Free Safety- don't get it - Dallas Cowboys Forum

BARRYRAY · 04-25-2006

I don't get why everyone is in a panic about free safety, surely between Coleman and the others we can get by this year, we have more immediate needs in the LB and 0-line area, a back up nt is there as well, not sure a wr/kr is not higher than FS, I guess others see it differently..

Bob Sacamano · 04-25-2006

I don't want to simply "get by" at FS, I want to stockpile another talent there, and let the best man win out of 4 credible candidates so we know FS won't be a problem spot, or have a better chance of it not being such

austintodallas · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARRYRAY

I don't get why everyone is in a panic about free safety, surely between Coleman and the others we can get by this year, we have more immediate needs in the LB and 0-line area, a back up nt is there as well, not sure a wr/kr is not higher than FS, I guess others see it differently..

I tend to agree with you. By solidifying the front seven, FS becomes less of a critical issue.

Of course we'd like to have a stud at every position but that's just not realistic.

conner01 · 04-25-2006

there is no reason why we can't fix several spots with this draft. as an example you could get your lb in rnd 1,fs in rnd 2,oline in rnd 3,nt in rnd 4 or later

aikemirv · 04-25-2006

I can understand why u think we can get by with what we have, but I can't understand why you would complain about fans being in a panic after watching the last 2 years of our FS play!!

InmanRoshi · 04-25-2006

We already have way too much allocated to the secondary, and it will only get more imbalanced as Roy and TNew play out their first contracts and start negotiating for the 2nd.

Most teams ... somehow, someway ... get buy without 4 premium free agents/first round draft picks starting at each spot in the secondary.

aikemirv · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

We already have way too much allocated to the secondary, and it will only get more imbalanced as Roy and TNew play out their first contracts and start negotiating for the 2nd.

Most teams ... somehow, someway ... get buy without 4 premium free agents/first round draft picks starting at each spot in the secondary.

Is the fact that we have not gotten by due to porr pass rush or to the poor coverage ability of our SS? Or maybe a combo of both.

InmanRoshi · 04-25-2006

Depends on what you mean by not getting by. I seem to remember the defense being the stalwarts of the team for at least the past 5-6 years. Two of the last three years we've finished in the top 10 in pass defense. We played a lot of close games last year that came to the last drive. We roughly won half and lost half, which is pretty typical. The defense always gets the blame, but maybe we would be less susceptable to late comeback rallies if we actually had an offense and a running game that could put a team away. I don't remember Thomas Everett, Kenneth Gant and James Washington leading the list on many Pro Bowl ballots, yet somehow it didn't undermine those teams.

Chocolate Lab · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

We already have way too much allocated to the secondary, and it will only get more imbalanced as Roy and TNew play out their first contracts and start negotiating for the 2nd.

Most teams ... somehow, someway ... get buy without 4 premium free agents/first round draft picks starting at each spot in the secondary.

It's that we've been scarred from years of incompetent play there... So I think people want to overcompensate and put more resources than are necessary there.

IMO if Beriault's knees had held up, he'd have been pretty competent by the end of last year, and this wouldn't be nearly the concern it seems to be now.

BTW, agree 100% with your comment on the offense. Our D has had the luxury of playing with a decent lead very, very few times over the last few years.

aikemirv · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

Depends on what you mean by not getting by. I seem to remember the defense being the stalwarts of the team for at least the past 5-6 years. We played a lot of close games last year. We roughly won half and lost half. Maybe we would be less susceptable to late comeback rallies if we actually had an offense and a running game that could put a team away. I don't remember Thomas Everett, Kenneth Gant and James Washington leading the list on many Pro Bowl ballots, yet somehow it didn't undermine the entire team.

They did not make pro bowls, but either the talent around them or their talent made it so that it was not a weak spot. The 2004 defensive demise was due greatly to the secondary play and no pass rush (namely the loss of D Woodson and Willie Blade)

2005, we lost the skins game due to poor S play and very well should have lost the Carolina game to poor FS play.

