Building a Winning Game Plan, Part II: Dallas' Defensive Turnovers
by Rafael Vela on Jun 16, 2009 12:43 AM CDT
131 comments
In part two of this series, I examine Dallas' effectiveness at creating turnovers, and how the team can return to its 2007 levels.
The Incredible Shrinking Interception Totals
The '08 Cowboys offer a paradox. How can a team whose passing defense ranking rose from 13th in '07 to 10th, and whose sack totals jumped from 46 in Wade Phillips' first year to a league-leading 58, see its turnover totals drop 24%, with its interception total dropping 58%?
| Dallas Defense | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| Fumbles recovered | 13 | 10 | 14 |
| Interceptions | 18 | 19 | 8 |
| Turnover total | 31 | 29 | 22 |
| TD passes allowed | 25 | 19 | 19 |
| Pass defense rank | 24th | 13th | 10th |
Let's focus on that black number eight. How could a defense with a top-drawer rush and fewer yards allowed intercept just eight passes? Comparing Dallas' '07 and '08 coverage metrics, two explanations emerge.
The first is age. Right corner Anthony Henry's success rate dropped from 48 to 35% and his yards per attempt allowed jumped from 6.6 to 7.7. As Henry's closing speed eroded, his interception total plummeted from six to one.
The second is sub-par strong safety play. We've beaten this subject to death, but Roy Williams' injuries, and Keith Davis' physical limitations dropped the SS's overall performance down. What's more, it had a detrimental effect on Ken Hamlin's play,and contributed to his drop from five picks in '07 to just one last year.
Long-time readers of my old site know Keith has been a secondary scapegoat for years. That's because Davis posted the worst YPAs of any starting free safety in '05 and '06. That's not Davis' fault. He's always been better suited to play in the box and was badly miscast playing in center field in Bill Parcells' last two defenses.
Hamlin offered an immediate and immense upgrade in '07:
| Ken Hamlin | 2007 | 2008 |
| Direct Coverage YPA | 4.9 | 9.7 |
| Dir. Cov. Success % | 59.1% | |
| Deep Assist YPA* | 6.0 | 10.0 |
| Deep Asst. Scs% | 85.0 | 60.0 |
*(Deep assists catalog the plays where a safety helped a corner in double coverage.)
Hamlin's numbers dropped a fair amount last year, but those are still respectable totals. Remember, Pat Watkins' YPA and success percentage in '06 were 15.1 and 53.3%. Davis' were even worse the year before.
Let's now take a look at Roy Williams' coverage numbers from his healthy'06 an '07 and those the gimpy Roy, Davis and Pat Watkins amassed in their three man SS rotation last season:
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |
| Direct Coverage YPA | 10.3 | 7.8 | 15.8 |
| Direct Coverage % |
60.9 | 31.0 | 15.0 |
Roy offered two half-a-loaf seasons in '06 and '07. His success rate was very high in '06, but he gave up a large number of yards when he surrendered a catch. Wade Phillips promised his scheme would limit the number of times Williams was exposed in deep coverage. Williams posted a career best 7.8 YPA in '07, a result of playing in shallow zones. His success rate dropped almost 50% however, showing that his short-zone coverage skills were nothing to brag about.
Last year, the Williams-Watkins-Davis trio was the worst of all worlds. They could not stop passes and they gave up big gains on a regular basis.
That might be overlooked if they offered strong run support, but they did not. KC Joyner's new run metrics have a category called sky tackles, which measure the number of tackles a team's safety made in the backfield or within five yards of the line of scrimmage. It measures a safeties effectiveness at filling the lane on tosses or isolation runs:
- Williams-Watkins-Davis sky tackles: 16
- Hamlin sky tackles: 13
Hamlin almost had as many sky tackles starting twelve yards deep at the free as the strong safeties did playing in the box. This says that Hamlin had to cover a lot for the strong safeties: Roy L. had 92 tackles in '07. He and Davis combined for 45 last year.
Hamlin was trying to defy the laws of physics last year; he played a lot closer to the line of scrimmage in run support while trying to maintain in deep patrol. His single interception shows he failed.
The early reports on Gerald Sensabaugh have been glowing. He was signed for his coverage skills, which appear to supercede those of the three guys he's replacing. We won't know until the full pads come on in August, but he could well be the most important roster addition this year. If he's half as good as the coaches claim, the turnovers which went missing last year will return.
2 recs |
131 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Don't forget forced scheme changes
Wade admitted that he had to play a lot more zone to (unsaid) protect Henry and Thong/Watkins/ATBABS.
We have a bevvy of man corners and we’re playing zone because of one guy? Some blame has to be laid at the coaches feet. What I saw when Wade finally took over was a less “prevent” mentality to a WTF, I got nothing to lose ‘cause I’m going to get fired anyway approach. mmm…they got better even with the Technicolor Backside back there.
But you live by the sword and eventually someone will pull a gun. And I don’t think even the most optimistic person could question that we were exposed in December.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 16, 2009 1:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If there's one single reason for some optimism this year it's the hope that the safety play will improve.
Who knows if some guy from Jacks. we all never heard of before will make THAT much of a difference, but there’s a good chance there will be a domino effect that will improve both run and pass defense with some consistent safety play.
I don’t think this is going to be “Doomsday III” as some do, but a consistent and top 8 or so D is possible.
Not much depth at safety, though. Even w/ Davis gone and hopefully Watkins, Courtney Brown or whoever doesn’t inspire confidence. I’m hoping we can pick up some team’s safety castoff later as a 3rd guy w/ some experience.
by Realist Larry on Jun 16, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think by and large the turnovers will return no matter what.
