Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



07 Jan 2009

Cowboys Release Adam Jones

The Cowboys announced Wednesday night that they'd released Adam Jones after a turbulent season.

People can say whatever they want to about his behavior, but on the field, when he was in the lineup, Jones was the Cowboys' best corner this year.

UPDATE: ESPN is also reporting that Jones was released after an Outside the Lines reporter contacted the league with allegations from two men that Jones paid an unknown man to shoot at their car following an altercation at an Atlanta strip club.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 07 Jan 2009

36 comments, Last at 11 Jan 2009, 6:09pm by ChicagoRaider

Comments

1
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 8:18pm

This is probably a good place to talk about Bill Simmons' theory about malcontents, which is that it's fine to have 1 (on a basketball team, maybe 1 each on O and D for football), but once you add a couple more the negative outcomes increase exponentially with each new knucklehead. So maybe Pacman could help an otherwise high-character team, but he can't help the Cowboys.

(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")

2
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 8:19pm

Oh, so when he was off the field and not in the lineup, he wasn't their best corner? Glad you cleared that up for us, Bill.

Good riddance. And I hope no team I halfway like wastes their time on him.

11
by Chris UK (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 3:16am

Meow

3
by BucNasty :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 8:21pm

The problem is that obviously his behavior prohibits him from being on the field. If you sign him, even for one year and minimum pay, you'd still be putting yourself in a position where you're depending on him. Given the amount of time that nickel corners play, you'd better have a contigency plan for life without him.

He can probably come here once he hits absolute rock bottom, though.

4
by jonnyblazin :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 8:55pm

so can teams still in the playoffs sign him or is there some sort of waiver process?

15
by deep64blue :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 6:31am

The waiver won't officially take place until the new League Year on Feb 9th.

5
by Independent George :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 9:07pm

Time to update the 2009 Street Free Agent team?

6
by Felden (not verified) :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 9:28pm

So, you're saying Pacman needs a new contract to keep playing football?

INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE

7
by noahpoah :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 11:31pm

Book-Wa!

8
by Xeynon (not verified) :: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 11:51pm

Where are all the Cowboys fans who when Jerry Jones signed him were claiming that he'd be a star and help turn the Dallas secondary into one of the best in the NFL?

From what I saw of the 'Boys this year, he had a pretty mediocre season, even leaving aside his off-field troubles.

9
by Jimmy :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:07am

When Jones traded for this criminal he basically said screw the rest of the league (who try to avoid incorporating criminals into the NFL), I want really talented players at a low resource cost to acquire them. The flip side to bringing this kind of person into the NFL (despite repeated and well publicised trouble with the law) should be that if (or in Pacman's case when) he gets caught pulling his own unique brand of truly appalling behaviour you should get penalised. No other team wanted this guy on their roster for prescisely this reason. Jerry Jones thought he might help his team win a Superbowl (enriching himself and covering himself with glory) and took this risk by giving him another chance to play in the NFL.

Yet again there are headlines all over the place about the NFL paying no heed whatsoever to the playoffs, but rather going into detail about the latest despicable act in the Pacman Jones saga. This latest episode is incredibly damaging for the NFL, coming at a time when attention should be focused on the upcoming huge games. There is only one person to blame for the fact that this is damaging the NFL and that is Jerry Jones. Everyone and their grandmothers knew that Pacman was going to screw up again big time, what most people didn't know was that he had already done it. JJ didn't care about damaging the rest of the league, not if it gave him a chance to win a championship. It isn't as though JJ doesn't have form when it comes to harbouring some fairly loathsome characters either. Sometimes punishment is the only way some people will learn and JJ seems to be one of those people. I'd fine him a second round pick this year, but it wouldn't seem too harsh to me to fine him a first. He might just learn his lesson, but I doubt it.

As for Pacman, I would be shocked if he ever plays another down in the NFL (good riddance to bad trash). Would you want this guy to play for a team in your city? Would you want to play on a team with him?

12
by Snowglare :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 4:21am

I wish Jerry Jones were the only owner willing to hand out endless "second chances" to players, because that would mean the rest of the league was a bastion of purity. Unfortunately, most/all owners will roll the dice if they think talent > trouble.

Chris Henry's still on the Bengals.

