Fix the trenches

[Stash]

maybe i've always misunderstood, but isn't a swing tackle a back up by definition?

By defininition, a "swing tackle" is a backup who can fill in at both left and right tackle if needed.

 

[Stash]

Like Bell. I'm annoyed he never really got a chance at LG. Huge, powerful T, a little older and declining in agility. Sounds like a G or a poor swing T.

He was certainly a "poor swing T". When they signed him, I looked into his career. He was OK when he played right tackle in Carolina, and played pretty well at guard in Tennessee, but what stood out was how terrible he was when the Panthers tried him out at left tackle.

So then where does the Cowboys staff play him? Left tackle, of course!

 

[Proof]

By defininition, a "swing tackle" is a backup who can fill in at both left and right tackle if needed.

Gotcha.

 

[buybuydandavis]

He was certainly a "poor swing T". When they signed him, I looked into his career. He was OK when he played right tackle in Carolina, and played pretty well at guard in Tennessee, but what stood out was how terrible he was when the Panthers tried him out at left tackle.

So then where does the Cowboys staff play him? Left tackle, of course!

You've got a point there.

Bell was the untold stories of the Linehan clown show. From day one of the Green to LG plan, lots of people thought it was rather off. Green wasn't drafted to be a G, and wasn't suited to be a G.

Few even talked about Bell. I did, to hope that they'd give him a shot a guard, and then complain that they didn't.

But you're the first I can recall to point out that we had penciled in Bell as our swing T, though he had demonstrably sucked as a LT.

Bravo!

Just so much clown show, it was hard to keep up. It seemed a little off to have Collins and Green do a dosey doe and swap positions, but I could see why - because they wanted the better player at RT. Ok.

But that oddity obscured the next stupidity.

Why take our Swing T, and move him to LG, when all we have is a washed up T, already failing as a LT, who would be better at LG, to now be our Swing T?

I'd always focused on the stupidity of Green from T to LG, but the stupidity synergy of doing that in conjuction with the stupidity of Bell from LG to T is to turn a cluster**** into an art form.

It's really beautiful in the symmetry and economy of the screw up. It's like a perfectly executed plan of the Devil to twist and pervert creation in spite against God.

 

[Buzzbait]

By defininition, a "swing tackle" is a backup who can fill in at both left and right tackle if needed.

Agreed, but if his name is Green or Bell, the definition is "loser".
Also agree with the OP, fix the trenches!

 

[Stash]

You've got a point there.

Bell was the untold stories of the Linehan clown show. From day one of the Green to LG plan, lots of people thought it was rather off. Green wasn't drafted to be a G, and wasn't suited to be a G.

Few even talked about Bell. I did, to hope that they'd give him a shot a guard, and then complain that they didn't.

But you're the first I can recall to point out that we had penciled in Bell as our swing T, though he had demonstrably sucked as a LT.

Bravo!

Just so much clown show, it was hard to keep up. It seemed a little off to have Collins and Green do a dosey doe and swap positions, but I could see why - because they wanted the better player at RT. Ok.

But that oddity obscured the next stupidity.

Why take our Swing T, and move him to LG, when all we have is a washed up T, already failing as a LT, who would be better at LG, to now be our Swing T?

I'd always focused on the stupidity of Green from T to LG, but the stupidity synergy of doing that in conjuction with the stupidity of Bell from LG to T is to turn a cluster**** into an art form.

It's really beautiful in the symmetry and economy of the screw up. It's like a perfectly executed plan of the Devil to twist and pervert creation in spite against God.

Don't leave out wasting everyone's time without having Green actually "competing" with Jonathan Cooper for that Left Guard spot when all evidence showed that there was no competition at all. Cooper outclassed and outperformed Green at every opportunity, but the clowns in charge continued to make it a battle. And the only thing they accomplished was to stunt and slow down the offensive line finding cohesiveness. Unforgivable!

 

[northerncowboynation]

It would be great if we could get more flashy guys like an Earl Thomas or some stud LB in FA. But IMO, the smartest move would be solidify the trenches now and then that frees up the draft for "skill" guys and developmental players.

If Jerry put me in charge, I'd sign:

- Suh. Sure, a risk. But he's still good and he makes the entire front seven better.

- Slauson. He's 32 but still productive and likely won't be pricey. You can then draft a mid round OG for developmental purposes.

- Andre Smith. Again, might not be pricey and is immediately our swing OT (unless he thinks he can get a starting gig somewhere else). He might also be able to play OG, which maybe then you don't need Slauson.

I think we can quite confidently stroke Suh off that list. I do think you're heading in the right direction for a swing tackle and possibly guard depending on Cooper. Cooper is sort of the next piece. We know where we are with Tank, Irving and Hitch. Add a LB'er into your mix, mid pack, and Jerry would probably give up the reins to you Syd

 

[DiResta]

I should clarify one thing. While I am opposed to using our first round pick on an OG.............. if the Cowboys did something like say bring in Suh and trade for E. Thomas, thus significantly improving the defense, I could then live with an OG at 19 or 50.

But if they have no intentions of wading into the pool of the E Thomas and Suh's, then they should sign a cheap OG and use the prime draft positions for defense and/or WR.

i would rather have a day 1 starter at safety, linebacker or maybe edge in the 1st, i dont believe they will draft a true 1 tech there
but im resolved to accept that they may go guard and not my preference but i will understand why

 

[charron]

in this scenario. I would say draft an OT in the 1st. Tyron's back issues worry me and a capable replacement under contract for 5 years would be ideal.

 

[Buzzbait]

in this scenario. I would say draft an OT in the 1st. Tyron's back issues worry me and a capable replacement under contract for 5 years would be ideal.

After last year's debacle at LT, surely they realize they have to do SOMETHING about the lack of reliable depth at OT. We can't afford another Green/Bell type circus at LT.
I wouldn't be upset if they took an OT in the 1st, for the same reason you stated......concern over Tyron Smith's back.

 

[waldoputty]

FYI, out of the 1st 3 draft visit invitations, 1 out of 3 is OT, another is OG, and another is WR

 

[Johnny23]

Marinelli and the brain trust are too stubborn. They see Vea, Payne, and Settle as two down players. That's why they resigned Price, that why they keep trotting out Crawford, Irving, Collins at DT or RDE. They just want penetrators. It makes perfect sense for them to take Payne or Vea at 19 and grab a guard with 50 but more than likely Ridley, Hernandez, or Wynn will be the 1st pick come April 27th. That's why I am thinking of going to see Infinity War instead of watching the draft because they're not serious about fixing the defense. That's why we didn't give the 1 year 8 mill deal to Richardson who would have been a help, the guy might have got one sack but he created space for other rushers, he caused multiple turnovers, and was disruptive. The 44 tackles and One Sack only tell half the story.