Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jim Irsay: We Can Make It Work With Peyton Manning

Dallas Cowboys & Turnovers: Wade Phillips Press Conference 7/27/10

In Tuesday's press conference, Coach Wade Phillips addressed the issue of turnovers for the Dallas Cowboys and touched on some of the themes and issues that we have discussed here extensively.

Coach Phillips talked about what he views as turnovers, how a low points allowed figure trumps turnovers, about making turnovers a point of emphasis this year and about how having a lead should help you create more turnovers.

The full press conference can be found at DallasCowboys.com, but I thought it would be worth transcribing parts of what Coach Phillips said about turnovers, illustrating his points with a few choice stats and opening it up for discussion on this board.

(Disclaimer: This recap is a very close verbatim transcript of what Coach Phillips said, but isn't vetted for total accuracy. I have occasionally shortened parts and have not written down every single word, but I did try to get across the intended meaning of what he said. Occasionally, what I've typed may lose the context of something Coach Phillips said and may appear counter-intuitive. If you have questions about something from the press conference, feel free to ask in the comments or watch the presser yourself.)

Star-divide

Question: Wade, with the pressure that you do get on the other quarterback, why doesn't this defense get more turnovers?

Wade Phillips: I think it'll change from year to year as for the number of turnovers. You have to look at how many points they gave up - that's an important thing. You make them [opponents] punt more than anyone in the league. You stop them on fourth down; fourth downs don't count as a turnover. Every fourth down stop is a turnover, but it doesn't count in the turnover stats.

You know, our team had a lot of fourth downs last year and we stopped people, we got the ball back right there, it was just like you do with a turnover, but it doesn't count. Same thing with punts. You make them punt, it does change some field position, but ...

I expect them to do better this year as far as turnovers are concerned, but I still want them to give up the least points in the league and that would be the best thing that could happen for us.

You can agree or disagree with Wade's view about what constitutes a turnover, but he is right in pointing out that the Cowboys ranked pretty well in most stats that have to do with a change of possession:

Cowboys "Change of possession stats", 2009 regular season
Interceptions Opponent Punts Field Goal
%age allowed
3rd down
conversions allowed
4th down
conversions allowed
Forced Fumbles
Value 11 92 69.2% 35%
50%
24
NFL Rank 26 3rd 1st 5th 14th 15th

And with a defense that gave up the second fewest points in the league, Wade is right to point out that at the end of the day, it's the points given up that count.

Question: The way you were playing defensively at the end of last year, are you convinced that that turnover number will go up?

Wade Phillips: If you can have two shutouts, whether they have turnovers in those games or not, those kind of games don't happen very often. In fact, it's never happened with the Dallas Cowboys before. If you can play at that level, the stats don't mean anything - except the final score.

Again, hard to argue the logic of that. But you're not going to shut out your opponents every game. And although the Cowboys recorded an interception in each of the last four games of the regular season against the Chargers, Saints, Redskins and Eagles, that would put them on a pace for 'only' 16 interceptions next year. That's about half the number of interceptions the Packers had this year (30) and would have ranked the Cowboys 15th in the league.

Question: When you guys evaluate and look at the defense, is there a formula, is there a pill you're looking for to try and help force those turnovers?

Wade Phillips: The first year here we had 23 interceptions or whatever it was [OCC: it was 19]. We had a lot of stats that way. Some of the turnovers happen when you're ahead. We were ahead in a lot of games but didn't get some turnovers at the end.

I just want them to play well and play their best. I think those things will happen. We're emphasizing them more and more though. I think we have some people with experience. Sensabaugh had a broken hand and couldn't catch the ball at all last year, so I expect him to have some more as far as interceptions and fumble recoveries and those kind of things. We do knock the ball out quite a bit and we're going to try to continue doing that.

Okay, that's an interesting thought about getting more interceptions when you're ahead. Brian Burke at advancednflstats.com had a story about this a little over two years ago and concluded:

"Interceptions are very random, and they are 'thrown' by an offense much more than they are 'taken' by a defense."

If this is true, then we should be seeing an increase in the interception rate (interceptions/pass attempt) when your lead increases, as the other team starts getting more desperate and starts taking riskier throws. In the table below I've broken down the entire 2009 season by interception rate and score differential at the time of the interception.

BEHIND by
Game tied
AHEAD by
INT rate >22 pts 21-15 pts 14-8 pts 7-1 pts 0 pts 1-7 pts 8-14 pts 15-21 pts >22 pts
NFL Avg.
1.6% 1.7% 2.2% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% 4.6%
Cowboys
- - 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 2.8% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0%

I'll expand on this in a future post (I still need to clean up some of the numbers), but for now, it looks like Dallas is not getting the interceptions when they are literally 'there for the picking': The NFL average interception rate when ahead by eight or more points is 4.2%. Dallas is at 1.0%. In fact, the Cowboys have only two picks against 200 pass attempts they've defended when they were leading by eight or more points. This is the magic pill - get your INTs prescription filled when you're in the lead.

But it is also a choice. Are you going to be aggressive on defense when you're in the lead, and try to force those turnovers, or are you going to make sure you keep the play in front of you at all times, don't give up the big play, and make the opponent slowly dink and dunk their way up the field?

Comment 147 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

great work as usual OCC

question- it surprised me that the cowboys ranked 5th in 3rd down conversions allowed. is this straying from recent data? I know over the past few years I’ve been very frustrated in our ability to get off the field on 3rd down. was last season different from the last 2 or 3 years?