Multiple offender Antonio Bryant, who was suspended all of 2007, was spoken of as a possible Comeback Player of the Year in 2008 because he managed not to go a whole season without suing the NFL. Also, he played well. If Pacman had done the same, most people would be praising the Cowboys for their smart pickup... until he blew up in '09.

Matt Jones was caught with cocaine, avoided jail time, and went on to have the best season of his career before the NFL finally remembered to put his suspension into effect for the season's final three games. If he keeps his nose clean, he'll likely be regarded as one of the Jags' top offensive weapons next year.

It's not unusual, and the Cowboys aren't the only ones who do it. The NFL has no pride to risk. Pacman'll be back unless he forgets how to play, and so will Michael Vick. NFL owners aren't humanitarians. They want to win at the game of football, a brutal game that is often made easier by the employment of brutal men.

21
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:27pm

Michael Vick will never start again, and not because of the criminal stuff.

PacMan is a good corner. Vick plays a much more important position, and isn't nearly as good.

The worst case with PacMan is he doesn't play. The worst case with Vick is that he does play, and is awful, and tanks your entire offense. Vick is a MUCH higher risk.

24
by BucNasty :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 2:43pm

The worst case with PacMan is he doesn't play. The worst case with Vick is that he does play, and is awful, and tanks your entire offense. Vick is a MUCH higher risk.

While I agree wholeheartedly, I can't shake the feeling that Vick will be back. And honestly, there's worse options (speaking strictly from a talent perspective).

22
by piratefreedom (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:43pm

Comparing recreational drug use, which most of us have done even if we pretend alcohol is somehow different, with shooting at people is asinine and intellectually dishonest.

Victimless "crimes" are a failure by voters to limit nanny state theocrats.

Violent attacks are actual crimes that should be dealt with harshly.

P.S. I consider cocaine to be as addictive as cigarettes and as dangerous as alcohol so I certainly don't recommend it but a million americans in jail for pot makes me want to kick all the viciously smug, selfishly ignorant prohibitionist in the teeth.

25
by Smiling Bob (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 4:00pm

How do you compare Chris Henry to Adam Jones? Are you that ignorant or just a homer? Adam Jones had left a man parallyzed, but I will not bore you with the rest of his well documented indiscretions. Chris Henry? He waved a gun in around in Florida, helped underage girls drink, beat up a man who called him a nagger, and was stopped for a seatbelt violation. But you bring him up? Chris Henry is your thesis statement? I am not familiar with Bryants past, but suing the NFL is on par with what Adam Jones has done? Matt Jones got his due process, and was then punished. Until you develop a pattern of criminal activity you generally get that. You can combine those other 3 guys into one super wideout and his history still would not compare to Adam Jones.
"They want to win at the game of football, a brutal game that is often made easier by the employment of brutal men." No, This is not true. Owners want to profit, that is far more important to them than winning. By associating with people like this the risk driving off their fan base, except for people like you. Evert team had the same chance at trading for Adam Jones, I forget how poor of a pick it was, but anyone who thought that the rish reward was worth it, as you have claimed would have ponied up more than the last. As it is only one team was in that race, and they still lost.

10
by taxistan :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 3:01am

Pacman released himself?

13
by James-London :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 5:36am

Jerramy Stevens still has a job, so the idea that the Cowboys are the only team prepared to sign talented w*nkers is a bad one. Jones will get a gig somewhere (assuming he avoids another suspension)-if a team needs a corner badly enough they'll roll the dice.

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

23
by Jimmy :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:48pm

Yes there are a few other teams who sign these guys. I sincerely hope that the next time Chris Henry gets caught by a police officer pointing guns at people his team gets fined a meaningful draft pick. Similarly the next time Rucker or Stevens rapes some poor girl, I hope that the league smacks the team these scumbags play for with a fine so harsh that they re-think their strategy of playing with the proverbial fire.

When I see Stevens and Rucker play it makes me want to turn of the game (much cheaper than throwing my telly out of the window), and when the talking heads start going on about what a great pick up the guy was for the team I nearly throw up in my mouth. I seriously doubt I am on my own here. Something should be done to try to prevent weak-minded owners and GMs from tainting the NFL's product as they don't seem to recognise how potentially damaging some of this stuff is to their league as a whole.

