Tucker, Petitti - How NOT benched

[Nors]

Really? Their play down the stretch was so horrid how did coaches rationalize throwing them out there game after game? I'd rather a backup be given a chance as starters so badly failed it was embarassing.....

Coach/gm HAVE BLOOD ON A KNIFE on going in and not upgrading T depth.....

 

[DeaconBlues]

Really? Their play down the stretch was so horrid how did coaches rationalize throwing them out there game after game? I'd rather a backup be given a chance as starters so badly failed it was embarassing.....

Coach/gm HAVE BLOOD ON A KNIFE on going in and not upgrading T depth.....

Fairly simple, actually. BP believed that no one else on bench was better than them.

 

[Kilyin]

nfl.com credits Dallas for allowing 49 sacks (ranking Dallas #4 in the NFL for sacks allowed) and half of them came through the turnstiles playing Tackle. If the guys on the bench are worse than that, they shouldn't be in the NFL, and they especially shouldn't be playing for the Cowboys.

We cut players better than that in the offseason of a 6 and 10 record.

 

[junk]

So the loss of Flo was a big deal?

 

[Kilyin]

Sure, I never said losing Flozell wasn't a big deal. But you can't lay all the blame on one injury either. Flozell wasn't manning both sides of the line, and he didn't cut Vollers (who now plays for the Colts). I'm sure he could have probably played either side better than Pettiti or Tucker.

 

[junk]

Sure, I never said losing Flozell wasn't a big deal. But you can't lay all the blame on one injury either. Flozell wasn't manning both sides of the line, and he didn't cut Vollers (who now plays for the Colts). I'm sure he could have probably played either side better than Pettiti or Tucker.

Wasn't necessarily addressing you. I read A LOT of posts claiming the loss of Flo wouldn't be a big deal, it might be better for the team in the long run, Tucker might be better, cut Flo, etc.

I think Flo should and will be a big part of the team's plans next year.

 

[Zman5]

Pettiti wasn't benched because his Dad posts here.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

If you want to blame the coach, owner or assistant coaches for not having suitable backups in place, or starting the season with a rookie OT....that is fine by me.

However to act like they should have been benched to let others play is about silly.

Does anyone honestly think that if they felt they had a better option at OT on the bench they would just refuse to play them.

I am sorry...but I have to do it...

If you really think that they did not bench these guys and let others play just to be stubborn or whatever conspiracy you may have.....

 

[pittdawg]

Pettiti wasn't benched because his Dad posts here.

actually you're almost correct, i paid for parcells' 5 million dollas house in saratoga, ny

 

[aikemirv]

Well, Bp always says with QB's that he does not want to lose the player, and from what I saw fom Pettiti on Sunday, his confidence is all gone.

Is Pettiti lost?

Can he get that confidence back?

Maybe with time but that was a guy who did not have one bit of confidence Sunday night.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

actually you're almost correct, i paid for parcells' 5 million dollas house in saratoga, ny

I heard you are the grounds keeper to.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

actually you're almost correct, i paid for parcells' 5 million dollas house in saratoga, ny

:laugh1: I also heard you have blackmail pictures of Jerry...I heard you got them from Rowdy the mascot.

 

[kartr]

Really? Their play down the stretch was so horrid how did coaches rationalize throwing them out there game after game? I'd rather a backup be given a chance as starters so badly failed it was embarassing.....

Coach/gm HAVE BLOOD ON A KNIFE on going in and not upgrading T depth.....

Parcells understands that they weren't that bad. Your boy Drew still holds the ball too long that makes even pro bowl caliber linemen look bad. Everywhere he plays, it seems that the OL can't do the job. Hint. Hint.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Wasn't necessarily addressing you. I read A LOT of posts claiming the loss of Flo wouldn't be a big deal, it might be better for the team in the long run, Tucker might be better, cut Flo, etc.

I think Flo should and will be a big part of the team's plans next year.

I was one of the ones who say that it might be better for the team in the long run and I still feel that way. I never want to see anyone injured but getting younger players experience is always the best option in non-playoff years if the starter comes back healthy.

Tucker and by extension Dallas' OL depth will be better in '06 than he/they were at the start of '05 and I really think '06 could be something special.

