Tank... am I the only one appalled at the double-standard?

[bbgun]

You must think Calvin Hill is some kind of wussy.

I don't. He dealt with Alonzo Spellman and Dimitrius Underwood. In fact that's the reason he was hired, to help "troubled" players, not get all of the troublemakers off the team.

Foiled by facts yet again.

Yeah, I love how he turned Randy Moss around. Oh wait. Jerry passed on him due to character issues. But according to you, that's impossible, because Jerry embraces troubled players.

*plonk*

 

[Nav22]

You did nothing wrong. You rightly pointed out Jerry's hypocrisy about building a team with character, and the usual sheep, shills and lackeys pounced. Pretty standard fare for the Zone, which is becoming Ranch-like by the day.

Um... I'm sorry if THAT was your interpretation. It wasn't my intent at all. I was for both the T.O. and Tank signing.

Change your slogan to "Jerry lied, integrity died, the Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, and are on the right path again."

I don't understand your position. If you have such a huge problem with Jerry and the Cowboys for bringing in T.O. and Tank, why do you keep watching? You can't stand Jerry for his lack of integrity... but you'll root for the team regardless?

You know that watching them play and buying merchandise puts money into Jerry's and the Cowboys' pockets, right? You're supporting the team (and their "lack of integrity") by doing so. Jerry would kiss you if he had the chance.

In other words: you're still RIGHT on par with those of us who supported T.O. and Tank, because it hasn't changed your actions. You'll still watch the game, pump money into Jerry's pockets, and cheer when T.O. scores a game-winning TD or when Tank makes a game-winning sack. Get off your high horse.

And there was absolutely nothing wrong or kinky with Hostile's teenage sex analogy. He took the "inconsistency" thing too literally, but the analogy was fine.

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, I love how he turned Randy Moss around. Oh wait. Jerry passed on him due to character issues. But according to you, that's impossible, because Jerry embraces troubled players.

*plonk*

Um, I never said that bb. Not once, not ever.

 

[peplaw06]

Tom Landry flat out released Hollywood Henderson in November, 1979--despite the fact that we could have used his services. That's hardly "a live and let live" attitude on Tom's part. Duane Thomas is another example of a troublemaker being banished. Ditto Longley. Nor am I aware of any Cowboy who remained on the roster after getting into trouble with the law--esp for narcotics.

When did Septein get into trouble, and was he released immediately?

 

[jimmy40]

You must think Calvin Hill is some kind of wussy.

I don't. He dealt with Alonzo Spellman and Dimitrius Underwood. In fact that's the reason he was hired, to help "troubled" players, not get all of the troublemakers off the team.

Foiled by facts yet again.

not that I have a dog in this fight (sorry Michael) but the facts are Alonzo Spellman and Dimitrius Underwood were sent packing. I'm not sure what Hill did in those cases. I just hope that the slightest bit of trouble gets Tank kicked out of here.

 

[ZeroClub]

Big deal. The issue is Jerry's candor (or lack thereof) and his elastic sense of ethics, not Tank's abilities. This is dark day for the Dallas Cowboys, but it's not Tank's fault.

I don't particularly like that just-blowing-smoke side of Jerry either. We have seen this sort of thing before, though. Remember how Campo got hung out to dry as Jones secretly met with Parcells at some airport?

For all of his failings, at least we know with certainty that Jerry Jones truly wants the best for his team. Sometimes what's "best" changes, but what doesn't change is Jerry's passion and commitment to this team. That's something that you can believe in.

 

[Hostile]

When did Septein get into trouble, and was he released immediately?

Read North Dallas Forty.

Septien and Lance Rentzel were both immediately released.

 

[Hostile]

not that I have a dog in this fight (sorry Michael) but the facts are Alonzo Spellman and Dimitrius Underwood were sent packing. I'm not sure what Hill did in those cases. I just hope that the slightest bit of trouble gets Tank kicked out of here.

