Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas Cowboys Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by draftguru151
    Originally posted by Poet3334
    Originally posted by draftguru151
    Does anyone have the video of Williams intercepting mcnabb last year?
    That's the picture in my avatar.
    Nice, just trying to get the video, one of my friends is an Eagle's fan, just trying to bring up some nice memories.
    I managed to find it at a site called cowboysvids.com. I can link it, but it's there under the archives section.


    "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
    Albert Camus

    Comment


    • Originally posted by draftguru151
      Originally posted by Poet3334
      Originally posted by draftguru151
      Does anyone have the video of Williams intercepting mcnabb last year?
      That's the picture in my avatar.
      Nice, just trying to get the video, one of my friends is an Eagle's fan, just trying to bring up some nice memories.
      it's like second highlight in- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI16QMQvv_A



      EDIT: just checked out the one Poet posted and it is better.

      Comment


      • I have VERY HIGH hopes for Miles Austin. I like him a lot.

        I think he could be our future #1 receiver.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by D-Unit
          I have VERY HIGH hopes for Miles Austin. I like him a lot.

          I think he could be our future #1 receiver.
          I like Sam Hurd better personally. Two different kinds of players, but I think Hurd is going to be big-time.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by D-Unit
            I'm with BBD.

            Stats are like bikinis... they show some things, but not all.

            LSU, pull that bikini down and you'll see what we see!
            Actually No, the numbers only show the truth. Your quote is generally a quote that someone says when they have their mind made up and refuse to use actual numbers to validate their point.

            When taken in context, numbers tell the WHOLE story. It's like a respected coach once said, you are what you are. People say all the time that a team is 'not really a 500 team' or a team is 'not nearly as good as the record indicates'. Well, no, actually they are. Trends can be used to qualify that statement, but you can't use trends without Data to make your point.

            For instance, the 'best' team in the NFL over the course of the season has been the Chicago Bears. Both by record and by the quality of play. Now, notice I said the course of the season. Also, the best team in the last 8 games has been the Dallas Cowboys. (Data supplied by footballoutsiders.com). Now, you can analyze everything you want in the NFL, but if you want to look at the offensive production of the Dallas Cowboys you have to say the OL has been performing Good.

            Could it be improved? Sure, but that's where we differ on the use of the money / draft picks. The dfference between a 1st round OL and a 5th round OL is not nearly as great as a 1st round CB and a 5th Round CB or a 1st round WR and a 5th round WR.

            Diminshing returns, that's the key component to realize in the draft and in Free Agency.

            That's why I'm opposed to drafting an OL in the first round of the draft. The potential for impact isn't as great as in a 'skill' position player.

            Designs by Thule



            Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
            I just wanna warn you guys not to take TNew41 too seriously. He's....let's just say, special. He's fairly harmless, though. He just needs several years of seasoning before he tries to make any more points, is all.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LSUALUM99
              Originally posted by D-Unit
              I'm with BBD.

              Stats are like bikinis... they show some things, but not all.

              LSU, pull that bikini down and you'll see what we see!
              Actually No, the numbers only show the truth. Your quote is generally a quote that someone says when they have their mind made up and refuse to use actual numbers to validate their point.

              When taken in context, numbers tell the WHOLE story. It's like a respected coach once said, you are what you are. People say all the time that a team is 'not really a 500 team' or a team is 'not nearly as good as the record indicates'. Well, no, actually they are. Trends can be used to qualify that statement, but you can't use trends without Data to make your point.

              For instance, the 'best' team in the NFL over the course of the season has been the Chicago Bears. Both by record and by the quality of play. Now, notice I said the course of the season. Also, the best team in the last 8 games has been the Dallas Cowboys. (Data supplied by footballoutsiders.com). Now, you can analyze everything you want in the NFL, but if you want to look at the offensive production of the Dallas Cowboys you have to say the OL has been performing Good.

              Could it be improved? Sure, but that's where we differ on the use of the money / draft picks. The dfference between a 1st round OL and a 5th round OL is not nearly as great as a 1st round CB and a 5th Round CB or a 1st round WR and a 5th round WR.

              Diminshing returns, that's the key component to realize in the draft and in Free Agency.

