Parrish could end up being a great signing

[Doomsdayblitz]

Signing Tony Parrish as our starting FS could end up being the final piece of the puzzle for this defense. I think one of the biggest reasons Parcells & Co. have been so conservative in pass rushing situations is that they didn't trust whoever was playing FS to cover our CBs when we blitzed. Parrish was named to the All-Pro team just 3 years ago while playing SS for the 'Niners. He played FS throughout his college career, and filled in at the position in the pros when needed. He had 9 ints. in '03, the year he went All-Pro, so we know he has good hands.

At 6-0, 210, and having played SS most of his career, we also know he can hit, so he won't be a weakness in the tackling department. Man, if he can learn our system, and get into the flow by playoff time, it would really help our defense. We could send an extra man on 3rd & long more often, and be able to keep more heat on the QB. Heaven knows, we need it. We have only 3 sacks in the last 3 games. That just can't continue into the playoffs, or we'll get hammered. Here's hoping that at least for this year, Parrish is the answer at FS, and that we can improve our pass rush.

 

[Alexander]

Until I see him on the field, I will reserve making further judgement.

I have not seen him since his broken leg and until I do, I cannot bring myself to get excited. That is why I see him as finished. When your leg is splintered like that, it is not easy to recover.

But, that being said, if he is back to his pre-injury form, this is a very good signing.

 

[Woods]

Well, BP has been making great personnel calls this past 6 weeks. Let's hope his hot streak continues . . . .

 

[theebs]

Until I see him on the field, I will reserve making further judgement.

I have not seen him since his broken leg and until I do, I cannot bring myself to get excited. That is why I see him as finished. When your leg is splintered like that, it is not easy to recover.

But, that being said, if he is back to his pre-injury form, this is a very good signing.

Well it is too early to tell. It seems like a good signing to me anyway though because a good player back there may allow us to take risks.

The biggest reason to me it is a good signing though is that he doesnt have to play right away. It is not like when we used to have to sign tight ends and wr off the street and they would play the next week!! Poor aikman.

anyway, its a wait and see but since he doesnt have to be thrown on the field right now he maybe able to help us later!

 

[cowboys#1]

i just hope he is a blessing in disguise....depth at safety is going to be huge during the final stretch of the season

 

[Alexander]

Well it is too early to tell. It seems like a good signing to me anyway though because a good player back there may allow us to take risks.

The biggest reason to me it is a good signing though is that he doesnt have to play right away. It is not like when we used to have to sign tight ends and wr off the street and they would play the next week!! Poor aikman.

anyway, its a wait and see but since he doesnt have to be thrown on the field right now he maybe able to help us later!

I agree we don't have to send him out there right away at least from where I see it. We have got by thus far and could continue to do so.

I just hope this was a move for next season and for the sake of Patrick Watkins, who so desperately needs a mentor.

If it was meant to be for right now, things are worse than I ever thought.

The one thing that does trouble me and that is if he plays, at whose expense?

We are not going to have five active safeties most games.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I agree we don't have to send him out there right away

What the safest bet? putting him out as a safety over the top? strategy-wise.... less chance of making mistake? or is there something else?

 

[Alexander]

What the safest bet? putting him out as a safety over the top? strategy-wise.... less chance of making mistake? or is there something else?

Safe bet is to keep him and his leg off the field. If he plays, that means Patrick Watkins (or possibly Elam) sits.

I think Patrick has done much better in recent weeks and should stay active.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I am just concerned when teams let a player go.....there is usually a good reason.

 

[wileedog]

I just hope this was a move for next season and for the sake of Patrick Watkins, who so desperately needs a mentor.

Agree on the mentor part, but I think he's a FA after the season, so unless they are talking extension now I think this move is (risky) insurance for the playoff push.

 

[Rampage]

he's too old to be the "final peice of the puzzle"

 

[theebs]

I agree we don't have to send him out there right away at least from where I see it. We have got by thus far and could continue to do so.

I just hope this was a move for next season and for the sake of Patrick Watkins, who so desperately needs a mentor.

If it was meant to be for right now, things are worse than I ever thought.

The one thing that does trouble me and that is if he plays, at whose expense?

We are not going to have five active safeties most games.

Yep I agree. I would imagine it has to be at watkins expense, davis is to valuable a special teams player to not be active.

 

[Alexander]

Agree on the mentor part, but I think he's a FA after the season, so unless they are talking extension now I think this move is (risky) insurance for the playoff push.

How is it risky?

It is just money.

Right now, we have unused cap dollars with less than four games remaining.

Might as well use it. That is the first rule with a budget anyways, if you are under, don't save it unless you are sure it carries over. In the case of the cap, it doesn't. Financially, I don't think this is much of a problem. It is insurance. And you almost over pay for it anyways. Even in real life.

 

[Rampage]

How is it risky?

It is just money.

Right now, we have unused cap dollars with less than four games remaining.

Might as well use it. That is the first rule with a budget anyways, if you are under, don't save it unless you are sure it carries over. In the case of the cap, it doesn't. Financially, I don't think this is much of a problem. It is insurance. And you almost over pay for it anyways. Even in real life.

so was vandershank

 

[Alexander]

Yep I agree. I would imagine it has to be at watkins expense, davis is to valuable a special teams player to not be active.

That is why I question this being a move for much more than contingency, and even that is questionable.

He could play if needed and function for a few games.

But I strongly doubt he takes over as a starter within a few weeks and is the "last piece" to our puzzle as some believe. That would mean that Watkins has regressed, because as you said, Davis is not going to be deactivated.

 

[Alexander]

so was vandershank

Do you have a point or did you just want to type "vandershank" and appear clever?

 

[wileedog]

How is it risky?

Poor choice of words on my part.

I meant more to the effect that its a gamble that he can even still play, thus he's not really 'safe' insurance.

I have zero problem with the signing or the money.

 

[Rampage]

Do you have a point or did you just want to type "vandershank" and appear clever?

you said about parrish "its not risky" "its just money" and i said like vandershank

 

[wileedog]

That would mean that Watkins has regressed, because as you said, Davis is not going to be deactivated.

Davis has been toasted the last couple games, yet Watkins isn't getting much more playing time.

I think this move has everything to do with Watkins not being close to where they want him, especially in the post-season.

 

[Alexander]

you said about parrish "its not risky" "its just money" and i said like vandershank

Again, do you have a point?

Vanderjagt was the only option as placekicker and therefore, it was a risk.

Is Parrish going to be inserted tomorrow as a starter?

If so, then you might have a point.

It is not our money. I fail to understand how fans can argue from a fiscal point of view when we are not signing the checks.

From that viewpoint, I defer to the team. It's their money.