View on Carroll from camp

[MichaelWinicki]

So in other words you basically agree he's an average CB at best. Comparing him to Carr makes little sense to me because I never liked Carr and didn't want to resign him.

I just think Carroll was a foolish move, especially if the coaching staff and front office think he's a legit, quality starting CB that can improve our mediocre secondary from 2016.

Yeah, they're both average CBs in my book.

But IMO Carroll is better at playing zone than Carr is hence that is why he was signed and Carr was allowed to leave.

Plus the signing was prior to the draft and the Cowboys had no idea how that would play out...

They needed a corner due to the defections and signed Carroll.

I disagree on it being a "foolish" move.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I would certainly hope so. I could see us hold out Scandrick, but Carroll needs to definitely be given every chance to show whether he's the starting-caliber corner from 2015 or the backup he played like in 2016.

I think the Cowboys can tell more about Carroll's game in practice vs. the Cowboy's skill players than what they could see vs. the scrubs the Cardinals will put out there tonight.

 

[gimmesix]

So in other words you basically agree he's an average CB at best. Comparing him to Carr makes little sense to me because I never liked Carr and didn't want to resign him.

I just think Carroll was a foolish move, especially if the coaching staff and front office think he's a legit, quality starting CB that can improve our mediocre secondary from 2016.

He's a starting quality cornerback, so yes, he's average for a starter. He was brought in as a relatively cheap fill-in for Carr while Dallas tried to build a secondary. You've got to have players like that.

When Dallas signed him, it A) didn't know if Scandrick would be able to bounce all the way back from a difficult injury; B) didn't know if Brown would have a sophomore slump; and C) didn't know how the draft would fall.

Now, the Cowboys don't fully have the answers to A and B, but it looks like Scandrick is going to be able to bounce back and Brown isn't going to experience a drop-off and it doesn't know yet what it has in the rookies.

The foolish move would be to go into the season with just Brown, Scandrick, with those question marks, and a bunch of rookies that could turn out to be busts.

Carr started because we simply didn't have better options while we were spending top picks trying to build the line. Claiborne was hurt too much. Scandrick's game elevated but then he got hurt. Jones and Brown were rookies that had to earn the staff's trust, which Jones did to become the starting free safety and Brown did when thrust into a starting role.

Carroll is in the same boat. If he's starting, it won't be because of his contract, but because the staff feels he is the best option right now. We might not agree with them, but since they see these players up close every day, it's a good chance that they are right.

 

[gimmesix]

I think the Cowboys can tell more about Carroll's game in practice vs. the Cowboy's skill players than what they could see vs. the scrubs the Cardinals will put out there tonight.

I agree somewhat, although if he struggles against scrubs while let's say Awusie excels, that can tells us a lot. I primarily want Carroll to play a lot this preseason because I want to see how he's doing for myself even against scrubs instead of having to rely on reports and clips that can give a skewed picture.

 

[Sydla]

He's a starting quality cornerback, so yes, he's average for a starter. He was brought in as a relatively cheap fill-in for Carr while Dallas tried to build a secondary. You've got to have players like that.

When Dallas signed him, it A) didn't know if Scandrick would be able to bounce all the way back from a difficult injury; B) didn't know if Brown would have a sophomore slump; and C) didn't know how the draft would fall.

Now, the Cowboys don't fully have the answers to A and B, but it looks like Scandrick is going to be able to bounce back and Brown isn't going to experience a drop-off and it doesn't know yet what it has in the rookies.

The foolish move would be to go into the season with just Brown, Scandrick, with those question marks, and a bunch of rookies that could turn out to be busts.

Carr started because we simply didn't have better options while we were spending top picks trying to build the line. Claiborne was hurt too much. Scandrick's game elevated but then he got hurt. Jones and Brown were rookies that had to earn the staff's trust, which Jones did to become the starting free safety and Brown did when thrust into a starting role.

Carroll is in the same boat. If he's starting, it won't be because of his contract, but because the staff feels he is the best option right now. We might not agree with them, but since they see these players up close every day, it's a good chance that they are right.

