Randy Gregory

[Dallas94Ware]

7 minutes ago, resilient part 2 said:

Yes and No. Keep in mind players often have similar grades at different positions. It's balance of both.

#ISTILLWANTMYWR 

Parcells always said the need has to meet the opportunity. If you NEED a linebacker but the better option is a receiver, you take that receiver. Grades are limiting. When I worked scouting, grades of letter were applied to round potentials and value. From there a simple check system was in place to differentiate players of the same round value in terms of impact, fit, need, and overall potential to be a star. Check minus, check, and check plus. 

Just some cool info for ya

But the reality of a grade system alone is way overblown, because letter grades leave off too much of the story. Some.teams use a number system alongside letter grades, or a decimal acquired through some formula or another. But theres always more than jist a letter, for.the very reason you mentioned.

[matt79511]

I find it kind of funny how people abhor defensive backs because they're clearly only the product of the pass rush in front of them, but can't see that Dallas' falloff in WR play from '16 to '17 had as much to do with the QB and OL struggles as much as their own.

I mean, if no DB can cover without the aid of his front 4, should we expect WRs to get open downfield if the OL can't protect? If the QB can't find them or throw them open? Some major cognitive dissonance there.

Not that we don't need more talent at WR- we do- but we don't have to force it at 19 if the right guy's not there. It just doesn't make that much sense that a team that ran the ball more than anyone in the NFC in 2017 (and should *probably* run it even more next year) and already is set to have the 3rd highest paid WR corps in football would add another Top 20 pick/big guaranteed contract on top of that to be WR4 as a rookie, especially when Switzer and Brown showed that they're at least NFL players.

2nd, 3rd round, sure. But 1st round? Only if you're convinced he's BPA and going to be a viable and versatile #1 or 1a within a year, IMO.

[CAPJ]

We need more play makers at WR. Someone who can make plays from inside the 5 so Dak has someone to throw to from 1st and goal at the 3. #FireSL

[Dallas94Ware]

52 minutes ago, CAPJ said:

We need more play makers at WR. Someone who can make plays from inside the 5 so Dak has someone to throw to from 1st and goal at the 3. #FireSL

The weapons are there, i get this is mostly sarcasm but what this team is REALLY lacking is depth. Everywhere.

If Dez is struggling someone else needs to step up. No one did. Not Beas not TWill not Butler.

If Lee is out someone needs to step up, no one did. 

If Tyron is out, someone needs to step up. No one did.

Philly loses their LT, someone stepped up. Minnesota loses their young star tailback and starting QB, someone stepped up. 

New England loses their top WR, someone stepped up.

Etc etc.

Good teams have depth. Maybe not a ton of great players. But too heavy teams do not survive in the NFL - injuries are much too common, and sometimes good players get stuck in bad situations, ruts, or have a bad year and need the help. Good teams have good depth. Having a bunch of all pro stars doesn't matter if the players behind them will only catch 15 passes all year, or allow 7 sacks in one game, or miss 9 tackles in a single game, or blow the same flank zone assignment on back to back plays, and so forth as we saw all year long.

This team needs depth. It needs football players. It does not need a linebacker, or a wideout, or a defensive tackle. It needs depth and football players, period, no matter where they play. Just get good players and let them play, or wait their chance to play. Teams in this era are built from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

[CAPJ]

3 minutes ago, Dallas94Ware said:

The weapons are there, i get this is mostly sarcasm but what this team is REALLY lacking is depth. Everywhere.

If Dez is struggling someone else needs to step up. No one did. Not Beas not TWill not Butler.

If Lee is out someone needs to step up, no one did. 

If Tyron is out, someone needs to step up. No one did.

Philly loses their LT, someone stepped up. Minnesota loses their young star tailback and starting QB, someone stepped up. 

New England loses their top WR, someone stepped up.

Etc etc.

