Warmack & Cooper?

[Idgit]

I understand the frustration.

But signing one of those expensive guards wasn't going to ensure that the first and second string centers were going to remain healthy.

Nor was it going to stop the funk that Free had fallen into.

Nor was it going to ease Tyron's growing pains at a new position.

Nor was it going to improve the blocking of the Vickers (which royally sucked and never did get the negative attention it deserved).

Nor was it going to improve the health of the first and second string running backs.

Nor was it going to improve the blocking of John Phillips (which sucked and did not get the negative attention it deserved).

I doubt the addition of Grubbs would have made much of a difference.

It would have changed what they'd be complaining about. We'd get to hear instead how Jerry never learns about spending huge money on FA OGs. Wasn't Bigg Davis' contract enough to prove that once and for all?

 

[JoeyBoy718]

It would have changed what they'd be complaining about. We'd get to hear instead how Jerry never learns about spending huge money on FA OGs. Wasn't Bigg Davis' contract enough to prove that once and for all?

And Bigg Davis was the best guard in the league for a few years. You really can't ask for more if you're spending that kind of money. Yet people still found something to complain about

 

[jnday]

Bear in mind, jnday, RS, burm, they all knew the OGs were trash when they were signed and before they'd ever seen them play together in Dallas. They're not going to take injury status or issues like the revolving door at C, surgeries, or the problems we had with the our OTs last season into account. Changes to the blocking scheme, new OL coaches, the drafting of Frederick, these also don't get taken into consideration.

As near as I can tell, the only acceptable solution is to have signed one of the expensive VFA OGs on the market last offseason. Until we go back and do that, we're going to hear about it in every offensive thread.

No , there was several options in the draft over the last few years that could have prevented having to sign to jags like Livings and Bernadeau. Injuries is not what made these players jags. These two players were scrap heap ,low quality players when Dallas signed them. I really hope that fans didn't buy into them being quality starters. They never were.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And Bigg Davis was the best guard in the league for a few years. You really can't ask for more if you're spending that kind of money. Yet people still found something to complain about

He was good. But the best? I don't think so. He couldn't be bull-rushed but stunts gave him problems.

PFF doesn't have numbers for the 2007 season. But in 2008 they had him as the 22nd best guard. In 2009 he was the 12th rated. As a side note Kyle Kosier was the 10th rated guard that season. In 2010 he was the 16th rated... which is the same rating Livings had last season.

Davis was given $24 mil over those first 3 seasons.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No , there was several options in the draft over the last few years that could have prevented having to sign to jags like Livings and Bernadeau. Injuries is not what made these players jags. These two players were scrap heap ,low quality players when Dallas signed them. I really hope that fans didn't buy into them being quality starters. They never were.

I agree that Livings and Bernadeau weren't top rated players and that the Cowboys should have drafted better... especially during the Phillips era. That's the primary reason we are where we are.

On the flip side like 17 of the 22 picks made during the Garrett era will be on this roster at the end of August... Including 3 offensive lineman. Not perfect, but a dam site better.

 

[Idgit]

No , there was several options in the draft over the last few years that could have prevented having to sign to jags like Livings and Bernadeau. Injuries is not what made these players jags. These two players were scrap heap ,low quality players when Dallas signed them. I really hope that fans didn't buy into them being quality starters. They never were.

I don't know that many fans, if any, had particularly high expectations for them. They were veteran OGs, that we were trying to plug in while we were retooling the rest of the OL. The plan was always to draft and develop mid-rounders for those positions long term. What was challenging was doing that while also reserving resources (1st round picks and cap dollars) for the positions on the OL that you can't typically fill with journeyman VFAs or reliably develop from middle round picks and a few years on the roster.

 

[Idgit]

And Bigg Davis was the best guard in the league for a few years. You really can't ask for more if you're spending that kind of money. Yet people still found something to complain about

He did have a couple good years, but that's exactly the kind of signing I'm desperately trying to avoid if I'm building my roster. We paid a premium for a player who plays a position other teams reliably fill from the middle rounds, and then ended up upside down on his contract the last two years he was on the roster where we weren't getting anything near the value we were paying for but it was not cost effective to replace him. Worse, we didn't use the interval to get a reliable and inexpensive starter in place to step in when he was gone.