Interception totals are extremely inconsistent from year to year. The Chargers in 2007 were easily the leader in interceptions and then fell off in 2008. Much of the supposed “forcing turnovers defense” is just luck and I think it’s likely that the Cowboys will rebound from 2008, especially because they generate a lot of pressure on the opposing QB.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 16, 2009 1:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with that
when you get a lot of sacks, it also points that you are pressuring the QB a lot as well, which forces the QB to make a lot of bad throws while being pressured. This puts the DBs in a position to make interceptions. Newmann has bad hands, but hamling and henry didn’t have as bad set of hands as newmann and their totals dropped. You want to pressure the QB to force him to make errant throws and provide your team with opportunities to make interceptions. its not luck, there is a bit of football science behind it. while the front 7 played one type of football (pressure), the DB field had to play soft zone and cover 2 (prevent). I think this year we will see a lot of man to man, with both the front 7 and DB field in sync playing pressure football and thus the INTs will go up.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 16, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cowboys did put a lot of pressure on the QB last year though
And they still didn’t get interceptions. It’s obviously not all luck, but luck is a large part of it.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 17, 2009 2:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fighter
Not having a SS means you have nobody to cover tight ends. They had to get exotic all year using OLBs to cover them. And when you do that you weaken your pass rush.
Brendan Scolari —
SDs picks went way down cause their rush went way down. Merriman was lost and they had nobody who could replace him. Their sack totals dropped way down in ’08
by Rafael Vela on Jun 16, 2009 1:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep
That entire defense went to crap after Merriman went down.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 16, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
Then how do you explain the Cowboys? They had 46 sacks in ‘07 and 19 interceptions, and then 59 sacks in ’08 and only 8 interceptions. That dropoff in interceptions doesn’t seem largely influenced by luck to you?
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 17, 2009 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What, nobody has a sense of humor anymore
The INT’s went down because RW missed most of the year injured. It’s simple.
by StillHateTheGiants on Jun 16, 2009 5:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
lol
I will say that RW had good hands… better hands than Tnew
by AustonianAggie on Jun 16, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's like saying he's the worlds tallest midget
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
-Winston Churchill
by HudBaby on Jun 16, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was evident on the field
Despite the weaknesses in the secondary, Wade did an admirable job of shoring up the D with little to work with back there. The D had a respectable second half of the season for the most part.
We also didn’t have any premium picks in the draft to work with, and all indications are that the Cowboys still managed to salvage some players for the secondary. There’s some “ifs” involved here, but overall I’m excited about the possibilities in our defensive backfield. I think we have a good starting five, and could have some decent backups in there too. Our biggest “if” in the resurgence of the secondary is going to be injuries.
Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.
Joe ThEEsman
by SB Six on Jun 16, 2009 5:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good lord!
The Cowboys had EIGHT interceptions last year?!?!?! Gawd awful…like, 1989 and 1997 bad.
That IS impossible, to have 58 sacks and only 8 ints. Completely counter-intuitive. In theory, a great pass rush forces opposing QBs to make mistakes. Does this mean that their pass rush was a fraud? Or at least not all it’s cracked up to be? Is that possible?
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 7:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
my opinion is
as I said it above, while the front 7 played pressure defense scheme, the DB field played prevent defense scheme, which didn’t put them in the position to get INTs. it mostly because of lack of personnel and trying to cover for too many holes. It wasn’t just about RW, it was also Henry. that’s 50% of your DB field you have to cover for and hamlin and Newmann couldn’t be everywhere. plus Newmann has notoriously bad hands.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 16, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think going into more man coverage
Will probably lead to more turnovers. You’re right about the scheme.
It’s tougher to get int’s when you’re playing 15 yards off the ball every time.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 19, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was personel more than scheme. Playing off the man you get to actually
see the QB throw the ball and can judge it better. Man to man you are(or should be) right up on the guy with your back to the QB and have no idea when the ball is thrown. You have to read the WRs face and get your head around quick for the ball.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 19, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I think much of it was just bad luck.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 17, 2009 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Sensabaugh is as good as advertised
from OTAs and mini camp, then the Cowboys defense could very well become elite this season.
Our safety play has been abysmal the last few years which has really prevented Wade from unleashing the hounds early and often.
Hopefully, this year we’ll see why Jerry kept Wade around.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 7:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you have to be a bit cautious with Sensabaugh
There was a reason Jaxonville let him go
by aussie_cowboy on Jun 16, 2009 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe it was football related
I believe they didn’t re-sign him because of off the field issues, not because he wasn’t a good player.
I have a hard time believing he won’t represent a significant upgrade over both RW and KD.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Hopefully, Cowboys can put a block from Pacman’s number on Gerald’s phone, We don’t need Adam showing him the sights around Big D.
"We'll see." --Bill Parcells
by Uncle Angus on Jun 16, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't it all
Paperwork stuff? You know, licenses n such? It is not like he got caught doing blow or killed someone driving drunk…
McGruber!
by Mojoness on Jun 16, 2009 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sensabaugh was arrested twice
Once for having a gun in his car without a carry permit and another time for driving with a suspended license.
I’m often guilty of letting my love of the Cowboys make me overly optimistic, but we can’t say that he didn’t have off the field issues. I mean, how hard is it to get a carry permit in Florida?
That said, I think the real culprit in both situations is the police.
I would like to ask the officer who pulled him over what the “probable” cause for a search was; he was pulled over for speeding. The Courts have really taken a good bit of white-out to the bill of rights in their definition of “probable”.
In the second case, his black Bentley made an officer “suspicious” and she subsequently found that his license had been suspended. Since when is driving a nice car indicative of criminal activity?
It’s not like his gun went off Cheddar Bob style or shot a dog.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmmm....
Was the fire arm licensed in another state? Or not at all? Jeeze…
I grew up in a house full of fire arms. (My father owned a gun shop for a while) I couldn’t count the number of unlicensed guns I have.
Then again, I am not quite stupid enough to drive around with one. Almost…
McGruber!
by Mojoness on Jun 16, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sensa does those things in TX,
nobody thinks twice. The concealed handgun license training in this state is awesome as are the gun laws.
Bring your arsenal here, Gerald. You are a great American. Just don’t drive w/ a suspended license.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
-Winston Churchill
by HudBaby on Jun 16, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that off the field issues aside, I think that Sensabaugh wanted a long term deal.
