Matt Jones wont be suspended by NFL, now we will see if jerry jones is interested!

[DFWJC]

If that's truly the case, explain the signing of Gerald Sensabaugh?
.

I don't think Sensabaugh has ever been suspended. The guy has a heavy foot and has been caught for speeding and driving with a suspended license.

Seems pretty mild compared to being busted for cocaine, being suspended and then also having a parole violation. And all of this after being labled lazy--though he is no longer considered that.

Night and day in my book....and I actually like Matt Jones okay.

 

[Alexander]

Stanback hasn't contributed to special teams either. You make him out to be some special teams ace when the fact is that he hasn't done that either.

Not true. He's thrown his shoulder out of socket a couple of times returning kicks.

 

[Stash]

I don't think Sensabaugh has ever been suspended. The guy has a heavy foot and has been caught for speeding and driving with a suspended license.

Seems pretty mild compared to being busted for cocaine, being suspended and then also having a parole violation. And all of this after being labled lazy--though he is no longer considered that.

Night and day in my book....and I actually like Matt Jones okay.

So, suspension is now the reason for a player not being a Cowboy?

Just so I have it clear.

Because I think there are a few former Cowboys who hadn't been suspended.

Not busting chops or anything, I just think this whole offseason house-cleaning is a bit vague and inconsistant in its' requirements.

You guys are probably right and the team may not be willing to take any risks at this point.

But I would.

 

[Stash]

Not true. He's thrown his shoulder out of socket a couple of times returning kicks.

I stand corrected...

:shatfan:

 

[AsthmaField]

Hey Asthma, (that doesn't sound right...)

:laugh2:

I know, it doesn't. I'm used to it now though.

I honestly don't think it would be.

Matt Jones isn't nearly the household name that Pacman Jones was.

He's not as obscure a player as Sensabaugh, but not close to Pacman's level of infamy either, but more in-between. And I don't think the general opinion of Matt Jones is of him being a thug, hoodlum, or ne'er-do-well but more of a screwup.



Perhaps, and the players can say whatever they won't out of the locker room, but they'd better hope that word didn't get back to management.

And, honestly, who's left to stir up trouble at this point?

I'd put Jones' signing closer to Sensabaugh's than I would Pacman's, or any of the other locker room lawyers that have been shown the door.

And I think he's shed the 'lazy' tage with earning Jacksonville's #1 receiver role and catching 65 passes in 12 games. Not to mention his personal off-season work with former receiver Ricky Proehl.

But that's me.

Ah well. I've stated my opinion, and I know you feel strongly about yours. Time will show if the Cowboys bring him in or not. I don't dislike the guy... but I sure wouldn't risk losing all the headway Dallas has made this offseason by bringing him in.

I don't think Stephen Jones will either.

 

[cowboyschmps3]

:starspin

Personally i dont think jerry jones is interested in matt jones, but you never know.


The player rep for free agent Matt Jones says the NFL has notified him that Jones will not be suspended for violating a court-mandated drug program in March.

The agent says Jones only has to pay a $50,000 fine. If so, Jones should find work quickly. He's easily the best young receiver on the market. "He caught 65 passes in 12 games last year for the Jaguars and he was their No. 1 receiver," agent Dave Butz pointed out. "If he wasn't hurt one game and didn't have the three-game suspension, he may have caught 80 to 90 balls."
Source: ESPN.com

Agent: Jones fined for violating programComment Email Print Share By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com
Archive
Former first-round pick Matt Jones, a free agent receiver who was released by the Jacksonville Jaguars in March, has been notified he will not be suspended as the result of his violation of a court-mandated drug program, his agent said.




Jones

Jones was informed by the NFL last week that he will be fined $50,000 but not suspended. Even then, the NFL Players Association has convinced Jones to appeal the fine, according to Dave Butz, his agent.

