Leche Seastrunk impressing

erod

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,635
Reaction score
64,045
Hearing from multiple fronts that Seastrunk is looking very quick and explosive in practice.

That would be a nice surprise. He was a terrific back at Baylor and one of the most highly recruited high school kids in the country. Went to Oregon before Baylor.
 
Not sure why people think that Dunbar and 'Lache' Seastrunck can't be a competitive RB. One is 5-9 and 200+ and the other is 5-8 and 195+. Emmitt played at 208. Granted he was built differently with huge legs but he wasn't that fast either. The others have more of a sprinter/RB lower body that translates more into speed. But they aren't that different in build. Both of them are fast and hit the hole well. They might not be able to carry the ball 15+ times a game (although they may) but they offer some versatility and depth IMO. Dorsett was 5-10 (with light gravity) and weighed 195 near the end. He played substantially less on entry into the league.

If you can break arm tackles in this league, have good balance and vision, catch the ball, and block then generally there is a place to play. It's the rest of the things that make a very good or better RB.
 
I dont know if you can have a player thats been in the league a year as a "pet cat" but if so, Seastrunk is mine. I really dug his body of work at Baylor. Looks like a homerun hitter and he would be my consolation prize for not not drafting Tevin Coleman.
 
Given the situation at RB I would think this is pretty much an open battle. I don't know if Seastrunk can get it done or not but I feel the same about the rest. Go out and prove it is what it will come down to.
 
jobberone said:
Not sure why people think that Dunbar and 'Lache' Seastrunck can't be a competitive RB. One is 5-9 and 200 and the other is 5-8 and 195+. Emmitt played at 208. Granted he was built differently with huge legs but he wasn't that fast either. The others have more of a sprinter/RB lower body that translates more into speed. But they aren't that different in build. Both of them are fast and hit the hole well. They might no be able to carry the ball 15+ times a game (although they may) but they offer some versatility and depth IMO. Dorsett was 5-10 (with light gravity) and weighed 195 near the end. He played substantially less on entry into the league.

If you can break arm tackles in this league, have good balance and vision, catch the ball, and block then generally there is a place to play. It's the rest of the things that make a very good or better RB.
Click to expand...

Don't know about Seastrunck but maybe people think Dunbar can't be competitive RB is because he hasn't done anything in past two seasons.
 
jobberone said:
Not sure why people think that Dunbar and 'Lache' Seastrunck can't be a competitive RB. One is 5-9 and 200 and the other is 5-8 and 195+. Emmitt played at 208. Granted he was built differently with huge legs but he wasn't that fast either. The others have more of a sprinter/RB lower body that translates more into speed. But they aren't that different in build. Both of them are fast and hit the hole well. They might no be able to carry the ball 15+ times a game (although they may) but they offer some versatility and depth IMO. Dorsett was 5-10 (with light gravity) and weighed 195 near the end. He played substantially less on entry into the league.

If you can break arm tackles in this league, have good balance and vision, catch the ball, and block then generally there is a place to play. It's the rest of the things that make a very good or better RB.
Click to expand...

While all that is nice and definite attributes........

My biggest concern is keeping Romo prone.

I hope these guys can read and recognize blitz's........Dunbar scares the hell out of me.........Intelligence-wise.
 
CATCH17 said:
So is Dunbar.

I just don't think there game translates to actual football very well.

If it was flag football they would be my first 2 selections..
Click to expand...

Are you referring to "actual football" or fantasy football? If the latter, I understand what you are saying. But in actual football, they are role players. They perhaps are not that guy you hand the ball to when all you need is 1 to 3 yards; but as a change of pace, you don't really get much better unless your last name is Sproles...and your 2 to 3 years younger.
 
jday said:
Are you referring to "actual football" or fantasy football? If the latter, I understand what you are saying. But in actual football, they are role players. They perhaps are not that guy you hand the ball to when all you need is 1 to 3 yards; but as a change of pace, you don't really get much better unless your last name is Sproles...and your 2 to 3 years younger.
Click to expand...


In actual football im not even sure if they are role players. I've yet to see it from either guy.


Nate was hyping Dunbar up this morning on Talkin Cowboys and im just waiting to see the guy actually do something.

Years have gone by and I can think of 2 or 3 plays the guy has made.
 
CATCH17 said:
In actual football im not even sure if they are role players. I've yet to see it from either guy.


Nate was hyping Dunbar up this morning on Talkin Cowboys and im just waiting to see the guy actually do something.

Years have gone by and I can think of 2 or 3 plays the guy has made.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a count for the number for opportunities he has had? Because I gotta think it may be only a few more than what you sighted.
 
Seastrunk needs to beat out dunbar before we can even think about him getting reps...

I see both of those players as mirror images and are fighting for that spot and reps on the team
 
big dog cowboy said:
Practice squad eligible?
Click to expand...

Yes. And most say it'd be a nice accomplishment for him if he did that.

But if some how he picks up the offense and all the passing game responsibilities AND he becomes a strong special teams player, he could compete for the team outright.
 
dwreck27 said:
Seastrunk needs to beat out dunbar before we can even think about him getting reps...

I see both of those players as mirror images and are fighting for that spot and reps on the team
Click to expand...

I think the one who blocks the best and runs inside well will pull away from the other.

I'd prefer adding a big back who can serve as a FB and get you tough yards to add to the mix. We haven't had a threat at FB in a very long time. I think they are very helpful in keeping the D honest and it opens up the playbook as well.
 
Seven said:
While all that is nice and definite attributes........

My biggest concern is keeping Romo prone.

I hope these guys can read and recognize blitz's........Dunbar scares the hell out of me.........Intelligence-wise.
Click to expand...

Well, they all have to block including picking up the blitz esp. That's a given for any RB.
 
jobberone said:
I think the one who blocks the best and runs inside well will pull away from the other.

I'd prefer adding a big back who can serve as a FB and get you tough yards to add to the mix. We haven't had a threat at FB in a very long time. I think they are very helpful in keeping the D honest and it opens up the playbook as well.
Click to expand...

Neither of them are noted blockers. Seastrunk is a much better pure runner. He is a guy that as a runner is capable of taking a workhorse type workload and sustain. Dunbar is limited in what he can do as a runner. However Seastrunk offers very little as a receiver whereas is a guy who can catch passes out of the backfield and also line up in the slot. Given that I think Seastrunk will have a very hard time beating Dunbar out and his best chance to make the roster is them being forced to carry 4 HBs
 
jobberone said:
Well, they all have to block including picking up the blitz esp. That's a given for any RB.
Click to expand...

Thats where McFadden will make his money. And thats what could force a trade or signing of his hamstrings linger and starts the season on PUP. Randle seems adequate, but neither Seastrunk or Dunbar are guys you dont want to count on to pick up blitzes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 44 more.
Total: 18,996 (members: 144, guests: 18,852)
Robots: 1,050

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,029
Messages
14,507,708
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top