My shot at the 53 man roster

[Stautner]

I have it broken down like this...

2 QB's
4 RB's
1 FB
7 WR's
3 TE's
10 OL
1 PK
1 P
1 LS
4 DE's
2 NT's
8 LB's
4 S
5 CB's

QB- Tony Romo, Brad Johnson
RB- Julius Jones, Marion Barber, Tyson Thompson, Jackie Battle
FB- Deon Anderson
WR- Terrell Owens, Terry Glenn, Patrick Crayton, Sam Hurd, Miles Austin, Isaiah Stanback, Jamel Richardson
TE- Jason Witten, Anthony Fasano, Tony Curtis
OL- Flozell Adams, Kyle Kosier, Andre Gurode, Leonard Davis, Marc Colombo, Pat McQuistan, Doug Free, James Marten, Cory Proctor, Trey Darilek
DE- Marcus Spears, Chris Canty, Jason Hatcher, Jay Ratliff
DT- Jason Ferguson, Montavious Stanley
LB- Demarcus Ware, Bradie James, Akin Ayodele, Greg Ellis, Anthony Spencer, Kevin Burnett, Bobby Carpenter, Oliver Hoyte
CB- Terence Newman, Anthony Henry, Aaron Glenn, Courtney Brown, Alan Ball
S- Ken Hamlin, Roy Williams, Patrick Watkins, Abram Elam
K- Nick Folk
P- Mat McBriar
LS- L.P. Ladouceur

Battle over Coleman - Battle is much bigger for running inside and has equal speed to Coleman. Thompson's return skills and speed are too valuable to throw on the scrap heap.

Don't need Polite when Hoyte makes a capable backup for Anderson. Hoyte should be used primarily as an ILB though. Either way, drafting Anderson makes Polite expendable IMO.

I really want these big guys Richardson and Curtis to stick around and catch some balls this year, because I already draft picks Fasano and Stanback on my (show me the talent!) list.

I feel more comfortable having 10 OL on the roster this year...add on Darilek.

I think Folk is more than capable of beating out Gramatica in TC.

Don't need more than 4 DE's in a 3-4 and Ellis can certainly play LDE in the 4-3 alignment...so nice knowing you Bowen. If Ratliff can play NT over Stanley, that could open up another roster spot for someone (a big IF).

Do need 8 LB's though, preferably 4 inside and 4 outside. Hoyte's versatility is too valuable and so he comes back to play inside with Carpenter...nice knowing you Glymph.

Elam over Davis - No more room for Davis at FS with Hamlin aboard. The younger Elam makes a better SS IMO. A tough cut for sure, but he's no Bill Bates.

Tired of the Reeves and Jones act, Brown and Ball take over on the nickel and dime, while Glenn hangs on for last hurrah.

The two things that jump out at me are this:

THE BIG ONE: There is no way we will keep 4 RB's.

CB: I doubt we will dump BOTH Reeves and Jones - experience is still a factor in roster decisions, and while these guys haven't risen to the level of starter they have been strong enough that coaches have felt comfortable with them in the nickle and backup roles for several years.

 

[Alexander]

The two things that jump out at me are this:

THE BIG ONE: There is no way we will keep 4 RB's.

CB: I doubt we will dump BOTH Reeves and Jones - experience is still a factor in roster decisions, and while these guys haven't risen to the level of starter they have been strong enough that coaches have felt comfortable with them in the nickle and backup roles for several years.

I agree with this.

Three backs is about right. Most teams will not carry four unless you have one who can do a lot. And despite what you hear from fans right now about Jackie Battle, I don't see us making room for either him or Coleman. They will all be fighting for one spot.

The corners are the same way. Too many people are writing off Nate Jones and even more amusingly Jacques Reeves in favor of Ball and Brown. While both are intriguing, they are going to have to be outstanding to bump either off the roster, especially Reeves. Jones is more vulnerable, but even he is a solid coverage player on special teams.

 

[AbeBeta]

If it were up to me, I would make Stanback the 3rd QB if it came down to it. I want my third QB to be very mobile and he has a lot of college experience to fill in a pinch. I guess it just depends on the potential of the 3rd guy and if he is worth putting on the roster or would he survive the practice squad.

Either way -- the 3rd QB does count toward the 53 - the third QB does not count toward the active gameday roster -- however, that is only if he isn't playing

The point of a 3rd QB is to have some to develop. The kid from Oregon would be the guy I'd expect to win that spot if we go that route.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I guess that depends on the performance of Coleman or Battle. I really don't see Hurd or Austin being cut, though.

I don't think Battle will even make the practice squad. As for Coleman, I don't think he will beat out Thompson just for the fact that they need a third RB and Thompson's ability to return kicks. (leading the league before his injury)

I think the opposite is true.

Hurd made this team as a coverage player on special teams. He is pretty much uncontested in that regard, but he will not be in direct competition with Thompson anyways. Miles Austin will.

Thompson made this team as a returner. He has a battle on his hands to not only fend off Austin for that job, but also Battle and Coleman as the 3rd tailback.

I expect him to be a cut or trade unless he really shines in either role. In a way, he might have the toughest fight of any player to stay on the team as he has to win two jobs, not just one.

