Who can we least afford to lose?

[bobtheflob]

Which player do you zoners think the Cowboys can least afford to lose to injury? Romo is the obvious answer so I'm removing him from eligibility.

In my mind it's between Flo, Newman, Ferguson, or Ware. I think I'd have to pick Newman. The fact that we have more depth at O-line (plus that there's a very real possibility that it can happpen) makes me shy away from Flo. Ferguson doesn't seem to be quite as vital in this defense as he was in Parcell's 3-4, and although I love Ware, we do have Ellis and Spencer.

If Newman was hurt though we'd have some issues. Henry is ok but he's no #1 corner and I just don't think Glenn has the juice left to be a full time starter. I don't even want to think about who we'd turn to after that.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Jerry Jones

 

[Facin'Fools]

Matt Mcbriar...The perfect blend of speed, size and athleticism....

 

[Yeagermeister]

Matt Mcbriar...The perfect blend of speed, size and athleticism....

Nah Nick Folk can fill in for him.

 

[Doomsday101]

Without seeing how Gurode backup will do I would start with him as the guy we can least afford to lose. There is not faster rout to the QB than right up the gut. Not to mention having good clean snaps to avoid turnovers.

 

[theogt]

Outside of Romo, I'd say Newman. I would say Ware, but we've got 2 competent (*fingers crossed*) pass-rushers other than Ware in Ellis and Spencer. We also have 4 different potential options behind Flozell (McQ, Free, Marten, and Davis), so that's not as big a problem as has been in the past.

But behind Newman we got squat.

 

[Big Country]

Outside of Romo, I'd say Newman. I would say Ware, but we've got 2 competent (*fingers crossed*) pass-rushers other than Ware in Ellis and Spencer. We also have 4 different potential options behind Flozell (McQ, Free, Marten, and Davis), so that's not as big a problem as has been in the past.

But behind Newman we got squat.

 

[juck]

Mccflabb-he is our biggest assett in the choking dept.

 

[AbeBeta]

Outside of Romo, I'd say Newman. I would say Ware, but we've got 2 competent (*fingers crossed*) pass-rushers other than Ware in Ellis and Spencer. We also have 4 different potential options behind Flozell (McQ, Free, Marten, and Davis), so that's not as big a problem as has been in the past.

But behind Newman we got squat.

I think we could play a game or two without Newman -- so long as the pass rush was doing well. In SD, their secondary got exposed over against good passing teams (and those who blocked the rush better). The Henry-Glenn combination is going to be about as good as the SD corners last year (of course if Cromartie comes on, that group will be much better).

 

[theogt]

I think we could play a game or two without Newman -- so long as the pass rush was doing well. In SD, their secondary got exposed over against good passing teams (and those who blocked the rush better). The Henry-Glenn combination is going to be about as good as the SD corners last year (of course if Cromartie comes on, that group will be much better).

You have much more faith than I do in Glenn being on the field for 3 downs.

 

[Rampage]

romo hands down. all you people saying newman yet san deigo had squat for a secondary

 

[Vintage]

romo hands down. all you people saying newman yet san deigo had squat for a secondary

People aren't choosing Romo because they can read.

 

[superpunk]

Roy Williams.

Our safeties are going to be under tremendous pressure this year. He's the best one we've got - if he goes down, we're relying on Killer Keith?

Yikes.

We've got depth at LB and corner. Ferguson would also be a problem, but I think we have some guys who could play decent one-gap action behind him.

 

[Rampage]

People aren't choosing Romo because they can read.

:laugh2: my bad. i would go with ware at #1 and roy at #2

 

[rojan]

If we where picking safety's I would pick Hamlin ahead of Roy....Roy is great but I think we could do better with Hamlin/Killa or Watkins than Williams/Killa or Watkins just because Hamlin is a leader and will get us lined up right.

If we couldnt get lined u right working with Zimmers vinela defense than I don't wonna see what would happen working with an aggressive defense where 1 misstep can easily result to a 70 yard bomb for a TD.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Ware... If losing Ellis hurt us that much last year, I'd hate to see what losing Ware would do.

That said, Glenn/Henry/Reeves in our nickel wouldn't be much fun, either.

 

[Stautner]

I think we could play a game or two without Newman -- so long as the pass rush was doing well. In SD, their secondary got exposed over against good passing teams (and those who blocked the rush better). The Henry-Glenn combination is going to be about as good as the SD corners last year (of course if Cromartie comes on, that group will be much better).

romo hands down. all you people saying newman yet san deigo had squat for a secondary

Let me clue you guys in ...... THIS ISN'T SAN DIEGO AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SITUATION OR THE SAME PLAYERS!

We don't yet know if your D-line and LB's will be as effective as the San Diego D-line and LB's, so we can't automatically assume we can get by with an average seecondary like they did.

 

[AbeBeta]

Let me clue you guys in ...... THIS ISN'T SAN DIEGO AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SITUATION OR THE SAME PLAYERS!

We don't yet know if your D-line and LB's will be as effective as the San Diego D-line and LB's, so we can't automatically assume we can get by with an average seecondary like they did.

So talking about hypothetically losing a player is fine?

But talking about how that loss may or may not hypothetically affect the defense isn't OK?

 

[Stautner]

So talking about hypothetically losing a player is fine?

But talking about how that loss may or may not hypothetically affect the defense isn't OK?

Well hell, if there are no boundaries, then why don't we just say that it wouldn't hurt to lose Tony Romo because it didn't hurt when Staubach took over for Morton in 1971 ........ ?

See my point?

Hypotheticals can be fun to discuss, but there still has to be a logical basis for the points being discussed - otherwise the hypothetical just becomes a ridiculous farce.

Obviously my analogy was more way out, but lets face it, it's ridiculous to assume that Wade Phillips system is all that matters and that our players will function in it exactly as the San Diego players did ........ the players themselves do play a part.

 

[AbeBeta]

Well hell, if there are no boundaries, then why don't we just say that it wouldn't hurt to lose Tony Romo because it didn't hurt when Staubach took over for Morton in 1971 ........ ?

See my point?

Hypotheticals can be fun to discuss, but there still has to be a logical basis for the points being discussed - otherwise the hypothetical just becomes a ridiculous farce.

Obviously my analogy was more way out, but lets face it, it's ridiculous to assume that Wade Phillips system is all that matters and that our players will function in it exactly as the San Diego players did ........ the players themselves do play a part.

So, hypothetically if we lose a certain player we need to project to what would have happened LAST year under a completely different defensive system.

That sir, sounds more ridiculous than the "who could be least afford to lose if Bill Parcells were still coaching here" which is exactly what you are suggesting.