PDA

View Full Version : Could Boulware be moved to linebacker?


TexanSam
02-21-2008, 10:38 AM
This was just a small blurb on ESPN.com about workout warriors from the combine and it mentions Boulware

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/columns/story?columnist=reese_floyd&id=3251338
Boulware was an outstanding college player, a prototypical outside linebacker. He was smooth, athletic, quick, productive and appeared to have good speed. Following his outstanding combine workout, Boulware was drafted as a safety. Even though the Texans might move him back to his college position, it is incredible for a college linebacker to be able to step into the NFL and play safety.

Do you think he could reconvert to an outside linebacker?

eriadoc
02-21-2008, 10:57 AM
Unless he shows something special at SS in mini-camp, I'd be supportive of such a move. Boulware has physical ability, and he has pretty good football instincts, actually. But he's not a good cover guy, and he's kind of a tweener. I think if he can play in space around the LOS, without worrying quite so much about coverage, he might finally pull it together and become a force.

He probably won't, though.

hookinreds
02-21-2008, 11:16 AM
I would welcome the idea. He's got the speed to persue down the line.

Errant Hothy
02-21-2008, 11:18 AM
Just move Boulware to a spot where he does not have to cover a TE in the red zone.

HOU-TEX
02-21-2008, 11:30 AM
Just move Boulware to a spot where he does not have to cover a TE in the red zone.

Or get called for penalties on special teams. :aggressive:

ArlingtonTexan
02-21-2008, 12:15 PM
Not sure of the number of players who have attempted to make that move to LB after being in the league 4 or 5 years. I would say very few and guessing the success rate is not going to be that high.

bah007
02-21-2008, 12:17 PM
Not sure of the number of players who have attempted to make that move to LB after being in the league 4 or 5 years. I would say very few and guessing the success rate is not going to be that high.

Well Roy Williams pretty much plays LB for Dallas.

He aint covering anyone, thats for sure.

austintexanite
02-21-2008, 12:43 PM
Well Roy Williams pretty much plays LB for Dallas.

He aint covering anyone, thats for sure.

LOL, so true. Some of my Cowboy friends finally realized that he can't cover squat.

ArlingtonTexan
02-21-2008, 01:31 PM
Well Roy Williams pretty much plays LB for Dallas.

He aint covering anyone, thats for sure.

I know there is some tongue-in-cheek there but, Boulware's best position some rover DB position which is what Williams is best at. Trust me, Roy williams is deep coverage more than enough for the Pokes. Neither of these guys can probably deal with avoiding/shedding blockers on a regualr basis to be LBS and the coverage (or lack there of) is well documented in both cases.

Lucky
02-21-2008, 01:45 PM
The only guy I can think of that fits the SS-to-LB bill, is former Chief Larry Atkins. He started out as an oversized, mediocre SS. Then ate his way into becoming an oversized, mediocre OLB.

infantrycak
02-21-2008, 01:56 PM
Thomas Davis is a guy who came out and was compared to Boulware and ha been moved back and forth.

Grid
02-22-2008, 01:41 AM
I dunno.. wasnt there some issue with Boulware in seattle in regards to him playing LB/SS?

Marcus
02-22-2008, 08:25 AM
I thought it was mentioned somewhere that he actually practiced at linebacker late in the season.

Yes/No???

PHAROAH
02-22-2008, 08:40 AM
OLB is his natural position I say move him back and let him learn and he will be fine.

Vinny
02-22-2008, 09:04 AM
We already have a d-line that is kinda undersized. Demeco is a bit undersized and adding Boulware to this front-7 will just make us even smaller as a unit. Heck, even Dunta is a bit on the small side so our secondary has it's share of lack of prototype size issues also.

I don't think Boulware would be able to hang in there and mix it up with NFL Guards on a regular basis and we don't need more guys who are a bit on the small side at their positions. Soon it won't matter that they are quick and great on 3rd and long because teams will start to run down our throats and there won't be many 3rd and longs.

While I don't think that being undersized is all that much of an issue on an individual basis if you can play ball, but a team that has too many undersized players is probably a team that is going to get pushed around too much - especially in the red zone where the field shrinks and size and strength is more important than quickness much of the time.

Texan_Bill
02-22-2008, 09:11 AM
YUP... good call Vinny.

Our front 7 would be wore out and ate up if we continue to get smaller and not bigger.

Specnatz
02-22-2008, 10:05 AM
YUP... good call Vinny.

Our front 7 would be wore out and ate up if we continue to get smaller and not bigger.

Is that different than what is done to them now? At points last season I swear even Bill could run against us.

Texan_Bill
02-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Is that different than what is done to them now? At points last season I swear even Bill could run against us.

I've got skillz...

*****************************

Thats exactly the point. We were getting run on last year and wearing down, why go even smaller??

PHAROAH
02-22-2008, 12:39 PM
Small isn't bad if you can get into the backfield look at the colts defense they are much smaller than the Texans Defense and they are very good against the run as a matter of fact they swarm to the ball so that doesn't fly with me.