              That's why I'm opposed to drafting an OL in the first round of the draft. The potential for impact isn't as great as in a 'skill' position player.
              We just have a difference of opinion on this one. Im highly opposed to the notions that stats can tell the whole story, if thats the case, then Elway wasn't a great quarterback because he had a mid 50s completion %, and we all know that to be a poor assumption. If thats also the case, than most years the team with the best record should win the superbowl, since logic tells you moreos than not, the best team should win. However we know that to be incorrect, the best record usually doesn't win the SB if anything.

              I also have a difference of opinion on draft quality. I personally feel that skill position players are highly overrated. I think its more important to build your trenches in the early rounds. You can have the best WR in the world, if you don't have an oline that can give him time to run routes, he's worthless. See Andre Johnson and Eric Moulds as an example. At the same time, you can have an average WR, if he has 5 seconds to get open, he'll get open. See KC's WR core, Philly's WR core, or SD's core as examples of that. It all starts with the lines, on both sides of the ball. Id invest my money in the trenches before anything else. Especially on a team with no glaring weakness at the skill positions like yours.

              But drafting/FA philosophies are just that. There truely is no right or wrong answer in the approach. Thats just a difference of opinion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by $KidCowboy$
                Originally posted by bigbluedefense
                Any concerns over TO's drops this year? He couldve kept some key drives going in that game had he not dropped the ball. That could come back and haunt you guys in a key moment in the playoffs if he doesn't work on that.
                TO has alligator arms. Most have his drops have been when he loses concentration on the ball either looking for a hit upfield or expecting one. It's very easy to have happen. Being a wide reciever myself, the hardest thing is keeping your eye on the ball going across the middle. But..it's something a NFL superstar reciever should be able to to. Even if you watch replays of the ones that a hit was not coming, you can see his eyes are upfield rather on the ball. It's something I hope Haley is trying to correct..But hey, hes top 5 in almost every NFC WR catagory, so I'll take the drops..for now.

                Now that I'm on the topic of WR's...
                If you can find it, watch the video of Terry Glenn getting of the line on his deep in against the Giants. I watched it on NFLNetwork. Unbelievable how quick he is. I love him. Top 3 or 4 number 2 recievers in the league without a doubt. He seems to be stronger this year too, more power after the catch...when he decides to run with it. Both him and TO have been blocking tremendously downfield.

                Patrick Crayton keeps impressing me. He makes tremendous catches, and his concentration is what TO should watch tape of. Takes contact and RARELY drops balls. On the out that was almost intercepted by Wilson, his concentration was amazing to be able to catch that ball after seeing it go through a players hands. He's a natural hands catcher, unlike TO. Also blocks well. Great learning curve for a "QB/WR/Return Specialist" coming out of college. Plays like a vet. I belive that it was him blocking on that big swing pass to Glenn.

                Miles Austin is close to breaking one on a kickoff. I thought losing Tyson Thompson was going to be a huge loss, but im liking Austin more and more every week. Big, strong, fast. HUGE calves. "Goofy" according to Parcells (rookie awareness). We had great field position against NYG off kickoffs. A MAJOR factor in our win.

                Sam Hurd=lucky. Twice this season he's been in the right place in the right time and has had a HUGE impact on the game. The recoveries against the Panthers and of Kiwi's fumble were huge.
                I also agree that Crayton is gonna be a good player. If you noticed, Crayton and Romo have great chemistry. Romo is very comfortable checking down to Crayton, and he's an important piece to this offense for Romo. He has sure hands, and will make tough catches. He's like your Toomer, he keeps drives going when s--t hits the fan. I think he's a solid 3, and with more time to develop, can become a solid 2 as a possession receiver.

                Comment


                • http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6242424


                  Check the rankings --- again, the rankings here are not some random determination. It's based on the fact that they analyze all the plays in the NFL for each weak statistically.

                  Designs by Thule



                  Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                  I just wanna warn you guys not to take TNew41 too seriously. He's....let's just say, special. He's fairly harmless, though. He just needs several years of seasoning before he tries to make any more points, is all.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ward
                    Originally posted by D-Unit
                    I have VERY HIGH hopes for Miles Austin. I like him a lot.

