Scandrick's injury no big deal in the grand scheme

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,705
Reaction score
60,327
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

He was serious. I pointed out that, by his logic, if they just cancelled training camp altogether and played only end-of-the-roster guys in preseason, we could be guaranteed not to lose a starter by the Giants game. I was told that was ridiculous. He couldn't connect the dots of my point. In fact, I don't think he could find his butt with a flashlight and a map.

So I decided to blow his circuitry further with this point, which I'm about 75 percent serious about: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.

First, some context to my thinking. If you had to choose a significant starter to lose during the preseason, which most every preseason brings, Scandrick would probably be a good choice. The depth at cornerback has improved beyond the cast from last year, when he was suspended for Draya mollies for four games. Tyler Patmon looks like a real player, as does Corey White, to go along with Carr and the two first-round picks of Mo and Jones. Add to that what looks like an improved pass rush, and the group is bolstered all the more.

Second, I'm one that thinks Scandrick is a bit overrated. His leadership quality and reasonable ability shined during the recent Dark Ages of Cowboys defensive football, when yardage leaked like Ashley Madison accounts. He was a lone wolf in a pack of Shih tzus for a good while, which made him look like the second coming of Deion Sanders around here (which my buddy seems to believe).

The fact is, this loss can be absorbed, and assuming no other corner injuries occur, thank you, there's really no need to add a sixth corner right now.

That could mean that a player Dallas DIDN'T want to waive doesn't necessarily have to be. The Cowboys have entered that rare air of a team that has to let go of good players other teams want because need at other positions dictates certain decisions, or in this case, a wealth of ability at a single position that you just can't cut. I half expected a trade of one of these quality corners anyway because of need elsewhere.

So who benefits from Scandrick's misfortune? Nick Harwell? AJ Jenkins? Ben Gardner? Ken Bishop? Lavar Edwards? Tim Scott? Mark Nzeocha? Keith Smith? A guy soon to be cut elsewhere?

Just who grabbed their eye that now has new hope for the 53? Or whom out there has tickled their distant fancy?

The best thing about this whole thing is simple. I'm not worried about it, not in the least. I have full confidence that Will McClay's talent bandits are on the prowl, and there's a good solution in the making, here already or not. They've got this well in hand.

While I watch other teams wallowing in desperation over lost Achilles and ACLs, I see a deepening roster here very much intact right now. That doesn't preclude an injury this weekend, or any weekend from here to January, but as it stands, this particular loss is really no big deal. Part of the NFL, which seems more wrought with injuries with every passing season.

In fact, aside from a season-ender to Romo, Tyron, or Dez, I don't think there's an injury this team couldn't amply absorb and roll on, so long as they didn't come in high quantity. That's why my choice would be to keep another outside receiver, just in case the worst case with Dez happened. I actually think they could manage through that, albeit with difficulty.

Now, that said, no more of these, please. Quick success Saturday, and get them out pronto, por favor. Shut them down until the Giants.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

He was serious. I pointed out that, by his logic, if they just cancelled training camp altogether and played only end-of-the-roster guys in preseason, we could be guaranteed not to lose a starter by the Giants game. I was told that was ridiculous. He couldn't connect the dots of my point. In fact, I don't think he could find his butt with a flashlight and a map.

So I decided to blow his circuitry further with this point, which I'm about 75 percent serious about: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.

First, some context to my thinking. If you had to choose a significant starter to lose during the preseason, which most every preseason brings, Scandrick would probably be a good choice. The depth at cornerback has improved beyond the cast from last year, when he was suspended for Draya mollies for four games. Tyler Patmon looks like a real player, as does Corey White, to go along with Carr and the two first-round picks of Mo and Jones. Add to that what looks like an improved pass rush, and the group is bolstered all the more.

Second, I'm one that thinks Scandrick is a bit overrated. His leadership quality and reasonable ability shined during the recent Dark Ages of Cowboys defensive football, when yardage leaked like Ashley Madison accounts. He was a lone wolf in a pack of Shih tzus for a good while, which made him look like the second coming of Deion Sanders around here (which my buddy seems to believe).