I like how both Campo and DeCamillis must have vouched for this guy, he was not someone that WP or JJ knew and was not a pacman or tank project. I think that the one yr deal give the boys and sensabaugh an opportunity to give dallas good SS play and if he is good he will get a deal with dallas or with some other team.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on Jun 16, 2009 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they should
now, we have an attacking front 7 with an attacking back field. that should provide for plenty of INTs and turnover opportunities.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 16, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sacks and Interceptions
While I agree with Rafael that poor secondary play is largely to blame, especially since a few of those 8 interceptions were by linebackers, but I think there’s something else at play that can’t really be ignored.
Getting pressure on the QB forces bad passes and bad passes should get picked, but to some degree sacks and interceptions have to be a zero sum game.
When the QB is sacked, he’s not throwing the ball. This suggests one of two things:
1. Our pass rush was devastating at times, but completely nonexistent at others.
2. We need to put a 100 pound vest on Ware so that some of those sacks become hurries!
I think that #1 is on point. There were certainly games where opposing QBs could stand in the pocket and deliver perfect passes.
- is a joke; I don’t want pass rushers to ever hold anything back, BUT we have to recognize that if you have a perfect pass rush that sacks the QB on every passing play, there will be zero interceptions. So the closer a team gets to that perfect mark, the fewer the opportunities to get a pick.
It would make sense that a team that gets a lot of sacks also gets a lot of hurries, but if a defensive unit is better at finishing than at getting pressure generally, you’ll see the QB go down with the ball (and sometimes lose it) rather than tossing it up.
Moreover, record has to play a role in this sack-int balancing act. If your opponent is playing from behind, they’re more likely to toss one up instead of taking the sack. Is it possible that a few of those ’07 picks had more to do with the fact that our offense put up so many points that QBs had to go for make-or-break plays more often?
Anyone expect McNabb to throw a pick after the first half of our week 17 game?
It seems like a catch 22; a 9-7 team will get fewer opportunities to get picks than a 13-3 team…and of course getting more picks help to put a team in position to win more games.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 8:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
#2 is a joke, I think there's some strange formatting thing I don't know about
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
I actually have to agree with this point. I really did think last year that the pass rush was a feast or famine type deal because of how many times we would completely collapse the pocket and easily get there and how many times there was no one within 3 yards of the QB. Even though Dallas lead the league in sacks, I think we can all agree that our pass rush was not the same as the pass rush used by the Giants to win the Super Bowl. In other words, Dallas’s pass rush was not some constant pressure cooker but instead relied on quick bursts of heat to metaphorically cook the other teams QB. The thing about it was that when Dallas put the heat on, it was so effective that QBs could never really get the ball off and therefore take away the opportunities for turnovers (I would be very intrigued by statistics showing the % of sacks on pressure plays). There is no better example of the disparity in effectiveness than the Steelers game I just watched on NFL network. Dallas was up 13-3 and clearly pushing the Steelers offense all around the field. We sacked and pressured Rothlisberger easily and got a quick sack to make it 3rd and 16. Well, what happens? Instead of still having pressure on a down that should be ripe for a turnover, we don’t come close to getting to Big Ben who has time to pump fake Newman and catch him on a double move for a 40+ yard gain to breathe some much-needed life into the Steelers. It was plays like this that infuriated me last year because they showed just how bipolar the Cowboys pass rush sometimes could be.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 16, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a lot of good points here I think
I too thought we were all or nothing with our pass rush. Though last year wasn’t as bad as 07, there were points where I felt if Ware couldn’t get to the qb, we were doomed.
And likewise, our offense was nowhere near as crisp as in 07. Starting with Romos injury in the AZ game, we really didn’t put teams in bad sitations where they needed to pass the ball to come back.
Overall, despite the numbers, i thought the defense was MUCH more aggressive in 08 than 07. Some of it is luck too – guys just not making plays when the opportunity presents itself.
by foyesboys on Jun 16, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with your assessment
you assessment is that pressure is either feast or famine, meaning we get either sacks or no pressure at all. that maybe the case in stretches, maybe during the game or season, but when you take the whole season, they sort of average out. you don’t get sacks, if you can’t pressure the QB, its direct result. there were issues with the secondary last year, henry, davis, RW, Watkins. that’s 50% of your DB field that you had to cover up, which didn’t allow Hamlin to “roam” and get chances to Intercept the ball. Henry was a target of offenses by the second half of the season and we had to also cover him up, lining him up deeper and rolling coverage to his side.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 16, 2009 9:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hurry stats?
I’m not saying that it is necessarily feast or famine, but you have to recognize that IF you got a sack on EVERY play, there’d be no picks… so at some point, too many sacks might mean you’re getting there faster, not giving the QB time to make the bad throw.
Getting past the blocker is only one part of getting the sack. Maybe our guys were really good at “finishing” as I said earlier and therefore turned a lot of would-be hurried throws into sacks.
Think of it this way, each sack would have been another pass if they got there a little later.
I guess looking at the hurries in addition to sacks is the only way to figure it out, but I remember games where we didn’t get many sacks and ones where our D lived on top of the QB.
I agree that the DBs were a big problem, but there is definitely something to be said for both:
1. each sack is one fewer pass to pick off (so if you pick off one in every 30 passes even if not hurried, there’s a difference…)
2. teams with the lead will have more chances to get picks, because teams are more likely to throw a pick when trying to come from behind.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
look at the stats
there were over 560 pass attempts against the cowboys. we had 58 sacks. that’s an 10 % ratio. so there were 500 passes that either were completed or not completed. it stands to reason that there were opportunities for Interception. 500 of them. and we only got 8.
compare that to 2007 there were 581 passes thrown. and Int total was 19. with only about 80 extra passes we got 11 more Ints. btw, the sack total for 2007 was 46. only 12 less than 08. unless you are saying that those 12 less sacks directly resulted Interceptions, it doesn’t make sense.
and its not just about finishing. its about pressure. you can’t make a general statement that our guys are good at finishing and that’s what gives us the 58 sacks.
and you are right, a better stat would be hurries, but it stands to reason that with more sacks came more pressure. and thus more chances for errant throws and more chances for Ints.
its just that we had less Ints. and if you look at the difference with henry and hamlin having 11 Ints in 07 and 2 in 08, that’s a difference of 9 and would put us about 15-17 if they would have come close to matching their Int totals from last year and then your argument for having gotten 12 more sacks would have been logical.
