Position Superiority > Position Flexibility

[BAT]

I know that the D coaches keep talking about how much they value position flexibility and how Tyrone Crawford is able to move outside to compensate of the 4-5 game loss of Gregory and Lawrence. But why stunt Crawford's growth at 3 tech, where he has shown the ability to be a better than average player and stick him at strong side DE where he was average, maybe even below average?

Position flexibility is nice, but give me position SUPERIORITY any time. Play the best player at the position and be as close to dominant at ONE position rather than being mediocre at FOUR. Cowboys have to stop out thinking themselves and more so, stop with the ridiculous expectations. Cornerstone player, best value in the draft, next Jimmy Graham, SPARQ this and SPARQ that .... enough already. It's good to push players but to place unrealistic standards of performance is lose-lose, especially if the Cowboys actually believe the BS they are spouting.

Because if they do believe a 3rd rounder is a CORNERSTONE player, or a 6th is the next Jimmy Graham, and do nothing to improve those positions based on these beliefs then Cowboy fans will be in for a world of hurt. It is not only ignorant on the FO part, but completely irresponsible. If Cowboys expect a playoff push in 2016, then they need to push their chips in THIS season and get some more championship pieces, especially on defense.

Like Jimmy said, "Don't get cute, just be good". Cowboys need to stop trying to be so cute.

 

[Angus]

I know that the D coaches keep talking about how much they value position flexibility and how Tyrone Crawford is able to move outside to compensate of the 4-5 game loss of Gregory and Lawrence. But why stunt Crawford's growth at 3 tech, where he has shown the ability to be a better than average player and stick him at strong side DE where he was average, maybe even below average?

Position flexibility is nice, but give me position SUPERIORITY any time. Play the best player at the position and be as close to dominant at ONE position rather than being mediocre at FOUR. Cowboys have to stop out thinking themselves and more so, stop with the ridiculous expectations. Cornerstone player, best value in the draft, next Jimmy Graham, SPARQ this and SPARQ that .... enough already. It's good to push players but to place unrealistic standards of performance is lose-lose, especially if the Cowboys actually believe the BS they are spouting.

Because if they do believe a 3rd rounder is a CORNERSTONE player, or a 6th is the next Jimmy Graham, and do nothing to improve those positions based on these beliefs then Cowboy fans will be in for a world of hurt. It is not only ignorant on the FO part, but completely irresponsible. If Cowboys expect a playoff push in 2016, then they need to push their chips in THIS season and get some more championship pieces, especially on defense.

Like Jimmy said, "Don't get cute, just be good". Cowboys need to stop trying to be so cute.

Draft selection position does not determine performance worth. How many Romos, Wilsons, and Bradys does it take to convince people of that?

 

[stilltheguru88]

Thread is on point

 

[gmoney112]

I'm not really sure what your point is exactly.

So, playing a player, who's better at DT, at DE possibily out of necessity for 4 games is somehow stunting his growth?

If you think a player is a cornerstone player, you need to keep drafting players to compete with him or something?

Of course you want position superiority, but the whole point of position "flexibility" is because this is the NFL, and guys get hurt. Games are won every year with depth. Crawford wouldn't be sniffing DE if our two ends weren't idiots.

But I feel like you knew this already and just wanted to take a potshot at the FO for whatever reason, I'm guessing because they didn't take your pet cat in the draft.

Carry on.

 

[speedkilz88]

Irving, Jack Crawford, and Russell are at LE so they would have to be really disappointing for there to be a need to move Ty Crawford. That is a worse case scenario.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

#1 It would only be over the course of the first 4 games... Not all 16.

#2 We still don't know if Lawrence is going to be gone for four games making point #1 moot.

#3 I'm betting that even over the first four games, Crawford spends most of his time as the #3 DT. J. Crawford, Mayowa, Irving, Tapper and Russell will be the primary DE's during the "suspension" games.

 

[conner01]

Most players who are superior at one position are very capable of playing another. Most superior cb's vould play safety. Crawford is a good tackle but he played de in college

 

[JBS]

Cowboys took Zeke over Ramsey

Be happy

According to your preference

 

[JPostSam]

I'm not really sure what your point is exactly.

So, playing a player, who's better at DT, at DE possibily out of necessity for 4 games is somehow stunting his growth?

If you think a player is a cornerstone player, you need to keep drafting players to compete with him or something?

Of course you want position superiority, but the whole point of position "flexibility" is because this is the NFL, and guys get hurt. Games are won every year with depth. Crawford wouldn't be sniffing DE if our two ends weren't idiots.

But I feel like you knew this already and just wanted to take a potshot at the FO for whatever reason, I'm guessing because they didn't take your pet cat in the draft.

Carry on.

i prefer roster depth to position flexibility.

 

[JPostSam]

#1 It would only be over the course of the first 4 games... Not all 16.

#2 We still don't know if Lawrence is going to be gone for four games making point #1 moot.

#3 I'm betting that even over the first four games, Crawford spends most of his time as the #3 DT. J. Crawford, Mayowa, Irving, Tapper and Russell will be the primary DE's during the "suspension" games.

i hope so. playing a player out of position means having two positions with less than ideal candidates.

i'd rather have the best 3-tech and the second-best end, than the second-best 3-tech and the second-best end.

 

[CF74]

I wouldn't say they are trying to be cute just trying to plug holes and get by till the Calvary gets back from the penalty box.

 

[dallasdave]

I know that the D coaches keep talking about how much they value position flexibility and how Tyrone Crawford is able to move outside to compensate of the 4-5 game loss of Gregory and Lawrence. But why stunt Crawford's growth at 3 tech, where he has shown the ability to be a better than average player and stick him at strong side DE where he was average, maybe even below average?

