Hate to say this, but Dallas'.........

[Dirk Diggler]

Ken

I can buy that Bailey for Portis is about a straight up trade in terms of talent for talent. They are both young and both have 7-9 great years left in them. While I consider Portis to be more of a difference-maker and game-changer, for the sake of argument - I'll call them equal.

Then you have to look at cost in terms of $$$. Bailey is much pricier than Portis. So in return for that $$$ saved you need to come up with a draft pick. Whether you believe it's a 2nd, 3rd or 5th - it's all very debatable.

Another thing to consider is that Denver had some leverage here. They could have sat tight and went after Bailey in free agency. They would have offered him that ridiculous contract that he got and we would have never matched it. They could have kept Portis and ponied up 2 low #1s.

So are you going to sit here and tell me that the Redskins would have been better off passing on this trade and getting Denver's #1 in the 20s and #1 next year? I don't think so.

Sure we'd have a pick in the 20s to show for it but you still have a gaping hole in the backfield. Not to mention the hole at CB though you could have assumed that we'd get Springs. There were no FA RBs whatsoever and now you have to take a rookie RB which is no sure thing. So you lose Bailey and net a player who may not even be able to crack the starting lineup rather than give up the #2 for a bona fide stud RB?

On Gibbs -

Are you so naive to think that Gibbs has no care in the world how much Snyder pays for his players? Call me crazy but I think Gibbs realizes there's a cap and there's only so much dough to go around. I have a feeling that he has just a liiiiiiiiiiiittle say in how the money is allocated to the players he will coach.

Then again, maybe you're right. Maybe he came out of retirement only to let Snyder ruin his chances for success by spending the team into oblivion. Makes sense.

[Ken]

Hypothetical her fellas......

How are you going to feel if the Cowboys beat you....again... in week 3 on Monday night?

Will you throw up your hand in despair?

Will you smash your TV?

Chalk it up to Gibbs influence not being felt yet?

What exactly?

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Ken

Hypothetical her fellas......

How are you going to feel if the Cowboys beat you....again... in week 3 on Monday night?

Will you throw up your hand in despair?

Will you smash your TV?

Chalk it up to Gibbs influence not being felt yet?

What exactly?

I'll credit you as the difference maker in that game, Ken.

[Skins11]

Originally posted by Ken

Hypothetical her fellas......

How are you going to feel if the Cowboys beat you....again... in week 3 on Monday night?

Will you throw up your hand in despair?

Will you smash your TV?

Chalk it up to Gibbs influence not being felt yet?

What exactly?

So you respond to a number of well-articulated arguments that cite factual evidence by just saying that Dallas has beat Washington in the past? Wow, you're an idiot.

[Ken]

Originally posted by ramseyskins

So you respond to a number of well-articulated arguments that cite factual evidence by just saying that Dallas has beat Washington in the past? Wow, you're an idiot.

I hope you didn't include your post in those "well articulated" posts. I don't plan on responding to it.

Dirk Digglers post is good. i will respond to that one. As a matter of fact, it was posted when I was throwing out the hypothetical.

Do we have to revert to name calling?

I can assure you that i am not an idiot.

[Art]

Ken,

Even you don't believe we paid too much for Portis. Afterall, as a Cowboy fan we BOTH know you'd NEVER have traded Emmitt Smith in his prime for Deion Sanders in his, with or without an additional pick.

Since we know that, we know you must LOVE the move for Portis. Remember, there are two questions here that matter. First, is it true that an elite corner is harder to find than an elite runner? Yes, it is. But, that's not the measure of the trade. The measure of the trade is, would you trade an elite corner for an elite runner?

You bet you would.

Now, you can add to this that through five years as a pro, Bailey has not consistently risen to the level of Sanders over his first five years, as Sanders was a game changer and Bailey hasn't been. Over his first two years, Portis has surpassed Emmitt in all ways compared to his first two years.

It remains possible that Bailey will be better than Sanders ever was, just as it is possible Portis will fail utterly and never live up to his first two years. But, if we just traded Deion Sanders and a No. 2 pick for Emmitt Smith, all I know for sure is that YOU, as a Cowboy fan, think that's the greatest move ever.

[Skins11]

Originally posted by Ken

I hope you didn't include your post in those "well articulated" posts. I don't plan on responding to it.

Dirk Digglers post is good. i will respond to that one. As a matter of fact, it was posted when I was throwing out the hypothetical.

