Is Tyrone Crawford More Effective At Left End Than Defensive Tackle?

[jobberone]

I've got a newslflash for you, since you obviously don't know. It's not my job to support your baseless claims. You could tell us all the sky is green and it would carry just as little weight. You made a statement, and refused to support it. That's on you.



Don't talk about anyone else's "debate" skills when you're the guy making completely unsubstantiated claims and then getting wadded up when someone called you on it. And for the record, I'm not "trolling" you or anybody else.

What's the latest "injury excuse" for Crawford? He got a mulligan for disappointing last year due to the shoulder. What's the excuse for this year? I'm not sure when it became out of bounds to be critical of a player and hold them accountable, especially based on what they're being paid.

Like you, I'm hoping that a move to LDE results in better production, but it's not off base to be critical of what we've seen from him thus far.

I got a bigger newsflash for you. If you don't like my opinion then refute it. Don't demand I back up a simple opinion then emoticon me when I don't jump to your lash. You want to refute it then you can come up with your own argument besides giving us you didn't back up your statements to my liking so they are worthless. Your debate is circular. You can't (won't) prove your statement ergo it is erroneous. WRONG. You pull that tactic a lot and it's tiresome and boring as well as ill conceived.

And it's a simple concept that some injuries take longer than one offseason to heal. My professional opinion is that is quite likely. It's also my personal opinion he's not 100% based on my own anecdotal experience of having one shoulder repaired and another reconstructed. Add that to my own professional experience and you're going to have to use long term studies to refute that......which don't exist.

You can jump up and down declaring yourself a winner of a very unimportant internet debate based on your own criterion if you like but your debate path is fallacious and illogical as well as terminally flawed.

Not wasting anymore time with you on this. Have a great day and enjoy the Cowboys' game.

 

[Stash]

I got a bigger newsflash for you. If you don't like my opinion then refute it. Don't demand I back up a simple opinion then emoticon me when I don't jump to your lash. You want to refute it then you can come up with your own argument besides giving us you didn't back up your statements to my liking so they are worthless. Your debate is circular. You can't (won't) prove your statement ergo it is erroneous. WRONG. You pull that tactic a lot and it's tiresome and boring as well as ill conceived.

I'm not making a statement, I'm challenging a claim you made. You want to claim that Crawford has some reputation that isn't true and then when challenged on it, expect somebody else to do the work? Please. Your claim is bogus and when called on it you had nothing to back it up.

And it's a simple concept that some injuries take longer than one offseason to heal. My professional opinion is that is quite likely. It's also my personal opinion he's not 100% based on my own anecdotal experience of having one shoulder repaired and another reconstructed. Add that to my own professional experience and you're going to have to use long term studies to refute that......which don't exist.

It's also a "simple concept" that some fans will tell themselves anything to excuse their team and its players of poor play. He's not injured, he's just not playing up to his paycheck.

You can jump up and down declaring yourself a winner of a very unimportant internet debate based on your own criterion if you like but your debate path is fallacious and illogical as well as terminally flawed.

I don't need to "win" anything. I'm simply calling out a baseless, unsupported claim for exactly what it is. The only "terminal flaw" is yours, in making bogus claims you can't support. That's on you, and nobody else.

Not wasting anymore time with you on this. Have a great day and enjoy the Cowboys' game.

You do the same. Here's hoping for a great performance, no injuries, and a big win.

 

[rpntex]

Or the homer crowd tries to spin a player playing poorly at his intended position and a bad contract as somehow a 'good thing'. Talk about "predictable"...

Actually, I speculated about this very possibility back before TC ever started. I seem to recall it being in a thread lamenting the state of our defensive line, and specifically the position of DE. I suggested at the time I move of Crawford back to the left side, depending upon the progress of Collins. It was all contingent upon how quickly college could be ready to play at full strength. As I recall, Stash, you were one Who was critical of me for thinking Collins would be able to contribute this early.