2009 BTB Part Deux Fantasy League Champion. 'Kill Everybody 13-2'. KDP knows football.
"Yeah, he's good. Dez Bryant is smooth, fast and has velcro hands.... He's going to give his QBs a giant comfort zone; if you throw it in his vicinity, odds are very good that he'll catch it."- Rafeal Vela, 1st day of 2010 training camp.

by KD Drummond on Jul 28, 2010 3:55 AM CDT reply actions  

3rd down conversion allowed has steadily improved for the Cowboys

2006: 28th (43.9%) – 2007: 15th (39.4%) – 2008: 8th (35.6%) – 2009: 5th (35.0%)

by One.Cool.Customer on Jul 28, 2010 4:11 AM CDT up reply actions  

VERY promising stat

I like that better than interceptions.

Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK

by HudBaby on Jul 28, 2010 5:33 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, that's as good as having a few more turnovers

Though I’d like to see both.

Our defense seems to get less respect than they deserve, I think. Maybe it’s because of the stars on the offensive side, but I see the defense as one of the best. Minus the turnover numbers you’d expect to see, what else can you really complain about. Least points allowed in the NFC is the best stat a defense could have.

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

occ

Let me be clear: occ’s reports are as well-written and professional as anything I’ve seen in my 37 years of reading sports journalism (well, maybe not 37 whole years – I don’t think I read as an infant).

We’ll be lucky to have him on btb for however long we do.

by Elberraco on Jul 28, 2010 6:00 AM CDT via mobile reply actions  

Sure, his stats look great...

…but until he starts winning Pulitzers, he cannot be considered ELITE. ;^)

by Left Coast Cowboy on Jul 28, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

Naw man...

he needs to put more pictures of cheerleaders in his articles to truly be considered elite. ;)

LOL

Rabid and luvin' it

by lonewolfz28 on Jul 28, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions  

Great line

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

before we know it he'll be on GAC

annoying the crap out of us and we’ll all hate him

by huebone on Jul 28, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interceptions will depend on who the opposing QB wants to attack.

Jenkins will always try to intercept, he turns for the ball when the receiver does and catches a bunch of them. Newman never goes for the ball. It is hard to complete passes against Newman because of his tight coverage but it’s not a risk for the opposing QB because by now they should know the guy will not try to catch it. That has been my problem with newman over the years and that has been the reason for our low numbers of Int’s.

by ManTab on Jul 28, 2010 6:11 AM CDT reply actions  

He averages 3-4 a season

So I’d say you are incorrect. Where are the safeties???? Shouldn’t they contribute a few to the pot, how about the LB’s, they could step up an nab a few. CB’s are solid, look around though and you don’t see any dependable INT producers.

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Wad is so wrong.

And it shows that he is thinking like a Defensive Coordinator instead of a Head Coach. (Along with his talk to the media about Kosier’s “starts in the league” at Center).

You make them [opponents] punt more than anyone in the league. You stop them on fourth down; fourth downs don’t count as a turnover. Every fourth down stop is a turnover, but it doesn’t count in the turnover stats.

Giving up the fewest points and making opponents punt is a very good thing. But the difference between punts and turnovers, Wade, is field position. If you start a drive in your opponent’s territory, you are much more likely to score. It is easier to score because you don’t have to drive 80 yards as you do when your opponent punts.

Is it any coincidence that our lack of turnovers led to an offense that piled-up unprecedented yards but failed to score as often as they should? Wade seems preoccupied with our points given up to the detriment of our points scored. Moreover, I hate the way he addresses a problem by downplaying it – that’s what he did for 2 extra years with Special Teams under Bruce Read.

by JimmyJohnson on Jul 28, 2010 6:37 AM CDT reply actions  

Wade addresses every problem by downplaying it

Does he ever have any other response?

That’s what annoys me the most about his tenure in Dallas. Everything is always fine, nothing is wrong, nothing to see here. Every player is playing really well, the team is playing really well. If you just conveniently forget those few terrible plays we would have never lost by 44-6. etc. etc. etc.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Jul 28, 2010 6:41 AM CDT up reply actions  

Not sure I agree

Wade has to build belief in his players and the system they play in. I’d rather he point out what they do well and emphasize to the players that they play within the system than say “yeah we suck at turnovers” He said they are working on it. What good would it do to bare his soul to the media?

FREE THE OGLETREE!!!

by dunkman on Jul 28, 2010 10:43 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Yep.

Wade takes a perceived negative and changes the focus to a positive. Drives some people nuts, evidently, but that’s his thing. He’s NOT going to be drawn into a lengthy dissection of what’s wrong or where the holes are. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know; it just means he’s not going to amplify it.

Of course making the other team punt or stopping them on 4th down (two separate categories actually) are not the same as a turnover in terms of field position unless the interception is a punt-length pass. But they are “positive” changes of possession.

Wade doesn’t get drawn into criticizing his team. That’s not to say he doesn’t critique it elsewhere than the media.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions  

Much agreed.

Then you’re into the category of field position, where stout defense on 3rd and 4th down combined with good special teams play produce Parcells’ “hidden yards”.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

agreed

good morning everyone! although giving up less points at the end of the game is great but it always doesn’t lead to a win, turnovers and change of field position is crucial during a game, cause it also changes time of possession and time our defence ison the field. dead on about T-New, I love him, but he is not great with the ball in the air, but usually always has tight coverage, as I see Scandrick and Jenkins better at that.