Jones was suspended for the final three games of the 2008 season after he lost a league appeal stemming from his arrest for cocaine possession last July. In that case, Jones entered an Arkansas drug diversion program but was sent to jail for five days in March as punishment for drinking alcohol; Jones told the court he had "two beers" during a golf outing, a violation of the conditions placed upon him.

The Jaguars released him shortly thereafter.

An NFL spokesman declined to comment Tuesday, a standard response until the appeal process runs its course. Regardless, Jones will not face a suspension for the 2009 season if he is signed by an NFL team.

"That's the main message -- that Matt will be available to any team looking for a proven receiver," Butz said.

Asked about the perception that Jones has been "a bust," Butz countered, "Well, he caught 65 passes in 12 games last year for the Jaguars and he was their No. 1 receiver. If he wasn't hurt one game and didn't have the three-game suspension, he may have caught 80 to 90 balls.

"In his first two years, he was the third most productive receiver of his rookie class, despite some musical chairs at quarterback. So that 'bust' tag isn't fair, at all."

Jones has been training hard for six hours a day during the offseason, Butz said.

"He wants to prove himself all over again," Butz said. "He has stated very clearly that he regrets some decisions he's made but he's moving forward. I mean, the Jaguars didn't cut him after the [arrest] last summer. They saw a different guy; there was just a different reaction when he had the two beers. I see a guy who's very hungry to make a strong contribution to a team."

While Jones is "eager to turn the page," the agent explained why he is appealing the $50,000 fine, payable if he is employed again by a team.

"The [players] union believes the league has no right to fine Matt any money because the substance abuse policy won't allow it," Butz said. "In the letter the league sent, it seemed to cite personal conduct but the union believes because it involved alcohol, it should have kicked back to the substance abuse policy without penalty."

Chris Mortensen is a senior NFL analyst for ESPN.

jaja if he signs with us they'll suspend him...im all in for a try jerry

 

[montgod]

Bears GM Jerry Angelo was noncommittal Wednesday when asked if the team would have interest in free agent Matt Jones.

"He was a first-round draft pick and he is a very talented player," Angelo said, "but it's case by case. We're not quick to move on any player." Jones' vertical skills would suit Jay Cutler's big arm, but the Chicago Tribune believes Angelo is satisfied with Devin Hester, Earl Bennett, and Rashied Davis.

As I stated before... the Bears and Jets will be the first to line up to try and sign him.

 

[28 Joker]

What did Matt Jones ever do at WR to be drafted in round 1?

He was a WR project.

The real WRs bust out half the time in round one.

Jones stated, at Arkansas, that he liked basketball more than football.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

How is this loser NOT getting suspended? Wow talk about double standard.

 

[Disturbed]

The Cowboys should look at him, but they should put a ton of performance and behavioral qualifiers in any contract.

I am on the fence on this one. I really don't want any "issue" players on the team -- want character and hard working guys only. I think Jones has shown some "growing up" over the past year but who knows if that is just PR.

 

[Randy White]

As would Jones. And Jones could help ensure the team in case of an injury to their current group of receivers.

Ok, one more time:

a) The Cowboys are NOT going to carry a WR just for injury insurance. It's not happening. Those extra receivers WILL have to play special teams, something that Matt Jones does NOT do.

b) Yes, Matt Jones could get the passes that Martellous Bennette and Tarshard Choice, and possibly Miles Austin and Barber would get, but that's exactly the point: the Cowboys want to get the ball to those guys, not Matt Jones or anybody else. Had they wanted to do that, they would have addressed it earlier on in FA or the draft.

That's not saying that if somebody gets injured they're not going to go out and find a replacement, but as of right now, THOSE are the guys they're going with.

Obviously his talent. But you're trying to make the case that he would soemhow derail a picture perfect offense that was anything but perfect. In fact, Garrett underachieved with what he did have.

