Joseph Randle released

[Alexander]

It's not a crappy tweet because it's inconsistent, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's a crappy tweet because it's negative and just plain wrong. The reason they called Randle is overwhelmingly likely to be because he's unable to be onsite the way a player is in a normal situation. In which case, to paint it as a lack of caring for the guy is completely unfair to the team. Secondly the team's HC did give the guy a call when the face to face was apparently not possible. Thirdly, as I said, the team said in the very same press conference that they were extending assistance to Randle. Assistance that's normally only given to players on the roster.

So, here we have a tweet that's out of context, missing relevant information for no other reason than to paint the team in a negative light, and you defending it for God-knows-what reason. Yeah, like I said, this sucks out loud. It's garbage.

So if it is factual, and negative, it is what?

This whole thing is shrouded in garbage, I fail to see how you can claim that a beat writer is muck-racking just simply because you don't like the impression you think he is presenting.

And I defend it because it is all we have. Unless you believe in fairies and unicorns. Or what authority says via staged and controlled statements or press conferences.

You clearly do not understand corporate propaganda. What the Cowboys did for Brent was real and tangible, right away. Right down to letting his fat butt down on the field after his irresponsibility literally killed someone. If you want to know what I meant by inconsistent, I hope that clears it up for you.

The Cowboy handled this about as well as you can, publicly, but just like the Ratliff thing, there is a lot, a whole lot, unknown and probably likely to stay that way unless Randle from Planet Zoom pushes it.

It is okay. You can feel secure until that happens.

 

[Bleu Star]

F
eyB
l
i
c
i
a

 

[StylisticS]

Didn't they fire Rob Ryan the same way?

 

[Nightman]

What a nonsensical post. First of all don't call anyone here a name clearly meant to be derisive. Personally, I find it amusing you resort to name calling rather than vigorous, fair and civil debate. Others become more annoyed or angry so I'll ask you not to do that.

Generally demonizing others is more often due to lack of critical response. Thinking you failed a draft round in hindsight by drafting a player who has yet, and maybe never, become the player one picked afterwards is irrational.

I have little idea what Escobar will become and I don't know why they drafted him either. I'm a fan but not a huge fan so Superfan etc is not attributable to me and frankly a lot of others here who don't agree with some. They don't give him enough snaps even though he seems to play well enough when the opportunity arises. Perhaps he runs bad routes and Romo and the staff don't trust him. He's physical enough. His hands are good enough. Perhaps he's just stuck behind Witten. He's not a blocking TE although he's gotten better at it. I'm surprised they even pushed him in that direction. I wouldn't but I don't see the guy everyday. I don't know who he is inside. And neither do you.

Not sure why you brought Bell up. There are plenty of other examples of players drafted lower than others and outperform them. And the guy is out for the year. Clearly that has nothing to do with his talent but you can't help the team when you can't get onto the field. Yes, injuries lower value.

Funny how we are drafting very well according to many including fans here. Surely you aren't saying we are drafting poorly are you? If you want to bean pick over single round picks then go for it. It seems like a poor way to judge a draft. So I wouldn't call our draft crap despite your clever use of the words. I suggest you look at the failure rates from each round if you think draft success is better than the roll of a dice most rounds. You've been around long enough to have seen mine and others posts and graphs concerning this. If not search for the answers.

If you can't see that drafting Escobar over Leveon Bell was a colossal mistake there isn't much more to talk about, ever.

Escobar adds very little and Bell would be the cheap, bell cow RB we need. His knee injury has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. I can guarantee he wouldn't have been hurt by a Bengal last weekend if he was on the Cowboys.

 

[Stash]

Just for informational purposes, our former staring running back has cleared waivers.

 

[xwalker]

Not sure where you're going with all that but nothing has changed. Passing is king. Pass defense is queen.

Rushing stats are generally of no use. Some SB champions are last or near the bottom of the league in rushing efficiency. A look at team success is all over the place but negative and positive re: rushing efficiency. Not even talking rushing yards or A/YA nor was I so not sure why you brought that up other to generally discourse about the subject.

Never going to say rushing doesn't matter or pressure either. Blocking and tackling are cornerstones if we're talking football. One must rush effectively to keep defenses honest etc. That's it. No playoff success correlates with rushing, BTW.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your post, just pointing out this issue because you referenced the Passing Better = Wins concept.

My point is that the Passing Effectively Theory is silly and misleading especially when it is used to claim that rushing is of minimal importance. It's junk science or junk stats.

I'm sure passing is weighted heavier in terms of winning than rushing, but it's more like 60-40 and not 99-1 which the supporters of the PE theory like to imply. Their method of using stats doesn't really prove anything.

 

[silver]

Just for informational purposes, our former staring running back has cleared waivers.

