WR Matt Jones has been hindered by soft-tissue injuries

[DFWJC]

Soft tissue issues between the ears

 

[Stash]

Jones at best would be brought in as the 3rd receiver. TO and Crayton are clearly #1 and #2. By the end of the pre-season, either Hurd or Austin may claim the #3 spot. Even if they don't, one of them can hold the role for a few weeks until Matt Jones or any other receiver brought in learned the play book.

If things stay as they are, I don't think the Cowboys have any other options but to hope that Hurd can claim the #3 role.

Like last year when Glenn went down, they had to play Crayton at #2 because they simply had no alternative.

Matt Jones isn't coming in to be the #2 guy. I do wish that Dallas had someone better than Crayton at #2, but they don't. I don't see how they will get someone better than Crayton at this time unless they pull off a major trade. And Crayton is better than Jones.

I don't necessarily think that Jones would be the #2 or that he's "better" than Crayton, but more that I think that he could present some abilities and matchups that Crayton can't.

Jones has more speed and size to be a red zone factor where Crayton is a better route runner with better hands (most of the time).

 

[Velvet Jones]

If we picture a world without Glenn, what is it that we have? TO is our undisputed 1. Now would Crayton be our 2 or would Stanback be placed in at 2? Staying realistic, I will go with Crayton being our 2 and Stanback being our 3. Not great but it really all hinges on Stanback who is a question mark. That will leave Hurd, Austin and Danny to fight over the 4 spot.

Here is where I don't see it worth it to offer a draft pick. Jones would be fighting for that 4 spot (i see it an uphill battle for him again Stanback only because Standback hasn't had the chance yet to show what he can do and the coaches are high on him). Why offer out picks for someone fighting for your 4 spot? I wouldn't mind seeing the churning of Hurd or Austin out of here but I still would like to see what Danny can do. But I wouldn't offer a draft pick to churn out Hurn and Austin.

I hear you on that you want depth if TO goes down but Jones doesn't provide instant depth. If TO goes down, having or not having Jones doesn't make me feel any different. It will be tough either way. We definitely need someone opposite TO, but Jones isn't that type of player. He is someone to develope just like Stanback.

And I realize what you are saying about the chances of finding someone in the 6th with Jones tangibles are slim but there is more to it than just taking that slot. There is trading power for someone better, there is taking a chance on a draftee or there is trading up or down rounds.

 

[joseephuss]

If things stay as they are, I don't think the Cowboys have any other options but to hope that Hurd can claim the #3 role.

Like last year when Glenn went down, they had to play Crayton at #2 because they simply had no alternative.



I don't necessarily think that Jones would be the #2 or that he's "better" than Crayton, but more that I think that he could present some abilities and matchups that Crayton can't.

Jones has more speed and size to be a red zone factor where Crayton is a better route runner with better hands (most of the time).

Crayton seems to be pretty decent in the red zone. He scored 4 TDs in the red zone last year compared to 3 for Matt Jones. I also see Dallas using Martellus Bennett in the red zone this season, which should be an improvement over using Fasano in the red zone.

I don't see Matt Jones as a #2 wide receiver. He may be decent as a #3 wide receiver. The #3 wide receiver is not typically the #3 receiving option on the team especially a team with a good tight end like Dallas. The Cowboys are also expected to use their running backs more this season. So even if Matt Jones came in as the #3 receiver he probably would not do much. That is why I don't think he is worth a draft pick. There are only so many balls to go around and Dallas ranked 18th last year in pass attempts.