I'm not making the case for anything other than the obvious. I don't know if what they're planning to do is going to work or not. Maybe they're wrong in putting their faith on the likes of Austin, Felix Jones, Bennette, and Choice ( after the primary receivers get their touches ), maybe they're not, but that's what they're planning to do. Certainly those guys have proved they should at least get a shot.

Nor does the team need him to. They've already got more special teams players than they need. Everything but the returner, which I feel they still lack.

Yes, it does. If he's going to be on the roster, and he's not going to be a primary option in the passing game, like OBVIOUSLY he wouldn't be, then he needs to play special teams, period. The team is NOT going to sacrifice a roster spot to carry an insurrance policy at the receiver possition.

He put up those numbers with the benefit of having Owens command all of the defense's attention - he no longer has that crutch. Jones did what he did by himself with no other viable options in the passing game.

That's crazy. Crayton put up those numbers DESPITE playing behind T.O, Witten, and at times Barber, in the pecking order of passes. Matt Jones had offensive game plans built around getting him the ball. Crayton would be lucky to have plays called for him.

Sorry, but I don't see the correlation when talking about someone you'd get for next to nothing.

Exactly right you don't see it. You think that because you can have everybody in a video game catch 100 passes, it can happen in real life.

Great reasoning. Better get rid of Roy Williams too then.

a) Roy Williams IS a primary option in Dallas
b) Roy Williams IS better than Matt Jones.

Obviously, you can't tell the difference between the two.

Wrong.There are plenty of special teams candidates on this roster.

There are. What's not available are roster spots for WR insurance policy. If you're 3rd, 4th, and a 5th receiver, you WILL be playing special teams. If you can't, you won't be on the roster.

Not suggesting they do, but the team just lost a receiver who 'couldn't play special teams' either,so adding one doesn't upset the apple cart.

If you're talking about Stanback, then you really have no idea of what you're talking about. For starters, although Stanback was kept as a developmental guy, mostly on the developmental squad, when he was activated, he played in special teams. When the Cowboys had somebody who could play better, he went back to the practice squad.

That's something they can't do with Matt Jones because he's not elegible for the developmental squad and he doesn't play special teams.

Jones can play now. And if Williams were injured, you wouldn't be screwed like you would now

.

If " ifs " and " buts " were candy and nuts.....

I believe what I see, not what I hope to see. Garrett struggled mightily last year and needs to rebound.

What exactly are you're saying ? You hope to see Garrett passing the ball alot and hope he rebound that way, therefor they need Matt Jones ?

So getting rid of TO is about the running game now? OK. Keep reaching.

Follow your own advice. I didn't say getting rid of T.O. was about the running game. I said when they got rid of T.O., they made up their minds about building the offense more around the running game. They cut the most productive receiver they had ( for whatever reasons ), didn't address the possition in FA or the draft, they have THREE running backs on the roster who could start in the league and have made it clear they want ALL of them involved.

It's NOT that hard to figure it out.

And the Cowboys got zero out of those guys - nada - nothing. So don't cry to me about roster space when they can afford to keep stiffs like that who can't play.

Oh, I see. So you want them to carry, let's say, 8 O-linemen, instead of the usual 9 or 10 every team has, in order to accomodate a WR who won't be seeing the ball much, if at all, and CANNOT play special team..

hummmmmm, awrighty then...

Stanback hasn't contributed to special teams either. You make him out to be some special teams ace when the fact is that he hasn't done that either.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I'll explain it to you like you're a 2 year old:

Stanback was on the roster because he played special teams. If he didn't, he wouldn't be on it. He's going to have to prove again he can play special teams or else he won't make the roster. That's what I said.

now, tell me where in there does it say he's " special team ace " ?

If Matt Jones caught 3 passes all season, he'd have contributed more than Stanback has in two seasons.

No he wouldn't have because the rest of the time he would have been on the sidelines watching the game.

Jones wouldn't have to play a single snap of special teams to justify a roster spot.

As a 3rd, 4th, or 5th receiver, he sure would have to.