InmanRoshi · 04-25-2006

And neither of the plays given up by the Skins involved the FS. Besides, I don't call losing to the Skins 14-13 a defensive meltdown. I call it the law of averages catching up. When you control the entire game and only put up 13 points, you are just asking to lose. Teams behind at the end of games go into high-rish/high reward mode. We always remember the times it works and forget the times it doesn't.

kartr · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by summerisfunner

I don't want to simply "get by" at FS, I want to stockpile another talent there, and let the best man win out of 4 credible candidates so we know FS won't be a problem spot, or have a better chance of it not being such

Improving our middle of the road pass rush with guys like Jonathan Lewis or Barry Cofield will cure our FS problems. We havent finished in the top ten in pass rushing in a dozen years or more. We had a good D-line draft last year, now let's finish making that unit dominant and the rest of the defense will fall into place, especially if we also target Richard Marshall at cb. Marshall and Lewis will accomplish the goal of creating more turnovers as Lewis is a sack artist and Marshall, a ball-hawking corner who is great in run support too.

aikemirv · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

And neither of the plays given up by the Skins involved the FS. Besides, I don't call losing to the Skins 14-13 a defensive meltdown. I call it the law of averages catching up. When you control the entire game and only put up 13 points, you are just asking to lose.

Maybe so, which is why I put in one of my earlier post that one of the reasons is due to the poor coverage ability of RW. We had a few late meltdowns last year - namely the Giants which we escaped with in OT and Seattle in which we held them all game and could not stop in the 4th Qtr and ended up losing.

I am just saying that we have had a liability with the safety position the last couple of years and since RW is not a good cover safety and because our Pass rush has not been stellar then we might need an above avergae FS to fill the void.

Two SS back there do not work if one of them is not named D Woodson.

**Idgit** · 04-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

And neither of the plays given up by the Skins involved the FS. Besides, I don't call losing to the Skins 14-13 a defensive meltdown. I call it the law of averages catching up. When you control the entire game and only put up 13 points, you are just asking to lose. Teams behind at the end of games go into high-rish/high reward mode. We always remember the times it works and forget the times it doesn't.

Inman, I'm really glad you have the stamina to address this topic every time it comes up. It's tiresome reading through it whenever it surfaces in a thread, and I know there are a lot of us who don't have the patience to squash it every time it pops up. I'm glad you do.

Yakuza Rich · 04-25-2006

Getting a pure FS in the first round would be a poor choice.

Now, getting a good CB in the first round would be a reasonable choice.

Anthony Henry turns 29 this year and Aaron Glenn turns 33 this year. Both of those guys can really play, but are up there in age. They do have Jacques Reeves, who I really like and think he'll be a pretty good RCB some day. However, you still want to have at least 3 quality CB's on your roster and at least 1 serviceable one in case of injury.

Glenn could very well retire soon and while I like Henry as a RCB, there's always a solid chance he could lose too much of a step in the next season or two where he would be unable to be an effective CB because he's getting older.

So, if there's a truly great CB still on the board, I could see why Dallas would want to take him. Especially since this draft is loaded with pass rushing OLB's that they could find in round two.

By getting a good CB, they'd be more than set for the next 4 years with Newman, Reeves, and the rook....along with Henry and Glenn. So, I can see why they would be big on Huff who has quality FS experience. He can start off at CB and they can try Henry (who has played FS in the NFL) or Reeves at FS. If Henry and Reeves are better off at CB, then they could just put Huff at FS for now. Belichick had the same scenario with Eugene Wilson who was supposed to be their CB, but they put him at FS due to injuries and he blossomed.

Other than that, I think they'll almost definitely go after OLB since Wimbley, Carpenter, and Lawson seem like no-brainers. At least one of these guys should be around at #18, if not all three.

Rich...................