sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Cowboys Mailbag
Would the Cowboys benefit more by having Jay Ratliff on the end, instead of at nose tackle?
DAN BEACH - CLAYTON, NJ: Would the Cowboys benefit more by having Jay Ratliff on the end, instead of at nose tackle?
Rob: It might benefit Ratliff, because the move could rid him of some of the double teams he's seen. Josh Brent is a guy to watch. He has played well in limited action and if he can show the coaching staff he's a starting-quality player, maybe Ratliff to end is something they look at. But only if it can maximize his ability.
Nick: It's not a bad plan, but it's based on a few "ifs." The Cowboys have to see IF Jay Ratliff can make the smooth transition. You would assume he could, considering how good he has been in the middle where you see more double-teams. You also have to see IF Josh Brent is ready to start and play every-down. And the Cowboys need to see IF they can find another adequate backup at nose tackle. Again, it's not a bad idea, the Cowboys just need to see if it's the right move for everyone.
Josh: I think that's a good plan. Ratliff is great when he's not being double-teamed, but he's been getting moved around a lot when he does draw extra attention, and that's one of the things hurting the run defense. I think he might be best served at end, splitting first and second down with a guy like Stephen Bowen, then the two of them moving inside to rush the passer on third downs. But you need to be sure Josh Brent or another nose tackle can be trusted as a starter.
BERNARDO VARGAS - PUEBLA, P.R.: Jon Kitna has proven he can be a good backup. Why not give Stephen McGee some real playing time so he can develop as the future backup or starter?
Rob: They obviously feel Kitna gives them the best chance to win at this point, and they've made clear that winning is still top priority. Heading into next year, Jerry Jones wants this team to distance itself as far as possible from that embarrassing 1-7 start by season's end. And maybe Jason Garrett wants to protect his young quarterback a little bit, waiting for the ideal spot to get him some regular-season work. It may not present itself in these last two games.
Nick: The main reason I keep going back to is the "interim" tag on head coach Jason Garrett. As long as he's still the interim, and still interviewing for this head job, then he should play the best players at each position. And Kitna is clearly a better option than McGee. Say, the Cowboys start McGee for the last two games and lose. Garrett will always be 4-4 as a head coach - not 4-2* (But he played a third QB to end the season). As long as the future is in doubt, I wouldn't play for the future just yet.
Josh: I just don't see the rush. Two games at the end of the year wouldn't write the book on Stephen McGee, whether he's successful in them or not. Remember, they see him every day in practice. They've got a good feel for what he's capable of doing. And they're trying to win. He doesn't give them a better chance than Kitna. It's pretty simple.
Would the Cowboys benefit more by having Jay Ratliff on the end, instead of at nose tackle?
DAN BEACH - CLAYTON, NJ: Would the Cowboys benefit more by having Jay Ratliff on the end, instead of at nose tackle?
Rob: It might benefit Ratliff, because the move could rid him of some of the double teams he's seen. Josh Brent is a guy to watch. He has played well in limited action and if he can show the coaching staff he's a starting-quality player, maybe Ratliff to end is something they look at. But only if it can maximize his ability.
Nick: It's not a bad plan, but it's based on a few "ifs." The Cowboys have to see IF Jay Ratliff can make the smooth transition. You would assume he could, considering how good he has been in the middle where you see more double-teams. You also have to see IF Josh Brent is ready to start and play every-down. And the Cowboys need to see IF they can find another adequate backup at nose tackle. Again, it's not a bad idea, the Cowboys just need to see if it's the right move for everyone.
Josh: I think that's a good plan. Ratliff is great when he's not being double-teamed, but he's been getting moved around a lot when he does draw extra attention, and that's one of the things hurting the run defense. I think he might be best served at end, splitting first and second down with a guy like Stephen Bowen, then the two of them moving inside to rush the passer on third downs. But you need to be sure Josh Brent or another nose tackle can be trusted as a starter.
BERNARDO VARGAS - PUEBLA, P.R.: Jon Kitna has proven he can be a good backup. Why not give Stephen McGee some real playing time so he can develop as the future backup or starter?
Rob: They obviously feel Kitna gives them the best chance to win at this point, and they've made clear that winning is still top priority. Heading into next year, Jerry Jones wants this team to distance itself as far as possible from that embarrassing 1-7 start by season's end. And maybe Jason Garrett wants to protect his young quarterback a little bit, waiting for the ideal spot to get him some regular-season work. It may not present itself in these last two games.
Nick: The main reason I keep going back to is the "interim" tag on head coach Jason Garrett. As long as he's still the interim, and still interviewing for this head job, then he should play the best players at each position. And Kitna is clearly a better option than McGee. Say, the Cowboys start McGee for the last two games and lose. Garrett will always be 4-4 as a head coach - not 4-2* (But he played a third QB to end the season). As long as the future is in doubt, I wouldn't play for the future just yet.
Josh: I just don't see the rush. Two games at the end of the year wouldn't write the book on Stephen McGee, whether he's successful in them or not. Remember, they see him every day in practice. They've got a good feel for what he's capable of doing. And they're trying to win. He doesn't give them a better chance than Kitna. It's pretty simple.
