Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Legend in his own mind Jerry Jones

Started by EastexHawg, March 13, 2017, 10:53:53 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bennyl08

Quote from: EastexHawg on April 09, 2017, 11:36:22 pm
How do you know what anyone did or didn't offer, or what Jerry made known he wanted?

The NFL is really bad at keeping secrets. For something as high profile as a Romo trade, it's possible, but very unlikely that nobody would have leaked that information out.

QuoteJerry not only didn't release Romo as he apparently told him he would, he told everyone he might hold onto him until training camp.  That meant (a) other teams couldn't afford to wait for him; and (b) if Romo waited to see if Jerry would let him move on to another team the announcing job opportunity would be past.

The closest situation to Romo's that's existed previously in the NFL would be Drew Bledsoe's and Joe Montana's situations with the Patriots and Niners respectively. Neither team "did right" by their star quarterbacks by cutting them. Neither "did right" by trading them early. Both teams held on to their fading stars and both teams ended up with good trade deals. When did those trades happen? Bledsoe was traded the day after the draft (april 22, 2002) while Montana was traded April 21st, which was just 4 days before the draft that year.

QuoteThink back to all the "theories" that have been offered on this board to explain Jerry Jones' treatment of Romo, going back to the end of the regular season when he basically threw the Eagles game by playing Mark Sanchez.  Remember how that was going to get the Cowboys the best trade value for Tony?

BS.

Who was saying that? The threads on here were saying that it showed that the Dallas Cowboys valued Romo as a starter and wanted to keep him healthy. They kept him out on the field long enough for him to show that he wasn't rusty, and he did better than the current starter.

Don't remember anybody saying that action was specifically to maximize trade value. Mostly read about how it maximized Romo's ability to be healthy which if he was injured his trade value would be guaranteed nil and how it didn't hurt his trade value at all. Namely, teams know what Romo can do when healthy. The question would be how healthy was he, and playing in a game that literally meant less than a pre-season game wasn't going to answer that question for any team.

He didn't throw the eagle's game. That implies a purposeful loss. He wanted the team to win, but not enough to risk injury to any key players because the game didn't matter at all.

QuoteIn the end, Jerry got what he really wanted.  He forced him of the game so no one would be able to watch Romo with his new team and compare them to the Cowboys and their QB going forward.  That's all he wanted because all that matters to Jerry is Jerry and his ego.

Pure speculation on your part. What would have been best for the cowboys and Jerry would have been any kind of trade.

What isn't speculation is that in
2008: Missed three games from a broken finger and collapsed after the final game of the season due to rib injuries.
2010: Broken left clavicle, 10 missed games
2013: Ruptured disk
2014: 2 transverse process fractures
2015: Broken left clavicle, twice...
2016: Compression fracture in the L1 vertebrae.

Fact: Romo had a TV gig lined up and announced the same day he announced he was retiring.

Fact: Elway stated that he wasn't going to pursue Romo if Tony wasn't "all in" on winning a super bowl.

Take that long list of injuries that were getting more frequent and more severe, with the fact that he had negotiated with and was clearly interested in the TV gig, and Elway's statement on Romo's fire, and it paints a pretty clear picture.

QuoteWhen I was a child I thought the guys with my team's logo on their helmets were always right, always the good guys.  I can no longer convince myself of that, and I don't think I really want to.  Does that hurt my enjoyment of sports?  Yeah, maybe.

How old are you that it took you this long to realize the guys who were part of your team were just humans, no different from anybody else?

Your enjoyment of sports is/was based (at least in part) on the morality of the players (and presumably owners/other people though you specifically helmets)? Do you enjoy movies less knowing that you won't always agree with the actors? Does a chick-fil-a sandwich taste any different knowing the political beliefs of the CEO?

Did you follow the cowboys during the 90's? If so, then you should have been able to convince yourself pretty easily the cowboy's didn't always do right. (cough, Irvin, cough). Either you are really young, only started following the cowboys for a very short time, or you have a really skewed compass of what is right or wrong if this of all things is the first time you can are convinced that the cowboys did something wrong and not the long list of covering up for criminal players and such.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

EastexHawg

Quote from: bennyl08 on April 10, 2017, 12:46:06 am
Did you follow the cowboys during the 90's? If so, then you should have been able to convince yourself pretty easily the cowboy's didn't always do right. (cough, Irvin, cough). Either you are really young, only started following the cowboys for a very short time, or you have a really skewed compass of what is right or wrong if this of all things is the first time you can are convinced that the cowboys did something wrong and not the long list of covering up for criminal players and such.