Nobody is gonna touch him with a ten foot stick

 

[Stash]

Nobody is gonna touch him with a ten foot stick

Nor should they.

We made the mistake of counting on him, but nobody else will.

 

[Bleu Star]

Just for informational purposes, our former staring running back has cleared waivers.

 

[jobberone]

Where was the "name calling"?



No, what is "irrational" is in trying to pretend the mistake never happened.



When does he "play well"? One game a year?

I see tons of attempts at excuses for a guy who has contributed next to nothing since he's been here. And yet, ultimately, no matter the reason, he just doesn't produce anything.



I brought him up because he's tied to Escobar, drafted one pick afterwards, and there for the Cowboys's taking, and he was in the same draft where we drafted Randle, so nobody making an excuse can say we didn't need a running back since we obviously did. And we followed up drafting a lemon at TE with drafting a lemon at RB.



No, don't get it twisted, overall they have done well. But it's not an all or nothing proposition. I can both praise their successes and criticize their failures. It's part of the same overall package, not mutually exclusive.

Whenever someone gets defensive about bad draft picks, it always takes me back to David Arkin. A funny double standard with him. People were scolded for criticizing him when he wasn't contributing, saying "you have to wait 3 years to judge the success or failure of a player and draft". And then, three years later, when Arkin was proven a bust, fans used the "don't dwell in the past" excuse.

A nice way for some to blind themselves to any failings their favorite team has.

Calling people SuperFans in a derisive way, Kool Aid drinkers, etc is name calling. Stop being coy. But I think you understand so knock it off. EVERYONE so you don't feel picked on. If you want further clarification take it to PMs. Telling people they are blind to your so called failings of their favorite team is derisive.

Escobar makes some plays but he's still an unknown. I can't tell why he isn't getting more snaps. And neither can you. You assume he is a 'bust'. IDK. How many snaps does he have a game where he is targeted?

Ok, Escobar sucks and Bell rocks and we could have had him. Again, ridiculous notion. Nothing to do with either player actually. Pick ten years of drafts and find hundreds or more of these examples from every team. It's beyond ridiculous. Cherry picking to be charitable. Not sure I can constructively say what it really is.

Again, if you want to cherry pick drafts retrospectively round by round be my guest. It means nothing other than to give you some nit picking way to bust on the team. Give me a break. I hate it when we lose beyond the dissatisfaction of the team doing poorly. It's all this stupid chaff being emitted which is the same old and erroneous crap every time it happens.

Here's the simple truth. People are frustrated we are losing and this nonsense starts up every time. We are losing because we aren't passing well and that's because our backups to date have failed. That's it. No poor drafts. No sucky Escobar and whatever player people here are ragging on and scapegoating. No crappy schemes, play calling (ok maybe some), OC, HC or Jones yada. Pass efficiency and differential.

You can have the last word.

 

[xwalker]

If you can't see that drafting Escobar over Leveon Bell was a colossal mistake there isn't much more to talk about, ever.

Escobar adds very little and Bell would be the cheap, bell cow RB we need. His knee injury has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. I can guarantee he wouldn't have been hurt by a Bengal last weekend if he was on the Cowboys.

Hashing over players not drafted is worthless. All teams have passed on great players. All teams passed at least 5 times on Tom Brady. Aaron Rodgers had over 20 teams pass on him.

People have complied stats to show how well teams have drafted overall and the Cowboys ranking fairly highly over the past several years. Even teams like NE have had many failures.

RBs are one of the more unpredictable positions to draft.

The real issue is whether or not they have a reasonable process in place to succeed more often than fail in the draft.

 

[jobberone]

If you can't see that drafting Escobar over Leveon Bell was a colossal mistake there isn't much more to talk about, ever.

Escobar adds very little and Bell would be the cheap, bell cow RB we need. His knee injury has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. I can guarantee he wouldn't have been hurt by a Bengal last weekend if he was on the Cowboys.

I didn't say that. I said looking at that retrospectively is nonsensical. It means nothing. You missed the entire point tripping over yourself to type the above.

 

[Idgit]

So if it is factual, and negative, it is what?

This whole thing is shrouded in garbage, I fail to see how you can claim that a beat writer is muck-racking just simply because you don't like the impression you think he is presenting.

And I defend it because it is all we have. Unless you believe in fairies and unicorns. Or what authority says via staged and controlled statements or press conferences.

You clearly do not understand corporate propaganda. What the Cowboys did for Brent was real and tangible, right away. Right down to letting his fat butt down on the field after his irresponsibility literally killed someone. If you want to know what I meant by inconsistent, I hope that clears it up for you.

The Cowboy handled this about as well as you can, publicly, but just like the Ratliff thing, there is a lot, a whole lot, unknown and probably likely to stay that way unless Randle from Planet Zoom pushes it.