Do we have to revert to name calling?

I can assure you that i am not an idiot.

:laugh: Yeah don't respond to mine, just because I called you something.

If you're so smart why don't you dispute any of the points I made? Oh, that's because you refuse to respond to it. Until you do, the name stands.

[Dirk Diggler]

Just a few opinions on Portis from another post:

DISSENTING VOTES: Two former star running backs took their shots at the Denver Broncos for trading standout running back Clinton Portis to the Washington Redskins for defensive back Champ Bailey.

Said Eric Dickerson on FSN's "Best Damn Sports Show Period": "That, to me, is like the jackass move of the year."

Added Marcus Allen: "Here's a guy that can make moves at top speed that you really can't find in the National Football League, so I agree with Eric: That was a bad, bad move.

"(The Broncos) have had 1,000-yard rusher after 1,000-yard rusher. They've done an admirable job of getting guys in there, so perhaps they think they can do that. I don't think they'll ever find anybody quite with the talent that Clinton has."

[Art]

Ken,

I don't know, but after reading that you think there's any hint that Snyder is calling the shots over Gibbs' wishes, Ramsey may be completely accurate in his view of you. It is laughably ineffective to say "prove it" to us when trying to support your contention that Snyder is somehow doing things to undermine Gibbs.

Everyone knows who's running the show here. Everyone knows -- because the players have TOLD YOU -- how the acquisition structure here works. And everyone knows Gibbs has had to go back to Snyder on more than one occasion to ask for MORE money because he was going over budget on things. Gibbs is picking the things he wants. Snyder and Cerrato are making that happen, and before they pull the trigger, Gibbs is agreeing they should.

Now, this sort of front office structure really only works when all the key members of the front office and coaching staff are visible and around. Meaning, since Gibbs is attending the combine and owners meetings while Parcells is watching Bobby Knight coach basketball, it allows us a functioning front office where everyone is on the same page and decisions are made by consensus and shared knowledge.

Not sure you'd appreciate such a structure with the disappearance of your coach.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

Ken

I can buy that Bailey for Portis is about a straight up trade in terms of talent for talent. They are both young and both have 7-9 great years left in them. While I consider Portis to be more of a difference-maker and game-changer, for the sake of argument - I'll call them equal.

Then you have to look at cost in terms of $$$. Bailey is much pricier than Portis. So in return for that $$$ saved you need to come up with a draft pick. Whether you believe it's a 2nd, 3rd or 5th - it's all very debatable.

Another thing to consider is that Denver had some leverage here. They could have sat tight and went after Bailey in free agency. They would have offered him that ridiculous contract that he got and we would have never matched it. They could have kept Portis and ponied up 2 low #1s.

So are you going to sit here and tell me that the Redskins would have been better off passing on this trade and getting Denver's #1 in the 20s and #1 next year? I don't think so.

Sure we'd have a pick in the 20s to show for it but you still have a gaping hole in the backfield. Not to mention the hole at CB though you could have assumed that we'd get Springs. There were no FA RBs whatsoever and now you have to take a rookie RB which is no sure thing. So you lose Bailey and net a player who may not even be able to crack the starting lineup rather than give up the #2 for a bona fide stud RB?

On Gibbs -

Are you so naive to think that Gibbs has no care in the world how much Snyder pays for his players? Call me crazy but I think Gibbs realizes there's a cap and there's only so much dough to go around. I have a feeling that he has just a liiiiiiiiiiiittle say in how the money is allocated to the players he will coach.

Then again, maybe you're right. Maybe he came out of retirement only to let Snyder ruin his chances for success by spending the team into oblivion. Makes sense.

I can buy that Bailey for Portis is about a straight up trade in terms of talent for talent. They are both young and both have 7-9 great years left in them. While I consider Portis to be more of a difference-maker and game-changer, for the sake of argument - I'll call them equal. Then you have to look at cost in terms of $$$. Bailey is much pricier than Portis. So in return for that $$$ saved you need to come up with a draft pick. Whether you believe it's a 2nd, 3rd or 5th - it's all very debatable.

They are equal. Almost. Most GMs in the league know how hard it is to find a true shutdown corner. Good running backs are much more plentiful. These two should have been evaluated to be traded evenly. Same as the Johnson/Galloway deal the cowboys did.

The money is not all that different either. Bailey reveived 3 milliion more guaranteed. The rest of the money is irrelavent. We all know how the Bonus money works, right?

