We now have great depth in virtually every position except safety (and we may have depth there too if Wilcox and MJ improve)

He's allowed to crown Decastro as long as you're crowning Leary.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/anyo...e-ronald-leary-bandwagon.260727/#post-5129078

 

[TheRomoSexual]

He's allowed to crown Decastro as long as you're crowning Leary.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/anyo...e-ronald-leary-bandwagon.260727/#post-5129078

Um, ok? Your point?

 

[tupperware]

My point is that it's a little hard to take what you say seriously when you can crown whoever you want as long as they're a Cowboy, but it's a problem if someone does it for a player not on our team.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

My point is that it's a little hard to take what you say seriously when you can crown whoever you want as long as they're a Cowboy, but it's a problem if someone does it for a player not on our team.

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to be excited about a Cowboy who has shown potential v. a player for another team who has shown potential.

Oh, and by the way, being on a player's "bandwagon" does not mean I'm "crowning" that player. But hey, please continue to defend the guy who thinks we should have spent three first rounders in three years on the line AND should have signed Nicks. Certainly a person one can take "seriously."