PDA

View Full Version : Isaiah Stanback


Achilles33
04-30-2007, 08:41 PM
According to Bill Jones, Jerry Jones said Stanback can be a #1 or #2 WR down the line. I am loving this pick more and more. He is a playmaker.

KILLERSANTA
04-30-2007, 08:43 PM
And for the people that don't know(I said it a few times), Stanbeck runs a 4.3 not a 4.5 Forthy................

Im_a_Romosexual
04-30-2007, 08:46 PM
I think Jerry went overboard. I see him as a good #3

Achilles33
04-30-2007, 08:48 PM
I know Killersanta, he is a 4.3 guy, for those you think he is a 4.5 guy. And look at look at his moves. He is also one of the best athletes in the draft.

fryman
04-30-2007, 09:06 PM
According to Bill Jones, Jerry Jones said Stanback can be a #1 or #2 WR down the line. I am loving this pick more and more. He is a playmaker.

what is your point? Every owner is going to say every draft pick can be a starter.

Dcboys94
04-30-2007, 09:11 PM
he will likely compete in 2 years, should be a good #2.

D-Unit
04-30-2007, 09:40 PM
We have one hella fast Holder! :D

22,895
04-30-2007, 10:10 PM
He'll be lucky to make it on the team much less being a Starter in a couple of years.

D-Unit
04-30-2007, 10:27 PM
He'll be lucky to make it on the team much less being a Starter in a couple of years.
He could be the starting KR/PR. However, he has to show value at WR to be able to stick with the team. The odds are definately against him being a staple with the team for the long haul.

Modano
05-01-2007, 02:20 AM
And for the people that don't know(I said it a few times), Stanbeck runs a 4.3 not a 4.5 Forthy................

The thing that should impress you is his 100 meters time. 10.48 without focalizing his training on it. That's an amazing time, more than his 4.3 40.

leroyisgod
05-01-2007, 08:03 AM
Stanback is a project...plain and simple.

robert_in_bigd
05-01-2007, 08:41 AM
Our 5th receiver / 4th QB. So much love. Reminds me of the BS last year about Watkins.

Every fannie was commenting on a picture of him jumping in the air from a great angle which made him look like David THompson with a 48 vertical.

Drop the latte.

Macarthur
05-01-2007, 10:09 AM
The thing that should impress you is his 100 meters time. 10.48 without focalizing his training on it. That's an amazing time, more than his 4.3 40.

Very true.

In comparison, Adrian Peterson is around a 10.6 guy. He's about the same size as Peterson and a bit faster. I'm not saying he will be Peterson, but this guy has some tools and I like QBs that are athletic like that. I think he's a bigger faster Crayton.

Achilles33
05-01-2007, 03:51 PM
He is 6'2 3/8'', 216, with a 4.35 40, a 6.68 60, and a 10.48 100. This kid has potential. And D-Unit is right, he will be one hell of a holder. I see a ton of fakes in the future.

Im_a_Romosexual
05-01-2007, 05:56 PM
sure hes fast but you need other skills to be effective WR

Achilles33
05-01-2007, 07:11 PM
He is one hell of an athlete as well. He got drafted last year by the Orioles and he hasn't played Baseball since high school.

DMWSackMachine
05-01-2007, 07:37 PM
I don't give one damn how good of an athlete he is, or what his 100m was, or how some stupid baseball team used a 46th rounder on his ass. I want a good football player, and the facts are that those top 10 4th round picks are more valuable, imo, than late 3rd rounders are.

For some reason, really good players always slide to the 2nd day, and that allows teams to collect their breath, look around and realize who they were letting slip. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the "best availabe" are gone very early in the 4th round, rather than continuing to slide into the 5th.

That was a premium pick, and it needed to bring us a good player that could contribute this year, while playing at a position that we need. Tanard Jackson would have been perfect, so would have Bush. Isaiah Stanbach is a nobody, and I can't believe my team used a premium draft choice on a guy that was going to be available at 122. I will never get over this.

Achilles33
05-01-2007, 07:40 PM
Oh yes you will. This kid is special. He probably would have been a 2nd rounder if he didn't get hurt.

Im_a_Romosexual
05-01-2007, 07:55 PM
2nd rounder? come on its time to leave fantasy land. It was the worst pick of our draft and at best becomes a third reciever comprable to Arnaz Battle. And thats after three years of the process of going from QB to WR

Macarthur
05-02-2007, 10:12 AM
I don't give one damn how good of an athlete he is, or what his 100m was, or how some stupid baseball team used a 46th rounder on his ass. I want a good football player, and the facts are that those top 10 4th round picks are more valuable, imo, than late 3rd rounders are.

For some reason, really good players always slide to the 2nd day, and that allows teams to collect their breath, look around and realize who they were letting slip. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the "best availabe" are gone very early in the 4th round, rather than continuing to slide into the 5th.

That was a premium pick, and it needed to bring us a good player that could contribute this year, while playing at a position that we need. Tanard Jackson would have been perfect, so would have Bush. Isaiah Stanbach is a nobody, and I can't believe my team used a premium draft choice on a guy that was going to be available at 122. I will never get over this.


Who else would you have taken that was going to contribute immediately?

thule
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
I'll be on the stanback bandwagon if he can be our 3rd qb/contribute on every special teams unit/and work into a future WR role...make the team as a WR...not Green who showed he couldn't do it. If he can do all of the above...I'll wait until saying it was a bad pick. That is a lot for a player to learn...so it'll be interesting.

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 04:57 PM
On Talkin' Cowboys today, Jeff Ireland said this kid is going to be something, and get your popcorn ready. He has so much talent. You have to be creative. He is to good not make a roster. You have to do something with him. Ireland also said he should have an immediate impact.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Was a wasted pick. Classic Jerry Jones on a fishing expedition.

Not only that we could have likely taken Stanback in the 5th or 6th.

We just don't have much in the way of 2007 talent outside of Spencer. This is why we failed.

We don't need much to go to the big dance but this draft does not really get us closer -- it just got us some physically talented kids to develop.

TheFan0520
05-02-2007, 05:20 PM
We'll see. Can he actually translate the size and speed into WR skills or will he be just another Randal Williams.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:20 PM
Was a wasted pick. Classic Jerry Jones on a fishing expedition.

Not only that we could have likely taken Stanback in the 5th or 6th.

We just don't have much in the way of 2007 talent outside of Spencer. This is why we failed.

We don't need much to go to the big dance but this draft does not really get us closer -- it just got us some physically talented kids to develop.

Why do you wait till you see what role they will assume and see them in action and read reports before you come out with such bold statements...I really try to read all of your posts....but I mean...how can you honestly know that Stanback won't make the team and won't contribute. You are like the polar opposite of Tnew.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Was a wasted pick. Classic Jerry Jones on a fishing expedition.

Not only that we could have likely taken Stanback in the 5th or 6th.

We just don't have much in the way of 2007 talent outside of Spencer. This is why we failed.

We don't need much to go to the big dance but this draft does not really get us closer -- it just got us some physically talented kids to develop.

I didn't like the Stanback pick, and still think its a longshot that he will ever amount to anything, but to say we failed before a single one of these guys has ever set foot on the field is quite a bold statement.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:29 PM
Thule, I am providing an opinion. That is all. I am hoping I can back it up with some insights.

I have really gone through this draft in my mind and put up a 45 man roster and I just don't see it. I almost convinced myself otherwise on Sunday night but just can't see it.

Stanback as WR or QB? A full back? A kicker? Two developmental LT? Two developmental CB?

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 05:32 PM
Stanback will make the team. And robert in big D, are you saying Free and Martan and Brown and Ball won't make the team? I don't think Ball will make the team, but I think the others will.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:33 PM
Thule, I am providing an opinion. That is all. I am hoping I can back it up with some insights.

I have really gone through this draft in my mind and put up a 45 man roster and I just don't see it. I almost convinced myself otherwise on Sunday night but just can't see it.

Stanback as WR or QB? A full back? A kicker? Two developmental LT? Two developmental CB?

I can relate to how your feeling...but who could have saw us keeping Miles Austin last year...he had a weak TC...weak preseason...yet he still made the team over a guy like Rector who clearly outperformed him. Noone could even really forsee us keeping 5 WR's last year....in a 2 TE scheme it seemed ludacris...but after the fact...who coulda scene us keeping a KOS too...crazier things have happened...I won't write off a draft until TC...and if they make the team...they have 3 years to put up. Obviously higher drafted prospects need to show a little more earlier than a 2nd day guy.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:36 PM
Stanback will make the team. And robert in big D, are you saying Free and Martan and Brown and Ball won't make the team? I don't think Ball will make the team, but I think the others will.

O will he?...serious man...atleast say Stanback has a good chance or something...you don't know the future.

If Free can outplay McQ on the outside...he has a roster spot...that'll be fun to watch in TC.
Marten will need to show some versatility I think. Mainly need to prove that he can man the RT position...and also that he can play interior OL if needed.
Procter is going to have to show snapping ability or outplay Marten to make the team.
McQ is going to have to outplay Free...or else win a job on the inside over Procter...and likely show that he is a better player than Marten. Because in reality if he can't win the LT job...he has 2 guys to outperform to make this roster...I think he is in a world of hurt.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:46 PM
Stanback will make the team. And robert in big D, are you saying Free and Martan and Brown and Ball won't make the team? I don't think Ball will make the team, but I think the others will.

My predictions are that all but 1 Tackle (Marten or Free) and 1 OLB are practice squad fodder at best.

We drafted TWO guys who will be play in 2007. Only 1 will see anything of note barring catastrophic injuries.

You can book mark all my predictions. I have not one problem admitting I am wrong if so .....

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:49 PM
I can relate to how your feeling...but who could have saw us keeping Miles Austin last year...he had a weak TC...weak preseason...yet he still made the team over a guy like Rector who clearly outperformed him. Noone could even really forsee us keeping 5 WR's last year....in a 2 TE scheme it seemed ludacris...but after the fact...who coulda scene us keeping a KOS too...crazier things have happened...I won't write off a draft until TC...and if they make the team...they have 3 years to put up. Obviously higher drafted prospects need to show a little more earlier than a 2nd day guy.


Funny news is I like the UDFA signings better than anything we did 5 through 7. At least they made sense. Take bona-fide athletes and let them compete.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:50 PM
My predictions are that all but 1 Tackle (Marten or Free) and 1 OLB are practice squad fodder at best.

We drafted TWO guys who will be play in 2007. Only 1 will see anything of note barring catastrophic injuries.

You can book mark all my predictions. I have not one problem admitting I am wrong if so .....

I find it hard to believe that Free or Marten will make the PS. Mainly for the same reasons that Austin didn't get put on the PS. Organizations have a good idea at what teams are targetting...whether it's getting a call for a trade or something similar. But both guys have a good ceiling with a pretty solid floor...and teams will have a good idea...if they can pick up a guy they had rated in the top 100 of their rankings for the draft...and have had an injury or just didn't find the guy they thought...they'll probably go out around and look...guys like Free and Marten have too much name recognition to be put on the PS without getting picked up by someone else. McQ has a better shot at the PS then either of those two you mentioned.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 05:51 PM
O will he?...serious man...atleast say Stanback has a good chance or something...you don't know the future.

If Free can outplay McQ on the outside...he has a roster spot...that'll be fun to watch in TC.
Marten will need to show some versatility I think. Mainly need to prove that he can man the RT position...and also that he can play interior OL if needed.
Procter is going to have to show snapping ability or outplay Marten to make the team.
McQ is going to have to outplay Free...or else win a job on the inside over Procter...and likely show that he is a better player than Marten. Because in reality if he can't win the LT job...he has 2 guys to outperform to make this roster...I think he is in a world of hurt.

We talked about it in another thread, but we kept nine last year on the 53. Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Rivera, Colombo, McQuistan, Procter, Fabini, Johnson. This year Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Davis and Colombo are most likely your starting 5, which leaves (assuming Rivera retires) 4 spots for McQuistan, Procter, Marten, Free, Berger.

To me Free and Marten are safe because they would surely be snapped up if cut, and I don't think we let that happen based on where they were drafted and how badly they want to develop OL in house. So that leaves 2 spots for McQuistan, Procter and Berger. The key will be can Procter play center and can McQuistan play guard. If McQuistan shows at guard, which I think he will he is probably safe, which leaves Berger and Procter fighting it out based on who can better back up at center.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:51 PM
McQuistan will be gobbled up in seconds.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:52 PM
Funny news is I like the UDFA signings better than anything we did 5 through 7. At least they made sense. Take bona-fide athletes and let them compete.

How does a kicker with an ability to kick a 62 yarder and kick off.
A fb with the ability to blow up a hole..yet the hands to effectively catch
and a corner with triangle numbers that stack up against anyone else in the draft

not make sense?

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:52 PM
I see McQuistan, Proctor and Free on the active. ** Free is a LT **

Marten and Berger to the PS or another team.

D-Unit
05-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Was a wasted pick. Classic Jerry Jones on a fishing expedition.

Not only that we could have likely taken Stanback in the 5th or 6th.

We just don't have much in the way of 2007 talent outside of Spencer. This is why we failed.

We don't need much to go to the big dance but this draft does not really get us closer -- it just got us some physically talented kids to develop.
Does everything have to be "Franchise" with you? Unless we have a Franchise player at every position in every round of the draft you're just not happy. You're so pissed off about nothing that you don't even make sense anymore.

How can you prove Stanback would've been there in the 5th (we didn't have a pick in the 5th btw) or the 6th? Bogus. Thule is right. You're the bi-polar version of Balaskonis and you both make no sense with your arguments.

How lucky are the rest of us Cowboys fans to enjoy the presence of you two characters?

thule
05-02-2007, 05:54 PM
We talked about it in another thread, but we kept nine last year on the 53. Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Rivera, Colombo, McQuistan, Procter, Fabini, Johnson. This year Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Davis and Colombo are most likely your starting 5, which leaves (assuming Rivera retires) 4 spots for McQuistan, Procter, Marten, Free, Berger.

To me Free and Marten are safe because they would surely be snapped up if cut, and I don't think we let that happen based on where they were drafted and how badly they want to develop OL in house. So that leaves 2 spots for McQuistan, Procter and Berger. The key will be can Procter play center and can McQuistan play guard. If McQuistan shows at guard, which I think he will he is probably safe, which leaves Berger and Procter fighting it out based on who can better back up at center.

If Marten shows he can be as versatile as advertised...being able to play 4 OL positions...and Procter shows he can snap and also play inside...with the addition of a KOS and a possible 3 QB or a utility guy...I think we could see 8 OL. Procter didn't show anything to other teams...he was on detroits PS for awhile before getting picked up. If we do carry 9 tho...McQ obviously gets the nod.

thule
05-02-2007, 05:56 PM
I see McQuistan, Proctor and Free on the active. ** Free is a LT **

Marten and Berger to the PS or another team.

I actually see Marten and Proctor on the gameday roster and Free on the inactive roster for the majority of the year. Marten can pinch either tackle position. Proctor would have started at RG last year after the Seattle game...and can supposedly snap. That is plenty of gameday depth.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 05:56 PM
How does a kicker with an ability to kick a 62 yarder and kick off.
A fb with the ability to blow up a hole..yet the hands to effectively catch
and a corner with triangle numbers that stack up against anyone else in the draft

not make sense?

Just do a 45 man roster and then let me know. I did one some days back and it did not look good.

If I give one of those guys a shot it is to Brown b/c Reeves and Jones are very mediocre.

The Kicker will not beat out Gramatica unles Wade carries two kickers. The FB is going to beat out Hoyt (ILB too) and Polite?

Look, the one BIG THING I am over looking is Wade. If he comes in looking to show folks who is the boss he is going to shat can some of the later roster guys BP loved. Prove who is the boss (sort of).

So, anyway. Do a 45 man roster and we can chat. I did mine.

D-Unit
05-02-2007, 05:58 PM
Luckily we can keep 53 during the season.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:02 PM
Does everything have to be "Franchise" with you? Unless we have a Franchise player at every position in every round of the draft you're just not happy. You're so pissed off about nothing that you don't even make sense anymore.

How can you prove Stanback would've been there in the 5th (we didn't have a pick in the 5th btw) or the 6th? Bogus. Thule is right. You're the bi-polar version of Balaskonis and you both make no sense with your arguments.

How lucky are the rest of us Cowboys fans to enjoy the presence of you two characters?

D-Unit, I don't come out with opinions screaming and yelling as others. I actually make lots of sense.

Why can't you wait and see if my predictions are correct? I am willing to wait on yours.

But when it does happen I don't want arguing over "who is right." I am willing to say it when I am wrong.

I know my football, just leave it at that and let us chat in October.

With respect to your put downs and comparisons -- well -- they speak poorly of you regardless of your "Admin" title. Disagreement is not a basis for name calling unless you are ...... leave it at that.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Luckily we can keep 53 during the season.

