We DID get a 4th for shanle...

[silverbear]

And Parcells can't be wrong either. He said it was a provisional pick.

He did?? I hadn't seen that...

I do find it a little bit funny, folks saying it's definitely true that the Boys get a 7th, 'cause it said so on dallascowboys.com... I have in the past known that website to be totally misinformed on any number of subjects... at first, it shocked me, since the website is owned by the Cowboys, but apparently Parcells extends his disdain for the media to the team's own website as well...

And of course, the Dallas area mediots making the 7th round claim so definitively might just be piggybacking on those earlier reports, without bothering to research the matter for themselves... Mickey Spagnola said it was a 7th, so that MUST be the truth, right??

It's rather like the way that bogus article in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, about Vanderjagt possibly being cut by the Cowboys, was picked up by website after website after website... well, as I mentioned in another thread, I e-mailed the director of the TribStar's website, and within hours the story was pulled, and the next day a formal retraction appeared... mind you, I'm not claiming personal credit for that; I believe that others must have complained as well, perhaps even somebody with the team contacted them to set the record straight, but I did get an e-mail yesterday from Mr. Hussey thanking me for calling the error to his attention, and apologizing for letting it appear in the first place...

But I digress... the point is, the story was absolutely without substance, but others picked it up and ran with it, until it had the appearance of truth...

On this argument, I don't have the first clue what round pick the Cowboys gained, simply because there are reasonably credible sources claiming it's a 4th, and other reasonably credible sources claiming it's a 7th... that's why I've said all along that I'd wait until I heard from either Bill or Jerry what pick they added, and I won't presume to claim I know the truth of this matter until I do...

Which is why I found it intriguing when you said that Parcells said it's a conditional pick... this might explain the conflicting stories, worst case scenario might be a 7th rounder, while the best case scenario would be a 4th rounder...

 

[silverbear]

Well, I've tried twice, now. This time I'll just put in the link to the story, & my post won't get deleted!

What in God's name are you talking about, Cogan?? I saw the article you reposted in its entirety both time you posted it... the first is post number 96 in this thread, the second is post number 103...

If they're not showing up for you, you've got some problems, 'cause I just went back and checked, and they're both right where they've been all along...

 

[silverbear]

My God man it's on the official Dallas Cowboys site as a 7th. Please stop the madness.

ROTFLMAO... like dallascowboys.com has a record for accuracy...

 

[silverbear]

Yeah, but Edwards > Shanle -- by a wide wide margin.

Uhhh, no... Edwards is an aging vet, who the Chargers considered to be replacable... he's also 227 pounds, which would be awfully light for an ILB...

Shanle is six years younger, 15-20 pounds bigger, and he only cost the Saints a 4th rounder at best, while Edwards would have cost them a 2nd... finally, the Saints' brain trust had personal knowledge of Shanle's abilities from their head coach's time in Dallas... this might have made the guy even more attractive to them...

Maybe if the Saints were a legit contender, it would make sense to go for the aging vet for some short term help, but of course they're a LONG way from being a contender... so it makes more sense for them to go for the linebacker who might still be playing for them 5 years from now...

And if you factor in that the Cowboys might have had multiple bidders for Shanle, it really doesn't seem that far-fetched that the Boys might have finagled a 4th rounder out of the Saints...

 

[AbeBeta]

Uhhh, no... Edwards is an aging vet, who the Chargers considered to be replacable... he's also 227 pounds, which would be awfully light for an ILB...

Edwards is an aging vet. He's also a tackling machine.

Edwards is 227 pounds. That is light for an ILB -- that didn't stop him from collecting 152 tackles last year. His 3rd straight year with over 150. All playing ILB. Sure, the Chargers saw him as replaceable -- we saw Shanle as replaceable - isn't that why teams trade guys in the first place?

Shanle couldn't even win the starting position after Dat went down. Bill was playing Fowler much more and starting him at the end of the year.

Shanle is younger and bigger. He doesn't have much else going for him. But Edwards is the only one of the two who has actually performed well at the NFL level.

Shanle is six years younger, 15-20 pounds bigger, and he only cost the Saints a 4th rounder at best, while Edwards would have cost them a 2nd... finally, the Saints' brain trust had personal knowledge of Shanle's abilities from their head coach's time in Dallas... this might have made the guy even more attractive to them...

