PFF: Cowboys rookie RG T.J. Bass has not allowed a single pressure on 58 preseason snaps

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
39,707
Reaction score
36,793
Honestly feeling the o-line depth not as bad a first thought.

Center maybe being the exception.
Guard - Bass, Ball, T. Smith
Center - Hoffman, Farniok
Tackle - Richards, Waletzo, Farniok, *Peters (would sign over Waletzo)
Hoffman has been bad. Waletzko wasn't near as bad as some made him out to be in the first game, but he was in the second. Farniok doesn't play tackle. He's a C/G and appears to be better at C.
 

Denim Chicken

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,677
Reaction score
24,554

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
39,707
Reaction score
36,793

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
33,928
Reaction score
19,485
Go light at LB and give him a spot of the 53. They can find guys like Cox and Jefferson on the street if they get hit with injuries. Probably better

If you have OL that could develop into playable players, you try to hold on to them
we are already light at LB. I think with Loss of Stephens, we keep three TEs and go heavier on OL depth, which we know we are going to need. I would forgo keeping someone like Gholston to keep more OL depth
 

plymkr

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,385
Reaction score
15,495
Just keep them both.

Basically have to keep Farniok as your backup center, unfortunately, but if you keep 10 it's just a debate between Waletzko and Edoga.

Smith - Smith - Biadasz - Martin - Steele

Bass, Ball, Richards, Farniok, Edoga/Wally
Yeah keep them both. Isn’t Waletzko out for the year?
 

Knotamus

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
4,145
Just keep them both.

Basically have to keep Farniok as your backup center, unfortunately, but if you keep 10 it's just a debate between Waletzko and Edoga.

Smith - Smith - Biadasz - Martin - Steele

Bass, Ball, Richards, Farniok, Edoga/Wally
Waletzko and Edoga are both currently injured. Waletzko injury may ruin any chance he has at an NFL career (shoulder)

So the decision should be easy enough

Keep the promising OLineman
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
83,520
Reaction score
76,362
Go light at LB and give him a spot of the 53. They can find guys like Cox and Jefferson on the street if they get hit with injuries. Probably better

If you have OL that could develop into playable players, you try to hold on to them
Why cut thrm? We have far worse guys on the offensive line who can go:
 

Point-of-the-Star

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
3,272
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Bass has been my pet cat since they picked him up. Maybe before they signed him . . . can't remember because I'm old and my brain is already stuffed full of so much I don't try to remember the small stuff. But I like Bass. He's a football player. Bet he'd be he11 in a pit drill (yeah, not legal).

I think he has a much higher ceiling that most of the other seconds and 3rds. My guess, unless he just lays a deuce (not a pun although it would be a good one and I'm saving it for later) in the next PS game he's a lock for the 53 .

And everyone ragging on Ball are relying on what we saw last year when they played him at tackle. Dude's just not athletic enough to go outside but put him on the inside and he can maul . . . "Ball can maul" . . . another good one y'all can pull out of the bag especially on game day threads. He played pretty good against the Seachickens.

I'm with whoever said above that our OL depth is declaring itself and it ain't as bad as a lot of folks thought. And on that note I've been seeing all these Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling" threads concerning the OL and all the "Backups are krap" type threads. Would y'all just calm the heck down (if you're already calm just disregard)! There's no, zero, naught, nada chemistry when your plugging and playing a buncha new guys, second and third stringers, UDFA's in there especially against 1st teamers that do have some chemistry. We gonna be alright! Bank on it . . . lock it!

Line is gonna be good and if we have to plug in one of these backup we'll be alright. I'm ready for some football, boys !

GO COWBOYS !
 
Last edited:

quickccc

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,755
Reaction score
14,592
we are already light at LB. I think with Loss of Stephens, we keep three TEs and go heavier on OL depth, which we know we are going to need. I would forgo keeping someone like Gholston to keep more OL depth
what TE gets cut for us to try to go with just 3 TEs ?
 

Praxit

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,737
Reaction score
13,813
Just keep them both.

Basically have to keep Farniok as your backup center, unfortunately, but if you keep 10 it's just a debate between Waletzko and Edoga.

Smith - Smith - Biadasz - Martin - Steele

Bass, Ball, Richards, Farniok, Edoga/Wally
....looks like A-B plans are out. ;)..
 

Mr_437

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,336
Reaction score
20,154
we are already light at LB. I think with Loss of Stephens, we keep three TEs and go heavier on OL depth, which we know we are going to need. I would forgo keeping someone like Gholston to keep more OL depth
You'd cut a good run stopping DL with versatility for one of these backup OL? Interesting.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
39,707
Reaction score
36,793
CJ Goodwin is another candidate.
Him and Malik Jefferson, instead of keeping six traditional LBs. I think those players are the moving parts to keep some of these players that we don't want to risk to waivers or to get some moved over to IR, since they have to make the roster first (which I think is a stupid rule).
 

quickccc

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,755
Reaction score
14,592
I would've liked to have seen TJ Bass at both LG as well as RG..

To see Bass vs OL starters,.. rather than scrubs that won't likely even be on mere practice squads

But maybe OL coach Solari thinks that's too much
for a rookie and better to let them settled/learn at one position.
 
Top