If Ware ends up with 5 sacks?

[Nors]

Is that a downer? Bust? Expected? Good?

I expected more but thats what he is on pace for so far......

[Teague31]

i have a bet that he gets at least 10 so I would say bust.

[VirusX]

There is no, "Bust" for a rookie... People dont seem to understand that..

[Nors]

Not true - ask Clarett:)

[stilltheguru]

he will have more than 5 sacks.period

[Maikeru-sama]

Adjusting to a new league

Learning a new position

5 Sacks would be fine with me....

Oh, forgot to add there is a coach by the name of Zimmer...nevermind, it's to late..im gonna give Zimmer a break for the rest of the evening.

- Mike G.

[Cbz40]

Ware will not be a bust.........1,2,5,10, 11 sack it doesn't matter...he will not be a bust

[Galian Beast]

5 sacks wouldn't be fine with me.

I simply have higher expectations for him. But he certainly doesn't need double digits.

[Nors]

he will have more than 5 sacks.period
Thanks for proclaiming that!

I feel better after your statement! - he is on pace for 5 but Geez we need more from him......

[ddh33]

Well, that all depends. If the team finishes the season with more sacks than they've had in the last 10 years or so, and Ware is getting a lot of attention the whole season, then I think he's been worth the investment. I think it will click for him soon though and the numbers will follow.

[AdamJT13]

Considering that the last time we had a rookie register as many as five sacks was 1990 (Jimmie Jones had 7.5, which ended up being two more than he ever got in any season after that), we should all celebrate if Ware gets five sacks this season.

[Justis]

I would like to see more, but the pass rush Ware brings is unquestionable at this juncture. If all you want is a tackle for a loss, he has had a couple of those, they just weren't against quarterbacks.

[Maikeru-sama]

Also, to state what others have said, this wont account for all the pressure he puts on the QB and the double teams he may face, which will open up opportunities for others on the line.

Last year, Glover didnt register much sacks, but he was constantly double teamed and therefore other teammates were given opportunities to go mono y mono with a member of the opposition.

Way to early to be using the Bust word in the same sentence with Ware, IMO

- Mike G.

[bbgun]

The term "fraud" will be bandied about.

[Hostile]

"On pace for" is the most useless stat ever.

On day 1 of the current baseball season Dmitri Young hit 3 home runs for the Detroit Tigers. He was "on pace for" 486 home runs this year.

I'll worry about Ware if the season is nearing an end and he hasn't impressed.

[Hiero]

Definitely not a bust. A breakout year? probably not.

if he has 5 sacks, 5 int's and consistent QB pressure and allowing others on the team to get pressure/ sacks ( which hes already doing a lot i noticed), hes gonna win rookie of the year.

[Maikeru-sama]

"On pace for" is the most useless stat ever.

On day 1 of the current baseball season Dmitri Young hit 3 home runs for the Detroit Tigers. He was "on pace for" 486 home runs this year.

I'll worry about Ware if the season is nearing an end and he hasn't impressed.

LOL

- Mike G.

[stilltheguru]

only 4 sacks in the next 12 games?yea right i highly doubt he only gets 4 more

[DallasDW00ds0n]

im not gonna make excuses for him. 5 would be dissapointing, he got drafted to make a difference on the field. 5 is just not enough, regardless of it being his rookie year; we need him to perform.

[DeWare94]

he may be on pace for 5 right now but if he gets one vs the raiders that boosts it up to 8 so being on pace doesn't mean anything.

[Cowboy4ever]

When figuring out "productive" Ware is being, don't forget, he isn't just rushing the QB. He is dropping in Pass coverage too. He is not Haley, who could just come off the corner without any other responsibilities. I agree, I dont think his pass rush as been very impressive so far, but alot of that is lack of creativity from the DC.

[Chuck 54]

Is that a downer? Bust? Expected? Good?

I expected more but thats what he is on pace for so far......
I don't care if he ever gets a sack...I want to see him pressuring the QB on a consistant basis and forcing quick throws or blocking adjustments.

He could get 16 sacks (1 per game), but if he has little impact on most of the passing plays, it's pretty worthless. I want to see consistant pressure like the great ones bring...the sacks will take care of themselves.

[roughneck266]

If he ends up with five sacks you can bet that everyone else is gonna have a lot more than normal. Just means quarterbacks are running for their lives in the opposite direction.

[ThEpLyMaKeR88]

he must get at least 7 to get in my book as a good pass rusher

[Sarge]

Sacks don't tell and won't tell the entire story. As long as Ware gets constant pressure (hurries) on the QB, I'll be happy.

QB hurries on a regular basis is a seriously underrated stat. It allows for others to obtain sacks and it allows for INT's. The less time you have to throw, the better from a defensive standpoint.

You can't judge Ware on sacks alone. They won't (hopefully) tell the whole story.

We'll see. I personally think he'll end up w/more than 5.

[dbair1967]

what if he only gets 5 sacks this yr, and all the fickle dopes declare him a bust, then he turns around and gets 15 sacks next yr?

considering nobody ever runs up high sacks totals in a Zimmer coached defense, I wont be surprised he only gets 5 or 6 sacks...but it doesnt mean he's a bust, especially after only one freaking season

David

[irishwaste]

Jeez, poor guy is only a rookie and people are talking about being upset with him if he dosent have double digit sack totals. As long as creates pressure and frees up guys like La'roi and Ellis, I think he's well worth it.