 

[joseephuss]

I was one of the ones who say that it might be better for the team in the long run and I still feel that way. I never want to see anyone injured but getting younger players experience is always the best option in non-playoff years if the starter comes back healthy.

Tucker and by extension Dallas' OL depth will be better in '06 than he/they were at the start of '05 and I really think '06 could be something special.

I understand your point. Well sort of. It is always great when young guys get experience. That does pay off in the long run if that young guy has some talent and can be a contributor. Both Petitti and Tucker gained valuable experience this season. Now Dallas knows what they have or don't have in both of them and can used that knowledge for the future.

The part that I seem unclear on is where you said in a non-playoff year. The Cowboys were in good position to make the playoffs this season and may have been in better position if Flozell doesn't get hurt.

If Flozell doesn't get hurt this season and Petitti still struggles at the end of the year, I think Bill plugs in Tucker at RT. And that is based on the experience that Tucker gained last year starting at RT.

Vollers is a good back up who can start a few games. Dallas is looking at Petitti and Tucker as permanent starters. That is something that they knew that Vollers was not. They could be wrong about both these guys and certainly things didn't look great at the end of the season, but they have to find out. In order to do that, they had to make a sacrifice and cut Vollers.

 

[AbeBeta]

nfl.com credits Dallas for allowing 49 sacks (ranking Dallas #4 in the NFL for sacks allowed) and half of them came through the turnstiles playing Tackle. If the guys on the bench are worse than that, they shouldn't be in the NFL, and they especially shouldn't be playing for the Cowboys.

We cut players better than that in the offseason of a 6 and 10 record.

I don't care for statistics like this. You can't just throw out a number that is floating in space and expect it to be meaningful. Where is the context?

You can say "half came through the tackles" but the data you present are limited -- why? Because we have no idea what the averages are for OT's throughout the league -- if tackles usually give up say 80% of a team's sacks and our guys only gave up 50% that might suggest that our tackles are not so great -- but that the middle of the line is a bigger problem.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I understand your point. Well sort of. It is always great when young guys get experience. That does pay off in the long run if that young guy has some talent and can be a contributor. Both Petitti and Tucker gained valuable experience this season. Now Dallas knows what they have or don't have in both of them and can used that knowledge for the future.

The part that I seem unclear on is where you said in a non-playoff year. The Cowboys were in good position to make the playoffs this season and may have been in better position if Flozell doesn't get hurt.

If Flozell doesn't get hurt this season and Petitti still struggles at the end of the year, I think Bill plugs in Tucker at RT. And that is based on the experience that Tucker gained last year starting at RT.

Vollers is a good back up who can start a few games. Dallas is looking at Petitti and Tucker as permanent starters. That is something that they knew that Vollers was not. They could be wrong about both these guys and certainly things didn't look great at the end of the season, but they have to find out. In order to do that, they had to make a sacrifice and cut Vollers.

Maybe I would have been clearer if I stated "Non-Super Bowl contending year" rather than "non-playoff year".


I do agree with you about Vollers. Quality backup and would have helped this team this year but isn't a future starter so sometimes a coach does have to go with "potential" rather than production even if it burns them once in awhile.

 

[silver]

i actually think pettiti's best position in the pros will be guard. he reminds me of another tackle who enjoyed a long pro career after he moved to guard: kevin gogan

 

[maloy]

cause the coach said so

 

[junk]

If you want to blame the coach, owner or assistant coaches for not having suitable backups in place, or starting the season with a rookie OT....that is fine by me.

However to act like they should have been benched to let others play is about silly.

Does anyone honestly think that if they felt they had a better option at OT on the bench they would just refuse to play them.

I am sorry...but I have to do it...

If you really think that they did not bench these guys and let others play just to be stubborn or whatever conspiracy you may have.....

Typically, I agree and would post something similar.

But then a smart poster would say, "Well what about guys like Tom Brady? If he was obviously better, why wasn't he playing?".

There are boatloads of guys like that. Don't get a chance until forced in by injury and then they play lights out.

However, after that little spiel, I still don't think Dallas had anyone better on the roster.