Shake_Tiller
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,438
- Reaction score
- 1,563
NFL teams and their fans probably cringe most when this happens: The team is forced to fill a position with a totally unproven player. The decision to risk taking that route might be the most difficult teams face.
To be sure, it happens involuntarily, in most cases – an unexpected retirement, injury or suspension leaves a team without a proven option at a point when it is nearly impossible to correct the problem. Sometimes, such as in the case of the New York Giants, the surprising event turns out to be fortunate, the unproven player unexpectedly fills the position adequately, even better.
I look way back into Cowboys history, when the team started Cliff Harris, a rookie free agent, at safety. He became the greatest safety of his era. I recall when a free agent receiver named Drew Pearson filled a hole at wide receiver and had what ought to be, in my estimation, a Hall of Fame career. It’s astounding, in fact, that neither Harris nor Pearson has been voted to the Hall.
Of course, there are many other, more recent examples, but I like these. Oh yeah. I really, really like ’em.
The free agency era has changed thinking, among both teams and their fans. Since there is a method to fill a position with a proven player, there is pressure to do just that, as a backup plan, if nothing else. Need a weak safety? Sign Ken Hamlin. Need a guard? Sign Bigg Davis. Need a linebacker? Sign Akin Ayodele.
Compared to many teams, the Cowboys are relatively infrequent players in the free agency game. Yes, they participate, but thankfully, in the past few years, the drafts have been good enough, the forays into original free agency (undrafted college players) successful enough to fill most needs. As a result, some free agents have proven to be less than useful.
In many instances, a free agent signee is a stop-gap measure. The Cowboys didn’t add Vinny Testaverde or Jason Fabini, to name a couple, with the idea that they would be long-term solutions.
The danger inherent in having free agency available as a crutch – as insurance against the failure of younger players – is that some younger players are never given a good opportunity to prove themselves. Is the insurance policy worth that risk? Maybe so. It’s a worthwhile discussion.
There are times when it is fairly apparent that insurance is desirable. The Cowboys have few options at the bottom of their roster to provide depth at CB and RB. There isn’t a player on the bench who appears ready to fill either role.
There are times when the need for insurance – or flat-out help – is less apparent. The Cowboys like some of their young receivers. Might the addition of a marginally talented veteran blunt the development of those young players or prevent Dallas from finding out whether they can play? Possibly. Might it cause a potential star to get away? Possibly… but probably not.
For the most part, Dallas seems to be rather proficient at identifying talent on its roster. Serviceable players, decent players who have been the property of the Cowboys have been released or traded, then have become pretty good players elsewhere. But few of those players have proven to be better than the talent the Cowboys retained.
Still, there is something to be said for giving young talent a chance to emerge. I don’t know where the correct answer lies, but I think it’s worth discussion.
A caveat: Whether in the draft, a trade or in free agency, it’s always advisable to add a true difference maker, where possible. The odds of a young roster player becoming a Charles Haley, a Deion Sanders, or a Terrell Owens are infinitesimal. The odds that Stanback, say, will become a better player than Roy Williams are low indeed. If the price of a Roy Williams is acceptable – a Larry Fitzgerald, for that matter – a team probably shouldn’t worry much about how young roster players might be affected.
But signing, say, a D.J. Hackett might be counterproductive. It might prevent the team from giving a potentially better player a chance to develop.
What I’m asking is: What do you think?
To be sure, it happens involuntarily, in most cases – an unexpected retirement, injury or suspension leaves a team without a proven option at a point when it is nearly impossible to correct the problem. Sometimes, such as in the case of the New York Giants, the surprising event turns out to be fortunate, the unproven player unexpectedly fills the position adequately, even better.
I look way back into Cowboys history, when the team started Cliff Harris, a rookie free agent, at safety. He became the greatest safety of his era. I recall when a free agent receiver named Drew Pearson filled a hole at wide receiver and had what ought to be, in my estimation, a Hall of Fame career. It’s astounding, in fact, that neither Harris nor Pearson has been voted to the Hall.
Of course, there are many other, more recent examples, but I like these. Oh yeah. I really, really like ’em.
The free agency era has changed thinking, among both teams and their fans. Since there is a method to fill a position with a proven player, there is pressure to do just that, as a backup plan, if nothing else. Need a weak safety? Sign Ken Hamlin. Need a guard? Sign Bigg Davis. Need a linebacker? Sign Akin Ayodele.
Compared to many teams, the Cowboys are relatively infrequent players in the free agency game. Yes, they participate, but thankfully, in the past few years, the drafts have been good enough, the forays into original free agency (undrafted college players) successful enough to fill most needs. As a result, some free agents have proven to be less than useful.
In many instances, a free agent signee is a stop-gap measure. The Cowboys didn’t add Vinny Testaverde or Jason Fabini, to name a couple, with the idea that they would be long-term solutions.
The danger inherent in having free agency available as a crutch – as insurance against the failure of younger players – is that some younger players are never given a good opportunity to prove themselves. Is the insurance policy worth that risk? Maybe so. It’s a worthwhile discussion.
There are times when it is fairly apparent that insurance is desirable. The Cowboys have few options at the bottom of their roster to provide depth at CB and RB. There isn’t a player on the bench who appears ready to fill either role.
There are times when the need for insurance – or flat-out help – is less apparent. The Cowboys like some of their young receivers. Might the addition of a marginally talented veteran blunt the development of those young players or prevent Dallas from finding out whether they can play? Possibly. Might it cause a potential star to get away? Possibly… but probably not.
For the most part, Dallas seems to be rather proficient at identifying talent on its roster. Serviceable players, decent players who have been the property of the Cowboys have been released or traded, then have become pretty good players elsewhere. But few of those players have proven to be better than the talent the Cowboys retained.
Still, there is something to be said for giving young talent a chance to emerge. I don’t know where the correct answer lies, but I think it’s worth discussion.
A caveat: Whether in the draft, a trade or in free agency, it’s always advisable to add a true difference maker, where possible. The odds of a young roster player becoming a Charles Haley, a Deion Sanders, or a Terrell Owens are infinitesimal. The odds that Stanback, say, will become a better player than Roy Williams are low indeed. If the price of a Roy Williams is acceptable – a Larry Fitzgerald, for that matter – a team probably shouldn’t worry much about how young roster players might be affected.
But signing, say, a D.J. Hackett might be counterproductive. It might prevent the team from giving a potentially better player a chance to develop.
What I’m asking is: What do you think?
