How many more FA's will we sign?

[Stash]

Once again, it is not that they will be hard to replace. It is how fast and with what. Right now, to replace any of the three to an equal level is going to require a draft pick. There is no magical safety or cornerback on the market right now that will not only be better, but also play for the pittance they will be offered.

It sounds like you want to create a problem that can't have a solution. If they're not hard to replace, they're not hard to replace.

Given the fact that all of them, save Wilcox, were signed multiple times by this team, pretty high.

But suddenly, after a 13-3 season, you decide they are all just not good enough and you blow it up? That's not rational.

The simple matter is we couldn't and wouldn't spend this offseason unless it fit the budget. That's it.

They're practicing financial responsibility to be sure, and until we see the results, I won't criticize them for doing exactly what they said they would. And I would lament "losing" players from a defense that needed changes and upgrading, especially many of the names that we've complained about for years.

 

[Idgit]

That is all nice, but the question is who those bodies are and how will they be factored into the roster composition.

It is just as easy to take the lazy way out and sign nobody. Just didn't have good luck in free agency boys, bring on the draft. We can just nail that.

VFA doesn't work that way. There are deals representing good value every year late in free agency. The Bills signed Lorenzo Alexander for vet minimum in April last year, for example. He gave them 12.5 sacks and earned a probowl berth. LeGarrette Blount waiting around and then signed his low-ball offer from the Pats and had 1100 yards and 17 touchdowns. I know you've got your schtick and all, but there's still value out there.

 

[Alexander]

It sounds like you want to create a problem that can't have a solution. If they're not hard to replace, they're not hard to replace.

And that is different from ignoring the situation and minimalizing it down to just the fact the players weren't that good to begin with and anything is better?

Wish it were that easy, but it is not.

Talent acquisition is about constant evaluation and hopefully improvement.

Rarely do you see a team that is not going through massive organizational and staff changes (coaching/GM change) blow up an entire unit and start over, much less one coming off a 13-3 season. This was circumstance. And probably due in part to miscalculation of the market. They thought they could buy cheap and it didn't happen. Otherwise, they spent an awful amount of time paying lip service to the mantra keeping their own.

They're practicing financial responsibility to be sure, and until we see the results, I won't criticize them for doing exactly what they said they would. And I would lament "losing" players from a defense that needed changes and upgrading, especially many of the names that we've complained about for years.

The only thing they have done is stick to the ideology of living within their means. But like I said before, you can do that by being systematic and calculating.

I don't think either took place and they simply went with the ebb and flow. Now they are left in a place that I find it hard to believe they really wanted to be in.

 

[Idgit]

That's my expectation as well. Even if it's just "bodies" to fill out the roster, I expect them to sign a cornerback and a safety at some point.

We'll bring in someone like Josh McKown still. Yeah, probably a DB or two. A washed up name player who might now fill a role wouldn't surprise me, either. Someone like Jamaal Charles with a recognizable name but without much left in the tank that will get a couple threads hopping. Who knows. But we usually do pick over the bones in VFA fairly thoroughly when we have holes and there's value to be had. I see no reason to expect it to be different this season.

 

[Alexander]

I know you've got your schtick and all, but there's still value out there.

Name them then. I know you have your schtick too.

 

[Stash]

And that is different from ignoring the situation and minimalizing it down to just the fact the players weren't that good to begin with and anything is better?

Wish it were that easy, but it is not.

Talent acquisition is about constant evaluation and hopefully improvement.

Rarely do you see a team that is not going through massive organizational and staff changes (coaching/GM change) blow up an entire unit and start over, much less one coming off a 13-3 season. This was circumstance. And probably due in part to miscalculation of the market. They thought they could buy cheap and it didn't happen. Otherwise, they spent an awful amount of time paying lip service to the mantra keeping their own.

Or they had a number and a value on "status quo" and stayed with it? There's a very true saying "if nothing changes, nothing changes". If they keep the same players year after year, how can anyone expect the results to change?

The only thing they have done is stick to the ideology of living within their means. But like I said before, you can do that by being systematic and calculating.

I don't think either took place and they simply went with the ebb and flow. Now they are left in a place that I find it hard to believe they really wanted to be in.

I'll agree that I don't think they expect all of these secondary players to go, I think they expected to keep at least one, possibly two. But I prefer them sticking to their guns rather than panicking and overpaying known mediocrity for fear of change.

 

[Stash]

We'll bring in someone like Josh McKown still. Yeah, probably a DB or two. A washed up name player who might now fill a role wouldn't surprise me, either. Someone like Jamaal Charles with a recognizable name but without much left in the tank that will get a couple threads hopping. Who knows. But we usually do pick over the bones in VFA fairly thoroughly when we have holes and there's value to be had. I see no reason to expect it to be different this season.

I'm expecting a one year, roll of the dice on one of Flowers or Sam Shields if either still wants to play. Either comes with risk, but both were as good or better than the guys who just left and I think they serve the need for "bridge players" just fine.

 

[Alexander]

Or they had a number and a value on "status quo" and stayed with it? There's a very true saying "if nothing changes, nothing changes". If they keep the same players year after year, how can anyone expect the results to change?

If I were making the argument we made a grave mistake by not bringing them all back, this might make sense. I would hope you get that I am not.

Key point is pick and choose your battles, don't create additional ones while you are at it. Even bringing back one of the three would have made things much simpler.

