Marcus Coleman released...

[InmanRoshi]

Inman,

No offense, but sometimes I read your posts and you come across as thin-skinned.

You are a poster I respect and I enjoy your point of view and knowledge of league issues.

Do you know how Coleman played last year? Obviously the Texans defense was atrocious last year and when I looked at his stats on NFL.com he didn't look like he had that good of a year. He's been around so long, do you really think he can help us?

Obviously he would probably be better than Lynn Scott, Dixon, Davis, etc. but does he have any gas left in the tank from what you know?

I can't say, but to suggest that any FA signing over 30 is alway inherently bad is foolish. Belichick built a Superbowl winner signing 11 cheap free agents past their prime. Its all about value, and younger players often times represent the worst value and the worst contracts.

Besides, I think a lot of posters just have an inherently negative reaction anytime its a former Parcells player that's mentioned, which is particularly illogical.

 

[whcarm]

Coleman was benched last year in favor of younger guys. The Texans knew that he was done after this year and they wanted to go younger at the position. So, he really didn't a chance last year to show anything. Thus, his stats suffered.

I don't know if he will be a pro-bowler at FS for us, but Parcells likes him and he would be an upgrade for us. Plus, he wouldn't cost a lot. We can't afford to spend much more money in our secondary.

On a separate point, I am getting sick of people complaining about bringing in veterans. WE HAVE A YOUNG TEAM.

Look at the guys that started for us last year. Davis, Henry, Newman, and Williams are all young guys. The oldest of that bunch was Henry, who is 29.

James, Ware, Shanle, Fowler, and Fujita are all under 27. Fujita, at 27 was the oldest of the bunch. Nguyen was older but he has retired and Singleton is also 31 but I don't think he will be back.

Canty and Spears were a huge part of the D-line rotation and both were rookies. Ellis is only 30. Ferguson is only 31, Glover is also 31 but he probably won't be back.

All our Running backs and our full back are under 25.

Our starting TE is only 23. Campbell will be 30 in April but the other TEs are all young.

The only positions were we are older are at QB, O-line and WR.

Bledsoe is older but we have two young guys behind him.

Johnson and Glenn are both in the mid-30's but Crayton is only 25. We will get younger at this position at some point in the next year or two.

The oldest position for us is offensive line. Allen and Rivera are both over 33 but Adams will only be 31 in May. Johnson is only 25. And Petitti, Tucker and Gurode are all 29 or younger.

We simply don't have an old team. We will be adding more contributors during the draft. Thus, we can afford to add a few more older veterans during free agency. Especially at LB and the secondary.

 

[dbair1967]

You mean the way Belichick won his first Superbowl?

he didnt do it year after year did he?

the Pats have alot of vets, but they also have alot of good young players (in case you didnt notice)

David

 

[dbair1967]

You mean exactly like the way Belichick rebuilt the Patriots and won his first Superbowl? Yep, that's proven not to work.

yeah that worked out for the team in D.C. pretty well didnt it?

I see you said the Pats built a super bowl winner signing 11 past their prime, bargain free agents, just curious here...who might those be? I know Rodney Harrison is one, but who are the other 10 "cheap free agents past their prime"

David

 

[MichaelWinicki]

yeah that worked out for the team in D.C. pretty well didnt it?

I see you said the Pats built a super bowl winner signing 11 past their prime, bargain free agents, just curious here...who might those be? I know Rodney Harrison is one, but who are the other 10 "cheap free agents past their prime"

David

I agree with you on this one David... I get sick of signing 30+ guys and us thinking we've really done something to make the team better.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Rodney Harrison didn't come until the following offseason, but he probably is the best free agent signing in the history of free agency on a bang per buck basis. Man, he was 31

17 cheap free agents were on the roster for the 2001 Superbowl winner that weren't there the year before.

Larry Izzo 27
Mike Vrabel 26
Marc Edwards 27
Anthony Pleasant 34
Terrence Shaw 28
Mike Compton 31
David Pattern 27
Riddick Parker 29
Terrell Buckly 30
Je'Rod Cherry 28
Damon Huard 28
Charles Johnson 30
Antwain Smith 29
Bryan Cox 33
Roman Phifer 33
Ken Walter 29
Chris Sullivan 29

Having these players fill holes on the team allowed Belichick the luxory of drafting value instead of plugging immediate needs. That's how he could get away with drafting 3 Defensive lineman in the first round. Or two tight ends in the first round. That's how he's built a dynasty.

Really it was the anti-thesis of how Washington did it. Washington didn't persue value in free agency. They look at their biggest hole and go out and bring the biggest name they can find to fill it, not caring about the size of the paycheck they are cutting or how that particular player fits into their system. That was Washington's problem, not age. They got infinitely better value out of the Bruce Smith signing than they did the Jeremiah Trotter signing.