Previous #3 & #4 wide receivers for Dallas:

1992 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kelvin Martin
32 receptions
359 yards
3 TDs
#4 none that caught a pass

1993 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kevin Williams
20 receptions
151 yards
2 Tds
#4 Tyrone Williams
1 reception
25 yards
0 TDs

1994 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kevin Williams
13 receptions
181 yards
0 TDs
#4 none that caught a pass

1995 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Kevin Williams
#3 Cory Fleming
6 receptions
83 yards
0 TDs
#4 Deion Sanders
2 receptions
25 yards
0 TDs

2007 #1 Terrell Owens #2 Patrick Crayton
#3 Sam Hurd
19 receptions
314 yards
1 TD
#4 Miles Austin
5 receptions
76 yards
0 TDs

 

[Stash]

If we picture a world without Glenn, what is it that we have? TO is our undisputed 1. Now would Crayton be our 2 or would Stanback be placed in at 2? Staying realistic, I will go with Crayton being our 2 and Stanback being our 3. Not great but it really all hinges on Stanback who is a question mark. That will leave Hurd, Austin and Danny to fight over the 4 spot.

Here is where I don't see it worth it to offer a draft pick. Jones would be fighting for that 4 spot (i see it an uphill battle for him again Stanback only because Standback hasn't had the chance yet to show what he can do and the coaches are high on him). Why offer out picks for someone fighting for your 4 spot? I wouldn't mind seeing the churning of Hurd or Austin out of here but I still would like to see what Danny can do. But I wouldn't offer a draft pick to churn out Hurn and Austin.

I guess we differ greatly in our opinion or expectations of Stanback. While I hope he's as good as you say, the fact is that the guy is a total question mark who has yet to do anything at the NFL level. He's still the same unproven project he was last season.

I hear you on that you want depth if TO goes down but Jones doesn't provide instant depth. If TO goes down, having or not having Jones doesn't make me feel any different. It will be tough either way. We definitely need someone opposite TO, but Jones isn't that type of player. He is someone to develop just like Stanback.

Key difference being that Jones has done something at the NFL level. He's still raw in some ways, but he's shown he can play. Stanback is a total unknown.

Obviously Jones couln't replace Owens, noone could. But he would give the team an option they currently don't have. Could you imagine having to go with Crayton adn Hurd as your two starting receivers? Can you say 8 men in the box?

And I realize what you are saying about the chances of finding someone in the 6th with Jones tangibles are slim but there is more to it than just taking that slot. There is trading power for someone better, there is taking a chance on a draftee or there is trading up or down rounds.

Yeah, but none of those scenarios do anything to help a team with Super Bowl hopes this year.

I would gladly sacrifice 2009 draft picks if it helped to ensure this team's success this year.

 

[Stash]

Crayton seems to be pretty decent in the red zone. He scored 4 TDs in the red zone last year compared to 3 for Matt Jones. I also see Dallas using Martellus Bennett in the red zone this season, which should be an improvement over using Fasano in the red zone.

I don't see Matt Jones as a #2 wide receiver. He may be decent as a #3 wide receiver. The #3 wide receiver is not typically the #3 receiving option on the team especially a team with a good tight end like Dallas. The Cowboys are also expected to use their running backs more this season. So even if Matt Jones came in as the #3 receiver he probably would not do much. That is why I don't think he is worth a draft pick. There are only so many balls to go around and Dallas ranked 18th last year in pass attempts.

Previous #3 & #4 wide receivers for Dallas:

1992 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kelvin Martin
32 receptions
359 yards
3 TDs
#4 none that caught a pass

1993 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kevin Williams
20 receptions
151 yards
2 Tds
#4 Tyrone Williams
1 reception
25 yards
0 TDs

1994 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Alvin Harper
#3 Kevin Williams
13 receptions
181 yards
0 TDs
#4 none that caught a pass

1995 #1 Michael Irvin #2 Kevin Williams
#3 Cory Fleming
6 receptions
83 yards
0 TDs
#4 Deion Sanders
2 receptions
25 yards
0 TDs

2007 #1 Terrell Owens #2 Patrick Crayton
#3 Sam Hurd
19 receptions
314 yards
1 TD
#4 Miles Austin
5 receptions
76 yards
0 TDs

Funny that your list included Alvin Harper.

Jones' overall numbers over his first three years are better than Harper's over the same period.

So if Harper was 'good enough' to be this team's #2 opposite an All-Pro like Irvin......