Last I checked 53 don't play on Sunday.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:04 PM
If Marten shows he can be as versatile as advertised...being able to play 4 OL positions...and Procter shows he can snap and also play inside...with the addition of a KOS and a possible 3 QB or a utility guy...I think we could see 8 OL. Procter didn't show anything to other teams...he was on detroits PS for awhile before getting picked up. If we do carry 9 tho...McQ obviously gets the nod.

Jerry pretty strongly hinted McQ will be tried at guard. I think the biggest question mark on the line this year is who wins the backup Center job. Somebody has to be active on game day to back up Gurode, so I think we'll keep nine guys with either Berger or Procter last man out. McQuistan has to be concerned though, hope he's been working hard this offseason. Many times new coaches come in and get rid of the old guys pet projects. Thats why I think guys like Procter, McQ, Tyson T., Polite and a few others better bring it in camp this year or they could be gone.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:04 PM
I actually see Marten and Proctor on the gameday roster and Free on the inactive roster for the majority of the year. Marten can pinch either tackle position. Proctor would have started at RG last year after the Seattle game...and can supposedly snap. That is plenty of gameday depth.

That is fine. I did say 1 of the 2 Tackle Draftees would be active. Free or Marten is just a unit of capacity.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:05 PM
Many times new coaches come in and get rid of the old guys pet projects. Thats why I think guys like Procter, McQ, Tyson T., Polite and a few others better bring it in camp this year or they could be gone.

Did I just not say this on this very thread?

DMWSackMachine
05-02-2007, 06:06 PM
I think people are waaaaaaaaay undervaluing McQuistan's place on this team. If you'll recall, this guy was the story during training camp last year. From all reports, he has the ability to be a quality starter at one of the 3 most important positions on the team (LT). Not only that, but you'll recall that Jerry, going into the off-season, was telling his coaching staff that "McQuistan has got to be ready to start" next year. Does that sound like someone who is a borderline guy that might get cut? No, it doesn't.

In my mind, Pat is the future at LT until further notice. It's that simple. I have never heard Parcells gush about a young player the way that he did about McQuistan. It was extremely out of the ordinary for him to go out of his way to compliment and build a guy up like that. To use a Parcellism, "He's stayin'". That's all there is to it.

As for Marten and Free, I think one of them is going to have to have the versatility to be the swing tackle, in order for us to keep them activated on game day. I really wouldn't be surprised to see one of those guys get cut in camp. I know it's unusual, but with our oline like it is, that's how I feel.

Here is the number crunch:

Adams/Kosier/Gurode/Davis/Colombo= 5
McQuistan backup G/T =6
Proctor backup C/G = 7


That leaves either one or two more spots for O-line. If both Free AND Marten play well in camp, that would leave them as backup LT and RT, with one of them needing to be able to swing back and forth for game day. I think both will make the team, and that my scenario above will ultimately play out.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:07 PM
Did I just not say this on this very thread?

Yep, while I was typing my response to thule. Want a cookie?

D-Unit
05-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Last I checked 53 don't play on Sunday.
That's not what I'm saying. The game day roster changes week to week based of health, opponent, game plan, who's doing well, etc. etc.

So I have no idea why you are trying to narrow down to a 45 man roster now. You wouldn't even be able to do it on the morning of game day.

We keep 53 men on the active roster. Discuss that. It makes entirely more sense.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Yep, while I was typing my response to thule. Want a cookie?


LOL. Ya. Sure. Anyway.

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 06:12 PM
There is no way a 3rd round pick just gets cut. I expect Free and Marten to both, easily, make the team. Ireland said they are both for the future. They will both easily kick out Proctor or McQuistan if they have to. Some people have 8 offensive lineman active on sundays. For instance, San Diego had 8 active last year. I think they will all be on the 53 man roster, maybe Proctor gets cut. Free was great value, and should have been a late 2nd rounder, and Marten was a 3rd rounder. I don't think they will be cut.

thule
05-02-2007, 06:15 PM
I think people are waaaaaaaaay undervaluing McQuistan's place on this team. If you'll recall, this guy was the story during training camp last year. From all reports, he has the ability to be a quality starter at one of the 3 most important positions on the team (LT). Not only that, but you'll recall that Jerry, going into the off-season, was telling his coaching staff that "McQuistan has got to be ready to start" next year. Does that sound like someone who is a borderline guy that might get cut? No, it doesn't.

In my mind, Pat is the future at LT until further notice. It's that simple. I have never heard Parcells gush about a young player the way that he did about McQuistan. It was extremely out of the ordinary for him to go out of his way to compliment and build a guy up like that. To use a Parcellism, "He's stayin'". That's all there is to it.

As for Marten and Free, I think one of them is going to have to have the versatility to be the swing tackle, in order for us to keep them activated on game day. I really wouldn't be surprised to see one of those guys get cut in camp. I know it's unusual, but with our oline like it is, that's how I feel.

Here is the number crunch:

Adams/Kosier/Gurode/Davis/Colombo= 5
McQuistan backup G/T =6
Proctor backup C/G = 7


That leaves either one or two more spots for O-line. If both Free AND Marten play well in camp, that would leave them as backup LT and RT, with one of them needing to be able to swing back and forth for game day. I think both will make the team, and that my scenario above will ultimately play out.

Marten has the skillset to be our swing guy. I'm not discounting McQ at all really...atleast in my mind...it might come out that way when I type. McQ is just at a disadvantage...because like I said if he for some reason cannot outplay Free on the outside...he is in a world of hurt. He would essentially have to outperform Marten on the inside...Proctor on the inside...and even if he was better than Proctor would he have the versatility to play the center position in a pinch. Those are the questions that I have with McQ. I also am curious to see if he has the ability to play the right side. Marten showed that he could play everywhere...I haven't seen that from McQ.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:15 PM
That's not what I'm saying. The game day roster changes week to week based of health, opponent, game plan, who's doing well, etc. etc.

So I have no idea why you are trying to narrow down to a 45 man roster now. You wouldn't even be able to do it on the morning of game day.

We keep 53 men on the active roster. Discuss that. It makes entirely more sense.

He's determined to prove that our draft sucked even though TC hasn't even started yet. If he rationally took a look at the 53 man roster instead of ripping our draft picks he'd realize 7 out of 8 will probably make the final 53 barring injury.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:18 PM
BP gushed about Pettiti too, and look where that got him. I think McQuistan will make it as a versitile backup T/G, and I think he'll be active. But he could just as well be with another team, you never know what TC will bring.

Modano
05-02-2007, 06:25 PM
robert, offensive linemen are not players you take to contribute immediately. I've said that before. Look at the Eagles. They arguably have the best OL in the NFC and have you noticed nothing? Because I have, and I'll show you:

LT: William Thomas - Winston Justice (picked last year in the second, didn't play a single snap, he wasn't even active for some games)
LG: Todd Herremans (was in practice squad his first year, played in only 4 games before starting all 16 games in his second season)
C: Jamaal Jackson (practice squad guy. Didn't start until his 4th year)
RG: Shwan Andrews (played 1 game in his rookie season and he was the SIXTEENTH OVERALL PICK)
RT: John Runyan (didn't start until his second season. They still miss a guy to replace him tough).

We do need to to grow up our OL. To do that you have to pick a guy who is not gonna contribute for 1 year and sometimes even more. You can't pick an OL and make him starting from his first game. Only a few number of players could start in their rookie season and play well.
So because we had to grow up a good line, we had to spend our picks on guys like Marten and Free, who both have very good starting potential.

I really don't know how you can say that Marten is gonna be PS! He was regarded as the best RT in the draft, he's a mauler and a very versatile player. We don't if he will make the roster, but right now the odds say YES for sure. He was a 3rd round pick, you don't put 3rd round picks in PS, you give them a chance, and they need at least 1 year to prove you if they were the right choice. If you put a 3rd round pick on PS, he will be picked IMMEDIATELY by another team. And that's the same thing for Free, who was regarded (firs by Kiper) as a guy with 2nd round potential.

If there's an OT who can be PS is more likely McQuistan. I know that the coaching staff was high on him, that he make a great block on the Austin return against Seattle, but he's the only guy of our 5 tackles who can be on PS and not be picked immediately by another team. And last year Sparano and Parcells seemed high on Petitti and his progressione, we all know how it ended up.

So I don't know how you can "hate" so much the Marten and Free picks. We do need offensive linemen, we do need 2 tackles with starting potential (Flozell is on the end of his career, and you don't know if Colombo was only a one year wonder). But having this need didn't allow you to pick a guy who can contribuite immediately, you have to wait. This strategy worked pretty well with the Eagles.

P.S.: Sorry for the grammar, but it's 1.30 a.m and I'm a little tired.

DMWSackMachine
05-02-2007, 06:26 PM
Then you are out of your mind. A person's draft status is only the deciding factor on organizations that are perennial losers, and it's a big reason why, too. How a person plays should be/is the only factor in deciding whether they stay or not. McQuistan, imo, is as good a prospect as any of the tackles not named Thomas, Brown or Staley in this year's draft. He is that good, and will not be cut unless something extremely unlikely develops. Meanwhile, Marten was a stretch in the early 3rd, and Free was a borderline day 1 guy. I would take McQuistan in the draft 100x out of 100 over either one of those guys.

The organization knows that Pat has a lot to offer, Parcells was outspoken in his evaluation and estimation of his future promise as a player, and we're not just going to throw that away. It is much, much, more likely that we will be able to slip a guy that went to some small time school and wasn't drafted until late in the 4th round onto our practice squad, then a guy that has had a full year in the NFL, with a highly successful training camp, preseason, and some fill in on the regular season to show teams.

McQuistan is staying. Free or Marten would be cut before him. You guys are letting your draft fever cloud your ability to evaluate the players. You're seeing a 3rd rounder and a 4th rounder competing with a second year 7th rounder for a roster spot, instead of seeing James Marten and Doug Free competing with Pat McQuistan. Again, McQuistan is staying. I will be happy to place a sig bet with anyone on this topic.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:28 PM
robert, offensive linemen are not players you take to contribute immediately. I've said that before. Look at the Eagles. They arguably have the best OL in the NFC and have you noticed nothing? Because I have, and I'll show you:

LT: William Thomas - Winston Justice (picked last year in the second, didn't play a single snap, he wasn't even active for some games)
LG: Todd Herremans (was in practice squad his first year, played in only 4 games before starting all 16 games in his second season)
C: Jamaal Jackson (practice squad guy. Didn't start until his 4th year)
RG: Shwan Andrews (played 1 game in his rookie season and he was the SIXTEENTH OVERALL PICK)
RT: John Runyan (didn't start until his second season. They still miss a guy to replace him tough).

We do need to to grow up our OL. To do that you have to pick a guy who is not gonna contribute for 1 year and sometimes even more. You can't pick an OL and make him starting from his first game. Only a few number of players could start in their rookie season and play well.
So because we had to grow up a good line, we had to spend our picks on guys like Marten and Free, who both have very good starting potential.

I really don't know how you can say that Marten is gonna be PS! He was regarded as the best RT in the draft, he's a mauler and a very versatile player. We don't if he will make the roster, but right now the odds say YES for sure. He was a 3rd round pick, you don't put 3rd round picks in PS, you give them a chance, and they need at least 1 year to prove you if they were the right choice. If you put a 3rd round pick on PS, he will be picked IMMEDIATELY by another team. And that's the same thing for Free, who was regarded (firs by Kiper) as a guy with 2nd round potential.

If there's an OT who can be PS is more likely McQuistan. I know that the coaching staff was high on him, that he make a great block on the Austin return against Seattle, but he's the only guy of our 5 tackles who can be on PS and not be picked immediately by another team. And last year Sparano and Parcells seemed high on Petitti and his progressione, we all know how it ended up.

So I don't know how you can "hate" so much the Marten and Free picks. We do need offensive linemen, we do need 2 tackles with starting potential (Flozell is on the end of his career, and you don't know if Colombo was only a one year wonder). But having this need didn't allow you to pick a guy who can contribuite immediately, you have to wait. This strategy worked pretty well with the Eagles.

P.S.: Sorry for the grammar, but it's 1.30 a.m and I'm a little tired.

I like Marten and Free. What is the beef?

DMWSackMachine
05-02-2007, 06:29 PM
BP gushed about Pettiti too, and look where that got him. I think McQuistan will make it as a versitile backup T/G, and I think he'll be active. But he could just as well be with another team, you never know what TC will bring.

Wrong. Parcells was complimentary of two things: 1) Rob's work ethic in getting himself together physically and 2) his feet in a comparison that he made with a young Jason Fabini. That was basically it. The press was trying to get Bill to open up about Pettiti, but all Parcells would do is deflect the question and say that "he has a chance". Nothing close to the way he acted with Pat.

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 06:32 PM
Marten and Free are great. It should put us in a good position on the offensive in the future. I hope we take a guard next year, boot Kosiar out, or just for the future as well.

Anyway, Robert in big d, why are you so pissed at this draft? Spencer, and the Browns pick next year makes it a B to B+ on its own. Add 2 future quality o-lineman, a great slasher, and some good developmental CBs, and I say A-.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:32 PM
He's determined to prove that our draft sucked even though TC hasn't even started yet. If he rationally took a look at the 53 man roster instead of ripping our draft picks he'd realize 7 out of 8 will probably make the final 53 barring injury.

Maybe if you read my posts you would understand my position on our draft but it seems you have not.

I think our 2007 draft is horrid because on 1 or 2 guys will make any contribution to 2007.

This is why I say 45. You can not play 8 guys in suit and tie.

Now while the 8 change game to game -- there are only 2 or 3 names that routinely change.

Your use of the 53 man roster is a false strawman aimed to discredit my point.

Let me repeat so you may read: I think our 2007 draft is horrid because on 1 or 2 guys will make any contribution to 2007.

OK?

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:32 PM
I still say all 3 make the roster, and the final spot will come down to Berger vs Procter. There is zero chance any of the 3 makes it to the PS. All three would be snatched up in a heartbeat. We still have to factor in injuries. We haven't had many in the last 2 years, but there is a pretty good chance one or two of our lineman will end up on IR.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 06:34 PM
Marten and Free are great. It should put us in a good position on the offensive in the future. I hope we take a guard next year, boot Kosiar out, or just for the future as well.

Anyway, Robert in big d, why are you so pissed at this draft? Spencer, and the Browns pick next year makes it a B to B+ on its own. Add 2 future quality o-lineman, a great slasher, and some good developmental CBs, and I say A-.

Because we had bigger needs than Spencer and could have used 36, 52 and 87 and 122 (?) to find contributors to a 2007 Super Bowl run.

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 06:40 PM
Name the needs. This team has no holes. Pass rush is key. There was no better pick than Spencer at 26. We are still going to make a 2007 SB run.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:42 PM
Maybe if you read my posts you would understand my position on our draft but it seems you have not.

I think our 2007 draft is horrid because on 1 or 2 guys will make any contribution to 2007.

This is why I say 45. You can not play 8 guys in suit and tie.

Now while the 8 change game to game -- there are only 2 or 3 names that routinely change.

Your use of the 53 man roster is a false strawman aimed to discredit my point.

Let me repeat so you may read: I think our 2007 draft is horrid because on 1 or 2 guys will make any contribution to 2007.

OK?


Please give me the names of the eight guys you would have drafted this year who would have made any contribution to the team.

We did draft some projects, but that happens every year on every team. Outside of 1st round picks not to many lineman come and and contribute to a team that already has a solid line in place. It takes time to learn. How many teams are actually going to get significant help from the majority of their draft picks in their first year?

I'm not sold on all the guys we drafted, but they are Dallas Cowboys now, can we at least give the front office and the scouts some props for working hard to bring these guys here. If you want to say the draft sucks in October or December or next year at this time then be my guest, to say so before they even set foot on the practice field seems foolish to me.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 06:58 PM
Wrong. Parcells was complimentary of two things: 1) Rob's work ethic in getting himself together physically and 2) his feet in a comparison that he made with a young Jason Fabini. That was basically it. The press was trying to get Bill to open up about Pettiti, but all Parcells would do is deflect the question and say that "he has a chance". Nothing close to the way he acted with Pat.

Yeah you are right, but I think you are taking what Thule and myself are saying the wrong way. We all agree the guy has tons of potential, and should be a contributor this year. But to me factors such as new talent, injuries, new coaching staff etc mean there is no 100% guarantee he makes the squad. Do I think he will, absolutely, am I 100% positive, no.

DMWSackMachine
05-02-2007, 07:04 PM
Because we had bigger needs than Spencer and could have used 36, 52 and 87 and 122 (?) to find contributors to a 2007 Super Bowl run.

