The next Cowboys center?

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I have NO problem with drafting a center, Costa sucks ass!

Nobody is talking about Costa. But thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

Noone said anything about taking a C at 14. At least I haven't.

And how do you know Kowalski would be just fine if we improve the talent around him? Oh right, 144 snaps.

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.

Again, more opportunities does not mean just get handed the starting role.

It's nice that Kowalski played great in 144 snaps. That doesn't means shit though.

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

Dude, seriously. WTF?

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.

No, it means that the D is a long ways off from being elite, and adding one pass-rusher isn't going to plug the gap from horrible to elite.

We're only a couple of players away on offense from being great there, while on the other side of the ball, we're at least 7 players away.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Noone said anything about taking a C at 14. At least I haven't.

And how do you know Kowalski would be just fine if we improve the talent around him? Oh right, 144 snaps.

Well gee... we do have the #14 pick? Pay attention. . And how do you know Kowalski would not be just fine, especially when you haven't watched him? You're certain that he will fail because of his... "connection with Free".

Again, more opportunities does not mean just get handed the starting role.

Nobody said anything about handing him the start. He doesn't have to be handed the start, but this can still be accomplished by not having to draft a Center.

nice that Kowalski played great in 144 snaps. That doesn't means shit though.

Is this thre f -ucking best you can do after spouting off? A person has to start somewhere. Just quit while you're ahead, you just keep coming back with even weaker shit.

Dude, seriously. WTF?

Yeah exactly. WTF! I was showing you how stupid your assertion of whether Kowalski will suceed or fail because of your claim of his connection with Free. If we apply your (il)logic across the board, we get... WTF. Might be hope for you yet.

No, it means that the D is a long ways off from being elite, and adding one pass-rusher isn't going to plug the gap from horrible to elite.

The defense isn't horrible. This is how stupid you are. You can have all-pros at every position on defense, but if you have an offense that is unable to sustain drives and/or unable to score and has an incessant amount of 3 and outs, that will have a negative imapct on the defense and wear them down.

We're only a couple of players away on offense from being great there, while on the other side of the ball, we're at least 7 players away.

See above.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Well gee... we do have the #14 pick? Pay attention. . And how do you know Kowalski would not be just fine, especially when you haven't watched him? You're certain that he will fail because of his... "connection with Free".

I never said Kowalski would fail. The only one making a determination of his future play is you. I'm just saying we should hedge our bets at C instead of just letting a relative unknown be handed the position.

Nobody said anything about handing him the start. He doesn't have to be handed the start, but this can still be accomplished by not having to draft a Center.

Draft a C. Sign a C. Doesn't really matter, but this thread is still talking about drafting a C.

Is this thre f -ucking best you can do after spouting off? A person has to start somewhere. Just quit while you're ahead, you just keep coming back with even weaker shit.

Lots of players start from somewhere and look great in limited opportunities. Some go on to fulfilling and productive careers and other justify being UDFAs.

Yeah exactly. WTF! I was showing you how stupid your assertion of whether Kowalski will suceed or fail because of your claim of his connection with Free. If we apply your (il)logic across the board, we get... WTF. Might be hope for you yet.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about a player's limited body of work not being an indicator of future success. That's the only connection I was putting forth, using a player with more than a year's worth of starting experience as an example, just to give you an idea of how hard it is to evaluate players.

With that supposedly in mind, since you've twisted it into something incoherent. To use 144 snaps and base that on someone's future success is ludicrous.

The defense isn't horrible. This is how stupid you are. You can have all-pros at every position on defense, but if you have an offense that is unable to sustain drives and/or unable to score and has an incessant amount of 3 and outs, that will have a negative imapct on the defense and wear them down

The Defense isn't horrible? Really? I think you spent too much time trying to scout Kowalski's game that you missed the entire season.

 

[Rev]

lol

Center can be upgraded. Even with Kowalski there.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Here, Laz. Is this example any easier for you?

Torrin Tucker. Dude played great in his lone start in '03. Fans pinned so much hope on that lone performance only to watch him proceed to suck balls thereafter.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

lol

Center can be upgraded. Even with Kowalski there.

Nah, we have more important needs. I mean, who needs a quality C anymore?

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

Like this was ever a question. He was fucking abysmal at times. Hands down one of the worst performances I've seen in the last few years. On par with Alan Ball at FS.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I never said Kowalski would fail. The only one making a determination of his future play is you. I'm just saying we should hedge our bets at C instead of just letting a relative unknown be handed the position.

Sure you did. You brought up how Free sucked and appended to Kowalski, optherwise why even bring up Free at all? And Kowalski is only an unknown to you because you haven't watched him. We have other positions of importance than to be hedging. Sometimes you got to bite the bullet, like they did with Ratliff, Austin, and Romo.

Lots of players start from somewhere and look great in limited opportunities. Some go on to fulfilling and productive careers and other justify being UDFAs.

Well no shit. But one never finds out until AFTER said player is given an opportunity, which you seem deadset against for Kowalski.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about a player's limited body of work not being an indicator of future success. That's the only connection I was putting forth, using a player with more than a year's worth of starting experience as an example, just to give you an idea of how hard it is to evaluate players.

Well that cuts both ways. You're certain that said limited body of work as being an indicator of future failure.

With that supposedly in mind, since you've twisted it into something incoherent. To use 144 snaps and base that on someone's future success is ludicrous.