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions  

This is EXACTLY what leads to wins, having your opponent score less than you.
although giving up less points at the end of the game is great but it always doesn’t lead to a win

I could care less if we had one turnover all year as long as we are hoisting the Lombardi Trophy in Feb.

by bval77 on Jul 28, 2010 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

Randomness

I remember quite a few situations last year where an interception seemed imminant and the ball just went in-and-out of the player’s hands. I think we all remember the Anthony Spencer play where every camera angle made it look like he stole the ball from Knowshawn Moreno in the Denver game but somehow the ball went through his hands and landed in Moreno’s chest, who walked in for a score. Then, in the playoff Eagles game Brady James had two hands on a McNabb pass but couldn’t hold on.

I feel like there are a quite a few situations like that where the Cowboys where in position to make INTs but just couldn’t hold onto the ball. Whether that comes down to training or just the randomness of football physics I don’t know.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Jul 28, 2010 6:39 AM CDT reply actions  

slippery little sucker!

u know sometimes its just theway the pigskin bounces, I love watching all the blooper videos thru the years of crazy ball bounces.

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 7:50 AM CDT up reply actions  

They are just both football physics.

In the first play, Spencer should have had more than just his hands on the play, but he didn’t control the ball. In the Philly playoff game, that is a case of trying to get an interception by knocking down the ball. Try to get one that way and it hardly never works in football play. Our sport is a crazy game where one team might have 1st and Goal at the one and then the ball slips and slides down the field to the point that that very same team might have a Second and Goal at the One.

by Jessy S on Jul 29, 2010 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions  

I wish Wade was better at public speaking...

I really hate the way he spins questions and sounds defensive when he doesn’t have to be…He’s a great defensive coach. Even his harshest critics would never dispute this, but he allows reporters with much less knowledge of the game to dictate the point or attempt to draw criticism.

Question: Wade, with the pressure that you do get on the other quarterback, why doesn’t this defense get more turnovers?

The reporter was just fishing for a soft spot when there wasn’t one. I was just waiting for Wade to look him in the eye and say…

“Well, we continue to improve our defense. I think we made additional strides last year and even showed how dominant we can be when we play consistently and up to our potential. The coaches are constantly trying improve the technique of our players and put them in the best possible position to succeed. One of the things we feel can further elevate our game this year is getting more turnovers, so we have increased emphasis on this point…”

by CaliFanInTx on Jul 28, 2010 8:26 AM CDT reply actions  

so when you're punting the ball

you’re not turning it over to the other team?? I think Wade is correct, but there are two types of turnovers, voluntary and involuntary.

Punts are voluntary turnovers, fumbles and INTs are involuntary turnovers, but in both instances, the other team is getting back the ball.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions  

so then tell me, when you're punting, what are you doing??

I think you’re turning the ball over to the other team. I’d love to hear your explanation of what punting entails.

I understand that by definition it’s not a turnover, but Wade was being literal as am I of what is actually happening on the field. On fumbles, INTs and punts, the ball is literally being turned over to the other team. That is a fact you cannot deny.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

I understand that by definition it’s not a turnover,

Need I say more?

OK I will. I understand Wade’s point, but he can be a dumbass at times. Instead of saying, “look we stop the other team as well as any one in the league and that is the important thing. Would I like more turnovers? Sure I would, but as long as we are stopping the other team from scoring, I am happy”, Wade says “We get turnovers” and the redefines turnovers in a way that no one else defines it. He did the same thing with the whole “A Bye is a Playoff win” crap from a few years ago. No, a bye is not a playoff win.

A punt is not a turnover in football terms. Is the other team getting the ball? Yes.

Is it an interception?

Is it a fumble?

I await your answer.

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions  

I already said it wasn't a turnover by pure definition

I’m saying that Wade was being literal, by forcing a punt you are making the other team TURN the Ball OVER to you.

It’s a turnover, just not in the traditional or definitional sense.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions  

Forcing a team to punt is nowhere near as valuable as a turnover.

No matter what kind of semantics game you want to play. Bumpkins shouldn’t play semantics games.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was referring to Wade as a bumpkin by the way.

With all due respect to him as the great defensive mind that he is. But when he pulls stuff like this trying to be clever by redefining basic terms he just looks like a jive ass simpleton.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wait a second

What’s the difference between a turnover inside your 30 and a punt from the opponents 35?

The turnover depend on where it happens. If it put’s your offense inside the opponent’s 40, 30, 20, than yes it’s probably better than a punt (although once in a while big returns are possible on punts). Seems teams score a higher percentage of the time following a turnover recovery.

I think ya’ll are being tough on Wade for saying turnover, instead of change of possession. JMO

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

This one seems pretty cut and dry to me.

If an opponent has reached your 30-yard line they’re very close to scoring. Particularly against this defense how many times a game is the opposing offense going to get that deep into scoring territory?

On the other hand both teams are going to have punt from their own 35 several times over the course of a game.

It’s all about being opportunistic. Even bad defenses are going to be able to force opposing offenses to punt from their own 35. But not every defense is able to snuff out an opponent’s drive that has reached your 30 by creating a turnover.

by MadMick on Jul 29, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

So that means a punt is a turnover in the delusional sense?