[Juke99]

Sacks don't tell and won't tell the entire story. As long as Ware gets constant pressure (hurries) on the QB, I'll be happy.

QB hurries on a regular basis is a seriously underrated stat. It allows for others to obtain sacks and it allows for INT's. The less time you have to throw, the better from a defensive standpoint.

You can't judge Ware on sacks alone. They won't (hopefully) tell the whole story.

We'll see. I personally think he'll end up w/more than 5.


:signmast: what he said.

Fact of the matter is, if you look at the sack totals for Charles Haley during his stint as a Cowboy, they aren't great. BUT he constantly applied pressure and had to be accounted for on every play.

If Ware develops an inside pass rush, I'll be thrilled. Right now, he's very much one dimensional in his pass rushing technique.

[Jarv]

Info from...

http://www.theboys.com/archives.asp

Charles Haley in 93 got...

6 sacks

94=12.5
95=10.5
96=1

Over 4 years averaged 7.5 sacks a year.

Haley is considered a sack master at 7.5 a year for us.

It was the pressure he created that made others around him better.

Ware is already doing the same.

Would I want more than 5 sacks from him ? Yes.

If the team ends up with 48 sacks this year...and Ware only got 5, I would be more than happy.

Did we win the SB in 93 with Haley getting only 6 sacks...yes. Thats all I look for.

[canters]

he will have more than 5 sacks.period

My guess is 7-9 sacks

[Nors]

8-10 sacks is my expectation.

He is not creating as much pressure as expected. Long season.

[31WillHammerU]

8-10 sacks is my expectation.

He is not creating as much pressure as expected. Long season.

I see where you are going with this one Nors. Ware was drafted to be a Catalytic difference maker. He isn't there yet, but I think he will be by the end of the season.

Double digit sacks for him would boost him to the catalytic level.

[Eddie]

10 sacks is less than 1 a game. I'd rather him have NO sacks, apply constant pressure on the QB, stuff the run, and play lights out for 60 defensive snaps ... than to have 1 highlight reel per game.

[jay cee]

"On pace for" is the most useless stat ever.

On day 1 of the current baseball season Dmitri Young hit 3 home runs for the Detroit Tigers. He was "on pace for" 486 home runs this year.

I'll worry about Ware if the season is nearing an end and he hasn't impressed.
I will be happy if he ends with 5 sacks and continues to put pressure on the qb and force him into other players, like he has done once or twice.

I'm already impressed with his play as a rookie 3 games into his career. I see the potential, and I don't see any reason why he should not continue to improve throughout this season and the coming years.

Some of these guys put such high expectations on players, then get angry when they don't meet those expectations.

[goshan]

'On Pace For' isn't useless after enough games have been played.
It is an indicator of how individuals or teams are performing so far and allows you to compare their performance to numbers that you are familar with.

Lets see where Ware is after 6-7 games.

[Doomsday101]

Is that a downer? Bust? Expected? Good?

I expected more but thats what he is on pace for so far......

I think it would be disappointing for him, myself I realize he is a young player being asked to do things he did not do in college and is being overloaded mentally right now. I do think that will change as he gets more playing time

[joseephuss]

'On Pace For' isn't useless after enough games have been played.
It is an indicator of how individuals or teams are performing so far and allows you to compare their performance to numbers that you are familar with.

Lets see where Ware is after 6-7 games.

Let him get through the first half of the season. I like where the Cowboy's bye week is this season. Eight games, bye and then 8 more games. I think having that break will help the developmen of Ware and the entire defense. Things could look much different the second half of the season.

[wileedog]

THis year my expectations of him considering where he's coming from and his position switch aren't too grandiose - I'd pretty much settle for becoming more consistent in run support, continuing his progress in pass coverage, and learning some better inside or counter-moves. I expect to see some pressure as he gets more comfortable and the coaches can start moving him around more, but 5 sacks with good pressures would be fine with me.

Honestly, by the end of the season I wouldn't be surprised if Burnett, Spears and Canty are making more of an impact than he does this year.

Next year, with a full offseason in the conditioning programming and a whole let less to learn and assimilate are when my expectations for Ware rise a whole lot.....

[Canadian BoyzFan]

Ware will not be a bust.........1,2,5,10, 11 sack it doesn't matter...he will not be a bust

Totally agree. This kid will be great.

[Alexander]

I am sure if he ends up getting five sacks, he will be labelled a bust by every knee jerk artist out there.

Five sacks from a player new to the position is not bad at all.

[joseephuss]

I am sure if he ends up getting five sacks, he will be labelled a bust by every knee jerk artist out there.

Five sacks from a player new to the position is not bad at all.

I hope he is not just judged by sack totals this year. Even if that is the case, I hope some will at least wait until the end of the season to do so. Seems like some are getting ready to dismiss him after only three games.

There are so many things to consider when evalutating him. He is a rookie, it is a new position, there are several new players on the defense, there are two other rookies, there is a new scheme. I don't see him dominating out there, but I didn't expect to at this point. I see him growing as well as the entire defense. I think I will wait until he has played two seasons before I label him a bust.

[Nors]

I think Ware will come along

We need 10+ sacks out of that position.......

[Alexander]

I hope he is not just judged by sack totals this year. Even if that is the case, I hope some will at least wait until the end of the season to do so. Seems like some are getting ready to dismiss him after only three games.

