Feeling Danger at Strong Safety
by Rafael Vela on Oct 10, 2009 8:00 PM CDT
44 comments
NFL teams can absorb injuries when they are spead out. Coordinators cringe when the injuries blow a single position off the depth charts. That happened to last year's Cowboys team at several positions.
Think left guard. Kyle Kosier goes down. Montrae Holland is supposed to spell him but takes three quarters of the season to get fully prepared. Then, he injures an ankle four quarters into his time in the lineup. Wide receiver had the same issue. Miles Austin and Sam Hurd lost a lot of time to injury. Then Dallas acquired Roy WIlliams, who suffered plantar fasciitis just two games after Tony Romo returned to the lineup.
The bogey position on the defense was strong safety. Roy Williams went down early. His backup Pat Watkins tried playing with an injured neck and finally had to be pulled. Dallas had to claim Keith Davis off waivers from Miami and play him for significant time. Then, he went down against Baltimore, meaning the Cowboys had to play much of that critical game with street free agent Tra Battle, their fourth option. Given Davis' marginal status, one can reasonably claim Dallas didn't have an NFL caliber strong safety on the field last year.
The team cut ties with Davis and Williams and then acquired Gerald Sensabaugh through free agency and Michael Hamlin in the draft. Four games into this still-young season, Cowboys strong safeties again resemble Spinal Tap drummers.
Hamlin broke a wrist on a special teams play in the 49ers preseason game and has been absent every since. Sensabaugh broke a thumb early in the Denver loss and had surgery early this week. The Cowboys are gain working with a third teamer, this time the last-stand Watkins, and the early impressions are not pretty.
Watkins took a lot of grief from Bill Parcells his head-first tackling technique. The Tuna warned Watkins that he was risking serious injury by diving low at runners and receivers. Pat is still taking those risks. He missed a couple of tackles near the line by diving at Knowshon Moreno's ankles. Moreno easily stopped over Watkins and continued up the field.
In the open field, Watkins' tackling technique can be described as grab-the-shoulder-pads, fall-backwards, and hope-the-two-of-you -and-short of the first down marker. He may be the softest defender I've ever seen. He's just as tentative forcing play and tackling now as he was when he played with a disc problem last year.
Josh McDaniel didn't attack Watkins too much but he did isolate tight end Tony Scheffler on Watkins three times by lining Scheffler as a wide receiver. Denver completed two of those passes for two first downs. When Denver threw to Scheffler a fourth time Mike Jenkins had coverage responsibility.
Dallas can probably get past Kansas City with Watkins at strong safety. Sean Ryan is a Pat Watkins-caliber tight end, who has bounced around the bottom quarter of several NFL rosters. The matchups will get considerably tougher after the break. Seattle has John Carlson, and Cowboys fans will recall how he toasted Keith Davis to a crispy brown last Thanksgiving. Atlanta will then bring Tony Gonzalez to Cowboys Stadium. Do I need to explain him? The following week, Philadelphia will match Brent Celek against whomever the Cowboys play at the strong. He's not great, but if your safety isn't up to the matchup, he will make you pay. The Eagles started their second half comeback in last year's NFC Championship game on Celek's catches.
What you see are three speed tight ends who can be focal points of passing attacks, with head coaches who know how to use them. The Cowboys corners have had two strong games and have played the way they did in the preseason. The opposition will ignore then and go at the safeties and linebackers if the matchups present themselves there. These games should be competitive and one mismatch could be what throws a game against the Cowboys.
I don't think Wade Phillips puts his season and his job at Pat Watkins' disposal. If Sensabaugh can't make a quick return, I would not be surprised to see Ken Hamlin slide into the box while Alan Ball sits in centerfield. The Cowboys played a lot of 11 vs. 10 last year. I don't think they'll tolerate this again.
1 recs |
44 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Still no comments?? Wow, cowboy nation really is feeling the blues these days.
Either that or everyone is watching saturday night college fb.
by LouDogakaCypher on Oct 10, 2009 8:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What's left to say?
The situation for this team going into the season was simple: if Romo doesn’t play poorly, the team usually wins. He has played poorly in 2 games, and they lost them both. All of the other stuff is really just incidental. From 2006 through 2009, when this team’s starting QB has a passer rating higher than 72, they win 85% of their games. When it’s lower, they lose 85% of their games. You can cite penalties, sacks, the running game, stopping the run, stopping the pass, special teams, or what have you, but the most common factor in their losses over the last 3 and a quarter years is poor QB play.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 10, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Romo
dosnt shape up what a nasty year it would be. But i just thnk bench him. I did wonders for Mcnabb just gotta do something. Sooner or later the time will be up for this season then what if Romo does not turn a leaf.