A turnover is forcing the offense into giving the ball back to you against their will. End of story. It’s an extra possession the offense had no intention of giving you otherwise and certainly not on that spot of the field in most cases and if they turn it over in the red zone that’s a hell of a lot more deflating and costly than simply punting the ball back to the other team.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions  

Here is what I am going to do this morning

I am going to go outside, find a brick wall, and smash my head against it until lunch time. That will be a more productive use of my time than engaging in this debate.

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions  

On a punt you're dictating to the other team where they start when they get the ball back.

Ideally pinned inside their own 30 in a worst case scenario. On a turnover you have a lot less control and a lot worse things than just punting the ball back to the other team. If there’s no difference why doesn’t every team just always go for it on 4th down? After all it’s still a turnover.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions  

yes

on a punt alot more isdictated and controlled unless u return it for a TD, but on a (turnover) it is alot more uncontrolled as to what happens.

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions  

love this stuff!

another great article and another great debate, this why I love this site, best writers and fan responses, all in all Cowboys rule and there is debating that!

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions  

read closely, I never said there wasn't a difference

Obviously there is a difference, like you pointed out, one is voluntary the other is not. However, in both cases, the ball is being turned over to the other team.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions  

read above

where I said one is voluntary and the others are involuntary

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 29, 2010 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's nonsense

Does Buehler’s kickoff after Dallas score a TD constitute a turnover in your eyes?

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

no

Cause too many times teams will have to take a knee and we can control where their poss starts……………..AT THE 20!

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions  

So how can a punt be a turnover?

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions  

because you are turning it over to the other team

when in fact you don’t have to, you can always go for it.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

wrong

you’re choosing to punt to them.

A turnover involves no options for the team with the ball, which is why they are characterized differently and statistically more significant.

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

I agree they are different, never said they were the exact same thing

but the fact is and what Wade was trying to say is that when you force a punt, you are forcing the team to turn the ball over to you.

It’s just a different type of turnover, thats all.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

Which is more crucial?

Fielding a punt deep in your own territory or forcing a turnover down there. Does it benefit a team more to force a turnover in the red zone or get a touchback on a punt return? Simple criteria that clearly indicates why forcing a punt is not as valuable as forcing a turnover.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions  

Ok, I know Terry

can be out there some times, but I think everyone is arguing the same point here. We all know turnovers are better than punts. What Wade is saying is that if you hold the other team to a punt you get the ball back to your offense and essentially “win” that drive.

by TheAnsah on Jul 28, 2010 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

When you punt,

you are relinquishing your option to run another offensive play and are turning the ball over to the other team. It is not a turnover in the sense of a fumble or int but a voluntary relinquishing of possession. A kickoff is not a turnover because the kicking team has no other option than to kick off. They cannot run an offensive play and maintain control of the ball.

by jevans1729 on Jul 28, 2010 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

of course not because you just scored

By rule, you have to attempt to kick it back to the opposing team. On 4th down, a team can go for it and not punt, big difference.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions  

You can kick onsides...

how is it different?

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wrong again
By rule, you have to attempt to kick it back to the opposing team.

That’s not a rule at all. If it were, an onsides kick would be a violation instead of the most exciting play in football.

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not wrong as during an onsides kick

you’re still required to kick the ball downfield at least 10 yards. A punt is much different, it’s purely voluntary.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions  

a safety is a score like a FG or TD

It results in points…. punts, fumbles and INTs do not unless they are returned to the opposing endzone.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions  

true

cause after that they have to kick the ball back to us and that is not an option

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions  

If you mean the team getting the safety gets the ball back

thats true, but it’s after a score, although I see your point.

Obviously safeties are just as desirable as punts, fumbles and INTs if not more so.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions  

In the end

any way our D can get theball back into the hands of our offense regardless of turnover definition and at the end of the day we have more pts than our opp is all the matters

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wow

100 comments in your first 4 days on the blog. That must be some kind of record. Beware of commenting burnout though :-)

by One.Cool.Customer on Jul 28, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

not working

have some unwanted timeo off work this week just after having a two week vacation so needless to say I’m bored and it is way too hot to be outside

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions  

I think he meant turnovers on downs.

Like when a team went for it on 4th down and didn’t convert, rather than punts.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 28, 2010 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

Turnovers is a double-edge sword, be careful

Turnovers are great to have. Marty Schottenheimer loved ’em and worked hard to get his teams to be the best at creating turnovers. His teams were regularly at the top every year, no matter who he coached.

Funny thing happened on the way to his Superbowl though, teams worked hard to eliminate the turnovers in the Playoffs and his teams didn’t know how to win without them.

I’m with Wade on this one, points scored against is way more important. Turnovers are nice and can get you some easy or more comfortable wins, but when you get to the Playoffs, turnovers are bigger and teams work harder to eliminate them. If you rely on turnovers for wins, you’re going to have major issues in the Playoffs and it will be much harder to make it to the Superbowl.

Let’s have the best defense first. The turnovers will take care of themselves.

by calmyron on Jul 28, 2010 8:39 AM CDT reply actions  

I agree, turnovers are just added bonuses

If you rely on them, you’re really risky a lot. Saints are the only team I ever saw that actually rode them to a SB victory, but the odds are certainly against you for sure.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions  

The 90's Cowboys Super Bowl teams thrived on turnovers in the postseason.