There are so many things to consider when evalutating him. He is a rookie, it is a new position, there are several new players on the defense, there are two other rookies, there is a new scheme. I don't see him dominating out there, but I didn't expect to at this point. I see him growing as well as the entire defense. I think I will wait until he has played two seasons before I label him a bust.

That is a rational way of looking at it.

Unfortunately, if Ware does not achieve double digits sacks, there will be more than a few of the clueless who want to label him a reach.

[ravidubey]

He's already been a major factor in our wins; of course he's not a bust.

[Dallas4ever]

Ware will not be a bust. Write it down and take it to the bank. Parcells will coach this rookie and establish him a solid player for years to come. As fans we totally underestimate the learning curb for most rookies. This guy is smart, fast, atleletic and plays with heart, he will put it together. Don't be suprised when he has games where he gets to the QB more than once. He no doubt will lead the team in hurries.

[MrPhil]

Totally agree. This kid will be great.

Hey CBF, if that streak of your kids holds true, you better feed him some candy or something before the late games! :D

[Hollywood Henderson]

If Ware is to reach his potential, we better leave squiggy, "I don't know greek" zimmy wuss in Oak...

He has no clue who to use Ware, or anyone else for that matter...

If we don't change our 4 man rush nickle passive & predictable D, were getting beat by Da-raiders & Filthy...

[dbair1967]

8-10 sacks is my expectation.

He is not creating as much pressure as expected. Long season.

not sure what your expectations were then for a kid from Troy University coming into the NFL and making a position change

apparently they were unrealistic

by the way, if Marcus Spears ends up with 2 1/2 sacks, is he a bust? if Chris Canty doesnt get another sack all yr is he a wasted pick?

and by the way, wanna tell us who and how many players on the Pats get 10+ sacks a yr? hint, uh, you wont find any...it hasnt happened for them in like 11 yrs

David

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not true - ask Clarett:)

Clarett is a never was. I don't think he ever made a roster so not sure he can really be considered.

[baj1dallas]

I'll be a bit disappointed...I think he can get 6 sacks.

Seriously...is Joey Porter a bust? How many sacks did he have his rookie season? Why do you expect players on the Cowboys to do things that similar players on other teams don't? That is what they call a "disconnect from reality".

Now, if he never gets more than 5 or 6 sacks a season...then you can call him a bust. But not during his first two seasons. Sorry. I know you like the Cowboys, but they play in the same reality the rest of the NFL does. It ain't a freaking computer game.

[joseephuss]

Clarett is a never was. I don't think he ever made a roster so not sure he can really be considered.

Clarett is a great example of unrealistic expectations. That is not his fault. After only one season of college ball, there were a few that were ready to annoint him as the next great NFL back. A sure fire can't miss product.

He is a bust based on those expectations, but how people were placing those high of expectations on him after only one season of college is beyound me.

I think most people appropriately lowered their expectations of Clarett as time went on, so really by the time the draft came along, he wasn't expected to do nearly as much in the NFL as he was back during his freshman year. So, by those standards he isn't a bust. Just another 3rd round miss.

[Doomsday101]

Clarett is a great example of unrealistic expectations. That is not his fault. After only one season of college ball, there were a few that were ready to annoint him as the next great NFL back. A sure fire can't miss product.

He is a bust based on those expectations, but how people were placing those high of expectations on him after only one season of college is beyound me.

I think most people appropriately lowered their expectations of Clarett as time went on, so really by the time the draft came along, he wasn't expected to do nearly as much in the NFL as he was back during his freshman year. So, by those standards he isn't a bust. Just another 3rd round miss.

It is Clarett fault that he bought into the ideal that he was ready for the big time. That is one reason I hate to see guys come out early, what you do in college means nothing once you hit the Pros and even some of the most highly touted college players have found that out the hard way. Enjoy your time in college and learn as much as you can because the NFL is a bottom line business

[ConcordCowboy]

Like many people have said before as long as he gets good pressure on the QB most of the time, I'll be happy.

That being said I'd love to see 10+ sacks! :D

The first one is the hardest....That's out of the way now so Let's go WARE!!

[ABQCOWBOY]

When Haley broke into the league, he registered 12 sacks. The next year, he had 6.5. Jim Jeffcoat had 2 his rookie year. He went on to register 11.5, 12 and 14 the next three seasons. Leon Lett had 5 his rookie year but registered 16, 11 and 16 the three following seasons.

Kevin Green came into the league in 85. In that year Kevin Green registered exactly 0 sacks. The two following years, he had 7 and then 6.5. Over the next 10 seasons, he averaged 14.5 sacks a season.

John Randle registered 1 sack his rookie year. For the next 10 years or so, he went on to average 10+ sacks a season.

Reggie White registered 12 sacks in 84 with the USFL Showboats. He followed that up with 11.5 and then entered the NFL. He went on to average 13 sacks a season for his entire 17 year career.

Bruce Smith registered 6.5 sacks his rookie year. He went on to post 10 or more for the next 12 of 13 seasons.

Derrick Thomas Registered 10, 20, 13.5, 14.5.............

Strahan registered 1 sack his rookie season. In fact, he went 1, 4.5, 7.5, 5, 14, 15, 5.5, 9.5, 22.5, 11, 18.5 and 4.

Simion Rice. 12.5, 5 and then averaged 12.5 over the next 7 seasons.

Dwight Freeney, in his 3 seasons, has never registered less then 11 sacks.