Good teams have depth. Maybe not a ton of great players. But too heavy teams do not survive in the NFL - injuries are much too common, and sometimes good players get stuck in bad situations, ruts, or have a bad year and need the help. Good teams have good depth. Having a bunch of all pro stars doesn't matter if the players behind them will only catch 15 passes all year, or allow 7 sacks in one game, or miss 9 tackles in a single game, or blow the same flank zone assignment on back to back plays, and so forth as we saw all year long.

This team needs depth. It needs football players. It does not need a linebacker, or a wideout, or a defensive tackle. It needs depth and football players, period, no matter where they play. Just get good players and let them play, or wait their chance to play. Teams in this era are built from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

Agreed players need to step up and you are right it was mostly sarcasm. My issue is with our coaches not making adjustments. You see Chaz Green get beat over and over again. How many times does Dak need to get hit before you put someone else in or put a RB or TE over on that side. 

2016 we lost Tony and made adjustments and we excelled. This year didnt seem to be the case. Minnesota loses their starting QB and RB and is in the Championship game. We lose our outside linebacker and cannot stop a high school football team.

It seems like the coaches dont put our players in position to make plays. That is just my opinion.

[Dallas94Ware]

2 minutes ago, CAPJ said:

Agreed players need to step up and you are right it was mostly sarcasm. My issue is with our coaches not making adjustments. You see Chaz Green get beat over and over again. How many times does Dak need to get hit before you put someone else in or put a RB or TE over on that side. 

2016 we lost Tony and made adjustments and we excelled. This year didnt seem to be the case. Minnesota loses their starting QB and RB and is in the Championship game. We lose our outside linebacker and cannot stop a high school football team.

It seems like the coaches dont put our players in position to make plays. That is just my opinion.

Here we go again with the uneducated adjustments stuff..

Where did Rod Smith line up after two sacks allowed? Where was Swaim moved to chip? How many max.protects got called?

ADJUSTMENTS DOESNT MEAN YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM, IT MEANS YOU ATTEMPTED TO. IT STILL REQUIRES EXECUTION. IF PLAYERS DONT EXECUTE, NO ADJUSTMENT MATTERS. MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT MEAN YOU INSTAWIN. Geez.

The adjustments were made. You are simply blind to seeing them, for whatever reason.

[matt79511]

I think you guys both are making fair points.

Football fans tend to throw everything that doesn't go well during a game under the "adjustments" umbrella as a catch all term that doesn't, you know, actually mean anything. It's not really fair and overlooks the 24/7/365 nature of the job that is building a team.

But I think this coaching staff deserves as much blame as the front office for the team's lack of depth. Sure, they've been hurt by some injuries and bad risks by the FO, but it's not like they only have the Byron Bells and Brice Butlers of the world as primary backups to key starters- they have mid-round picks and mid-tier contracts invested in their secondary and tertiary options behind the aforementioned Dez, Lee, and Tyron. Maybe all of them were irreconcilable bad investments and players, but I just don't buy that. Coaches have to make do with what they have- can't have a steak on every platter.

Plus, when you get great rookie years out of guys like Byron, Maliek, Anthony Brown, and then they regress massively in Year 2-3, that hurts your depth a lot, and that's to say nothing of how often this team fails to get acceptable production out of players on their second contracts. And I think that reflects poorly on team culture. Which, again, you can blame the Joneses if that's prerogative, but really falls at the feet of the head coach.

[Rtnldave]

I heard something on sports radio on my way to work this morning. Adam Schefter (I think that's his name) was on 97.5 and he said:

"...It's not the team that makes the big plays that win most of the time, it's the team that DOESN'T make the big mistake that's winning now a days."

In short, he is saying, keep your playbook simple and easy to execute, that way you make more plays and less chance of giving the game away.

 

He also said something to the affect of most teams in the NFL beat themselves today. It's not a matter of having the most talented (see Bortles, Keenum and Foles in the Championship games) but the most efficient.

I believe the days of the "Triplets" and fantasy football studs equating to championship runs has ended. In some cases (Patriots, Steelers) they are still there, but these teams are getting old at prime positions. their days are numbered.

Food for thought I guess.