 

[Stash]

If I were making the argument we made a grave mistake by not bringing them all back, this might make sense. I would hope you get that I am not.

Key point is pick and choose your battles, don't create additional ones while you are at it. Even bringing back one of the three would have made things much simpler.

And I do think that was part of the plan, but when other teams made offers higher than Dallas wanted to go, they declined to match.

The Claiborne deal in particular makes little sense to me. Does he honestly believe that playing one year in a new defense under the New York microscope for that sorry Jets team that's not going anywhere is a good idea? If so, maybe his Wonderlic score was too high?

 

[Alexander]

And I do think that was part of the plan, but when other teams made offers higher than Dallas wanted to go, they declined to match.

And why did they decline to match boys and girls?

The Claiborne deal in particular makes little sense to me. Does he honestly believe that playing one year in a new defense under the New York microscope for that sorry Jets team that's not going anywhere is a good idea? If so, maybe his Wonderlic score was too high?

If someone offered you $1.25M or more to do something that was not exactly in your best interest, would you? I won't judge any player for taking what they can get.

 

[Stash]

And why did they decline to match boys and girls?

Because they deemed the players to not be worth that amount.

If someone offered you $1.25M or more to do something that was not exactly in your best interest, would you? I won't judge any player for taking what they can get.

I think there's a bigger picture than simply $1.25 million for this year to consider.

 

[Idgit]

Name them then. I know you have your schtick too.

I named two examples from last season in the post you replied to, which was the point, unless you think this season's VFA period is unlike all the others for some reason.

As far as good players still on the market go for defense, there's still Zach Brown, Jonathan Hankins, Jared Ordrick can all play a role in Dallas. stash already mentioned Sam Shields or Brandon Flowers as stop-gap CB replacements.

Offensively, there are still several 2nd-tier TEs out there. Luke Willson was a guy I thought might draw some interest from us, because he can block, but it looks like SEA just re-upped him this morning. The point is, there are always players available at this point in FA. It makes you look silly to pretend it's not the case.

Cool to see you came across the 'this is fine meme.' For the record, I've said repeatedly that the team positioned itself poorly for FA this offseason going back to last season when they actually had the capital to do something about it. Also, we're talking about the state of FA in general here and not only as it applies to the Cowboys. The only point being that there are still players available for everybody so you're wrong to pretend that's not the case. Which means you're misusing your old meme, too.

 

[Alexander]

Because they deemed the players to not be worth that amount.



I think there's a bigger picture than simply $1.25 million for this year to consider.

So were they just not worth it or they just didn't fit into the long term plan? Which is it?

 

[Stash]

So were they just not worth it or they just didn't fit into the long term plan? Which is it?

It can only be one answer?

I'll flip it back to you, did you want to keep them long term or did you not want to keep them?

And under your same conditions, there's just one answer.

See how that reads?

 

[Alexander]

The point is, there are always players available at this point in FA. It makes you look silly to pretend it's not the case.

There are players I think would be good additions and could fill roles, you mentioned a few. I'd go after Chris Long right now. But I am not going to pretend that suddenly it is going to happen, much less preach to people that they are being unreasonable for not subscribing to my dream scenario viewpoint.

My argument specifically is geared towards the corners.

There is not a single one within reach that is better than what we let go. No, I am not going to indulge Revis or Sherman because it "could happen" because we know it won't.

 

[Idgit]

There are players I think would be good additions and could fill roles, you mentioned a few. I'd go after Chris Long right now. But I am not going to pretend that suddenly it is going to happen, much less preach to people that they are being unreasonable for not subscribing to my dream scenario viewpoint.

My argument specifically is geared towards the corners.

There is not a single one within reach that is better than what we let go. No, I am not going to indulge Revis or Sherman because it "could happen" because we know it won't.

I'd agree the corners are scraps at this point. I don't like any of them, though I could see us bringing in another vet for the hell of it. But we lost two corners, replaced one with the sort of vet we always back-fill with. That just means adding one in the draft and elevating Brown to the permanent starting role. That's not that big a hole to fill.

The bigger worry for me is that Scandrick did not look like Scandrick last season, and that players who dip at his age typically don't just jump back up to where they were before the next season. If he's dropping off, then we need two CBs to play a key role next year, and that's a much taller order.

 

[Alexander]

The bigger worry for me is that Scandrick did not look like Scandrick last season, and that players who dip at his age typically don't just jump back up to where they were before the next season. If he's dropping off, then we need two CBs to play a key role next year, and that's a much taller order.

Scandrick is a case that I can't figure out. He's due for $5M. That means starter money on Dallas' handy dandy pay chart.

 

[phildadon86]

It all depends on who will play for these...

To play for the Cowboys id take that just to wear the star for a day

 

[Idgit]

Scandrick is a case that I can't figure out. He's due for $5M. That means starter money on Dallas' handy dandy pay chart.

He really didn't look like himself a times last year. I know there was the injury thing, but there's always an injury thing. He's also 30, and a prickly dude. It's fine we brought in a boundary CB in Caroll to come in and move Scandrick into the slot. We've got that slot CB position backed up since Brown can play there, too. So really we just need to add another boundary CB with some speed and length to cover in case of injury to somebody. But if Scandrick really does drop off, we need an option to potentially pick up those snaps, too, or we're playing without a net again like we were last season before Mo came back. That can get ugly fast.