Stephen Jones' comments at owners meeting

[Verdict]

I totally agree, and if there was any proof that he did that, I'd want no part of him either. But thus far, all i see are rumors and innuendo.



That's what I think too. Guys like Haley and LT were high-maintenance nutjobs to, a means to an end. And strong coaches were able to coexist and handle them. Sometimes a team and coach doesn't have to like a guy, they just have to deal with them. And considering the position this team is in, I feel that they need to do that with a guy like Hardy.

They've already taken the PR hit, they may as well get to reap some of the benefits for it. Given the situations with Gregory and Lawrence, defensive end is a serious need.

Rumors and innuendo? Ok, let's look at it this way, Stash, I think we can all agree that Hardy can still actually play at a decently high level. He is arguably still better than anything we have on the roster currently. That's not really a fact, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the facts for this exercise. Moreover we took the P.R.. hit for signing Hardy in the first place, so not resigning him up to this point probably isn't about a P.R. hit. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Yet we haven't resigned him, and we have a pretty high need for a guy who can play at his position. So either we haven't tried to resign him because:

a. we don't think he can play anymore (which I don't think is likely); or,
b. he is asking for too much money (not likely since we haven't made him an offer, nor has anyone else for that matter); or,
c. Hardy is such a troublemaker/headache/cancer that even with his current talent level he just isn't worth the trouble at any price.

Which option do you personally think is the most likely?

 

[Sydla]

As someone who was anti-Hardy at the end of the season but now would be willing to take him back at a cheap cost since we have a dire need for a pass rush, I think it's pretty obvious that the Cowboys had an issue with how he conducted himself last year. They won't even talk to him at this point, which given their predicament at DE, you think they at least would reach out to him.

So it's really one of two things............. they are rolling the dice on the market being super-deflated for him and they'll pretend they have no interest in him then swoop in a few weeks from now and get him at a really cheap price OR the rumors are spot on that he was a pain in the *** and even as big a need as we have at DE isn't enough to make them take on that headache again.

Honestly, I don't know how people could even begin to try to argue that the fact Hardy apparently wasn't a total pain in the *** couldn't possibly be true at this point.

 

[Verdict]

As someone who was anti-Hardy at the end of the season but now would be willing to take him back at a cheap cost since we have a dire need for a pass rush, I think it's pretty obvious that the Cowboys had an issue with how he conducted himself last year. They won't even talk to him at this point, which given their predicament at DE, you think they at least would reach out to him.

So it's really one of two things............. they are rolling the dice on the market being super-deflated for him and they'll pretend they have no interest in him then swoop in a few weeks from now and get him at a really cheap price OR the rumors are spot on that he was a pain in the *** and even as big a need as we have at DE isn't enough to make them take on that headache again.

Honestly, I don't know how people could even begin to try to argue that the fact Hardy apparently wasn't a total pain in the *** couldn't possibly be true at this point.[/quote]

Excellent post and excellent thought process. Well stated.

 

[Longboysfan]

they whiffed in FA pure and simple. An amazing draft can make up for it.

I would have waited to do a season end review to make this statement.

 

[Stash]

Rumors and innuendo? Ok, let's look at it this way, Stash, I think we can all agree that Hardy can still actually play at a decently high level. He is arguably still better than anything we have on the roster currently. That's not really a fact, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the facts for this exercise. Moreover we took the P.R.. hit for signing Hardy in the first place, so not resigning him up to this point probably isn't about a P.R. hit. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Yet we haven't resigned him, and we have a pretty high need for a guy who can play at his position. So either we haven't tried to resign him because:

a. we don't think he can play anymore (which I don't think is likely); or,
b. he is asking for too much money (not likely since we haven't made him an offer, nor has anyone else for that matter); or,
c. Hardy is such a troublemaker/headache/cancer that even with his current talent level he just isn't worth the trouble at any price.

Which option do you personally think is the most likely?

I'd say

d. Hardy is a pain in the *** goofball, the same as he's always been. And this team has a weak head coach that can't handle dealing with high-maintenance players. He'd rather an awful player that shows up on time than an effective idiot than can actually play.

 

[Verdict]

I'd say

d. Hardy is a pain in the *** goofball, the same as he's always been. And this team has a weak head coach that can't handle dealing with high-maintenance players. He'd rather an awful player that shows up on time than an effective idiot than can actually play.

Looks like you have reworded c to your d but are essentially saying the same thing.

 

[Stash]

Looks like you have reworded c to your d but are essentially saying the same thing.

In many ways, yes. But I'm not putting all of the blame solely on the player. He's the same oddball that he's always been.

Some coaches can deal with that, while others can't. Great ones have.

 

[Nightman]

I'd say

d. Hardy is a pain in the *** goofball, the same as he's always been. And this team has a weak head coach that can't handle dealing with high-maintenance players. He'd rather an awful player that shows up on time than an effective idiot than can actually play.

I think JG would make a great college coach and I'm dead serious

I don't think his style or personality fits with today's pros

JJones just wanted to try continuity for once and JG was a safe choice

 

[Stash]

I think JG would make a great college coach and I'm dead serious

I don't think his style or personality fits with today's pros

JJones just wanted to try continuity for once and JG was a safe choice

I don't. I have yet to see anything other than clerical work from him.

I see a guy who hasn't earned any of the jobs or promotions he's been given.

