Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Posted by Rafael at Thursday, February 09, 2012

Part one of this week's chat with the National Football Post's Scouting Director Wes Bunting examines the game of Georgia center Ben Jones, a definite Cowboys player of interest. If the team does not pursue a veteran center when the free agent window opens in five weeks, Jones could find his name on the Cowboys' draft short list, perhaps in the 2nd round.


Cowboys Nation: News has filtered out that the Cowboys have major concerns about their center play. They've apparently concluded that the Phil Costa experiment didn't work. The team spoke to Ben Jones at the Senior Bowl. You said he was the best center there. You've given him a 6.8 grade, second on your center board. He's a top 40 player on your board.

Compare him to Penn State's Stefan Wisniewski, who had a similar grade last year.


Wes Bunting: Okay. I'd say Jones is a little naturally stronger. I'd say they're similar athletes. I'd say Wisniewski uses his hands a little better, slides a little better through contact. I liked Wisniewski a little bit better coming out. I think I gave him a 7.0 grade

I think Ben Jones will struggle a little more laterally, but he's a strong guy who has a snap, who can get under people, run his legs through contact. It's not like he's some scrub or anything like that. He's a good player. And he's one of the few senior centers who I can see starting, if not during his rookie year then definitely in his second season.


CN: That was the next question -- how soon can he start? I know Wisniewski took over at center, what, about six games into the Raiders season?

WB: I know the Raiders were using him both at guard and center. I think they were just trying to figure out where he fit best.


CN: You've seen the Raiders a lot. How did Wisniewski measure up against Samson Satele, who is headed for free agency?

WB: I thought he was much better than Satele. He's much more balanced, more technically sound. Wisniewski is not a plus athlete, or a plus physical guy, but he can gain leverage. He uses his hands well. He plays hard. He understands angles and, is he ever going to be a perennial Pro Bowler? No, but he's going to have a good NFL career. He's a starter you can win with, and in a good year he might end up in the Pro Bowl.


CN: Is Ben Jones projected ceiling similar to Wisniewski's?

WB: Yeah. I would say Ben Jones could end up being a solid NFL center, who can play for a long time in the league and who can anchor inside. That's the big thing.


CN: That's important, because that was Costa's failing. He couldn't anchor and guys would put him on skates regularly. I think watching Brandon Spikes jack him up in the Patriots game convinced a lot of fans that they couldn't count on Costa as the long-term answer. That certainly did it for me.

Going back to Wisniewski. He was taken in the mid-2nd. Is that where Ben Jones projects?

WB: I would say that's fair.
 
C

Cr122

Guest
I like Kowalski too but I wouldn't mind adding a Konz or Jones to our line. If that were the case I'd play Kowalski at guard.

I have a feeling we will lose both Kosier and Holland. Seeing we were forced to play some rookies last year and it didn't pan out well, I'm hoping we sign Nicks or Grubbs, and still draft DeCastro or even Zeitler. Then we can go with Kowalski at center.

I still believe this franchise has it in their head that Costa can be our center. Pretty scary. I also believe in the full off season workout program.

Will it make a difference for Costa though? I doubt it.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Fuck a Kawasaki..get Konz up in here


Whatever idiot. We can't have Konz and DeCastro. And I'm sorry, but I think DeCastro would help us MORE than Konz would. And none of that trading back into the 1st Madeen s -hit. We don't need Konz. Nicks on one side, and DeCastro on the other, and Kowalski in between would impove our interior immensely.
 
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
0
I like Kowalski too but I wouldn't mind adding a Konz or Jones to our line. If that were the case I'd play Kowalski at guard.

I have a feeling we will lose both Kosier and Holland. Seeing we were forced to play some rookies last year and it didn't pan out well, I'm hoping we sign Nicks or Grubbs, and still draft DeCastro or even Zeitler. Then we can go with Kowalski at center.

I still believe this franchise has it in their head that Costa can be our center. Pretty scary. I also believe in the full off season workout program.

Will it make a difference for Costa though? I doubt it.

Not unless the offseason program involved some "arm lengthening" exercises. Or maybe he could get it done through plastic surgery.. im sure Jerry would sponser it for him.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
What's the problem with drafting a C high and having him and Kowalski compete for the position, as opposed to just handing it to Kowalski?
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
What's the problem with drafting a C high and having him and Kowalski compete for the position, as opposed to just handing it to Kowalski?

Because we have other needs. You don't draft somebody high just for the sake of providing competition. If Konz is drafted then he will be GIVEN the starting Center job, as you seem to be decrying. If DeCastro is drafted, you don't think the starting job will be HANDED to him?
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Because we have other needs. You don't draft somebody high just for the sake of providing competition. If Konz is drafted then he will be GIVEN the starting Center job, as you seem to be decrying. If DeCastro is drafted, you don't think the starting job will be HANDED to him?

I'm not completely satisfied, and I don't think the coaches are either, that C, with Kowalski now in the mix to start there, isn't still a need.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
I'm not completely satisfied, and I don't think the coaches are either, that C, with Kowalski now in the mix to start there, isn't still a need.

Oh well, you're not completely satisfied. Well why didn't you say so. That's what the draft strategy needs to be: pure and complete satisfaction by EC.

Fact is, I don't think you've watched Kowalski. I'm not saying he's all-world, but the guy has been excellant in the limited opportuniteis he's been given. Had no QB pressures in 144 or so snaps.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Wow. 144 snaps. Center problem solved for the next decade I guess.

Free had 16 starts in '10, and turns around and sucks the next year. Granted he was playing a more difficult position than he was that year, but he still had that experience. So 144 starts doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies and I don't see how you can't label C a need.
 