Austin has far more talent that Hurd. The Cowboys need three RBs, I don't think Coleman or Battle will be out Thompson and I don't think the Cowboys will keep six recievers. Stanback's athletic ability alone will cause them to keep him over Hurd.

If we're talking WR vs. RB.

I think it comes down to Austin vs. Thompson. Hurd came in as a starter when Glenn was hurt last year, I feel like Austin would be the more expendable if Hurd is the better reciever.

See, I don't think Hurd will be a better reciever than Austin. I think Austin has much more natural talent. Top it off with the fact that Austin is a pretty good returner also.

 

[Bungarian]

I don't think we will keep two fullbacks. Also the two kickers may not happen if Grammatica can improve his kickoffs.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I don't think we will keep two fullbacks. Also the two kickers may not happen if Grammatica can improve his kickoffs.

Considering we are going back to an offense that includes a full back, I think you are incorrect in your assumption.

 

[Alexander]

Considering we are going back to an offense that includes a full back, I think you are incorrect in your assumption.

We are?

Why are people just assuming that? Just because we drafted Anderson?

It could be that we are just disenchanted with what we have?

Between TE and FB, there will probably be four spots to go around. Whether it is 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 will depend on the players involved. No matter what, I doubt we carry five between the two positions. We won't be able to.

 

[TheSport78]

Considering we are going back to an offense that includes a full back, I think you are incorrect in your assumption.

I'll add to that. If Anderson beats out Polite which I believe he will, we can afford to carry Hoyte as well because of his versatility to play FB and ILB.

 

[YosemiteSam]

We are?

Why are people just assuming that? Just because we drafted Anderson?

It could be that we are just disenchanted with what we have?

Between TE and FB, there will probably be four spots to go around. Whether it is 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 will depend on the players involved. No matter what, I doubt we carry five between the two positions. We won't be able to.

It's been quoted (I beleive by Jason Garrett) that we are in fact going back to a FB. The offense they plan to run is supposed to be very similar to the offense the Cowboys ran in the mid 90s. (Norv Turner/Ernie Zampese offense)

 

[Stautner]

We are?

Why are people just assuming that? Just because we drafted Anderson?

It could be that we are just disenchanted with what we have?

Between TE and FB, there will probably be four spots to go around. Whether it is 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 will depend on the players involved. No matter what, I doubt we carry five between the two positions. We won't be able to.

In fairness, I'm sure that part of the assumption also comes from the fact that Garrett played in Dallas where a tradtional FB was used very effectively, so it's not inconceivable that he would feel inclined to use what he has seen work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides, although I would be surprised if we didn't at least use a tradtional FB much more than we did last year.

 

[Alexander]

It's been quoted (I beleive by Jason Garrett) that we are in fact going back to a FB. The offense they plan to run is supposed to be very similar to the offense the Cowboys ran in the mid 90s. (Norv Turner/Ernie Zampese offense)

Norv Turner and Zampese have also used an H-back/2 TE system. In Miami, Turner used one fullback most of the time. Johnston was the only FB on our roster under Zampese one year also, I believe.

Even if we did go back to that offense, two fullbacks is a waste unless there is talent and utility involved. Keeping two at that position will be dictated by the talent, not the system. Hoyte can play ILB and given our lack of depth there, he could win it on that alone.

There is enough flexibility with the TE/H-back that you can use a hybrid as a backup. Fasano could do it.

That is one of the positives. You are not married to either. And I doubt Garrett is going to limit himself like that either.

If we keep two, it will the results

 

[YosemiteSam]

Norv Turner and Zampese have also used an H-back/2 TE system. In Miami, Turner used one fullback most of the time. Johnston was the only FB on our roster under Zampese one year also, I believe.

Even if we did go back to that offense, two fullbacks is a waste unless there is talent and utility involved. Keeping two at that position will be dictated by the talent, not the system. Hoyte can play ILB and given our lack of depth there, he could win it on that alone.

There is enough flexibility with the TE/H-back that you can use a hybrid as a backup. Fasano could do it.

That is one of the positives. You are not married to either. And I doubt Garrett is going to limit himself like that either.

If we keep two, it will the results

Hey, I'm just repeating what was said. We are dropping the two TE set. (well not completely, it just won't be our primary set any longer) and we are going back to using a FB. If your primary offense requires a full back, you would be in trouble if you had an injury to the only FB on your squad.

 

[AbeBeta]

If we keep 2 FB it will be because they are both very good on ST. You are a bit more likely to get that sort of contribution from a FB than from a 3rd TE sort (although the 3rd TE would certainly play a ton on ST as well), so I'd give the FBs the edge right now.

That said, I'm not sure that we have 2 FBs that are worth keeping at this point. Anderson I expect makes the team b/c he's a ST guy and we traded up to get him (i.e., burned two picks). Hoyte played well early but really stank it up later in the season - also, he was in the LB meetings for part of the last mini -- Polite was here b/c he is smart and understood the system - meow.

 

[Alexander]

Hey, I'm just repeating what was said. We are dropping the two TE set. (well not completely, it just won't be our primary set any longer) and we are going back to using a FB. If your primary offense requires a full back, you would be in trouble if you had an injury to the only FB on your squad.