Another thing to consider is that Denver had some leverage here. They could have sat tight and went after Bailey in free agency. They would have offered him that ridiculous contract that he got and we would have never matched it. They could have kept Portis and ponied up 2 low #1s.

I would be surprised if the Broncos gave this any consideration. Teams just don't throw around 2 #1s for players since Galloway. This would have hardly been a bad thing for the skins either if it happened.

3 Million more bonus money is hardly rediculous. Heck, that is a drop in the bucket for the Redskins.

So are you going to sit here and tell me that the Redskins would have been better off passing on this trade and getting Denver's #1 in the 20s and #1 next year?

Even though I doubt this scenario was even a consideration, the Redskins could do a lot worse than 2 #1s. That is powerful to have those extra 1s. In this draft, you could do some damage with those extra picks. Instead, you gave up your #2 and gave Portis almost as much money as Bailey and then turned around and overpaid for Springs. I would have been happy with the #1s and see what we could do with them. The Seahawks turned Galloway into Koren Robinson and Shaun Alexander. That is living right there.

Are you so naive to think that Gibbs has no care in the world how much Snyder pays for his players? Call me crazy but I think Gibbs realizes there's a cap and there's only so much dough to go around. I have a feeling that he has just a liiiiiiiiiiiittle say in how the money is allocated to the players he will coach.

Is it really naive though? Gibbs is a Hall Of Fame COACH, not GM. I know he doesn't pretend to know anything about managing the Cap. Parcells bows out and lets Jerry Jones and Stephen Jones handle the money and the cap. How pompous do you think Gibbs is? To be away from the game as long as he has and then come in and start pretending to know the inner workings of the Salary cap in a couple of months. Are you Redskins fans serious?

Or maybe he really is and is simply overmatched at it. This explains the giving away of draft picks for no apparent reason.

I don't think Gibbs worries about how the player is accuired. He should assume that if it is possible to get the player, then it will happen. Sometimes you cannot get every player you want due to other teams asking prices. Apparently, Snyder doesn't let a little thing like counter offers get in the way of making a splash.

[McNabbOwnsFedEx]

Originally posted by GrossmansGators

Boys have a good D-Line the best in the NFC East hands down

If by boys then you mean Eagles i'll agree. If not, you're wrong.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Ken,

Even you don't believe we paid too much for Portis. Afterall, as a Cowboy fan we BOTH know you'd NEVER have traded Emmitt Smith in his prime for Deion Sanders in his, with or without an additional pick.

Since we know that, we know you must LOVE the move for Portis. Remember, there are two questions here that matter. First, is it true that an elite corner is harder to find than an elite runner? Yes, it is. But, that's not the measure of the trade. The measure of the trade is, would you trade an elite corner for an elite runner?

You bet you would.

Now, you can add to this that through five years as a pro, Bailey has not consistently risen to the level of Sanders over his first five years, as Sanders was a game changer and Bailey hasn't been. Over his first two years, Portis has surpassed Emmitt in all ways compared to his first two years.

It remains possible that Bailey will be better than Sanders ever was, just as it is possible Portis will fail utterly and never live up to his first two years. But, if we just traded Deion Sanders and a No. 2 pick for Emmitt Smith, all I know for sure is that YOU, as a Cowboy fan, think that's the greatest move ever.

I think you have me confused with TwoDeep. I never said i would or would not do that trade.

But since you asked. Isn't it a tad rediculous to throw out that hypothetical when Emmitt and Deion's stories have already been written? In addition those two players are HOFers and Deion practically revolutionized his position.

Portis or Bailey aren't HOFers, yet, and neither has revolutionized their postion.

But since i have the advantage of having hindsight on my side. No, I wouldn't trade Emmitt for Deion.

I believe the Cowboys would have won super bowls with or without Emmitt. Give us a game changing Deion at an even younger point in his career and I like our chances even more. We could have found another back. Maybe he wouldn't have led the league in rushing or been the all time leading rusher in NFL history. We had an immensely talented roster during those years. I think we could have gotten by. Our defense would have been even better in 92,93.and 94. Maybe we would have won that 94 championship game if the 49ers didn't have Deion. Heck, Deion was the only real addition to our 95 super bowl team, and we won the super bowl.

