Rayman70
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 35,450
- Reaction score
- 34,358
LMAO..YEAH HE HAS INDEED ADDED SOME BUFFET LINE WEIGHT. Looks like he can play left guard and flex to center lol.Plus you have McCarthy who can play that position in a pinch.
LMAO..YEAH HE HAS INDEED ADDED SOME BUFFET LINE WEIGHT. Looks like he can play left guard and flex to center lol.Plus you have McCarthy who can play that position in a pinch.
if I had a say..I rather spend more money on a known, rather than an unknown. IE...keeping Looney for another 2 years. I realize we have a cap...but we have a ton of cap money and TO ME, investing in a proven versatile player that has started for us, is paramount. This move may indicate our free agency plans though...someone will have to tell me who MM may be targeting...is it Leary? NOW IF THAT was the case, I can see why we would do this. You get a 2 for 1 basically. Instead of spending more money on keeping Looney, you bring back Leary on a 1 year deal of you can, and re-up Redmond as we did. It does accomplish a depth scenario and gives us flexibility. That's my random thought.Redmond is a solid depth player. They kept him as an extra OL the past 2 years, and he filled in nicely when he needed to play. Can he start full time, who knows, he still needs time, but probably not. This is a good depth signing. Even if he gets beat in TC, good competition. Right now I have him way above board favorite Hyatt. Who I am not impressed with yet.
wouldn't it something is we drafted an OL at 17? lol...Like Andrews from Georgia. That would spell the end of Tyron more than likely.How do you guys feel getting the number one OL available?
if I had a say..I rather spend more money on a known, rather than an unknown. IE...keeping Looney for another 2 years. I realize we have a cap...but we have a ton of cap money and TO ME, investing in a proven versatile player that has started for us, is paramount. This move may indicate our free agency plans though...someone will have to tell me who MM may be targeting...is it Leary? NOW IF THAT was the case, I can see why we would do this. You get a 2 for 1 basically. Instead of spending more money on keeping Looney, you bring back Leary on a 1 year deal of you can, and re-up Redmond as we did. It does accomplish a depth scenario and gives us flexibility. That's my random thought.
wouldn't it something is we drafted an OL at 17? lol...Like Andrews from Georgia. That would spell the end of Tyron more than likely.
it would, but each year there is always that 1 stud olineman that falls. Andrews wouldn't make me mad at all at 17. We can come back at 51 and get a safety or DT..starting caliber as well.It’s crazy the depth we can easily have at OL. That would be crazy to see Andrews on the board at 17 lol
With Redmond re-signed and Connor McGovern now healthy, it's probably safe to assume the Cowboys aren't going to bring back Joe Looney.
Championship. He’s overmatched no matter who he’s up against. I’m about done with this sorry azz team.
Championship. He’s overmatched no matter who he’s up against. I’m about done with this sorry azz team.
if I had a say..I rather spend more money on a known, rather than an unknown. IE...keeping Looney for another 2 years. I realize we have a cap...but we have a ton of cap money and TO ME, investing in a proven versatile player that has started for us, is paramount. This move may indicate our free agency plans though...someone will have to tell me who MM may be targeting...is it Leary? NOW IF THAT was the case, I can see why we would do this. You get a 2 for 1 basically. Instead of spending more money on keeping Looney, you bring back Leary on a 1 year deal of you can, and re-up Redmond as we did. It does accomplish a depth scenario and gives us flexibility. That's my random thought.
With Redmond re-signed and Connor McGovern now healthy, it's probably safe to assume the Cowboys aren't going to bring back Joe Looney.