If you do want to see something done (and I do get that not everyone agrees with me on this) then what are the reasonable sanctions to use? There is no point using a sanction that won't have any effect, so what would work? Personally I see very little point in monetary fines to the team unless they are so absurdly huge that there is no way that they could ever get the owners to agree to it. That leaves two options; salary cap penalties and removing draft picks. The union would never agree to salary cap penalties (unless the money penalised were to be redistributed to the caps of the other teams in the league). Which leaves draft picks, which would have to be picks of sufficient value to prevent teams from rolling the dice on criminals. No one would overly care about being fined a sixth round pick for taking a chance on a Pro Bowl calibre scumbag, the risk would be worth the reward, so make it a first day pick.

I am not being sentimental about this, the NFL is a business which produces and sells a product and some of these antics are overshadowning what is a great product. When so much time, energy and (most importantly - to the owners at least) money go into the creation of the product why allow it all to be compromised by a few rogue owners who don't care about the character of their employees?

26
by Dominuse (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 4:31pm

Fining a team for off-field behavior of a player? That makes NO sense whatsoever. These are grown men, responsible for themselves, making good money and capable of paying fines, serving suspensions or otherwise accepting punishment. Fining the team dilutes personal responsibility. It would only make sense to fine the team for something a player does off the field, if it could be shown that the team somehow encouraged or facilitated the behavior, or if the team attempted to cover up or failed to report an incident that was not otherwise known about and/or made no attempt to address it with the player.

30
by Jimmy :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 8:25pm

I mentioned three players with long and troubling histories of commiting some pretty heinous crimes. None of these guys should be playing in the NFL in my opinion. In a decent world teams would avoid polluting the league with this kind of scum (it damages the product). Pacman got suspended for some pretty appalling behaviour over a sustained period. Following his supension JJ decided he wanted him on his team anyway. Now the news is full of stories about Pacman's latest (reported) indiscretion during the most exiting period of the NFL's season. This is very bad for the league. The only reason Pacman is in the league right now is because JJ wanted to roll the dice on him, ergo JJ is responsible for Pacman's continued association with the NFL. JJ's fault, JJ should pay a penalty.

I seriously doubt that Pacman will avoid a suspension for all this. I would also point out that I never said ONLY fine the Cowboys a pick and let little Adam Jones run along because 'boys will be boys'. Kindly avoid putting your own words into my post. When a team makes the decision to sign a guy with a track record of repeated criminal behaviour they are jeopardising the league's reputation. When the s**t hits the fan why should it be spread all around the league when it is the fault of the team who took the risk on the miscreant.

As for covering up or condoning such behaviour, the Cowboys have a pretty strong track record of that too (see Irvin, Michael - and lets face it god only knows what else that JJ got covered up more successfully).

35
by Jay Gloab :: Sat, 01/10/2009 - 2:17pm

Being that the NFL had to lift Pacman's suspension in order for the trade from the Titans to go through, I can't see Goodell fining JJ here.

As an Eagles fan, I have no love lost for Jerry Jones, and I certainly am glad my team didn't trade for Pacman, but I think it's wrong to give sole blame for this black eye on the league (if in fact it really damages the product, which I doubt) to JJ.

34
by Ed (not verified) :: Fri, 01/09/2009 - 10:30pm

Are you saying that I should be fined or punished if one of my employees does something bad outside of work? That's ridiculous.

14
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 6:16am

I'm wondering why the Raiders have seemingly never been interested in him?

Oakland was always the place of last resort for players who were on their way out of the league. Assuming they were talented and performed on the field, it didn't matter what happened off it.

17
by Craig (N.S) (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 9:08am

And who was the last guy the Raiders signed that fit that bill of 'no one else will take this malcontent', again?

In recent decades, it's more about trying to get extra years out of star players getting phased out of their team (Armstrong, Sapp, Rice, Lott, Dickerson, Rod Woodson), or guys whose talents are undervalued by their current team (Gannon).

There are plenty of teams whose standards are looser than Oakland's for character issues.

36
by ChicagoRaider (not verified) :: Sun, 01/11/2009 - 6:09pm

First, the end of the line thing means you don't have to give up draft picks. So Dallas' acquisition of Pacman doesn't count.

As far as malcontents nobody else wanted... Javon Walker? I mean was it that long ago?

