These aren't high school kids. If they need to be "rallied" because their buddy got cut they are a bigger problem than Garrett.

So if the year goes bad, Garrett & all the malcontents need to be booted

Not their buddy. The alpha in the locker room.

PooDoo said:

---

Not their buddy. The alpha in the locker room.

---

If the "alpha" doesn't understand basic concepts like team and locker room, then he's probably the source of a lot of issues the team has had. The term "garrett guys" even existing is annoying me. He's the ******* head coach, you should all want to be garrett guys.

Doesn't matter what you call him. Point stands.

Yeah, no coach has ever lost his team before... or needed to motive professionals... or had a controversial personnel move split a locker room.

My bad for bringing up such an unimaginable scenario.

So did anyone else notice a whole bunch of defensive players are having Dez's back? Yeah it's easy to get fooled by guys who are animated and intense. Passion looks great but the fact is he hasn't been a great player for a while now. Dez is not a technician. But the defensive guys don't know crap about executing on offense.

This is the most un-Cowboys move they've made in a while and I love it.

PooDoo said:

---

Yeah, no coach has ever lost his team before... or needed to motive professionals... or had a controversial personnel move split a locker room.

My bad for bringing up such an unimaginable scenario.

---

Can you show us where anyone has claimed no coach has lost a team? Or that players don't need motivation? Thanks.


Again, if any player is "lost" because Dez got cut, they need to immediately be shown the door. Far better players have been cut in this league without the sky falling.

So cut players instead of finding a coach that can get the most out of them?

Do you think players should've been cut instead of Wade Phillips being fired?

The dynamic in the Cowboys organization is far bigger than "do these guys respect JG enough as an alpha?". And that dynamic is that the owner/GM that writes the checks is a jock-sniffer that mostly does what he wants. It completely undermines the chance for his coach to be the alpha. Even the alpha of all alpha coaches, Bill Parcells, got undermined by getting stuck with a player he didn't want on his roster so badly that he couldn't even refer to him by his name. Anyone that has watched the Parcells-Belichick 30 For 30 would have seen that Parcells is still even the alpha over Bill Friggin Belichick. But Jerry still managed to **** up the works.

So when there is a strong alpha-type player in the room, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, the coach having his balls neutered fosters an environment where it can be a bad thing. And one of the issues with the alpha that just got cut is that his own accomplishments were valued more than the team's. He might say differently, but he wore the real answer on his sleeve every season.

In my mind, cutting Dez is exactly the type of move they need in order to clarify who the boss is. Forever there were always players who knew they could just talk to Jerry if the coach pissed them off. That really has to end. And if getting of those players is the answer then so be it.

Yeah, it's a step forward. Although it would probably help if Jerry wouldnt set up these meetings to where everyone walks away with the impression that he was against it.

On a sidenote, it seems that Dez is blaming Witten and Sean Lee, and maybe Dak as well. Putting it on the captains. Race war!

DannyDuberstein said:

---

On a sidenote, it seems that Dez is blaming Witten and Sean Lee, and maybe Dak as well. Putting it on the captains. Race war!

---

So the leaders of the team think you need to go... AND? Dez is so fing clueless. I always thought one of Romos weaknesses was being too accommodating of Dez's bs.

PooDoo said:

---

So cut players instead of finding a coach that can get the most out of them?

Do you think players should've been cut instead of Wade Phillips being fired?

---

Can you read?

You are again just making things up

BMX Bandit said:

---

PooDoo said:

---

So cut players instead of finding a coach that can get the most out of them?

Do you think players should've been cut instead of Wade Phillips being fired?

---

Can you read?

You are again just making things up

---

I guess not.

BMX said:

---

If Garrett loses the team because a player that needed to be cut was cut, then the players that are lost also need to be shown the door


Again, if any player is "lost" because Dez got cut, they need to immediately be shown the door. Far better players have been cut in this league without the sky falling.

---

I understood these posts to mean you think they should cut the players.

If a player is lost becuse Dez was cut, they need to go.
If they are that much a child, no coach is going to be able to bring them back.

If Garrett doesn't do a good job coaching, he should go.

So I can read?

Not well.

Better than nothing.

The Ticket this morning talking about using a 2nd rounder to trade for Earl Thomas. At his age we get what should be an elite player for a couple years and a solid vet for another couple maybe.

Definitely an interesting thought. My immediate thought is this doesn't help us fill the void at WR & LB... but, they really don't have a void at WR. May not be a bunch of names we really like, but they got enough bodies there. LB is a different story.