Jason Taylor registered 5 sacks his rookie year. In fact, he registered less then 10 sacks his first three seasons, on average. He has gone on to average almost 13 sacks a season since.

Charles Grant, 7.5, 10 and 10.5.

Leonard Little, .5, 0, 5, 14.5, 12, 12.5, 7.

Terrell Suggs, 12, 10.5.

What does all this tell you? Should tell you that all of these guys followed different paths. There is no set amount of sacks a rookie must register in order to be great.

My personal opinion is that Ware will be a fine player. Time will tell but I'd bet money on Ware. I think he has what's important. He has desire, he has ability, he appears to be intelligent. Most of all, he looks to have heart. You have those things and it's hard not to be good.

[dbair1967]

>>>Leon Lett had 5 his rookie year but registered 16, 11 and 16 the three following seasons.<<<

I'm guessing you meant Randy White...Lett never had many sacks but was a great inside pass rusher

David

[joseephuss]

>>>Leon Lett had 5 his rookie year but registered 16, 11 and 16 the three following seasons.<<<

I'm guessing you meant Randy White...Lett never had many sacks but was a great inside pass rusher

David

I thought that sounded funny, but he made a great overall point.

By the way, does anybody know where you can find sack stats for guys like Randy White? The NFL didn't keep official sack stats until 1982 or so. Is there any place to find at least Cowboy player sack stat?

[Doomsday101]

I thought that sounded funny, but he made a great overall point.

By the way, does anybody know where you can find sack stats for guys like Randy White? The NFL didn't keep official sack stats until 1982 or so. Is there any place to find at least Cowboy player sack stat?


http://www.dallascowboyz.com/articles.asp?QVal=&SearchKey=

[ABQCOWBOY]

>>>Leon Lett had 5 his rookie year but registered 16, 11 and 16 the three following seasons.<<<

I'm guessing you meant Randy White...Lett never had many sacks but was a great inside pass rusher

David

LOL!!!!


No, sorry David. I mistakenly posted his games rather then his correct sack totals. My appoligies. That one is on me and thanks for keeping me honest.

:)

[AbeBeta]

Did anyone see the SF game? Ware not only got his sack but he broke up a pass, created pressure that contributed to an INT, and flushed Rattay right into Gregg Ellis for another sack.

Fantasy stats are ruinining people's ability to judge players. Ware was disruptive against SF. Teams are designing game plans to account for him. Can he play better? Sure - but 3 games in, coming from a small college and playing a new position - we'd be silly to expect more.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought that sounded funny, but he made a great overall point.

By the way, does anybody know where you can find sack stats for guys like Randy White? The NFL didn't keep official sack stats until 1982 or so. Is there any place to find at least Cowboy player sack stat?

I don't believe the NFL started keeping stats, officially, for sacks until 82. Unfortunate. Hard to tell just how great guys like Deacon Jones, Buck Buchannon and Lee Roy Selman really were.

[Hollywood Henderson]

We better get back to the point of pressure the QB...

Ware & everyone else can be soooooo much more effective if we go away from our passive & predictable 4 man rush on nickle downs...

Collins will eat that up zimmy, better have some adjustments ready...
Collins is a very good QB when given time...

[Hostile]

We better get back to the point of pressure the QB...

Ware & everyone else can be soooooo much more effective if we go away from our passive & predictable 4 man rush on nickle downs...

Collins will eat that up zimmy, better have some adjustments ready...
Collins is a very good QB when given time...You got to get me your resume' so I can get it to Bill and Jerry.

:grin:

[AbeBeta]

Collins will eat that up zimmy, better have some adjustments ready...
Collins is a very good QB when given time...

Sorry HH -- I think you are wrong. Collins got good protection last year and he STANK.

Collins played behind one of the better O-line in the league last year. In that season, Oakland allowed the 6th fewest sacks in the NFL.

Collins however ranked 27th out of 30 starting QBs in passer rating (tied with Ramsey).

Even with lots of time, Collins sucks. He had good yardage numbers - but that is more about OAK throwing the ball so much (4th most).

[Nors]

3-4 Defensive Ends like Canty and Spears get 5-7 sacks thats outstanding!

Ware - fyi will get 10-12 once unleashed!

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sorry HH -- I think you are wrong. Collins got good protection last year and he STANK.

Collins played behind one of the better O-line in the league last year. In that season, Oakland allowed the 6th fewest sacks in the NFL.

Collins however ranked 27th out of 30 starting QBs in passer rating (tied with Ramsey).

Even with lots of time, Collins sucks. He had good yardage numbers - but that is more about OAK throwing the ball so much (4th most).

I don't agree with this. Oakland put in a brand new offense last year. It was Norm's offense and it is not easy to master. If you recall, Aikman had issues that first year as well. After he got it down, it was a very good offense for him. I think you'll see the same thing from Collins. It is a mistake to think that Collins can't hurt us. Oaklands offense will score and Collins will have success. It's just a matter of everybody getting on the same page, IMO.

[AbeBeta]

I don't agree with this. Oakland put in a brand new offense last year. It was Norm's offense and it is not easy to master. If you recall, Aikman had issues that first year as well. After he got it down, it was a very good offense for him. I think you'll see the same thing from Collins. It is a mistake to think that Collins can't hurt us. Oaklands offense will score and Collins will have success. It's just a matter of everybody getting on the same page, IMO.