No, I'm not young.  I followed the Cowboys not only in the 90s, but also in the 80s, 70s, and 60s.  I can live with players who are immoral and indecent (Michael Irvin, Lance Rentzel, etc.), but an owner and an entire organization?  That's a different situation.  I have never cared for Jerry Jones as a person or as a general manager.  He has continued his hands on approach as a "socks and jocks" guy despite the fact that his success rate is abysmal since he fired Jimmy Johnson. 

That said, being incompetent as a general manager is one thing.  Being a scumbag who will intentionally end a loyal employee's career because your ego won't allow you to live with the consequences of your business decisions is another.  No one was going to give Jerry anything of value for Romo because everyone, including Elway, the Texans, and Jerry himself knew he couldn't keep Tony on the roster throughout next season and thus he would eventually have to release him.  The problem for Romo was that Jerry made it obvious that he would be willing to wait until training camp to make a move.  The teams that would otherwise be thrilled to get Romo couldn't wait that long to address their 2017 QB situations.  We all know that and so did Jerry Jones.

The "I'm going to get something in return for Tony" ruse is just that, a ruse.  Look at the fact pattern.  Jerry apparently told Romo he was going to release him.  Then, the Texans traded Osweiler and coincidence of coincidences, Jerry changed his mind.  Did the idea of getting a late round draft pick for Romo only occur to Jerry at that time?  Of course not.  What occurred to him was that he didn't want Romo playing QB for the Texans, possibly having a great year, and possibly winning the Super Bowl in Houston that he couldn't win with Jerry's Pee Wee League defenses over the years. 

Jerry's ego wouldn't allow him to take that chance, so he basically forced Romo out of the league.

In my book that is sorry, and I won't root for a man who has months to contemplate a situation willingly and with forethought formulating that decision to succeed.  I wish him nothing but the worst.

 

DeltaBoy

Jerry doesn't care as long as he making  Money.
If the South should lose, it means that the history of the heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
-- Major General Patrick Cleburne
The Confederacy had no better soldiers
than the Arkansans--fearless, brave, and oftentimes courageous beyond
prudence. Dickart History of Kershaws Brigade.

bennyl08

Quote from: EastexHawg on April 10, 2017, 11:02:33 am
No, I'm not young.  I followed the Cowboys not only in the 90s, but also in the 80s, 70s, and 60s.  I can live with players who are immoral and indecent (Michael Irvin, Lance Rentzel, etc.), but an owner and an entire organization?  That's a different situation.  I have never cared for Jerry Jones as a person or as a general manager.  He has continued his hands on approach as a "socks and jocks" guy despite the fact that his success rate is abysmal since he fired Jimmy Johnson. 

I didn't think you were, but was really surprised to hear you say that. However, how you can think this of all things is what makes the owners and entire organization immoral and indecent is strange to me. Aiding and abetting known immoral and indecent players to continue in their ways so that you get more victories and thus more money isn't immoral or indecent and didn't impact your enjoyment of the game at all. However, an owner doing his best to not have a massive amount of dead cap space hanging around the teams neck by cutting Romo and instead, not only not having to eat that dead cap space but also getting a late round pick, that of all things is the immoral act that can't be forgiven. That of all things is what makes you literally wish ill upon Jerry as a human being? That?

QuoteThat said, being incompetent as a general manager is one thing.  Being a scumbag who will intentionally end a loyal employee's career because your ego won't allow you to live with the consequences of your business decisions is another.

There's not an owner out there that isn't going to put the bottom line first and the individual second. If we assume what you say here is true, yeah, it's not a nice thing to do, but you're old enough to know that the cowboys have done much worse as has every sports team. However, your accusations here are not based in facts. Yes, it is entirely possible that they could be true, but there is actual evidence that points in a different direction.

QuoteNo one was going to give Jerry anything of value for Romo because everyone, including Elway, the Texans, and Jerry himself knew he couldn't keep Tony on the roster throughout next season and thus he would eventually have to release him.  The problem for Romo was that Jerry made it obvious that he would be willing to wait until training camp to make a move. 

A 7th round draft pick would be a trade of immense value for the cowboys by no longer having that albatross of a contract still hanging on their neck in dead weight from cutting him, plus any draft pick is better than no draft pick.

Why do you keep ignoring previous precedent with Montana and Bledsoe on the timing of things? Bledsoe was traded just after the draft even.

QuoteThe teams that would otherwise be thrilled to get Romo couldn't wait that long to address their 2017 QB situations.  We all know that and so did Jerry Jones.