[Dallas94Ware]

The bigger question Matts ..is why did those players not show marked improvement? Or were they simply exposed as reps increased and pieces around them became just as inexperienced as they were? Or is it as you suggest, the culture put forth by the staff?

From what I understand of football, its a combination of a lot of things on field. 

First and foremost, expectations vs reality..combined with increased roles.

Byron was never going to be what many expected and hoped. He is a.good athlete who can do a bit of eberything quite well, but this was no second coming of Ed Reed and the reality of it is we hoped and many expected, but because he is not, he is labeled as bust or regressed. Truth is, he has always been what he is, and for a.late round first hes been ok - a solid every down contributor.

Anthony Brown saw the field a.lot as a rookie, but in specific situations and with veteran safety help behind him, shadowing or zoning over a teams.third and.fourth options mostly. Did some top two target work also, especially later in the year. But foe the most part, he looked great against guys in his caliber. So we expected more when pinning him up against the better players and elites of the league. The result? We call it regression. In reality, it is simply what it always was - a late round draft pick with decent cover skills and good speed fighting his best against guys several steps ahead in their careers and skillsets. He was in over his head. He can learn.and improve, but now most here call him regressed or a one year wonder because they expected better after looking better in fewer opportunities against lesser talent.

Collins looked great in limited capacity too. But then we quickly saw how his role in the defense.limits his opportunities when he is given them. But, as with the others, increased chances should mean increased production right? Wrong. It means increased chances for the raw inexperience to be exploited. And as a result, we say regressed, when in reality it is what it always was - a mid round draft pick, playing a role that is typically hard to produce.from, being given too many chances in what is a productive unit when in rotation, and being.exposed as an inexperienced player as a result. 

As fans, most tend to overlook the context (ie, Dak threw a pick cause hes awful at deep throws, as opposed to Dak threw a pick because hes down by 4, its 3rd down, and theres a minute to play, and no one is open) and see only the more tangible aspects such as stats, wins, losses, and then grab at rhe easily picked fruit as reasons why. The reality is always far deeper than that, and without the proper context a not-so-great player can sound amazing, and vice versa (Roy Williams.had 5 picks.... but put in context.....because he stunk in coverage and was thrown at 20 times a game) or a succesful coaching year can look questionable or vice versa (Mike Tomlin went dor it on 4th down and failed several times ..... .. but in context, the team was.down early and the d was stacking the middle expecting a Ben sneak or a Bell run, leaving a pass a good call, fail or.no fail).

Context my friend, all about the context.

I dont see them as failures or regression, nor do I blame Garrett for it. I.blame the lack of depth forcing what should be role players and.contributors being asked to play the role of an all pro.

Which is why I keep saying..make this draft all about draftingnthe best football players all across the board. Ignore position. Ignore salary caps and contract situations. Build a depth chart that allows guys like Anthony Brown to play a role and do it well, and not expect him to be our new Patrick Peterson.

[Dallas94Ware]

6 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

I heard something on sports radio on my way to work this morning. Adam Schefter (I think that's his name) was on 97.5 and he said:

"...It's not the team that makes the big plays that win most of the time, it's the team that DOESN'T make the big mistake that's winning now a days."

In short, he is saying, keep your playbook simple and easy to execute, that way you make more plays and less chance of giving the game away.

 

This has been preached by Parcells for two decades, and now by his protege Belichick for another two decades.

The Patriots have won 5 rings using that philosophy. Kewp it simple. Ask no one to do more than what you know they do best. Use all your gameday slots on guys who can do something for you, no matter how small or trivial. Never make a guy do something that isnt what you put him on your team to do. And keep your scheme so simple no one can possibly screw up. Master the easy and simple stuff and dare someone to.beat it. Because they wont. Its easily executed and you have mastered it.

[matt79511]

26 minutes ago, Dallas94Ware said:

The bigger question Matts ..is why did those players not show marked improvement? Or were they simply exposed as reps increased and pieces around them became just as inexperienced as they were? Or is it as you suggest, the culture put forth by the staff?