I didn't twist anything. That's a weak-ass copout. I took your words verbatim, and applied it to another example just to show you how ridiculous your assertions were.

The Defense isn't horrible? Really? I think you spent too much time trying to scout Kowalski's game that you missed the entire season.

I didn't say no such thing about the defense being horrible, it's just not as horrible as you are indicating. Thing is though about the defense, of the 8 games lost, 2 of them can be attributed to the defense.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Sure you did. You brought up how Free sucked and appended to Kowalski, optherwise why even bring up Free at all? And Kowalski is only an unknown to you because you haven't watched him. We have other positions of importance than to be hedging. Sometimes you got to bite the bullet, like they did with Ratliff, Austin, and Romo.

I didn't append anything. I gave you an example, 2 actually, of player(s) with a significantly larger body of work than 144 snaps just to illustrate how hard it is to pin any type of hope on it.

Well no shit. But one never finds out until AFTER said player is given an opportunity, which you seem deadset against for Kowalski.

Saying let him compete against someone else, preferably a high draft pick, is me dead-set against Kowalski? Perhaps you're afraid your golden boy will get beat out, thus dashing your dreams of becoming the next message board, Internet scout...

Well that cuts both ways. You're certain that said limited body of work as being an indicator of future failure.

No, I gave you one example to say, "hey, maybe we shouldn't hang all our hopes in this one player" because it's burned us before.

I didn't twist anything. That's a weak-ass copout. I took your words verbatim, and applied it to another example just to show you how ridiculous your assertions were.

No, you didn't. As I explained to you many times, it's as far from what I was getting at as possible.

I didn't say no such thing about the defense being horrible, it's just not as horrible as you are indicating. Thing is though about the defense, of the 8 games lost, 2 of them can be attributed to the defense.

This is a D towards the end of the stretch that couldn't rush the passer or stop the pass. So yes, it's as horrible as I'm indicating. We have 5 good-to-great players on the Defense (Ware, Ratliff, Hatcher, Lee, Jenkins) and a bunch of scrubs. So at least 6 positions need an upgrade.

 

[superpunk]

Just like old times.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Here, Laz. Is this example any easier for you?

Torrin Tucker. Dude played great in his lone start in '03. Fans pinned so much hope on that lone performance only to watch him proceed to suck balls thereafter.

He did? What was so GREAT about him in his lone start? What stands out? His lone start was against the Dolphins on Thanksgiving Day in 2003. The Cowboys lost 40-21. That RT position was a revolving door all year with mainly Ryan Young and Kurt Vollers. Interesting when Tucker was in the staring lineup for that game, the Cowboys gave up their highest amount of sacks of the year with 5. The running game was non-existent. Tucker sucked in that game, hence why he only had that ONE START. Ogunleye abused him, like I'm abusing you.


YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. YOU BEEN EXPOSED. Clearly, you didn't watch that game either like you haven't watched Kowalski. GTFOH!!!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He did? What was so GREAT about him in his lone start? What stands out? His lone start was against the Dolphins on Thanksgiving Day in 2003. The Cowboys lost 40-21. That RT positionw as a revolving door all year with mainly Ryan Young and Kurt Vollers. Interesting when Tucker was in the staring lineup for that game, the Cowboys gave up their highest amount of sacks of the year with 5. The running game was non-existent. Tucker sucked in that game, hence why he only had that ONE START. Ogunleye abused him, like I'm abusing you.


YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. YOU BEEN EXPOSED. Clearly, you didn't watch that game either like you haven't watched Kowalski. GTFOH!!!

Tucker started 13 of 13 games the next year. 10 of 16 the next season.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You honestly believe that after trying and failing with an undrafted center just last year, that they will turn around and try the expirament again?

It defies all logic. And I don't for a minute believe that Bill Callahan would disagree with me seeing as how well Nick Mangold has done in New York with the Jets. <== 1st round pick.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

Kowalski is the rebound chick

 

[jiggyfly]

You honestly believe that after trying and failing with an undrafted center just last year, that they will turn around and try the expirament again?

It defies all logic. And I don't for a minute believe that Bill Callahan would disagree with me seeing as how well Nick Mangold has done in New York with the Jets. <== 1st round pick.

You grade each player on their individual merits not because of where they were drafted.

You use Mangold as an example and I give you Austin and Romo or Victor Cruz.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Tucker started 13 of 13 games the next year. 10 of 16 the next season.

And he sucked in those games. Just because he started does not mean he was any good. Carter and Testaverde both started.

Bottomline what it comes down to is having DeCastro at one guard and Kowalski at Center OR Konz at Center and either Nagy, Arkin, or Kosier at guard. DeCastro is a better guard than Konz is at Center.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

I think decastro is a rock in pass pro but konz got more push in run blocking

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You grade each player on their individual merits not because of where they were drafted.

You use Mangold as an example and I give you Austin and Romo or Victor Cruz.

I base merit off of more than 144 snaps actually.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And he sucked in those games. Just because he started does not mean he was any good. Carter and Testaverde both started.

Bottomline what it comes down to is having DeCastro at one guard and Kowalski at Center OR Konz at Center and either Nagy, Arkin, or Kosier at guard. DeCastro is a better guard than Konz is at Center.

You can't draft, for instance, Ben Jones and have him battle it out with Kowalski?