 

[Randy White]

:laugh2: Could it be that you meant to use an "o" in place of the "u"?

Oooppss.. sorry

:laugh2:

 

[Clove]

So, suspension is now the reason for a player not being a Cowboy?

Just so I have it clear.

Because I think there are a few former Cowboys who hadn't been suspended.

Not busting chops or anything, I just think this whole offseason house-cleaning is a bit vague and inconsistant in its' requirements.

You guys are probably right and the team may not be willing to take any risks at this point.

But I would.

Welcome to Jerry's world. Don't be fooled by the fake character moves "Jerry" failed to do this offseason, out with one bad seed, in with another.

I told you he was the biggest con man in history, managed to fool millions of Cowboy fans, and hypnotize us into following and believing everything he does.

So I fully expect Matt to be here, it's who Jerry is as an owner. He's cleaning up just to move into his new mansion known as the Cowboys Stadium, once he's settled in, he'll bring in the next head case.

Thankfully, I don't give a crap, as long as they help us win. But I know the righteou may not like it.

 

[Stash]

Ok, one more time:

a) The Cowboys are NOT going to carry a WR just for injury insurance. It's not happening. Those extra receivers WILL have to play special teams, something that Matt Jones does NOT do.

Let me impart some knowledge to you. We'll see if if takes.

The same receivers the team had in the 'slots' you're so fixated on played special teams and still will. Crayton? Yep. Hurd? Yep. Stanback? Yep. Austin? Yep. None of them suddenly forgot. The one 'spot' where the team lost a receiver was Owens. Guess what? He didn't play special teams!

b) Yes, Matt Jones could get the passes that Martellous Bennette and Tarshard Choice, and possibly Miles Austin and Barber would get, but that's exactly the point: the Cowboys want to get the ball to those guys, not Matt Jones or anybody else. Had they wanted to do that, they would have addressed it earlier on in FA or the draft.

The Cowboys aren't fixated on names like you are, they're looking to have the best offense they can. And that doesn't include a fixed number of touches for anybody, much less the 3rd string running back or backup tight end.

That's not saying that if somebody gets injured they're not going to go out and find a replacement, but as of right now, THOSE are the guys they're going with.

Where would they shop for that replacement? Wal-Mart? Can you get one off the shelf whenever you want?

I'm not making the case for anything other than the obvious. I don't know if what they're planning to do is going to work or not. Maybe they're wrong in putting their faith on the likes of Austin, Felix Jones, Bennette, and Choice ( after the primary receivers get their touches ), maybe they're not, but that's what they're planning to do. Certainly those guys have proved they should at least get a shot.

Again with the 'touches', I thought part of the reason TO's not here is about 'touches', and now you're looking to do that again. Half of the players you've mentioned have proven little more than an ability to get hurt at this point. There are high hopes, but that's what they are at this point - hopes.

Yes, it does. If he's going to be on the roster, and he's not going to be a primary option in the passing game, like OBVIOUSLY he wouldn't be, then he needs to play special teams, period. The team is NOT going to sacrifice a roster spot to carry an insurrance policy at the receiver possition.

See above. The same receivers who played on special teams last year are still here. The one who isn't didn't play special teams. And get off the in case of emergency, break glass fixation. Jones would play and be insurance for when (not if) one of the others gets injured.

That's crazy. Crayton put up those numbers DESPITE playing behind T.O, Witten, and at times Barber, in the pecking order of passes. Matt Jones had offensive game plans built around getting him the ball. Crayton would be lucky to have plays called for him.

I guess you can twist reality to support whatever assinine conclusions you try to promote? Crayton was an afterthought to opposing defenses. After Owens and Witten, it was amazing anybody looked at Crayton at all. If he was ever called upon to be a primary weapon, this team would be screwed. You know it and I know it.

Exactly right you don't see it. You think that because you can have everybody in a video game catch 100 passes, it can happen in real life.