The fact is, this loss can be absorbed, and assuming no other corner injuries occur, thank you, there's really no need to add a sixth corner right now.

That could mean that a player Dallas DIDN'T want to waive doesn't necessarily have to be. The Cowboys have entered that rare air of a team that has to let go of good players other teams want because need at other positions dictates certain decisions, or in this case, a wealth of ability at a single position that you just can't cut. I half expected a trade of one of these quality corners anyway because of need elsewhere.

So who benefits from Scandrick's misfortune? Nick Harwell? AJ Jenkins? Ben Gardner? Ken Bishop? Lavar Edwards? Tim Scott? Mark Nzeocha? Keith Smith? A guy soon to be cut elsewhere?

Just who grabbed their eye that now has new hope for the 53? Or whom out there has tickled their distant fancy?

The best thing about this whole thing is simple. I'm not worried about it, not in the least. I have full confidence that Will McClay's talent bandits are on the prowl, and there's a good solution in the making, here already or not. They've got this well in hand.

While I watch other teams wallowing in desperation over lost Achilles and ACLs, I see a deepening roster here very much intact right now. That doesn't preclude an injury this weekend, or any weekend from here to January, but as it stands, this particular loss is really no big deal. Part of the NFL, which seems more wrought with injuries with every passing season.

In fact, aside from a season-ender to Romo, Tyron, and Dez, I don't think there's an injury this team couldn't amply absorb and roll on, so long as they didn't come in high quantity. That's why my choice would be to keep another outside receiver, just in case the worst case with Dez happened. I actually think they could manage through that, albeit with difficulty.

Now, that said, no more of these, please. Quick success Saturday, and get them out pronto, por favor. Shut them down until the Giants.

I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2 below is worse than opinion 1.

Opinion 1: If Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - (Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday) - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.
 

BARRYRAY

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
127
Well I think the Cowboys overall have had concerns with this guy, drugs, domestic issues., thats why they addressed it in the draft.Management here is really ahead of the curve.
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2 below is worse than opinion 1.

Opinion 1: If Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - (Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday) - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.

Yeah....I'd suggest that both are absurd and extreme.
 

CashMan

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,555
Reaction score
1,175
I do not think OScan is as good, as everyone thinks. I think Carr, makes him look better than he really is. I really hope Jones starts.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,705
Reaction score
60,327
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2 below is worse than opinion 1.

Opinion 1: If Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - (Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday) - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.

Which is why I qualified it.

Scandrick isn't the impact guy he's made out to be. He was the skinniest kid at fat camp for a long time.

There's a reason they put Carr on the No. 1 guy instead of Scandrick.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,971
Reaction score
26,616
I wouldn't say it's no big deal
But we are in better shape to deal with it than previous years
It does allow you to keep another guy but none of those guys will have the impact that having scandrick would
They might not even be active on game day
We will get thru the loss just like we did last year with lee
But we would have been better last year with lee and we would be better this year with scandrick
That doesn't mean we can't still have a great season but even though we have better depth, losing any starter for the season has a serious effect on that depth
 

Texas_Pete

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,752
Reaction score
15,777
It's all about the Rushmen. If they control the LOS and put consistent pressure on the QB, we're good. The Gnats did it for years. Won 2 SBs with Eli under center too.

I think we are building a formidable front 7 that can do the same for us if they can remain healthy. The pieces are certainly there.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
81,320
Reaction score
102,274
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I hate that we lost a quality player. But I see why people say what they say, and agree somewhat.
I was not in favor of them redoing his contract. He is a loss, but we have depth to replace him. He is one of those players internet GM's would break the bank and hype him up, while complaining about other players because they farted.
I like his play, he contributed, a lot. But he wasn't out there making a lot of interceptions in game changing situations either.

It's one of those catch 22's, he will be missed, but they have options now, as well as a pass rush and strong LB'ers to give the secondary help, even without Scandrick. But we won't know how much he may be missed until we see Patmon in the slot, and Mo, Jones, White at CB. We may miss his versatility the most between playing slot and / or the outside.