I, too, would like to know the magical method whereby you think we could find rookies to contribute to a Super Bowl caliber team. Our roster is so deep right now that a lot of the players will struggle just to make it, let alone get on the field.

Spencer is as NFL ready a player as there was outside the top 11, and moreso than any of them but Willis, AD, CJ, Thomas, Adams and Landry. While he may not fill a "need" as in position, he definitely feels a need in regards to "skill" or "production". We needed some help to get more pressure on the QB, and he will help us do that in a potentially big-time way.

Aside from that, this draft didn't have many impact players that could have helped us who were on the board when we picked. I would have like to see us get McCauley in the 3rd, and I think he could have really helped out on our nickel defense. But as far as the 4th goes....you weren't going to get much help this season. We need top-end players at most positions if we are going to improve our situation there. You aren't going to find those at any of the spots we have except our 1st rounder. So, that's why I say that if Spencer becomes as good as we expect, the draft will be at least a marginal success.

There is no reason to hate like you have been doing. Though I don't blame you for being underwhelmed. The question is: what could we have done about it?

Achilles33
05-02-2007, 07:07 PM
Yes, please, tell us. There are no real holes Our team is covered. Now it is just about staying healthy and executing.

robert_in_bigd
05-02-2007, 10:27 PM
Please give me the names of the eight guys you would have drafted this year who would have made any contribution to the team.

We did draft some projects, but that happens every year on every team. Outside of 1st round picks not to many lineman come and and contribute to a team that already has a solid line in place. It takes time to learn. How many teams are actually going to get significant help from the majority of their draft picks in their first year?

I'm not sold on all the guys we drafted, but they are Dallas Cowboys now, can we at least give the front office and the scouts some props for working hard to bring these guys here. If you want to say the draft sucks in October or December or next year at this time then be my guest, to say so before they even set foot on the practice field seems foolish to me.

JDNOYES & DMW ... you must have missed it ....... each pick 36 to 159 is likely on the active 45 man roster ........

36- Sidney Rice (WR) -- our replacement for Hurd or Crayton, future #1
53- Gerald Alexander (S) -- Free Safety
87- Paul Soliai (NT) -- Back up NT
122- Doug Free (LT) -- Future LT
159- Mike Coe (CB) -- Get rid of Reeves or Jones ....
195- Jacob Ford (OLB) -- Backup and special teams, Burnett replacement
200- Jordan Palmer (QB) -- Development QB
212- Ben Patrick (TE) -- Talented TE, replace Curtis
234- Brandon Siler (ILB) -- Back up for now
237- 370lbs Thomas (NT) -- Dreamy dreams

thule
05-02-2007, 10:48 PM
No way Alexander makes the roster. He doesn't have half the ability of Watkins or Hamlin. He got moved from corner because he couldn't cover. He got drafted as a cover 2 safety...I personally thought he was a reach. Also remember that this is all hindsight...who would have guessed Coe would be available at 159...who woulda thought Free was available in the 4th....Been Patrick in the 6th round is crazy talk the day before the draft.

jdnoyes
05-02-2007, 11:05 PM
JDNOYES & DMW ... you must have missed it ....... each pick 36 to 159 is likely on the active 45 man roster ........

36- Sidney Rice (WR) -- our replacement for Hurd or Crayton, future #1
53- Gerald Alexander (S) -- Free Safety
87- Paul Soliai (NT) -- Back up NT
122- Doug Free (LT) -- Future LT
159- Mike Coe (CB) -- Get rid of Reeves or Jones ....
195- Jacob Ford (OLB) -- Backup and special teams, Burnett replacement
200- Jordan Palmer (QB) -- Development QB
212- Ben Patrick (TE) -- Talented TE, replace Curtis
234- Brandon Siler (ILB) -- Back up for now
237- 370lbs Thomas (NT) -- Dreamy dreams


Great bunch of names there, i'm not going to knock the players, but I hardly see how this group would provide more contributors than the group we drafted. I see zero starters on your list. At least Spencer, Anderson and Folk (if you wanna count kicker) have a chance to crack our starting lineup. Rice would get very little playing time barring injury, he is a pretty raw talent. Soliai might see the field a bit assuming he can play consistantly at the pro level which is a big question mark. Coe might get some nickel or dime work at some point, but other than that I see nothing on your list besides special teams and developmental guys.

We drafted 3 potential starters counting Folk, and several others who just may contribute this year, on a team with as much talent as we have thats pretty good if you ask me.

D-Unit
05-02-2007, 11:17 PM
JDNOYES & DMW ... you must have missed it ....... each pick 36 to 159 is likely on the active 45 man roster ........

36- Sidney Rice (WR) -- our replacement for Hurd or Crayton, future #1
53- Gerald Alexander (S) -- Free Safety
87- Paul Soliai (NT) -- Back up NT
122- Doug Free (LT) -- Future LT
159- Mike Coe (CB) -- Get rid of Reeves or Jones ....
195- Jacob Ford (OLB) -- Backup and special teams, Burnett replacement
200- Jordan Palmer (QB) -- Development QB
212- Ben Patrick (TE) -- Talented TE, replace Curtis
234- Brandon Siler (ILB) -- Back up for now
237- 370lbs Thomas (NT) -- Dreamy dreams

Somebody grab me a barf bag!

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 09:17 AM
No way Alexander makes the roster. He doesn't have half the ability of Watkins or Hamlin. He got moved from corner because he couldn't cover. He got drafted as a cover 2 safety...I personally thought he was a reach. Also remember that this is all hindsight...who would have guessed Coe would be available at 159...who woulda thought Free was available in the 4th....Been Patrick in the 6th round is crazy talk the day before the draft.

OK, you are not too smart. All these players where available when the Cowboys would have picked if they had stayed put at 36. Not a theoretical game.

So Cover 2 Safeties can't cover according to you and Alexander stinks b/c he was moved fro CB to Safety?

Interesting b/c most Cover 2 Safeties actually are forced to cover lots more than safeties in man schemes. The fact Alexander was a CB and moved to safety means he can cover.

All I know is Ed Reed was a CB when he got to Miami. Ronnie Lott was a CB.... you see where this discussion is going?

You are argumentative without any analysis to support your arguments or willing to give an inch on an incredibly silly set of ideas.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 09:19 AM
Great bunch of names there, i'm not going to knock the players, but I hardly see how this group would provide more contributors than the group we drafted. I see zero starters on your list. At least Spencer, Anderson and Folk (if you wanna count kicker) have a chance to crack our starting lineup. Rice would get very little playing time barring injury, he is a pretty raw talent. Soliai might see the field a bit assuming he can play consistantly at the pro level which is a big question mark. Coe might get some nickel or dime work at some point, but other than that I see nothing on your list besides special teams and developmental guys.

We drafted 3 potential starters counting Folk, and several others who just may contribute this year, on a team with as much talent as we have thats pretty good if you ask me.

You gotta be blind. That group plays this year. Not saying starters but I know most of the top picks are active on Game Day.

The guys Jerry picked -- mark it down -- will only have ONE guy who plays at at all this year.

Anyway, moving on. Compare notes in October.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 09:23 AM
Somebody grab me a barf bag!

Nice analysis. Not much to discuss with you.

As I said, your comments and thoughts are indicative of what you know.

You are Achilles II. You argue but present no competing ideas or for that matter reasonable ones ....

..... which explains all this Stanback silliness for a medicore college player drafted in the 4th round (too early) to play a position he does not know how to play and then we are shown a YouTube showing us 1 college play while ignoring his lack of production at UDubb.

Compare results in October. G' Luck.

Modano
05-03-2007, 10:09 AM
You gotta be blind. That group plays this year. Not saying starters but I know most of the top picks are active on Game Day.

The guys Jerry picked -- mark it down -- will only have ONE guy who plays at at all this year.

Anyway, moving on. Compare notes in October.

I can't understand you. If you like the pick of Spencer, Free and Marten, why are you always complaining about this year draft? Three good picks out of 7 is not a bad draft. If you like the pick of Marten and Free why do you said that this draft is not good because it will not make our team better and only one player will contribute? OLs are not supposed to start for at least their first year. The ones who do that, and play well, are the exception. So if you like that we've picked two o-linemen you can't complain about their lacking of contribution for next year.

thule
05-03-2007, 10:15 AM
OK, you are not too smart. All these players where available when the Cowboys would have picked if they had stayed put at 36. Not a theoretical game.

So Cover 2 Safeties can't cover according to you and Alexander stinks b/c he was moved fro CB to Safety?

Interesting b/c most Cover 2 Safeties actually are forced to cover lots more than safeties in man schemes. The fact Alexander was a CB and moved to safety means he can cover.

All I know is Ed Reed was a CB when he got to Miami. Ronnie Lott was a CB.... you see where this discussion is going?

You are argumentative without any analysis to support your arguments or willing to give an inch on an incredibly silly set of ideas.

Do you feel better after you take shots at other people. What I was saying as it is hypothetical...the cowboys didn't know who would be around the next round and how the draft would go. So yes...the Rice pick is full proof...but how would they know that they needed to select a player at x position...they wouldn't...for all the know they could have thought he would be gone the very next pick. It's much easier to make a ideal mock draft when all the picks have been made...point being they don't know..so all they can do is project...which doesn't always leave them with the players or value at where they are drafting.

I'm not saying cover 2 safeties can't cover anything...I'm saying Alexander got moved from CB to Safety because he was constantly getting burned. He has the numbers to play CB/S...but he doesn't have the instincts for the position. That was low level college....now you expect him to make the team and be active on gameday...with below average rookie instincts in one of our deepest positions. Please...Alexander would have had an outside shot at making the team at best.

I love this comment..because you bash others for not providing reasoning...yet you dont' back it up with anything either.
"The fact Alexander was a CB and moved to safety means he can cover."
This answer is almost completely wrong. Alexander had too much raw talent too not be on the field playing at a school like Boise State. But since he couldn't cover a WR to save his life he was moved to hide some of his more obvious weakness's on the field. So your comment is almost completely wrong....The fact is Alexander was moved from CB to safety because he couldn't cover.

To put Alexander even close to the same names as Ed Reed or Ronnie Lott is laughable. Alexander doesn't have a ounce of the instincts Reed and Lott play/ed with.

You are argumentative without any analysis to support your arguments or willing to give an inch on an incredibly silly set of ideas.
I'm pretty sure I've supported my argument with a pretty accurate analysis. I would hardly call two of the greatest players to ever play the game a good analysis as to why Alexander would make this team. Why would I give and inch too one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen. Like I said...between you and Tnew we have two of the lesser posters on this board. No this isn't an attack either...just pointing out that you and Tnew like to backup your opinions with weak analysis.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 10:34 AM
Do you feel better after you take shots at other people. What I was saying as it is hypothetical...the cowboys didn't know who would be around the next round and how the draft would go. So yes...the Rice pick is full proof...but how would they know that they needed to select a player at x position...they wouldn't...for all the know they could have thought he would be gone the very next pick. It's much easier to make a ideal mock draft when all the picks have been made...point being they don't know..so all they can do is project...which doesn't always leave them with the players or value at where they are drafting.

I'm not saying cover 2 safeties can't cover anything...I'm saying Alexander got moved from CB to Safety because he was constantly getting burned. He has the numbers to play CB/S...but he doesn't have the instincts for the position. That was low level college....now you expect him to make the team and be active on gameday...with below average rookie instincts in one of our deepest positions. Please...Alexander would have had an outside shot at making the team at best.

I love this comment..because you bash others for not providing reasoning...yet you dont' back it up with anything either.
"The fact Alexander was a CB and moved to safety means he can cover."
This answer is almost completely wrong. Alexander had too much raw talent too not be on the field playing at a school like Boise State. But since he couldn't cover a WR to save his life he was moved to hide some of his more obvious weakness's on the field. So your comment is almost completely wrong....The fact is Alexander was moved from CB to safety because he couldn't cover.

To put Alexander even close to the same names as Ed Reed or Ronnie Lott is laughable. Alexander doesn't have a ounce of the instincts Reed and Lott play/ed with.

You are argumentative without any analysis to support your arguments or willing to give an inch on an incredibly silly set of ideas.
I'm pretty sure I've supported my argument with a pretty accurate analysis. I would hardly call two of the greatest players to ever play the game a good analysis as to why Alexander would make this team. Why would I give and inch too one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen. Like I said...between you and Tnew we have two of the lesser posters on this board. No this isn't an attack either...just pointing out that you and Tnew like to backup your opinions with weak analysis.

I am sorry I thought you where Achilles. You are a good poster.

Regardless, my analysis is excellent. Been RIGHT lots more than wrong. Too bad the old board and posts have been taken down. I can point out a series of issue that you are now/have back tracked on including:

1) Shaun Rogers -- you actually pitched that idea from another poster you bashed. I remember "Madden" being the choice derogatory.
2) Badie James -- now you have joined the band of BJ haters who want to move Carpenter inside. Another idea advanced late 2006 that you bashed.

2007 Cowboys Draft: D. Only 1 guy plays and only 2 are on the active roster for most the season barring CATASTROPHIC injuries.

2008 and Beyond: C. Only one more guy will stick. Probably Free and Marten and Spencer.

Just book mark it and tell me you are right later after the results are in.

As I said, let us wait till October. Can we do that and move on? More than happy for you to use my words against me ....

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 10:37 AM
I can't understand you. If you like the pick of Spencer, Free and Marten, why are you always complaining about this year draft? Three good picks out of 7 is not a bad draft. If you like the pick of Marten and Free why do you said that this draft is not good because it will not make our team better and only one player will contribute? OLs are not supposed to start for at least their first year. The ones who do that, and play well, are the exception. So if you like that we've picked two o-linemen you can't complain about their lacking of contribution for next year.

I know OL are not supposed to start year 1. I believe we only had meaningful space for 1 -- not two. Anyway not hung up on who we took, hung up on who we could have taken.

thule
05-03-2007, 10:50 AM
I am sorry I thought you where Achilles. You are a good poster.

Regardless, my analysis is excellent. Been RIGHT lots more than wrong. Too bad the old board and posts have been taken down. I can point out a series of issue that you are now/have back tracked on including:

1) Shaun Rogers -- you actually pitched that idea from another poster you bashed. I remember "Madden" being the choice derogatory.
2) Badie James -- now you have joined the band of BJ haters who want to move Carpenter inside. Another idea advanced late 2006 that you bashed.

2007 Cowboys Draft: D. Only 1 guy plays and only 2 are on the active roster for most the season barring CATASTROPHIC injuries.

2008 and Beyond: C. Only one more guy will stick. Probably Free and Marten and Spencer.

Just book mark it and tell me you are right later after the results are in.

As I said, let us wait till October. Can we do that and move on? More than happy for you to use my words against me ....

Shaun Rogers ever brought in? Because I heard Detroit fans saying that they would take a 2nd for him...I would offer a 2nd for him any day of the week...but no way in hell that was happening. I'm pretty sure Roy Williams was the name to be traded to Detroit for Rogers...and that is madden...because of value/salary cap restrictions.

Bradie James was perfect in the 2 gap 3-4. But in phillips 46 3-4 defense...he requires more speed at the LB positions because his DL is playing one gaps...with twists and stunts and slants....his LB's need to be able to shed and flow to the ball. Not to mention how much more he blitzes from the inside. Bradie just doesn't fit a void in Phillips Scheme. I still see him starting off the year...but it's only a matter of time till Carp is playing SILB.

This is something that I think is really underrated when looking at our team. Adoyele and Carpenter on the inside give us speed...tenacity....and pass rushing ability...we never really got to see Akin go after the QB because Parcells likes his WILB to sit back in coverage more often than not...but Adoyele can get after the QB...like I said he played DE in college so he should atleast have some experience. We know carp can get after the QB...Spencer and Ware.....I really don't think we are ready for this LB corps. A lot of talent to fit the scheme like a glove imo.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Thule, I remember the conversation well. I have a great memory and have been around for over 2.5 years.

The Rogers conversation started as an idea. A poster made some comments about different packages including Burnett and Roy in some form. The poster spoke about Marinelli not liking Rogers and Parcells liking him.

When the cap discussion arose after your Madden comment the poster reasonably pointed out that Rogers and Williams both had large cap hits and that it would be an even swap from an accounting perspective.

That issue was never discussed and descended into discussion on how the Cap works.

I read every post on this Board and find some poster more interesting than others. You are very good. BBD is fantastic. Paul, Staubach, D-Unit and DMW when they pause for a breadth are sometimes very good. There are a few others but a small handful.

But let me state, I know my football and while you can disagree with me on team direction and which player is better I am very sure I know their is a huge disconnect in this franchise between what the GM does and what the Coach really needs on the field.

The complete oppositte of New England where it all makes sense EVEN IF they miss on certain players it all makes sense. Cowboys are just a grab bag of talent that sometimes works. It was Bill's biggest problem with Jerry and what he wanted to solve 100% this off season. Jerry told him to walk.

thule
05-03-2007, 11:04 AM
I still think your cowboysforever....you talk the same way and talk the same views...