Henry was playing way off the WRs last year plus his ypc on defense went from 6.2 to 7.7 and that meant more passes are being completed against him for more yardage and less chances for him to get Ints. It seems that he just went over the hill and started to decline quickly and often that happens to players past a certain point. the decline is rather quick.
also Hamlin was forced to play closer to the line to help RW, Davis and Watkins and got him less chances to roam the backfield and get Ints.
now, one can also argue if the DB field was close to their 07 form, then getting 8-10 more INts would lead to one or two more victories and put us at around 11-5 instead of 9-7.
we had issues in the DB field, that’s why we drafted 4 DBs in the past two years. got rid of Williams and Henry and brought in Sensebaugh.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 16, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
I still think that it’s most important to look at how many of those 500 passes were hurried. While there were 500 chances to get a pick, we all know that a QB isn’t likely to throw the ball where the defense can grab it without some pressure (this includes both pressure from the pass rush and the pressure to score points when you’re losing the game and have to catch up).
I don’t think it’s as much about the number of passes thrown as about the number of passes thrown stratified to account for the types of situations where picks are more likely (e.g. QB has a lineman pulling him down or has to try the high risk pass because it’s his team’s only hope).
I also agree that sacks are probably a pretty good indicator of pressure generally, but sacks correlate indirectly to interceptions in that regard because there cannot be a sack and an INT in the same play.
Hurries, on the other hand, have a much more direct relationship and would be a better indicator.
I don’t have the hurry stats and haven’t been able to find them, but you have to admit that a team could lead the league in sacks and be average in terms of hurries. If players are better at getting to the QB once they’ve beaten their blockers than they are at beating their blockers, then the team will have disproportionately more sacks than hurries.
Again, I don’t know how many hurries we had this season, but only if we were near the top of the league in that category as well can we put so much of the blame on the secondary for not coming up with picks.
Sacks would seem to be a good indicator of overall pressure, but remember that each successful sack is one less hurried throw and unless we know how many times our guys got their hands on the other team’s QB, we can’t say that they forced a lot of bad passes on the basis of a high sack total. It sure didn’t seem to me like opposing QBs threw up a lot of ducks and while I remember a few missed INT opportunities (Bradie James had 1 or 2 this season), my take on the games was really that there were a few other defenses out there who made QBs sweat more, even if they were brought down less frequently.
Baltimore, for example only had 30-some sacks, but led the league in picks. In addition to having Ed Reed back there, I’m guessing they had quite a few hurries relative to the rest of the league.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that sometimes it felt like it was "all or nothing" with the pass rush
It may be anecodotal, but I seem to recall many 3rd and longs that were converted thanks to a flabby pass rush.
Or did we play against too many QBs who played smart and knew to take sacks or throw it away, rather than try to make desperate plays downfield?
But even the “no-name” QBs they played against did really well. I mean, freaking Shaun Hill throwing for 300+ yards? Rookie Joe Flacco playing a flawless game? Good thing the Cowboys played against Eli, because he almost threw half the team’s ints (3, with 1 returned for a TD).
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Was it a nonexistent pass rush at times or the guy being covered by the SS being wide ass open(industry term)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 16, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive 3rd and Long Conversions
Ok, I just went through every play-by-play of the 2008 season, and found that*:
1) the Dallas Cowboys defense faced 145 3rd and long situations**, which I define as 3rd and 5+
2) opposing teams converted on 45 of those 3rd and longs***
3) making it 25.5% of the time
4) throwing 3 touchdown passes
5) throwing ZERO interceptions
6) fumbling 3 times, losing 2
7) getting sacked 22 times
I am not sure at all how allowing your opponent to make a quarter of their 3rd and long opportunities compares to other NFL teams at all, but I guess at first blush that seems like a decent number. Although somehow I doubt that the defenses in Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Philadelphia were so generous.
Overall, the Cowboys allowed opposing offenses to convert 77 of 216 3rd downs, which means that they allowed those teams to make 32 of 89 3rd downs 4 yards or fewer, or about 36%.
- according to me squinting at my computer and sloppily scribbling down numbers in a spiral notebook, then adding the results in my head
- not including kneel downs or spikes, of which there were approximately 8 in 2008
***there were also 2-3 times when the other team came up a yard or two short on 3rd down, allowing them to convert on a 4th and short.
- not including kneel downs or spikes, of which there were approximately 8 in 2008
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I cheated and used a calculator, but a few of those numbers didn't look right to me
45/145=31%
Also, if there were 145 3rd down plays with 5+ to go and 216 total 3rd downs, then there were 71 3rd down plays with fewer than 5 yards to go. 77-55=22
So
3rd down conversions (total)
77/216=36%
3rd and Long (5+ yards):
45/145=31%
3rd and Short (<5 yards):
32/71=45%
what stands out to me (besides the fact that we got NO INTs!) is that about 2/3 of the time the other team had 5+ yards to go on 3rd down. That sounds pretty good.
Also 36% is better than average (roughly 39%) and is better than the Cowboys’ opponents did as the Dallas offense converted on 43% of 3rd downs.
All of this seems to really point out how right Rafael is about the importance of getting takeaways! We’re converting on a lot more 3rds than the other team yet didn’t let that translate into any real success.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Takeaways are essential but our poor secondary play is probably the reason
opponents convert at that success rate. (36%). 3rd and 5 should not succede 1/3 of the time.
Ever since Romo took over Dallas has had a great shot on 3rd down though
by AustonianAggie on Jun 16, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas had the turnovers, penalties
and not many drives sustained. That’s why 43% of 3rd downs being converted by the Dallas offense didn’t mean much
by Burt88 on Jun 18, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Romo told to shape up?
Gawd… this is bound to get Tex going…
by Boundforbeach on Jun 16, 2009 10:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
ha ha ha ha....
should get Terry going too…..“QBs are in the best shape of their lives in their 30’s….”
by McLovin9 on Jun 16, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
obviously I never said that
I could sue you as well for libel, lol. I never said qbs in their 30s are in better shape, what i said was qbs are better qbs in their 30s. Try reading and comprehending what I write.