 

[burmafrd]

"JoeyBoy718, post: 5129410, member: 33401"]And Bigg Davis was the best guard in the league for a few years. You really can't ask for more if you're spending that kind of money. Yet people still found something to complain about[/quote]


well you just lost whatever credibility you might have had as regards an opinion on O line players.

You find ANYONE ANYWHERE that thought he was that good of a guard.

 

[jnday]

I understand the frustration.

But signing one of those expensive guards wasn't going to ensure that the first and second string centers were going to remain healthy.

Nor was it going to stop the funk that Free had fallen into.

Nor was it going to ease Tyron's growing pains at a new position.

Nor was it going to improve the blocking of the Vickers (which royally sucked and never did get the negative attention it deserved).

Nor was it going to improve the health of the first and second string running backs.

Nor was it going to improve the blocking of John Phillips (which sucked and did not get the negative attention it deserved).

I doubt the addition of Grubbs would have made much of a difference.

For the record, I was against signing any free agent guards, even the expensive ones. That is not the way to build an oline.

 

[xwalker]

No , there was several options in the draft over the last few years that could have prevented having to sign to jags like Livings and Bernadeau. Injuries is not what made these players jags. These two players were scrap heap ,low quality players when Dallas signed them. I really hope that fans didn't buy into them being quality starters. They never were.

Livings was a reasonable NFL starter in Cincinnati. Bernadeau is getting paid less than many backups that the Cowboys have had in the past. They paid Montrae Holland more during the years that he was a backup than they're paying Bernadeau.

If they guaranteed Livings base salary for 2013, then I will agree that was a very stupid decision. I researched this issue but still can't conclusively determine the answer. It appears at a minimum that his salary is guaranteed against injury.

 

[TheCount]

I agree that Livings and Bernadeau weren't top rated players and that the Cowboys should have drafted better... especially during the Phillips era. That's the primary reason we are where we are.

On the flip side like 17 of the 22 picks made during the Garrett era will be on this roster at the end of August... Including 3 offensive lineman. Not perfect, but a dam site better.

The thing we heard alot during the Wade Phillips era was that there were no spots for rookies, because the starters were so good. That hasn't been the case under Garrett, especially after cutting so many of those former veterans, which gives Garrett a bit of a boost in the whole "Drafted players still on the roster" conversation.

Livings was a reasonable NFL starter in Cincinnati..

He was only a reasonable starter there in the same sense he is now. A starter that the fans don't like but coaches seem okay with simply because he's good enough to keep the awful players on the bench. I always thought Holland was a good player, when he was healthy - which was basically never.

 

[Idgit]

The thing we heard alot during the Wade Phillips era was that there were no spots for rookies, because the starters were so good. That hasn't been the case under Garrett, especially after cutting so many of those former veterans, which gives Garrett a bit of a boost in the whole "Drafted players still on the roster" conversation.

I don't recall hearing there were no spots for rookies, ever, really, during the Wade Phillips era. We had one of the most talented starting rosters in football once Tony came into his own, but there was always talk of TO's age, replacing Crayton. We've had S issues for years going back before Jason Garrett took over. Our OT play is what got us beat in 2007 and again in 2009 when we came up against teams with good fronts in NYFG and MIN. People were already complaining (prematurely) about Terrance Newman. Wanting to replace Bradie James. We had Keith Brooking on his last legs in the starting lineup.

He was only a reasonable starter there in the same sense he is now. A starter that the fans don't like but coaches seem okay with simply because he's good enough to keep the awful players on the bench. I always thought Holland was a good player, when he was healthy - which was basically never.