Really is a silly arguement.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Ken,

I don't know, but after reading that you think there's any hint that Snyder is calling the shots over Gibbs' wishes, Ramsey may be completely accurate in his view of you. It is laughably ineffective to say "prove it" to us when trying to support your contention that Snyder is somehow doing things to undermine Gibbs.

Everyone knows who's running the show here. Everyone knows -- because the players have TOLD YOU -- how the acquisition structure here works. And everyone knows Gibbs has had to go back to Snyder on more than one occasion to ask for MORE money because he was going over budget on things. Gibbs is picking the things he wants. Snyder and Cerrato are making that happen, and before they pull the trigger, Gibbs is agreeing they should.

Now, this sort of front office structure really only works when all the key members of the front office and coaching staff are visible and around. Meaning, since Gibbs is attending the combine and owners meetings while Parcells is watching Bobby Knight coach basketball, it allows us a functioning front office where everyone is on the same page and decisions are made by consensus and shared knowledge.

Not sure you'd appreciate such a structure with the disappearance of your coach.

Maybe I'm not being clear. I know Gibbs is fully involved and is picking out what he wants.

Is Gibbs then picking out compensation and structuring the deals?

I understand that Gibbs is telling Snyder and Cerrato what he wants. I just think that Snyder is going ga ga doing it, as i have rehashed and rehashed.

Nice dig on Parcells, but he is fully involved, i can assure you. You can sleep better at night telling yourself this though.

[NoDak Cowboy]

Originally posted by kappaluvacee

With the Stellar D-Line they have, we still were able to compete with them last year, even though we had poor coaching......

27-0 on your own home field. You call that competing?

Uh, ok...... If you say so.

I guess competing means playing on the same field at the same time.

[jakehunter]

Kearse, Simon, Walker, McDougle... Definatly right there if not better as far as D-Lines go.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ken

I think you have me confused with TwoDeep. I never said i would or would not do that trade.

But since you asked. Isn't it a tad rediculous to throw out that hypothetical when Emmitt and Deion's stories have already been written? In addition those two players are HOFers and Deion practically revolutionized his position.

Portis or Bailey aren't HOFers, yet, and neither has revolutionized their postion.

But since i have the advantage of having hindsight on my side. No, I wouldn't trade Emmitt for Deion.

I believe the Cowboys would have won super bowls with or without Emmitt. Give us a game changing Deion at an even younger point in his career and I like our chances even more. We could have found another back. Maybe he wouldn't have led the league in rushing or been the all time leading rusher in NFL history. We had an immensely talented roster during those years. I think we could have gotten by. Our defense would have been even better in 92,93.and 94. Maybe we would have won that 94 championship game if the 49ers didn't have Deion. Heck, Deion was the only real addition to our 95 super bowl team, and we won the super bowl.

Really is a silly arguement.

Yes, Ken, we have hindsight to consider when discussing a trade for Emmitt and Deion. We know how great both were. And we know that you wouldn't trade Emmitt for Deion. That's precisely the point. Just as you said. Very few people would. Knowing that, and seeing you say that, means exactly what I said. We know you wouldn't trade Portis for Bailey.

We don't have the same hindsight, of course, but we do know Portis has been better in every way than Smith through two years in the league and we know Bailey has not been as good as Sanders for five. And while the rest of their careers may define them as greater or lesser players than the guys they are compared to in this hypothetical, the fact that we ALL know very few people would trade an elite runner for an elite corner means we all know most people who don't like the Portis for Bailey deal are simply not telling the truth.

Just like you said.

Now, you never won a Super Bowl without Emmitt. You did win Super Bowls without Deion. So, to project that you might have won more with Deion than you did with Emmitt seems a last ditch effort to try to twist your way back into some reasonable statement of how trading Portis for Bailey was bad. But, since you just said you wouldn't trade Smith for Deion, we know you don't believe it.

Hindsight will obviously add a new dimension to this trade as it does all trades. Down the road Bailey could blow a knee and Portis could be the league's all time leading rusher and it'll be viewed as a steal. Portis could get caught doing coke and jailed while screaming he's the highest paid back in the league and Bailey could emerge into another Sanders and we'll all rue the day.

But, as of THIS moment, when we measure this trade, we ask ourselves ONE question. Do you trade an ELITE running back for an ELITE corner? And we know you don't think so. Neither do most people. But, since we did it, you don't want to admit it, though you already have.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ken

Maybe I'm not being clear. I know Gibbs is fully involved and is picking out what he wants.

