News: Bo + Austin = the end for Rod Smith?

[Melonfeud]

Depends on how he does in PS. He is going to get a ton of carries.

He has played ST. Everyone at AL does. His main issue is pass blocking. That being said our second string line is going to be decent with Martin, Fleming, Looney, and Edwards and he could very easily look really good in turn. I imagine Williams is going to get extra snaps over the frontline starters.

And he is a 230 lbs power back. We don't "need" him but we are a running team and we need 3 quality runners. Going with 2 just doesn't make sense to me.

,,,er,,,like that 'sense' of carrying Darren #20 Mcfadden for basically the entire season unplayed last year ,Fuzzy?
,,,,,,man,I've long since quit even trying to figure out the brilliant contingency plans command had in store for him&that "plan Z" he'd of been an intrical part of,in that brain fart of a thought process

 

[Alexander]

Not really on topic, but the idea that this staff views Rod Smith as a 1K back scares me.

It reeks of the Randle idiocy where they believe that "anyone can run behind this line".

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

,,,er,,,like that 'sense' of carrying Darren #20 Mcfadden for basically the entire season unplayed last year ,Fuzzy?
,,,,,,man,I've long since quit even trying to figure out the brilliant contingency plans command had in store for him&that "plan Z" he'd of been an intrical part of,in that brain fart of a thought process

They carried 4 RB options last year. It's a good thing that they kept the 4th after McFadden didn't work out. Smith played well down the stretch.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really on topic, but the idea that this staff views Rod Smith as a 1K back scares me.

It reeks of the Randle idiocy where they believe that "anyone can run behind this line".

What staff member claimed that?

 

[DiResta]

Zeke dont need a Fullback!

Jason Garrett says Zeke will have a fullback

 

[Alexander]

What staff member claimed that?

Sewing circle chatter from Twitter about how the staff views Smith.

Calm down, Fuzzy Wuzzy Lumpkins.

 

[DiResta]

Not really on topic, but the idea that this staff views Rod Smith as a 1K back scares me.

It reeks of the Randle idiocy where they believe that "anyone can run behind this line".

based on what they did in the past they would bring in veteran help if Zeke were going to miss more than a short stretch
Rod is just the backup and maybe 1 series guy
not saying its my preferred policy but its the way they function

maybe a guy like Murray or whatever

 

[Alexander]

based on what they did in the past they would bring in veteran help if Zeke were going to miss more than a short stretch
Rod is just the backup and maybe 1 series guy
not saying its my preferred policy but its the way they function

maybe a guy like Murray or whatever

They are not bringing in a vet.

They had McFadden around the last few years to scratch an old itch.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sewing circle chatter from Twitter about how the staff views Smith.

Calm down, Fuzzy Wuzzy Lumpkins.

I have all the major DFW area sportswriters on follow and saw no such thing. You not know how to link tweets?

Or you think we should just accept your hearsay on face value? I bet you are that arrogant.

 

[Alexander]

I have all the major DFW area sportswriters on follow and saw no such thing. You not know how to link tweets?

Or you think we should just accept your hearsay on face value? I bet you are that arrogant.

LOL

I thought I made it pretty clear it was Twitter subculture chatter.

But hey, you want more "mainstream"? Shove it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL

I thought I made it pretty clear it was Twitter subculture chatter.

But hey, you want more "mainstream"? Shove it.

You not know how to link those either? It's not hard.

I want something from a confirmed source. You cannot provide one so you try to dissemble with this faux derision. Just admit you cannot prove your claim and move on. It shouldn't be a big deal yet you insist on this passive aggressive nonsense, peaches.

 

[Alexander]

You not know how to link those either? It's not hard.

I want something from a confirmed source. You cannot provide one so you try to dissemble with this faux derision. Just admit you cannot prove your claim and move on. It shouldn't be a big deal yet you insist on this passive aggressive nonsense, peaches.

LOL
Here is your "link".



I never thought it would be necessary to provide proof of hen house chatter, but here you go.

If you are dense enough to think that anyone in the media is a "confirmed source", good luck these days.

As far as making things a "big deal", the only one I see around doing so is you, demanding "links" for what has already been established as just talk.

 

[Melonfeud]

You not know how to link those either? It's not hard.

I want something from a confirmed source. You cannot provide one so you try to dissemble with this faux derision. Just admit you cannot prove your claim and move on. It shouldn't be a big deal yet you insist on this passive aggressive nonsense, peaches.

