Twitter: Darrion Weems IR'd to make room for Scandrick

[jazzcat22]

I don't like using a LB or DL as a FB as they never seem to work for us. The TE use doesn't either. I rather have him take up the roster spot, and is there when / if needed. Like an insurance policy.
If another player would be added instead of a FB, then would that player, or another player would be the inactive anyway no matter what postion, as we would be long in those positions.

 

[Vintage]

No use for folks that can't black.

@WoodysGirl says he plays a good fsme. Can't cut talent.

 

[Idgit]

Dallas isn't keeping him because he's a special ST player. The Cowboys are keeping him because he's the best blocker out of the backfield they have for short-yardage situations. Adding Whitlock to the PS doesn't change the fact that Dallas wants a fullback (or at least a fullback type) on the active roster each week.

Based on the number of snaps the position gets, I'd probably try to see if I could get a backup linebacker like Cameron Lawrence to be a dual-purpose player, but Dallas doesn't seem to be interested in that.

I know why they've had him on the roster the last two weeks. My point is that he's not worth the roster spot given the success we've had running without him and given the marginal ST production he gives.

 

[gimmesix]

I know why they've had him on the roster the last two weeks. My point is that he's not worth the roster spot given the success we've had running without him and given the marginal ST production he gives.

OK. I guess I just don't see reason to expect it to change since Dallas has shown it wants a fullback despite that success and marginal ST production.

I keep reading threads where this player is brought in, so that means Clutts will probably be cut, or that player is coming back, so that means Clutts will probably be cut. Bring up Ryan Williams, cut Clutts! I think people are wishing and hoping for something Dallas has shown no interest in doing. If a fullback is added to the 53 or a pure blocking tight end, then I think it's safe to say Clutts will be cut. Otherwise, I believe the evidence shows we're stuck with him.

 

[Idgit]

OK. I guess I just don't see reason to expect it to change since Dallas has shown it wants a fullback despite that success and marginal ST production.

I keep reading threads where this player is brought in, so that means Clutts will probably be cut, or that player is coming back, so that means Clutts will probably be cut. Bring up Ryan Williams, cut Clutts! I think people are wishing and hoping for something Dallas has shown no interest in doing. If a fullback is added to the 53 or a pure blocking tight end, then I think it's safe to say Clutts will be cut. Otherwise, I believe the evidence shows we're stuck with him.

Well, we didn't have one last year, until injuries cleared us out a bit. I don't think it'd be shocking to see them change directions in that regard again. Myself, I consider the guy mostly special teams snaps at this point. And I"d agree with you that we ought to cross train a LB, or even Henry Melton for short yardage once he's back to full strength.

I consider Clutts a special teams player at this point. Can't justify keeping a spot on the roster if we need one just for a few FB snaps a game when we're leading the league in rushing yards from scrimmage as it is.

 

[xwalker]

Dallas isn't keeping him because he's a special ST player. The Cowboys are keeping him because he's the best blocker out of the backfield they have for short-yardage situations. Adding Whitlock to the PS doesn't change the fact that Dallas wants a fullback (or at least a fullback type) on the active roster each week.

Based on the number of snaps the position gets, I'd probably try to see if I could get a backup linebacker like Cameron Lawrence to be a dual-purpose player, but Dallas doesn't seem to be interested in that.

The DT Coleman would be a good FB option, IMO. He can probably beat Clutts in a foot race.

 

[speedkilz88]

Tony Fiametta was out there for almost a week. Bears released him because of injuries at other positions last week and brought him back Monday. I don't understand not making that switch.

 

[gimmesix]

Well, we didn't have one last year, until injuries cleared us out a bit. I don't think it'd be shocking to see them change directions in that regard again. Myself, I consider the guy mostly special teams snaps at this point. And I"d agree with you that we ought to cross train a LB, or even Henry Melton for short yardage once he's back to full strength.

I consider Clutts a special teams player at this point. Can't justify keeping a spot on the roster if we need one just for a few FB snaps a game when we're leading the league in rushing yards from scrimmage as it is.

Last year, Dallas started off with the hope after drafting Escobar that it would be able to just run two-tight end sets and the blocking would be good enough out of the backfield to do that. When it proved to be insufficient, the Cowboys brought in Clutts. The two positions are intertwined, so if we had a good enough blocker out of the backfield at the TE spot, we wouldn't have Clutts. (I do believe we'd have four tight ends, though, but we might do like we did last year and keep the fourth one on the practice squad since he'd be less likely to be needed during games.) That's a failure so far in spending a second-round pick on Escobar.

Melton might be a good option considering his experience, but like xwalker, I think I'd like to see a less important player like Coleman give it a shot. I'd probably take every role player on this team and work them out at the position to see if there at least is the potential for development so we don't have to waste a spot on a player who has a minimal role in the offense.