                    I think he could be our future #1 receiver.
                    I like Sam Hurd better personally. Two different kinds of players, but I think Hurd is going to be big-time.
                    I think they're going to compliment each other very well. I think this young group has tremendous potential.


                    "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
                    Albert Camus

                    Comment


                    • You're seeing better O-line play because of Romo, but more importantly, I think there is better cohesion between the group. Playing together speaks volumes for a unit. Our line is an example of that. Are they perfect? Not by any means, but they are gelling. You can make a case for LSU's argument because of the success we're having. You can make a case for D-Unit and BBD's argument because having consistent quality depth in the trenches is crucial in the league today. I enjoy the posts you guys make. Excellent reads.


                      "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
                      Albert Camus

                      Comment


                      • http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2688355


                        What do you guys think?


                        "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
                        Albert Camus

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Poet3334
                          http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2688355


                          What do you guys think?
                          Parrish? I don't think there's any reason to sign him at this point.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bigbluedefense
                            Originally posted by LSUALUM99
                            Originally posted by D-Unit
                            I'm with BBD.

                            Stats are like bikinis... they show some things, but not all.

                            LSU, pull that bikini down and you'll see what we see!
                            Actually No, the numbers only show the truth. Your quote is generally a quote that someone says when they have their mind made up and refuse to use actual numbers to validate their point.

                            When taken in context, numbers tell the WHOLE story. It's like a respected coach once said, you are what you are. People say all the time that a team is 'not really a 500 team' or a team is 'not nearly as good as the record indicates'. Well, no, actually they are. Trends can be used to qualify that statement, but you can't use trends without Data to make your point.

                            For instance, the 'best' team in the NFL over the course of the season has been the Chicago Bears. Both by record and by the quality of play. Now, notice I said the course of the season. Also, the best team in the last 8 games has been the Dallas Cowboys. (Data supplied by footballoutsiders.com). Now, you can analyze everything you want in the NFL, but if you want to look at the offensive production of the Dallas Cowboys you have to say the OL has been performing Good.

                            Could it be improved? Sure, but that's where we differ on the use of the money / draft picks. The dfference between a 1st round OL and a 5th round OL is not nearly as great as a 1st round CB and a 5th Round CB or a 1st round WR and a 5th round WR.

                            Diminshing returns, that's the key component to realize in the draft and in Free Agency.

                            That's why I'm opposed to drafting an OL in the first round of the draft. The potential for impact isn't as great as in a 'skill' position player.
                            We just have a difference of opinion on this one. Im highly opposed to the notions that stats can tell the whole story, if thats the case, then Elway wasn't a great quarterback because he had a mid 50s completion %, and we all know that to be a poor assumption. If thats also the case, than most years the team with the best record should win the superbowl, since logic tells you moreos than not, the best team should win. However we know that to be incorrect, the best record usually doesn't win the SB if anything.

                            I also have a difference of opinion on draft quality. I personally feel that skill position players are highly overrated. I think its more important to build your trenches in the early rounds. You can have the best WR in the world, if you don't have an oline that can give him time to run routes, he's worthless. See Andre Johnson and Eric Moulds as an example. At the same time, you can have an average WR, if he has 5 seconds to get open, he'll get open. See KC's WR core, Philly's WR core, or SD's core as examples of that. It all starts with the lines, on both sides of the ball. Id invest my money in the trenches before anything else. Especially on a team with no glaring weakness at the skill positions like yours.

                            But drafting/FA philosophies are just that. There truely is no right or wrong answer in the approach. Thats just a difference of opinion.
                            I agree with both of you, in spots. First of all, of all the positions in the NFL to evaluate, OT is said to be the easiest and least risky. Simply put, there are less moving parts/variables to take into account, and you usually don't have the added burden of dealing with the "swollen head syndrome" that skill position players get when they start having success, because OL generally go unnoticed, and hence un-flattered.

                            Because of all this, the absolute cream of the crop O-lineman rarely ever escape notice. Usually when they do, it's a result of them playing for a small school (like LA), or injuries/lack of opportunity to show what they have. Hence, you are almost never going to get a shot at the Pace, Ogden, Boselli, Munoz, Walter Jones, Hutchinson, Roaf, Faneca or Andrews types without using a top pick on them.

