This is part two of an occasional series, musing on what the Dallas Cowboys would look like had they kept a player who ended up playing out his career elsewhere. Unless I specifically make the argument, it's not meant to be a second-guess of the decision to let the player go - just a big "what if?" How else can I fill the off-season? (See Part 1, Part 3)
 
In the summer of 1996, the Dallas Cowboys gave one final contract extension to Nate Newton. Newton, who turned 35 that year, had been a key part of the three Super Bowl teams of the 1990s, but was clearly on the downside of his career. The same year, a 25-year-old Ron Stone, a guard drafted in the fourth round of the 1993 draft, left Dallas in free agency for the New York Giants.
 
So how did that work out?
 
Nate played three more years in Dallas, then finished out his career in Carolina. Ron Stone became a key part of the New York Giants 2000 Super Bowl team, and went to three Pro Bowls with the Giants and, later, the 49ers.
 
You might point out that Stone played at right guard, while Nate played on the left, so the reason he was let go was Larry Allen. While I’ll agree that it is possible he could not have made a switch to the left side, the fact of the matter is that Larry Allen made the switch; first, to left tackle in 1998, after the George Hegamin experiment failed, then to left guard in 1999, replacing the departed Newton. Meanwhile, back at Allen’s old right guard spot, Dallas used a succession of players including Solomon Page, Flozell Adams, Everett McIver, Kelvin Garmon and Andre Gurode.
 
For continuity alone, how much better could that line have been with Ron Stone? Troy Aikman, whose career ended on (another) skull-rattling hit in 2000 would probably have preferred a little more talent and continuity up front.
 
Was Ron Stone a superstar? Few offensive linemen are, but he was a solid, Pro Bowl player who was ten years younger than the guy the Cowboys opted to keep in 1996. It might not have been the worst decision the general manager made in the mid-90s, but it seemed emblematic of a tendency to reward a few players for past performance, rather than churning the roster for younger talent to keep the wins coming.
 
(And, yes, I did think this at the time, too.)