Last edited:

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Wow. 144 snaps. Center problem solved for the next decade I guess.

No bitch. It just suggests that he's warrants more of a look and more opportunities. But those 144 snaps are more than what Konz has. It's all about the name with you. Once again, proves my point that you haven't watched him. Go back to cheerleading and leave the real football talk to us men.


Free had 16 starts in '10, and turns around and sucks the next year.


And this has exactly what to do with Kowalski? Two different players at two different positions. Yes, I see the connect now. Thanks for playing.


Granted he was playing a more difficult position, but he still had that experience. So 144 starts doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Because you're just a cheerleader.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
No bitch. It just suggests that he's warrants more of a look and more opportunities. But those 144 snaps are more than what Konz has. It's all about the name with you. Once again, proves my point that you haven't watched him. Go back to cheerleading and leave the real football talk to us men.

Giving more of a look doesn't mean just handing them the starting position and then writing it off as not being a need.

Lazarus Logan said:
And this has exactly what to do with Kowalski? Two different players at two different positions. Yes, I see the connect now. Thanks for playing.

The connect is that Free played great for a whole year as opposed to only 144 snaps. That should have guaranteed more success in the future should it have not? A whopping 144 snaps guarantees nothing.

Lazarus Logan said:
Because you're just a cheerleader.

Says the man who waves Andre Branch pom-poms.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Giving more of a look doesn't mean just handing them the starting position and then writing it off as not being a need.

But you are all gung-ho on giving the start to Konz. You have no arguement on this topic, because it's evident tha tyou have not watched Kowalski.



The connect is that Free played great for a whole year as opposed to only 144 snaps. That should have guaranteed more success in the future should it have not? A whopping 144 snaps guarantees nothing.

So what. Free HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH Kowlaski. No matter the number of snaps. They are two different individuals. Just because Free sucked last year froms tarting all 16 games, that's suppsoed to carry over to Kowalski? If that's the case, Kowalski should have sucked as well, but he didn't, and you would know this if youw atched the games and him. If you want to play that foolish game, Konz has ZERO snaps. Therefore he'll suck to... because of Free. See the connect?


Says the man who waves Andre Branch pom-poms.

Well I wave pom poms for DeCastro as well, and Gilmore. I've watched Branch. I like his game. We need a pass rusher. If he's available in the 2nd, I hope we get him to pair opposite of Ware. We need a pass rusher more than we need a Center, at this moment.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
But you are all gung-ho on giving the start to Konz. You have no arguement on this topic, because it's evident tha tyou have not watched Kowalski.

lol I said we should draft a C and let him and Kowalski battle it out! You were like, "NO! Center isn't a need! Kowalski and the 144 snap thieves" and off we went.

Lazarus Logan said:
So what. Free HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH Kowlaski. No matter the number of snaps. They are two different individuals. Just because Free sucked last year froms tarting all 16 games, that's suppsoed to carry over to Kowalski? If that's the case, Kowalski should have sucked as well, but he didn't, and you would know this if youw atched the games and him. If you want to play that foolish game, Konz has ZERO snaps. Therefore he'll suck to... because of Free. See the connect?

The only connection I'm making is that playing great in a limited time period is not a guarantor of future success. That's it.

Lazarus Logan said:
Well I wave pom poms for DeCastro as well, and Gilmore. I've watched Branch. I like his game. We need a pass rusher. If he's available in the 2nd, I hope we get him to pair opposite of Ware. We need a pass rusher more than we need a Center, at this moment.

Debatable. One of our highest paid players is Tony Romo who hasn't had a pocket his whole time in Dallas. The O has the pieces and is closer to being a great unit as opposed to the D. I think we're a couple of interior line pieces away and switching Free and Tyron Smith around to being a much better team.
 
Last edited:

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
lol I said we should draft a C and let him and Kowalski battle it out! You were like, "NO! Center isn't a need! Kowalski and the 144 snap thieves" and off we went.

And we shouldn't. Not when we have greater needs. Kowalski would be just fine between DeCastro and Nicks if we were to acquire both. Sorry, Center is not the most important need on this team as of now. Not even for the interior. It'd be a wasted pick because of it being a major reach at 14.




The only connection I'm making is that playing great in a limited time period is not a guarantor of future success. That's it.

That would apply to Konz as well. I never said it was a guarantee for future success. But for the moment, it warrants that Kowalski deserves more opportunities, and he's shown enough to where we can focus at some other position that is more of an immediate need and would provide more of an immediate impact. You do not have a leg to stand on in this debate because it's evidently clear that you have not watched Kowalski.


If you want be idiotic and make such a connection, then I can make a connection with Kowalski and Tyron Smith. Since Tyron Smith did well in his 16 games, and Kowalski did well in his limited amount of playing time, then he will continue to do well, add to the fact that he was a rookie like Smith, it would appear that there would be more of a connection between Kowalski and Smith moreso than with Free. OR... since Free sucked last year, then we can assume by applying your logic that SMith will suck as well, because like Kowalski, Smith also has a "connection" to Free



Debatable. One of our highest paid players is Tony Romo who hasn't had a pocket his whole time in Dallas. The O has the pieces and is closer to being a great unit as opposed to the D. I think we're a couple of interior line pieces away and switching Free and Tyron Smith around to being a much better team.


Romo has had pockets. Not as much as other QBs, but he's had pockets. Once again, you don't know what you are yapping about. And being that the O has pieces and is closer to being a great unit moreso than the D, then we do indeed need a pass rusher, more than a Center.
 
Top Bottom