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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]


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.

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

[QUOTE=Daseal]I question this for two reasons. I don't trust Harris/Rogers (whoever starts) quite yet. Not saying they CAN'T play Smoot's role, but it has yet to be seen. I think that will be what makes or breaks a winning or losing season for us. The play of our secondary. With the emergence of Matt Bowen back onto the field, expect to get burned in the passing game some. Whenever we have to put him in coverage, I close my eyes, count to 5-8 (depending on where the ball is) then say DAMN, because 90% of the time they score a TD.[/QUOTE]


I just don't see Bowen having a full time role in our secondary, and once he get's burned that will be all she wrote, I saw enough of Harris last year to believe he will be as good or better than Smoot, the play's I saw him in on he was all over his reciever, as for Roger's he will be a top CB fairly quickly, this kid is a player BIG TIME! He will be much better than Smoot.

Funny how during the season so many were complaning about how far off Smoot played the WR's, and now everyone is worried about replacing him? Consider it done!

I also have to laugh at the optimisim given to Campbell and the amount of scheptisim given to Roger's, we have Campbell maybe taking over the team in 2 year's from now, and we have Roger's still having to prove he can make it in the NFL, and wondering if he can actually replace a player like Smoot, who was the better college player? By far it was Roger's. and rest assured Rogers is the only sure thing we picked in this past draft.

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 [b]can[/b] upgrade them may be wrong thinking.

--Phin

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. :)

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

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