Trade for Thomas... Round 1 = LB (Roquan pipe dream, Vander Esch, or Evans), Round 3-5 use those comp picks and be aggressive and get a solid OG & DT.

Not a horrible scenario!

Wonder if resigning Zach Martin is certain. This would be a good draft to trade him if they aren't planning on paying him $13+ million a year.

The way Brant was talking about how exciting the draft was going to be Im thinking they already have a trade in the works.

Might even be something like announcing the Earl Thomas trade and bringing him out on stage... something splashy.

I would think Zach Martin would be a prime candidate to franchise if his agent is asking for a record breaking deal.

After this year we will know a lot more about Lawrence and we should pay him accordingly before we overspend for a guard.

Supposedly Stephen Jones doesn't value the guard position and was upset about taking Martin in the 1st round. Unless something has changed that's going to be a big chuck of his cap for a position he doesn't value.

So I don't understand. I thought we were praised for drafting top oline talent those years in a row. We're gonna suddenly pretend it was a bad idea now?

they'll re-sign martin

This team barely has any elite players, but Martin is one and still young. i think you have to keep that type of player. Now it will be interesting to see how the RT/Collins-back-to-guard situation works out this year. That could end up playing a role. For instance, let's say they find what turns out to be a pretty nice tackle in the draft, then maybe you start reconsidering giving Martin big $$$. But I doubt it. You've got to keep an eye on Tyron Smith's health anyway, so I don't think you **** with giving up any elite talent on this OL.

PatAg said:

---

So I don't understand. I thought we were praised for drafting top oline talent those years in a row. We're gonna suddenly pretend it was a bad idea now?

---

They were praised and deservedly so. It's not about changing their philosophy, it's about a guy that happens to be the best at a position you typically don't budget big $ for.

I'd be happy if they re-signed Martin, but I completely understand if they don't.

It's partially why I think we'll see a guard drafted by the end of the 3rd round. See what young blood can do next to Frederick, keep Collins at RT, and allow us to maybe franchise Martin instead of diving into a long term deal.

There's always the possibility of the franchise tag to buy some time to see how the rest of the OL is shaping up.

PatAg said:

---

So I don't understand. I thought we were praised for drafting top oline talent those years in a row. We're gonna suddenly pretend it was a bad idea now?

---

Yeah, that part of the job was great. Now they have to decide if Martin resigned to a top dollar contract brings more value to the team than the possibility of trading him picks or players.

If he's going to be resigned there is no good reason to wait until his contract expires. Lock him up now. The longer you wait the more expensive he'll be.

Heard on the radio today that we'll be roughly $70M under the cap next offseason. That's plenty of cap space to resign Martin, Lawrence and be active in free agency.

PooDoo said:

---

PatAg said:

---

So I don't understand. I thought we were praised for drafting top oline talent those years in a row. We're gonna suddenly pretend it was a bad idea now?

---

Yeah, that part of the job was great. Now they have to decide if Martin resigned to a top dollar contract brings more value to the team than the possibility of trading him picks or players.

If he's going to be resigned there is no good reason to wait until his contract expires. Lock him up now. The longer you wait the more expensive he'll be.

---

I understand that concept, just saw a few people talking about how maybe we should have gone somewhere else with his pick originally.

He could be a future Hall of Famer but he plays a position the Cowboys (Stephen) don't view as a vital piece of the offense.

You end up with pieces like that when you are drafting the best player available.

I don't understand what the Cowboys are doing. When was the last time the Cowboys traded away a player? Copying the Patriots draft philosophy is wasted if we don't also copy their personnel philosophy.

they're not going to let an all-pro guard walk or trade him away. stephen is the reason they took zack martin at 16 in the first place. they're going to pay him.

On the 'Cowboys release Dez' thread somebody said they would sprint to the podium if Ridley were available. I had two contradictory thoughts on that:

1. We need LB a heck of a lot more than we need a WR. I don't think taking a WR #1 is a sure fire bet. Besides, Ridley isn't classified as a #1 WR... he's a very lean complimentary type WR.

2. Then again, perhaps we are starting to see traditional #1 WRs phased out. Certainly might be the case with our personnel and a QB that thrives on hitting the open man, not forcing balls to a WR that loves to play the tight physical game. Perhaps Ridley is the exact type of WR we are looking for and maybe we would sprint up there and address the defense after.