Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Dallas Cowboys new on your cellClarifying Thomas
11:00 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008 | Permalink
E-mail News tips
|
|
 
|
|
February 2008
Recent Posts
Categories
dallasnews.com
Sports Blogs |
I know some of you are wondering, and wanted a little more on Zach Thomas. So here's what we got, expanded from the bit in this morning's paper ... As we reported, the Cowboys have a Tuesday meeting set up with Thomas and Drew Rosenhaus at Valley Ranch. But because of overwhelming demand for his client, Rosenhaus said that Thomas may make his way here to Indy, where he can meet with multiple teams, in which case the Dallas meeting might get moved up and held at the combine to save everyone the trouble. Thomas has already visited the Patriots and Saints, and the Jets, Texans and Bills, among others, remain interested. On a completely unrelated note, check DMN alum Matt Mosley's item on St. Xavier K Shane Longest. Starts out pretty normal, then takes a very sharp turn. I'd think that anyone who enjoys a check-up this much would raise questions in the minds of NFL execs. |
Comments
Posted by Cornelius N. Pugh @ 11:17 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
We don't need Thomas. His best years are behind him!!! Remember, the cowboys priority isn't a linebacker but CB, WR, OT, etc...
Posted by chaz panama @ 11:24 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I don't get what's the deal about Thomas. He was a great player but he's not the last piece of our Super Bowl Puzzle. The Cowboys have one of the youngest teams in football and we should continue to build on that, not getting a once great LB that doesn't even fit into the scheme that the team uses. I think this is just a waste of time and a distraction when the should be focusing on good players that could be taken in the later rounds that could help in the different roles that the team is needing.
Posted by mike g @ 11:29 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
It never hurts to add a veteran leader like Thomas, as long as the price is right. Our inside LB's were very average last year and an upgrade would be nice, even though it may be only for a year or two.
Posted by Willow @ 11:36 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
McFadden types are rare. He will be a superstar.
Dallas, please get McFadden. Trade the 2 1st round picks to get him if he falls to 5 or 6.
Dallas should not waste a 1st round pick for a WR. No way, or a CB. Not this year. We need a dynamic back system with Barber and McFadden. Like Chester and Peterson, Taylor and Jones-Drew. If we have a absolute awesome run game, we don't need fancy receivers. T.O. is still the best and is enough. We can get a CB any year. You can only get McFadden now! Thomas is not necessary.
Posted by turd maker @ 11:41 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Re: Longest
Don't ask, don't tell.
Posted by Bill in DC @ 12:28 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Willow,
And when TO went down, what happened to us? We were pretty much screwed because we were playing with a #3 WR as our #1, a #4 as our #2, and a #5 as our #3.
Sorry Dude, I respectfully disagree. We need a #2 WR more than we need a #1 RB.
Question, other than Petersen, were any of the dynamic RB duos you mentioned drafted in the top 10 of the first round? I don't think any other than Petersen. Doesn't that tell you something?
Posted by LIKEZACHBUT @ 12:37 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Mike G, I agree but look at who his agent is. NUFF SAID
Posted by jimmy @ 12:38 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Be real - Zach Thomas, even if he lasts only half the season, would be a huge upgrade to our weak linebackers. Yes we have youth. That is exactly why we need one of the best of all time to make them better. The Patriots are proof that it works. Why get unprovens that never work year in and year out. Provens work......especially in the linebacker position. He can also fly - does anyone remember watching his concussion game against us this past year. Besides Romo and TO he was the best player on the field.
Posted by anonymous @ 12:41 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I agree - don't ever turn down a playmaker until he quits making plays. We have no playmakers at linebacker.
Posted by ken @ 12:45 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I think he's got 2-3 years left in his tank based on the previous 3 seasons. Akin, Ayondele, Zach Thomas.....I'd take Zach Thomas all day over these two jokers. Evaluate the position and the players. If his money is right then take him. Who cares if the other two are young. That just gives them more time to suck.
Posted by ken @ 12:49 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Zach Thomas, Akin, Ayondele....Which one is a player. Thomas has 2-3 years in the tank based on the numbers over the past few years. Evaluate the player and the position. Zach Thomas is far better than those two. Who cares that they are youngsters. That just gives them more time to continue to suck. Thomas would be a brilliant move at the right price. Could tutor Carpenter.
Posted by Bill in DC @ 12:53 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
anonymous,
Demarcus Ware, Greg Ellis?
I'd tend to agree if you restricted that to ILB but all LBs just ain't so.
Posted by John @ 12:56 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Zach Thomas is too small for a 3-4 defense but hes fast strong and scary good he could play nickel with kevin burnett and teach the younger "horrible" linebackers a thing or too. I mean Demarcus Ware only had like 14 and a half sacks what a bum right? Wow and the thing is with middle line backers in a 3-4 they arent meant to get sacks just tackles out side linebackers are i hope you people do your homework cause you dont sound like you know much.
Posted by John @ 12:57 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Zach Thomas is too small for a 3-4 defense but hes fast strong and scary good he could play nickel with kevin burnett and teach the younger "horrible" linebackers a thing or too. I mean Demarcus Ware only had like 14 and a half sacks what a bum right? Wow and the thing is with middle line backers in a 3-4 they arent meant to get sacks just tackles out side linebackers are i hope you people do your homework cause you dont sound like you know much.
Posted by S L @ 1:00 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Thomas is a great 'get' if he's at the right price, obviously. But this idea of doing his tryouts at Indy is troubling and seems rather unfair to the clubs he doesn't actually visit. Isn't their physical plant, their actual site and its facilities, in other words, part of what a free agent includes in the evaluation of a prospective? He got to see New England's facilities, presumably he'll see the Colts' if they're pursuing him, but is it fair that the other teams don't get the chance to give him their whole song and dance on an equal basis?
Of course, his agent practically has an office at Valley Ranch anyway, so I'm sure he's not lacking for info on the Cowboys' facilities, but in general, it seems awfully skewed.
Posted by Chuck @ 1:36 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I'm absolutely confused with the fascination over Thomas. He's an injury prone undersized linebacker (especially for the 3-4 scheme) who's best years are LONG behind him. Zach Thomas was a great player for many years--but what in the world could he offer our defense? Nothing. There's no way he beats out any of the current starters for a job. He'll take up too much salary cap, and then end up injured at some point. This would be a completely FOOLISH move. Here's hoping is doesn't happen.
Posted by fredy @ 7:25 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
They'll sign him for less than our 2 starting ILB's. Too bad for him b/c he's 10 times better than both their sorry asses. Don't ever skip out on a legend - especially if you can get him cheap. He's still unbelievably talented, fast...I bet he's done his homework on staying healthy. It is damn well worth the shot with the guys we got.