Actually, that article very much dispelled Tex’s hogwash of Romo being out of shape in the offseason, it actually said the opposite and said he’s in great shape coming into the season, but the tolls of a 16 game season wears on him to lift as much and there really isn’t a coach to get on him about it.
I think anyone who knows Romo well knows he responds to tough coaching, that has always been the case.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cowboys coaches believe Romo has a penchant for showing up for training camp in just good enough shape to allow him to get out to a good start in the first half. And it falls apart in the second half because he does. He is not able to outrun the same players. His mistakes go up. He is not the same QB.
The article does not say that he shows up in great shape,but rather that he shows up in just good enough shape, and that he needs to work on that. To ROmo’s credit, it appears that he is taking hte crticism to heart, but the article does not say what you claim it does.
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 16, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually liked the article. It was both commendable and critical of him.
i also agree with the premise that Tex’s boy Garrett get off his coddling ways and kick some ass. It isnt just he horse that wins but the jockey riding him. The fact that Romo is responding is another thing to find more hope in. Its also another small step in leadership.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 16, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so far, I like what I'm seeing out of Jason Garrett......
He seems to be tougher on players than the past. They need to know who’s in charge.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garrett
I definitely agree with you. Garrett does seem to be taking over as a vocal type of coach and that is certainly a good thing in my mind when you have a QB that has shown positive learning results under that type of coaching.
And I know its been beaten to death, but I think this added intensity is the direct result of T.O. being ousted. The second it got out that T.O. didn’t respect Garrett, T.O. needed to leave. You simply can’t be an effective coach when you have such an established figure as T.O. making other guys under your influence question your crediability.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 16, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha ha
Oh No! “The ‘Pear-Shaped’, Bimbo Chasing, Best Quarterback to have never won a playoff game has officially been exposed!”
Tex was right all along. Have a Calvados on me Tex.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Jun 16, 2009 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
actually Tex wasn't right
If you read carefully, the article says he’s in great shape coming into the season, whereas Tex always argued he was always out of shape in the offseason.
Also, the article never said anything about Romo being fat or out of shape condition wise, it talked about weight training and strength…big difference.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seriously couldn't tell that Jim was being sarcastic?
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 19, 2009 8:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really get it
The story says he comes to camp in shape but then apparently loses it as the season progresses. All things being equal (i.e., injuries), why wouldn’t preparing for and playing in a dozen or so games actually increase things like your endurance and strength in time for December? How can one gain weight (fat) and get out fo shape while playing NFL football every week?
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 11:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I do not think it is as simple as, Romo you are too fat. Check out the interview he did, the link is below
he talks about having the same energy at the begining of the season all the way through to december.
http://www.dallascowboys.com/multimedia/multimedia_center.cfm?id=E69EDB93-B35A-F327-F860591EFAAA7C90
The question comes up around the 16 minute mark.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on Jun 16, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries effect your conditioning. When you hurt you dont push it as much. You slack off.
Being in worse shape at the end of the season leads to worse play. It seems to make sense but BP didnt let them slack off and the late season dive continued. Hopefully This is another positive step towards fixing it.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 16, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
read careful David
the article never said he was ever fat or out of shape conditioning wise, it talked about strength training…big difference.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only like to read the first and last sentences of stories and articles...
makes life a lot easier.
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I see
Thanks. That makes complete sense.
So what QBs in the league are renowned for being in great shape and maintaining a high energy level all year long? I suspect everyone is in the same boat by the end of the year – banged up, exhausted, etc.
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 11:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
a good example of someone that wasn't in shape was McNabb in S.B. remember?
barfing on the last drive-haha
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stephen McGee knows a lot about barfing on the last drive
but he managed to score a TD on the next play
by AustonianAggie on Jun 16, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
anybody else remember the last Super Bowl year that we won?
Troy had shed some lbs. and came in a lot better shape that he had. I remember Switzer saying that he looked more like a LB the year before than a QB. Anyway, he dropped some weight and came in great shape-they were still training here in Austin. Hopefully, this will help Romo too.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not about losing weight
it’s about gaining strength. Being in shape for a professional athlete involves both conditioning and strength, both are two completely different things.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's rephrase what I meant then Terry......
Aikman came in out of shape and a little over-weight the previous year. He got in excellent shape and consequently dropped a little weight. Conditioning,strength, and weight do go hand in hand. They are not completely different things. They go hand in hand.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats not true at all
I’ve trained as an amatuer athlete and I know for a fact aerobic conditioning and strength training are two entirely different things all together.
You can be super strong and ripped, but in poor aerobic shape, or be in great aerobic shape, but not strong.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re-read Terry.......
I never said that they are the same thing. However, an elite athlete will use both aerobic (walking,running,cycling, etc.) and anaerobic (weight training) together to achieve the best results. I don’t even know why you’re arguing this or why I’m bothering responding to this. The truth of the matter (and yes) I DO know about the difference between the two because I used to bike for over 50 miles a day and run 6 miles a day. I alternated that with weights for strength. You either are trying to distort my simple statement above which was a simple statement that Aikman upped his workout regiment with weights and running and got in superior athletic shape for the Super Bowl run year or you truly don’t understand what I’m saying.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just pointing out
one can be in great aerobic shape but not strong enough to last an entire season, which was the case of Romo.
Romo doesn’t need to lose weight, he actually needs to gain some weight in his upper body and become stronger.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he was not strong enough to last the entire season, doesn't that mean he was not in "great shape"?
By the ay, I am calling shenanigans on this as the reason that Romo appears to fade late in the season. He missed several games last season due to injury, and while I am sure that cut in to his ability to run and lift, I am sure he did not just lay around watching TV all day. The guy should have been better rested, even if his conditioning was off a bit, in the later part of the season.
in any event, there is nothing in this article to indicate that Romo is in great shape, in fact it is quite the opposite
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 16, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is nothing in the article
to indicate he is lousy shape either, only that he needs to lift more late into the season.