 

[ZeroClub]

Lingering soft tissue injuries too?

Current market value for Matt Jones: 1/8 of a bag of peanuts.

 

[dogberry]

Soft tissue injury moves Matt Jones over into the Colombo column. First round draft choices with injuries who can be had for nothing. Now must look see.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

The most discouraging thing about this is that Matt Jones seems to be made up entirely of "soft tissue", so this could certainly be career threatening.

 

[Velvet Jones]

I guess we differ greatly in our opinion or expectations of Stanback.

As we also differ in the hopes of what Jones can bring so no worries.

Key difference being that Jones has done something at the NFL level. He's still raw in some ways, but he's shown he can play. Stanback is a total unknown.

The oposite side of that coin is that we also know what Jones can bring and we can still have high hopes about what Stanback can bring. I don't see how you can sit on one side of the fence and say that we don't know what Jones can do here because no reciever does well in Jax and then use that same excuse for him to leap frog Standback because we don't know what he can do.

Could you imagine having to go with Crayton adn Hurd as your two starting receivers? Can you say 8 men in the box?

I don't see how, in any way what-so-ever, that is better by changing the names to Crayton and Jones... except that we lose a 6th round pick in the process.

I would gladly sacrifice 2009 draft picks if it helped to ensure this team's success this year.

My point is that Jones, how you describe him fitting in here, is not anywhere near insurance that we have success this year. You are wanting him to be the 3rd receiver on a new offense and to continue being trained over from being a College QB. How does that "ensure our success in 2009"? You defend your stance of wanting him as depth. But then you say that if we don't get him, then that is us not having depth. So is he a project or is he depth?

If us getting Jones as a project is what you want, then I can side with that. I can say, "why is that any more risky than continueing with Hurd or Austin?" But if you are championing him as depth for our roster in case TO goes down... that is just silly. I know you are on a cause here, and have even got people to side with you, but will they even say that having Jones ensures that we have success??

 

[Stash]

As we also differ in the hopes of what Jones can bring so no worries.

Cool.

The oposite side of that coin is that we also know what Jones can bring and we can still have high hopes about what Stanback can bring. I don't see how you can sit on one side of the fence and say that we don't know what Jones can do here because no reciever does well in Jax and then use that same excuse for him to leap frog Standback because we don't know what he can do.

Think of it this way, say Jones has proven to be 50% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver, with the potential ability to be more. Stanback has proven to be essentially 0% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver with the potential to be more. Does that make sense?

I don't see how, in any way what-so-ever, that is better by changing the names to Crayton and Jones... except that we lose a 6th round pick in the process.

Jones has size and speed that neither Hurd nor Crayton have. Hurd and Crayton are the same guy. A solid posession receiver who lacks elite speed. Teams could stack the box all day against two posession receivers.

My point is that Jones, how you describe him fitting in here, is not anywhere near insurance that we have success this year. You are wanting him to be the 3rd receiver on a new offense and to continue being trained over from being a College QB. How does that "ensure our success in 2009"? You defend your stance of wanting him as depth. But then you say that if we don't get him, then that is us not having depth. So is he a project or is he depth?

I would look at my above answer. In short, depth with upside.

If us getting Jones as a project is what you want, then I can side with that. I can say, "why is that any more risky than continueing with Hurd or Austin?" But if you are championing him as depth for our roster in case TO goes down... that is just silly. I know you are on a cause here, and have even got people to side with you, but will they even say that having Jones ensures that we have success??

If Owens goes down, nothing can be ensured. I would just prefer to have more options than what the team currently has.

Jones hasn't been all-world to date, but he's been adequate. And he's still young enough to get better. He brings physical abilities that none of the receivers not named Owens do.

We can speculate whether or not Sherman and Garrett could maximize those skills, but we can't deny they exist.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Wait...when did Jones recieve elite speed?

 

[joseephuss]

Funny that your list included Alvin Harper.

Jones' overall numbers over his first three years are better than Harper's over the same period.

So if Harper was 'good enough' to be this team's #2 opposite an All-Pro like Irvin......