I think Troy and Collins are very different. Troy was very young, Collins is a 10 year vet. However, Collins did get better as the season went on last year and has been lights out this year -- so you could have a point. Of course, Collins may play well at times but what is his record with Oakland? 4-13.

[Kilyin]

I'd take Vinny Testaverde over Kerry Collins any day of the week. Why am I not surprised the Dat hater thinks he's a "very good QB"

[AbeBeta]

I'd take Vinny Testaverde over Kerry Collins any day of the week. Why am I not surprised the Dat hater thinks he's a "very good QB"

Actually Vinny and Collins had about identical passer ratings last year. Both were playing in new offenses. Oh, yeah. Vinny was like 74 years old too.

[Kilyin]

Collins does have some good numbers this year. Of course you have to attribute alot of those yards to Moss, but nobody cares about stats when your team loses every week. Here's to that tradition continuing.

[RoysAHitta]

lets all be honest, ware's first sack was a "give me".. the qb just tucked it and went down. teams right now are using his speed against him and hes a pretty easy guy to take out of the game. he really needs to develop his pass rushing skills before he becomes a force in the game. good pass rushers need to be able to rush from the outside and inside, ware right now is strictly an outside rusher.

im my honest opinion i think ware would make a better 4-3 de than 3-4 olb. his fast first step would be lethal as a de, teams pick him up to easily when hes rushing from two yards back from everyone else and right now thats about all he has going for him.

also ware just doesnt look strong enough, once a tackle get his hands on him hes done. its almost they take wares hands and hold them together and ware is helpless.

[joseephuss]

lets all be honest, ware's first sack was a "give me".. the qb just tucked it and went down. teams right now are using his speed against him and hes a pretty easy guy to take out of the game. he really needs to develop his pass rushing skills before he becomes a force in the game. good pass rushers need to be able to rush from the outside and inside, ware right now is strictly an outside rusher.

im my honest opinion i think ware would make a better 4-3 de than 3-4 olb. his fast first step would be lethal as a de, teams pick him up to easily when hes rushing from two yards back from everyone else and right now thats about all he has going for him.

also ware just doesnt look strong enough, once a tackle get his hands on him hes done. its almost they take wares hands and hold them together and ware is helpless.

I think the middle was clogged up so Rattay had really nowhere to run. Ware made a good play to shed the block of the tight end. I would be worried if he couldn't do that against a tight end. The only gimmee sack is the one Favre gave to Strahan.

I don't think the OLB lines up two yards off the line of scrimmage. I think they line up a shade outside of the offensive tackle, which should give them a better angle to speed rush. But of course everything is dependent on what scheme is called and how the offense lines up. Everything is subject to some minor changes.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think Troy and Collins are very different. Troy was very young, Collins is a 10 year vet. However, Collins did get better as the season went on last year and has been lights out this year -- so you could have a point. Of course, Collins may play well at times but what is his record with Oakland? 4-13.

I think that record may not be indicative of how well Collins plays this year. His passing numbers are efficiant but not huge. His comp% is only 54% but he's averaging just under 300 a game. He's got 6 TDs and no INTs.

Conversly, there OL, while decent in the pass blocking area, sucks in the running game. There averaging like 2.8 YPC and with those WRs and TE, they should be doing much better. Penalties and TOs don't help but still.

Throw the defense in and I could see how a decent QB performance could easily go by the boards with a loss.

Oakland is really weired this year.

[joseephuss]

I think that record may not be indicative of how well Collins plays this year. His passing numbers are efficiant but not huge. His comp% is only 54% but he's averaging just under 300 a game. He's got 6 TDs and no INTs.

Conversly, there OL, while decent in the pass blocking area, sucks in the running game. There averaging like 2.8 YPC and with those WRs and TE, they should be doing much better. Penalties and TOs don't help but still.

Throw the defense in and I could see how a decent QB performance could easily go by the boards with a loss.

Oakland is really weired this year.

In the two games I have watched, Collins has been slow to see open receivers. Looks like he is struggling with the intermediate pass in the middle of the field. He is hitting the deep ball, out routes and short ones to the backs.

I won't take either side of the ball for granted. Dallas has to come in and play well the whole game in order to win.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It will be interesting to see us start working Spears and Canty in with a twist scheme. I think that if you went 4-3, worked a twist with Canty/Spears and send Ware from the OLB position, that's going to be a very hard match up indeed.

[ABQCOWBOY]

In the two games I have watched, Collins has been slow to see open receivers. Looks like he is struggling with the intermediate pass in the middle of the field. He is hitting the deep ball, out routes and short ones to the backs.

I won't take either side of the ball for granted. Dallas has to come in and play well the whole game in order to win.

Interesting observation Josee.

That would ment that he's really not struggling to see the open receivers but rather, slow to buy into the timing offense. In Norv's offense, your really don't make a lot of reads during the course of a given play. You make a lot of pre snap reads and then you drop set and throw to a spot. That timing offense is not as easy as many think. You have to have complete confidence in your receivers. That's interesting.

[joseephuss]

Interesting observation Josee.

That would ment that he's really not struggling to see the open receivers but rather, slow to buy into the timing offense. In Norv's offense, your really don't make a lot of reads during the course of a given play. You make a lot of pre snap reads and then you drop set and throw to a spot. That timing offense is not as easy as many think. You have to have complete confidence in your receivers. That's interesting.