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 11:10 AM
I still think your cowboysforever....you talk the same way and talk the same views...

I am not. I used to use my first name with a city I used to work in. I moved to Dallas for professional reasons so I re-registerd with a new one.

Take it as positive I remember you. The TNew Achilles and Texico comments are almost immediately forgotten. Hard to listen to them.

But you are pretty knowledgable and in fact have better idea of college talent. Found some of the comments on this site actually very helpful on college guys outside the tier 1 schools.

Trust me however, on what is wrong with the internal Cowboys workings I know ......... and in spite of my job as a fan it bothers me.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 11:11 AM
Is Cowboyforever the guy who hated Roy Williams?

thule
05-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Is Cowboyforever the guy who hated Roy Williams?

Roy Williams needed to lose bulk or get traded.
Bradie James was gone because he didn't have the coverage smarts.
Shaun Rogers/Jerry Porter/ATL WR's were attainable
Marcus Spears could play NT in a 2 gap scheme
Roy Williams could play the OLB position
Henry could play FS
some other things too that are slipping my mind.


If we want to talk about memories. I don't think anyone can beat this. Must have been 2 years ago now...D-Unit was a new poster and thought he could fill up one page of posts with one really long post...it was really long but D didn't realize at the time pages were split by number of posts. Great flashback imo.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 11:27 AM
Roy Williams needed to lose bulk or get traded.
Bradie James was gone because he didn't have the coverage smarts.
Shaun Rogers/Jerry Porter/ATL WR's were attainable
Marcus Spears could play NT in a 2 gap scheme
Roy Williams could play the OLB position
Henry could play FS
some other things too that are slipping my mind.


If we want to talk about memories. I don't think anyone can beat this. Must have been 2 years ago now...D-Unit was a new poster and thought he could fill up one page of posts with one really long post...it was really long but D didn't realize at the time pages were split by number of posts. Great flashback imo.

So let me see how I line up ......

1) I agree on Roy Williams
2) Bradie is not good in coverage. Not sure a smarts thing.
3) Shaun Rogers/Jerry Porter/ATL WR's are/were attainable
4) Marcus can play NT if he wants to.
5) Roy could be a Tampa 2 OLB. Detroit plays Tampa 2
6) Henry at FS ..... hmmmm. Dunno but I know he can cover better than Hamlin or Roy.

Exactly what was crazy about these fannie dreams? Does not look that insane.

thule
05-03-2007, 11:34 AM
So let me see how I line up ......

1) I agree on Roy Williams
2) Bradie is not good in coverage. Not sure a smarts thing.
3) Shaun Rogers/Jerry Porter/ATL WR's are/were attainable
4) Marcus can play NT if he wants to.
5) Roy could be a Tampa 2 OLB. Detroit plays Tampa 2
6) Henry at FS ..... hmmmm. Dunno but I know he can cover better than Hamlin or Roy.

Exactly what was crazy about these fannie dreams? Does not look that insane.

I still don't see how you trade a guy who just signed a contract extention....that doesn't happen not to mention how Jerry would look doing that. I'm sorry to say but this is a pipe dream.
Bradie was the perfect SILB in parcells scheme...BBD's famous run thumper quote. He just shouldn't have been playing in the nicklel.
I still don't see how these guys were attainable...if they were it's hard to see that they were worth the value that the team was asking for because they sure didnt' get it.
Marcus cannot play a 2 gap scheme NT position in the NFL.
I still don't think Roy has the lateral speed to play the will in a tampa 2 defense.
I was a big fan of moving Henry to FS.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 11:50 AM
Just on the Henry issues I also remember someone bringing that up and being killed also. Was that also cowboyforever?

1) On Bradie, well Bill is gone so academic. He will need to improve his coverage skills or Carp will take his job faster than we can imagine.
2) On Marcus, still time to see who is right. Let us see how Wade plays it. I see nothing in Marcus's body type to suggest he could not be a great NT IF HE WANTED TO. (** Marcus's biggest problem is his mind **)
3) On Roy, well if he does not have lateral quickness to play WILL then WTF is he doing playing Strong Safety or any Safety position? I think he does have the skills but ditto on Marcus's problem with his mind not allowing him to change.
4) On contracts, I agree Jerry would not scrap Roy's contract so soon. Jerry, in not so subtle ways, has blamed Parcells for Roy's regression. Not sure I get Jerry's position but he is the boss. Hamlin was a last ditch effort to salvage Roy's "super star" status. If Hamlin fails do not be shocked if Jerry gets rid of both his safeties next year.
5) Porter not attainable? ATL wide Receivers? Uh, very attainable. Whether we want them is another story.

thule
05-03-2007, 12:01 PM
Just on the Henry issues I also remember someone bringing that up and being killed also. Was that also cowboyforever?

1) On Bradie, well Bill is gone so academic. He will need to improve his coverage skills or Carp will take his job faster than we can imagine.
2) On Marcus, still time to see who is right. Let us see how Wade plays it. I see nothing in Marcus's body type to suggest he could not be a great NT IF HE WANTED TO. (** Marcus's biggest problem is his mind **)
3) On Roy, well if he does not have lateral quickness to play WILL then WTF is he doing playing Strong Safety or any Safety position? I think he does have the skills but ditto on Marcus's problem with his mind not allowing him to change.
4) On contracts, I agree Jerry would not scrap Roy's contract so soon. Jerry, in not so subtle ways, has blamed Parcells for Roy's regression. Not sure I get Jerry's position but he is the boss. Hamlin was a last ditch effort to salvage Roy's "super star" status. If Hamlin fails do not be shocked if Jerry gets rid of both his safeties next year.
5) Porter not attainable? ATL wide Receivers? Uh, very attainable. Whether we want them is another story.

On #2...we can't see who is right tho. Wade plays a different rushing scheme. his DL stunt/twist/slant. How many times did you see Furgy not just go straight ahead....never. If spears is a NT ever in Wade's scheme thats one thing...but never in Parcells scheme.

Well the deal with Roy is...he is at his best when he is moving forward to the ball...thats why his natural position is the rover. When he is moving toward the ball he is great. How else does he make those picks on the run and take them to the house...they are infront of him. However playing the will he would be asked to sit back in a zone...which we all know is not a strength of his...he needs to roam and be on his own. Roy would get torned up at the Will.

nrcirc
05-03-2007, 01:29 PM
JDNOYES & DMW ... you must have missed it ....... each pick 36 to 159 is likely on the active 45 man roster ........

36- Sidney Rice (WR) -- our replacement for Hurd or Crayton, future #1
53- Gerald Alexander (S) -- Free Safety
87- Paul Soliai (NT) -- Back up NT
122- Doug Free (LT) -- Future LT
159- Mike Coe (CB) -- Get rid of Reeves or Jones ....
195- Jacob Ford (OLB) -- Backup and special teams, Burnett replacement
200- Jordan Palmer (QB) -- Development QB
212- Ben Patrick (TE) -- Talented TE, replace Curtis
234- Brandon Siler (ILB) -- Back up for now
237- 370lbs Thomas (NT) -- Dreamy dreams

After the fact, I can do it this way.

36- Chris Houston
53- Trade for 67, 103 & 178
67 - Jason Hill- (WR)
87- Paul Soliai (NT)
103- Manny Ramirez (OG)
122- Doug Free (LT)
159- Tim Shaw (ILB)
178 - John Wendling
195- Deon Anderson (FB)
200- Jacob Ford (OLB)
212- Ben Patrick (TE)
234- Brandon Siler (ILB)
237- Kenny Scott (CB)

fryman
05-03-2007, 01:49 PM
I still think your cowboysforever....you talk the same way and talk the same views...

yeah I have thought that for a while, but never said anything.

D-Unit
05-03-2007, 02:21 PM
If we want to talk about memories. I don't think anyone can beat this. Must have been 2 years ago now...D-Unit was a new poster and thought he could fill up one page of posts with one really long post...it was really long but D didn't realize at the time pages were split by number of posts. Great flashback imo.
:D THAT WAS ME!!!! NOOOOOB!!! HAHAHAH!

OMG, That post was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long! I was like, I'm gonna take up this whole page!!! HAHAHA! Classic!

Back then, I didn't even know what forums were. Being here was the first time, I ever got involved in a forum... Now looky... It's a damn addiction! LOL.

I'm still a little sad newkwhy isn't around anymore. :( Jdallas has also left the fold. I wonder when that day will be for me...???

pocketaces
05-03-2007, 02:22 PM
Its painfully obvious hes Cowboys forever. Coming up with crazy B.S. like this:

The complete oppositte of New England where it all makes sense EVEN IF they miss on certain players it all makes sense. Cowboys are just a grab bag of talent that sometimes works. It was Bill's biggest problem with Jerry and what he wanted to solve 100% this off season. Jerry told him to walk.

You would think he was in the office when they decided to part ways Lol. For some reason he has a mancrush (just like cowboysforever) on Parcells and if anybody says anthing against him he is quick to defend him. Everything thats wrong (if there is anything) is all because of Jerry. Jerry has never done anything right and he never will I.H.O. Robert/cowboysforever is a glass half full kind of guy and isnt happy unless he has something to ***** about.

Achilles33
05-03-2007, 02:25 PM
I agree with D-Unit. Our draft is way better than that thing. And Alexander isn't anything special IMO. I never liked him. Watkins has way more potential. And Thule makes valid points, how do you know who would have been availabe?

Modano
05-03-2007, 03:14 PM
I've said before that robert is, imo, cowboysforever. Let him the benefit of the doubt, but if they aren't the same person they are twins.
They have the same opinions, but the most important thing is that robert alway referred to "a guy who was right months ago". That guy is cowboysforever.

Like:


1) Shaun Rogers -- you actually pitched that idea from another poster you bashed. I remember "Madden" being the choice derogatory.
2) Badie James -- now you have joined the band of BJ haters who want to move Carpenter inside. Another idea advanced late 2006 that you bashed.

There's one thing I don't like about you, robert. You act like you are the propeth, like you know how everything is and is gonna be.
How can you say now that our draft picks won't even be on the team?!

But your list of who we should have taken is very questionable too:

Sidney Rice - I like the player, but he's a Spurrier WR. I wouldn't touch a Spurrier WR that early.
Gerard Alexander - No thanks. There weren't great safeties this year outside the top 5 guys (Landry,Griffin,Nelson,Merriweather,Weddle). I would't use a second rounder on a guy who has the same potential as Watkins
Paul Soliai - That's a pick I like.
Mike Coe - Why with him we should take rid of Jones and Reeves but with Courtney Brown no?!
Jacob Ford - Don't know much about him.
Jordan Palmer - I don't think we need a devolepmental QB. Our strategy is Romo or bust. If Romo fail, a 6th rounder won't be the answer, but we will looking for a franchise QB in 2008 draft.
Ben Patrick - Another TE is useless. We have one of the best in the game with Witten and is backup is Anthony Fasano, who was a second rounder. Your third string TE is just a guy wo plays special teams.
Walter Thomas - We're all draft geeks and we can dream about the potential of this guy. But there was a reason if no one touched him.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 03:16 PM
Its painfully obvious hes Cowboys forever. Coming up with crazy B.S. like this:

The complete oppositte of New England where it all makes sense EVEN IF they miss on certain players it all makes sense. Cowboys are just a grab bag of talent that sometimes works. It was Bill's biggest problem with Jerry and what he wanted to solve 100% this off season. Jerry told him to walk.

You would think he was in the office when they decided to part ways Lol. For some reason he has a mancrush (just like cowboysforever) on Parcells and if anybody says anthing against him he is quick to defend him. Everything thats wrong (if there is anything) is all because of Jerry. Jerry has never done anything right and he never will I.H.O. Robert/cowboysforever is a glass half full kind of guy and isnt happy unless he has something to ***** about.


Oh, another Isaiah Stanback lover. Precious. Another one of these guys with a "man crush" on anything Jerry Jones.

Dopey, the saying is a glass half empty, half full is the Jerry optimist which I am not. Oh well.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 03:18 PM
After the fact, I can do it this way.

36- Chris Houston
53- Trade for 67, 103 & 178
67 - Jason Hill- (WR)
87- Paul Soliai (NT)
103- Manny Ramirez (OG)
122- Doug Free (LT)
159- Tim Shaw (ILB)
178 - John Wendling
195- Deon Anderson (FB)
200- Jacob Ford (OLB)
212- Ben Patrick (TE)
234- Brandon Siler (ILB)
237- Kenny Scott (CB)

Fair enuff, point being you would taken different players than Jerry. That was my only point.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 03:22 PM
On #2...we can't see who is right tho. Wade plays a different rushing scheme. his DL stunt/twist/slant. How many times did you see Furgy not just go straight ahead....never. If spears is a NT ever in Wade's scheme thats one thing...but never in Parcells scheme.

Well the deal with Roy is...he is at his best when he is moving forward to the ball...thats why his natural position is the rover. When he is moving toward the ball he is great. How else does he make those picks on the run and take them to the house...they are infront of him. However playing the will he would be asked to sit back in a zone...which we all know is not a strength of his...he needs to roam and be on his own. Roy would get torned up at the Will.

Thule, while I agree with your Roy analysis but I have yet to meet a Defensive player who is not required to run backwards. Much less a DB.

How in good conscience can a smart GM pay a player that kind of money seeing what we saw in 2005 let alone subtlely blame the ex-coach for the player being lousy at his job?

Achilles33
05-03-2007, 03:34 PM
Robert in bid D, what is up your ass? You are the bad poster. We had a great draft. Get over it. We are getting a top 5 pick next year, and we are the frontrunners for the NFC, who should be very happy.

fryman
05-03-2007, 03:37 PM
Fair enuff, point being you would taken different players than Jerry. That was my only point.

no the point is that come draft day you wouldn't have known who would be available later, when making early picks.

but whatever I sure you know more than the professionals. Keep on proclaiming your opinions as facts.

Paul
05-03-2007, 03:44 PM
Roy Williams needed to lose bulk or get traded.
Bradie James was gone because he didn't have the coverage smarts.
Shaun Rogers/Jerry Porter/ATL WR's were attainable
Marcus Spears could play NT in a 2 gap scheme
Roy Williams could play the OLB position
Henry could play FS
some other things too that are slipping my mind.


If we want to talk about memories. I don't think anyone can beat this. Must have been 2 years ago now...D-Unit was a new poster and thought he could fill up one page of posts with one really long post...it was really long but D didn't realize at the time pages were split by number of posts. Great flashback imo.

CF and Tnew are polar opposites in a way, but equally annoying.

Achilles33
05-03-2007, 04:15 PM
Who is CF?

And I only sound like a huge homer because I am really excited about this season. People that don't know the cowboys roster well or hate the Cowboys don't see that we have no holes. I expect dominance.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 04:39 PM
no the point is that come draft day you wouldn't have known who would be available later, when making early picks.

but whatever I sure you know more than the professionals. Keep on proclaiming your opinions as facts.

OMG, you guys are really stubborn and seemingly unwilling to listen to other's opinions. You confuse strategy with execution and you confuse a strawman I presented as the players Jerry should have taken. NOOOOOOO!

Maddening to keep repeating the same -- OK, here we go once again and with out names .....

I could care less of the specific names picked and to your point who knew who would be around but the strategy deployed by Mr Jones on draft day yielded us players who will not contribute in 2007. Let us assume we have collected some very very very talented players but it is unlikely they will contribute.

Let me present the following ..........

Spencer becomes LT, Isaiah may become Jerry Rice AND Joe Montana. Marten will become Big E. Free will become Anthony Munoz. Nick Folk will become Morton Anderson. Deom Anderson Lorenzo Neal and Brown will become Deion Sanders .............. that would be a GREAT DRAFT and a testament to Jerry finding players. The greatest of ALL TIME!

But it will 1) take some time to develop, 2) require the guys they replace lose their talent and effort and 3) require the coaches trust them. The closest to the field should be Spencer and he needs to beat Ellis, Singleton, Carpenter and Glymph for meaningful time. The others ,,,,, get to watch under the most optimistic probable scenarios.

So, given how talented the team is and the state of the NFC I would have gone for the guys most able to contribute to the 2007 team. Jerry went with promise.

I think I need to just TNew/Achilles my arguments and say guys are taking dumps on others to simplify the discussion.

robert_in_bigd
05-03-2007, 04:43 PM
CF and Tnew are polar opposites in a way, but equally annoying.

No more than others who play the role of knowledgable and then flip flop later once someone on TV tells them to. At least TNew/Achilles say it straight no matter how silly.

fryman
05-03-2007, 05:13 PM
OMG, you guys are really stubborn and seemingly unwilling to listen to other's opinions. You confuse strategy with execution and you confuse a strawman I presented as the players Jerry should have taken. NOOOOOOO!

