Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 4/30/2010 1:54 PM EDT
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=5151045Cowboys WR Crayton wants trade
By Calvin Watkins
ESPNDallas.com
Archive IRVING, Texas -- Wanting a trade, receiver Patrick Crayton has decided not to attend any more voluntary offseason workouts with the Dallas Cowboys until something can be worked out, according to his agent, Fred Lyles.
Crayton has requested a meeting with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, but that may not happen until next week.
Crayton and backup receiver Sam Hurd had asked to be traded after the Cowboys used their first-round pick in last week's draft on receiver Dez Bryant. There has been some interest in the receivers from other teams but apparently not enough for the Cowboys to warrant making a deal.
Although he will not show up for the voluntary workouts, Crayton will attend mandatory workouts at Valley Ranch.
Last season, Crayton had 37 catches for 622 yards with five touchdowns.
Calvin Watkins covers the Cowboys for ESPNDallas.com. You can follow him on Twitter or leave a question for his weekly mailbag.
Is it something worth looking into by the Pats if its nothing more than a 4th-5th rounder?
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 4/30/2010 2:27 PM EDT
- pyegian
- Posts: 1607
- First: 8/25/2006
- Last: 8/26/2012
Before the Tory Holt signing, I would have said yes. Now, I say no. The reason is because with Moss, Holt, and Edelman, along with the need to get Brandon Tate and Taylor Price some reps to develop, the depth is solid now at the beginning of the season. If/when Welker returns in the second half, the receiving corps will be very good, especially if Gronkowski and Hernadez are involved as well. Crayton is a solid player but would just stunt the development of the young guys on the roster.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 4/30/2010 4:24 PM EDT
- FourthRing
- Posts: 36
- First: 11/17/2008
- Last: 3/31/2013
I would hardly say solid, and this guy is hungry to prove himself. I think he did in Dallas, but with a need to feed too many mouths in Dallas, he got lost. I think Holt has to prove himself and I don't see Holt at his age that much a better option than Crayton. Get some competition going, he's a good player that would work well with Tommy.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 4/30/2010 7:51 PM EDT
don't need him, we got a full group of WRs
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/1/2010 11:43 AM EDT
can he play olb well?
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 12:38 PM EDT
- m1021us
- Posts: 0
- First: 5/29/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In Response to
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?:
can he play olb well?
Posted by seattlepat70
LOL! excellent point.....OLB is probably the biggest concern on this team.....
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 3:34 PM EDT
- TexasPat3
- Posts: 8153
- First: 12/29/2008
- Last: 8/28/2012
For the right price, Crayton is worth getting. He'll be a good #4 WR, with a chance to challenge for #2...depending on how much Holt has left in his tank. Plus, the guy can return kicks.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 5:39 PM EDT
- BBRULES23
- Posts: 0
- First: 12/29/2008
- Last: 8/28/2012
Crayton would be a solid pickup. And despite what others are posting, the Pats are not loaded at WR. Torry Holt was a great pickup, but Welker is still injured and I wouldn't count on undrafted FA pickups to be productive. If the Pats were to pickup Crayton, then I would be satisfied at the WR spot for 2010.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 6:01 PM EDT
- krismk
- Posts: 1789
- First: 1/19/2007
- Last: 4/11/2013
Crayton could help, but what would the Cowboys want in return?
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 6:25 PM EDT
- sportsbozo1
- Posts: 5162
- First: 4/8/2009
- Last: 5/21/2013
In Response to
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?:
Crayton would be a solid pickup. And despite what others are posting, the Pats are not loaded at WR. Torry Holt was a great pickup, but Welker is still injured and I wouldn't count on undrafted FA pickups to be productive. If the Pats were to pickup Crayton, then I would be satisfied at the WR spot for 2010.