By no means has Crawford been Warren Sapp at the 3T. BUT, characterizing what he did last year as a "failure" is ludicrous. It was his first full year at the position. He still came up with five sacks… an exceptional amount for an inside position. What's more, he did it basically with one arm.

No, as I said in my earlier post, this is about Dallas getting their best for on the field… Especially against the run. There is no way anyone can say a defensive ends tandem of Jack Crawford on the left and Benson Mayowa on the right can hold up against the run as much is a tandem of Tyrone and Jack. That move also strengthens the defense of line on the outside with and out tremendously weakening the inside.

 

[Stash]

Actually, I speculated about this very possibility back before TC ever started. I seem to recall it being in a thread lamenting the state of our defensive line, and specifically the position of DE. I suggested at the time I move of Crawford back to the left side, depending upon the progress of Collins. It was all contingent upon how quickly college could be ready to play at full strength. As I recall, Stash, you were one Who was critical of me for thinking Collins would be able to contribute this early.

If you could pull up the thread you're referring to, we could discuss exactly what either of us said at that point.

By no means has Crawford been Warren Sapp at the 3T. BUT, characterizing what he did last year as a "failure" is ludicrous. It was his first full year at the position. He still came up with five sacks… an exceptional amount for an inside position. What's more, he did it basically with one arm.

Where did I say he was a "failure"? I think you're making claims that aren't true. What I have said is that he hasn't lived up to his contract. And he got a mulligan based in injury for last year.

No, as I said in my earlier post, this is about Dallas getting their best for on the field… Especially against the run. There is no way anyone can say a defensive ends tandem of Jack Crawford on the left and Benson Mayowa on the right can hold up against the run as much is a tandem of Tyrone and Jack. That move also strengthens the defense of line on the outside with and out tremendously weakening the inside.

And there's also "no way anyone can say" that stopping the run should be the goal of this defensive line, especially considering Marinelli's 'Rushmen' priority. Fans are only using it now as an excuse. The fact is that the Cowboys are still among the worst in the league in yards per rush allowed at 4.8. That's the fact of the matter.

 

[rpntex]

If you could pull up the thread you're referring to, we could discuss exactly what either of us said at that point.




Where did I say he was a "failure"? I think you're making claims that aren't true. What I have said is that he hasn't lived up to his contract. And he got a mulligan based in injury for last year.



And there's also "no way anyone can say" that stopping the run should be the goal of this defensive line, especially considering Marinelli's 'Rushmen' priority. Fans are only using it now as an excuse. The fact is that the Cowboys are still among the worst in the league in yards per rush allowed at 4.8. That's the fact of the matter.

No need to pull up the thread, even if I could. The interaction between you and I was about one thing – the effectiveness of Collins. You question the wisdom of me banking on Collins contributing, that's all. And honestly, in return, I said I wasn't really banking on it as much is hoping for it. It wasn't a big point of contention.

As far as the defensive line playing the run, it's not like I think they're going to run a front four of Tyrone, Collin's, McClain, and Jack, out there on every down. It's all situational. I expect to see those four guys playing In down and distance situations that the opposition show a tendency to run the ball. I look for a completely different combination on passing downs.

 

[Stash]

No need to pull up the thread, even if I could. The interaction between you and I was about one thing – the effectiveness of Collins. You question the wisdom of me banking on Collins contributing, that's all. And honestly, in return, I said I wasn't really banking on it as much is hoping for it. It wasn't a big point of contention.

As far as the defensive line playing the run, it's not like I think they're going to run a front four of Tyrone, Collin's, McClain, and Jack, out there on every down. It's all situational. I expect to see those four guys playing In down and distance situations that the opposition show a tendency to run the ball. I look for a completely different combination on passing downs.

What did you think, based on seeing last night's game?

 

[rpntex]

What did you think, based on seeing last night's game?