Position flexibility is nice, but give me position SUPERIORITY any time. Play the best player at the position and be as close to dominant at ONE position rather than being mediocre at FOUR. Cowboys have to stop out thinking themselves and more so, stop with the ridiculous expectations. Cornerstone player, best value in the draft, next Jimmy Graham, SPARQ this and SPARQ that .... enough already. It's good to push players but to place unrealistic standards of performance is lose-lose, especially if the Cowboys actually believe the BS they are spouting.

Because if they do believe a 3rd rounder is a CORNERSTONE player, or a 6th is the next Jimmy Graham, and do nothing to improve those positions based on these beliefs then Cowboy fans will be in for a world of hurt. It is not only ignorant on the FO part, but completely irresponsible. If Cowboys expect a playoff push in 2016, then they need to push their chips in THIS season and get some more championship pieces, especially on defense.

Like Jimmy said, "Don't get cute, just be good". Cowboys need to stop trying to be so cute.

Jimmy told it like it was !!!!

 

[BAT]

Draft selection position does not determine performance worth. How many Romos, Wilsons, and Bradys does it take to convince people of that?

Brady, Wilson, Montana and Romo are exemptions not the rule. But you are missing my point. Play Crawford at position he plays best instead of where he is average.

Find a real DE in FA or via trade. Or find a better player at DT before plugging TCRAW at DE. Need dominant play at one DL spot. 4 games is too many to experiment/throw away on hopes and prayers.

 

[hendog]

Brady, Wilson, Montana and Romo are exemptions not the rule. But you are missing my point. Play Crawford at position he plays best instead of where he is average.

Find a real DE in FA or via trade. Or find a better player at DT before plugging TCRAW at DE. Need dominant play at one DL spot. 4 games is too many to experiment/throw away on hopes and prayers.

Id like to see us get creative and figure out a way to get Wilkerson from the jets.

 

[Kevinicus]

i hope so. playing a player out of position means having two positions with less than ideal candidates.

i'd rather have the best 3-tech and the second-best end, than the second-best 3-tech and the second-best end.

Eh, I don't think you can look at it in absolutes like that.

Iŕ the best end is a 7 and best tackle an 8 and the tackle is a 6 at end and 2nd best tackle is a 6. I'd rather have that than the best tackle and the next best end who is a 4. I think a weakness can have a much bigger impact than a strength.

 

[jday]

I know that the D coaches keep talking about how much they value position flexibility and how Tyrone Crawford is able to move outside to compensate of the 4-5 game loss of Gregory and Lawrence. But why stunt Crawford's growth at 3 tech, where he has shown the ability to be a better than average player and stick him at strong side DE where he was average, maybe even below average?

Position flexibility is nice, but give me position SUPERIORITY any time. Play the best player at the position and be as close to dominant at ONE position rather than being mediocre at FOUR. Cowboys have to stop out thinking themselves and more so, stop with the ridiculous expectations. Cornerstone player, best value in the draft, next Jimmy Graham, SPARQ this and SPARQ that .... enough already. It's good to push players but to place unrealistic standards of performance is lose-lose, especially if the Cowboys actually believe the BS they are spouting.

Because if they do believe a 3rd rounder is a CORNERSTONE player, or a 6th is the next Jimmy Graham, and do nothing to improve those positions based on these beliefs then Cowboy fans will be in for a world of hurt. It is not only ignorant on the FO part, but completely irresponsible. If Cowboys expect a playoff push in 2016, then they need to push their chips in THIS season and get some more championship pieces, especially on defense.

Like Jimmy said, "Don't get cute, just be good". Cowboys need to stop trying to be so cute.

I don't think they are trying to be cute at all. Actually, I think they are being smart.

SPARQ is not just a measure of physicality; it also measures ones will. Guy's who rate high on that scale (as compared to those also available in the draft who don't rate high) don't get that way by sitting on the couch playing video games and eating potato chips. This is a description of a guy who lives in the gym and is willing to put in the work to perfect his craft; and thus become superior to his peers.

Moving Crawford and Byron Jones around last year is/was about necessity; not ideal design. The Cowboys didn't plan on Scandrick getting injured last year and/or Lawrence and Gregory being suspended the first four games this year; that was the hand they were dealt. Crawford may be pushed over, but make no mistake, if they have found lightning in a bottle with Tapper and Collins, as well as the guy's they picked up in Free Agency, Crawford may get to stay put. Training camp and preseason will likely be the deciding factor. Furthermore, "superior" players on the dl typically are moved around on a regular basis to exploit weaknesses on the ol. I, for one, would prefer Crawford to stay put, as well, but not at the expense of having a weakness at defensive end.

 

[jazzcat22]

Most players who are superior at one position are very capable of playing another. Most superior cb's vould play safety. Crawford is a good tackle but he played de in college

I think when Dallas drafted Crawford, he was to play DE. Then they found he could also play inside. They moved him around then put him inside as he fit the scheme better there.

 

[jazzcat22]

Flexibility is good for this DL, as it allows them to move players around for match ups against certain teams. Also allows for some stunts as well.
I don't mean, one game Crawford plays outside, then the next back to the inside. They stay in their base scheme, but then on certain plays can shift them.

Even Jimmy, though it was more Wannsdat and Davis, moved Haley around, every once in a while they flipped sides to hide him on certain plays.

 

[Alexander]

Thread is on point

Correct. Main reason I did not want Ramsey or even Jack high. That is drafting for traits and fear of the 53 limit.