Posted by BBRULES23
If the season started tomorrow the WRs would look like this: Moss RE,Edelman SR, Tory Holt LE, second team: Tate RE,Price SR,Patten LE. With these b/u's: Anderson,Farnham, Stanbach,Aikens,Jenkins and Slater. That is enough WR's for one team to have to weed through. There are only two guarenteed spots on this team and Moss and Holt are the two WR's that have those spots.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 6:26 PM EDT
don't need him. we just picked up buddy farnham, all you mass gusy should love the homegrown talent
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 6:26 PM EDT
- garytx
- Posts: 3223
- First: 2/28/2006
- Last: 5/20/2013
Crayton has gotten lost is the shuffle down here in Dallas and it's understandable that he wants to go where he can play. I don't know if he can get the playing time he wants in NE though. He would be coming to a situation that would be very simular to Dallas. Moss is going to start, then you have Edelman and I think Hernandez in the slot. That 3rd WR spot is crowded with Holt, Price, Tate and others. A lot of people here have forgotten about Tate. Let's give him this year at least before we ship him off. I don't see where it would benefit either party.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 7:05 PM EDT
- BBRULES23
- Posts: 0
- First: 2/28/2006
- Last: 5/20/2013
In Response to
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?:
In Response to Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense? : If the season started tomorrow the WRs would look like this: Moss RE,Edelman SR, Tory Holt LE, second team: Tate RE,Price SR,Patten LE. With these b/u's: Anderson,Farnham, Stanbach,Aikens,Jenkins and Slater. That is enough WR's for one team to have to weed through. There are only two guarenteed spots on this team and Moss and Holt are the two WR's that have those spots.
Posted by sportsbozo1
Here's the real list of WR's for the start of 2010
Moss, Holt, and Edelman.
Aiken and Slater are special teams guys
The rest are unproven.
And as far as Patten goes, getta outa here!
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 7:08 PM EDT
- BBRULES23
- Posts: 0
- First: 2/28/2006
- Last: 5/20/2013
In Response to
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?:
don't need him. we just picked up buddy farnham, all you mass gusy should love the homegrown talent
Posted by kansaspatriot
Well that changes everything, I didn't realize the Pats pick up Buddy Farnham! I've been a Farnham fan as long as I can remember! this guy is freakin awesome!!!!! Reminds me of Pal Framingham.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/3/2010 9:35 PM EDT
- PatFanInBA2
- Posts: 3838
- First: 9/22/2009
- Last: 5/8/2013
Do not need him - unless we can get Ware in the package :-)
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/4/2010 1:42 PM EDT
- rocher
- Posts: 0
- First: 9/22/2009
- Last: 5/8/2013
Too late..but I like Crayton better than Tory Holt. Younger and bigger, and still scores TD's. Both as a WR and returner. 2 return TD's, and 7 WR TD's. Holt had 0 TD's with 51 catches. Strictly a possesion guy, Crayton has more big play ability. His 16.8 yards per catch were a career high last season and he was second team all pro punt returner. With Welker being hurt, I would not say "The Pats are all set at WR."
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/5/2010 8:53 AM EDT
- PatsLifer
- Posts: 3564
- First: 1/19/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
I like Crayton as a #3 WR. I think our WR corps is crowded, not stacked. We need to sort out what we have in our newest WR Price, and we as fans don't know what Tate is yet capable of, but you got to think based on Kraft's comments, the Pats see something special in Tate and he will be ready come September.
Crayton is a good possession receiver and plays physical which I like in the position. He has decent, not great hands, and in fact, have seem him have a case of the dropsies more than a few times when it counted for Dallas in the playoffs.
I say lets open up the competition at camp. Bring Crayton in for a 5th round pick, or something like that. I doubt Jerry takes it. I think there are plenty of WR depleted teams that will give up more for Crayton and he is dealt to Chicago, Jacksonville or something like that.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/5/2010 9:20 AM EDT
NO!
Stop with silly threads, please.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/5/2010 10:49 AM EDT
- DaBlade
- Posts: 1618
- First: 6/29/2009
- Last: 9/16/2012
It would not be a priority with me. If we could get him w/o having to give up more then a 4th rounder lets say then maybe I would consider it. I like our WR's right now and agree we need to make sure Price is developed.
Re: Does Patrick Crayton make sense?
posted at 5/5/2010 3:44 PM EDT
- paularnold
- Posts: 183
- First: 1/30/2007
- Last: 4/9/2013
I don't think Holt is a lock to make the team. In my mind Moss, Welker, Price, and Edelman are locks. Tate is probably going to make it. Aiken has a good chance due mostly to his special teams play. The arrival of McCourty somewhat hurts his chances, but he proved he can fill in at reciever if it becomes necessary. Holt is not nearly the same player he was just three years ago, but I think that the Pats are trying to find another Jabar Gaffney, someone who is always where he is supposed to be, a solid route runner with good hands. I've read other posts where people say we need to find another Stallworth. Stallworth was the fourth reciever on that team because Brady trusted Gaffney. I hope Holt can provide the possession reciever we need across from Moss, but he must prove at this point that he can get separation from defenders.
Also since Welker will almost definitely open the season on the PUP list that gives BB one extra reciever spot to open the season, and then when Welker comes back, he will have had half a season to make this decision.