Uh, they were sent packing after being given chances. I never said they revived their careers here. I said Calvin Hill's duties were to work with the players to avoid troubles.

Lo and behold Todd Archer just reported that Tank has already met with Calvin Hill. So where was I wrong?

 

[SultanOfSix]

You know, last time I checked, the organization said it would take character issues into high consideration. That didn't mean that all of those players who had character issues would have their bags immediately sent packing or would be turned away from the door. I'm sure if JJ and Hill felt that Tank wasn't worth the risk, he wouldn't be here.

Unfortunately, some people think blinders work only one way.

 

[Big Dakota]

That's the problem, tho, Hos.

Some don't quite understand that you don't have to like the player to understand the signing.

And again, for all the moral outrage by a few suggesting that Jerry Jones brought the integrity down, what do they feel about Gil Brandt and company for bringing in guys with questionable character in the 70s? I've heard and read too much about those days to believe that there were nothing but a bunch of choir boys on the squad.

Ya, i was gonna post something to the affect. Football has always been a nasty, cut throat business. If we knew Tex and Tom's deep dark secrets i shutter to think...

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, I love how he turned Randy Moss around. Oh wait. Jerry passed on him due to character issues. But according to you, that's impossible, because Jerry embraces troubled players.

*plonk*

Were you of the impression that Jerry would never take on anyone with character issues?

I think it's pretty obvious that the character issues are part of a risk/reward balance that Jerry goes through (or went through, as you would argue).

If the risk of taking a guy with potential issues outweighs the possible reward of the guy's talent, then you don't bring him on. That being said, what was the difference between the passing on Moss and the signing of TO and Tank...

The draft vs. free agency.

As you know, if we take a guy with the 8th overall pick in the draft and he has character issues, that can set the team back years. Moss was a first rounder picked by the Vikes, and they had a sudden drop in success after trading him, and have yet to recover.

As for TO and Tank, we signed them to low-risk deals in order to try to reduce the possible risk. If TO gets out of control, he can be cut without long term salary cap ramifications. I haven't seen the terms of Tank's contract, but I seem to remember hearing 2 years at a minimum salary with incentives. That's a contract that reduces the risk of signing a potential character issue.

I don't think JJ ever said that he would never take on a guy with character issues. If he did, there would be all kinds of guys off of our draft board or FA radar. Instead, it's pretty obvious that it is a balancing act... you have to determine if it's worth it to take the risk for the potential reward.

 

[Hostile]

You know, last time I checked, the organization said it would take character issues into high consideration. That didn't mean that all of those players who had character issues would have their bags sent packing or would be turned away from the door. I'm sure if JJ and Hill felt that Tank wasn't worth the risk, he wouldn't be here.

Unfortunately, some people think blinders work only one way.

It's just a new way to say Jerry Jones is a poor GM. It isn't a new mantra or even an interesting one, but it keeps some sheep bleating.

 

[jterrell]

I am late to the party on this but I am not sure exactly who the OP is so aghast at.

Those that want choir boy only teams were against both signings.

Those that are talent is all that matters wanted both.

Sure there were some middle ground guys who disliked TO more because he had personally insulted the star, but there is little to suggest we should sign every thug, malcontent or hoodlum while we can hardly write off every player with a questionable character without doing due diligence.

After all Michael Irvin, Leon Lett and Charles Haley would have all fit those labels and were quite possibly in the top 10 most gifted players we have had in the team's history.

For the record I have a huge double standard....

Do NOT draft guys with character issues.
Do examine those same guys in free agency.

This is a salary cap era and you can not ignore cheap talent.

A guy who has a gun fetish and talked smack to a cop is not exactly committing unforgivable sins imho.

 

[jterrell]

Read North Dallas Forty.

Septien and Lance Rentzel were both immediately released.

Those two players can not be considered Cowboys.

For any reason, ever.

 

[Hostile]

I am late to the party on this but I am not sure exactly who the OP is so aghast at.

Those that want choir boy only teams were against both signings.

Those that are talent is all that matters wanted both.