Kitna or McGee?
by lostar2009 on Oct 10, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can think of many games over the years we don't win without solid qb play
Romo’s played very well against the giants in every regular season game except this year – we don’t win any 4 of those with a “game manager”. We don’t beat the Eagles in week 2 last year. We don’t beat the Packers or Lions in 2007. We don’t beat the Redskins in 2007. There are even more games. The games we could’ve won with a game manager, and lost due to poor qb pay boils down to only the eagles game in 07 and steelers game in 08. Thats it.
While this year is definitely different, we have at LEAST 5 extra losses on our schedule from 2006 to 2008 with a qb with an 85 rating, like you say. The defense before the midpoint of last season was slightly better than average, and the run game did’ scare anyone – we didn’t run the ball well before the 4th.
I think your stats show more the “feast or famine” with romo – when he has decent games – qb rating of 85 or over – they are usually brilliant games. When he had poor games (75 and under), they are disasterous. It doesn’t mean we JUST needed a game manager to win.
But again, this year is different. Romo is not playing nearly as well as normal.
by foyesboys on Oct 10, 2009 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's impossible to say what would have happened, but the numbers support me.
Neither you nor I can really determine whether they would have won games or not if Romo had played better or worse. All we can do is look at the fact that when any starting QB for this team, Romo, Bledsoe, or Johnson, plays at least mediocre (72 passer rating), the team wins 86% of the time, and when they play poorly (below 72), they lose 86% of the time. Either one of us can speculate as to what would have happened, but that’s the way the numbers fall. So if I had to guess what would have happened, I would have to say that if Romo played at least decent, the Cowboys would have won more of those games, and that as long as he didn’t play poorly they still would not have lost the others. I am basing that solely on the existing results from when he has played poorly and when he has not played poorly.
There have been 8 games since 2006 where our starting QB had a rating between 68 and 90, and the Cowboys won all 8 games, so I would have wagered that the Cowboys would have still won if Romo had been a “bus driver” in those games.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 10, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its ridiculous to look at this argument for anything other than a game by game basis.
for example, Romo’s had some very bad games (take philly, NO in 2006 and Washington in 2007) where we had no run game and the other teams offense controlled the game. We were forced to throw the ball often, and defenses were able to key on romo and he played poorly. That does NOT mean a game manager would have won us that game, because a gmae manager would likely not perform any better.
I am not going to defend his play the last 10 or so games, when all hes needed is to be a mostly accurte passer and we would be fine, but before that, we have NEEDED a qb to win us games, the run game has never carried us, and the defense hasn’t been good enough for us to not need to score a ton of points.
by foyesboys on Oct 10, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is it ridiculous?
The big question is what will it take for this team to win consistently, and the answer is obvious: consistent, efficient QB play.
I’m not even sure what you are trying to argue here, honestly. My point is that as long as Romo doesn’t play poorly we rarely lose, and you are countering by pointing out games where he played well and we won. You’ve also identified games where he played poorly and we lost. I’m not sure how that goes against what I have said.
Sure, there are various factors that contribute to various victories and defeats, but the most frequent factor in wins and losses for this team in the past 3+ years is QB passer rating. When it’s simply not lower than 72, or 68 technically, they win 86% of the time. When it is lower, they lose 86% of the time. That’s regardless of any other factor. The run game was dominant against the Giants this year, the D was good against the Broncos, so what was similar in both games? Poor QB play.
Look at the Carolina game this year, or even the Tampa game last year, or the second Redskins game last year. That’s 3 wins with “unremarkable” QB play. I’m not sure why an efficient QB that protects the football is considered such a bad thing around here.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 11, 2009 1:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
A quarterback is only as good as his offensive line. When Romo has broken down (with a couple of exceptions), its because his o-line has been a sieve, and there’s been no running game to relieve the pressure. Even the Tom Bradys and Peyton Mannings of the world have difficulty executing under duress (although they have to lees often because their o-lines are consistently competent).
A QB rating is essentially a passing efficiency rating—all eleven guys contribute to the numbers.
And in all three games cited above, the defense played lights out—in fact, those may be the only three times the defense played that well since 2003.
by rabblerousr on Oct 11, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"with a couple of exceptions"
Exactly.
Yes, there are games where you could argue that the line’s poor play contributed to the QB’s poor play, and the team lost. There are also games where the line’s poor play did not prevent the QB from having a passer rating below 72. So, let’s compare those games to where the line played well and the QB still had poor numbers. Did they win or lose those games? Let’s look at games where the line played poorly and the QB still had a passer rating above 72. Did they win or lose those games? Well, regardless of line play, when the QB didn’t play poorly, they won, and when he did, they lost.
Look at the Giants game last year and the Giants game this year. Last year, Romo was sacked 4 times and under pressure all day. He played well and the Cowboys won. This year, he was sacked zero times and the line played well, but he played poorly and they lost. We can go back and analyze losses to 2006, and the most common factor is poor QB play. We can compare that to wins, and will find once again that the most common factor is decent QB play.