Maddening to keep repeating the same -- OK, here we go once again and with out names .....

I could care less of the specific names picked and to your point who knew who would be around but the strategy deployed by Mr Jones on draft day yielded us players who will not contribute in 2007. Let us assume we have collected some very very very talented players but it is unlikely they will contribute.

Let me present the following ..........

Spencer becomes LT, Isaiah may become Jerry Rice AND Joe Montana. Marten will become Big E. Free will become Anthony Munoz. Nick Folk will become Morton Anderson. Deom Anderson Lorenzo Neal and Brown will become Deion Sanders .............. that would be a GREAT DRAFT and a testament to Jerry finding players. The greatest of ALL TIME!

But it will 1) take some time to develop, 2) require the guys they replace lose their talent and effort and 3) require the coaches trust them. The closest to the field should be Spencer and he needs to beat Ellis, Singleton, Carpenter and Glymph for meaningful time. The others ,,,,, get to watch under the most optimistic probable scenarios.

So, given how talented the team is and the state of the NFC I would have gone for the guys most able to contribute to the 2007 team. Jerry went with promise.

I think I need to just TNew/Achilles my arguments and say guys are taking dumps on others to simplify the discussion.

hahahaha glad to see right after I comment on you trying to pass your opinions as facts you reply and try to pass your opinion as facts.

note how the respectable posters on this site say "I THINK so and so will be busts" or "I THINK so and so will turn out."

Fact is you are an amateur. You don't know more than anybody in the NFL. So quit acting like your opinion is fact. If you really think that you know everything, then I know some people who actually get paid for their knowledge, that would probably be willing to talk to you about players/laugh you off the phone.

I don't care if you were to think this is the worst draft in history. You could list your reasons why and we could all have a good discussion. If you try to play prophet like you often do and say a player will never turn out or whatever, then that is when you will get bashed. Nobody likes people that think they know it all.

pocketaces
05-03-2007, 05:46 PM
Exactly.....

Achilles33
05-03-2007, 06:10 PM
Robert in Big D, what is wrong with you. We had a great draft. I don't know why you are crying like a little girl.

http://www6.nrk.no/magasin/upunkt/gallery/albums/album298/crying_little_girl_2.jpg

Modano
05-04-2007, 02:12 AM
But it will 1) take some time to develop, 2) require the guys they replace lose their talent and effort and 3) require the coaches trust them. The closest to the field should be Spencer and he needs to beat Ellis, Singleton, Carpenter and Glymph for meaningful time. The others ,,,,, get to watch under the most optimistic probable scenarios.


And guess why! If a team wants to make a super bowl run, or at least is regarded as one of the better teams in his conference, you can't expect his rookies to have a big impact from their first season.

1 19 Antonio Cromartie CB Florida State
2 50 Marcus McNeill T Auburn
3 81 Charlie Whitehurst QB Clemson
5 151 Tim Dobbins ILB Iowa State
6 187 Jeromey Clary T Kansas State
6 188 Kurt Smith K Virginia
7 225 Chase Page DT North Carolina
7 227 Jimmy Martin G Virginia Tech

What is this list? It's the list of draft picks by the Chargers' last year. They were expected to make a super bowl run, so their rookies dind't have a huge impact.
The only guy who was an immediate starter for them was Marcus McNeil, who was a great surprise.
Cromartie became the NB late in the season (and they had a lot more problems than us with their CBs), Whitehurst was their 3rd string QB, Dobbins, made 19 tackles, Clary, Smith, Martin are no longer on the team.

robert_in_bigd
05-04-2007, 09:09 AM
Love the picture Achilles. Seriously funny.

Wait till October ladies then I can hear you whine like with Carpenter and Fasano last year.

Nobody likes a know it all! Precisely guys. We have differing opinions.

On football, I have stated repeatedly you guys know CFB players better. I know team chaos better. What more can I say.

robert_in_bigd
05-04-2007, 09:10 AM
And guess why! If a team wants to make a super bowl run, or at least is regarded as one of the better teams in his conference, you can't expect his rookies to have a big impact from their first season.

1 19 Antonio Cromartie CB Florida State
2 50 Marcus McNeill T Auburn
3 81 Charlie Whitehurst QB Clemson
5 151 Tim Dobbins ILB Iowa State
6 187 Jeromey Clary T Kansas State
6 188 Kurt Smith K Virginia
7 225 Chase Page DT North Carolina
7 227 Jimmy Martin G Virginia Tech

What is this list? It's the list of draft picks by the Chargers' last year. They were expected to make a super bowl run, so their rookies dind't have a huge impact.
The only guy who was an immediate starter for them was Marcus McNeil, who was a great surprise.
Cromartie became the NB late in the season (and they had a lot more problems than us with their CBs), Whitehurst was their 3rd string QB, Dobbins, made 19 tackles, Clary, Smith, Martin are no longer on the team.

1) First two picks where expected to play immediately.

2) No one expected a SB run with a newbie QB. That is why they went Whitehurst.

Bad example. Try again.

Im_a_Romosexual
05-04-2007, 10:50 AM
1) First two picks where expected to play immediately.

2) No one expected a SB run with a newbie QB. That is why they went Whitehurst.

Bad example. Try again.

What are you talking about a whole bunch of people had them going to the Super Bowl! They had the best player in the NFL a great defense and Rivers had 2 years to sit and learn. And as you said earlier nobody likes a know it all!

robert_in_bigd
05-04-2007, 01:31 PM
What are you talking about a whole bunch of people had them going to the Super Bowl! They had the best player in the NFL a great defense and Rivers had 2 years to sit and learn. And as you said earlier nobody likes a know it all!

Very very very few had the San Diego Chargers going to the Super Bowl last year with Phillip Rivers making his first start at the beginning of 2006.

Nobody likes a know it all but what is more distasteful are individuals who disagree for the sake of disagreeing without addressing what you are disagreeing about.

Focus. Stop re-writing history. Coming out of the 2006 draft both Cromartie and McNeill where expected to play. No one expected the Chargers to be that good, let along SUper Bowl contenders. Everyone has them 3rd or 4th in their own division with Denver and KC ahead of them. In fact some folks thought OAK was better. On a book basis, San Diego was 30-1 and the Raiders where 15 -1.

Stop confusing outcomes with expectations. Google it as your generation says if you need proof.

So, try again.

Achilles33
05-04-2007, 01:37 PM
Thank robert in big D, I thought you would like it.

Anyway, I can understand why you aren't thrilled particularly thrilled with this draft. Because Spencer and the 2 lineman, much doesn't pop out as future starters. But, Stanback has amazing potential, and will contribute immediatly, Folk could be a good kicker, and Brown could be a good CB somewhere down the line will his tools.

The fact that we got Spencer and a top 5 pick should already make you excited. Oh well, suite yourself.

robert_in_bigd
05-04-2007, 01:41 PM
Thank robert in big D, I thought you would like it.

Anyway, I can understand why you aren't thrilled particularly thrilled with this draft. Because Spencer and the 2 lineman, much doesn't pop out as future starters. But, Stanback has amazing potential, and will contribute immediatly, Folk could be a good kicker, and Brown could be a good CB somewhere down the line will his tools.

The fact that we got Spencer and a top 5 pick should already make you excited. Oh well, suite yourself.

I will get jacked next year once it is here. Hope Cleveland decides to scrap 2007 and start Quinn with Thomas. Rookie LT and QB with a bad running game... how beautiful.

Modano
05-04-2007, 01:48 PM
Very very very few had the San Diego Chargers going to the Super Bowl last year with Phillip Rivers making his first start at the beginning of 2006.

Nobody likes a know it all but what is more distasteful are individuals who disagree for the sake of disagreeing without addressing what you are disagreeing about.

Focus. Stop re-writing history. Coming out of the 2006 draft both Cromartie and McNeill where expected to play. No one expected the Chargers to be that good, let along SUper Bowl contenders. Everyone has them 3rd or 4th in their own division with Denver and KC ahead of them. In fact some folks thought OAK was better. On a book basis, San Diego was 30-1 and the Raiders where 15 -1.

Stop confusing outcomes with expectations. Google it as your generation says if you need proof.

So, try again.

No, they weren't. Cromartie was expected to play the nickel defense, and no one should have expected this type of season by McNeill, wo was projected to begin the season on the bench.
By the way, our first round pick will have more impact than Cromartie, and Anderson could be our starting FB. Here they are your two players.

Achilles33
05-05-2007, 08:23 AM
Not to mention there defense. :)

Profound
05-08-2007, 03:13 PM
Yeah, the Chargers were not the pick by most for the Superbowl run...

...but as to the theme of this thread, I love the idea of a guy who's an athlete and has the ability to throw as well. He's a dangerous tool used in a lot of different ways. I'd like to think of him more of a WR/RB/QB. He can take direct snaps in certain scenarios... He's going to lead to a lot of second guessing for defenses.

I think it's an exciting season coming up for Dallas one way or another. Time for the 'Boys to build off the play-off buzz...

robert_in_bigd
05-09-2007, 10:44 AM
No, they weren't. Cromartie was expected to play the nickel defense, and no one should have expected this type of season by McNeill, wo was projected to begin the season on the bench.
By the way, our first round pick will have more impact than Cromartie, and Anderson could be our starting FB. Here they are your two players.


Once again the reading comprehension function is off........ You are arguing something having nothing to do with the point you originally made.

1) McNeill and Cromartie where expected to play starting in 2006. How much or how well is always a wild card. All I pointed out was that in SD's 2006 draft they drafted to fill needs for 2006 with their early picks. Not developmental dudes for 2010 like the Cowboys have with this year's draft

2) If you think our first two will do as well as Cromartie and McNeill -- well shoot I hope you are right. But this is a PREDICTION that may rsult wrong. I think it will result wrong.

3) A 6th round full back? We are talking about a 6th round full back? What happin to Stanback becoming Jerry Rice next year?

Get off these newbies jocks till they prove something. One thing is hope and another are rationale expectations given where they where drafted and what our softest spots are. The weaker you are in a position the more likely a 6th rounder will play.

Modano
05-09-2007, 03:40 PM
Once again the reading comprehension function is off........ You are arguing something having nothing to do with the point you originally made.

1) McNeill and Cromartie where expected to play starting in 2006. How much or how well is always a wild card. All I pointed out was that in SD's 2006 draft they drafted to fill needs for 2006 with their early picks. Not developmental dudes for 2010 like the Cowboys have with this year's draft

2) If you think our first two will do as well as Cromartie and McNeill -- well shoot I hope you are right. But this is a PREDICTION that may rsult wrong. I think it will result wrong.

3) A 6th round full back? We are talking about a 6th round full back? What happin to Stanback becoming Jerry Rice next year?

Get off these newbies jocks till they prove something. One thing is hope and another are rationale expectations given where they where drafted and what our softest spots are. The weaker you are in a position the more likely a 6th rounder will play.

I've said that the Cowboys, like the Chargers last year, are expected to be a contender in their conference. If you have a team that could be a contender you can't expect their rookies to had a major impact.

McNeil wasn't expected to start the season from game 1. There were some major question marks on him, like his problems with his back. And Cromartie didn't play that much too. He was their nickel and dime back, and he played above average. He had some shinings moments but some bad ones too, like being torched in the game againts the Bengals. He wasn't drafted to contribute immediately, because he even didn't play his last season in college.

So their first two picks weren't picked to contribute from the first game. That's pretty much a fact. They were very high on McNeill, but usually you don't see a rookie LT starting.
And I'll repeat that once again: Cromartie missed and entire season due to injuries, he wasn't expected to start, he was draft for the future because a) until last season, Jammer was an above averager corne b) Florence is nothing special

They filled their needs for the future, they drafted devolopmental guys. They were lucky, because McNeill had an amazing season, but usually if you draft a LT you don't expect him to start in his first season.

The Cowboys pressing needs were two: an increment of pass rush, and a couple of OLs for the future.
They take Spencer (who is expected to start or at least be an important player for the rotation) to solve the pass rush problems, and they pick Marten and Free to be the replacement for Adams and Colombo. And if you want to draft OTs, you have to draft a developmental guy, someone who should sit on the bench for at least 1 year.

Which needs for the 2006 should we have picked?
The only two things that come in my mind are safety and cornerback. You can make a point for the safety, but a rookie CB could have played only the nickel or dime spot.

robert_in_bigd
05-09-2007, 09:01 PM
I've said that the Cowboys, like the Chargers last year, are expected to be a contender in their conference. If you have a team that could be a contender you can't expect their rookies to had a major impact.

McNeil wasn't expected to start the season from game 1. There were some major question marks on him, like his problems with his back. And Cromartie didn't play that much too. He was their nickel and dime back, and he played above average. He had some shinings moments but some bad ones too, like being torched in the game againts the Bengals. He wasn't drafted to contribute immediately, because he even didn't play his last season in college.

So their first two picks weren't picked to contribute from the first game. That's pretty much a fact. They were very high on McNeill, but usually you don't see a rookie LT starting.
And I'll repeat that once again: Cromartie missed and entire season due to injuries, he wasn't expected to start, he was draft for the future because a) until last season, Jammer was an above averager corne b) Florence is nothing special

They filled their needs for the future, they drafted devolopmental guys. They were lucky, because McNeill had an amazing season, but usually if you draft a LT you don't expect him to start in his first season.

The Cowboys pressing needs were two: an increment of pass rush, and a couple of OLs for the future.
They take Spencer (who is expected to start or at least be an important player for the rotation) to solve the pass rush problems, and they pick Marten and Free to be the replacement for Adams and Colombo. And if you want to draft OTs, you have to draft a developmental guy, someone who should sit on the bench for at least 1 year.

Which needs for the 2006 should we have picked?
The only two things that come in my mind are safety and cornerback. You can make a point for the safety, but a rookie CB could have played only the nickel or dime spot.

The Chargers were not expected to contend last year. The Cowboys were. Why do you insist on twisting this around? Either way.

The Chargers took good talent in 2006 at the spots they needed (CB and LT). It paid off big time. Cowboys did not do that this year regardless of the fact these guys may all be fantastic .... but in 2009.

With respect to the Cowboys in 2006, I personally stated we should have gone Lawson for WOLB and move Ware to SOLB. I was called nuts by many of the "Vets" on the board. We took Carpenter as a SOLB. I like Carpenter but not for what the Cowboys needed in 2006 .... a pass rushing WOLB which Lawson could have been a better fit. A horrid decision driven by BP with Jerry's silliness.

Fast forward the past 2006 season with a poor rush so we go into the 2007 offseason by .... drafting another OLB (Spencer) because Carpenter was not the guy at WOLB or SOLB, Ware is the best SOLB in the NFL but not WOLB.

Problem is we are now overloaded at LB (**so much so our rejects go to the Saints and start**) that our ILB "Leader" Bradie James ($20MM) is expected to ride the pines b/c Carpenter is a better overall talent and we have 1st round money on him.

In summary we used the 18th pick on an ILB in 2006, passed on a passing rushing WOLB (Lawson), had to redraft a WOLB in 2007 (Spencer), need to reposition our All Pro OLB to the Strong Side (Ware) and mis-spent $20MM on a great back up (James).

FANTASTIC JERRY!!!!!!! And Bill.

By the way, with Wade's system the talent from 2006 would be much better rushing the QB so .. the Spencer move reaked of desperation when none really should have existed.

To boot in 2006, we went Fasano which was dumb given we had Witten and Flo was coming off a knee injury. Hello McNeill.

This year's draft was no different in terms of mistakes made IMHO and the repercussions going forward.

robert_in_bigd
05-09-2007, 09:04 PM
BTW Modano, at 36 I would have gone Rice and then maybe S/CB at 52. Both would have made the field this year with Rice being and end-zone jump ball guy and the S/CB need is clear.

thule
05-10-2007, 12:04 AM
Rob...your wrong man...one the FO decided to make the decision to move Ellis to the outside...Carp was an insurance policy. Much like Spencer is this year. Ellis is going to start if he is the best player at that position. The thing is Carp was being groomed to be our vrabel. Which he can still be. But he was getting time at SOLB/SILB/Nickel LB....he was going to be our utility guy. So my question to you is....what happens if ellis can't make the conversion. Now we move Ware who's responsibilities become completely different on the strong side? Make him learn another position when he is already have trouble setting up OT's? He was only in his 2nd year...seems like a waste to put more development into him when he isn't even NFL ready imo. Leave Lawson on the weak side to get abused by OT's because it was clear at his weight he wouldnt' be able to rush 80 plays a game. He also didn't have the field awareness to play in parcell's scheme at the weak side. Ware was almost exclusively left in coverage his first year just because of that fact.