’92 Playoffs: 15-2 Takeaway/Giveaway ratio (13)
’93 Playoffs: 8-4 (4)
’95 Playoffs: 6-1 (+5)

That’s 29 takeaways forced against 7 giveaways for a +22 ratio or a 2.5 turnover advantage per game. That kind of philosophy may have killed Schottenheimer’s teams but it was what those Cowboys defenses were built on; units that as straight-up defenses nobody would ever put in the same categories as the great Doomsday defenses or Bears, Ravens or Steelers defensive units. I’d say it’s pretty hard to discount the value of turnovers when you look at how important they were to that Cowboys dynasty.

To take it a step further for as eye-popping as Kurt Warner’s yardage totals are in the Super Bowl and as legendary as he played in all three of those games, he’s only 1-2 because of two pick sixes he threw.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions  

True, but...

What put the Boys over the hump in the 90’s was Charles Haley and a better secondary. The turnovers took care of themselves. Before Haley and the revamped secondary arrived, Dallas couldn’t produce a consistent pass rush without blitzing and the backs couldn’t cover long enough. After the Detroit loss in ’90, Jimmy Johnson vowed to fix the secondary. In ’91, they made the trade for Haley. Dallas was already a stout defense against the run, they just need the pass defense to go with it.

The current Cowboys are better positioned than the ‘91 team since we already have everything in place. The defense came into it’s own at the end of last season. The question mark coming out of last season was the offensive line. It was the Dallas turnovers that eventually cost us the game against Minnesota, not our inability to get turnovers. The Dallas O-line couldn’t keep Tony upright and once we got behind by more than two scores late in the 3rd period, running the ball was becoming a ‘try to keep them honest’ proposition, but Minnesota knew we had to pass almost every down from there on out.

Are turnovers nice to have and can they add to a dominate win? Absolutely. Should you practice them and put emphasis on them? Absolutely. However, having a defense that relies on turnovers to close the deal will break your heart when the other team doesn’t make mistakes and just walks the ball down the field.

I’ve always looked at something Jimmy Johnson said long ago. You want a defense that keeps the score under 21 points and you want an offense that can score 21 points every time. That was his goal and it’s pretty sound. You never heard Jimmy say ‘if we can get turnovers’. Instead, he talked about limiting turnovers. He knew that you couldn’t rely on ‘em, so he didn’t.

by calmyron on Jul 28, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Particularly in the case of those mid-90s Chiefs teams, Martyball was the problem.

Or more to the point sluggish undermanned offenses that had no business winning a Super Bowl in the first place; no matter how many turnovers the defense forced to put them in favorable positions.

Bono. Grbac. Willie Horn. JJ Birden. Tamarick Vanover. Greg Hill. Donnell Bennett. Kimble Anders. One of the many running backs named James Stewart at the time. And I almost forgot the centerpiece; a 46-year old Marcus Allen.

You can throw in Joe if you want too but neither of his Chiefs teams were the top seed like Bono and Grbac’s squads were but to further the point even Joe Montana couldn’t be expected to lead these glorified CFL All-Stars to the promised land.

The Chiefs lost 10-7 in the’96 playoffs to the Colts and 14-10 to the Broncos in ’98. 17 measly points. Even if you rely on turnovers that has more to do with a stone age offense being plain old pathetic than a ballhawk defense letting you down. That’s why such a comparison stinks. Jason Garrett is as far away as you can get from Martyball from a philosophical standpoint. Let’s just face the facts. The Cowboys will never lose because Garrett got too conservative and expected some cock-knocker like Rex Grossman to fumble the snap from center six times.

I don’t even understand how you can be let down by an aggressive defense unless you’re suggesting there have been instances where teams lost because overzealous defenders went for turnovers and gave up big plays instead. No team’s ever been eliminated because they didn’t know how to stop people from scoring without forcing turnovers.

You lose because your offense is a mish mash of sluggish rustbuckets who can’t score a TD unless you give them the ball at the two-yard line and Head Coach Schwollenpecker is stuck in the 1930’s when the forward pass was for Nancy boys.

Walking the ball down the field is a defective offensive mindset. You can’t hang that on the defense at all. Actually I’d dare say most teams that play like that are probably more conservative on defense because they know they can’t afford to get into shootouts so they’re less likely to be overly aggressive in pursuing turnovers.

Besides recent playoff history kills this whole discussion dead. The Colts, Cards and Saints all boasted mediocre-to-average defenses; yet they got to the Super Bowl by forcing bushels of turnovers in the playoffs.

Also all-time great defenses shut out the opposition and force turnovers merely as a byproduct. ’85 Bears- 54 turnovers forced. 2000 Ravens-49. If the Cowboys want to be recognized as a truly great defense the next step is to evolve to the point where forcing turnovers is just a common occurrence rendering such tedious and antagonistic questions irrelevant.

There are no consequences from being an aggressive defense. I mean you have to ask yourself does Ben Roethlisberger even get a chance to lead that last second drive against the Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII if LeBeau doesn’t roll the dice and drop James Harrison into coverage in the end zone right before halftime?

Besides games where neither team turns the ball over are rare. How often does that happen? Eventually somebody’s going to turn the ball over and it damn well better be the other team.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well...

