Should we release Holland and re-sign after first game?

Eskimo

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
496
I'm actually in favor of just parting ways with him but it seems like the FO wants to keep him as a vet backup this year.

However, I wonder if we release him and sign him up after week 1. I think the chances anyone signs him are slim. That way we are free to release him at any point during the year without having to pick up his whole salary.

The other advantage is we can keep a bubble rookie for one more week while everyone else fills out their PS. It may be easier to sneak him onto the PS next week.
 
Im thinking we shoudl just dump the team and pick up players that the fans want that way it would stop the "sign this player threads" and hopefully stop the " I can Gm this team better" threads, but sadly im alone in this opinion.
 
ShiningStar;4078567 said:
Im thinking we shoudl just dump the team and pick up players that the fans want that way it would stop the "sign this player threads" and hopefully stop the " I can Gm this team better" threads, but sadly im alone in this opinion.

Yeah because everyone has said that.


:bang2:

To deny Jerry is inept at being GM is naive at best and wanton ignorance at worst. That being said, fans are always going to want certain players they think will help the team, and always going to second guess one of the worst GMs in the NFL. Dropping Holland period would make a statement to me that Garrett means business. The dude came into camp fat and out of shape without any offseason injury or surgery for an excuse. I say cut him now and go with what we have. If you can pick someone else up off waivers for backups great. I don't want the fat loser on my team.
 
We already paid him a $500,000 roster bonus so I doubt he's cut.
 
TheSport78;4078596 said:
We already paid him a $500,000 roster bonus so I doubt he's cut.

That's a sunk cost. There's not much point in worrying about it.
 
ShiningStar;4078567 said:
Im thinking we shoudl just dump the team and pick up players that the fans want that way it would stop the "sign this player threads" and hopefully stop the " I can Gm this team better" threads, but sadly im alone in this opinion.

It's just a strategy that we've used before on non-starting vets. He would seem to be a good player to use this strategy on as the chances someone else would pick him up are slim.

It would also send a message to everyone about coming to camp in shape.
 
Eskimo;4078606 said:
It's just a strategy that we've used before on non-starting vets. He would seem to be a good player to use this strategy on as the chances someone else would pick him up are slim.

It would also send a message to everyone about coming to camp in shape.

I would hop[e so but i would liek to think if Garrett was going to do it signing them back kind of loses its conviction of the message. I think if Garrett in my opinion felt like you did he would be cut and gone.
 
TheSport78;4078596 said:
We already paid him a $500,000 roster bonus so I doubt he's cut.

At this point he is just insurance for our guard position .
 
What is his base salary? If it's not much or it's very close to the vet minimum, then there's no point in releasing him to save a few bucks.
 
Nah, he'd prolly pull a muscle during the process.
 
ShiningStar;4078611 said:
I would hop[e so but i would liek to think if Garrett was going to do it signing them back kind of loses its conviction of the message. I think if Garrett in my opinion felt like you did he would be cut and gone.

It may make sense to have him around a bit early in the season given how green most of the interior players are. I think we can get by in week one without him. Then we sign him back and can easily let him go again later in the season once we are happy with how everything is working out. Then we can bring in another developmental OL off someone else's PS.
 
WoodysGirl;4078628 said:
What is his base salary? If it's not much or it's very close to the vet minimum, then there's no point in releasing him to save a few bucks.

It's not so much to save money as it may let us transition someone to the PS after a week on the gameday roster and it is also a way of avoiding guaranteeing his whole salary.

Plus, later in the year we can easily waive him if we want to churn the bottom of the roster and bring in an OL off someone else's PS - just like we did with Parnell.
 
WoodysGirl;4078628 said:
What is his base salary? If it's not much or it's very close to the vet minimum, then there's no point in releasing him to save a few bucks.

Other than he came into camp fat and out of shape, indicating that he is lazy and happy with his role as a backup. That leads me to believe he is lazy and feels entitled to his role.

That allows the outside world perception of Entitlement to continue.

"Look it, the Cowboys kept that fat, lazy, slob Holland, they don't have to earn their positions."

Couple all that with him being injured almost the entire preseason, stemming from his laziness in the off-season. Cut the fat SOB on principle
 
cut him period and move on, he's lazy, fat and out of shape, he's had three years to get his act together and show this organization that he's serious about stepping up and pushing for a starting job, he's done nothing along those lines even when the job was prettty much handed to him this offseason, cut him and move on..
 
I can get behind the first part of this argument.

The second part? Not so much.
 
stasheroo;4078665 said:
I can get behind the first part of this argument.

The second part? Not so much.

I agree with your sentiment but the FO seems to want him on the roster.

I suggest releasing him before week 1 just so that we don't have to guarantee his salary the whole year. This will also force him to avoid becoming complacent as he knows he can be released at any point with a financial penalty to the Cowboys.
 
Too risky. He is either wanted on the roster or not. If he is, letting another team pick him up is too much of a risk. I think he will make the roster.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,359
Messages
14,532,604
Members
24,210
Latest member
Jtom95
Back
Top