So you now you wanna draft having Bobby start in the middle first time. I don't buy it...because essentially James lost his spot this year do to the scheme change. He would still be starting in a 2 gap scheme...whether he was exposed in coverage or not...he is the ideal SILB. Now Wade comes in and requires more speed from his ILB's because his outside rushers go after the QB more in his system. Now his ILB's are covering halves in zones and man. This is something that James just cannot do...it's not his fault either...he just doesn't have the body type required for it. If anything the Carpenter pick looks genious right now...because lets face it...we would have be trading up to land Willis had we not had him. ILB corp in this draft is terrible and the OLB class held value slightly after we picked. It's almost like Nostradamus was in the draft room last year.

robert_in_bigd
05-10-2007, 08:29 AM
Rob...your wrong man...one the FO decided to make the decision to move Ellis to the outside...Carp was an insurance policy. Much like Spencer is this year. Ellis is going to start if he is the best player at that position. The thing is Carp was being groomed to be our vrabel. Which he can still be. But he was getting time at SOLB/SILB/Nickel LB....he was going to be our utility guy. So my question to you is....what happens if ellis can't make the conversion. Now we move Ware who's responsibilities become completely different on the strong side? Make him learn another position when he is already have trouble setting up OT's? He was only in his 2nd year...seems like a waste to put more development into him when he isn't even NFL ready imo. Leave Lawson on the weak side to get abused by OT's because it was clear at his weight he wouldnt' be able to rush 80 plays a game. He also didn't have the field awareness to play in parcell's scheme at the weak side. Ware was almost exclusively left in coverage his first year just because of that fact.

So you now you wanna draft having Bobby start in the middle first time. I don't buy it...because essentially James lost his spot this year do to the scheme change. He would still be starting in a 2 gap scheme...whether he was exposed in coverage or not...he is the ideal SILB. Now Wade comes in and requires more speed from his ILB's because his outside rushers go after the QB more in his system. Now his ILB's are covering halves in zones and man. This is something that James just cannot do...it's not his fault either...he just doesn't have the body type required for it. If anything the Carpenter pick looks genious right now...because lets face it...we would have be trading up to land Willis had we not had him. ILB corp in this draft is terrible and the OLB class held value slightly after we picked. It's almost like Nostradamus was in the draft room last year.

Well, we disagree. Not sure I see where.

First, Lawson, last I checked, is playing 3-4 OLB so I am not sure how he was such a bad pick for BP's 3-4. All this body type talk is just that. Sounds like the Spears discussion at NT. Don't see it. Sorry. Maybe it is just me.

Second, NO ONE expected Ellis to play as well as he did. And fact is he played pretty good b/c he had no coverage role. He basically played the position he played at for most of his career. BP's SOLB usually has coverage responsibility (Carl Banks Hello!). They built the D around this weakness.

Third, I like Bobby. I have nothing bad to say of him. He is a excellent LB but not exceptional at any one thing. I like the Vrabel comparison but even NE had McGinest to bring the heat and Ware is not McGinest. Maybe Spencer can be McGinest/LT type rusher.

Fourth, Wade needs a 350lb NT to get away with speedier LB corp (Godfrey and Edwards) to replicate SD. Not sure the Cowboys have that type NT to play two gap while freeing the others to cover or play one gap.

All good though man. I hope all our guys become stars.

Im_a_Romosexual
05-10-2007, 10:44 AM
Fourth, Wade needs a 350lb NT to get away with speedier LB corp (Godfrey and Edwards) to replicate SD. Not sure the Cowboys have that type NT to play two gap while freeing the others to cover or play one gap.



Wade has come out and said he doesnt want 350 lb nose tackles. He wants quicker guys to attack from that position.

robert_in_bigd
05-10-2007, 03:35 PM
Wade has come out and said he doesnt want 350 lb nose tackles. He wants quicker guys to attack from that position.

Well then I am sure he will not get away with two 230lb ILB in a 3-4 like he did in SD.

Wade will do a great job with who he has.

Achilles33
05-10-2007, 07:04 PM
Spears is a big DE. He isn't a NT. You can't just bulk up a big DE and make then a DT. It doesn't work like that. If it did there would be a lot more DT's in the NFL.

robert_in_bigd
05-10-2007, 07:53 PM
Spears is a big DE. He isn't a NT. You can't just bulk up a big DE and make then a DT. It doesn't work like that. If it did there would be a lot more DT's in the NFL.

What are you talking about? He is 6'4 and 298. As an example, S Rogers is 6'4 345 and Kris Jenkins 6'4 335 lbs -- both guys mentioned as NT potential for the Cowboys.

Other notable J. Williams 6'3 348 lbs, Pat WIlliams 6'3 317 lbs, Kevin Williams 6'5 310 lbs, S Adams 6'3 350 lbs.

Get Spears to the all you can eat buffett and then to the gym to work out. He can be 325 in no time.

Staubach12
05-10-2007, 08:29 PM
What are you talking about? He is 6'4 and 298. As an example, S Rogers is 6'4 345 and Kris Jenkins 6'4 335 lbs -- both guys mentioned as NT potential for the Cowboys.

Other notable J. Williams 6'3 348 lbs, Pat WIlliams 6'3 317 lbs, Kevin Williams 6'5 310 lbs, S Adams 6'3 350 lbs.

Get Spears to the all you can eat buffett and then to the gym to work out. He can be 325 in no time.

http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

It just doesn't work like that. Just because he's got the height doesn't mean his frame will allow him to play full speed at that kind of weight. He wouldn't be able to add that kind of weight and still be a disrupter. Also, the NT has to be able to demand a double team and handle that double team. He has to be stout at the point. No exceptions, and he has to get into the backfeild. Spears doesn't demand a double team, and wouldn't be able to handle that double team, even at the weight that you propose. He's not stout enough at the point to be a NT in the 3-4, either. He's not a NT. End of discussion.

robert_in_bigd
05-10-2007, 08:34 PM
http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

It just doesn't work like that. Just because he's got the height doesn't mean his frame will allow him to play full speed at that kind of weight. He wouldn't be able to add that kind of weight and still be a disrupter. Also, the NT has to be able to demand a double team and handle that double team. He has to be stout at the point. No exceptions, and he has to get into the backfeild. Spears doesn't demand a double team, and wouldn't be able to handle that double team, even at the weight that you propose. He's not stout enough at the point to be a NT in the 3-4, either. He's not a NT. End of discussion.

He is not stout enough? What are you talking about?

Spears issue is getting up field quickly. He never go backwards and goes nicely sideline to sideline. He already played two gap in the Parcells system. To say he can not play NT is negative thinking.

You guys are advocating your position (which is fine) but not analysing the alternative. Marcus Spears can play NT when and if he decides too. What he will play is up to him and the coaching staff.

END OF DISCUSSION! ROTFLMAO!!!

fryman
05-11-2007, 10:32 AM
I think Spears could get up to about 320, without losing much. His frame is very similar to Jenkins. I don't see why height was brought up though, once you get up to that weight height has almost nothing to do with what weight you can carry and still be at full potential. I don't think I would really want him to play a 2-gap NT role unless we were really desperate though.

From what I hear there will be very few times when any linemen will have to fill two gaps in this new scheme though. So I highly doubt Spears will change weights or even play more than a few snaps at NT.

robert_in_bigd
05-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I think Spears could get up to about 320, without losing much. His frame is very similar to Jenkins. I don't see why height was brought up though, once you get up to that weight height has almost nothing to do with what weight you can carry and still be at full potential. I don't think I would really want him to play a 2-gap NT role unless we were really desperate though.

From what I hear there will be very few times when any linemen will have to fill two gaps in this new scheme though. So I highly doubt Spears will change weights or even play more than a few snaps at NT.

Excellent points.

Macarthur
05-11-2007, 11:21 AM
From what I hear there will be very few times when any linemen will have to fill two gaps in this new scheme though. So I highly doubt Spears will change weights or even play more than a few snaps at NT.

This is the key point. It's been well documented that Wade and Big Bill look for different things from a NT.

Modano
05-11-2007, 03:19 PM
Well, we disagree. Not sure I see where.

First, Lawson, last time I checked, is playing 3-4 OLB so I am not sure how he was such a bad pick for BP's 3-4. All this body type talk is just that. Sounds like the Spears discussion at NT. Don't see it. Sorry. Maybe it is just me.

Second, NO ONE expected Ellis to play as well as he did. And fact is he played pretty good b/c he had no coverage role. He basically played the position he played at for most of his career. BP's SOLB usually has coverage responsibility (Carl Banks Hello!). They built the D around this weakness.

Third, I like Bobby. I have nothing bad to say of him. He is a excellent LB but not exceptional at any one thing. I like the Vrabel comparison but even NE had McGinest to bring the heat and Ware is not McGinest. Maybe Spencer can be McGinest/LT type rusher.

Fourth, Wade needs a 350lb NT to get away with speedier LB corp (Godfrey and Edwards) to replicate SD. Not sure the Cowboys have that type NT to play two gap while freeing the others to cover or play one gap.

All good though man. I hope all our guys become stars.

Lawson, last time I checked, had 2.5 sacks last season. So I don't know how much he should have worked up for us at WOLB.
I've red some 9ers fans saying that he was very good in coverage, not much about his pass rushing skills.

And not, I wouldn't have touched Rice in the second. He's a steve spurrier's receiver.
And I don't get your logic. He should have contributed in 2007 for jump balls in the endzone? Are you kidding me? That's the contribute you want from a player and you're complaining because we drafted guys for the future?

We had:

1) Terrell Owens who actually is an amazing redzone target and led the NFL in score by a WR last year
2) Jason Witten who is a very very reliable target in the redzone (once he will be used more properly)
3) Marion Barber who is an amazing goal line back who was second to LT and Steven Jackson in TD scores.
4) A QB who can run the ball to the endzone from the 10 yards line.

I don't think we need a redzone target at all. I prefer pretty much having a RT and LT to develope than a guy for "jump balls in the endzone".
And even if you don't want to admit that, Spencer will have a major contribute this year.

DMWSackMachine
05-11-2007, 06:12 PM
While I don't have a lot of quibbles with your general idea, Robert, you are making yourself look like a tool. A few points:

1) First you rant and rave about not having players who are "immediate impact" for this year, etc etc....and then you turn right around and advocate drafting a WR with our first pick. Yes, a WR, the same position that is widely known as the most slowly developing and long-term position in the draft outside of QB. But you don't stop there. The guy you ask for is probably the rawest, most boom or bust type of all the early draft prospects at his position in the whole draft. Add to the fact that WR is possibly the most stacked position on this team, and there is legitimately zero reason to think he will make a contribution this year. Really hard to follow you here.

2) You willy-nilly throw out CB/S as if there is going to be some sort of perfect, prototypical prospect at that position on the board for us to take, and then say that he will surely contribute this year....without even knowing the name of the person! The NFL draft includes humans. You're not throwing a (3rd round draft pick cornberback/safety) out on the field. You have to pick a person, and that person has to have the requisite ability in order to play on the football team. Your ignorance of this is disturbing and inexplicable.

3) Another point you misinterpret/fail to consider/are confused about, is our areas of need. In a 3-4 defense like Wade Phillips', you can never have enough pass rushers. Anthony Spencer is going to contribute as much an 98% of rookies in the league. Also, while CB is surely a need down the line, so are Tackle and Guard, equally. Just as we have Newman and Henry (both still in their primes), with an aging vet at the nickel, we also have Flo and Colombo (aging/injury prone/or ready to be replaced) and Kosier/Rivera (same). There is no way that you can argue the secondary as substantially more of a need than OL. Not only that, but from a timetable perspective, young CBs usually contribute much earlier than OL do, so if anything, you are going to want to get your lineman this year, and start the clock on their development, while going for secondary next year, when he will be much more likely to play and make an impact.

4) Not to interfere with your self flagellating aggrandizement and all, but your ideas for last years draft would have been a disaster. Manny Lawson is still very much a developmental player. Bobby Carpenter got nearly as many sacks as he did, in far, far, far less playing time. In addition, Bobby has the kind of versatility that can provide flexibility in a scheme like ours. Moving forward, he could easily be a linch-pin of our scheme that allows us to adapt both on a game-by-game basis, as well as to the yearly evolutions of the game. Lawson is nothing more than an athlete at this point--a great one, but still just an athlete.

5. Your contention that "Ware is no McGinest" is laughable. DeMarcus already has as many double digit sack seasons as Willie did in his career, and his second season total of 11.5 also suprasses McGinest's career high of 11. I'm not quite sure wtf you were talking about, but your point was off. Ware is already a top 3 or 4 WOLB in the league right now, and has a great chance of being #1 within a next couple seasons.



The point is, while I am not too thrilled with how our draft will show up in this year's performance, either, you haven't provided a single valid counter argument for what we could have done. Rice would have done nothing but sit on the bench and rot, because he doesn't play special teams, and will not get on the field unless we have a major injury. You couldn't even come up with a CB/S to draft, and even if you had there is very little to suggest that he would make more of an impact then either Marten or Free this season.

Not only that, but your "hindsight" analysis of last year is fatally flawed as well. Yes, it is easy to see that we could have had McNeill instead of Fasano, but there are 31 other teams who are complaining about the same thing. We could also have had Ryan Cook instead of him, too. It cuts both ways.

Lastly, I don't know wth people keep mentioning Bradie James as if he is gone and a non-factor for this season. With the changing assignments in the defense this season, and the lineman slanting and penetrating much more than before, our ILBs are going to have to take on blockers even more than last year. Call me funny, but that seems to play to the strength of Mr. James. He will be a very big asset for this season.

D-Unit
05-11-2007, 07:01 PM
I just absolutely love DWM's posts! :D

Staubach12
05-11-2007, 09:00 PM
He is not stout enough? What are you talking about?

Spears issue is getting up field quickly. He never go backwards and goes nicely sideline to sideline. He already played two gap in the Parcells system. To say he can not play NT is negative thinking.

You guys are advocating your position (which is fine) but not analysing the alternative. Marcus Spears can play NT when and if he decides too. What he will play is up to him and the coaching staff.

END OF DISCUSSION! ROTFLMAO!!!

Spears doesn't play like a NT, and wouldn't be able to play at all if he added that kind of weight. You say he can play sideline to sideline, but can't get down the field. You just proved me right. A NT does not play sideline to sideline. A DE may, but not a NT, and a NT needs to get down the field while playing stout. With Spears, if he tries too hard to get penetration, then he's not going to be able to stay stout! I don't see why you cannot accept the fact that you're wrong. It doesn't work. Accept it.

Modano
05-12-2007, 01:49 AM
The point is, while I am not too thrilled with how our draft will show up in this year's performance, either, you haven't provided a single valid counter argument for what we could have done. Rice would have done nothing but sit on the bench and rot, because he doesn't play special teams, and will not get on the field unless we have a major injury. You couldn't even come up with a CB/S to draft, and even if you had there is very little to suggest that he would make more of an impact then either Marten or Free this season.

He should have been used for jump balls in the endzone!!!
With TO, Witten and Barber on the team, I really don't understand we need someone to caught the ball in the endzone. Scoring is not a problem with the players we have...

Achilles33
05-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Soears will have a breakout year under Wade.

Dark horse, Kevin Burnett.

supermario86
05-12-2007, 08:29 AM
Are we not talking about Isaiah Stanback?

robert_in_bigd
05-12-2007, 08:33 AM
Spears doesn't play like a NT, and wouldn't be able to play at all if he added that kind of weight. You say he can play sideline to sideline, but can't get down the field. You just proved me right. A NT does not play sideline to sideline. A DE may, but not a NT, and a NT needs to get down the field while playing stout. With Spears, if he tries too hard to get penetration, then he's not going to be able to stay stout! I don't see why you cannot accept the fact that you're wrong. It doesn't work. Accept it.

A NT needs good lateral movement (sideline to sideline). Or let me better explain the footwork to go sideline to sideline while being pushed on. Not an easy task but Spears can do it. I have seen him do it with a LT and TE on him.

A 3-4 NT does not need to be a great penetrator in a 2 gap system. It is a read react. Since Spears does not have great "burst" as far as I can see ....

How Wade will play them will be a great interest to me.

But as far as Spears POTENTIAL, it is 1491 and you see the worlld flat. I understand otherwise cuz I have seen himplay for a few years..

robert_in_bigd
05-12-2007, 08:33 AM
Soears will have a breakout year under Wade.

Dark horse, Kevin Burnett.


I hope so. Be nice to see both guys play well in a DOMINATING D.

robert_in_bigd
05-12-2007, 08:47 AM
He should have been used for jump balls in the endzone!!!
With TO, Witten and Barber on the team, I really don't understand we need someone to caught the ball in the endzone. Scoring is not a problem with the players we have...

LOL. Watch the game and learn. Sidney Rice (6'4, great hands and body control) fading into the end zone off a play action to Barber is not a play we have in the book right now. Glenn to small and TO has bad hands in addition to not being a jumper.