There are downsides to being an aggressive defense. See Buddy Ryan and the Philadelphia Eagles. Great aggressive defense will give up big plays. Without a strong offense, if you don’t get turnovers, you can still lose.

by calmyron on Jul 28, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

those teams lost because

they also lacked a dynamic offense.

by huebone on Jul 28, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

That is true, but also misleading

The high turnovers apply to the Super Bowl which the Cowboys played Buffalo in 93 and 94 and Pittsburgh in 96.

Here is the totals minus the Super Bowls from the source, NFL.

92 Playoffs: 6-0 Takeaway/Giveaway Ratio (6)
    Super Bowl: 9-2 (7)
93 Playoffs: 5-3 (2)
    Super Bowl: 3-1 (3)
95 Playoffs: 3-1 (2)
    Super Bowl: 3-0 (3)

by Jessy S on Jul 29, 2010 1:15 AM CDT up reply actions  

Even if you take out the absurd 9 turnovers they got off Buffalo in SB 27.

They still forced 2.5 turnovers per game in the other eight playoff games and they were still plus-14 which equals out to basically a 2-turnover advantage. So I don’t see how the point is changed at all. Also if you’re going to exclude certain games to prove that a stat is lopsided those games aren’t allowed to be the Super Bowl except for SB 27, of course, because that just turned into a farce.

Turnovers were key in all 3 of the NFC Title Games against the 9ers; even in the ’94 NFC Title Game where it was a track meet until Thomas Everett plucked a tipped pass out of the air. Also an early Lett pick in the ’96 NFC Title Game put the Cowboys up 14-0 and that was pretty crucial considering the Packers were good enough to seize the lead heading into the 4th.

by MadMick on Jul 29, 2010 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions  

agree to disagree

I think our defence lacks a killer mentality, too much of bend but don’t break! Somegames last year we let teams stay in games with this philosophy, instead of going for that knockout punch, and that is what stops us from being put up there with other defences like the Ravens,Steelers, and Jets! I think everyone, including myself would love to see that Cowboys D that showed up against the Saints and Iggles more often

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 9:06 AM CDT reply actions  

Every unit has an emotional and spiritual leader

Dallas’ defensive leader is Brooking.

He’s not the physical force he was when he was in his prime. So Dallas, feeds off of his passion and fire, but he doesn’t deliver teeth rattling hits that can set the tone for the rest of the team. Defenses that intimidate can create a psychological advantage against their opponent. Dallas’ advantage doesn’t lie there.

Dallas has performed well, defensively, on the strength of Wade’s pressure schemes. But Dallas hasn’t intimidated on defense, like those teams you listed, since Charles Haley left town.

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions  

K Brooking

No doubting the emotional leader that he is and what he brings to our D and team!

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

I think Ware is the real leader.

He’s not a ra ra guy, but he’s a leader by example.

by DIRE WOLF on Jul 28, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions  

The overarching philosophy of Doomsday I and II
too much of bend but don’t break!

I don’t see how you can have “too much”.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions  

True to a point

I defintely think teams fear D-Ware like Haley but unlike Haley D-Ware has other responsibilities as an OLB but I think the combo of him and Spencer can be an intimidating sight, but I also would love to have that bonecrushing S we use to have in RW #1 a few years back

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:25 AM CDT reply actions  

They fear his athleticism

Not his ability to physically hurt a QB.

"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

- John Wooden (God rest his soul)

by 5Blings on Jul 28, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

Funny thing about the Steelers defense last year.

Without the services of Troy Polamalu the fearsome duo of James Harrison and Lamarr Woodley weren’t able to help that Steelers defense finish higher than 20th in the league in scoring defense. Put Polamalu on this Cowboys defense and you’d see a unit just as impressive as the rcent great Steelers or Ravens defenses even without a coked-up or bi-polar maniac rushing the passer.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

well, both of those great safeties have missed a lot of time lately

with injuries. I can tell you this, though.

Ravens won a superbowl with out Ed Reed

by AustonianAggie on Jul 28, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, who needs Atogwe?

All those turnovers he’s caused are just another case of fancy pants statistics warping people’s fragile little minds.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dwight Freeney had a clean shot at Drew Brees in the Super Bowl early in the 2nd quarter.

He ended up pretty nonchalantly yanking Drew Brees to the ground by the shoulder of his jersey. Short of injuring Brees, would Freeney have increased the Colts chances of winning by clotheslining Brees and bulldogging him into the turf? Actually I guess it’s hard to imagine Brees not getting knocked out of the game if something that violent happened. So let’s just say Freeney tees off on Brees instead of harmlessly yanking him to the ground but Brees remains in the game.

Consider that the ensuing personal foul would’ve moved the Saints to the 7-yard line and they very well might have scored a TD instead of settling for a field goal which is what ended up happening on that drive. You’re Dwight Freeney in that instant; what do you do?

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

If I were Freeney

I would take him out. That is exactly what happened to Jim Kelly in Super Bowl 27. I don’t know if the Colts would have gotten a turnover on the play, but if they did, that turnover would have signaled the beginnings of a rout.

by Jessy S on Jul 29, 2010 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was thinking more about the possibility of Freeney delivering a killshot than stripping the ball.