My understanding is that Romo starts out the season in great shape going into the season but doesn’t continue the lifting as the season wears on him physically.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say Brady looks like he's in pretty good shape
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
with the protection Brady gets
the only thing that needs to be in shape on him is his arm.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Out of shape Romo is still probaly top 10 in terms of fitness level. But the thing is, he has to be because he doesn’t have the prototypical qb anything. His maneuverability, accuracy and overall quickness is his biggest asset. Therefore, him getting out of shape sets him back worse than other qbs who I’d guess work out just as much/little as him.
Also, I definitely see how it can be hard, especially for a qb who has a lot on his plate disregarding the physical aspect of the game, to stay in the training room through injuries, etc.
by foyesboys on Jun 16, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anybody else think that Stallworth got off too easy?
30 days seems a little light for killing someone. Of course, he did hand over 5mil to his family.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever spent 30 days in Jail?
I think that judges and lawmakers are quick to throw someone in jail without actually understanding the impact of that decision.
From a different perspective, 30 days could be a life sentence. Someone can go away for what seems like a short sentence, but contract HIV or hepatitis (like Timothy Cole, who died in prison, serving time for a crime he did not commit), get his sentence significantly extended in self-defense, or be severely injured by another prisoner.
It’s not that I don’t think people should be punished, but you can’t really deter accidents as effectively as intentional acts, and people really need to push aside the infantile retributive justice notion that someone retroactively “deserves” to be punished. It’s fine to think like that when you’re seven and you want to get people back, but responsible adults shouldn’t think that way.
Just some things to think about when you say “too easy”
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoaa.......
I’m just asking a question. I understand what can happen in jail but a man lost his life because of a drunk driver. I don’t think you can equate 30 days in jail to a man losing his life permanently. I’m not passing judgement on him, but there does need to be consequences when you accidently cost someone their lives.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I don’t think you can equate 30 days in jail"
Maybe you can’t equate the two, but 30 days really can be life. And when you’re not a professional athlete with millions of dollars already in the bank, it’s a whole new kind of sentence.
And let’s not forget how political drunk driving laws are. States acquiesced to the .08 rule to keep getting federal funding for highways and the federal government caved into a very emotional, rather than rational lobby.
We’ll never know if Stallworth would have hit him had his BAC been under .08, but most accidents involving alcohol involve higher levels.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stallworth's BAC was at least 14 I believe........
it’s been a while since the story came out, but it was pretty high. I think you mis-understood my point. My point was/is if this were you or me (I live in Texas) I would probably be serving some time-at least 1 year. However, it appears that since he paid the victim’s family 5 mil. he is getting a lighter sentence than the average American. That’s where I have the problem.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you completely that everyone should receive equal punishment for the same crime
But, I think that the problem is more that you or I would be serving a year than that Stallworth’s sentence is too light.
My big point of disagreement is that I don’t think it’s morally acceptable that driving drunk and killing someone and driving drunk are two different crimes. Making these two crimes different doesn’t affect deterrence and is a punishment without a corresponding benefit.
The penalty for driving drunk should be high enough to stop people from doing it, but bad luck shouldn’t put people away for longer.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean 1.4
If his BAC was 14 he’d be dead from alcohol poisoning.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're wrong as well Terry.......
if you want to get technical, it was .126 according to documents that I just looked up.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going by your number
I didn’t know either other than it would be impossible for it to be 14.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he'd be jsut as dead at 1.4
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 16, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats not true
I’ve had clients well over 2.0
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may have had clients over .20, but not 2.0
I have had clients over .30
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 16, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know much about BAC but I believe once you get
to .40 you could be comatose or dead. I’ve never heard of anything like 1.4 or 2.0.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right, misplaced the decimal, my bad
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 17, 2009 7:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's okay Terry.....
I started it by saying 14 instead of .14. Big difference though right?
by texstar on Jun 17, 2009 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say
I’m pretty sure the average person would be passed out by the time they hit .25
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As part of a CLE class , I watched a guy deliberately get drunk and tested
By .15 he was wasted, .20 (where they stopped him drinking), he was completely incoherent.
I think at one time the legal limit in NJ was .18 which is nuts. At .18, there is no question you are a road menace.
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 18, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it all dedends on the indivdual
My late brother who was an alcoholic often would drive over .2 and was busted for multiple DUIs and actually died as a result last November.
His BAC was always over .2 each time he was arrested.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry for your loss
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 18, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Johnny Fever
Are some places still .10? That seems like a high limit.
by I_miss_Switzer on Jun 18, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pennsylvania used to be at .10
until a few years ago when it was changed to .08.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 18, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most states are .08 now
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 18, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta agree with Tex
Whether intentional or not people need to be accountable for their actions. The man became intoxicated and got behind the wheel of a car. His reflexes and judgement became impaired making him a danger to himself and others.
I am sure you are award that thousand of lives are lost every year at the hands of drivers who got behind the wheel when they were in no condition to drive. Should those drivers all be dismissed with a slap on the wrist?
Garrett needs to get a clue!
by BulletBob on Jun 16, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way too easy
30 days in jail is nothing compared to being dead.
A drunk driver kills someone and gets off with 30 days in jail? No justice there. The azzhole should do hard time for taking someone’s life.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jun 16, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
After further review
looks like Donte reached a confidential financial settlement with family of the deceased. Guess they got all the justice they wanted.
The guys who do serious prison time for driving drunk and killing someone aren’t multimillionaires.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jun 16, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with forgiveness and accidents, however drinking to much wasnt an accident and neither was driving to fast.
Those are choices.
I find being raped and sodomized a very good deterent for me. Quite frankly it scares the crap out of me.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 16, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's arguable whether drunk driving isn't an intentional act
Leonard Little got 90 days a few years ago…but I don’t know about the differences between the two cases in terms of facts and jurisdiction.
I would imagine Stallworth will get an NFL suspension, at least.
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 12:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree about the intentionality of choosing to drive
But, texstar’s post focused on the harm, not the mental state. We can agree that Stallworth probably did not intend to bring about the harm that he did.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
clarify what you mean?
I never meant that he intentionally killed someone but is he not responsible for someone losing their lives?
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Deterrence
I think that punishment gets its only true justification from deterrence. You can deter someone from getting behind the wheel after they’ve been drinking, but you cannot deter someone from accidentally causing a death.