He was the same sort of player in CIN that he was intended to be here: serviceable, and replaceable. The only differences are that he got injured late last season, and (some of) our fans never were going to be satisfied with serviceable because they wanted Ben Grubbs and Carl Nicks in the same offseason.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So far, I have hit on more of the linemen than the savior Callahan. My opinion doesn't mean much , but Risen Star, Burm and myself along with others called the livings and Bernadeau signings trash. They help set an all time low for rushing last year. By all means, keep your faith in Callahan and the Cowboys scouts that have come up with great linemen like Brewster, Sam Young, Nagy, Callahans picks Livings and Bernadeau and other studs.

Compares himself favorably to Callahan....widely considered an offensive line guru.

Is serious.

I don't even...

 

[TheCount]

I don't recall hearing there were no spots for rookies, ever, really, during the Wade Phillips era. We had one of the most talented starting rosters in football once Tony came into his own, but there was always talk of TO's age, replacing Crayton. We've had S issues for years going back before Jason Garrett took over. Our OT play is what got us beat in 2007 and again in 2009 when we came up against teams with good fronts in NYFG and MIN. People were already complaining (prematurely) about Terrance Newman. Wanting to replace Bradie James. We had Keith Brooking on his last legs in the starting lineup.



He was the same sort of player in CIN that he was intended to be here: serviceable, and replaceable. The only differences are that he got injured late last season, and (some of) our fans never were going to be satisfied with serviceable because they wanted Ben Grubbs and Carl Nicks in the same offseason.

I'm not sure what "serviceable" means in this context, there are a lot of different ways to define the term but I explicitly remember looking up fan opinion of Livings and finding it almost universally negative. Not a single Bengal fan was sad to lose a "serviceable" starting lineman from what I recall seeing with my own eyes.

Fan opinion, however, is not the same as staff opinion, which is why I made the distinction between the two.

As to the Wade vs Garrett era, wanting to replace does not equal actually opening the spot up for competition. It wasn't till after Wade was kicked out the door that the idea of replacing veterans actually became immediately feasible, as it often is with a head coaching change.

You can say what you want about fans not appreciating "serviceable", but a lot of the guys that the fans railed against for years were the first ones to go once Garrett got the reigns.

 

[jnday]

Compares himself favorably to Callahan....widely considered an offensive line guru.

Is serious.

I don't even...

I don't consider as a guru. That guru coached the worst line in the history of the Cowboys last year. He when he left the Jets, their line was not so great either. He signed of on Livings and Bernadeau. Yeah, he is real impressive.

 

[Ratmatt]

Frederick is most likely going to get his career compared to Shariff Floyd of the vikings.

 

[xwalker]

He was only a reasonable starter there in the same sense he is now. A starter that the fans don't like but coaches seem okay with simply because he's good enough to keep the awful players on the bench. I always thought Holland was a good player, when he was healthy - which was basically never.

I reviewed Livings on the Coaches Film. He was a completely different player from week 1 to week 17. The injury significantly affected his ability.

 

[Idgit]

..You can say what you want about fans not appreciating "serviceable", but a lot of the guys that the fans railed against for years were the first ones to go once Garrett got the reigns.

This is largely true, but there's an obvious reason why: fans want players replaced as soon as they peak. Then they complain about those players' performance for, literally, years, until their declining play is actually poor enough to merit replacement. They were doing that last year with Jason Witten, for example. They've been doing it for years with Anthony Spencer and Jay Ratliff. This offseason it is Demarcus Ware's turn in the barrel. Fan sentiment turning against a player is a precursor to the end of his career, not a measure of it.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say you want a declining player gone. Much harder to determine how long you can effectively use one of those veterans before having to spend valuable resources on his replacement.

We didn't do that at OG. We whiffed on the draft picks we'd tried to develop, and then weren't in a good place to replace Bigg, Gurode, and then Kosier in relatively quick succession. While I've frequently said that OGs are a relatively available commodity for the NFL (you have your pick of all the college OG candidates, the college OT converts, and the small school college players who can really benefit from NFL strength training but who are otherwise plenty athletic enough to play in the box), it is true that you have to invest time and a lot of coaching on these mid-round picks to make that strategy pay off. Grabbing a 'serviceable' player (by serviceable, I mean a slightly below-average NFL starter) for two years to buy time to develop players doesn't excite anybody, but when you've got to replace your OT(s), possibly your C, two DL positions, two CBs, and get a young QB on the roster to develop, it would have been dumb to blow a premium pick or premium cap dollars at a position you can fix with time and at a value if you can just find yourself a stop-gap solution.