Or more to the point the kind of killshot that would draw a personal foul flag thus rendering any turnover caused by the sack moot and actually setting the Saints up to score a TD instead of the field goal they ended up. In other words, how much is setting the tone really worth if you end up giving the other team free points?

by MadMick on Jul 29, 2010 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wade can be annoying in the way he chooses to answer certain media questions

and there are times when I would like to see more “fire” from him on the sideline.

But to suggest that he is just wrong in his defensive philosophy or that its the defense’s lack of turnover production at fault for the offensive scoring struggles is a reach at best.

The offense’s problems lie in too many untimely penalties (false starts and holdings) that put them in too many holes and in their, at times, questionable approach to red zone situations. I dont see how those things can be put on the defense.

While its true that a timely turnover in the right location is a great help to the offense, essentially blaming the defense for games in which the offense couldnt break 10 points is bunk.

by THEjarhead on Jul 28, 2010 10:37 AM CDT reply actions  

more "fire" is a personality trait

Either you have it or you don’t, can’t fault Wade for that.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 28, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions  

no you cant

and he should always be himself and not try to be something he is not. to his credit, i think he has always been that.

BUT,

showing some intensity on occassion might actually have a profound impact on the team.

by THEjarhead on Jul 28, 2010 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

Good point

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think Wade does that a lot

as intensity isn’t all about yelling and screaming either.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 29, 2010 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

rule changes

That has alot to do with the nasty hits we were use to seeing years ago, on the QB and down field.

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 10:38 AM CDT reply actions  

OCC

generates the stats which generate a good dialouge between poster.

Keep up the good work.

by TCB Orange Dino on Jul 28, 2010 11:09 AM CDT reply actions  

I think I've got it now. A punt is a turnover in the delusional sense.

It’s never been defined that way by anybody in football and doesn’t increase a team’s chances of winning the way an actual turnover does but by golly the other team is literally turning the ball back over to you even if it’s by their own choice.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 11:21 AM CDT reply actions  

ou have finally come to your senses

Now repeat after me:

A Bye is the same as a playoff win

A Bye is the same as a playoff win

A Bye is the same as a playoff win

A Bye is the same as a playoff win

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wade was full of methane on that one too.

To be fair though that postseason wasn’t any more of a failure than this past postseason regardless of throttling an overmatched Eagles team for that elusive playoff win. I actually think last year’s path to the Super Bowl lined up better for the Cowboys than it did that tragic offseason where there was no way Brady wouldn’t have carved up the Cowboys secondary again in the Super Bowl. So as worthless and self-aggrandizing as it is to equate a bye to an actual playoff win especially after that brutal loss a lone Wildcard win in the playoffs is ultimately as worthless as a one-and-done nosedive by a top seed.

When does the newest edition of the Wade Phillips Dictionary drop by the way? I need to broaden my horizons and brush up on my yokel terminology.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was born and raised in Texas.

I have no trouble understanding Wade, my native tongue is Yokel.

by DIRE WOLF on Jul 28, 2010 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was actually more referring to his alternate definitions of long-standing clearly defined terms such as turnover.

What other terms and phrases have the masses been wrong about all along?
Nothing wrong with homespun wisdom. Homespun bullshit on the other hand.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Language is fluid

and not always terribly clear. So, if in his planning, he counts a (classic) turnover and a punt as both good (if not equally good) results with the same outcome (i.e. the Cowboys getting the ball on offense), I don’t see any problem with what he told the press. And I’m pretty sure no one cares to argue that, turnovers or no, when the other team scores less than you do, you win, which was more or less what Wade seemed to be getting at the whole time, IMO.

God Bless Texas

by dwarfknight64 on Jul 29, 2010 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty sure turnover has been defined the same way for over a century in football.

Wade was BSing. Whatever. Nothing wrong with jerking reporters around. But what kicked this whole thread into overdrive was T-Bone vigorously arguing that punting the ball away is basically the same as a turnvoer. BS.

by MadMick on Jul 29, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions  

T-Bone: That is brilliant

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 29, 2010 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions  

actually I argued it is a turnover

in the literal sense not the definitional sense.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jul 29, 2010 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Looks at clock, decides it is too early to drink, pours self a drink anyway

Not it is not. A bye is a good thing, It gives your players some time to heal and rest, gives you time to install some new plays. It is something a team should be proud of earning. But it is not a win. You have not played a game during the bye week, so you have not won anything

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions  

New Jersey

I grew up around the swamps of Jersey, alittle town called Wood-Ridge

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions  

That is not too far from where I grew up

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions  

also

spent 5 yrs living in E Rutherford

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

Pure semantics, fellas.

Punts, kickoffs, turnovers et al are all “changes of possession”.

Turnovers (interceptions, fumble recoveries, recovered onside kicks) are a particular type of “change of possession”.

If Wade had said “changes of possession” there would still be quibbling but it would seem to need to be about something else.

This and the playoff win/bye debate breaks down between the literalists and the others.

:- ]

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 11:34 AM CDT reply actions  

Are the Packers significantly more talented than the Cowboys on either side of the ball?

I’d say no yet they were plus-24 to the Cowboys paltry plus-2 in turnover margin. Consequently they scored 100 more points than the Cowboys (461 to 361.) That’s how valuable turnovers are.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

Packers D

u can thank Dom Capers for that, I think he teaches more of an aggressive defensive approach, plus they had a good year, better than I thought for a new change going to the 3-4

by carolinacowboy on Jul 28, 2010 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'm certainly not debating whether turnovers are valuable.