Is Gibbs then picking out compensation and structuring the deals?

I understand that Gibbs is telling Snyder and Cerrato what he wants. I just think that Snyder is going ga ga doing it, as i have rehashed and rehashed.

Nice dig on Parcells, but he is fully involved, i can assure you. You can sleep better at night telling yourself this though.

When Gibbs was putting together his coaching staff, Snyder told Gibbs, "Here you go, here's what you can spend on it." And Gibbs went over that and went back to Snyder and said he needed more. He got more. Gibbs is asking for specific players he'd like to acquire and negotiations are taken to make that happen. Before the deal is signed off on, Gibbs says, "Yeah, that's fine."

Snyder is going ga ga getting it done and Gibbs is going ga ga having it done for him. It's a nice match. As for Parcells, you may believe he's fully involved, but, I doubt it. And I can PROVE he's not fully involved, so your assurances are meaningless. Was Parcells at the combine? Yes or no? If no, he's not fully involved. If yes, he might be, until I move to my next question of where Parcells was. But, since you can't get by the FIRST question we know Parcells may be involved, even a LOT, but he's not FULLY involved, so what you said was obviously false, yes?

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

When Gibbs was putting together his coaching staff, Snyder told Gibbs, "Here you go, here's what you can spend on it." And Gibbs went over that and went back to Snyder and said he needed more. He got more. Gibbs is asking for specific players he'd like to acquire and negotiations are taken to make that happen. Before the deal is signed off on, Gibbs says, "Yeah, that's fine."

Snyder is going ga ga getting it done and Gibbs is going ga ga having it done for him. It's a nice match. As for Parcells, you may believe he's fully involved, but, I doubt it. And I can PROVE he's not fully involved, so your assurances are meaningless. Was Parcells at the combine? Yes or no? If no, he's not fully involved. If yes, he might be, until I move to my next question of where Parcells was. But, since you can't get by the FIRST question we know Parcells may be involved, even a LOT, but he's not FULLY involved, so what you said was obviously false, yes?

He wasn't at the combine, that is true. Doens't mean he is not involved. See attached article that outline in detail everyone involvement in obtaining Henson. Notice Parcells' role here......

How the Cowboys got Henson

Organization's focus pays off when quarterback winds up in mix

08:09 PM CST on Tuesday, March 30, 2004

By JEAN-JACQUES TAYLOR / The Dallas Morning News

IRVING – Every time Cowboys owner Jerry Jones talks about Drew Henson, his mind drifts to champagne showers and Super Bowl trophies.

Every time Jones sees videotape of Henson playing at Michigan, he remembers Troy Aikman as the epicenter of an offensive machine that helped the Cowboys win five consecutive NFC East titles and three Super Bowls to earn the title of Team of the '90s.

So it should come as no surprise that Henson will be wearing the Cowboys' fabled blue star on the side of a silver helmet when the 2004 season begins.

After all, Jones has coveted the 6-5, 233-pound quarterback since he read Cowboys scout Jim Garrett's glowing report after the 2000 season.

And on Friday afternoon, Henson became an official member of the Dallas Cowboys, when the NFL finally approved a trade that sent a third-round pick in 2005 to the Houston Texans for the 24-year-old.

"I commend them for being imaginative, creative and aggressive in doing this," Houston general manager Charley Casserly said. "This kid is as good as any quarterback in the draft. He hasn't played in a while, but he'll overcome that eventually."

Setting the table

Jerry Jones phoned Dan Henson the day before the 2003 draft, as did representatives from five other clubs. Each team knew Henson's son was struggling at Triple-A and wanted to know if Drew was still committed to playing baseball.

Henson, considered one of the top players in the nation after passing for more than 2,000 yards with 18 touchdowns and four interceptions as a junior at Michigan, quit football to sign a six-year, $17 million contract with the New York Yankees.

"I told him that Drew was still committed to playing baseball, but there might be a better matchup to his physical and mental skills in football," said Dan Henson, who coached football at several Division I colleges. "I think he missed the athleticism. He missed running around and making a play, because in baseball, you're confined to a three-foot spot at third base or home plate."

The next day, as the draft moved into the middle rounds, Jones phoned Dan Henson again.

"I thought there was a chance Dallas was going to draft him," Henson said. "There were two to three teams that called me and wanted me to tell them that Drew was going to play football, but I couldn't do that. Charley Casserly was intuitive enough to know that it wasn't as big a risk as other people thought."