Couldn't? Apart from the late trades I've already mentioned, Warren Moon wasn't traded to the Vikings until August and had a game changing season for them. Mallett wasn't traded to Houston who was still in QB until August as well. Any team who drafts a quarterback expecting them to play or improve their qb room at least is going to have to wait until late in the offseason (late late april to may) as well. Things are still very early in the off-season.

QuoteThe "I'm going to get something in return for Tony" ruse is just that, a ruse.  Look at the fact pattern.  Jerry apparently told Romo he was going to release him.  Then, the Texans traded Osweiler and coincidence of coincidences, Jerry changed his mind.  Did the idea of getting a late round draft pick for Romo only occur to Jerry at that time?  Of course not.  What occurred to him was that he didn't want Romo playing QB for the Texans, possibly having a great year, and possibly winning the Super Bowl in Houston that he couldn't win with Jerry's Pee Wee League defenses over the years. 

There were unnamed inside sources saying the Cowboy's were planning on releasing Romo. That is true. However, you are making a big assumption that such was indeed Jerry's plan and thus that he changed his mind. Inside sources will often say that a team plans on drafting player A as a smokescreen when they were really going after player B all along. Often times, insider sources on what player moves will happen are correct and within 12 hours are proven to be so, but they are wrong often enough that they should never be deemed as truth and fact, but just rumor.

QuoteJerry's ego wouldn't allow him to take that chance, so he basically forced Romo out of the league.

Purely your opinion.

QuoteIn my book that is sorry, and I won't root for a man who has months to contemplate a situation willingly and with forethought formulating that decision to succeed.  I wish him nothing but the worst.

Pretty messed up IMO, to wish ill upon the person due to a business decision that basically every owner in the same situation has made the same decision that Jerry did.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

Dr. Starcs

Jerry could have very easily kept Tony on the roster. He. Was. Under. Contract.

Romo didn't want to play back up to Dak, so he retired.

EastexHawg

Quote from: Dr. Starcs on April 10, 2017, 06:32:43 pm
Jerry could have very easily kept Tony on the roster. He. Was. Under. Contract.

Romo didn't want to play back up to Dak, so he retired.

Keep a backup QB on the roster for $14 million?  In what universe?  Football genius Jerry once again failed to improve his team through free agency because his mind games and desire to keep Romo from going to Houston were more important to his ego, which in his eyes make them more important to the Cowboys.

From the time I was old enough to watch football it wasn't the NFL or NFC Championship Game if the Cowboys weren't playing in it.  The difference?  Tex Schramm, Tom Landry, and Gil Brandt knew how to run a football team, and they had owners in Clint Murchison and Bum Bright who stayed the hell out of the way and let them do it.

Jerry had one of those guys in Jimmy Johnson, so what did he do?  Naturally, he fired him.  His ego got in the way.  Gee, where have I heard that?

Jerry has money.  That's where it ends when it comes to football.

pignparadise

"Jerry has money.  That's where it ends when it comes to football."
Made most of it with the Cowboys. So I give him an A.
"The race is long.. and in the end it's only with yourself.....", Baz Luhrman "Sunscreen"

Dr. Starcs

Quote from: sevenof400 on April 29, 2017, 11:02:32 am
And has no titles to show for all that expense and excess....

Fitting, really. 

Yeah what a loser. I'm sure none of us would trade lives with him.

bennyl08

Quote from: Dr. Starcs on April 29, 2017, 11:39:07 am
Yeah what a loser. I'm sure none of us would trade lives with him.

If I was 70 years old? Sure. However, losing over 45 years of life? No thanks to trading.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

Dr. Starcs

Quote from: bennyl08 on April 29, 2017, 01:49:22 pm
If I was 70 years old? Sure. However, losing over 45 years of life? No thanks to trading.

We all can't be as great as you benny :)

bennyl08

Quote from: Dr. Starcs on April 29, 2017, 03:57:39 pm
We all can't be as great as you benny :)

:)

Though, would you trade your life to be a 74 year old billionaire owner of the cowboys?
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

Dr. Starcs

No. Would trade my paycheck for his and a couple of rings though. And a few of his cheerleaders. Lol

bennyl08

Quote from: Dr. Starcs on April 29, 2017, 04:57:19 pm
No. Would trade my paycheck for his and a couple of rings though. And a few of his cheerleaders. Lol

I'd trade my paycheck/job for sure. However, I would rather earn my own rings. As for cheerleaders, I'm a one woman man and I already have my woman. Can't hurt to look though. Probably have a strict policy of only hiring duck cheerleaders though. Don't know what they put in the water in Eugene, but they are more entertaining than eugene's football program has ever been.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse