- Thread starter dbair1967
- Start date
jeremysmith214
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok we give y'all Romo and a second for Clowney
Did Cowboys start Tony Romo trade rumor frenzy? Here's what you need to know
By David Moore , Staff Writer Contact David Moore on Twitter: @DavidMooreDMN
Jerry Jones loves to say he has a high tolerance for ambiguity.
That's been evident in the first, frantic hours of free agency.
The Cowboys owner did not release Tony Romo on Thursday. The veteran quarterback remained on the roster into the evening as the club tried to swing a deal that appeared unlikely just hours earlier.
A trade should still be considered something of a long shot. It's difficult to discern at the moment how much genuine interest Denver and Houston possess as opposed to the Cowboys trying to create a market that doesn't exist.
But that's exactly what Jones wants. Float contradictory information a few hours before free agency kicks off, as the Cowboys did Thursday afternoon, spawn an artificial sense of urgency, then sit back and see what happens.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But the Cowboys saw/generated enough of a response from the Broncos and Texans to let this play out a few more hours or days.
What did Romo do as his fate hung in the balance? He posted a video to social media of him sitting in the weight room of his home, saying what a crazy 48 hours it had been and thanking everyone for their support.
A Bob Dylan classic, "The Times They Are a-Changin,''' played in the background.
"We have a lot to think about going forward, but we'll see what happens,'' Romo said.
Jones was his usual, vague self in the days leading up to the start of free agency. He sat on his bus in Indianapolis during the scouting combine and told reporters he needed to read the tea leaves before the Cowboys and Romo mutually determined what course to follow.
He had no intention of treating 3 p.m. on Thursday, the start of free agency, as a line in the sand.
"March 9 is just a date,'' Jones said over the weekend. "That really is just kind of a ... that's when things start moving in free agency. You could miss a ride, so to speak, or you could miss something after March 9.''
A few hours before the start of free agency, a report surfaced that Denver might have an interest in trading quarterback Trevor Siemian. A short time later, Houston traded quarterback Brock Osweiler to Cleveland.
Dominoes were falling. Subsequent reports out of Houston maintained that the Texans did not move Osweiler to create space for a Romo deal. Those reports said the Texans had an interest in Romo as a free agent but did not intend to trade for him.
All that may be true. But the presence of Osweiler and his contract was the largest impediment to adding Romo.
If Houston determines that Denver also has a legitimate interest in Romo, if the Texans fear losing No. 9 to the Broncos if he hits the open market, why wouldn't they ship a conditional pick to the Cowboys to keep from having to compete with Denver?
Why wouldn't the Broncos do the same to avoid a bidding war with the Texans?
Again, this requires genuine interest on the part of both teams. It requires Romo to go along with the deal if one is struck.
This has financial implications for the Cowboys as well.
Club officials have leaned toward designating Romo as a June 1 cut if he's released. In that scenario, the $19.6 million that hits the Cowboys' salary cap is split over the next two seasons -- $10.7 million in 2017 and $8.9 million the next season.
That option frees up $14 million in cap space for the Cowboys this season but can't be touched for three months. If Romo is traded, the club frees up much less money ($5.1 million) but gets access to it immediately and has no residual cap charge next season.
Those are the moving parts at work. As this grinds to a conclusion, here's one other observation that Jones offered over the weekend. It has to do with Romo.
"He's got a high tolerance for ambiguity,'' Jones said of the quarterback.
Sound familiar?
By David Moore , Staff Writer Contact David Moore on Twitter: @DavidMooreDMN
Jerry Jones loves to say he has a high tolerance for ambiguity.
That's been evident in the first, frantic hours of free agency.
The Cowboys owner did not release Tony Romo on Thursday. The veteran quarterback remained on the roster into the evening as the club tried to swing a deal that appeared unlikely just hours earlier.
A trade should still be considered something of a long shot. It's difficult to discern at the moment how much genuine interest Denver and Houston possess as opposed to the Cowboys trying to create a market that doesn't exist.
But that's exactly what Jones wants. Float contradictory information a few hours before free agency kicks off, as the Cowboys did Thursday afternoon, spawn an artificial sense of urgency, then sit back and see what happens.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But the Cowboys saw/generated enough of a response from the Broncos and Texans to let this play out a few more hours or days.
What did Romo do as his fate hung in the balance? He posted a video to social media of him sitting in the weight room of his home, saying what a crazy 48 hours it had been and thanking everyone for their support.
A Bob Dylan classic, "The Times They Are a-Changin,''' played in the background.
"We have a lot to think about going forward, but we'll see what happens,'' Romo said.
Jones was his usual, vague self in the days leading up to the start of free agency. He sat on his bus in Indianapolis during the scouting combine and told reporters he needed to read the tea leaves before the Cowboys and Romo mutually determined what course to follow.
He had no intention of treating 3 p.m. on Thursday, the start of free agency, as a line in the sand.
"March 9 is just a date,'' Jones said over the weekend. "That really is just kind of a ... that's when things start moving in free agency. You could miss a ride, so to speak, or you could miss something after March 9.''
A few hours before the start of free agency, a report surfaced that Denver might have an interest in trading quarterback Trevor Siemian. A short time later, Houston traded quarterback Brock Osweiler to Cleveland.
Dominoes were falling. Subsequent reports out of Houston maintained that the Texans did not move Osweiler to create space for a Romo deal. Those reports said the Texans had an interest in Romo as a free agent but did not intend to trade for him.
All that may be true. But the presence of Osweiler and his contract was the largest impediment to adding Romo.
If Houston determines that Denver also has a legitimate interest in Romo, if the Texans fear losing No. 9 to the Broncos if he hits the open market, why wouldn't they ship a conditional pick to the Cowboys to keep from having to compete with Denver?
Why wouldn't the Broncos do the same to avoid a bidding war with the Texans?
Again, this requires genuine interest on the part of both teams. It requires Romo to go along with the deal if one is struck.
This has financial implications for the Cowboys as well.
Club officials have leaned toward designating Romo as a June 1 cut if he's released. In that scenario, the $19.6 million that hits the Cowboys' salary cap is split over the next two seasons -- $10.7 million in 2017 and $8.9 million the next season.
That option frees up $14 million in cap space for the Cowboys this season but can't be touched for three months. If Romo is traded, the club frees up much less money ($5.1 million) but gets access to it immediately and has no residual cap charge next season.
Those are the moving parts at work. As this grinds to a conclusion, here's one other observation that Jones offered over the weekend. It has to do with Romo.
"He's got a high tolerance for ambiguity,'' Jones said of the quarterback.
Sound familiar?
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,961
- Reaction score
- 3,750
How many years do you think it would take the Cowboys to correct a mistake like Osweiller? I suspect he'd play out his whole damn contract
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,961
- Reaction score
- 3,750
that's the (pipe)dream
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,961
- Reaction score
- 3,750
another issue is that if Dallas cuts him and then he retires, he gets to keep all the money he's been paid.
If he retires while a cowboy under the current contract, he would owe Dallas $$
Not that jeri has the balls to play hard ball with any of his players, so this is a moot point that doesn't benefit the Cowboys organization
English Cowboy
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 415
He should have said "on injured reserve".
- Messages
- 21,626
- Reaction score
- 4,117
POST OF THE YEAR!!!!
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 463
Exactly
Scot
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,863
- Reaction score
- 6,132
I second that!
TheZoneSucks
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,278
- Reaction score
- 53
He would not only play it out, but be extended, because "who you gonna get?" (channeling Spagnola, the king of the homer fanbois).
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 463
Considering what Coughlin is putting together down there I would at least consider the idea of going to Jacksonville if I were Romo. They have a lot of young talent on that team, just missing a field general. Bortles has been extremely disappointing.
Scot
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,863
- Reaction score
- 6,132
So apparently we are back to releasing him because neither the Broncos or Texans are willing to give up a single pick for him
This was reported two hours ago from an NFL insider
So take that for what you will
I say we Sam Bradford him and hold onto him until a QB gets knocked out in pre season or the beginning of the season and fleece that team for all we can