                            We have no shot at the top OTs this year because of our draft position likely being in the late 20s to early 30s. However, because OGs are thought to be less valuable and/or rare, the top prospects at that position usually drop down to the second half of round one. This year, to me, the only guy fitting that profile has got to be Blalock. If we go OL in round 1, it has to be him, period. I don't want to take a shot at the second tier OTs like Levi Brown. I would much rather wait until at least the end of round 2 to take a shot at a OT, and even then I would rather not.

                            To me, there are two types of O-lineman. The can't-miss kind and the developmental kind. Usually it takes a top 20 pick to get ahold of the can't misses, and the developmental kind can be found almost as easily at the end of round 6 as the end of round 1. So, to me, it's either Thomas, Long, Baker or Blalock in the 1st, or wait til later.

                            I do not think we have a huge need at OL. However, I would agree that it is probably our biggest one, simply because of the lack of holes elsewhere. But if we are going to draft one that high, I want a dominator inside like Justin. Otherwise, we can bolster it with some later round developmental types.

                            I am on board with the idea of building a dominant offensive line, and if we have a shot at that, we should definitely go for it. The value of having a unit like that cannot be overstated. Our success in the early 90s all began up front with those big boys.


                            I'm starting to think that we should take a look at Anthony Spencer, though. We simply must have more pressure on the QB, and if that means bringing him in to play ROLB and moving DeMarcus to SOLB, then so be it, but we just are not generating enough pressure, and that cannot be accepted.

                            Our needs, imo:

                            1. OG/OL
                            2. FS
                            3. Pass rush
                            4. Pass rush
                            5. Pass rush
                            6. Pass rush
                            7. RB
                            Originally posted by 21ST
                            He was protecting his self
                            Originally posted by tjsunstein
                            From what? His leg?
                            Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck
                            That leg has had it out for him since day 1.
                            "We're the quiet guys, the guys before the storm. And then we hit you."

                            DeMarcus Ware

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                              Originally posted by bigbluedefense
                              Originally posted by LSUALUM99
                              Originally posted by D-Unit
                              I'm with BBD.

                              Stats are like bikinis... they show some things, but not all.

                              LSU, pull that bikini down and you'll see what we see!
                              Actually No, the numbers only show the truth. Your quote is generally a quote that someone says when they have their mind made up and refuse to use actual numbers to validate their point.

                              When taken in context, numbers tell the WHOLE story. It's like a respected coach once said, you are what you are. People say all the time that a team is 'not really a 500 team' or a team is 'not nearly as good as the record indicates'. Well, no, actually they are. Trends can be used to qualify that statement, but you can't use trends without Data to make your point.

                              For instance, the 'best' team in the NFL over the course of the season has been the Chicago Bears. Both by record and by the quality of play. Now, notice I said the course of the season. Also, the best team in the last 8 games has been the Dallas Cowboys. (Data supplied by footballoutsiders.com). Now, you can analyze everything you want in the NFL, but if you want to look at the offensive production of the Dallas Cowboys you have to say the OL has been performing Good.

                              Could it be improved? Sure, but that's where we differ on the use of the money / draft picks. The dfference between a 1st round OL and a 5th round OL is not nearly as great as a 1st round CB and a 5th Round CB or a 1st round WR and a 5th round WR.

                              Diminshing returns, that's the key component to realize in the draft and in Free Agency.

                              That's why I'm opposed to drafting an OL in the first round of the draft. The potential for impact isn't as great as in a 'skill' position player.
                              We just have a difference of opinion on this one. Im highly opposed to the notions that stats can tell the whole story, if thats the case, then Elway wasn't a great quarterback because he had a mid 50s completion %, and we all know that to be a poor assumption. If thats also the case, than most years the team with the best record should win the superbowl, since logic tells you moreos than not, the best team should win. However we know that to be incorrect, the best record usually doesn't win the SB if anything.

                              I also have a difference of opinion on draft quality. I personally feel that skill position players are highly overrated. I think its more important to build your trenches in the early rounds. You can have the best WR in the world, if you don't have an oline that can give him time to run routes, he's worthless. See Andre Johnson and Eric Moulds as an example. At the same time, you can have an average WR, if he has 5 seconds to get open, he'll get open. See KC's WR core, Philly's WR core, or SD's core as examples of that. It all starts with the lines, on both sides of the ball. Id invest my money in the trenches before anything else. Especially on a team with no glaring weakness at the skill positions like yours.