"Best" option isn't necessarily the best player. Marinelli has shown in the past that he lokes his vet presences out there. I could definitely see them starting Carroll over Brown and Awuzie because while the upside isn't there, Marinelli thinks having a vet out there is better long term.

Again, Marinelli is not infallible. And the fact they've been hot for this guy for a few off seasons makes me wonder if they have an inflated view of just how good Carroll is and can be.

 

[gimmesix]

"Best" option isn't necessarily the best player. Marinelli has shown in the past that he lokes his vet presences out there. I could definitely see them starting Carroll over Brown and Awuzie because while the upside isn't there, Marinelli thinks having a vet out there is better long term.

Again, Marinelli is not infallible. And the fact they've been hot for this guy for a few off seasons makes me wonder if they have an inflated view of just how good Carroll is and can be.

Well, like I said, he was better than Carr in 2015, so I think when Dallas was looking at a possible cheap upgrade, that's when they started considering Carroll. Then, with the need to make sure we had three corners who weren't just scrubs to put on the field this year, the team went back to Carroll hoping what he showed in 2015 was more who he was than what he showed in 2016.

I don't think that view is inflated and I don't think liking having a vet presence out there is a bad thing. Parcells liked the same thing. I do agree that it can be a detriment at times if you choose to go with the vet presence over the clearly better player just because you like having the vet presence out there. But how often have we actually seen that happen with Marinelli?

Last year, Dallas made Maliek Collins the starter at 3-tech when it could have gone with the vet presences of McClain and Thornton as the starting DTs (with Crawford having to shift to end). He did this because the combination of Collins and McClain at the time was better than Thornton being one of the starters since Thornton was slow to get comfortable with the system. Byron Jones was thrown into the mix right away, starting 11 games in 2015 because he was one of our five best DBs. Who has he started that was not debatably the best that we had at the time?

 

[xwalker]

I agree, if he's bad. If he's pretty even to the other options, then Dallas will go with his experience over starting an inexperienced player. And that's how it should be.

Yes, vets generally get the nod if it's even.

Sometimes it's not just about that position, but balancing out the ratio of vets to young players. It's hard for a young player to succeed if he is surrounded by too many other young players. Some of it could depend on who ends up starting at other positions. Does Jaylon start at MLB? Wilson at SLB? Brown at #3 CB? Any first time starters on DL? Heath is not a "young" player but is new as a starter so he would not be considered a savvy veteran. Last year was the 1st for Jones at FS.

#1 CB - Scandrick?
#2 CB - Carroll vs Brown
#3 CB - Brown or rookie if Brown #2
MLB - Jaylon
WLB - Lee
SLB - Wilson
FS - Jones
SS - Heath
DL - Taco/Tapper probably play a lot of snaps even if they don't start. Lawrence/Crawford are the only ones that have been with the team more than 2 years. Collins likely a 2nd year starter.

 

[Sydla]

Well, like I said, he was better than Carr in 2015, so I think when Dallas was looking at a possible cheap upgrade, that's when they started considering Carroll. Then, with the need to make sure we had three corners who weren't just scrubs to put on the field this year, the team went back to Carroll hoping what he showed in 2015 was more who he was than what he showed in 2016.

I don't think that view is inflated and I don't think liking having a vet presence out there is a bad thing. Parcells liked the same thing. I do agree that it can be a detriment at times if you choose to go with the vet presence over the clearly better player just because you like having the vet presence out there. But how often have we actually seen that happen with Marinelli?

Last year, Dallas made Maliek Collins the starter at 3-tech when it could have gone with the vet presences of McClain and Thornton as the starting DTs (with Crawford having to shift to end). He did this because the combination of Collins and McClain at the time was better than Thornton being one of the starters since Thornton was slow to get comfortable with the system. Byron Jones was thrown into the mix right away, starting 11 games in 2015 because he was one of our five best DBs. Who has he started that was not debatably the best that we had at the time?

Collins was not the starter at the beginning of the year.

 

[gimmesix]

Collins was not the starter at the beginning of the year.

He started 14 of 16 games, but not the first two. So if you want to be picky, OK.