From what I understand of football, its a combination of a lot of things on field. 

First and foremost, expectations vs reality..combined with increased roles.

Byron was never going to be what many expected and hoped. He is a.good athlete who can do a bit of eberything quite well, but this was no second coming of Ed Reed and the reality of it is we hoped and many expected, but because he is not, he is labeled as bust or regressed. Truth is, he has always been what he is, and for a.late round first hes been ok - a solid every down contributor.

Anthony Brown saw the field a.lot as a rookie, but in specific situations and with veteran safety help behind him, shadowing or zoning over a teams.third and.fourth options mostly. Did some top two target work also, especially later in the year. But foe the most part, he looked great against guys in his caliber. So we expected more when pinning him up against the better players and elites of the league. The result? We call it regression. In reality, it is simply what it always was - a late round draft pick with decent cover skills and good speed fighting his best against guys several steps ahead in their careers and skillsets. He was in over his head. He can learn.and improve, but now most here call him regressed or a one year wonder because they expected better after looking better in fewer opportunities against lesser talent.

Collins looked great in limited capacity too. But then we quickly saw how his role in the defense.limits his opportunities when he is given them. But, as with the others, increased chances should mean increased production right? Wrong. It means increased chances for the raw inexperience to be exploited. And as a result, we say regressed, when in reality it is what it always was - a mid round draft pick, playing a role that is typically hard to produce.from, being given too many chances in what is a productive unit when in rotation, and being.exposed as an inexperienced player as a result. 

As fans, most tend to overlook the context (ie, Dak threw a pick cause hes awful at deep throws, as opposed to Dak threw a pick because hes down by 4, its 3rd down, and theres a minute to play, and no one is open) and see only the more tangible aspects such as stats, wins, losses, and then grab at rhe easily picked fruit as reasons why. The reality is always far deeper than that, and without the proper context a not-so-great player can sound amazing, and vice versa (Roy Williams.had 5 picks.... but put in context.....because he stunk in coverage and was thrown at 20 times a game) or a succesful coaching year can look questionable or vice versa (Mike Tomlin went dor it on 4th down and failed several times ..... .. but in context, the team was.down early and the d was stacking the middle expecting a Ben sneak or a Bell run, leaving a pass a good call, fail or.no fail).

Context my friend, all about the context.

I dont see them as failures or regression, nor do I blame Garrett for it. I.blame the lack of depth forcing what should be role players and.contributors being asked to play the role of an all pro.

Which is why I keep saying..make this draft all about draftingnthe best football players all across the board. Ignore position. Ignore salary caps and contract situations. Build a depth chart that allows guys like Anthony Brown to play a role and do it well, and not expect him to be our new Patrick Peterson.

^ Fair assessments D94W. I definitely agree increased reps and tape can get one exposed and that that somewhat applies here. But, Collins' and Brown's snaps stayed mostly stable from Year 1 to 2, while Jones' went down from Year 2 to 3, so I'm not sure that's all of it. Byron in particular, I feel they've misused by playing him in the box too much (where he's 20-30 pounds too light to really hold up) and not just keeping it simple with him as deep safety. Collins' issues are probably the foot problem and playing more 1-tech (and he might just be a 3rd DT), Brown maybe was never more than a #4 CB- but I'm pretty sure we played way more 2-high safety looks in '17 than '16 so I don't think that's it either.

We've had other guys like Felix Jones and Mike Jenkins show promise and flame out before the end of their rookie contracts before, too, but the bigger probably is dudes like Dez and Crawford who peak when extension-eligible and don't live up to their new contracts, like so, so many before them. Is it just a health/age/wear-and-tear thing? Maybe. Does this affect every team? Sure. But god is it frustrating.

