It's Been Speculated before crayton for NT Rogers

[mperfection]

...on this board before that a trade between Dallas and Cleveland could be a possibility. Question is: Would Crayton for Shaun Rogers be a straight up trade or would Cleveland want more?

Personally, I think that Rogers could be a good back up for Ratliff. Rogers gets winded too much to play 40+ snaps a game as a starter, plus he won't command an outrageous contract at this point in his career. He could play back up for us for another 2-3 years, be much fresher (and when he's fresh he is virtually unstoppable), and would probably enjoy coming back to his alma mater to play for a contender.

Crayton would add valuable veteran experience for a weak Cleveland WR corps. The only thing better than a trade like this would be for Cleveland to release Rogers after June 1 and we quickly scoop him up. Even with his pending 2-game suspension (Shaun has never ran afoul of the law before and should be given some slack in this latest event) he would be worth the signing. We KNOW that Shaun is tiring of Cleveland and I think the feelings are becoming mutual.

Like it or not, this would be a legitimate trade for both teams.

 

[hra8700]

Why exactly would we want that contract for a backup NT?

 

[Jon88]

Rogers is an idiot and he doesn't need to be on the team.

 

[StylisticS]

ahhh..just say NO to that speculation.

 

[Stash]

From a 'connect-the-dots' perspective, it might make sense, but Rogers has never been the type of player the Cowboys are currently looking for - he's been a career underachiever.

You'd probably have just as slim a chance of the team trading for Albert Haynesworth.

 

[THUMPER]

From a 'connect-the-dots' perspective, it might make sense, but Rogers has never been the type of player the Cowboys are currently looking for - he's been a career underachiever.

You'd probably have just as slim a chance of the team trading for Albert Haynesworth.

A 3-time Pro-Bowl player a "career underachiever"?

He should have been a Cowboy in 2001 when we passed on him to take S Tony Dixon. I'd certainly take a guy who made 3 Pro-Bowls over a scrub special teamer like Dixon.

 

[AbeBeta]

i doubt very much that we are going to be trading for any older players. Ever.

 

[AbeBeta]

A 3-time Pro-Bowl player a "career underachiever"?

He should have been a Cowboy in 2001 when we passed on him to take S Tony Dixon. I'd certainly take a guy who made 3 Pro-Bowls over a scrub special teamer like Dixon.

But Rogers was injured and Jerry's staff told him he would miss the season. So we did the only logical thing and took a guy who could contribute immediately....

Of course, we could be just as pissed that we took Dixon over Adrian Wilson

 

[THUMPER]

But Rogers was injured and Jerry's staff told him he would miss the season. So we did the only logical thing and took a guy who could contribute immediately....

Of course, we could be just as pissed that we took Dixon over Adrian Wilson

I am!

 

[TwoCentPlain]

No thanks. Got to go with the young players here. Junior, Dixon, and others are developing. And Lissemore will be a player. They just need time and an opportunity.

Bringing in Rogers just takes time and opportunity from the young players.

When you have good drafts like the Cowboys have had these past few years, you don't need the older vets. The Cowboys have a good mix of young and old talent.

 

[Cover 2]

If they were stupid enough to make that trade I would be all for it. It would give us great depth at NT, and it would allow us to better evaluate Ogletree since Crayton would no longer be on the team. Also like you said it would be the perfect situation for Rogers because his conditioning is so horrible. I would worry about the contract though, but I doubt RW will be on the team next year so that will clear some space up.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Where is this speculation?

 

[blindzebra]

Isn't he in serious risk of being suspended for the gun incident?

 

[Jon88]

Isn't he in serious risk of being suspended for the gun incident?

Probably.

He's a fat idiot anyway. We don't need him in the lockerroom. He's lazy.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If that's the best we can get for Crayton. Might as well.

 

[SLATEmosphere]

uhh are you speculating yourself or is there actual some rumors to this?

 

[BAT]

i doubt very much that we are going to be trading for any older players. Ever.

Cowboys have not had any qualms about older players before, going all the way back to Landry and as recently as Parcells & Wade. Little bit of a drama queen with the "ever" declaration there.

Personally, I don't think Cleveland swaps Rogers for Crayton unless there is more added to the trade. But anyone who believes that Rogers would not upgrade the DL has no clue whatsover.

And Rogers would be a starter at DE, not NT. Not to say he does not spell Rat at the nose though, but most of his reps will be alongside Ratliff, not in place of him.

 

[blindzebra]

Pretty obvious some people's pet player never dies.

Face facts already...we didn't draft him, didn't go after him when he switched teams, and have no interest now.

 

[newlander]

My god what a BAD idea. Rogers is garbage...on and off the field. Seriously....bad thread.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Pretty obvious some people's pet player never dies.

What you say we slaughter this skunk? Sort of a ritualistic gesture.... an offering to the Gods.