It is okay. You can feel secure until that happens.

If it's factual (they called him) and negative (because they didn't care about him), it still needs to be accurate. What if they called him because he was physically unable to be on the premises? What if he was unwilling to come on the premises even though he could? See how it works?

I didn't claim he was muck raking simply because I didn't like the impression. It was muck raking because he's intentionally giving the *wrong* impression.

From the same Garrett comments today:

Garrett didn't go into further detail of what Randle's personal matters are. However, the Cowboys will continue to help Randle with his off-field issues even though he is no longer a member of the team.

"Absolutely," Garrett said. "We'll continue to try to do that. We've tried to do that all along, not only with Joe, but with every player that we have. That's part of our job as coaches. We have a player engagement department that does a great job with our players and coaches and everyone else to try to help them with any issues that they do have so that will continue."

Unicorns and fairies don't enter into it. Neither are you defending it because 'it's all we have.' It's not all we have, for one. You're defending it because it's negative, for another. When the story comes out as to what's going on, and it eventually will, we'll see whether the team handled yet another difficult situation appropriately, or not.

 

[silver]

Escobar ran a 4.82 in the combine. He's slow as molasses. Drafting him was a collosal mistake regardless of the round.

 

[jobberone]

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your post, just pointing out this issue because you referenced the Passing Better = Wins concept.

My point is that the Passing Effectively Theory is silly and misleading especially when it is used to claim that rushing is of minimal importance. It's junk science or junk stats.

I'm sure passing is weighted heavier in terms of winning than rushing, but it's more like 60-40 and not 99-1 which the supporters of the PE theory like to imply. Their method of using stats doesn't really prove anything.

I don't think people say running is of minimal importance. If you don't run effectively it makes passing more difficult as well as winning. And there are times you need to run it. Passing efficiency and differential have a high correlation to winning. Of course there's a lot more to it. Many variables. But to think it is silly and misleading is a mistake IMO. And no one thinks passing efficiency is .99 predictive.

 

[jobberone]

Escobar ran a 4.82 in the combine. He's slow as molasses. Drafting him was a collosal mistake regardless of the round.

He seems to run well enough now. He has to be faster than Witten and Witten's speed doesn't seem to matter much. It's a player's entire game. And one 40 doesn't mean much. I'm not a big Escobar fan but this piling on a player that doesn't have much to do with us winning or losing because we are losing is mystifying and quizzical IMO.

 

[Sasquatch]

Just for informational purposes, our former staring running back has cleared waivers.

I'm actually saddened by the human tragedy of the Randle situation, particularly if it does involve a clinical diagnosis of mental illness, but I just can't resist the temptation ....

Joseph Randle finally breaks into the open!

 

[silver]

He seems to run well enough now. He has to be faster than Witten and Witten's speed doesn't seem to matter much. It's a player's entire game. And one 40 doesn't mean much. I'm not a big Escobar fan but this piling on a player that doesn't have much to do with us winning or losing because we are losing is mystifying and quizzical IMO.

Witten ran in the 4.6's coming out. He's also tough as nails and a great blocker. But with Witten coming out of games the last few games with nicks and bruises it should be an opportunity for Escobar to shine and so far that hasn't happened either. I don't know what's going to take for him to show anything. So far he looks like a bust. Even Hanna has shown more potential than him.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Less soiled under ware comments? Win-Win

 

[Alexander]

If it's factual (they called him) and negative (because they didn't care about him), it still needs to be accurate. What if they called him because he was physically unable to be on the premises? What if he was unwilling to come on the premises even though he could? See how it works?

I didn't claim he was muck raking simply because I didn't like the impression. It was muck raking because he's intentionally giving the *wrong* impression.

It is a Tweet. It outlines what happened from what is known. You are the one reading in the intent. See how that works?

You could have just wrote EVIL MEDIA! LOOK AWAY SHEEP and it could have served exactly what you had to say, just as well.

From the same Garrett comments today:

Are you really presenting Garrett comments as more than the sterile phrases that they are?

How? Why? Oh, yeah. Nevermind.

It was vague nonsense. If I hear about how the Cowboys are reaching out after he is cut, I will gladly give them credit. That statement was the real crap, but you gobbled it up with a spoon.

Unicorns and fairies don't enter into it. Neither are you defending it because 'it's all we have.' It's not all we have, for one. You're defending it because it's negative, for another. When the story comes out as to what's going on, and it eventually will, we'll see whether the team handled yet another difficult situation appropriately, or not.

And I like I said about corporate propaganda, consume at your own risk. You are suggesting something otherwise, which honestly isn't known.

And nice dance around the Josh Brent disparity, Mr. Flatley.