Not if you are flexible enough to use the H-back as a blocker.

And from what I saw last year, we were dead-set on the two-TE as a base offense but we saw Hoyte more and more.

That was a decision that was made on the fly. We had no intention of carrying both Hoyte and Polite on the active roster. We thought we would carry four TEs. Thanks to Ryan Hannam, it did not work out that way.

And I am curious to see where Garrett said the 2-TE set is dead. I must have missed it.

 

[adamknite]

I don't think Battle will even make the practice squad. As for Coleman, I don't think he will beat out Thompson just for the fact that they need a third RB and Thompson's ability to return kicks. (leading the league before his injury)



Austin has far more talent that Hurd. The Cowboys need three RBs, I don't think Coleman or Battle will be out Thompson and I don't think the Cowboys will keep six recievers. Stanback's athletic ability alone will cause them to keep him over Hurd.



See, I don't think Hurd will be a better reciever than Austin. I think Austin has much more natural talent. Top it off with the fact that Austin is a pretty good returner also.

point taken, but if last year was any indication, Hurd is the better WR. I'm just using last year to base my opinion on. Hurd looked pretty impressive for an undrafted rookie last year he did get 2 starts. , where except on ST Austin couldn't touch the field.

I still get the feeling it'll be Thompson that is left as the odd man out. I don't know what I'm really basing that off of, it's just a hunch really.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If we keep 2 FB it will be because they are both very good on ST. You are a bit more likely to get that sort of contribution from a FB than from a 3rd TE sort (although the 3rd TE would certainly play a ton on ST as well), so I'd give the FBs the edge right now.

That said, I'm not sure that we have 2 FBs that are worth keeping at this point. Anderson I expect makes the team b/c he's a ST guy and we traded up to get him (i.e., burned two picks). Hoyte played well early but really stank it up later in the season - also, he was in the LB meetings for part of the last mini -- Polite was here b/c he is smart and understood the system - meow.

I have a feeling it will be Anderson and Hoyte. Anderson because he can block and he can catch out of the back field. From what I've read, he will be one of the better ST players right from the start. Now it comes down to Polite and Hoyte. Polite is the better fullback over all, but Hoyte is also a linebacker and is decent on ST. Parcells is gone, Polite will probably follow.

 

[AbeBeta]

I have a feeling it will be Anderson and Hoyte. Anderson because he can block and he can catch out of the back field. From what I've read, he will be one of the better ST players right from the start. Now it comes down to Polite and Hoyte. Polite is the better fullback over all, but Hoyte is also a linebacker and is decent on ST. Parcells is gone, Polite will probably follow.

I like Hoyte but the idea that a guy who never really played the position can beat out a guy like Adam Bergen (if we are talking 2nd FB vs. 3rd TE) seems dubious to me.

Hoyte has the edge for now on ST play but if he is seen in another LB meeting, I think we can eventually cross him off this list. He is the opposite of a Phillips ILB.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Not if you are flexible enough to use the H-back as a blocker.

And from what I saw last year, we were dead-set on the two-TE as a base offense but we saw Hoyte more and more.

That was a decision that was made on the fly. We had no intention of carrying both Hoyte and Polite on the active roster. We thought we would carry four TEs. Thanks to Ryan Hannam, it did not work out that way.

And I am curious to see where Garrett said the 2-TE set is dead. I must have missed it.

You can Google "Jason Garrett Fullback" and find more information.

As for an H-Back. (or F-Back depending on who you ask) Well, who exactly on the Cowboys roster can play that besides Witten? Well, we have Polite whom can't catch. We have Fasano, but he can't block. As for as I know Hoyte can't catch either. I see Hoyte and Anderson very similar in blocking. Neither will be great at it. Anderson like Hoyte explodes into people and that helps at first contact, but after first contact there will be trouble if you don't take out your man. Forget about sheading your man and taking another man out. The biggest difference is Anderson can catch out of the backfield. This is huge for the Cowboys because even their running backs can't catch very well out of the back field.

I suspect Anderson (providing everything goes well) will be the starting fullback and Hoyte will be the backup. We will still have and use the two TE set just for the fact that we have Witten and Fasano.

 

[Stautner]

I like Hoyte but the idea that a guy who never really played the position can beat out a guy like Adam Bergen (if we are talking 2nd FB vs. 3rd TE) seems dubious to me.

Hoyte has the edge for now on ST play but if he is seen in another LB meeting, I think we can eventually cross him off this list. He is the opposite of a Phillips ILB.

But the point is that if Hoyte sticks as a LB then we have a back up FB already on the roster without having to use a roster spot for it.

It gives us flexibility to know that in a pinch we could just move Hoyte over to FB, and meanwhile we can use that extra roster sport elsewhere.

 

[AbeBeta]

But the point is that if Hoyte sticks as a LB then we have a back up FB already on the roster without having to use a roster spot for it.

It gives us flexibility to know that in a pinch we could just move Hoyte over to FB, and meanwhile we can use that extra roster sport elsewhere.

Yes, and we'll also have an LB who doesn't fit the system.