Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-01-2005, 11:45 AM

I'd like to cap space he would bring to possibly sign McQuarters. I'd love to have McQuarters as a backup.

Daseal · 06-01-2005, 12:53 PM

Matty even in his limited playtime last year he allowed one TD and at least one other long pass play. Thats just from the top of my head. The guy simply can't cover. I've heard what a big hitter he was, the only people he knocked out were Redskins in training camp.

MTK · 06-01-2005, 01:07 PM

When did he give up a long TD? I don't recall.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-01-2005, 01:18 PM

I could have sworn it was against the Giants. I could be wrong.

That Guy · 06-01-2005, 01:49 PM

yeah, during the giants game, to a rookie i think, he looked slow and wasn't even close to the guy... it was like he wasn't even trying (or he's just really that bad) :/

bowen did get 2 sacks in one game vs tampa though... he's good as a rusher or against the run, but he's only 2/3rds of what you need a good safety to be.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-01-2005, 02:15 PM

I have nothing against him except for that one fact. He's a hitter and a great blitzer. Even if he were used as a decoy in blitzes, I would be OK with that because most would assume that if Bowen comes in that we are going to use him to blitz and he he backs off and Arrington comes.

I think that might be an ideal situation.

skinsguy · 06-01-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I have nothing against him except for that one fact. He's a hitter and a great blitzer. Even if he were used as a decoy in blitzes, I would be OK with that because most would assume that if Bowen comes in that we are going to use him to blitz and he he backs off and Arrington comes.

I think that might be an ideal situation.

That sounds like a good plan! This is why I love GW's defense....the blitz will come from anywhere at any given time. Not all the pressure to rush the QB is placed on the DL or the LBs.

But heck, we can't be too critical on Bowen and talking about how he was burned because we would have to also talk about how Taylor was burned against our Cowboy foe.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-01-2005, 02:54 PM

But comparatively, Taylor got burned FAR less times than Bowen even though Bowen only played in a few games. Not only that, this goes back to when Bowen played regularly in the starting lineup. I just don't like the idea of having a $2 mil cap hit with him sitting the bench.

Especially when Clark and others played so well.

skinsguy · 06-01-2005, 03:06 PM

Yeah, I see your point - although I kind of look at it from a point of view as to the "what if" Bowen had played the whole season scenario. He could have been burned several more times, then again his coverage skills could have improved. Overall, I don't believe Bowen is a great cover guy, but I think he is of value to us to keep him.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-01-2005, 03:10 PM

If keeping him means we couldn't sign some of our rookies or miss out on McQuarters, I say cut him. If we were to cut him for no reason, that's the only situation I'd have a problem with.

skinsguy · 06-01-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

If keeping him means we couldn't sign some of our rookies or miss out on McQuarters, I say cut him. If we were to cut him for no reason, that's the only situation I'd have a problem with.

True, but I have a feeling there is going to be alot of cuts in other areas, so I don't see us having a problem with signing our rookies.

monk81 · 06-01-2005, 08:59 PM

I think Coach Williams is counting on a healthy Phillip Daniels, there was no DE available in the draft that was better than what we already had.

Phinehas · 06-02-2005, 08:03 AM

I don't really see the need for an upgrade at DE. When you are the #3 defense in the league, I think you want to try to not mess up what you've got. We needed replacements for some key components that we lost from last year's defense, but none of that was on the defensive line. In addition, we got some of our guys healthy again. I just think the notion that you need to upgrade guys who got it done to the tune of #3 in the league might be misplaced. Sure, Williams is a genius, but being the defensive guru that he is, I'm sure he knows exactly what he needs from his defensive lineman. I think it is entirely conceivable that the group he's put together are among the best in the league at doing precisely what he needs them to do. In other words, the idea that you can upgrade them may be wrong thinking.

--Phin

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-02-2005, 08:31 AM

I'll say this. I wouldn't have ANY problem with signing Ellis.

BossHog · 06-02-2005, 11:25 AM

It's obvious we need to add quality depth along the DL.

06-01-2005, 11:45 AM	#1
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I'd like to cap space he would bring to possibly sign McQuarters. I'd love to have McQuarters as a backup. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-01-2005, 12:53 PM	#2
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 8,341	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? Matty even in his limited playtime last year he allowed one TD and at least one other long pass play. Thats just from the top of my head. The guy simply can't cover. I've heard what a big hitter he was, the only people he knocked out were Redskins in training camp. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

06-01-2005, 01:18 PM	#4
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I could have sworn it was against the Giants. I could be wrong. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-01-2005, 01:49 PM	#5
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? yeah, during the giants game, to a rookie i think, he looked slow and wasn't even close to the guy... it was like he wasn't even trying (or he's just really that bad) :/ bowen did get 2 sacks in one game vs tampa though... he's good as a rusher or against the run, but he's only 2/3rds of what you need a good safety to be.

06-01-2005, 02:15 PM	#6
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I have nothing against him except for that one fact. He's a hitter and a great blitzer. Even if he were used as a decoy in blitzes, I would be OK with that because most would assume that if Bowen comes in that we are going to use him to blitz and he he backs off and Arrington comes. I think that might be an ideal situation. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-01-2005, 01:07 PM	#3
MTK Hail Raiser Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 53 Posts: 100,050	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? When did he give up a long TD? I don't recall. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

06-01-2005, 02:54 PM	#8
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? But comparatively, Taylor got burned FAR less times than Bowen even though Bowen only played in a few games. Not only that, this goes back to when Bowen played regularly in the starting lineup. I just don't like the idea of having a $2 mil cap hit with him sitting the bench. Especially when Clark and others played so well. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-01-2005, 03:06 PM	#9
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? Yeah, I see your point - although I kind of look at it from a point of view as to the "what if" Bowen had played the whole season scenario. He could have been burned several more times, then again his coverage skills could have improved. Overall, I don't believe Bowen is a great cover guy, but I think he is of value to us to keep him. __________________ "Fire Up That Diesel!"

06-01-2005, 03:10 PM	#10
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? If keeping him means we couldn't sign some of our rookies or miss out on McQuarters, I say cut him. If we were to cut him for no reason, that's the only situation I'd have a problem with. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-01-2005, 08:59 PM	#12
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I think Coach Williams is counting on a healthy Phillip Daniels, there was no DE available in the draft that was better than what we already had. __________________ "It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW

06-02-2005, 08:03 AM	#13
Phinehas Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 106	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I don't really see the need for an upgrade at DE. When you are the #3 defense in the league, I think you want to try to not mess up what you've got. We needed replacements for some key components that we lost from last year's defense, but none of that was on the defensive line. In addition, we got some of our guys healthy again. I just think the notion that you need to upgrade guys who got it done to the tune of #3 in the league might be misplaced. Sure, Williams is a genius, but being the defensive guru that he is, I'm sure he knows exactly what he needs from his defensive lineman. I think it is entirely conceivable that the group he's put together are among the best in the league at doing precisely what he needs them to do. In other words, the idea that you can upgrade them may be wrong thinking. --Phin

06-02-2005, 08:31 AM	#14
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? I'll say this. I wouldn't have ANY problem with signing Ellis. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-02-2005, 11:25 AM	#15
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE? It's obvious we need to add quality depth along the DL.

Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

Locker Room Main Forum