Put me in the want more/need more camp.

I’m just saying Wade is not going to be drawn into a discussion with reporters about a “lack” of turnovers. He’s going to change the subject to “Hey, we did this over here well.” that’s just the way he is.

Do you think Wade doesn’t want more turnovers and that they’re not addressing this issue on the field?

How many times can the coaches and players say “yeah, we want to create more turnovers”?

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I have no problem with jerking around reporters and their tiresome repetitve questions.

It’s just that sometimes Wade can tend to get a little goofy. I get what you’re saying though. Wade can’t smear stick ‘um all over T-New’s gloves. That junk’s been banned for decades now.

by MadMick on Jul 28, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good thing, too.
That junk’s been banned for decades now.

Pretty nasty stuff.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'd be fine if that is what he did. It is not.

The reporter asked about the lack of turnovers. Wade basically redefined turnovers, and then said “See, we get them as much as anyone!”

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/

by Seanrude on Jul 28, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Going for more turnovers...

tends to involve taking more risks. Do you go for the interception knowing you’re likely going to give up the big play if you miss it? Do you go for the tackle or for the ball strip/punch knowing you likely won’t be able to wrap up properly and might give up more yards?

Wade’s defense has been predicated on keeping everything in front of you and don’t give up the big play. Now that there is some stability and play makers in the defense, he’s opening up to letting some people freelance a little more. They’ve already told Jenkins he can play press coverage whenever he wants to now. They’re leaving it up to him because he has proven he can recover even he makes a misstep.

He’s put in an undersized CB at FS to have an extra person with range incase Jenkins or Newman do miss more while going for the INT. Yeah, there’s a trade off against the run, but Wade is willing to rely on our exceptional LB corps to handle that.

I think this will be an up year for turnovers for us…provided our starters can stay healthy.

Rabid and luvin' it

by lonewolfz28 on Jul 28, 2010 11:51 AM CDT reply actions  

Succinctly put, sir!
Wade’s defense has been predicated on keeping everything in front of you and don’t give up the big play. Now that there is some stability and play makers in the defense, he’s opening up to letting some people freelance a little more.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jul 28, 2010 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Intersting perspective

I hope it plays out like that!

by Blue Eyed Devil on Jul 28, 2010 12:34 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

IMO Wade's 3/4 is a lot more aggressive than Tuna's.

That’s why I thought a big need in the draft was safety. The safety is a big key to ints.

by DIRE WOLF on Jul 28, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

The Dallas defense is not a playmaking defense

aside from sacks, and hasn’t been since the mid-80s. Maybe 1994 (22 ints and 46 sacks) and 2007 (19 ints and 46 sacks). Check out the Cowboys 80s teams – that defense gave up some points but was cataclysmic – sacks, ints and even fumble recoveries. It helped the Danny White-led offenses score some serious points despite being old and relatively slow at some skill positions.

The 2003 team had a great points against and yards against defense, but only had 32 sacks and forced 25 turnovers. They kept games close enough for the inept offense to scrape by. Then they were massacred by the Panthers offense in the playoffs. Just like how Favre carved up the defense in the 2009 postseason. I just feel like if the defense forced more turnovers, the offense would score more. Am I being greedy? Maybe. But I do like the teams chances to improve upon their interception totals of the last two seasons; that is, 11 (2009) and 8 (2008).

by DavidH22 on Jul 28, 2010 11:08 PM CDT reply actions  

So the point is?

You state the 80’s defenses being great at big plays and poor at limiting yardage and scoring. Resulted in no championships.

The defense is now limiting yds and scoring, but not getting the turnovers and so far no championships.

Are you saying they need both strengths to win a championship, even with their high powered offense? I don’t know.
One road playoff loss vs MIN isn’t proof enough for me to blame the defense.

Seems like the more important stat to go with limiting points on defense, is winning the turnover battle, which takes effort from both sides of the ball.

Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Felix Jones = defensive coordinator's Kobayashi Maru scenario

by APerfectStar on Jul 29, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Dallas Cowboys blog for the SB Nation network. We talk Cowboys 24/7/365. Join the discussion but follow the community guidelines.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jason_garrett_head_coach_small
Rohpuri's Spin on MTD's Latest Mock Draft: Cowboys Edition
97946_giants_cowboys__football_large_small
The Anthony Spencer Scenario
Largestssescape_color_small_small
Myth Busters: Dallas' Sad Pass Rush
Small
Is Mario Williams on the Cowboys' radar?
Fountain_small
The Stanford Routt Situation

Recent FanPosts

Small
It's Rabble's Fault
Small
Do what Philly did in 2011, only better
97946_giants_cowboys__football_large_small
The Hindsight Games Part 1: J.J. Watt
Small
How The Giants GM Would Fix The Cowboys Overnight ... Good Read Jerrah!!!!
Zzzzwww_small
Twitter GM Mock
Small
2012 FA and 1st Round Projection
Cb1_small
Is the long term answer to the Cowboys NT already on the team?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

Head_shot1_small Dave Halprin

Lead Writer

Captain_small One.Cool.Customer

Profile_small Brandon Worley

Ollogo3_copy_small KD Drummond

Contributing Writers

Hotdoglu_small Aaron Novinger

Emmittintro_small rabblerousr

Dr_fate_small Tom Ryle

Moderators

Ns_08bstockb-thumb-200x185_small scottmaui