Giants stuff...

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
123,063
Pondering Cowboys' 46: Too many DL

November, 22, 2014

By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com

IRVING, Texas -- With 10 defensive linemen on the 53-man roster, the Dallas Cowboys are making sure they are covered up front after going through so many linemen last season.

But in getting to the 46-man roster, it creates something of a dilemma.

Josh Brent is eligible to play for the first time since Dec. 2, 2012, but how do the Cowboys get him on the active roster.

As we Ponder the 46 for Sunday’s game against the New York Giants, there just didn’t seem a way to get Brent on the field without taking off a player the Cowboys like.

First, let’s get through the inactives we know: quarterback Dustin Vaughan, tackle Tony Hills, tackle Donald Hawkins, safety Jakar Hamilton and cornerback Tyler Patmon, who has a knee injury.

The leaves two more inactives to find.

Could the Cowboys go with four wide receivers in a game for the first time this season? Rookie Devin Street has not had a catch since the season opener.

Try as I might, I can’t see Brent on the 46-man roster this week. In order to do it, the Cowboys would have to dress four wide receivers, de-activate fullback Tyler Clutts or go light in the secondary. None of that will happen. And Rod Marinelli is a big believer in Nick Hayden, so Brent will not be active over him.

In fact, the Cowboys will have to de-activate another linemen just to keep the numbers right. Jack Crawford offers up versatility and played extremely well in the Cowboys’ last game. Anthony Spencer is looking for his first sack. George Selvie has just one sack. Terrell McClain can play both tackle spots, but he could be without a jersey on Sunday.

The guess at the inactives: Vaughan, Hills, Hawkins, Hamilton, Patmon, Brent and McClain.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,905
Archer is thinking too much. If Brent is activated, it would have to be at the expense of another d-lineman.

And if he can't beat out Hayden or Jack Crawford for a spot, then there wasn't any point in keeping him around all this time in the first place.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
53,082
Archer is thinking too much. If Brent is activated, it would have to be at the expense of another d-lineman.

And if he can't beat out Hayden or Jack Crawford for a spot, then there wasn't any point in keeping him around all this time in the first place.
What's the point in Jack Crawford? Do we need to have 5 DEs? I guess this could be a special teams thing but otherwise I don't get it. Makes sense to me to have 4 DTs active and 4 DE's. Especially when you have a DT like Crawford (Tyrone) who can play DE if injuries hit during the game.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,905
What's the point in Jack Crawford? Do we need to have 5 DEs? I guess this could be a special teams thing but otherwise I don't get it. Makes sense to me to have 4 DTs active and 4 DE's. Especially when you have a DT like Crawford (Tyrone) who can play DE if injuries hit during the game.
Totally agree.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Crawford has been playing classically decent though. At least in terms of what is expected out of a Dallas DL these days.
I think it was a 1 game wonder he had been invisible up to that point.

I think he would be exposed in the run game if he got consistent snaps inside.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
123,063
I think it was a 1 game wonder he had been invisible up to that point.

I think he would be exposed in the run game if he got consistent snaps inside.
Okay, so you cut a guy with versatile skills for Coleman who has been inactive, legitimately for a while.

Look, I get why you don't want to expose a guy due to numbers, but obviously J. Crawford is showing more.

Not making a judgment, just noting I get the thought process at least.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Okay, so you cut a guy with versatile skills for Coleman who has been inactive, legitimately for a while.

Look, I get why you don't want to expose a guy due to numbers, but obviously J. Crawford is showing more.

Not making a judgment, just noting I get the thought process at least.
Oh no that's not what I was going for, I have no issue keeping him over Coleman just don't think we will see that kind of output again.

Like I said before I think something must be going on with Coleman for him to not have seen any action since getting hurt, but then again he was probably only seeing action because everybody else was dinged up.
 
Top Bottom