Where we really differ is in what to expect from any current or future backups or secondary/tertiary starters. Having a Pro Bowl-caliber guard like Ron Leary just sitting on your bench waiting to be unleashed is not a commonplace thing, and again doesn't reflect well on the coaches that he was behind La'el on the 2016 depth chart in the first place. Moreover, injuries are going to happen, role players are going to step in as starters, and they don't or shouldn't have to "play the role of an All-Pro". I think that's a bad excuse for a mostly bad coaching job this season. If not mid-game, at some point you are going to have to, to use that word, adjust.

 

Getting back on topic... Gregory, if physically and mentally up to the task, would be a *huge* boon to this team, especially as it relates to the depth discussion. Getting someone who can play over 50% of the snaps at RDE and actually threaten left tackles fundamentally changes this defense, IMO, and allows the rest of the DL to fall into place.

[Dallas94Ware]

Felix never showed much promise outside of being a utility player. Kick returner, third down/Lance Dunbar sort of role..and he was never the same after knee injury. Jenkins had the same issue as Carr ... brought here for a specific style of play, then asked to do it differently. Then asked to be a top cover guy when he was never going to be that.

Depth and.roster moves forced both into larger roles, and to be honest, neither should have been drafted to begin with..Jason, as OC, telling Jerry in the war room, as seen on Hard Knocks, that "one (Mendenhall) is an everydown back, and we have an everydown back. The other is a special..." is probably the biggest blunder of Garretts career. Not only was Felix not "a special", or special at all, but he was essentially a receiving/speed back who could not catch and didnt have the vision to excel at using his speed. 

That all aside, you also.mentioned Leary. He never should have been allowed to walk if Collins was ever going to move outside. But paying for him would have been difficult with everyone else on the line getting paid in the year before/year after/that year time frame. 

I think the biggest problem of all is the expectations of young players to be the saviors of their position far too quickly. Like Bill used to say, alluding to that infamous Jonestown massacre, dont rush and drink the kool-aid until you are sure. What looks good at first doesnt mean it is going to get better, or even stay good. We see Brown carry a teams second year/third year #2 receiver a couple times.and start thinking he is our new Kevin Smith. Or we see Collins penetrate and hit the runner for a loss and we start labeling him the new Russel Maryland. They show the promise, theynhave the potential, the team thrusts them into a bigger role, we fans place unrealistic expectations on them, then get mad when they fail after being put in a position for failure.

[the lone star]

11 hours ago, Dallas94Ware said:

If this team targets anything, it will be a complete bust and a failure of a draft.

They cannot afford to target by position.

They need to draft the single best football player they can. No.freak athletes, no potential heavy talents, no "we must have a -insert position- early", just get the best damn football player you can and worry about where he plays later.

This team has too little depth, too many holes, and too many questions to target anything other than the single.best.player they can regardless of position. Other than Qb, Rb, no position such be ruled out of round 1.

I wouldn't rule out QB in the first depending on who is there. I just don't believe in Dak.

[the lone star]

8 hours ago, Dallas94Ware said:

This has been preached by Parcells for two decades, and now by his protege Belichick for another two decades.

The Patriots have won 5 rings using that philosophy. Kewp it simple. Ask no one to do more than what you know they do best. Use all your gameday slots on guys who can do something for you, no matter how small or trivial. Never make a guy do something that isnt what you put him on your team to do. And keep your scheme so simple no one can possibly screw up. Master the easy and simple stuff and dare someone to.beat it. Because they wont. Its easily executed and you have mastered it.

More teams need to adopt the spread offense.

Pats got good discipline though. Cowboys gotta preach that more.

[quiller]

I tend to think having slightly larger roles expectations and rookies around them was a major reason Brown and Jones had “down” years to be fair though ultimately the only major problem our D had this past year was run defense when Lee was out which fairly or not fairly probably was due to the Smith draft as he still wasn’t ready mentally to play and he was I think projected as Lee’s replacement

its hard to say about the O. So much about this year was lost due to the Eliot situation hard to get a true gauge.    I just hope we improve the overall depth of the OL and some how figure out how to use all our weapons more consistently Dez Beasley Switzer and even Williams are all capable of producing   It’s a little frustrating as there is enough diversity in what we have to create a lot of match up problems if used properly.