ravidubey
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 20,162
And how good is our defense overall thanks to his production?Lawrence is too small for a 4-3 defensive end. Or so I've heard.
And how good is our defense overall thanks to his production?Lawrence is too small for a 4-3 defensive end. Or so I've heard.
How does that have anything to do with his productivity. You're grasping now.And how good is our defense overall thanks to his production?
The defense is built for 3-tech and de to get sacks, and while that’s good we trade something off to get that advantage. Lawrence is actually decent in run defense, but he can’t take a full game, full season, year after year as a three down starter. Not without stronger support at DT and LB and a good rotation at de.How does that have anything to do with his productivity. You're grasping now.
You are making wild assumptions that are not based in fact. Be better.The defense is built for 3-tech and de to get sacks, and while that’s good we trade something off to get that advantage. Lawrence is actually decent in run defense, but he can’t take a full game, full season, year after year as a three down starter. Not without stronger support at DT and LB and a good rotation at de.
I like Lawrence. Cowboys ask too much of him. Hopefully Taco can improve the rotation because he needs it.You are making wild assumptions that are not based in fact. Be better.
What are you talking about? He sat for a whole 7 plays the entire game.I like Lawrence. Cowboys ask too much of him. Hopefully Taco can improve the rotation because he needs it.
The assumption isn’t wild at all. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/demarcus-lawrence-player-injuries shows how the game wears at Lawrence. This doesn’t count his banged up calf and reduced snaps lately. DLaw can’t keep taking these double teams, he needs help.
He deserves to be paid and also needs to play fewer snaps. He played 38% against Washington and produced two sacks.Any 260 lb. DE that has to go up against 310+ lb. OT's every down needs to be given a breather and won't be able to hold up for 10 years playing 85% of the snaps, that isn't something unique to Lawrence, nor is it a reason to not pay him.
And for the record Lawrence has only played 68% of the snaps on the year, which is a perfectly fine number for him.
In 2012, at 30 years old, Ware played nearly 85% of the snaps. Pro Football Reference doesn't track snap counts any earlier than that from what I can tell but I would imagine that he played at least 80% of the snaps and upwards of 90% between 2007-11 when he was at his peak.He deserves to be paid and also needs to play fewer snaps. He played 38% against Washington and produced two sacks.
The same need for fewer snaps I railed about with Ware for years applies even more for Lawrence.
The Cowboys play their stars too much, partly because the depth is weak but IMO they are lazy when it comes to coaching and getting the most out of their depth.
I'd be OK with 50-55%. Higher than that is poor player development for the backups.In 2012, at 30 years old, Ware played nearly 85% of the snaps. Pro Football Reference doesn't track snap counts any earlier than that from what I can tell but I would imagine that he played at least 80% of the snaps and upwards of 90% between 2007-11 when he was at his peak.
If you think our best DE should be playing sub-50% of the snaps you're out of your mind, somewhere between 60%-70% for your best defensive linemen is completely reasonable. What you want to avoid is playing them 80%-90%, which is what we did with Ware, and it's what the Giants are doing with JPP and Vernon.
So you want the backup DE to play as many snaps as your elite probowler?I'd be OK with 50-55%. Higher than that is poor player development for the backups.
Are you saying you agree with the way they (over) used Ware?
Did you read his whole post? He answered that question.I'd be OK with 50-55%. Higher than that is poor player development for the backups.
Are you saying you agree with the way they (over) used Ware?
Obviously not.So you want the backup DE to play as many snaps as your elite probowler?
Brilliant
Ahh yes, you need to have 6 DEs on the roster.Obviously not.
He did mention poor player development. The third stringer is gonna need some snaps, too.
Yes, like Rev pointed out I said you want to avoid playing your top DL 80-90% of the snaps like we did with Ware, but that's not what we're doing with Lawrence.I'd be OK with 50-55%. Higher than that is poor player development for the backups.
Are you saying you agree with the way they (over) used Ware?
Agreed and agreed. Now consider Ware was a hall of fame talent, freakishly healthy, played WOLB most of his career, and was 10-15 pounds heavier than Lawrence, who’s had already had injuries affect his snaps.Yes, like Rev pointed out I said you want to avoid playing your top DL 80-90% of the snaps like we did with Ware, but that's not what we're doing with Lawrence.
Both Ware and Lawrence were 251 at the Combine, Lawrence is now listed at 265 while Ware was listed at 258 for most of his career, I have no idea where this idea that Ware was 10-15 lbs heavier is coming from. But as for your question, no, I would not give Lawrence less than about 60-70% of the snaps.Agreed and agreed. Now consider Ware was a hall of fame talent, freakishly healthy, played WOLB most of his career, and was 10-15 pounds heavier than Lawrence, who’s had already had injuries affect his snaps.
Applying 70%, the high end of your range, to Ware (the absolute best), how much do you scale down to accommodate Lawrence’s smaller stature, lesser ability, and more exposed position?
Interesting. What source lists Lawrence at 265? Casual search still had him around 250. 265 is much better and where Ware was for some time. Ware was a special talent who almost never got hurt. Lawrence has been neither, though he's obviously having a great year. I'd never start a 250 pound guy with his fist in the dirt unless I felt he was an absolute monster and I knew I had a lot of depth.Both Ware and Lawrence were 251 at the Combine, Lawrence is now listed at 265 while Ware was listed at 258 for most of his career, I have no idea where this idea that Ware was 10-15 lbs heavier is coming from. But as for your question, no, I would not give Lawrence less than about 60-70% of the snaps.
Ware is a HOF'er, sure, but Lawrence is also a strong DPOY candidate this year and could end the year leading the league in sacks. You don't play guys like that 50% of the snaps unless you have the game comfortably in hand and you want to save him for the bigger moments.
ESPN lists Lawrence at 6' 3", 265 lbsInteresting. What source lists Lawrence at 265? Casual search still had him around 250. 265 is much better and where Ware was for some time. Ware was a special talent who almost never got hurt. Lawrence has been neither, though he's obviously having a great year. I'd never start a 250 pound guy with his fist in the dirt unless I felt he was an absolute monster and I knew I had a lot of depth.
Jimmy did it, and he always made sure he had plenty of depth. {Philly plays that way now at all DL positions. Fletcher Cox is playing 61% of his team's defensive snaps, and he's as good as it gets at the DT position. Graham's at 70%, and he's also close to 265. Lawrence is at 69%, but where I can see he's still listed around 250.