At the risk of being reminded again, helpfully, that I know nothing about football, and certainly not about the 3-4 defense, I reiterate my view that Carpenter played pretty well under the circumstances. In fact, he was the most active defender on the field during the time in which he played. It's possible that the reports of his strong practices created almost a no-win position -- unless he forced a couple of fumbles, intercepted a pass and sacked the quarterback seven or eight times, he was going to be seen as having been a disappointment.
I thought it was awfully clear that a D-line failing to hold the point of attack, being pushed back two or three yards at the snap, contributed most to the gashes in the run defense and to Carpenter being shoved out of a couple of plays. Apparently I was mistaken, which is not terribly unusual.
Carpenter certainly is much more in the mold of an Urlacher-style LB than of a Butkus (and before anyone calls the fire department, I am suggesting neither than he has Urlacher ability or Butkus ability, just drawing an analogy to relative strengths and weaknesses). Carpenter needs to improve his ballast and ability to take on and shed blocks, but the particular game didn't, in my view, reveal any substantial weakness in that area. He had little chance to get much done when blockers reached the second level so easily.
As an aside, there appears to be a recurring trend -- someone offers a defense of a player under siege, whether Roy Williams, Marcus Spears or Bobby Carpenter -- and the defense is offered as proof of a Pollyanish inability to recognize a team's flaws, pure homerism. On the other hand, a critical post is dismissed as "anti-Cowboys."
This game of football is pretty complicated, despite my lack of understanding, and I shiver to employ this over-used word... nuanced. Coaches often mention that what they see on a television broadcast is of limited use in evaluating particulars. That being the case, it's difficult for amateurs -- the area into which most of us fall -- to make infallible observations.
It's also true that once a player has been obtained, whether in the draft, by trade, or as a free agent, original or otherwise, his play on the field must be judged relative to the competition. What does a number one draft choice look like? Damarcus Ware? Marcus Spears? David LaFleur? Tony Dorsett? Howard Richards? Randy White? Bob Lilly? Jim Jeffcoat?
What does an original free agent look like? Cliff Harris? Drew Pearson? Tony Romo? Or one of the hundreds who have, over the years, failed to make a team?
Is it important, in a football competition context, that Terrell Owens wasn't a first round pick? Rayfield Wright? Flozell Adams? Bradie James? Marion Barber? Did being a first round choice make Danny Noonan a great player?
It's true in the day of the salary cap that price tags matter, thus making it painful if a first round choice fails, and to some extent, even if he becomes a serviceable player, never achieving stardom. It matters. But the draft will always provide pleasant surprises and notable disappointments. And it's important, I think, to have some context --Jeffcoat was no Bob Lilly, no Randy White, but he was a good football player, and the draft choice was far from wasted.
Carpenter's career path still is unknown, but I like to think we can attempt ton evaluate him as a player rather than as a former first round draft choice. I like to think we can recognize his weaknesses and acknowledge that he might also have strengths.
I also like to think we can discuss these things without being subjected to a knee jerk, "Pollyanna" or "Anti-Cowboys" label.