I posted an article earlier about how the Chargers wanted a 3 for Edwards -- and the Saints were offering a 4. I'm not posting that again for obvious reasons.

Maybe if the Saints were a legit contender, it would make sense to go for the aging vet for some short term help, but of course they're a LONG way from being a contender... so it makes more sense for them to go for the linebacker who might still be playing for them 5 years from now...

And if you factor in that the Cowboys might have had multiple bidders for Shanle, it really doesn't seem that far-fetched that the Boys might have finagled a 4th rounder out of the Saints...

The 4th is far-fetched - why? Because Shanle a) hasn't done crap in the NFL, b) he projects, at best, to be a guy who if he is your starter, you are always looking to replace, c) he projects more reasonably as a career backup and ST player, and d) the bidding never would have approached a 4th rounder if there were multiple interested teams because the first time someone said "we'll give you a 6th" we would have jumped on it.

I want this to be a 4th as badly as anyone else here -- I just don't believe it is.

 

[Alexander]

Edwards is 227 pounds. That is light for an ILB

And chances are, he would be an outside linebacker for a 4-3 team. So his weight is really irrelevant.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I remember watching Edwards when he played up here for KC. Dude was a machine. I really wanted the Cowboys to get him when he was a FA.

 

[Doomsdayblitz]

I found the article in the Sun-Herald about the Shanle trade, & there is an article by Larry Holder saying that the Cowboys did indeed get a 4th rd. pick from the Saints for Shanle. I'm not for sure, but I would think that since they are in Biloxi, they have the pulse of both teams, that they would have a better idea about the trade. Besides, it seems to me that if a paper uses any pick other than the 7th, they would double check for accuracy. The Dallas paper probably assumed a 7th because it is the most common, and Shanle isn't thought of as 4th rd. material.

This is great news. If Dallas does as well as I think they will this year-loses in the NFC Championship game-then an extra 4th rd. pick would be vital to moving up a couple of spots if they have a player they really want.

It is surprising to me that they got a 4th for Shanle, but couldn't get a bite for Henson. I'm hoping there is at least one more player who can draw a pick from next year's draft.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He did?? I hadn't seen that...

I do find it a little bit funny, folks saying it's definitely true that the Boys get a 7th, 'cause it said so on dallascowboys.com... I have in the past known that website to be totally misinformed on any number of subjects... at first, it shocked me, since the website is owned by the Cowboys, but apparently Parcells extends his disdain for the media to the team's own website as well...

And of course, the Dallas area mediots making the 7th round claim so definitively might just be piggybacking on those earlier reports, without bothering to research the matter for themselves... Mickey Spagnola said it was a 7th, so that MUST be the truth, right??

It's rather like the way that bogus article in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, about Vanderjagt possibly being cut by the Cowboys, was picked up by website after website after website... well, as I mentioned in another thread, I e-mailed the director of the TribStar's website, and within hours the story was pulled, and the next day a formal retraction appeared... mind you, I'm not claiming personal credit for that; I believe that others must have complained as well, perhaps even somebody with the team contacted them to set the record straight, but I did get an e-mail yesterday from Mr. Hussey thanking me for calling the error to his attention, and apologizing for letting it appear in the first place...

But I digress... the point is, the story was absolutely without substance, but others picked it up and ran with it, until it had the appearance of truth...

On this argument, I don't have the first clue what round pick the Cowboys gained, simply because there are reasonably credible sources claiming it's a 4th, and other reasonably credible sources claiming it's a 7th... that's why I've said all along that I'd wait until I heard from either Bill or Jerry what pick they added, and I won't presume to claim I know the truth of this matter until I do...

Which is why I found it intriguing when you said that Parcells said it's a conditional pick... this might explain the conflicting stories, worst case scenario might be a 7th rounder, while the best case scenario would be a 4th rounder...

Levity indeed.

 

[md2005]

Is there any closure on this post. Is the pick a 4th or 7th.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Is there any closure on this post. Is the pick a 4th or 7th.

I asked the same question a few pages back. Yeah, my lazy butt didn't want to read all 100 replies either. The answer is 7th. Conditional at that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I asked the same question a few pages back. Yeah, my lazy butt didn't want to read all 100 replies either. The answer is 7th. Conditional at that.

Actually, the jury is still very much out.

No single reporter has acknowledged the conflicting reports and weighed in nor have these individual sites retracted any of the said articles.