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

[Stash]

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 ?

Silly me. I thought Roy Williams occupied that spot last year when Owens was still here.

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

I'm the guy who thinks it would be a good idea to strengthen a position with a ton of question marks. You're the guy talking about going with even less options.

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.

Wow! So Bennett says they're going to use him more, must make it so then. I seem to remember a guy named Fasano saying the same thing a few years back.

And for the record, I'm all for Bennett and everyone else they can get contributing to having the best offense possible. But I have never and will never subscribe to the theory that a team can have too many options.

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.

So Mickey Spagnola is running things? Mr 'if he was so good why is he available'?

Mickey answered a question - poorly in fact. He brings up developing Austin, Hurd, and Stanback and one of his reasons is an 'aging veteran'. If he did his homework, he'd know Jones just turned 26 years old, one year older than Austin or Stanback.

And, again, I have no problem with developing a receiver or two, especially if you've got established veterans above them. But when you don't you don't have the same luxury.

And given the question marks at receiver, I don't think the Cowboys have the luxury to carry three question marks.

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

That's probably best, any time you try anything more you only embarrass yourself.

 

[staubach]

So did Jones meet with the Cowboys FO yet or is that just a rumor? Seems like I heard or read somewhere he was suppose to meet with Stephen Jones in the coming days. Can anyone confirm this......

 

[Hostile]

So did Jones meet with the Cowboys FO yet or is that just a rumor? Seems like I heard or read somewhere he was suppose to meet with Stephen Jones in the coming days. Can anyone confirm this......

He has not.

 

[DeepBleu]

He has not.

do you know if there are plans for him to meet the joneses in the near future?

 

[Stash]

He has not.

Hey Hos,

Is that a he has not yet?

Or is that a he has not and isn't going to?

And as a poster I respect, I'd be interested to hear your position on this subject.

 

[Hostile]

Hey Hos,

Is that a he has not yet?

Or is that a he has not and isn't going to?

And as a poster I respect, I'd be interested to hear your position on this subject.

I don't know if there are plans to meet with Matt Jones or not. I can ask. The reason I know he has not been contacted at this point is because at this point Jerry Jones is planning to play the hand we have dealt. Plaxico has not been contacted either. Nor Marvin Harrison. Nor anyone who is currently a Free Agent. On either side of the ball. That could change and if someone is released who is a good fit I can imagine Jerry would go after him.

I will say this, I do believe every single Free Agent has been discussed. I just don't think all of them have been contacted.

Focus is probably on Ellis and Ware right now. I imagine it will be until they decide to move on from Ellis officially and get Ware inked to the deal they want.

I am not saying Matt Jones is never a possibility. Just that he hasn't been contacted at this point. That could change very easily.

 

[Stash]

I don't know if there are plans to meet with Matt Jones or not. I can ask. The reason I know he has not been contacted at this point is because at this point Jerry Jones is planning to play the hand we have dealt. Plaxico has not been contacted either. Nor Marvin Harrison. Nor anyone who is currently a Free Agent. On either side of the ball. That could change and if someone is released who is a good fit I can imagine Jerry would go after him.

I will say this, I do believe every single Free Agent has been discussed. I just don't think all of them have been contacted.

Focus is probably on Ellis and Ware right now. I imagine it will be until they decide to move on from Ellis officially and get Ware inked to the deal they want.

I am not saying Matt Jones is never a possibility. Just that he hasn't been contacted at this point. That could change very easily.

Thanks!

 

[Randy White]

Silly me. I thought Roy Williams occupied that spot last year when Owens was still here.

That's your problem right there. Obviously you're not too good at thinking. Especially when you didn't know that Roy Williams was going to take T.O.'s spot as the #1 receiver for the team, something he was NOT last season.

I'm the guy who thinks it would be a good idea to strengthen a position with a ton of question marks. You're the guy talking about going with even less options.

You're the guy who doesn't know how to read. I told you what the Cowboys are going to do and why, not what I think they should do. You don't agree with it, mostly because of your video game mentality, and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.

Wow! So Bennett says they're going to use him more, must make it so then. I seem to remember a guy named Fasano saying the same thing a few years back.

Blah, blah, blah.. Way back in this one sideded discussion I said I was probably wasting my time because you look like someone who's mind is made up, even though is COMPLETELY out of reality. I should have followed my own advice.

I mean, all signs have pointed towards the team going into a somewhat different philosophy on offense, putting more emphasis on developing within. From reporters on the ground, who keep producing articles to this day backing it up , to players quotes, to the team's own personnel transactions. But no, they're all wrong because YOU said so.

Like I said, you need to be transported into the 21st century, hopefully in the 2009 year, somewhere between late May and early June.

This off-season has been about implementing Williams' strengths into Garrett's system after he caught just 19 passes in 10 games after his trade from Detroit. It is also about working running backs Barber, Jones and Tashard Choice into some kind of rotation.