This may be one of the most watched deals this Saturday night.
 

xvendettax914

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
2,434
i get what your saying, but personally i dont see how an injury to one of your starters, especially one like scandrick can be catagorized as "no big deal"
 

DallasInDC

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
5,019
I actually heard someone, with a straight face and a stern brow, blame Orlando Scandrick's injury on Jason Garrett yesterday. I kid you not. His "point" was that if Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2 below is worse than opinion 1.

Opinion 1: If Garrett had held the scheduled day at the beach as usual - (Garrett cancelled it because of the poor performance on Sunday) - Scandrick would not have been on the practice field and gotten hurt.

Opinion 2: Scandrick's injury was a good thing.

I in no way think that Oscan's injury is a good thing. Any season ending injury to a starter is devastating, causes depth issues, and messes with not only the talent on the field but the chemistry of the team. With that said, A different thought process on the injury could go as such:

All accounts were that Oscan has been struggling in camp (and OTAs IIRC). His personal life issues are being well documented and may have contributed to the difficulties he has been having on the field on have the potential to impact his play throughout the year. Additionally, by all accounts, Patmon has been having an excellent camp so far and seems prime to step up in OScan's place this year. It is very possible this could have been a down year for Oscan and he may not have played up to the same level he has the previous 2-3 years. If that was the case, I think this coaching staff would be hesitant to pull him and we would end up riding with him through thick and thin as opposed to letting the hot hand (Patmon) step up.

Please note, I am not saying this is the case, just that this could be another possible way to look at this injury.
 

jrumann59

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,017
Reaction score
8,770
It is like the Kevin Smith injury of many years ago, the team made it through that and at the time Kevin Smith was considered a corner about to turn the corner into a top flight CB. My concern is do we have a Larry Brown in the pack.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I in no way think that Oscan's injury is a good thing. Any season ending injury to a starter is devastating, causes depth issues, and messes with not only the talent on the field but the chemistry of the team. With that said, A different thought process on the injury could go as such:

All accounts were that Oscan has been struggling in camp (and OTAs IIRC). His personal life issues are being well documented and may have contributed to the difficulties he has been having on the field on have the potential to impact his play throughout the year. Additionally, by all accounts, Patmon has been having an excellent camp so far and seems prime to step up in OScan's place this year. It is very possible this could have been a down year for Oscan and he may not have played up to the same level he has the previous 2-3 years. If that was the case, I think this coaching staff would be hesitant to pull him and we would end up riding with him through thick and thin as opposed to letting the hot hand (Patmon) step up.

Please note, I am not saying this is the case, just that this could be another possible way to look at this injury.

His issue early in camp was the same knee that ended up blowing out. They called it tendinitis but I'm curious if they did an MRI on it before the injury. It's possible that he already had a partial tear in it.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,971
Reaction score
26,616
Well I think the Cowboys overall have had concerns with this guy, drugs, domestic issues., thats why they addressed it in the draft.Management here is really ahead of the curve.

Guess that's why they extended him
The addressed cb in the draft because Mo is about to be a free agent, had nothing to do with scan
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,705
Reaction score
60,327
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
i get what your saying, but personally i dont see how an injury to one of your starters, especially one like scandrick can be catagorized as "no big deal"

Jordy Nelson was a BIG deal. Will Beatty was a BIG deal. Arian Foster, the Philly corner, the Giants safety, etc, were big deals.

Those were huge because there's no real answer for them on their rosters. It changed everything.

Scandrick's injury doesn't really change much. They can manage just fine. That's my point.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,705
Reaction score
60,327
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
It is like the Kevin Smith injury of many years ago, the team made it through that and at the time Kevin Smith was considered a corner about to turn the corner into a top flight CB. My concern is do we have a Larry Brown in the pack.

Oh my gosh, they've got five corners better than the infinitely overrated Larry Brown.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,705
Reaction score
60,327
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Great. The first lob of the "blessing in disguise" thread variant.

Let's make no bones about this. OScan makes us a better defense.

He does, but how much? Let's remember all the great signature Scandrick plays of the past. I can think of about three.
 
Top