I think that goes along with how he has performed on the opening drives as opposed to the rest of the game. In both the Pats game and the Eagles game, Oakland moved easily down the field on their opening possesion and scored TDs. Everything was timed out perfectly on both of those drives. After that, the offense moved sporadically.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that goes along with how he has performed on the opening drives as opposed to the rest of the game. In both the Pats game and the Eagles game, Oakland moved easily down the field on their opening possesion and scored TDs. Everything was timed out perfectly on both of those drives. After that, the offense moved sporadically.

Yeah, that sounds right. They probably scripted the first 20 plays, or whatever , and then turned the offense over to the OC. That offense takes a while to get but once you have it, it's impossible to stop if it's run correctly.

[AbeBeta]

That offense takes a while to get but once you have it, it's impossible to stop if it's run correctly.

Really? Then why isn't Norv the most successful coach in the history of the league? That O didn't look so unstoppable in Washington - 49-59-1 over his tenure as HC/OC. Unstoppable indeed.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have heard it said that Troy Aikman may have been the most mechanically efficiant QB there ever was. I have also heard it said that he might have been the most accurate passer as well. These are not my words but words from people who have actually been in the NFL. You have to have this kind of QB, you have to have a WR/WRs like Irvin. You have to have a TE. You have to have a dominating OL and you have to have a guy who can toat the rock. Mostly, you have to have dicipline. When you have those things, in that offense, it can't be stopped.

Tell me how many times you saw the early 90s offense of the Cowboys stopped?

[joseephuss]

Really? Then why isn't Norv the most successful coach in the history of the league? That O didn't look so unstoppable in Washington - 49-59-1 over his tenure as HC/OC. Unstoppable indeed.

I think the key term was "correctly". Washington ran it, but they did not run correctly. Of course, they didn't have Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Novacek and a very good o-line.

[AbeBeta]

I think the key term was "correctly". Washington ran it, but they did not run correctly. Of course, they didn't have Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Novacek and a very good o-line.

Can't you say that about any system? I'm pretty sure there isn't an offense in the league that is designed to suck if you run it right.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Can't you say that about any system? I'm pretty sure there isn't an offense in the league that is designed to suck if you run it right.

That may be true but, just because you have a good offense, does not mean it can't be stopped. If you have the right kind of QB, if you have the right kind of WR, if you have the right kind of RB and a good OL, you can't stop that offense.

Perhaps this can be said for other offenses as well. Name a few of the good ones and lets see how they grade out.

[AbeBeta]

That may be true but, just because you have a good offense, does not mean it can't be stopped. If you have the right kind of QB, if you have the right kind of WR, if you have the right kind of RB and a good OL, you can't stop that offense.

Perhaps this can be said for other offenses as well. Name a few of the good ones and lets see how they grade out.

But the Cowboy offense in the 90s could be stopped -- if it were unstoppable we would have been 16-0 every year with every game a blowout.

[ABQCOWBOY]

OK, well, this is starting to degenerate into so much BS.

If you watched the Cowboys of the early 90s, I think you know that Norv's offense was not stopped very often. There are always things that happen, such as Emmitt's hold out in 93 or key injuries, TOs, etc. Nobody is perfect but then, you know this.

I really enjoy serious discussion of football.

[AbeBeta]

ABQ - my point is that you don't have a strong point. You argue that Norv's offense is unstoppable. Any offense executed to perfection is going to be highly successful (but not unstoppable). It is kind of a non-point you are making and, respectfully, I do not see it as a serious discussion of football. All you are saying is that if you execute an O right you will have a good outcome. That is, again respectfully, a big "duh" in my book.

[Nors]

Unstoppable to me is an offense like that Dallas team. I called it pick your poison.

You want to take Emmitt Smith out - Aikman would kill them all day throwing to Novacek and Irvin. You double Irvin its Novacek. And vice versa. It was virtually impossible to combat that.

Different animal but I think this years offense can mirror some of that. Big armed QB that is accurate. JJ can run it down your throat. You have Witten the TE target and Key and Glenn are proving to be weapons that can make you pay for loding up on JJ/Witten....

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ - my point is that you don't have a strong point. You argue that Norv's offense is unstoppable. Any offense executed to perfection is going to be highly successful (but not unstoppable). It is kind of a non-point you are making and, respectfully, I do not see it as a serious discussion of football. All you are saying is that if you execute an O right you will have a good outcome. That is, again respectfully, a big "duh" in my book.


Your point is that if you have stars everywhere on offense, the point I'm making is a given. I do not agree with this. WC, stretch, Run and Shoot, Conventional Pro Style, they all have weakness' that can be exploited if you have the personel on defense to do so. Not so with the timing offense. If you have the right kind of players, on offense, it doesn't matter what defense you play and who you have. That offense can succed against any defense.

Never the less, my original statement was that, if it is run correctly, that offense can not be stopped. If you can prove this statement wrong, then by all means, do so.

I would expect more then just a game here or there type answer. You would have to illustrate that a specific scheme is effective against it on a consistant basis.

Here is what that offense was able to produce with the right people running it as it should be run.