                              But drafting/FA philosophies are just that. There truely is no right or wrong answer in the approach. Thats just a difference of opinion.
                              I agree with both of you, in spots. First of all, of all the positions in the NFL to evaluate, OT is said to be the easiest and least risky. Simply put, there are less moving parts/variables to take into account, and you usually don't have the added burden of dealing with the "swollen head syndrome" that skill position players get when they start having success, because OL generally go unnoticed, and hence un-flattered.

                              Because of all this, the absolute cream of the crop O-lineman rarely ever escape notice. Usually when they do, it's a result of them playing for a small school (like LA), or injuries/lack of opportunity to show what they have. Hence, you are almost never going to get a shot at the Pace, Ogden, Boselli, Munoz, Walter Jones, Hutchinson, Roaf, Faneca or Andrews types without using a top pick on them.

                              We have no shot at the top OTs this year because of our draft position likely being in the late 20s to early 30s. However, because OGs are thought to be less valuable and/or rare, the top prospects at that position usually drop down to the second half of round one. This year, to me, the only guy fitting that profile has got to be Blalock. If we go OL in round 1, it has to be him, period. I don't want to take a shot at the second tier OTs like Levi Brown. I would much rather wait until at least the end of round 2 to take a shot at a OT, and even then I would rather not.

                              To me, there are two types of O-lineman. The can't-miss kind and the developmental kind. Usually it takes a top 20 pick to get ahold of the can't misses, and the developmental kind can be found almost as easily at the end of round 6 as the end of round 1. So, to me, it's either Thomas, Long, Baker or Blalock in the 1st, or wait til later.

                              I do not think we have a huge need at OL. However, I would agree that it is probably our biggest one, simply because of the lack of holes elsewhere. But if we are going to draft one that high, I want a dominator inside like Justin. Otherwise, we can bolster it with some later round developmental types.

                              I am on board with the idea of building a dominant offensive line, and if we have a shot at that, we should definitely go for it. The value of having a unit like that cannot be overstated. Our success in the early 90s all began up front with those big boys.


                              I'm starting to think that we should take a look at Anthony Spencer, though. We simply must have more pressure on the QB, and if that means bringing him in to play ROLB and moving DeMarcus to SOLB, then so be it, but we just are not generating enough pressure, and that cannot be accepted.

                              Our needs, imo:

                              1. OG/OL
                              2. FS
                              3. Pass rush
                              4. Pass rush
                              5. Pass rush
                              6. Pass rush
                              7. RB
                              Excellent point. I go back and forth with drafting another hybrid given the depth with have at that position. But the lack of pressure is troubling. I think we should also consider briging in a penetrating DT to provide push up the middle. That would help our all of our linebackers get better pressure. All of those near misses DWare has would be sacks since the QB wouldn't have anywhere to go.


                              "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
                              Albert Camus

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                                Originally posted by bigbluedefense
                                Originally posted by LSUALUM99
                                Originally posted by D-Unit
                                I'm with BBD.

                                Stats are like bikinis... they show some things, but not all.

                                LSU, pull that bikini down and you'll see what we see!
                                Actually No, the numbers only show the truth. Your quote is generally a quote that someone says when they have their mind made up and refuse to use actual numbers to validate their point.

                                When taken in context, numbers tell the WHOLE story. It's like a respected coach once said, you are what you are. People say all the time that a team is 'not really a 500 team' or a team is 'not nearly as good as the record indicates'. Well, no, actually they are. Trends can be used to qualify that statement, but you can't use trends without Data to make your point.

                                For instance, the 'best' team in the NFL over the course of the season has been the Chicago Bears. Both by record and by the quality of play. Now, notice I said the course of the season. Also, the best team in the last 8 games has been the Dallas Cowboys. (Data supplied by footballoutsiders.com). Now, you can analyze everything you want in the NFL, but if you want to look at the offensive production of the Dallas Cowboys you have to say the OL has been performing Good.