Nah, unlike you, I'm not fixated on 'touches'. But I'd hope for at least 3 catches in a season.

a) Roy Williams IS a primary option in Dallas
b) Roy Williams IS better than Matt Jones.

Obviously, you can't tell the difference between the two.

Yeah, 'obviously'. One guy had 65 catches in 12 games , the other had 19 in 10 games, but one is a 'primary receiver' and the other 'isn't'.

Jones was every bit the 'primary option' that Roy Williams was. In fact, the guy who's getting questioned at this point is Williams.

But I'm not suggesting Jones is better, not at all. But I know that Jones could play and that he can do a lot of the same things Williams can. And if Williams were injured, Jones could help fill the void. That wouldn't be his sole purpose, but a bonus.

There are. What's not available are roster spots for WR insurance policy. If you're 3rd, 4th, and a 5th receiver, you WILL be playing special teams. If you can't, you won't be on the roster.

Again with the 3rd, 4th, 5th B.S.

I'll refer above and hope it sinks in.

If you're talking about Stanback, then you really have no idea of what you're talking about. For starters, although Stanback was kept as a developmental guy, mostly on the developmental squad, when he was activated, he played in special teams. When the Cowboys had somebody who could play better, he went back to the practice squad.

Where's the 'developmental squad'?

Nah, I'm talking about Owens. There's a receiver 'slot' that didn't play special teams. And that's the 'slot' that opened up. Stanback's an experiment that's just about over. They swung and missed, time to move on.

That's something they can't do with Matt Jones because he's not elegible for the developmental squad and he doesn't play special teams.

Dude?

Seriously?

'Developmental squad'?

Do you mean practice squad?

If you do, it doesn't apply here. I don't recall Stanback ever being waived and put there.

If " ifs " and " buts " were candy and nuts.....

So you hate having insurance? Then I take it you were thrilled having nothing but Brad Johnson at backup QB last year. OK...

What exactly are you're saying ? You hope to see Garrett passing the ball alot and hope he rebound that way, therefor they need Matt Jones ?

I'm saying Garrett isn't yet the genius you and others hope for. He struggled last season having more weapons that any coordinator in the league - that's exclusively on him. If adding another weapon is too much for him, he needs to go and this teams needs to find a guy who can handle the coordinator job.

Follow your own advice. I didn't say getting rid of T.O. was about the running game. I said when they got rid of T.O., they made up their minds about building the offense more around the running game. They cut the most productive receiver they had ( for whatever reasons ), didn't address the possition in FA or the draft, they have THREE running backs on the roster who could start in the league and have made it clear they want ALL of them involved.

It's NOT that hard to figure it out.

Trust me, any 'logic' that includes keeping 4 receivers is hard to figure out, impossible in fact.

Every one of the team's current receivers is a question mark at this point, Roy Williams most of all.

They do have three fine running backs, two of whom were injured last season. But people who suddenly think that Garrett's turning toward the wishbone need a wake-up call.

Oh, I see. So you want them to carry, let's say, 8 O-linemen, instead of the usual 9 or 10 every team has, in order to accomodate a WR who won't be seeing the ball much, if at all, and CANNOT play special team..

hummmmmm, awrighty then...

So now Jones takes up two roster spots?!?!?

Anything to be against the move I guess, logic be damned.

How about if the carried 9? Instead of a Joe Berger like last year? Oh noes!!!! Can't live without a Joe Berger!!

How about one less stiff like Cory Procter or Justin Rogers who's only contribution comes on special teams?

NO, sure can't do without that!

Maybe sacrifice and great 'talent' like Courtney Brown and his 7 tackles for a guy who almost had more catches than the Cowboys' entire current receiving corps combined.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I'll explain it to you like you're a 2 year old:

Stanback was on the roster because he played special teams. If he didn't, he wouldn't be on it. He's going to have to prove again he can play special teams or else he won't make the roster. That's what I said.

now, tell me where in there does it say he's " special team ace " ?