 

[dbair1967]

Rodney Harrison didn't come until the following offseason, but he probably is the best free agent signing in the history of free agency on a bang per buck basis. Man, he was 31

17 cheap free agents were on the roster for the 2001 Superbowl winner that weren't there the year before.

Larry Izzo 27
Mike Vrabel 26
Marc Edwards 27
Anthony Pleasant 34
Terrence Shaw 28
Mike Compton 31
David Pattern 27
Riddick Parker 29
Terrell Buckly 30
Je'Rod Cherry 28
Damon Huard 28
Charles Johnson 30
Antwain Smith 29
Bryan Cox 33
Roman Phifer 33
Ken Walter 29
Chris Sullivan 29

Having these players fill holes on the team allowed Belichick the luxory of drafting value instead of plugging immediate needs. That's how he could get away with drafting 3 Defensive lineman in the first round. Or two tight ends in the first round. That's how he's built a dynasty.

.

I really dont have issues with signing guys as backups or spot role players (as most the above are)...my problem is signing 30+ guys way past their prime and expecting them top be upgrades as starters, as the list I said would constitute a terrible offseason would be...we dont need 33 yr old FS's replacing Keith Davis when they are no better, just older...we dont need 30+ yr old RT's who are coming off major injuries to be relied on as starters...its time to upgrade the areas we have holes at, not tread water or get worse

David

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think I would pass on Coleman. The Texans were horrible in pass coverage last year and Coleman was equally bad IMO.

 

[Alexander]

Having these players fill holes on the team allowed Belichick the luxory of drafting value instead of plugging immediate needs.

And that is precisely how free agency should be utilized.

It is becoming increasingly rare that you can just go sign a young talented player in the process. If they are good, they are either going to be tagged or you are going to have to overpay for their youth. It happens every year.

What New England did is use cheaper, experienced veterans to bridge the gap. That allowed them to be flexible and do things in the draft that they normally wouldn't do, in other words, they went in with a clean slate.

Signing players like Fabini and Coleman would not be viewed as permanent solutions. We could still draft our future right tackle and free safety. But we would not have literally earmark our early draft choices to those positions, which is always, always a mistake.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

He was always hurt and had fumble problems. Yep, I was one of those that liked him a lot coming out of the supp draft as well. Saw in in training camp at the Alamo Dome and I was kicking myself even harder. He had raw talent, that's for sure. The dude could smoke turning the corner.

I'd forgotten all about seeing him in the scrimmage -- I was at that camp, too. He did look like he had some quicks.

What this really shows me, though, is just how much better our team is now. Using a supplemental pick on Hollings seemed like a way to get a talented running back on the team back when all we had was Hamhead. Look at how far we've come since those dark days...

BTW, on Coleman, I'm not sure you guys even disagree that much. Seems to me like IR is advocating Coleman as a safety net more than anything. He's been a good player and at least he knows how to play the position, so if he had to play he'd be better than Keith Davis or the other scrubs we've trotted out there the last two years. The people against him, it seems, are hoping Parcells doesn't sign him and immediately make him the favorite to start without looking for a better option. Which also makes sense.

 

[joseephuss]

I think I would pass on Coleman. The Texans were horrible in pass coverage last year and Coleman was equally bad IMO.

Coleman can be had for a vet minimum and little to no bonus. He is better than Lynn Scott and Tony Dixon and would be a decent, versatile back up. If he shows up and adds nothing in camp, then he could be easily cut. There shouldn't be much risk with signing him. If he expects more than the vet minimum at this time, then he can look elsewhere. Dallas doesn't need him, but he won't hurt them either. Signing him also doesn't stop Dallas from doing what they need to do and that is find a quality starter at the FS position. I won't be dissappointed if he is signed or if he isn't signed.

 

[HTownCowboysFan]

Welcome to Dallas Marcus

True story.

Last night on ESPN 790 here in Houston, Coleman was on the PM local show and the first thing he said was "I want to go to Dallas and play for Bill."

 

[joseephuss]

I'd forgotten all about seeing him in the scrimmage -- I was at that camp, too. He did look like he had some quicks.

What this really shows me, though, is just how much better our team is now. Using a supplemental pick on Hollings seemed like a way to get a talented running back on the team back when all we had was Hamhead. Look at how far we've come since those dark days...