1992 Season:

Wash W 23 points
NYG W 34 points
Cards W 31 points
Philly L 7 points
Seattle W 27 points
KC W 17 points
Raidas W 28 points
Philly W 20 points
Lions W 37 points
Rams W 27 points
Cards W 16 points
NYG W 30 points
Denver W 31 points
Skins L 17 points
Atlanta W 41 points
Bears W 27 points

Div Champ
Philly W 34 points

Conf Champ
SF W 30 points

SB Champ
Bills W 54 points


1993 Season:

Skinz L 16 points
Bills L 10 points
Cards W 17 points
Packers W 36 points
Colts W 27 points
49rs W 26 points
Philly W 23 points
NYG W 31 points
Cards W 20 points
Atlanta W 27 points
Miami W 16 points
Philly W 23 points
Vikes W 37 points
Jets W 28 points
Skins W 38 points
Giants W 16 points

DIV Champ
Packers W 27 points

Conf Champ
49rs W 38 points

SB Champ
Bills W 30 points



1994 Season:

Steelers W 26 points
Oilers W 20 points
Lions L 17 points
Skinz W 34 points
Cards W 38 points
Philly W 24 points
Cards W 28 points
Cincy W 23 points
NYG W 38 points
49rs L 14 points
Skinsz W 31 points
Packers W 42 points
Philly W 31 points
Browns L 19 points
Saints W 24 points
NYG L 10 points

DIV Champ
Packers W 35 points

Conf Champ
49rs L 28 points



1995 Season

NYG W 35 points
Denver W 31 points
Vikes W 23 points
Cards W 34 points
Skinz L 23 points
Packers W 34 points
Chargers W 23 points
Atlanta W 28 points
Philly W 34 points
49rs L 23 points
Raidas W 34 points
Chiefs W 24 points
Skinz L 17 points
Philly L 20 points
NYG W 21 points
Cards W 37 points

Div Champ
Philly W 30 points

Conf Champ
Packers W 38 points

SB Champ
Steelers W 27 points


In the 1992 season, that offense averaged just under 26 points a game. 39 in the post season.

In the 1993 season, that offense averaged 24 points a game. Over 31 in the post season.

In the 1994 season, that offense averaged 26 points a game. Again, over 31 in the post season.

In the 1995 Season, that offense averaged over 27 points a game. Over 31 in the post season.

In a span of 75 games, from 92 thru 95, that offense was held to less then 10 points one time. 4th game of the 92 season, Philly held us to 7. In that same time span, that offense was held to 14 or less, only 3 times.

IMO, these numbers are a powerful representation of my previous statement. When the timing offense is run correctly, it can not be stopped.

[Justis]

I for one despise the timing offense. While it can succeed, inevitably flawed players will get off rythm and that's when things start to hurt you. Whenever you lose momentum start to make penalties, you can watch your offense fall apart.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I for one despise the timing offense. While it can succeed, inevitably flawed players will get off rythm and that's when things start to hurt you. Whenever you lose momentum start to make penalties, you can watch your offense fall apart.

Well, this goes back to one of the earlier statements. It must be run correctly. Discipline is the biggest key to that offense. The earlier poster asked me, why it wasn't succeesful in Washington? It has to run correctly. You have to have the right type of players. Not the most talented but the right type.

[AbeBeta]

Your point is that if you have stars everywhere on offense, the point I'm making is a given. I do not agree with this. WC, stretch, Run and Shoot, Conventional Pro Style, they all have weakness' that can be exploited if you have the personel on defense to do so. Not so with the timing offense. If you have the right kind of players, on offense, it doesn't matter what defense you play and who you have. That offense can succed against any defense.

Never the less, my original statement was that, if it is run correctly, that offense can not be stopped. If you can prove this statement wrong, then by all means, do so.

You've listed a considerable # of games. This tells us is that we were really good for 4 years using that offense. Sadly, it neither confirms nor disputes your claims. There is absolutely nothing in your data that support that claim that this offense cannot be stopped OR that it is any better than other offensive styles. Yes we were awesome -- but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have been awesome running another form of offense.

My point is any O, run as designed with personnel that fit, will be unstoppable.

Let me ask this though - if the timing offense is the best offense possible why do so few teams run it? Why would someone choose WC over timing based if it was clear to those in the NFL that timing was the best?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You've listed a considerable # of games. This tells us is that we were really good for 4 years using that offense. Sadly, it neither confirms nor disputes your claims. There is absolutely nothing in your data that support that claim that this offense cannot be stopped OR that it is any better than other offensive styles. Yes we were awesome -- but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have been awesome running another form of offense.

My point is any O, run as designed with personnel that fit, will be unstoppable.

Let me ask this though - if the timing offense is the best offense possible why do so few teams run it? Why would someone choose WC over timing based if it was clear to those in the NFL that timing was the best?

Your confused. I never said it was better. I said, run correctly it could not be stopped. I gave you an example. Now, you can provide evidence to refute my position. That's the way it works.

Provide another offensive scheme and I feel confident that I know the defensive counter. For the timing offense, I don't know of one.

I answered your question before. The reason people don't use the timing offense very much is that it takes special skills to make it work. Not many QBs can throw with the kind of velocity needed and the type of accuracy it takes to make that offense work. Not many receivers have the type of size, strength and catching ability to work in that offense. Obviously, you have to have a good running game. It does not have to be an Emmitt Smith but they do have to be good. The OL, as in any great offense, must be good. As I said earlier, you have to be physically tough to run that offense and you have to be mentaly disciplined. Brett Favre or Terrell Owens could not play in that offense, IMO.

[DeWare94]

not only do i think that ware will get more than 5 but also marcus spears and chris canty will have at least 3

[AbeBeta]

Your confused. I never said it was better. I said, run correctly it could not be stopped. I gave you an example. Now, you can provide evidence to refute my position. That's the way it works.