Glenn and TO need to beat their guys at the line to get the fade play for 6 inside the 10. Alternatively run a slant pattern and pray the ball is not picked. Sidney Rice does not have to. His size and hands give him that advantage in tight space to run any route and even if cover throw it high.

To boot, Rice has incredible talent and a good kid allegedly. Great hands, body control, great game speed and is a flat out football player.

Would have been the number 1 WR in 2008 Draft. WOULD HAVE HELPED THE COWBOYS IN 2007 playing 3/4 WR. Could have traded Hurd or Crayton (identical players) for a 6th or 7th.

Go and look at the Rice on Chris Houston tape as well as the Florida game. As NFL ready as any other receiver except CJ.

But really, I think you are not realistic at all on what this team needs. You are just an "AMEN HALLELUJAH" type fan. Which explains all the Stanback love like all Jones and Spagnola drool on the Jerry Jones propoganda machine.

By the way where is Isaiah the Next Great WR who has yet to play WR at any level for any period of time?

Paul
05-12-2007, 10:26 AM
Isiah did play WR at Washington for some amount a time.

2003: Played in 11 games in 2003, mostly at wide receiver ... also returned kicks and practiced with the quarterbacks ... was 2-for-2 passing during the season ... quarterback duties were limited to late-game situations vs. Indiana and Idaho ... caught 10 passes for 143 yards, leading all players with a 14.3 average per reception ... had four catches for 82 yards vs. Arizona, including a career-best 41-yard catch ... rushed for a total of 25 yards from the QB position ... also returned eight kickoffs, averaging 16.6 yards per runback ... had seven kickoff returns against Cal, equaling the UW single-game record for returns in a game. 2002: Redshirted the season ... was 4-of-9 for 82 yards and a touchdown in the 2003 Spring Game

Now with that said, he is very unpolished and does need some fine tuning. What he does and where he goes is up to him and his work ethic.

D-Unit
05-12-2007, 12:54 PM
What's the discussion here? That we should've taken Rice? When did we have the chance? Is Robert saying that we should've traded up? I'd rather hear a defense for who we should've taken at the spots we were picking at.

thule
05-12-2007, 01:19 PM
What's the discussion here? That we should've taken Rice? When did we have the chance? Is Robert saying that we should've traded up? I'd rather hear a defense for who we should've taken at the spots we were picking at.

Rob preferred us not trading back up into the first round...Rice at 36 if i'm not mistaken.

D-Unit
05-12-2007, 01:29 PM
Rob preferred us not trading back up into the first round...Rice at 36 if i'm not mistaken.
Oh, well then that's just wrong. I'll take pass rush over a WR anyday. WR is such a luxury position. The most luxury position on the entire damn team.

Achilles33
05-12-2007, 01:31 PM
Back to Stanback. He won't be particitpating in mini-camp, for those who didn't know.

I hope he is the holder. :)

nrcirc
05-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Oh, well then that's just wrong. I'll take pass rush over a WR anyday. WR is such a luxury position. The most luxury position on the entire damn team.

I have nothing against Spencer, but I agree with Rob that we shouldn't trade up to draft Spencer, we should wait and draft BPA. I believe it s 50% chance that we could have him at 36. If someone drafted him before 36, we chould select Chris Houston or someone else, I believe he is Wade type CB. It is not about drating Spencer at 26, it is Spencer vs drating Chris Houston (36), Paul Soliai (87) & Tim Shaw (159)..

We have two players that at top 5 in kick off return, why we drafted Stanback at the top of the 4th round? which he is having a big injuries and recoverig now? Another one that I don't like this draft is why we draft two OTs but no OG or Center?

Staubach12
05-12-2007, 04:36 PM
A NT needs good lateral movement (sideline to sideline). Or let me better explain the footwork to go sideline to sideline while being pushed on. Not an easy task but Spears can do it. I have seen him do it with a LT and TE on him.

A 3-4 NT does not need to be a great penetrator in a 2 gap system. It is a read react. Since Spears does not have great "burst" as far as I can see ....

How Wade will play them will be a great interest to me.

But as far as Spears POTENTIAL, it is 1491 and you see the worlld flat. I understand otherwise cuz I have seen himplay for a few years..

You're just so wrong. NT doesn't need to have incredible lateral movement, but he needs to stay stout while getting constant pressure. Spears cannot stay that stout and penetrate with a double team on him. He just cannot do it. Spears doesn't have the skillset to play NT in the 3-4, no matter how you slice it. And even if he did right now, he wouldn't in 30 lbs. You can stand there and yell that the sky is purple, but the fact is it's not no matter how hard or how many times you yell it.

robert_in_bigd
05-12-2007, 05:14 PM
Spears doesn't have the skillset to play NT in the 3-4, no matter how you slice it.

You can repeat until you die and it still does not make it correct. Spears has the "skillset" to play any spot on the DL. 3-4 or 4-3. He is just not a great pass rusher.

BTW, how is it that you "get the skillset" to play the spot unless you actually do? Still trying to understand the round-a-about circular reasoning presented?

Last I checked many a NT are not that talented physically and are drafted late in the draft ---- unlike Marcus who is very talented.

Modano
05-12-2007, 05:39 PM
LOL. Watch the game and learn. Sidney Rice (6'4, great hands and body control) fading into the end zone off a play action to Barber is not a play we have in the book right now. Glenn to small and TO has bad hands in addition to not being a jumper.

Glenn and TO need to beat their guys at the line to get the fade play for 6 inside the 10. Alternatively run a slant pattern and pray the ball is not picked. Sidney Rice does not have to. His size and hands give him that advantage in tight space to run any route and even if cover throw it high.

To boot, Rice has incredible talent and a good kid allegedly. Great hands, body control, great game speed and is a flat out football player.

Would have been the number 1 WR in 2008 Draft. WOULD HAVE HELPED THE COWBOYS IN 2007 playing 3/4 WR. Could have traded Hurd or Crayton (identical players) for a 6th or 7th.

Go and look at the Rice on Chris Houston tape as well as the Florida game. As NFL ready as any other receiver except CJ.

But really, I think you are not realistic at all on what this team needs. You are just an "AMEN HALLELUJAH" type fan. Which explains all the Stanback love like all Jones and Spagnola drool on the Jerry Jones propoganda machine.

By the way where is Isaiah the Next Great WR who has yet to play WR at any level for any period of time?

1) Are you kidding me? Rice the best receiver in the 2008 draft? How can he be ahead of guys like Limas Sweed, DeSean Jackson (if he comes out), Mario Manningham Adarius Bowman?
2) Ok, we don't have this play in the playbook, but do we need it? We don't have a problem in scoring. TO does not have great hands, or great leaping ability, but he's a scoring machine. He scores in different way but he scores, so does Witten, so does Barber. Last year we were a great team in scoring, I really don't know how having this play in the playbook (or using Rice for jumping balls) could have give us a significant upgrade.
3) Tell me one Steve Spurrier WR who dominate at the college level but did not suck in the NFL. I'm sure there is one or two, but the majority all looked like they were great players and then were major busts.

Achilles33
05-12-2007, 06:35 PM
Stanback was involved in the punt returning today....:)

D-Unit
05-13-2007, 01:32 AM
I have nothing against Spencer, but I agree with Rob that we shouldn't trade up to draft Spencer, we should wait and draft BPA. I believe it s 50% chance that we could have him at 36. If someone drafted him before 36, we chould select Chris Houston or someone else, I believe he is Wade type CB. It is not about drating Spencer at 26, it is Spencer vs drating Chris Houston (36), Paul Soliai (87) & Tim Shaw (159)..

We have two players that at top 5 in kick off return, why we drafted Stanback at the top of the 4th round? which he is having a big injuries and recoverig now? Another one that I don't like this draft is why we draft two OTs but no OG or Center?
That draft would've SUCKED! Get outta here with Houston, Soliai and Shaw... LMAO. Spencer is a legit DROY candidate. ...and he wouldn't have been there. NE wanted him and when we jumped ahead of them, they traded out of their spot. Don't imagine that you know what Wade wants more than Wade. If he wanted Houston, we would've taken Houston. Spencer is Wade's guy.

We drafted 2 Tackles because we needed them more and the value was there. You don't just go drafting OGs for the hell of it. Tell me where we'd be on our depth chart if we didn't have Free and Marten backing up Flo and Columbo. We'd be in a big pile of crap. That's where we'd be.

Proctor is fine at C and McQuistan is better at Guard, where he played mostly in college.

Paul
05-13-2007, 08:31 AM
Would have not gotten him 36. As D said NE was looking at him, as well as the Ravens, who were very very high on him.

Also, I have to say Soliai was one of the more overrated players this past draft, even by me. All people saw were measurasbles, but after some digging, all I read and saw was that he played really high, played with little leverage, and character concerns. Losing out on him is not going to kill me.

Tim Shaw? Really?

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 12:37 PM
That draft would've SUCKED! Get outta here with Houston, Soliai and Shaw... LMAO. Spencer is a legit DROY candidate. ...and he wouldn't have been there. NE wanted him and when we jumped ahead of them, they traded out of their spot. Don't imagine that you know what Wade wants more than Wade. If he wanted Houston, we would've taken Houston. Spencer is Wade's guy.

We drafted 2 Tackles because we needed them more and the value was there. You don't just go drafting OGs for the hell of it. Tell me where we'd be on our depth chart if we didn't have Free and Marten backing up Flo and Columbo. We'd be in a big pile of crap. That's where we'd be.

Proctor is fine at C and McQuistan is better at Guard, where he played mostly in college.

NE took Meriweather at 24 so if they really wanted Spencer ....... they would have taken him.

Now Proctor is a Center and McQuistan is a Guard? Is this how you justify taking tow Tackles in the draft?

Saying this would be like the Japanese saying they invaded Pearl Harbor because they knew we would drop the Atom Bomb on them.

Too many "Amen Jerry" fannies in this part.

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 12:38 PM
1) Are you kidding me? Rice the best receiver in the 2008 draft? How can he be ahead of guys like Limas Sweed, DeSean Jackson (if he comes out), Mario Manningham Adarius Bowman?
2) Ok, we don't have this play in the playbook, but do we need it? We don't have a problem in scoring. TO does not have great hands, or great leaping ability, but he's a scoring machine. He scores in different way but he scores, so does Witten, so does Barber. Last year we were a great team in scoring, I really don't know how having this play in the playbook (or using Rice for jumping balls) could have give us a significant upgrade.
3) Tell me one Steve Spurrier WR who dominate at the college level but did not suck in the NFL. I'm sure there is one or two, but the majority all looked like they were great players and then were major busts.

Tell me one North Carolina OLB that did anything till LT .... that line of reasoning does not wash.

Of the great WR you mentioned not one has the hands or body control of Rice.... though I think Sweed comes closest.

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Would have not gotten him 36. As D said NE was looking at him, as well as the Ravens, who were very very high on him.

Also, I have to say Soliai was one of the more overrated players this past draft, even by me. All people saw were measurasbles, but after some digging, all I read and saw was that he played really high, played with little leverage, and character concerns. Losing out on him is not going to kill me.

Tim Shaw? Really?

Fair to say other than CJ every player in this draft is considered a big risk.

Modano
05-13-2007, 12:43 PM
Tell me one North Carolina OLB that did anything till LT .... that line of reasoning does not wash.

Of the great WR you mentioned not one has the hands or body control of Rice.... though I think Sweed comes closest.

So do you really think that Rice is better of those WRs and, if he would have not declared for the draft in 2007 he should have been the #1 WR in 2008?
Because if you really believe this I will start a thread in the Draft Forum just to see how many agree with you. I suppose they will be only like 1 or 2 homer vikings fans.

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 12:52 PM
So do you really think that Rice is better of those WRs and, if he would have not declared for the draft in 2007 he should have been the #1 WR in 2008?
Because if you really believe this I will start a thread in the Draft Forum just to see how many agree with you. I suppose they will be only like 1 or 2 homer vikings fans.

Would you say it is academic at this point? I would so do what you wish but I really could care less. The proof will be in the MN Vikings pudding with their almost rookie QB.

If Rice catches 40-50 balls I will let you know how good he really was/is/will be.

Modano
05-13-2007, 12:54 PM
Would you say it is academic at this point? I would so do what you wish but I really could care less. The proof will be in the MN Vikings pudding with their almost rookie QB.

If Rice catches 40-50 balls I will let you know how good he really was/is/will be.

We're talking by a "prospect" point of view. I will ask it again:

Do you think that if Rice wouldn't have declared for this year's draft he should have been the best receiver in 2008 draft?

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 12:58 PM
We're talking by a "prospect" point of view. I will ask it again:

Do you think that if Rice wouldn't have declared for this year's draft he should have been the best receiver in 2008 draft?

Yup. Still academic.

Modano
05-13-2007, 12:59 PM
Yup. Still academic.

Ok, I will ask this question in the Draft forum...

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Ok, I will ask this question in the Draft forum...

Ask me why I care? This is the same Draft Forum that had Brady Quinn as the #1 pick in the country for 2007.

It is a popularity contest. Tedd Gin had more hype coming into 2007 than CJ. Eveyone will love Sweed (Texas) and DeSean (fast).

Really a moot contest to try and prove you point with bad data.

Modano
05-13-2007, 01:07 PM
Ask me why I care? This is the same Draft Forum that had Brady Quinn as the #1 pick in the country for 2007.

It is a popularity contest. Tedd Gin had more hype coming into 2007 than CJ. Eveyone will love Sweed (Texas) and DeSean (fast).

Really a moot contest to try and prove you point with bad data.

This one for me it's just another proof that you have your ideas and take those like are facts.

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 01:14 PM
This one for me it's just another proof that you have your ideas and take those like are facts.

What part of the word "I think" is hard to understand? I think Rice is better than all the guys mentioned. I think we will know by the end of this season.

WTF is your problem? Are you so accustomed to getting a gold star on your test after scoring a 65 that you forgot how to engage in an analytical dialogue?

You kids nowadays have no idea what it is like to live in world of varying opinions and personalities. Not everyone is a drugged-up opinionless moron who repeats what others say. You Prozac Generation Kids needs to grow up.

Heaven forbid someone disagree with popular thought nowadays.

Hey, post this too Brain Brohm is not very good. Stewart is better than McFadden. Only time will tell.

thule
05-13-2007, 02:58 PM
NE took Meriweather at 24 so if they really wanted Spencer ....... they would have taken him.

Now Proctor is a Center and McQuistan is a Guard? Is this how you justify taking tow Tackles in the draft?

Saying this would be like the Japanese saying they invaded Pearl Harbor because they knew we would drop the Atom Bomb on them.

Too many "Amen Jerry" fannies in this part.

Well I know it's crazy but teams can want more than one player. I mean look at the cowboys...the two top targets that were talked about were Meriweather and Spencer going into draft day...with Meachem as the dark horse. They had to go one way or the other...I would bet that we would have traded up to 25 had spencer went 24...just to land Meriweather.

We took two tackles because interior OL depth was trash. Free and Marten were argueably the best second tier LT and RT in the draft. I mean would you rather have taken Marten and Beekman...I wouldn't have been a happy fan if that happened.

robert_in_bigd
05-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Well I know it's crazy but teams can want more than one player. I mean look at the cowboys...the two top targets that were talked about were Meriweather and Spencer going into draft day...with Meachem as the dark horse. They had to go one way or the other...I would bet that we would have traded up to 25 had spencer went 24...just to land Meriweather.

We took two tackles because interior OL depth was trash. Free and Marten were argueably the best second tier LT and RT in the draft. I mean would you rather have taken Marten and Beekman...I wouldn't have been a happy fan if that happened.

Hold on a second Thule, let me state clearly I like both LT and RT prospects.

Again, I just did not like (my opinion obviously) the strategy. This is my beef. Bad strategy. Two Tackles seem like we are "talent banking" then re-positioning McQuistan because ......

I will not argue players because it is so subjective. I wish them all the best.

In fact, a more interesting thing IMHO not discussed, is I think we have seen a big shift from last year (pure need based) to more physical talent hunt.

Looks like Larry Lacewell had more of a say than we imagine.

Staubach12
05-14-2007, 05:55 AM
What part of the word "I think" is hard to understand? I think Rice is better than all the guys mentioned. I think we will know by the end of this season.

WTF is your problem? Are you so accustomed to getting a gold star on your test after scoring a 65 that you forgot how to engage in an analytical dialogue?

You kids nowadays have no idea what it is like to live in world of varying opinions and personalities. Not everyone is a drugged-up opinionless moron who repeats what others say. You Prozac Generation Kids needs to grow up.

Heaven forbid someone disagree with popular thought nowadays.

Hey, post this too Brain Brohm is not very good. Stewart is better than McFadden. Only time will tell.