Regardless of whatever excuses are used to explain his poor play, since 2006, when the QB of this team plays poorly, they lose 86% of the time. When he doesn’t, no matter what anyone else on the team does, they win 86% of the time. And that includes games where Romo didn’t start.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 11, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is like all those stats
that say we have had a solid running game the last few years, but when you look at it closely, you see many of them have come in the fourth quarter and we really didn’t run the ball well in the first 3.
by foyesboys on Oct 10, 2009 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that's all I think they need - solid QB play.
As long as Romo doesn’t play poorly, they usually win.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 10, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well sort of missing the Pat Watkins point...
This stat is true. But, as Foyes states..this is a highly situational stat. Bad games where Romo is forced into 30+ passing games due to a non-factor running game. Using passer rating for a measure of this teams success is shown to be very situational (i.e. %s instead of #s) if you examine Romo’s career passer ratings.
3 people surpass his career numbers…1.Steve Young 2. Peyton Manning 3. Kurt Warner. Young is only 3 points above Romo. Below Romo are…Phillip Rivers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger Otto Grahm, Dan Marino, Brett Farve, Troy Aikman and Roger Staubach. To name just a few.
But, it is true Tony has lost us some games trying to make plays when he didn’t need to, especially recently. But, for his total career those numbers are very very good. Is it true that he is in a funk? Absolutely. But it is simply inaccurate to say that all the cowboys need to succeed is “solid QB play” because as many games as a bus driver would have won for us…Romo has probably won us twice as many…
Funks are the beginnings of a declining career but it is just too early to say that he is hurting our team more than he’s helping..which seemed to be the basic meaning of your point.
Wade Phillips has never won a playoff game as a head coach..he has lost 4 home playoff games.
His longest tenure as head coach was 3 years.
Only once did his record as a HC improve from one year to the next (by 1 game)
Wade Phillips for DC
by SDTrueblue on Oct 11, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a reason that you have to have a certain number of passes to qualify.
Romo doesn’t have enough passes to qualify for the career passer rating ranking, and if you look at his numbers, they are getting worse as his career goes on. I’m not saying that he can’t easily turn that around, though.
I’m saying that when our QB simply doesn’t play poorly, regardless of any other factors, the team wins 86% of the time. And that when he does play poorly, regardless of any other factors, as Romo has in 5 of his last 8 games, they lose 86% of the time. And I am also saying that was true when Bledsoe and Johnson were the starters, too. Given those facts, it seems to me that the simple solution to the Cowboys current woes is better QB play.
The truth is, this is not a situational stat. If you look at Cowboys wins and losses over the past 3+ years, QB passer rating is actually the most common similarity. Romo averages over 30 passes a game, so I don’t see how throwing 30+ passes would affect anything. He threw only 29 passes in the Giants game this year, and that was one of the worst of his career. Conversely, he has thrown the ball over 40 times in a game 6 times in his career, and 3 times he had good ratings, 3 times bad. Interestingly, 2 of those games account for the few times where the pattern of QB rating and wins is broken, with a win at Buffalo in 2007, and a loss to Washington last year.
I am absolutely suggesting that since returning from injury, he is hurting the team more than he is helping them, as his poor play has been the major contributing factor in both of our losses this season. I am not saying that thus far in his career that has been the case, I am talking about his last few games, where we have lost 5 of 8.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 11, 2009 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because this place gets so hyped up pre-draft,post-draft and preseason
the exhaustion level is high when the real games begin. Add to that the 2-2 record didn’t fit in with the Nostradamus crowd. When the real season starts, the first loss allows the naysayers to vomit huge amounts of blame everywhere, which turns in to a badminton match that lasts for days on end. Then you realize no one is even reading each others’ comments, they’re just hammering their point ad nauseum. Eventually, people get tired of defending their position over and over and over again, so they stop posting, due to the fact that it’s useless and time consuming to argue over the internet. Everyone has their mind made up about how this team is A) going to finish the season, B) the QB/HC/DC/WR suck/don’t suck/can’t get the job done, C) want the owner to fire himself/anoint him..the list goes on and on. That’s why there has been a steady decline in comments. Check back tomorrow after the game, however. If the Cowboys manage to lose, you’ll see plenty of comments.
by Benthere on Oct 10, 2009 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michael Hamlin was coming along nicely in TC, I hope he returns soon.
We could use Jason Williams back on the field as well.
Man, I really hope Ogletree gets some looks tomorrow, he’s another one that was looking good in TC.
by LouDogakaCypher on Oct 10, 2009 8:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jason Williams is back on special teams anddddd
I wonder y K.O. isnt on punt returns.
by lostar2009 on Oct 10, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JWilliams had a super nice tackle last week on ST.
speed, break down, smack, ball carrier to ground…
There's somethin' happenin' here...what it is ain't exactly clear...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 11, 2009 6:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm excited to see
how he progresses over the season.
