Tank Johnson

Recently the Cowboys signed one Terry "Tank" Johnson to play nose tackle. This was quite a controversial move because Tank was suspended for a history of issues including gun charges and an alleged DWI. Tank was a free agent because the Bears cut him after he messed up his last chance with them.

Why did the Cowboys do it? In part because they lost Jason Ferrason their starting nose tackle in the first game of the season for the season. Not that Jason's backup Jay Ratliff is doing a bad job. I like Ratliff quite a bit. He's quick and can generate a good inside pass rush. I think of Ratliff as more than his previous role of nickel pass rusher. But Ratliff is small by NFL nose tackle standards.

But I don't think that's the main reason. I think Jerry Jones wanted to pass up on a bargain. Tank is a good player and he was dirt cheap (basically free). The cowboys cut Nate Jones to make room on their roster for Tank. They signed Tank for $800K but he only gets a prorated amount for this year due to the suspension, so he will end up with ~$300K this year. They resigned Nate for about $300K less than he was making before. Ouch, talk about pay cuts... But he did clear wavers so the rest of the NFL passed on paying him what he was making before. So the net is that they got Tank for free this year. This is one of those look how smart I am moves by Jerry.

My opinion. Give the guy a shot. If he messes up once, cut him. It's not like he has a big signing bonus or guaranteed money so no financial risk. And once we get Ferguson back we might not need him out on the field. By all player accounts Tank is personable and not a locker room issue. Let's give Tank a shot. Tank, don't let us down!!!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more