Well, first of all, I've never heard of Brain Brohm, so I doubt he's good too. On another note, you say that he's flipping out because he knows he right and you're wrong? Look at you! You're bordering on personal attack. On another note, you're wrong. It's that simple. Desean and Sweed would have gone before Rice. The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two. He would have been better off staying, but not the #1 WR next year. Now please, don't be so immature that you attack people and say that they need to get a grip when someone disagrees with them, while you are doing that very thing.

robert_in_bigd
05-14-2007, 08:34 AM
Well, first of all, I've never heard of Brain Brohm, so I doubt he's good too. On another note, you say that he's flipping out because he knows he right and you're wrong? Look at you! You're bordering on personal attack. On another note, you're wrong. It's that simple. Desean and Sweed would have gone before Rice. The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two. He would have been better off staying, but not the #1 WR next year. Now please, don't be so immature that you attack people and say that they need to get a grip when someone disagrees with them, while you are doing that very thing.

Brohm the Louisville QB by the way.

Funny enough you argue like Modano. First you say I present opinions as facts then you say "On another note, you're wrong. It's that simple. Desean and Sweed would have gone before Rice."

Can you guys make up your minds? (** hence the Prozac Generation reference) Is it that I am wrong or that we have different opinions which at this time are unproven since both your forecast and mine are still pending data????? Worst yet, it will never happen since Rice was not in the class.

As it relates to the Cowboys draft, this is why I point out that I don't like to argue players, I argue strategy. It is reasonable to say the strategy Jones & Co used is bad.

It is NOT REASONABLE to say all the players they did pick suck. I think they all have potential. In fact, I think Jerry did an excellent job of tactically moving around the draft to get what they think they needed. But they are are tactics used and not strategy.

Just a big difference and I am not sure you guys have the horsepower to understand.... so you argue apples then oranges.

nrcirc
05-14-2007, 09:52 AM
That draft would've SUCKED! Get outta here with Houston, Soliai and Shaw... LMAO. Spencer is a legit DROY candidate. ...and he wouldn't have been there. NE wanted him and when we jumped ahead of them, they traded out of their spot. Don't imagine that you know what Wade wants more than Wade. If he wanted Houston, we would've taken Houston. Spencer is Wade's guy.

We drafted 2 Tackles because we needed them more and the value was there. You don't just go drafting OGs for the hell of it. Tell me where we'd be on our depth chart if we didn't have Free and Marten backing up Flo and Columbo. We'd be in a big pile of crap. That's where we'd be.

Proctor is fine at C and McQuistan is better at Guard, where he played mostly in college.

Where did I said I don't like Spencer? All I said was we should draft BAP at 36 instant of traded up. IF Spencer is available at 36, then we draft him. I just don't like to lost two picks. If NE did not sign Thomas, I may agree with you. The team I believe may draft Spencer if we don't trade up is the Eagles.

I put my money on McQuistan will be back up LT and active for the hold season and Doug Free will not be active in any game this season. Here is my question, why we are moving McQuistan to play OG?

Im_a_Romosexual
05-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Here is my question, why we are moving McQuistan to play OG?

Free is playing LT so they shifted him to guard to get himon the field during practices.

jdnoyes
05-14-2007, 11:41 AM
Seems to me they are going to give Free every opportunity to be our future LT, but don't give up on McQ just yet, if Free can't do it, I think they'll have McQ ready to step in. Marten on the other hand seems to be more of a RT/versitile swing guy candidate.

Staubach12
05-14-2007, 09:03 PM
Brohm the Louisville QB by the way.

Funny enough you argue like Modano. First you say I present opinions as facts then you say "On another note, you're wrong. It's that simple. Desean and Sweed would have gone before Rice."

Can you guys make up your minds? (** hence the Prozac Generation reference) Is it that I am wrong or that we have different opinions which at this time are unproven since both your forecast and mine are still pending data????? Worst yet, it will never happen since Rice was not in the class.

As it relates to the Cowboys draft, this is why I point out that I don't like to argue players, I argue strategy. It is reasonable to say the strategy Jones & Co used is bad.

It is NOT REASONABLE to say all the players they did pick suck. I think they all have potential. In fact, I think Jerry did an excellent job of tactically moving around the draft to get what they think they needed. But they are are tactics used and not strategy.

Just a big difference and I am not sure you guys have the horsepower to understand.... so you argue apples then oranges.

Way to catch a joke. You put Brain Brohm. Last time I checked, it was Brian , not Brain. Anyway, I didn't just say that Sweed and Desean would be ranked better. I gave you clear and analticial reasoning, but apparently, you're blind to that. I quote myself: "The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two." That's why, and it's the truth. Also, don't insult my intelligence. You're the one who cannot spell Brian or catch the joke I made about it. And now, you're trying to say, "Well, that's not even what I was arguing, so you're stupid." Don't kid yourself. You argued that if Rice had stayed, he would have been the #1 WR in 08, and now that we have presented very reasonable arguments (which you have failed to do), you decide it's better to run away from the argument than admit that you are wrong.

robert_in_bigd
05-15-2007, 09:28 AM
Way to catch a joke. You put Brain Brohm. Last time I checked, it was Brian , not Brain. Anyway, I didn't just say that Sweed and Desean would be ranked better. I gave you clear and analticial reasoning, but apparently, you're blind to that. I quote myself: "The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two." That's why, and it's the truth. Also, don't insult my intelligence. You're the one who cannot spell Brian or catch the joke I made about it. And now, you're trying to say, "Well, that's not even what I was arguing, so you're stupid." Don't kid yourself. You argued that if Rice had stayed, he would have been the #1 WR in 08, and now that we have presented very reasonable arguments (which you have failed to do), you decide it's better to run away from the argument than admit that you are wrong.

Um, village fool, you told me why Rice is not as good but said nothing to support why Sweed and DeSean are better.

So telling me you don't like Potatoes is not the same as telling me you prefer Corn over Potatoes.

But again, you just don't have the horsepower so .... which is why your delegate your most valid critique to correcting a/i inversions.

OBTW, go to the Modano board and read. Seems I am not the only one who felt Rice is/was/would be better than the forecasted 08 class.

Grow up kid.

Staubach12
05-15-2007, 01:23 PM
Um, village fool, you told me why Rice is not as good but said nothing to support why Sweed and DeSean are better.

So telling me you don't like Potatoes is not the same as telling me you prefer Corn over Potatoes.

But again, you just don't have the horsepower so .... which is why your delegate your most valid critique to correcting a/i inversions.

OBTW, go to the Modano board and read. Seems I am not the only one who felt Rice is/was/would be better than the forecasted 08 class.

Grow up kid.

Once again, when I put up reasonable arguments, you border on persoanlly attacking and calling me stupid. That's the tactic of someone who knoews he's wrong and can't accept it, but can't prove himself right. You can call me stupid all day, but that's not changing anyone's mind and it's not making anyone think any higher of you. I put up reasonable arguments, and you didn't. If you want me to further suppot my argument (which you once again failed to do at all), so be it. I'll add on to "The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two." Desean and Sweed are both faster than Rice. They don't come from systems that are known to produce not-so-great yet highly touted WRs. They both play more polishment, and have a better mastery of the position of WR than Rice. Desean has a much, much better burst off the line and after the catch than Rice, and Sweed is a decent bit more explosive. So, I'm waiting for you to stop blindly calling me stupid and actually talk about the "potatoes and corn."

robert_in_bigd
05-15-2007, 02:21 PM
Once again, when I put up reasonable arguments, you border on persoanlly attacking and calling me stupid. That's the tactic of someone who knoews he's wrong and can't accept it, but can't prove himself right. You can call me stupid all day, but that's not changing anyone's mind and it's not making anyone think any higher of you. I put up reasonable arguments, and you didn't. If you want me to further suppot my argument (which you once again failed to do at all), so be it. I'll add on to "The questions surrounding Rice, including a slow 40 time, being a WR in the Spurrier system, the lack of polished play, and the lack of that real explosive burst would put him behind those two." Desean and Sweed are both faster than Rice. They don't come from systems that are known to produce not-so-great yet highly touted WRs. They both play more polishment, and have a better mastery of the position of WR than Rice. Desean has a much, much better burst off the line and after the catch than Rice, and Sweed is a decent bit more explosive. So, I'm waiting for you to stop blindly calling me stupid and actually talk about the "potatoes and corn."

I BELIEVE, Rice is better than Sweed or DeSean because he runs better routes, has better hands, has great body control, can not be jammed on the line and has good game speed (ala Larry Fitzgerald).

Make it any easier for you son? Now, let us agree only time will tell.

But you are going to tell me a 40 time in their shorts is more important in evaluating talent than actual skills needed for the position at hand.

You remind me of the dopes who love Michael Vick b/c he has all the talent in the world but frankly is a bad QB because he is not accurate and makes bad decisions.

Staubach12
05-15-2007, 04:13 PM
Rice is better than Sweed or DeSean because he runs better routes, has better hands, has great body control, can not be jammed on the line and has good game speed (ala Larry Fitzgerald).

Make it any easier for you son? Now, let us agree only time will tell.

But you are going to tell me a 40 time in their shorts is more important in evaluating talent than actual skills needed for the position at hand.

You remind me of the dopes who love Michael Vick b/c he has all the talent in the world but frankly is a bad QB because he is not accurate and makes bad decisions.

I don't hold the 40 time with extremely good value. We're arguing WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN RATED. And the 40 time is very valuble to NFL executives. Tools are big for them. Take, for example, (guess who?) Sidney Rice this year. His 40 dropped him, and it would do that even next year. I'm not saying Rice is no good because of this, I'm saying Rice would have been rated lower, because it's the argument! Back to that argument. Rice's routes leave much to be desired to me. They need to be refined. However Desean and Sweed both run good routes, and they show sign of improving. You're correct on hands and body conrol, but honestly, a lot of the times, those aren't taken into account as much as speed and explosiveness before the draft (which is a real crime, but it's true). Getting off he line is questionable. Sweed and Desean do a fine job of that as does Rice. That's a close one. The game speed means nothing because DeSean is till faster, no question. So, if they were both in the same drat, Rice would be picked behind and ranked behind DeSean and Sweed, no question in my mind. BTW, I'm no Vick fan. I actually really don't like him because of the very reasons you put above.

Modano
05-15-2007, 04:18 PM
Rice is better than Sweed or DeSean because he runs better routes, has better hands, has great body control, can not be jammed on the line and has good game speed (ala Larry Fitzgerald).

Make it any easier for you son? Now, let us agree only time will tell.

But you are going to tell me a 40 time in their shorts is more important in evaluating talent than actual skills needed for the position at hand.

You remind me of the dopes who love Michael Vick b/c he has all the talent in the world but frankly is a bad QB because he is not accurate and makes bad decisions.

I really can't figure out how you can say that Rice is better than Desean Jackson. Desean Jackson, when he will declare, will be a top 10 pick.
Rice was taken after: Ted Ginn, Dwayne Bowe, Robert Meachem, Anthony Gonzalez, Craig Davis. So teams were figuring out he was worse than those players and that he had less potential, and that he didn't have first round grade in their minds. He had some good stats but his total yards were inflated because of the amount of passes they thrown to him.
And there's absolutely no way that those guys are bettere or have more potential than DeSean Jackson. I'm actually thinking that you don't even know who DeSean Jackson is.
And we can make the same argument for Limas Sweed, Malcolm Kelly, Manningham, Early Doucet or Bowman, but it's really hurting me reading that you think that Rice is better than a guy, like Jackson, who is gonna be an elite prospect.

robert_in_bigd
05-15-2007, 09:27 PM
DeSean is Ginn.

As I said, it is moot. Let us see how Rice plays.

D-Unit
05-15-2007, 10:07 PM
DeSean is Ginn.

As I said, it is moot. Let us see how Rice plays.
Complete disagreement there. Don't let the fact that DeSean can return kicks mold your opinion into calling him a Ginn. DeSean actually has good WR skills.

robert_in_bigd
05-15-2007, 10:19 PM
Complete disagreement there. Don't let the fact that DeSean can return kicks mold your opinion into calling him a Ginn. DeSean actually has good WR skills.

I have seen DeSean and I was not impressed. Need I mention the Cal passing Offense is light years ahead of Ohio State.....

But if you wish to argue DJ is better than Ginn you have my vote. I thought Ginn was over-rated since he was a Freshmen. Jackson seems to have a more robust frame.

Modano
05-16-2007, 02:46 AM
DeSean is Ginn.

As I said, it is moot. Let us see how Rice plays.

I was expecting this reply. Jakcson is as fast as Ginn but that doesn't mean that he's the same receiver. Jackson runs good route (Ginn runs 3 routes, like Joey Galloway), Jackson has good hands (Ginn not), Jackson is way more polished.

But I think at this point is awful arguing with you about that. Not taking CJ into account, this year, teams gave 5 receivers first round grade. Rice wasn't one of them, it's a great stretch to think that he should have had first round grade next year, considering that (if some of the juniors declare) it will be a very good WR class.
But for sure, Desean Jakcson will have first round grade, so it will be for another group of guys (during the season we'll see how many of them). There's no chance Rice should have been taken in the first next year, because this year there was no chance that he was going in the first but he still declared. I'm sure he's not that stupid to lose 1st round money for coming one year early.

And don't start the "they will be picked in the first round because the class is not that good" argument, because if you look back at the 2006 draft, only 1 WR was taken in the first, even if the class was very poor.

Macarthur
05-16-2007, 10:47 AM
Desean and Sweed would have gone before Rice.


I don't know if this is true, but I have to tell you, I have seen Sweed play a lot, and if he's the best WR in this draft, then it is the weakest draft ever. I want nothing to do with Sweed.

robert_in_bigd
05-16-2007, 12:08 PM
I was expecting this reply. Jakcson is as fast as Ginn but that doesn't mean that he's the same receiver. Jackson runs good route (Ginn runs 3 routes, like Joey Galloway), Jackson has good hands (Ginn not), Jackson is way more polished.

But I think at this point is awful arguing with you about that. Not taking CJ into account, this year, teams gave 5 receivers first round grade. Rice wasn't one of them, it's a great stretch to think that he should have had first round grade next year, considering that (if some of the juniors declare) it will be a very good WR class.
But for sure, Desean Jakcson will have first round grade, so it will be for another group of guys (during the season we'll see how many of them). There's no chance Rice should have been taken in the first next year, because this year there was no chance that he was going in the first but he still declared. I'm sure he's not that stupid to lose 1st round money for coming one year early.

And don't start the "they will be picked in the first round because the class is not that good" argument, because if you look back at the 2006 draft, only 1 WR was taken in the first, even if the class was very poor.

It is moot. Move on. I know what you think and so do you of me.

Achilles33
05-16-2007, 01:29 PM
Besides CJ, there are no future pro-bowl #1's in this draft. Maybe a sleeper from the 2nd day, but as prospects, there were none.

Staubach12
05-16-2007, 06:30 PM
DeSean is Ginn.

As I said, it is moot. Let us see how Rice plays.

You've got to be kidding me. That is an absolutely terrible comparison. They're both small, they're both fast, and they both are very good on special teams. That's it. Desean is a much, much more polished reveiver than Ginn, and DeSean still has another year to improve. Desean runs better routes, has better hands, is more physical, and still has the sped Ginn has. If you really think that this is a valid and respectable comparison, you need to stop pretending to know about football, and WATCH THEM! Draw your conclusions about players from the play on the field not that you heard that DeSean was fast, so he must be like Ginn. And even if that was a valid comparison, Ginn was still picked 35 picks ahead of Rice!

LonghornsLegend
05-28-2007, 05:40 PM
wow...amazing how some of you guys can be so hard on a guy when you have yet to see how he performs in pre season at the least....i know there were just the same, if not more people who thought crayton wouldnt make the team either...you cant judge how hard a player will work, or what his work ethic will be like...


yes he's a project, 50/50 chance, but its crazy to say he honestly wont amount to anything yet

herniateddisc
09-07-2009, 09:19 PM
JDNOYES & DMW ... you must have missed it ....... each pick 36 to 159 is likely on the active 45 man roster ........

36- Sidney Rice (WR) -- our replacement for Hurd or Crayton, future #1
53- Gerald Alexander (S) -- Free Safety
87- Paul Soliai (NT) -- Back up NT
122- Doug Free (LT) -- Future LT
159- Mike Coe (CB) -- Get rid of Reeves or Jones ....
195- Jacob Ford (OLB) -- Backup and special teams, Burnett replacement
200- Jordan Palmer (QB) -- Development QB
212- Ben Patrick (TE) -- Talented TE, replace Curtis
234- Brandon Siler (ILB) -- Back up for now
237- 370lbs Thomas (NT) -- Dreamy dreams

Here was my 2007 draft ......