"Everybody wants something but nobody wants to pay the price" - Michael Irvin
by 24Hz on Oct 11, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OOPS, I'm at work and I just accidentally tried to ring up some stuff on the btb comments section. That's funny.
And yes mick, I did use to manage the great muta, but i gave up the wrestling life for a life with less makeup.
by LouDogakaCypher on Oct 10, 2009 8:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This defense could be dominant with an elite safety.
Just imagine if the Cowboys had signed a Brian Dawkins in the offseason. They still could have signed Sensabaugh as the backup, as Sensi wasn’t that expensive, he’s young, and they drafted safeties, so clearly they were looking for depth there. This defense is really missing a field general type back there, and I may have just not been paying attention, but Hamlin hasn’t seems to have faded from that role.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 10, 2009 8:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Dawkins would have been a huge addition
not sure why they didn’t go after him unless they just thought he wanted too much $$
by Realist Larry on Oct 10, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummmm..
..‘cause he’s 100 years old in NFL years, and smart organizations never pay top $$$ for age. He’ll never play up to his contract.
by rabblerousr on Oct 11, 2009 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
give it some time on dawkins
yes hes had a good start but theres a reason philly cut him….hes a leader and for a young team, is a great addition, but you’re going to see throughout the year the coverage deficiencies as a result of his play. Which is what we would need.
by foyesboys on Oct 10, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cowboys have those anyway.
He may have coverage deficiencies, but his pluses far outweigh his minuses. Additionally, this team really needs some leadership on the field, and he certainly brings that. And if he can mentor guys like Sensabaugh and M. Hamlin while he’s here, that’s even better.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 10, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got to give it to the Eagles, they have a crafty front office
Somehow, they have a knack for establishing high roster quality at (relatively) low cost, and do really well at letting go of veteran players shortly before their performance significantly declines – feasting off the free-agent mistakes other teams make in overvaluing the Eagles’ players.
After the 2010 season, the contracts of Donovan McNabb (33), Brian Westbrook (30), Kevin Kolb (25), Michael Vick (29) and Quintin Mickell (29) all run out. Watch for the Eagles to shop one or more of those in the off-season.
Philadelphia is a dangerous place for any player over 30.
by One.Cool.Customer on Oct 11, 2009 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's why they win..
..at the end of the year, while older teams (cough, cough, the Cowboys offensive line) fade.
Remember the early 90s Cowboys? The youngest team in the league? Who always finished strong? Young legs are a terrific asset.
by rabblerousr on Oct 11, 2009 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Scouting
I think thats a fault of our Coaching staff not necessarily our Scouting staff. Our coaching staff has a hard time evaluating talent on our own team.
by staubachfan on Oct 11, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you Raf yet am frustrated at this team's inability to deal w/ injuries.
Yes, it’s a disaster to have Watkins heading out onto the field. I can’t believe he’s even on the team, somewhere, someeone, had to cut somebody better than this guy.
Yet-why is it other teams can absorb injuries and have guys ready to step up and play at at least an NFL level?? Dallas plays teams loaded w/injuries all the time-and we watch as those units do just fine. But this team loses one OLineman and everything collapses-one safety, and the D will probably get burned tomorrow.
Rhetorical question, yes, but if there is an answer the coaching is the only answer, along w/just a plain lack of talent I guess.
by Realist Larry on Oct 10, 2009 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Watkins at strong safety is a concern
I’m actually a bit nervous. The guy’s looked consistently awful throughout his career. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t he start at free safety a couple of years back in the Parcells era? I distinctly remember him being awful and giving up a couple of huge game winning plays…
I think Wade’s smart enough to scheme around the weaknesses we have on D. He’s done it before…I’m just a tad uneasy with our safety situation in general. Sensabaugh looked like the only player doing well at the position. Hamlin/Watkins sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Did they scrap the Scandrick playing that “star” safety role in certain packages? Could that potentially be a strategy they employ, thin as we are at safety?
Epic Fail since 1985
by the red scare on Oct 11, 2009 2:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I want to see what Alan Ball can do at safety
From what I remember he was looking pretty good in TC.
by Joon on Oct 11, 2009 2:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Any idea when M. Hamlin returns?
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Oct 11, 2009 5:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
After the bye week, he should be close to ready.
There's somethin' happenin' here...what it is ain't exactly clear...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 11, 2009 6:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strong safety is only a temporary concern
It’s not something we really need to be worried about
by quincyyyyy on Oct 11, 2009 9:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Watkins starting scares the hell out of me.
by Fernie67 on Oct 11, 2009 10:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It really shouldn't
he’ll be a backup for the rest of his career, but he is not nearly as bad as some people make him out to be.
by quincyyyyy on Oct 11, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