A little funny because I was one who never had that much confidence in Alvin Harper. Back during those SB years I always hoped that Dallas would find an upgrade to Harper as the #2 wide receiver. I was hoping that a young, promising Jimmy Smith would rise up to the potential I saw in him, but that did not happen in Dallas.

Although Harper had some big playoff moments, I never thought he was a good receiver. He really proved that in Tampa. He was a non-factor in the 1994 NFC championship game. Still, he was probably slightly better than Matt Jones. It really doesn't matter because Crayton is a more steady guy than both Harper and Jones and like I said I would love to get someone better than Crayton.

Harper was a big, fast receiver. He was a good athlete. He just was not a good receiver. He was a poor route runner. He was poor at getting off the line especially when the CB was bumping him. He really only had average hands. He was very good at fighting for the ball in the air and could jump high. He really benefited from everyone around him. He was really far down on the passing option safter looking at Irvin, Novacek, Emmitt and Moose. Even though Dallas had success with Harper as the #2 wide receiver, I would rather not try that again.

 

[Stash]

Wait...when did Jones recieve elite speed?

Look it up, that's essentially what got him overdrafted by the Jaguars in the first place.

At 6'6", he ran a 4.38 forty and the Jags had to have him, despite the fact that the guy hadn't played receiver.

 

[Stash]

Harper was a big, fast receiver. He was a good athlete. He just was not a good receiver. He was a poor route runner. He was poor at getting off the line especially when the CB was bumping him. He really only had average hands. He was very good at fighting for the ball in the air and could jump high.

Change the names and that sounds a lot like Matt Jones to me.

He really benefited from everyone around him. He was really far down on the passing options after looking at Irvin, Novacek, Emmitt and Moose.

Bingo! And that's exactly what I would hope for from Jones, benefitting from the single coverage he gets playing opposite Owens and Witten, the same way that Crayton did last season.

Even though Dallas had success with Harper as the #2 wide receiver, I would rather not try that again.

Success to the tune of back-to-back Super Bowl wins. I'd try that again.

 

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by joseephuss
Harper was a big, fast receiver. He was a good athlete. He just was not a good receiver. He was a poor route runner. He was poor at getting off the line especially when the CB was bumping him. He really only had average hands. He was very good at fighting for the ball in the air and could jump high.

Change the names and that sounds a lot like Matt Jones to me.
quote]

stash has a point there

 

[Disturbed]

The most discouraging thing about this is that Matt Jones seems to be made up entirely of "soft tissue", so this could certainly be career threatening.

You guys crack me up...this board is always good for a laugh or two.

 

[Velvet Jones]

Think of it this way, say Jones has proven to be 50% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver, with the potential ability to be more. Stanback has proven to be essentially 0% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver with the potential to be more. Does that make sense?

It does but the figures are misleading. You are saying that Stanback has proven to be 0% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver. Standback has yet to prove what he can or cannot do. So he has had 0% opotunities to show if he can be one or can't. And receivers take three years or so to develop. what year is this for Jones? By how you worded it, we should play Jones over a, if we had one, first round pick at receiver because the rookie "has proven to be essentially 0% of what it takes to be an NFL receiver."

It can be reversed. Jones has proven to be heartless, Stanback has not. Jones has proven to be passed up, Stanback has not. Jones has proven to be a problem with coaches, Stanback has not.

My point is that you want Jones because he has yet to prove himself and he has upside. But you don't give that same courtesy to Stanback and it is almost identical with the exception of that he doesn't have that huge Rd1 tag to get past.

• Jones is a fast QB turned receiver, Stanback is
• You say Jones would have been better off being drafted in the 4th, Stanback was drafted int he 4th.
• Jones need to be given a chance, Stanback needs a chance.

You hav faith in Jones and I applaud that. I would rather see what Stanback and Danny can do. I am not against throwing Jones in the mix at no cost. My problem with Jones is his head. You can't predict head *hehe. that sounded dirty*