 

[KJJ]

JJones just wanted to try continuity for once and JG was a safe choice

He wanted continuity by staying with Wade after the 44-6 debacle in Philly in 08. It was wanting to maintain continuity as the reason Jerry gave for staying with Wade. It appeared it might pay off after the 09 season but the roof finally fell in during the 2010 season. It's not about continuity with Garrett it's about Jerry's ego. He brought Garrett to Dallas to groom him to be the Cowboys head coach and it may take a lot of empty seats at the stadium for him to concede defeat and make a coaching change.

 

[skinsscalper]

Yeah, and you can't say this about any other position either.

Only first round quarterbacks miss...

Of course you can say that about every position. Unfortunately there isn't another position on the entire field where the play has a more direct impact on the success of your team. Did you skip rocket surgery class this morning?

 

[Stash]

Of course you can say that about every position. Unfortunately there isn't another position on the entire field where the play has a more direct impact on the success of your team. Did you skip rocket surgery class this morning?

Nope. In fact, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

You've said it yourself "there isn't another position on the entire field where the play has a more direct impact on the success of your team".

And that's why when you can get one, you get one.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[DoctorChicken]

In many ways, yes. But I'm not putting all of the blame solely on the player. He's the same oddball that he's always been.

Some coaches can deal with that, while others can't. Great ones have.

There's a mighty big difference between an "oddball" and a "crazy unmanageable psycho".

 

[noshame]

They need to commit to one or the other. Either we are rebuilding or we are going for a Super Bowl now. Half committed to either way is a disservice to both. I can live with either just tell me what I'm looking at.

Well, I think they have committed, but they can't say they're shooting for a couple years. Make no mistake, they'll try to win for Tony and Witten, but the lack of high end free agents seems to tell a story. In a month we'll know.

 

[skinsscalper]

I think you're way off base in your assessment here.

Jared Goff broke Aaron Rodgers' passing records at Cal as a freshman and then continued to put up bigger and better numbers every year. Why he's suddenly 'questionable' makes no sense to me, just like it didn't when 23 teams passed on Rodgers himself.

And Kellen Moore won more games than any QB in college football history (big freakin' deal). What's your point? The history of the league is littered with amazing college QBs with a laundry list of records broken who were vitrual nobodies in the NFL. I'm all for taking a QB if the scouts deem one of these guys to be the next franchise guy. The rub is that the QB position in this draft has more questions than any other position on the field.

Bu bu bu but, he broke Aaron Rodgers records! Psh. Please.

Nope. In fact, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

You've said it yourself "there isn't another position on the entire field where the play has a more direct impact on the success of your team".

And that's why when you can get one, you get one.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes IF you can get one. Drafting one just to draft one is beyond stupid.

Like I said, If the scouting department deems one of these guys the next franchise QB, then hell yeah, take the plunge. To this point NOT ONE of the QBs in this draft have distinguished themselves as that guy by any consensus.

 

[4lifecowboy]

Well, I think they have committed, but they can't say they're shooting for a couple years. Make no mistake, they'll try to win for Tony and Witten, but the lack of high end free agents seems to tell a story. In a month we'll know.

What they are saying doesn't parallel what they are doing. I'm beginning to believe we are taking a QB with our first rounder. And that they are committed to a rebuild, just pacifying the veterans on the team by not naming it a rebuild.

 

[4lifecowboy]

And Kellen Moore won more games than any QB in college football history (big freakin' deal). What's your point? The history of the league is littered with amazing college QBs with a laundry list of records broken who were vitrual nobodies in the NFL. I'm all for taking a QB if the scouts deem one of these guys to be the next franchise guy. The rub is that the QB position in this draft has more questions than any other position on the field.

Bu bu bu but, he broke Aaron Rodgers records! Psh. Please.






Yes IF you can get one. Drafting one just to draft one is beyond stupid.

Like I said, If the scouting department deems one of these guys the next franchise QB, then hell yeah, take the plunge. To this point NOT ONE of the QBs in this draft have distinguished themselves as that guy by any consensus.

Yeah two of these QB's have franchise potential. Will they take one with the 4th pic?

 

[Stash]

There's a mighty big difference between an "oddball" and a "crazy unmanageable psycho".

Definitely. And if you can provide me proof of that being the case I would certainly change my mind.

But, to date, no one has.

 

[skinsscalper]

Yeah two of these QB's have franchise potential. Will they take one with the 4th pic?

That can be SAID about any QB. That doesn't make it lead pipe lock truth.

Tony Romo had franchise potential. Tom Brady, too. So did Ryan Leaf and RGIII. The difference between all those guys is the cost of the initial investment (and I'm not talking about dollars). I'm not concerned about the cap implications if one of them doesn't pan out. My concern is blowing the highest draft position we've had since the early 1990's on a guy that we won't even know was worth it until 2 years down the road.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If the staff believes in one of these kids, then turn in that card. I'm all for it.

 

[Risen Star]

That can be SAID about any QB. That doesn't make it lead pipe lock truth.

Tony Romo had franchise potential. Tom Brady, too. So did Ryan Leaf and RGIII. The difference between all those guys is the cost of the initial investment (and I'm not talking about dollars). I'm not concerned about the cap implications if one of them doesn't pan out. My concern is blowing the highest draft position we've had since the early 1990's on a guy that we won't even know was worth it until 2 years down the road.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If the staff believes in one of these kids, then turn in that card. I'm all for it.

I'm late to this discussion. Are you saying you only want to draft players where it's the "lead pipe truth" they are stars?