To be clear, I think that a strong deterrent punishment is in order for all drunk driving (which should be redefined, sensibly), but that the harm caused should only be able to serve as evidence of the intoxication; not as a justification for a greater level of punishment
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My main point
In civil trials, the foreseeability of an unintentional harm factors into whether a defendant is liable. I think that hitting a pedestrian is a foreseeable result of driving intoxicated and I think that Stallworth should be fully liable for the harm he caused in a civil sense.
If someone has unintentionally brought about a certain harm, our criminal justice system should stop appeasing the emotional infant’s sense of justice and giving people the punishment they “deserve.”
Two drivers get shitfaced to the same degree and can barely get to their cars. One hits someone, the other doesn’t. Neither man has any recollection of his actions and each has undertaken the same decision to drive in a heavily intoxicated state. We obviously want to deter the death, so placing a high penalty on driving drunk makes a lot of sense.
Any justification for placing a higher punishment on the driver who brought about someone’s death must be based solely in retribution-and as the old saying goes-“an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
If Stallworth had not been drinking at all, he could have still hit that guy, and if he hadn’t hit him, he’d probably be at an OTA right now.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can deter..
a person from drinking and driving and accidentally or intentionally killing someone by taking away their freedom. Which is what happened to Stallworth. I assure you that for the next 30 days, he will not drink and drive and no other innocent people are at risk because of his poor judgement. Until he is free.
Will losing his freedom give him a chance to reflect on his poor judgement and hopefully change the way he acts? We can only hope.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Jun 16, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He paid off
the family of the dead guy.
So he sits in a cell for 30 days. Whether he gets drunk and kills someone else will depend, I guess, on his bank account.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jun 16, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me, or does it rub you the wrong way to pay off the deceased
family? I think it’s fine to get money out of him but the whole buying off thing kinda bugs me.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course it rubs you the wrong way, 99% of the people cant afford it,
what if it was me or you (I just assume, you cant pony up 5 mil) and me or you were even sober? it is still the mens life we are talking about, he is gone.
DS is guilty no ifs and buts about it, but I think the judge saw mitigating sircumstances: he manned up to his wrong, paid the victims family and they did not go for a harsher sentence, and the deceased tried to cross a very busy road not were he should have been, the offender was cooperative with police. Heaving said all this its scary notion to be able to pay your way out of harsher sentence, presumably because we are equal infront the law
by dcfanz on Jun 16, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Raf Sensabaugh just has to be good, like Hamlin-not great.
That alone will improve this D, just being consistent.
by Realist Larry on Jun 16, 2009 12:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That article confirms a lot about Romo
It didn’t actually answer the question though-So IS he in the weight room liftiing and squatting?
Does he work all offseason w/the strength/conditioning coach?
I wish we’d gotten the specifics.
by Realist Larry on Jun 16, 2009 12:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I thought it was crystal clear. Romo works out hard lifting in the off season, but once he starts playing and the aches and pains of a 16 game season approach, he tends to slack off on the weight training, which he says he will not do this year.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was there a quote mentioning the strength coach or exactly how often he's working out now?
If so, I missed it.
“he had a come-to-Jesus meeting with QB Tony Romo this off-season where he basically told him to get his butt in better shape.
--this quote implies that he was NOT getting in shape enough-or why the ‘come to Jesus’ meeting?
“the description used was “bottom heavy”
“Cowboys coaches believe Romo has a penchant for showing up for training camp inJUST GOOD ENOUGH shape to allow him to get out to a good start "
“it’s hard when your body is beat down on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from the game to continue to do certain things. But I think that cleaning and squatting [in weight room] is a very important side of this and noticed it starts to waver as the season goes on as your body gets hurt "
this is what you’re referring to-it doesn’t necessarily follow that he’s working as hard as he could in the offseason-‘just enough’ is what was said.
I’m not jumping on Romo or a hater, but this article left me w/questions-specifically, where was the quote from the strength coach? He should be Romo’s roommate this time of year!
by Realist Larry on Jun 16, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
stallworth
off subject but did anyone see the donte stallworth story? he was drunk and killed a guy but gets 30 days in prison. hey at least he flashed his lights at the guy before he hit him. i hope the nfl suspends him for at least a year. to me that’s worse than what pacman did.
by maxdout on Jun 16, 2009 1:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
sorry
i posted before i read all comments
by maxdout on Jun 16, 2009 1:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What about fumbles?
The defense in 2008 forced 17 fumbles: the NFL average was 15.86. So the defense was better than average in 2008 at forcing fumbles.
In 2007, the Dallas defense forced 20 fumbles: the NFL average was 17.16. Again, the Cowboys defense was above average at forcing fumbles.
The difference was that in 2007, the Cowboys only recovered 50% of the fumbles forced (10), while in 2008, Dallas receovered an outstanding 82.4% of the fumbles forced (14). The NFL average for fumble recoveries those two seasons is about 66%. With all the talk of what went wrong, this is a facet of the game that luckily went well for Dallas last season.
Therefore, Dallas should not be expected recover as many fumbles in 2009 as the team did in 2008. KC Joyner also went over this statistical fact in his work.
Expect the Cowboys to average a little more than the league as a whole: probably around 18 forced fumbles, but only recover 12 of them. When talking about defensive turnovers, and not just interceptions, that means the Cowboys must register 10 interceptions in 2009 just to be as turnover deficient as they were in 2008.
In addition, Wade has stated several times that zone coverage schemes lead to more interceptions: not man-to-man coverage schemes. By being more aggressive in coverage at the line of scrimmage, I would expect the Cowboys to harrass the opposing quarterback to a greater extent due to the need of the quarterback to hold onto the ball longer. I would not, however, infer that better coverage would lead to more interceptions, especially in lieu of what Wade has repeatedly voiced.
by ScarletO on Jun 16, 2009 1:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Does it matter Who fumbles?
I’m thinking that Dallas forced more than a few QB fumbles (Ware had 5) and that was probably directly the result of a high sack total. So maybe teams that force QBs to fumble have higher recovery rates?