                                Could it be improved? Sure, but that's where we differ on the use of the money / draft picks. The dfference between a 1st round OL and a 5th round OL is not nearly as great as a 1st round CB and a 5th Round CB or a 1st round WR and a 5th round WR.

                                Diminshing returns, that's the key component to realize in the draft and in Free Agency.

                                That's why I'm opposed to drafting an OL in the first round of the draft. The potential for impact isn't as great as in a 'skill' position player.
                                We just have a difference of opinion on this one. Im highly opposed to the notions that stats can tell the whole story, if thats the case, then Elway wasn't a great quarterback because he had a mid 50s completion %, and we all know that to be a poor assumption. If thats also the case, than most years the team with the best record should win the superbowl, since logic tells you moreos than not, the best team should win. However we know that to be incorrect, the best record usually doesn't win the SB if anything.

                                I also have a difference of opinion on draft quality. I personally feel that skill position players are highly overrated. I think its more important to build your trenches in the early rounds. You can have the best WR in the world, if you don't have an oline that can give him time to run routes, he's worthless. See Andre Johnson and Eric Moulds as an example. At the same time, you can have an average WR, if he has 5 seconds to get open, he'll get open. See KC's WR core, Philly's WR core, or SD's core as examples of that. It all starts with the lines, on both sides of the ball. Id invest my money in the trenches before anything else. Especially on a team with no glaring weakness at the skill positions like yours.

                                But drafting/FA philosophies are just that. There truely is no right or wrong answer in the approach. Thats just a difference of opinion.
                                I agree with both of you, in spots. First of all, of all the positions in the NFL to evaluate, OT is said to be the easiest and least risky. Simply put, there are less moving parts/variables to take into account, and you usually don't have the added burden of dealing with the "swollen head syndrome" that skill position players get when they start having success, because OL generally go unnoticed, and hence un-flattered.

                                Because of all this, the absolute cream of the crop O-lineman rarely ever escape notice. Usually when they do, it's a result of them playing for a small school (like LA), or injuries/lack of opportunity to show what they have. Hence, you are almost never going to get a shot at the Pace, Ogden, Boselli, Munoz, Walter Jones, Hutchinson, Roaf, Faneca or Andrews types without using a top pick on them.

                                We have no shot at the top OTs this year because of our draft position likely being in the late 20s to early 30s. However, because OGs are thought to be less valuable and/or rare, the top prospects at that position usually drop down to the second half of round one. This year, to me, the only guy fitting that profile has got to be Blalock. If we go OL in round 1, it has to be him, period. I don't want to take a shot at the second tier OTs like Levi Brown. I would much rather wait until at least the end of round 2 to take a shot at a OT, and even then I would rather not.

                                To me, there are two types of O-lineman. The can't-miss kind and the developmental kind. Usually it takes a top 20 pick to get ahold of the can't misses, and the developmental kind can be found almost as easily at the end of round 6 as the end of round 1. So, to me, it's either Thomas, Long, Baker or Blalock in the 1st, or wait til later.

                                I do not think we have a huge need at OL. However, I would agree that it is probably our biggest one, simply because of the lack of holes elsewhere. But if we are going to draft one that high, I want a dominator inside like Justin. Otherwise, we can bolster it with some later round developmental types.

                                I am on board with the idea of building a dominant offensive line, and if we have a shot at that, we should definitely go for it. The value of having a unit like that cannot be overstated. Our success in the early 90s all began up front with those big boys.


                                I'm starting to think that we should take a look at Anthony Spencer, though. We simply must have more pressure on the QB, and if that means bringing him in to play ROLB and moving DeMarcus to SOLB, then so be it, but we just are not generating enough pressure, and that cannot be accepted.

                                Our needs, imo:

                                1. OG/OL
                                2. FS
                                3. Pass rush
                                4. Pass rush
                                5. Pass rush
                                6. Pass rush
                                7. RB
                                Excellent point. I go back and forth with drafting another hybrid given the depth with have at that position. But the lack of pressure is troubling. I think we should also consider briging in a penetrating DT to provide push up the middle. That would help our all of our linebackers get better pressure. All of those near misses DWare has would be sacks since the QB wouldn't have anywhere to go.


                                "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
                                Albert Camus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information