That's because the Texans had talked to numerous baseball scouts and sources within the Yankees, making Casserly convinced Henson would return to football.

Houston selected him in the sixth round.

"I called Dan and told him, 'The only reason we drafted Drew was to trade him,' " Casserly said.

After hitting .233 with the Columbus Clippers, Henson decided to return to football.

Soon after that happened, Jerry Jones, Stephen Jones and Bill Parcells met in the scouting department to discuss how seriously they should pursue Henson.

It was the first of several meetings.

They asked each other questions such as: "How does a young quarterback fit our quarterback situation?" "How will he fit with our team? "What's his talent level?"

There were few negatives, so they decided to pursue him.

A trade made sense because it would give Houston an opportunity to receive a premium draft pick while allowing Henson to choose where he played. If he returned to the draft, he would have had no say in which team selected him.

Houston retained Henson's rights until April 23, but Jones had a different timetable.

He wanted a deal done in March.

Then Henson could participate in the entire off-season program and have an additional month to learn the offense and work with the coaching staff before the club's first rookie camp.

The Senior Bowl

At the end of a Senior Bowl practice in mid-January, Stephen Jones spoke with Henson's agent, Tom Condon, concerning his client's intentions.

"We understand Drew might be considering playing football. Is that the case?" Stephen Jones asked.

"Yes, he's definitely going to play football," Condon said.

"Are you going to advise him to go back in the draft, or would he entertain something where he didn't have to go back in the draft?" Stephen Jones said. "Is there a way to do the contract where Drew could be happy and not go back into the draft?"

"Yes, because the appealing thing about not going back into the draft is that you can pick your team," Condon said.

Now, Dallas could intensify its efforts.

Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, in town because Wolverines running back Chris Perry was going to receive the Doak Walker Award, visited Valley Ranch in February and met with Stephen Jones and Parcells, an old friend.

Jones liked what he heard during their 30-minute meeting.

"My college coach said I won't have any problems with his style of coaching," said Henson, "and I agree."

On Feb. 12, Henson worked out for 20 teams in Houston. Quarterbacks coach Sean Payton, scout Walter Juliff and offensive assistant David Lee represented the Cowboys.

Parcells and Jerry Jones remained in Dallas because they didn't want to alert the rest of the NFL just how much they wanted Henson.

Payton, a longtime friend of Henson's father, returned with glowing reviews.

The combine

When Jerry Jones arrived in Indianapolis at the NFL's Scouting Combine on Feb. 19, meeting with Casserly and Condon was near the top of his priority list.

He needed a feel for the compensation Houston wanted and the contract Condon desired.

Three days later, Jones met with Casserly in the RCA Dome.

They sat in the stands near the finish line of the 40-yard dash and discussed compensation for about 15 minutes.

Casserly wanted a conditional third-round pick in 2005 that could become a first-round choice if Henson performed at a certain level or a second-round pick in 2004.

But Jones doesn't like conditional picks because he always assumes the player he's acquiring will perform at a high level, thus the team he's trading with will get a better draft choice.

Toward the end of their conversation, Casserly agreed to let the Cowboys put Henson through a personal workout soon after the combine.

"I wanted to keep the momentum going," Casserly said.

Jones returned to the Cowboys' bus, a $500,000 luxury vehicle painted in the club's colors, after meeting with Casserly.

Jones drank Dr Pepper while he, Condon and Stephen Jones discussed parameters of a contract.

The deal would have to be creative because Henson was going to have to be compensated like a first-round pick even though he was a sixth-round pick.

"If it's not a traditional contract, then a lot of people in the league don't want to do it," Stephen Jones said. "It's not like there's something hidden under a rock that's going to bite you."

Dallas workout

Bill Parcells didn't want anyone to know Henson was conducting a personal workout for the Cowboys on Feb. 23; he didn't want blaring headlines in the local newspapers or television trucks lined up in the parking lot of the club's Valley Ranch training complex.

"We're having a secret workout on Monday," he told members of the coaching staff a few days prior to the workout. "I'm not telling anyone who it is."

Henson, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, arrived in Dallas from Tampa, Fla., on American Airlines Flight 1209. A team official picked him up, took him to his hotel and then drove him to Al Biernat's, an upscale steakhouse on Oak Lawn where many of the city's power brokers dine.