+1 point awarded for the seldom, IF EVER,,,?,,, before witnessed verbiage in the utilization of the word of "DERISION"! ,,,,( man alive! I had a about a 6'5" 275 pounder of an EXTRA DEEP TANNED ,,,E-7 gunny that would grind out all that meanness of his inner being while I was in the the


corps upon me, it seemed,,,YET! That negro was a mere piker as compared to the invectives & designs of my very own Fathers 'game')

aptly chosen & deftly employed,,,and it's about DAMN TIME,,,TOO!



* @Alexander ,,, I love you bro!& this post ain't agin' you,,, in no way,shape nor form my highly esteemed fellow,,,you ought'ta know that much by now

 

[jobberone]

While true it doesn't matter if RB=4 and WR =5 or vice versa, it does matter if you carry an extra player at a position group.

It appears we will keep a FB. That's not a given just a high probability for this offense. That's a RB.

EE, RS, then Austin = 3 RB. That's a full roster for that group. If you add another then you take away from another group.

For instance:

OL at lease 3 OG, 1 OC, and 3 OT. Never going to happen. 8-10 here likely 8-9. I say 9 at minimum; my guess.
QB=2-3 This year I won't be surprised if 2 or 3; I say 2 with one on PS
TE=4
WR=5-6; I say 5 or 20 total so far
RB/FB=5 because that's all that's left.

You could take 8 OL which leaves room for 11 WR and RB. That gives you room for 6 WR, 1 FB, and 4 RB. So if you're coach do you go with 8 or 9 OL and 3 RB? I would esp since you can stash Scarborough on the PS. Or do you cut a WR and go with 5?

PS: They love N Brown because he essentially has the metrics of Dez plus he can block, is coachable, and behaves himself.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL
Here is your "link".



I never thought it would be necessary to provide proof of hen house chatter, but here you go.

If you are dense enough to think that anyone in the media is a "confirmed source", good luck these days.

As far as making things a "big deal", the only one I see around doing so is you, demanding "links" for what has already been established as just talk.

it is so adorable that you do what is normal standards on a message board and act like you are doing something extraordinary. Oh the humanity that I want proof on claims of the clubs player evaluations.

Bobby Belt have a press pass? Or is he a blogger?

See I don't take BTB chatter and speak in declarations off of what was said. That is what you did thus my asked for proof. If someone with a press pass claims such a thing then at least they have access and a relationship with the club. Ole Bobby does not.

So there is no reason to believe your declaration from earlier. Bobby did not say what you claimed either.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While true it doesn't matter if RB=4 and WR =5 or vice versa, it does matter if you carry an extra player at a position group.

It appears we will keep a FB. That's not a given just a high probability for this offense. That's a RB.

EE, RS, then Austin = 3 RB. That's a full roster for that group. If you add another then you take away from another group.

For instance:

OL at lease 3 OG, 1 OC, and 3 OT. Never going to happen. 8-10 here likely 8-9. I say 9 at minimum; my guess.
QB=2-3 This year I won't be surprised if 2 or 3; I say 2 with one on PS
TE=4
WR=5-6; I say 5 or 20 total so far
RB/FB=5 because that's all that's left.

You could take 8 OL which leaves room for 11 WR and RB. That gives you room for 6 WR, 1 FB, and 4 RB. So if you're coach do you go with 8 or 9 OL and 3 RB? I would esp since you can stash Scarborough on the PS. Or do you cut a WR and go with 5?

PS: They love N Brown because he essentially has the metrics of Dez plus he can block, is coachable, and behaves himself.

Could be that they keep Smith as the FB too. it is tantamount to cutting a 6th round pick.

 

[Alexander]

So there is no reason to believe your declaration from earlier. Bobby did not say what you claimed either.

I would hope if the Cowboys think he is a 16 game starter at RB that he would be a thousand yard rusher. It is not that special. Troy Hambrick territory.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would hope if the Cowboys think he is a 16 game starter at RB that he would be a thousand yard rusher. It is not that special. Troy Hambrick territory.

I would hope you would understand that Belt does not speak to the team as he has no access and that neither you nor he gets to speak for what the team thinks.

And then of course you said the team thinking that scared you. Now you say it is nothing special to accomplish.

Word of the day: sophistry.

 

[kskboys]

I like Rod Smith, but a full time starter he is not.

 

[buybuydandavis]

id rather carry him than PS. The team doesnt need to carry 3 qbs, and our strength should be our running game.

The 2 dev QBs are an investment. Between them maybe we get a long term backup for cheap. Maybe we get trade bait.

They're not competing against just RBs. They're competing against the 53.

And Bo is very unlikely to be picked up for a 53, while one of the QBs would be. Bo is likely a bubble player, bumped to the 53 in case of injury, and cut then signed back to the PS.