Everybody and his or her brother piled on Jerry/Jason for the tactic, but it was the right thing to do. If we hit on Leary, Mack, Arkin, Kowolsi (any two), we're now finally in a position where we can devote precious resources to restocking an aging DL next season and we'll have basically repaired both wings and the engine of this clunky airplane mid-flight. That's pretty impressive as far as I'm concerned, which is why I get grouchy when I hear so many people complaining that we didn't break the bank for Nicks & Grubbs.

 

[jnday]

This is largely true, but there's an obvious reason why: fans want players replaced as soon as they peak. Then they complain about those players' performance for, literally, years, until their declining play is actually poor enough to merit replacement. They were doing that last year with Jason Witten, for example. They've been doing it for years with Anthony Spencer and Jay Ratliff. This offseason it is Demarcus Ware's turn in the barrel. Fan sentiment turning against a player is a precursor to the end of his career, not a measure of it.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say you want a declining player gone. Much harder to determine how long you can effectively use one of those veterans before having to spend valuable resources on his replacement.

We didn't do that at OG. We whiffed on the draft picks we'd tried to develop, and then weren't in a good place to replace Bigg, Gurode, and then Kosier in relatively quick succession. While I've frequently said that OGs are a relatively available commodity for the NFL (you have your pick of all the college OG candidates, the college OT converts, and the small school college players who can really benefit from NFL strength training but who are otherwise plenty athletic enough to play in the box), it is true that you have to invest time and a lot of coaching on these mid-round picks to make that strategy pay off. Grabbing a 'serviceable' player (by serviceable, I mean a slightly below-average NFL starter) for two years to buy time to develop players doesn't excite anybody, but when you've got to replace your OT(s), possibly your C, two DL positions, two CBs, and get a young QB on the roster to develop, it would have been dumb to blow a premium pick or premium cap dollars at a position you can fix with time and at a value if you can just find yourself a stop-gap solution.

Everybody and his or her brother piled on Jerry/Jason for the tactic, but it was the right thing to do. If we hit on Leary, Mack, Arkin, Kowolsi (any two), we're now finally in a position where we can devote precious resources to restocking an aging DL next season and we'll have basically repaired both wings and the engine of this clunky airplane mid-flight. That's pretty impressive as far as I'm concerned, which is why I get grouchy when I hear so many people complaining that we didn't break the bank for Nicks & Grubbs.

The signing of the high price free agents is not what many fans wanted. Using a second or third round pick every other year would have prevented this mess. Quit trying to patch the line and draft one. They didn't have to spend first round picks if they had better planning. Not signing some of the udfa olinemen this year was another mistake. How many of the scrubs like Weems are going to help the team? At least they could have tried some talent that hadn't been picked through. As it stands, not the first one has a chance to make the team. The team hurts themselves with stupid moves like these.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The signing of the high price free agents is not what many fans wanted. Using a second or third round pick every other year would have prevented this mess. Quit trying to patch the line and draft one. They didn't have to spend first round picks if they had better planning. Not signing some of the udfa olinemen this year was another mistake. How many of the scrubs like Weems are going to help the team? At least they could have tried some talent that hadn't been picked through. As it stands, not the first one has a chance to make the team. The team hurts themselves with stupid moves like these.

Well they did throw a lot of draft picks at this thing and unfortunately most didn't pan out.

Now they weren't all 2nds and 3rds but when you have 22 starters and probably another 4-6 players/positions that also need attention on a regular basis you can't allocate one of your top 3 picks of every draft on one unit, i.e. offensive line. The "roster math" simply won't allow it. Several offensive line draft picks were botched in the Parcells and Phillips era. It is what it is.