Al Biernat's would provide privacy for Jerry Jones, Stephen Jones and Parcells as they met with Henson, who had changed into dress slacks and a button-down shirt. In a private room, all but Parcells, who opted for seafood, dined on steak.

"We were trying to get a good feel for whether this guy has the personality and is he the type of person who can handle being the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys," Stephen Jones said.

The dinner lasted about 2½ hours as the most powerful members of the Cowboys' organization tried to sell Henson on their team and their vision.

They also wanted to look into his eyes and make sure his dream of professional baseball had ended.

Once dinner ended, the men shook hands. Parcells and Henson left in the coach's white Lincoln Town Car. Henson learned a lot during the 30-minute drive to his hotel.

"It was interesting," Henson said with a chuckle. "Just to hear him talking let me know he's intense about everything in life – not just about football."

Much of the scouting and coaching staffs – and Troy Aikman, at Jones' request – attended Henson's 20-minute workout the next morning.

When it ended, Jones asked Aikman to speak to Henson. Aikman told Henson about the highs and lows he could expect if he became the starting quarterback for America's Team.

"There's a lot of pressure. You're going to get a lot of recognition," Henson said, recounting Aikman's advice. "There are going to be a lot of eyes on you. They expect great things of you."

After the workout, Henson visited with Parcells. Then he met with Jones for about 20 minutes in the owner's office.

"I'm certainly interested in playing for the Cowboys," Henson said.

"We'll be talking to Tom and Houston," Jones replied. "We're going to be pushing this down the road."

The contract

The Cowboys didn't want to get down to nitty-gritty trade discussions until Stephen Jones had the parameters of a contract in place with Condon because he didn't want to give Henson or the Texans too much power during negotiations.

The Cowboys watched every snap Henson played at Michigan and dissected every throw. Ultimately, they decided Henson was a late first-round or early second-round pick, so Stephen Jones began creating a contract that would pay him that way.

"Once both sides decide they want to get it done," said Stephen Jones, "it doesn't take but five minutes to get a deal done."

The heart of the deal was completed March 12, the day the Cowboys signed former Chargers defensive end Marcellus Wiley.

Stephen Jones spent much of the day on the phone with Condon.

Between conversations, he walked down the short hallway to his father's office to keep him informed about negotiations. Periodically, Parcells poked his head into Jones' office for an update.

"Are we getting close?" the coach asked.

On Friday afternoon, Jerry Jones phoned Casserly and told him Dallas had an agreement with Henson.

"Look, I'm not interested in committing to a conditional adjustment if he does well," Jones said. "How about a four ... I know that's a little different than when we talked."

"If I couldn't do better than that four," Casserly replied, "I'd just let him go back in the draft."

"If that's the case," Jones said, "on a nonconditional basis, I'll go the three."

"We got a deal," Casserly replied.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Yes, Ken, we have hindsight to consider when discussing a trade for Emmitt and Deion. We know how great both were. And we know that you wouldn't trade Emmitt for Deion. That's precisely the point. Just as you said. Very few people would. Knowing that, and seeing you say that, means exactly what I said. We know you wouldn't trade Portis for Bailey.

We don't have the same hindsight, of course, but we do know Portis has been better in every way than Smith through two years in the league and we know Bailey has not been as good as Sanders for five. And while the rest of their careers may define them as greater or lesser players than the guys they are compared to in this hypothetical, the fact that we ALL know very few people would trade an elite runner for an elite corner means we all know most people who don't like the Portis for Bailey deal are simply not telling the truth.

Just like you said.

Now, you never won a Super Bowl without Emmitt. You did win Super Bowls without Deion. So, to project that you might have won more with Deion than you did with Emmitt seems a last ditch effort to try to twist your way back into some reasonable statement of how trading Portis for Bailey was bad. But, since you just said you wouldn't trade Smith for Deion, we know you don't believe it.

Hindsight will obviously add a new dimension to this trade as it does all trades. Down the road Bailey could blow a knee and Portis could be the league's all time leading rusher and it'll be viewed as a steal. Portis could get caught doing coke and jailed while screaming he's the highest paid back in the league and Bailey could emerge into another Sanders and we'll all rue the day.

But, as of THIS moment, when we measure this trade, we ask ourselves ONE question. Do you trade an ELITE running back for an ELITE corner? And we know you don't think so. Neither do most people. But, since we did it, you don't want to admit it, though you already have.