I was on the road last night during the game, so I haven't had the opportunity to watch it yet. Based strictly on radio commentary, I think the same now as I did before the game…

Run defense was pretty good with the exception of a couple of breakdowns.
Just moved had no positive effect on the pass rush… Nor was it intended to.
Collins could end up being a stud. I was of the opinion that Crawford would move back inside when DLaw came back. well I still feel like that's a possibility, the development of Collins makes it more of a luxury.

 

[ShiningStar]

what it comes down to is simple "what can Dallas get out of a bad contract" I dont care where we play him, but i hope this is a lesson to Dallas.

I feel some fans want to see good to justify a bad choice and i think fans need to realize that just because we draft them, "the first season doesnt matter" and 2 "not everyone we draft is goigng into the Hall of Fame" and 3 "preseason doesnt set their future".

Lets all hope Rod gets something out of him or maybe with Lawerence coming back that helps in some way. I have more faith Rod will figure something out. I have less faith in the FO not saying good bye to Rod after this season.

 

[Falco78]

True, I really thought hed come out strong this year after dealing with the injury last year. Im suprised he hasnt given us more, but the season is young.....

He looked pretty good against the Skidz, I think it is the lack of talent on the line besides him that is causing defensive issues

 

[Idgit]

Or the homer crowd tries to spin a player playing poorly at his intended position and a bad contract as somehow a 'good thing'. Talk about "predictable"...

Missed this little dig yesterday. Paint it however you like, but with Marinelli on record about what he thinks of Crawford at both end and 3-tech, if you're disagreeing with him, you're the one that's spinning your opinion.



My post which you quoted was just based off of Rod's interview earlier in the week where he discussed Crawford's versatility and power at either position. Listen to what the DC says about it and it's pretty obvious it wasn't a move because they were unhappy with him inside.

 

[conner01]

I don't think Marinelli moved him because he (Marinelli) thinks that he is failed at the 3-tech spot. I think Marinelli wanted to put the best possible run defense out there and this is what he came up with.

I'm not saying that TCrawford has been a success or failure at the 3-tech, but I don't think that is the basis for the move in Marineiil's mind.

I had hoped from more from TC, but in reality he's only had 3 healthy games since he signed the contract. Game 1 in 2015 and the past 2 games. It's hard to know on that sample size. He couldn't even brush his teeth with his bad arm last season so I can really judge anything that he did in those games.

I think you are right about moving him outside. I like him inside but right now it's about getting the best 4 out there till dlaw gets back.

 

[Stash]

Missed this little dig yesterday. Paint it however you like, but with Marinelli on record about what he thinks of Crawford at both end and 3-tech, if you're disagreeing with him, you're the one that's spinning your opinion.



My post which you quoted was just based off of Rod's interview earlier in the week where he discussed Crawford's versatility and power at either position. Listen to what the DC says about it and it's pretty obvious it wasn't a move because they were unhappy with him inside.

What would you expect the guy ultimately responsible for this thing to say? Honestly?

When he says he's "mixing and matching", it's a clear indicator that he's still looking for answers. If Crawford was enough of an answer at 3-tech there would be no chance he'd be moved.

And for the record, it's no more of a "dig" when I make comments like that as when you make them. In fact, it's a retort when someone else starts with them.

 

[Idgit]

What would you expect the guy ultimately responsible for this thing to say? Honestly?

When he says he's "mixing and matching", it's a clear indicator that he's still looking for answers. If Crawford was enough of an answer at 3-tech there would be no chance he'd be moved.

And for the record, it's no more of a "dig" when I make comments like that as when you make them. In fact, it's a retort when someone else starts with them.

Great. As long as it's understood that what I originally said matches exactly what the DC said earlier in the week, then there's not all that much to talk about.

You know I don't play the 'what's he supposed to say' game, anyway. He said it; I referenced it; you choose to believe the opposite. That's your prerogative.

 

[Stash]

Great. As long as it's understood that what I originally said matches exactly what the DC said earlier in the week, then there's not all that much to talk about.

You know I don't play the 'what's he supposed to say' game, anyway. He said it; I referenced it; you choose to believe the opposite. That's your prerogative.

Fair enough.