I don’t have anything to back this up, just a thought. I get the feeling that the QB is a little more likely to lose a fumble because he might not have as many teammates around him and isn’t as athletic as say a RB who fumbles. Conversely, I could see the argument that a RB fumbles in more traffic and is therefore more likely to lose the fumble…
So…I don’t know…but maybe the higher % of takeaways on forced fumbles is not just luck, but the product of getting to the QB?
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Recovering a fumble is essentially a random act.
Because of the way the ball is shaped, it can bounce any which way. Most football statisticians expect a team to recover about 50% of fumbles, both their own, and the other teams.
by twistmypepsi on Jun 16, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reciprocal
I see more than a few reasons to be optimistic about the Cowboys’ repeating the 59 sack season, but I see a few reasons to think it can’t happen again.
I don’t know that I expect to top 59, but not giving QBs a “wide ass open” (great term, Squidlo) could help the Cowboys repeat as the the league sack leader. If the QB doesn’t have anywhere to throw the ball, he’s got to hang onto it and you can only block Ware for so long…
Anyone have any predictions for Spencer’s sack total? I’m going with a conservative 7, but hope he proves me wrong early.
Will Ware get 20+ again? When’s the last time someone did that twice in a row? Strahan?
I really think that Wade taking over as the DC will help and I know we’ve got the talent, but it just seems like repeating that sack total will be tough?
Do we need 59 sacks? Baltimore had something in the 30s, but then again, they have Ed Reed.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 16, 2009 1:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Consistent Pressure!
Good defenses have a good front 7 that create consistent pressure, get sacks and have a good secondary which typiically result in turnovers. They are balanced.
Mediocre defenses have one or the other, not both.
Horrendous defenses don’t have either.
Our defense last year fell more in the category of medicority. Yes we did have a good number of sacks but the consistent pressure was missing and our secondary was below average as Raf and others have stated. This combination has resulted in teams converting their 3rd downs on us.
The front 7 need to be a lot more consistent with pressure to enable our secondary to create more turnovers. Had consistent pressure been applied last year, it would’ve probably created a few more turnovers, but not that much more because our secondary was too busy compensating and chasing receivers to ever make a play on the ball.
Raf is 100% correct in saying that Sensabaugh very well could be the most imortant roster addition this year if he’s the player we hope he is. He could very well be the guy that puts our secondary in the above average category. But equally important is the consistent pressure applied by our guys up front because I don’t care how good you are covering guys, this is the NFL and you can only cover for so long before your defense breaks down. Consistent pressure + good secondary = more turnovers.
This is probably why we drafted guys this last draft that are good athletes that can rush. They fit into Wade’s 46 defense that Raf has also talked about. It appears that our team is making strides to achieve the end result, which are turnovers.
by T Zig on Jun 16, 2009 2:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Some historical comparisons
The 1984 Chicago Bears hold the NFL-record for sacks ina season, with 72. They also had 21 interceptions (on 435 attempts). Some other high-sacking teams include:
1989 Minnesota: 70 sacks and 18 ints (488 attempts)
1987 Chicago: 70 sacks and 13 ints (507 attempts)
1967 Raiders: 67 sacks and 30 ints (459 attempts)
1981 Jets: 66 sacks and 21 ints (505 attempts)
From a Cowboys’ team perspective, the only years that they had more than 58 sacks:
1966: 60 sacks and 17 ints (457 attempts)
1985: 62 sacks and 33 ints (549 attempts)
Clearly when a team sacks 60 or more times, there are more interceptions than eight (8). Eeven when their safeties include Dextor Clinksdale and Obert Logan!
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a lot of picks.
Guess who played on the DL that year? It was Ed “Too Tall” Jones, Jim Jeffcoat, John Dutton and Randy White. That group pressured the QB very well. The “Manster” required double and triple teams to slow him down from coming into the backfield. Both Dutton (who wasn’t half bad either) and the “Manster” manned the defensive tackle slots, while Jeffcoat and “Too Tall” came from the edges.
We could afford for Dexter Clinkscale to be in our secondary back then. We had all kinds of pressure coming at the QB. The “Manster” brought it every play. Also, need to keep in mind that the rules of the league were different back then as well, with regards to how the DB’s were allowed to get physical with the WR’s. That was 24 years ago.
by T Zig on Jun 16, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing also to note.
In 1985 with our 33 picks, there was a team better than our team that year with picks and sacks. It was the 1985 Chicago Bears. They had 64 sacks and 34 picks that year winning the superbowl. 20 picks came from both corners and both safties. But of course they had the luxury of playing off the WR 2 yards because of their lines pressure. They didn’t play a soft zone like we did last year to compensate.
That was the best defensive team in my lifetime that I witinessed pressuring the QB. The QB couldn’t even go to a 3 step drop without getting hit. Richard Dent was the culprit on that line that was a man amongst boys. He had 17 sacks coming from the defensive tackle position.
Oh and by the way, they ran the 46 defense by some guy named Buddy Ryan. The one Wade is going to have fun playing with this coming season.
Give me pressure from the line like this team had and the picks and sacks will come. Go 46!
by T Zig on Jun 16, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops
correction…. Richard Dent played DE, not tackle.
by T Zig on Jun 16, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, Hampton was DT
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Jun 18, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess one big difference is those Cowboy and Bear teams
played 4-3 defenses
by DavidH22 on Jun 16, 2009 6:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"Fumbles forced" is the more relevant number
Not “fumbles recovered.” Teams can force fumbles as a result of skill, scheme, etc., but the % that they recover has been shown (mainly by Football Outsiders) to be largely based on luck. If a team is recovering far more or far less than 50% of its forced fumbles, count on that number to regress to the mean eventually.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Jun 17, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hamlin gets a pass in my book
for his drop-off last season. Having to cover for sub-par SS play has got to have an impact on his own performance. Not having confidence in your team-mates is a real issue – trying to cover for them would almost certainly have impacted on his ability to do his own job. Looking at Raf/KC’s analysis – he had to cover for them not just on the pass but on run D too!
The early returns on Sensabaugh seem very positive – but lets face it – could hardly be worse.
"Where's Woody? - We need another Darren Woodson
by BoyfromOz on Jun 18, 2009 11:00 PM CDT 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.