Obvioulsy I wrote that sentence wrong. It was pretty late when I wrote that!

[Art]

Originally posted by Ken

Obvioulsy I wrote that sentence wrong. It was pretty late when I wrote that!

Ken,

What you wrote was correct and on the mark and thoughtful and reasonable. If such a statement is the sign of you fatigued and mistake-ridden, you should post more like that .

As for the Parcells involvement question, I see you posted an article about Henson. Why? All that proves is he's somewhat involved -- though, notably, there's not a single quote from the coach that is directly from him.

You said he was FULLY involved. Yet you agree he wasn't at the combine. Obviously you agree he's not fully involved. He may be a lot involved. Just not fully.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Ken,

What you wrote was correct and on the mark and thoughtful and reasonable. If such a statement is the sign of you fatigued and mistake-ridden, you should post more like that .

As for the Parcells involvement question, I see you posted an article about Henson. Why? All that proves is he's somewhat involved -- though, notably, there's not a single quote from the coach that is directly from him.

You said he was FULLY involved. Yet you agree he wasn't at the combine. Obviously you agree he's not fully involved. He may be a lot involved. Just not fully.

Ok George Carlin. Your right.

He is approaching Fully involved, in the vicinity of fully involved, just not quite, fully involved.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Art

The Eagles have far and away the best defensive line in the division to the point that it's not even close. And they have the best depth. Of course, it's likely they have the worst set of corners in the division and the worst SET of receivers, third worst backers, third worst running back, etc. .

And the best QB, safeties, and arguabley the best OLine. It's easy to pick out singular positions to compare and choose simply those that will be to your advantage.

I'll also take Westbrook/Buckhalter over Barber/Joyce thank you.

Now back to the Redskin/Cowboy argument.

[Art]

Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz

And the best QB, safeties, and arguabley the best OLine. It's easy to pick out singular positions to compare and choose simply those that will be to your advantage.

I'll also take Westbrook/Buckhalter over Barber/Joyce thank you.

Now back to the Redskin/Cowboy argument.

EL,

I'd consider taking Westbrook and Buckhalter over Barber and Joyce too in terms of a pairing. But, I specifically said THIRD worst running back, not set of running backs. And you do have the third worst running back in the division. The Cowboys have better safeties than you do. I'd rate your offensive line as second best behind ours .

The McNabb question is an interesting one. I'd rate him no better than third strictly as a passer. I'd rate him first with the other things he does and is asked to do.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Art

EL,

I'd consider taking Westbrook and Buckhalter over Barber and Joyce too in terms of a pairing. But, I specifically said THIRD worst running back, not set of running backs. And you do have the third worst running back in the division. The Cowboys have better safeties than you do. I'd rate your offensive line as second best behind ours .

The McNabb question is an interesting one. I'd rate him no better than third strictly as a passer. I'd rate him first with the other things he does and is asked to do.

McNabb isn't a pocket passer, I think everyone has figured that out by now. He has weaknesses, but he wins and has incredible intangibles.

Woodson/Williams are not better than Dawkins/Lewis right now. You can go back and forth on whether or not you'd take RWill or Dawkins, but Lewis is a better player than a rapidly declining Woodson, and is younger.

Offensive line talent between the Redskins and Eagles is comparable. Both lines underacheived this past year. They are similar in my opinion.

[Art]

EL,

I would not be surprised to see Brunell surpass McNabb in every statistical measure of a quarterback throwing the ball. From completion percentage to yards to touchdowns to efficiency rating. That's not to say I expect a better record than the Eagles, but, a lot of the importance McNabb is viewed as having within the Eagles offense is diminished by how well the team did without him in the lineup a couple of years ago.

Simply stated, winning football games is not really a measure that is always a direct tribute to a quarterback. Dilfer has won games too. So does Fiedler for the most part. It was assumed that McNabb was central to the Eagles and when you did ok without him -- though statistically you diminished -- it eliminated some of that aura.

Brunell has traditionally been a BETTER quarterback than McNabb though. Far more accurate and efficient even as the Jags got weaker as a team. McNabb does have intangibles. No doubt. But, you can win a lot of games with Collins -- who has been to the Super Bowl -- and Brunell as well, as efficiency does matter, and I don't particularly like Collins .

I think you are right to say Woodson is in decline and Lewis is on the way up. I also think Dawkins is better than Williams, so I won't argue the point with you as it can go either way to be honest.