No OT free agents out there worth having?

[AMERICAS_FAN]

According to the new CBA, vested veterans – defined as those veterans with over 5 years of service in the NFL – will have their current contracts guaranteed by the team who has them listed on their roster opening day (not the game day roster, but the full roster).

So consider the OL. The Cowboys were prepared to enter the season with Holland – a vested veteran - on the roster at backup G. But when Dockery became available the Cowboys replaced Holland and, I presume upgraded, with Dockery, who is also a vested veteran. So based on CBA rules, the Cowboys are fully willing to take a chance on guaranteeing the veteran backup G’s contract for the season.

I can only take this as ‘this is the guy they want in this backup position’, but what about OT? Now, based on the current loss of Sam Young to Buffalo, and with the uncertain injury status of Tyron Smith, you would think the Cowboys would make some kind of insurance-play for a veteran backup OT. But any vetran they get will likely be vested and that contract will be guaranteed.

The fact that the Cowboys are not making this move tells me that they are not willing to acquire anyone on a guaranteed contract basis. So from this I can only conclude that they feel there is no veteran OT out there good enough to take that kind of minimal risk on.

This does not mean that the Cowboys won’t make a play for veteran OT backup after week 1 – in which case the contract would not be guaranteed, whether the player is vested or not –but surely it means that anyone they get will not be threatening to any rookies that are already in place and competing to solidify any backup OT roles.

All in all, I find it interesting that the Cowboys have so much faith in their OL rookies and young players that they value them much more than any veteran OL player still sitting on the open market. Given that Dallas is currently under the cap and can easily absorb a veteran’s contract, I think that speaks volumes for the confidence the Cowboys have in the abilities of our own young OL players who can fill in at OT.

Perspective for thought…

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Given the fact that we do not have insight into the inner workings going on at VR, all we can do is this: assume that the Cowboys believe that, even though he's raw, Parnell may improve with playing time and bringing in a vet at this point would only be a short term, low-reward solution.

Like it or not, Parnell is getting his chance sooner than anyone wanted but that's be a good thing if he actually performs well.

 

[Reality]

Veteran salaries are guaranteed if on the roster for the first game. Since the Cowboys already have their starting OTs, they are not going to bring in a veteran to be a backup that they'll owe a full season salary to even if they cut him.

The first game is against a non-division, non-conference opponent so it makes sense to not sign any veteran players you don't absolutely have to have for week #1.

#reality

 

[bsheeern]

I can't imagine we could bring in anyone of the street and have them start vs the jets considering it's Thursday and the game is 2 days away. Only way I could see that happening if we brought in someone we had previously released recently.

If you don't have faith in your backups to start if your starter can't go then what is the purpose of having them on the team. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of having backups.

 

[Ren]

I think the Cowboys faith in this OL has a lot more to do with cost then ability. I'd take Flozell off the streets over Parnell any day even though his best days are long long gone.

 

[JoeCorrado]

I think the Cowboys faith in this OL has a lot more to do with cost then ability. I'd take Flozell off the streets over Parnell any day even though his best days are long long gone.

I think that the faith has more to do with the coaching staff. They actually believe that they have some real talent there, raw as it may be. They see what it CAN be as opposed to what it is today. And they believe that the risk/reward warrants sticking with the kids.

If they are right, this bodes well for YEARS to come, as opposed to placing yet another band-aid. Be better for the immediate future, or be better for a decade... that seems to be the question. IF, the faith is warranted.

 

[burmafrd]

I think that the faith has more to do with the coaching staff. They actually believe that they have some real talent there, raw as it may be. They see what it CAN be as opposed to what it is today. And they believe that the risk/reward warrants sticking with the kids.

If they are right, this bodes well for YEARS to come, as opposed to placing yet another band-aid. Be better for the immediate future, or be better for a decade... that seems to be the question. IF, the faith is warranted.

and if they are wrong Romo is in traction by week 4.

 

[JoeCorrado]

and if they are wrong Romo is in traction by week 4.

This is true.

