Blogging The Boys
Taken by themselves, the Cowboys roster numbers currently don’t mean all that much. But once you place them next to the numbers of the other NFC East teams, you may be able to learn a lot: Which positions are overrepresented, which positions are underrepresented, and where teams could still be looking for upgrades.
To see if I could glean anything from the Cowboys’ 90-man roster and the rosters of the remaining NFC East teams, I tallied the division’s offseason rosters by position, using the official team rosters and cross-referencing them with the ourlads.com rosters, as they are usually the most up-to-date rosters available. Here are the numbers:
body .sbnu-legacy-content-table td, body .sbnu-legacy-content-table th, body .sbnu-legacy-content-table { border: 1px solid #000 !important; border-collapse: collapse !important; } Cowboys Giants Eagles Commanders Quarterbacks3344Running Backs7766Wide Receivers13141211Tight Ends6587Offensive Linemen15161615 Defensive Linemen1012810Edge8689Linebackers7787Defensive backs18171818Special Teams3333Total90909190All teams are allowed to carry 90 players plus one International Pathway Player (IPP). All four teams carry one such IPP, which means the Eagles are maxed out at 91 players, while the other three NFC East teams all still have one open roster spot.
The first thing to keep in mind as you compare these numbers is that there is an interdependence between the numbers across positions on each team. If a team has an above average number at one position, the roster limit dictates that it must have a below average number at another spot. An argument can therefore be made that overinvesting in a position is a matter of choice, underinvesting at another may be more a matter of necessity.
The Cowboys, to my great surprise, are pretty much in line with the NFC East average at each position. The next table illustrates that point by showing how far above or below each team is relative to the NFC East average at the position. The positions at which a team is one player or more above the average are marked in red, the positions where a team is one player or more below the average are marked in green.
body .sbnu-legacy-content-table td, body .sbnu-legacy-content-table th, body .sbnu-legacy-content-table { border: 1px solid #000 !important; border-collapse: collapse !important; } Cowboys Giants Eagles Commanders Quarterbacks-0.5-0.50.50.5Running Backs0.50.5-0.5-0.5Wide Receivers0.51.5-0.5-1.5Tight Ends-0.5-1.51.50.5Offensive Linemen-0.50.50.5-0.5 Defensive Linemen0.02.0-2.00.0Edge0.3-1.80.31.3Linebackers-0.3-0.30.8-0.3Defensive backs0.3-0.80.30.3Special Teams0.00.00.00.0You could argue that the weak spots on each team are the positions where they are overinvesting relative to their division rivals, the strong spots are where they are underinvesting versus the NFC East average.
By this reckoning, the Cowboys don’t have obvious weak spots – but neither do they have any obvious strong spots, at least relative to the NFC East teams.
The Eagles for example are short on the defensive line, possibly a sign of their confidence in the strength of their position group, but appear to be less sure about their TE position, which they bolstered with two free agent signings and a second-round pick.
The Commanders signed Odafe Oweh and K’Lavon Chaisson to bolster their pass rush and are a bit longer at the position than the...