Sure there were some middle ground guys who disliked TO more because he had personally insulted the star, but there is little to suggest we should sign every thug, malcontent or hoodlum while we can hardly write off every player with a questionable character without doing due diligence.

After all Michael Irvin, Leon Lett and Charles Haley would have all fit those labels and were quite possibly in the top 10 most gifted players we have had in the team's history.

For the record I have a huge double standard....

Do NOT draft guys with character issues.
Do examine those same guys in free agency.

This is a salary cap era and you can not ignore cheap talent.

A guy who has a gun fetish and talked smack to a cop is not exactly committing unforgivable sins imho.

This intrigues me JT. Can you elaborate more?

 

[bbgun]

Um... I'm sorry if THAT was your interpretation. It wasn't my intent at all. I was for both the T.O. and Tank signing.

fine

Change your slogan to "Jerry lied, integrity died, the Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, and are on the right path again."

not sure what the glory years have to do with anything

I don't understand your position. If you have such a huge problem with Jerry and the Cowboys for bringing in T.O. and Tank, why do you keep watching? You can't stand Jerry for his lack of integrity... but you'll root for the team regardless?

Because Jerry is not "the Cowboys." Owners and players come and go, but the team is forever. Would I boycott ABC programs just because I had an issue with the prez of that network? Absurd. I pick my fights carefully.

You know that watching them play and buying merchandise puts money into Jerry's and the Cowboys' pockets, right? You're supporting the team (and their "lack of integrity") by doing so. Jerry would kiss you if he had the chance.

What does this have to do with Jerry keeping his word? He's the issue, not me. Keep your eye on the prize.

Metaphorically, you are a skinhead with a swastika on your forehead complaining about the surplus of racism in this world.

I'm a metaphorical ****?? This thread has really gone off the rails. Remind me: you're the guy I was defending, right?

In other words: you're still RIGHT on par with those of us who supported T.O. and Tank, because it hasn't changed your actions. You'll still watch the game, pump money into Jerry's pockets, and cheer when T.O. scores a game-winning TD or when Tank makes a game-winning sack. Get off your high horse.

I am not the owner of the Dallas Cowboys. I do not have the power to set an example for the rest of the league. After the Irvin fiasco, JJ vowed to build a team with character, not reform ex-cons. And the second a major player goes down, his ethics conveniently go out the window. We now know it was all lip service. Predictably, Jerry's flying monkeys could care less. Their needle is stuck on "praise." Maybe I should just unplug my conscience and become a rah-rah sheep like the rest of you. Nah.

And there was absolutely nothing wrong or kinky with Hostile's teenage sex analogy. He took the "inconsistency" thing too literally, but the analogy was fine.

That's okay. Your positively galling **** metaphor put it to shame. I'd flag your post (**** = over the line, right?), but the powers that be probably agree with you.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Seriously?

One that has a military caliber and is not considered a hunting weapon. For example, an SKS.

Would you agree that assault rifle is redundant?

 

[Hostile]

Would you agree that assault rifle is redundant?

:laugh2:

No, but I like the question.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I love how he turned Randy Moss around. Oh wait. Jerry passed on him due to character issues. But according to you, that's impossible, because Jerry embraces troubled players.

*plonk*

He passed on Moss because it would have been the eighth pick in the draft and this was immediately after Lett and Irvin were doing their thing.

Despite what anyone says we have been signing players with questionable backgrounds ever since. Everyone wants to talk about how the parcells era was a bunch of choir boys but he kept Davis after he was shot twice and they brought in Elam on the heels of his sexual assault conviction.

People just see what they want to see but selecting a character risk top 10 in the draft is one thing and signing a player to a minimum contract after losing your starter at the position is quite a different thing.

 

[WarC]

Jerruh has a history of taking on controversial players, guys with "character flaws". I think more often then not they realize this is their last best chance in the NFL, it's downhill - atleast financialyl - if they don't succeed here even if they end up at another competitive team later.