I have some faith of my own though, and that faith for the moment is placed in the competence of the coaches and their staff.

Silly me.

 

[Ren]

and if they are wrong Romo is in traction by week 4.

They where wrong last season when they said the line was ok going into the season and that cost us, i really don't see any reason to have faith in them this year when it's more or less the same people making the same call again.
We learned the hard way last year what can happen when you neglect the OL. The only explanation that makes any sense for doing it again this year is that we're just to cheap now to do anything more then hope for the best, we're doing the same with the secondary a unit that was even worse, the only player we signed there was a discount safety no one else seemed to want, not even the Browns

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Veteran salaries are guaranteed if on the roster for the first game. Since the Cowboys already have their starting OTs, they are not going to bring in a veteran to be a backup that they'll owe a full season salary to even if they cut him.

The first game is against a non-division, non-conference opponent so it makes sense to not sign any veteran players you don't absolutely have to have for week #1.

#reality

Yep.

Fully agree.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

and if they are wrong Romo is in traction by week 4.

Well, then you can visit Tony in the hospital every day and nurse him back to health.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

They where wrong last season when they said the line was ok going into the season and that cost us, i really don't see any reason to have faith in them this year when it's more or less the same people making the same call again.
We learned the hard way last year what can happen when you neglect the OL. The only explanation that makes any sense for doing it again this year is that we're just to cheap now to do anything more then hope for the best, we're doing the same with the secondary a unit that was even worse, the only player we signed there was a discount safety no one else seemed to want, not even the Browns

You bring up valid observations but how do you expect them to improve their situation? What would you do other than fret over it?

 

[AbeBeta]

I really doubt that anyone can bring in a guy, give him two days of practice and expect him to start.

 

[newlander]

Well, then you can visit Tony in the hospital every day and nurse him back to health.

...Red might want to consider handing off to Felix, Choice and Murray about 50 times Sunday night.....seriously. My gosh this sucks and then some. Colombo and Flo don't look so bad now.....

 

[CCBoy]

Jerry's comment to the media has a very short shelf-life. With no current backup beyond the swing tackle, or on the Practice Squad, there will be some early season action to address just this potential pit hole.

 

[skinsscalper]

Veteran salaries are guaranteed if on the roster for the first game. Since the Cowboys already have their starting OTs, they are not going to bring in a veteran to be a backup that they'll owe a full season salary to even if they cut him.

The first game is against a non-division, non-conference opponent so it makes sense to not sign any veteran players you don't absolutely have to have for week #1.

#reality

I understand the reasoning that is bolded, Reality, but I absolutely disagree with the philosophy. This is a team that went 6-10 last season. EVERY win is important and worth putting the effort into. Division or not.

This whole organization is going to look very, very stupid if we miss the playoffs by one game and we lose this first one due to the fact that the pressure from the right side completely stifles this offense (see the Minnesota playoff game).

 

[Ren]

You bring up valid observations but how do you expect them to improve their situation? What would you do other than fret over it?

It's a forum we're exchanging opinions if you're trying to suggest that i'm wasting my time doing that then what are you doing when you're replying to it?

 

[burmafrd]

This is true.

I have some faith of my own though, and that faith for the moment is placed in the competence of the coaches and their staff.

Silly me.

given their past record it is silly to have faith in this staff as regards judgement about the offensive line.

 

[Doomsay]

Veteran salaries are guaranteed if on the roster for the first game. Since the Cowboys already have their starting OTs, they are not going to bring in a veteran to be a backup that they'll owe a full season salary to even if they cut him.

The first game is against a non-division, non-conference opponent so it makes sense to not sign any veteran players you don't absolutely have to have for week #1.

#reality

Agreed, and pray we have our franchise QB in one piece for our first conference match-up.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

It's a forum we're exchanging opinions if you're trying to suggest that i'm wasting my time doing that then what are you doing when you're replying to it?

Me thinks you may be a little touchy. If I wanted to tell you that you are wasting your time I would have.

Now, stop wasting my time and answer my forking question. :