Linebackers are still key baby! - Page 3 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

junk · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

245 pound ILB - Parcells loves him

Dexter is old and getting replaced by Big Bradie James/

Al S is what he is an average aging LB, Just another small 228 pound linebacker. That aint big in any book.

Tall, skinny maybe

And Shanle and Thorton aren't even good to enough to be called average yet. They are just bigger. Once again, bigger doesn't mean better.

I would not be at all surprised to see the starting LBs next year be James, Dat and Singleton again. For as much as the fans want to run Singleton out of town, the coaching staff sure seems happy with him.

Casual fans don't see what coaches do every day at practice and in game film. If the coaching staff is happy, I am happy.

Here is why I want guys like Singleton on the defense:
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusspt/...?id=28&spt=nfl

Jarv · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

But you know linebackers have never been THE "key" for any mainstay Dallas defense I can remember... ever. It's always been about the d-line and the secondary. And truthfully I still think it's that way no matter what some others like Nors believe (and no I'm not ripping you Ben... I agree that we do have some decent linebackers on this squad) but ultimately it will be the d-line and secondary that determine our ultimate fate as a defenense this year.

Mike, how far back in Dallas Lore do you go ? The "Flex" defense was based on the D-line locking up linemen and letting the LB's flow to the play. Ala Bob Lilly and Bruenig (sp?). LB's were key to the defense !

speedkilz88 · 09-25-2004

I have heard Spagnola before say that Singleton has to be bigger than his listed 228. Just by looking at the guy he appears closer to 240 than 228.

Hostile · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedkilz88

I have heard Spagnola before say that Singleton has to be bigger than his listed 228. Just by looking at the guy he appears closer to 240 than 228.

It would be really funny if that proved to be true.

Skeptic · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midswat

I agree.

Linebackers are the middle men of any defense, and the benefits of having a quality corps of backers can't be underestimated.

Right now, I think we have a decent group of linebackers, however I'm rather unimpressed with the play of Al Singleton.

I just never see him do anything.

And that is key.

Or something like that . . .

I don't know why, but the bold makes me read that in my head as William Shatner.

Weird.

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midswat

I didn't really mean anything . . . I just wanted to bold some stuff.

Nothing to see here . . . move along . . .

I mean the name "Midswat" goofy.

What does it mean?

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Singleton is our biggest starting LB.

Hos, he is not our biggest. Stop trying to argue semantics with Nors and admit that he is right.

Dat and Dex are big players.

Hostile · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned_n_austin

Hos, he is not our biggest. Stop trying to argue semantics with Nors and admit that he is right.

Dat and Dex are big players.

Read my other posts to Nors and educate yourself.

Midswat · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned_n_austin

I mean the name "Midswat" goofy.

What does it mean?

Thats a secret.

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Read my other posts to Nors and educate yourself.

I read all your reasons why you think Singelton is "big". Those don't matter. He's light and in football, being "light" does not mean being "big".

Nors · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned_n_austin

I read all your reasons why you think Singelton is "big". Those don't matter. He's light and in football, being "light" does not mean being "big".

To me a big LB is 245 plus.

A 228 pound LB in the NFL today is small. Roy Williams at safety is 235

junk · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

To me a big LB is 245 plus.

A 228 pound LB in the NFL today is small. Roy Williams at safety is 235

And again, big doesn't mean better. How about some of these LBs that don't meet your qualification of big.

Nick Barnett
Keith Brooking
Derrick Brooks
Dexter Coakley
Sam Cowart
Donnie Edwards
Ray Lewis
Julian Peterson
Anthony Simmons
Brian Simmons
Takeo Spikes
Zach Thomas

Not a bad list. I would take any of those guys. If Singleton was a glaring weakness, I would say it would be an area of concern. I just don't see it. Granted, he doesn't blow people up every play, but he is obviously doing his job. If an upgrade came along, take it. I doubt it is at the top of the list though.

BTW, ESPN lists Al at 236. Your "big" LBs, Shanle and Thorton are listed at 237 and 240 respectively. At that rate of size increases, it will take BP awhile to get his big LBs.

I don't care how big a guy is if he makes plays. I sure as hell wouldn't draft a bigger guy over a guy that weighs 15 lbs less if the lighter guy is more productive.

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

To me a big LB is 245 plus.

A 228 pound LB in the NFL today is small. Roy Williams at safety is 235

I agree. Weight has more to do with being "big" than height. I think most would agree. I am surprised that Singleton doesn't weigh more. He sure looks bigger, but I guess he's a tweener, eh Nors?

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by junk

And again, big doesn't mean better. How about some of these LBs that don't meet your qualification of big.

Nick Barnett
Keith Brooking
Derrick Brooks
Dexter Coakley
Sam Cowart
Donnie Edwards
Ray Lewis
Julian Peterson
Anthony Simmons
Brian Simmons
Takeo Spikes
Zach Thomas

Not a bad list. I would take any of those guys. If Singleton was a glaring weakness, I would say it would be an area of concern. I just don't see it. Granted, he doesn't blow people up every play, but he is obviously doing his job. If an upgrade came along, take it. I doubt it is at the top of the list though.

BTW, ESPN lists Al at 236. Your "big" LBs, Shanle and Thorton are listed at 237 and 240 respectively. At that rate of size increases, it will take BP awhile to get his big LBs.

[View Full Quote]

Nice analogy.

This is what my whole post is really about. While some will say Dat and Dex are small guys, they're really not. They are just compact. They have a lot of muscle on them.

Of course, there are bigger LB's, but Dat is deceptive, so is Dex.

I've been taking heat for these guys for a while. I always hear about how small they are etc. But these guys are playmakers and don't get the props they deserve. Especially Dex. They are key to the defense, especially in Zimmer's scheme. He uses their abilities to his advantage (most of the time).

Dat and Dex are the Rodney Dangerfields of the Dallas Cowboys.

Banned_n_austin · 09-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

But you know linebackers have never been THE "key" for any mainstay Dallas defense I can remember... ever. It's always been about the d-line and the secondary. And truthfully I still think it's that way no matter what some others like Nors believe (and no I'm not ripping you Ben... I agree that we do have some decent linebackers on this squad) but ultimately it will be the d-line and secondary that determine our ultimate fate as a defenense this year.

Nope, just like last year. The LB's will pick up the slack of the front four. We have almost nothing up front and we really didn't last year.

I'd say last year was the year that the LB's were "key" to the #1 defense.

It surely wasn't the defensive line.