The key to understanding why the Raiders put up with malcontents is to understand that historically, they are not a system team. They rely on each individual to beat his man, or at least not get beaten. So on the Raiders, if you got the job done, nobody cared how. If you were Stuart Schweigert and whined about how nobody else does cover 1 (i.e. rely on your corners to cover their men) and can't do your job, then you are a malcontent in Oakland, and then out.

I would think Davis would want Pacman. If he can show up on Sunday, and do his job, which is to beat his man or at least not get beaten, then Al will be ok with him.

16
by Sean :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 7:45am

i recall it was more of a case of pacman saying that he only wanted to go to dallas. given the latest situation, i can see the raiders being his only option.

unless the pats take a liking to him. there's a certainly a need for them at CB

32
by RickD :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:00pm

No way would the Pats be interested in him.

18
by Key19 :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:33am

Adam was the best corner the Cowboys had. Terence gets a lot of credit amongst the fans, but they all overrate him. They see the 40+ yard Santana Moss drop and say "what great coverage by Newman to force the incomplete" when he really did nothing on that play other than give the receiver an opportunity to kill the Cowboys. Luckily for us, he dropped it. Overall, Terence is a good corner. He's a heck of a lot better than Anthony Henry in my book at least. I'll be interested to see how Orlando Scandrick grades out in PFP09. Overall he played really well I thought, but he just got beat a couple too many times when he was certainly in position to make a play. Overall, I won't be surprised if he grades out better than Henry and Jenkins and about the same as Newman in PFP09. Although maybe he's not nearly as good as I think he is.

Overall, I'm sad to see Adam Jones' talent go. However, he is not worth the problems. Also, I feel like his style didn't fit Phillips' scheme like it fit in Tennessee. He was still good, but not as good as with the Titans I'd say. Also, he sucks at special teams. One return of merit (on a kickoff), two or three fumbles combined on kicks and punts, and overall ineptitude on the returns.

19
by Temo :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:49am

Adam was the most talented corner the Cowboys had, and his number may reflect that. But if you've watched the Cowboys play defense, then you know the complete confusion in their defensive backfield on almost every key play in the game-- especially against hurry-up offenses.

Pacman was probably the most confused, the most out of place corner in a defensive backfield that was full of them. Beyond that, you can't discount the negative influence he's had on the team. Nobody on the team really liked him at all, and he didn't get along with many of them. He might fit in better on the Ravens, but the culture of the Cowboys doesn't really accomodate a guy like Pacman.

20
by JP_Wright :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:27am

I'm a Cowboys fan and I'm glad to see Pacman go.
Now if we can only get rid of Terrell Owens, move our coach to Defensive Coordinator, and have Jerry Jones die of a heart attack and let Bob Kraft buy us at a bargain cost, we might have a shot of being a respectable team with potential unity. Oh, having Romo choke a little less and lead a little more might also be beneficial. Dallas is the antithesis of success. They're the 60-year-old former movie starlet who lies to herself when she sees wrinkles in the mirror.

27
by Mike W :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 5:48pm

What I want to know is, are you allowed to shoot someone outside a strip club without Pac-Man being involved?

28
by asp_j (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 7:05pm

So let me see if I got this straight:

Pacman got fired because, basically, a group of people said he ordered a hit on them, although they also said they didn't see the shooter, nobody has any actual proof and the police is not even actually investigating?

Am I really supposed to think he did anything wrong here, other than being, you know, Adam "Pacman" Jones?

33
by RickD :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:03pm

I would guess that his employers thought the allegations were credible. Also, they know a lot more about his off-season behavior this past season than the public at large does. The Cowboys don't need a reason to fire him.

And they don't need to use a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. They're not throwing the guy in jail. They're just firing him.

29
by BucNasty :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 7:24pm

Nobody on the team really liked him at all, and he didn't get along with many of them.

You got the sense that everyone in Tennessee hated him, too. I find that somewhat surprising because even though you never hear about them getting arrested, I think of Tennessee as being full of punks. But maybe I just think that because of LenDale White and Chris Johnson, with some lingering resentment towards Albert Haynesworth's face stomping and, of course, Pacman.

31
by Josh B. (not verified) :: Thu, 01/08/2009 - 8:40pm

Why would Chris Johnson be a punk? I thought the other Chris Henry was more of a character issue than him.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.