No problem with reading, it's reading such rubbish that throws me.

Stanback was on the roster because he was a project, his contributions at neither receiver nor on special teams was enough to warrant a roster spot. You want to argue over semantics as an escape? Fine. Stanback wasn't even a special teams contributor. If he was cut tomorrow, there would be no difference.

No he wouldn't have because the rest of the time he would have been on the sidelines watching the game.

But, unlike Stanback, he'd be healthy enough to be wearing a uniform!

:laugh2:

As a 3rd, 4th, or 5th receiver, he sure would have to.

Again this fixation with numbers! Call him 1st or 2nd if it makes ya feel better!

I'm not going over this nonsense again, go re-read what I wrote, hopefully it sinks in.



If you want to be against this move, just mention his off-field stuff and be done with it.

Trying anything more complex makes you look stupid.

 

[NedStark]

There are 2 types of people in this thread.

1.) People debating whether or not Matt Jones deserves a roster spot on the Dallas Cowboys.

2.) Idiots crying foul and calling "double standard" without realizing Jones was suspended for 3 games.

 

[Arch Stanton]

There are 2 types of people in this thread.

1.) People debating whether or not Matt Jones deserves a roster spot on the Dallas Cowboys.

2.) Idiots crying foul and calling "double standard" without realizing Jones was suspended for 3 games.

No, there are three.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No, there are three.

yep, you have your Arch Stantons for sure

 

[Arch Stanton]

yep, you have your Arch Stantons for sure

:laugh2:

Is your thong too tight Bob?

 

[LRcowboy Fan]

The Bears have said they are not interested in Jones.

 

[Randy White]

Let me impart some knowledge to you. We'll see if if takes.

The same receivers the team had in the 'slots' you're so fixated on played special teams and still will. Crayton? Yep. Hurd? Yep. Stanback? Yep. Austin? Yep. None of them suddenly forgot. The one 'spot' where the team lost a receiver was Owens. Guess what? He didn't play special teams!

If that's knowledge you can keep it because it's purely misinformation, at best.

The " one spot " you're talking about has ALREADY been addressed. The guy taking T.O.'s spot is Roy Williams. Perhaps you've heard of him ?

The Cowboys aren't fixated on names like you are,

I'm not the one with the Matt Jones' jockitch love here. YOU are.

they're looking to have the best offense they can. And that doesn't include a fixed number of touches for anybody, much less the 3rd string running back or backup tight end.

Is that so huh ? Then YOU should get back into the 21'st century. Hopefully you'll land in 2009, and somewhere around late May of the same year:

Bennett Sees Bigger Role In Offense
Posted by jellis at 5/28/2009 12:29 PM CDT on truebluefanclub.com

"I've been working on my game a whole lot, so I think they're going to use me that much more," Bennett said. "There's definitely a lot more stuff on the offense (for me).

http://http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154137

That's the back up TE, by the way.

Mickey: That his agent says Jones won't be suspended helps, but still, do you trust him? The Cowboys aren't so desperate they need to continue running a Halfway House out at The Ranch, in charge of rehabilitating every lost soul. Now, if the Cowboys should suffer an injury to one of their top two or three receivers, sure, I could see taking a shortcut by signing Jones. But at this point, if the Cowboys sign Jones then they never give Miles Austin or Sam Hurd or Stanback the chance to fully develop. They will never know, and that would counter the plan they seem to currently have in place to develop their own so that when an aging veteran gets too old or too expensive you have a young guy waiting in the wings. Too many mercenaries trying to jumpstart their careers who have no sweat equity in the team destroy all that supposed "chemistry" so many of you want to talk about.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154133


Now, you may get in contact with the Cowboys at Valley Ranch if you don't agree with their plans, but there it is.


As for the rest of your post, well is so full of crap that it'd be a waste of time to address.