DMN: Safety Roy Williams wants Dallas Cowboys to act today

[Cowboys22]

Most likely the trade will be for a draft pick. We're probably asking for a 5th and being offered a 7th. I suspect we'll settle on a 6th round pick and it may be in 2010.

 

[EveryoneElse]

Most likely the trade will be for a draft pick. We're probably asking for a 5th and being offered a 7th. I suspect we'll settle on a 6th round pick and it may be in 2010.

Where did you hear this?

 

[Cowboys22]

Where did you hear this?

Its merely my opinion. Player for player trades are rare and I think RW's value is relatively low at this point. It certainly could be for another player but I just doubt it. If it is, it won't be for anyone worth anything.

 

[EveryoneElse]

Its merely my opinion. Player for player trades are rare and I think RW's value is relatively low at this point. It certainly could be for another player but I just doubt it. If it is, it won't be for anyone worth anything.

Gotcha. I thought maybe details were coming out.

I honestly would take anything. Give us a 7th in 2020, I'll take it.

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes, you REALLY have to give an example of what you claimed.

But we both know you won't.

Adam, I have mentioned the Roy can't cover argument over and over as a one example. Stop pretending you got no answer there. I have over and over for the last two months cited your myth thread as an example of you setting up straw men (e.g., asking easy questions) and then focusing on arguing against those ridiculous claims. You know that.

So you're all bent out of shape because I didn't answer a question I was never asked? Unreal.

Again, make up your own idiotic interpretation. The issue was you pose questions and make claims that are easy to strike down - if you are going to set out to answer your own questions then stop making them so simple and obvious.

When aren't we looking for better players?

The issue is looking for better players at SS. The answer to your very general question is when we have a player at a position who is good enough to make us focus elsewhere. We aren't talking about replacing Ware or Ratliff or James or many of our other players.

Under what specific circumstances? Like I said, there are a million different scenarios, each with a different answer on the scale of "should" or "shouldn't."

The scenario right now given his current salary. Answer that and we'll be done.

 

[dallasfaniac]

The scenario right now given his current salary. Answer that and we'll be done.

Does that include Davis starting?

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam, I have mentioned the Roy can't cover argument over and over as a one example.

So where exactly in the "Roy can't cover argument" did I, as you claim, "go into a shell of semantics and deflection"?

I have over and over for the last two months cited your myth thread as an example of you setting up straw men (e.g., asking easy questions) and then focusing on arguing against those ridiculous claims. You know that.

And every time, you've been wrong.

The issue was you pose questions and make claims that are easy to strike down - if you are going to set out to answer your own questions then stop making them so simple and obvious.

Again, they're not MY questions. In this thread, I was not the one who claimed Roy played well only when Darren Woodson was on the field, yet you attacked me for proving that to be false.

Time and again, you've shown to have a problem whenever the truth is pointed out to someone who has stated an untruth. Then you claim that I made up the untruth just to strike it down.

The scenario right now given his current salary.

Right now, today, no, I do not think we should cut Roy, unless it's to do him a favor. There is no other reason to cut him today. We don't need the cap room today, and we have no other real options at that position on our current roster. There are too many other options that are at least theoretically still possible, so I'd hang onto him.

 

[ddh33]

I know the Falcons were a team that wanted a big, strong stafety. Dimitroff mentioned wanting someone who goes about 225 lbs. or so to replace Lawyer Milloy. I could see that being a pretty good fit.

 

[AbeBeta]

So where exactly in the "Roy can't cover argument" did I, as you claim, "go into a shell of semantics and deflection"?

Again Adam -- my example of your the focus on the specific term "can't cover" - it show the types of questions you prefer, ones that produce an obvious outcome. Every DB in this league can cover someone. The statement is obvious hyperbole and your focus on it deflects from a real discussion of Roy's coverage skills.

Again, they're not MY questions. In this thread, I was not the one who claimed Roy played well only when Darren Woodson was on the field, yet you attacked me for proving that to be false.

Time and again, you've shown to have a problem whenever the truth is pointed out to someone who has stated an untruth. Then you claim that I made up the untruth just to strike it down.

No, the problem is your rigid interpretation. Yes, Roy has played well since Woody left. But he hasn't played well recently. It is like you flat out refuse to understand why people don't like Roy and try to convince them that their hyperbolic statements are wrong.

Ya see, the thing with hyperbole is that even the person saying it (or typing it) knows it isn't 100% true. So whether the hyperbolic statement is true or not is completely irrelevant.


I'm taking Job's lead and saying I'm through arguing with you on these issues. If you want to have a REAL discussion of what to do with Roy that follows off your comment below, fine. If not, go on with your rigid self.

Right now, today, no, I do not think we should cut Roy, unless it's to do him a favor. There is no other reason to cut him today. We don't need the cap room today, and we have no other real options at that position on our current roster. There are too many other options that are at least theoretically still possible, so I'd hang onto him.

Now here at least is some nuanced approach, albeit one that focuses too much on the cap ramifications. That cap saving are irrelevant as you point out we don't need the space. Some of the real issues are a) can Roy reverse the downward spiral of his career?, b) will Roy's attitude be one that benefits the team or will he pout if, for example, his role is limited? c) will Roy ever figure out how to schedule a family vacation that does not conflict with OTAs?, and d) will we have to read another spate of stories about how he has 'recommitted' himself?

 

[peplaw06]

Again Adam -- my example of your the focus on the specific term "can't cover" - it show the types of questions you prefer, ones that produce an obvious outcome. Every DB in this league can cover someone. The statement is obvious hyperbole and your focus on it deflects from a real discussion of Roy's coverage skills.

No, the problem is your rigid interpretation. Yes, Roy has played well since Woody left. But he hasn't played well recently. It is like you flat out refuse to understand why people don't like Roy and try to convince them that their hyperbolic statements are wrong.

Ya see, the thing with hyperbole is that even the person saying it (or typing it) knows it isn't 100% true. So whether the hyperbolic statement is true or not is completely irrelevant.

I'm taking Job's lead and saying I'm through arguing with you on these issues. If you want to have a REAL discussion of what to do with Roy that follows off your comment below, fine. If not, go on with your rigid self.

Abe you're essentially saying that Adam doesn't provide or engage in substantive discussion when it comes to Roy.

The question I have for you then -- and I'm not saying I agree with you -- is why do you let it get so under your skin, if there's nothing of substance being discussed? How can you go on arguing with him for pages and pages? If he's setting up straw men arguments, then why engage? You'd think it'd be too easy to leave alone if all he's doing is eradicating straw men.

 

[AbeBeta]

Abe you're essentially saying that Adam doesn't provide or engage in substantive discussion when it comes to Roy.

The question I have for you then -- and I'm not saying I agree with you -- is why do you let it get so under your skin, if there's nothing of substance being discussed? How can you go on arguing with him for pages and pages? If he's setting up straw men arguments, then why engage? You'd think it'd be too easy to leave alone if all he's doing is eradicating straw men.

I asked myself the same question which is why I disengaged in my previous post

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

I asked myself the same question which is why I disengaged in my previous post

Is this TO and Romo having it out on the forum? You guys are killing me with the back and forth. Don't let up Abe or Adam. I need the laugh right about now.