Ooppss, and the hits just keep on coming.

 

[Stash]

That's your problem right there. Obviously you're not too good at thinking. Especially when you didn't know that Roy Williams was going to take T.O.'s spot as the #1 receiver for the team, something he was NOT last season.

Fine. Argue over your numbers again #1, #2, #3 - whatever.

Did Roy Williams play special teams last season? The answer is no. Neither did Owens. That's two receivers who didn't play special teams. All other things remain the same. Therefore, any receiver they signed would not have to play specil teams. Try to keep up.

You're the guy who doesn't know how to read. I told you what the Cowboys are going to do and why, not what I think they should do. You don't agree with it, mostly because of your video game mentality, and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.

You told me what you think they're doing. Unless of course you're in the meetings...

Yeah, my opinion is wrong because you disagree with it. Great rationale.

Blah, blah, blah.. Way back in this one sideded discussion I said I was probably wasting my time because you look like someone who's mind is made up, even though is COMPLETELY out of reality. I should have followed my own advice.

You're wasting your time because your debate is poor. Your facts are bad and you're simply not good at it. Please do follow your own advice because in all honestly, you're not bringing much to the conversation.

I mean, all signs have pointed towards the team going into a somewhat different philosophy on offense, putting more emphasis on developing within. From reporters on the ground, who keep producing articles to this day backing it up , to players quotes, to the team's own personnel transactions. But no, they're all wrong because YOU said so.

I'm not saying they're wrong. None of us knows what the end result will be once the season starts. That's my point. You arrogantly assume that they'd keep 4 receivers! How screwball is that??

And I have no problems with a more run-oriented attack but that wouldn't stop me from assembling the best talent at receiver or anywhere else that I could. I would want as many options as possible.

Ooppss, and the hits just keep on coming.

Hits?

Was that another 'gem' from Spagnola? The guy who according to you is running things at Valley Ranch? I didn't see a name attached to that 'quote'.

And again, even if they do increase their focus on the running game, why would that stop them from improving the receiver position?

You know what, don't answer this post.

You bring nothing to the discussion and waste both of our time.

 

[jobberone]

TO was generally the X WR or split end which is the role RW will play the most. That's the role RW is most familiar with. I'm not that much of a WR buff to really understand more than the basics. I have no idea what they call the 3rd, 4th, and 5th WRs or the Cowboys play calling terminology now.

As long as they play to Roy's strengths then I don't care where he lines up. He may though. I do think Crayton or Felix should play the slot more than others and Austin be the flanker.

 

[Stash]

Randy,

I must apologize.

I don't mean for this speculative debate to get personal.

We're just obviously of two minds on the subject.

I think bringing Jones in is a good idea, while you disagree.

No 'right' or 'wrong', just two differing opinions.

I respect your stance and again apologize if I was insulting.

We'll just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

thank goodness

 

[Stash]

thank goodness

How did I just know you'd be chiming in?

 

[Randy White]

Randy,

I must apologize.I don't mean for this speculative debate to get personal. We're just obviously of two minds on the subject.I think bringing Jones in is a good idea, while you disagree.No 'right' or 'wrong', just two differing opinions.
I respect your stance and again apologize if I was insulting.
We'll just respectfully agree to disagree.

Thank you and that's mighty big of you. I want to apologize too for letting things get out of hand. It wasn't my intention.

Actually, everything IS a big misunderstanding. I don't have a problem bringing in Matt Jones. Believe it or not, I've been thinking about that since the day he got cut, suspension or not ( I'm more interested in winning SB than I am in setting moral examples - to a certain extent, of course ). In a perfect world, there'd be room in the roster for someone like Matt Jones.

However, my point is that there's a difference in how we think and how the organization thinks. I was trying to present their side of the story, which in it's face, makes alot of sense. We fans see the game very differently than they do. We tend to believe that replacing personnel is easier than they ( team ) make it out to be, but the reality is different. They have to deal with much more complex issues: plays, snaps, salaries, development, match ups, strategies, injuries... etc, that we on the outside are not completely aware of and can never be because we're not there.

I try to see the logic behind what the organization is doing first and then create an opinion off of it. Alot of times I don't agree with them ( like I did not agree with them cutting T.O. this year ) and say so, and there are times I do agree with them, like not making reactionary decision with Garrett.

All it's good....

 

[Bob Sacamano]

down the line, we might bring in Matt Jones, but that would probably be after all the OTAs, mini-camps and most of training camp, if the receivers on the roster show that they are incapable of playing/staying healthy, and being 2nd and 3rd options opposite Roy Williams

but I'm confident spots #1 and #3 are filled with Roy and Crayton, and if worst comes to worse, we have to have Crayton start opposite Roy

I think with the weapons in the running game, and already having a de facto #2 receiver in Witten, plus his running mate Martellus Bennett, that we should be alright with that scenario