Rapoport: Cowboys want to keep Pollard, franchise tag an option

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,810
Reaction score
103,500
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I said no to Schulz and yes to Pollard.

Pollard is more important to the team and as usual we haven't prepared for him leaving.
I said ‘NO’ to both. It’s not a knock on the players, but on the associated costs and return on investment. Paying for either one is just bad business and not worth the costs.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,342
Reaction score
21,342
I said ‘NO’ to both. It’s not a knock on the players, but on the associated costs and return on investment. Paying for either one is just bad business and not worth the costs.
Franchising which one is *less* wrong?
 

Doomsday

Rising Star
Messages
20,143
Reaction score
16,647
Guess they learned nothing from drafting an RB at #4 than paying him a ton of money a few years later.

I love Pollard but RBs are too easy to find, they need to spend that money elsewhere.
 

basel90

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,004
Reaction score
4,398
Let both Zeke and Pollard go. No need to pay that kind of money to RB's. We can get Pollard back cheap when the real GM's won't pony up that kind of money for a scatback.

We can find starting quality RB's on day two and three of the draft.
Indeed . Just look at Pacheco at KC or Stevenson with the patriots . Many out there and I hope Jerry won’t get duped like Zeke duped him a few years ago
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,810
Reaction score
103,500
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Franchising which one is *less* wrong?
Both are wrong. I’m against both. I was against Schultz last year (and the numbers prove me right). And I’m against Pollard this year. History proves me right.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,342
Reaction score
21,342
Since when do team need to ‘prepare’ for running back departures?
Since they've got nothing for next year.

You *can* get one with a mid round pick, but there's no *guarantee* you'll hit. Wanna spend next year with Dak throwing 60 times a game? I don't.

The best argument for Schulz was that we had nothing in the pipeline. Now we've hit on a couple of rookies. Now we wave goodbye.

TE is less important than RB. I don't want to risk 0 running game next year.
 

CTcowboy203

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,537
Reaction score
4,499
To be fair
Someone feel free to show us the last second contract for a running back that worked out well for the team:

giphy.gif
a franchise tag isn’t a second contract really….I mean its a short term thing for 2 seasons at most
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,810
Reaction score
103,500
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Since they've got nothing for next year.
And they don’t NEED TO.

You *can* get one with a mid round pick, but there's no *guarantee* you'll hit. Wanna spend next year with Dak throwing 60 times a game? I don't.
Teams ALWAYS DO. Running backs don’t improve with age.
The best argument for Schulz was that we had nothing in the pipeline. Now we've hit on a couple of rookies. Now we wave goodbye.
The best argument shows that it was a mistake. The production isn’t near the cost.

TE is less important than RB. I don't want to risk 0 running game next year.
Good thing there’s 0 chance of that.
 

SHAMSzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
3,216
We can’t let Pollard go. He is too dynamic in both the run & pass game & is on an uptrend. I’d sign him to a nice 3 year deal & use him as a work horse like CMC in both run & pass.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,342
Reaction score
21,342
Both are wrong. I’m against both. I was against Schultz last year (and the numbers prove me right). And I’m against Pollard this year. History proves me right.
Looking at the wrong comparable does not prove you right.

And you quoted a question and didn't answer it.

Your standards for being "proven right" seem down today.
 
Top