I was against using a 2nd pick in the supplemental draft for Hollings. He just did not have enough experience to be worth that high a pick. That same reasoning applied to Clarrett. Neither guy played running back a substantial amount of time in college to show their worth. And Clarett played more than Hollings. Tyson Thompson had little experience at a high level of competition, too and he didn't cost Dallas anything.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I really dont have issues with signing guys as backups or spot role players (as most the above are)...my problem is signing 30+ guys way past their prime and expecting them top be upgrades as starters, as the list I said would constitute a terrible offseason would be...we dont need 33 yr old FS's replacing Keith Davis when they are no better, just older...we dont need 30+ yr old RT's who are coming off major injuries to be relied on as starters...its time to upgrade the areas we have holes at, not tread water or get worse

David

David,

I generally agree with your premise about constant signing of old vets, but let's look at this anticipated vet signing in perspective.

First of all, from what I've read, I have to believe a vet like Coleman, playing that PARTICULAR position, FS is an instant upgrade over Davis who was the proverbial "dog chasing cars" a lot of times last year.

I read that Coleman was benched later in the past year for being late or missing a walk through practice and he didn't play much after that. Thus, his production numbers were down. But that kind of thing won't happen here with Parcells.

Finally you have to look at the alternatives. We simply aren't going to pour huge $$ into the FS position when we have high $$ guys like Roy, Newman, and Henry already in the secondary. That's just not good business.

I do agree we need to find a good young cover safety in the draft, but even if we spent a high pick (1-3 rounds), the FS position is not a position where you want a green rookie playing. We saw how many problems we had last year with Davis who had a little bit of experience. Bad things happen with a FS who desn't know where he needs to be.

My attitude about this potential signing is...don't jump on Coleman just because of his past connections to Parcells, but look around and see if there is another fit. If not, get him in here, give him a good physical, work him out and if he checks out...sign him to a cheap contract and we have improved over Davis, Llynn Scott, etc.

 

[HTownCowboysFan]

BTW, if Coleman comes to Dallas, he'll play FS. He did a pretty good job at FS for the texans in 2004. Last year, they were so bad, everyone looked like crap.

 

[neosapien23]

Marcus Coleman would be a good stop gap if we could draft someone who has great physical skills but is extremely raw like Bullocks or Allen. Fabini would be great if Parcells is really going to give Jacob Rogers another chance. Stop Gaps are only a good idea if you have young talanted greenhorns behind them on the depth chart.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Coleman can be had for a vet minimum and little to no bonus. He is better than Lynn Scott and Tony Dixon and would be a decent, versatile back up. If he shows up and adds nothing in camp, then he could be easily cut. There shouldn't be much risk with signing him. If he expects more than the vet minimum at this time, then he can look elsewhere. Dallas doesn't need him, but he won't hurt them either. Signing him also doesn't stop Dallas from doing what they need to do and that is find a quality starter at the FS position. I won't be dissappointed if he is signed or if he isn't signed.

Not this guy Jossie. This year, more then ever, I think it pays to be patient. If this CBA thing comes crasshing down, and it looks as if it might, we are going to be in a somewhat unique position. We are going to have cap and the abilty to sign good young players IMO. Coleman should still be there if we don't see anything better. I am not in favor of signing an older player who really did play the safety position like crap last year when there is a very real possability of getting a quality younger player in FA. JMO

 

[Idgit]

...Stop Gaps are only a good idea if you have young talanted greenhorns behind them on the depth chart.

Or only talentless greenhorns. Give me all the stopgaps we can use.

If we can put a stopgap OT in place, for instance, who let's us trade down in the first next year, pickup the LB we want, and add a future draft pick instead of reaching for a tackle at 18, we get better, younger, and more flexible at the same time.

There is *no* solid reason not to improve your team inexpensively when you can do it. And FA is the best way to improve your team inexpensively.

 

[joseephuss]

Not this guy Jossie. This year, more then ever, I think it pays to be patient. If this CBA thing comes crasshing down, and it looks as if it might, we are going to be in a somewhat unique position. We are going to have cap and the abilty to sign good young players IMO. Coleman should still be there if we don't see anything better. I am not in favor of signing an older player who really did play the safety position like crap last year when there is a very real possability of getting a quality younger player in FA. JMO

I agree, there is no rush to sign Coleman. I look at him as a back up plan and player. Dallas needs to look to settle the FS with a good young player. I think they will try through the draft or free agency to do just that. They can get a good young guy and still sign Coleman as a good back up later on if needed. No teams are rushing to sign Coleman.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree, there is no rush to sign Coleman. I look at him as a back up plan and player. Dallas needs to look to settle the FS with a good young player. I think they will try through the draft or free agency to do just that. They can get a good young guy and still sign Coleman as a good back up later on if needed. No teams are rushing to sign Coleman.

Yep, that would be the way to do it IMO.