My issue here is that there is no way to either support or refute your position -- the only evidence that would make any sense is if you were able to compare two evenly matched teams with players that fit the offensive scheme perfectly -- and I don't think that information exists. I can't provide evidence to refute the position just as you cannot provide evidence to support it - because your claim is untestable.

Regarding whether one offense is better or not, if you claim that timing is unstoppable and others are not then you are saying timing is better.

I think that what I would accept is some explanation of the theory behind several offenses and why the timing outperforms them -- this would be a meaningful exercise because an offense correctly executed should be performing at or near its theoretical goals.

[ABQCOWBOY]

My issue here is that there is no way to either support or refute your position -- the only evidence that would make any sense is if you were able to compare two evenly matched teams with players that fit the offensive scheme perfectly -- and I don't think that information exists. I can't provide evidence to refute the position just as you cannot provide evidence to support it - because your claim is untestable.

Regarding whether one offense is better or not, if you claim that timing is unstoppable and others are not then you are saying timing is better.

I think that what I would accept is some explanation of the theory behind several offenses and why the timing outperforms them -- this would be a meaningful exercise because an offense correctly executed should be performing at or near its theoretical goals.

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

OK, 6pm here. Gotta go home. Perhaps we can pick this up in the morning.

If I have time, I will log on this evening to see if you have posted.

[AbeBeta]

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

Maybe if you could describe the timing offense as you understand it that would clarify things.

Let me throw this out though. Why wouldn't a scheme that bumped receivers off routes not slow down a timing offense? You make it sound like the only thing that can stop the timing O is poor execution.

[Nors]

Can you guys book a room.

[DipChit]

Tell me how many times you saw the early 90s offense of the Cowboys stopped?

Whats that supposed to mean.. whats the definition of stopped? Certainly they didnt score on every possession of every game.

If they scored less than say 24 points in a given game they must have been stopped some.. unless you wanna say they stopped themselves every time that happened. I'm sure we averaged more than 4 posessions per game, didnt we?

And we scored less than, say, 24 points over 20 times in the 3 years from '92-'94. For comparisons sake, the Niners did that 15 times in that period.

But it didnt really necessarily matter much when it did happen to us because we only allowed *over* 24 points like a half dozen times over the same period.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe if you could describe the timing offense as you understand it that would clarify things.

Let me throw this out though. Why wouldn't a scheme that bumped receivers off routes not slow down a timing offense? You make it sound like the only thing that can stop the timing O is poor execution.

Yes, absolutly. If you can take WRs out of there routes, it makes it more difficult to run a timing offense. That is why I said it takes special skills to run the offense. You have to have a big physical WR that is willing to run short, crisp, very precise routes. The QB is essentially throwing the ball to a spot in that offense. If the WR is not there, the best thing that happens is an incompletion. The worst is a TO. You take a great deal of physical abuse, as a WR in that offense. You have to have a certain frame of mind to play WR in a timing offense. If you want to catch long TDs or your not discplined enough on your route running, you'll not make a good WR in that offense. You also have to have the ability to catch the ball in traffic. Teams who defense timing offenses often use LBs or Safeties againt WRs. Obviously, the idea is to make WRs running a slant or skinny post (whatever the route) pay for it. Not a lot of guys will run right into the contact and catch the ball. To me, WR in the timing offense is a bit thankless. Your not going to catch the kind of passes, for the most part, that put you on ESPN. But, if run correctly, the defense can only watch. It really is a great offense but it is certainly not easy to find players who will work in it. You have to be pretty selfless, IMO, to make it work.

[AbeBeta]

So you can stop the timing passes -- provided that a defense plays it correctly. You are saying the O can't be stopped if run correctly -- except for when a defense is able to jam the receivers. I think you are equating offense "run correctly" with "defense not performing correctly." The timing passes can be defended -- and when they are defended properly you can have a disaster. I'm sure it is tough to do this on D every down -- just like it is tough to run the O perfectly on every down.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree the offense is unstoppable or more effective than any other. Jamming the receivers does seem to be an effective strategy -- when done correctly -- for stopping this O.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Whats that supposed to mean.. whats the definition of stopped? Certainly they didnt score on every possession of every game.

If they scored less than say 24 points in a given game they must have been stopped some.. unless you wanna say they stopped themselves every time that happened. I'm sure we averaged more than 4 posessions per game, didnt we?

And we scored less than, say, 24 points over 20 times in the 3 years from '92-'94. For comparisons sake, the Niners did that 15 times in that period.

But it didnt really necessarily matter much when it did happen to us because we only allowed *over* 24 points like a half dozen times over the same period.


10 years ago, I think 17 to 20 points a game was pretty good. I would consider less then 14, not so good. I would consider 10 or less, stopped.

Now, statistically, you can draw conclusions based of numbers but in reality, the question becomes, when you had to score, could you? The answer is yes. The teams of the early 90s scored and inflicted there will on others. You also have to keep in mind that we used the running game to control tempo. Typically, we didn't go out to try and score as many points as we could. That was not the way that team played. They got up on you and then used clock in the running game to control the game.

I'm amazed at how litteral you are trying to make this. No offense, in any sport, ever, has been judged on it's ability to score all the time. Obviously, if that were the case, there would not be a sport. I mean, this is commen sense. If an offense can score points when it needs to on a fairly consistant basis, if an offense can control a game, then I think you have to say that that offense is pretty damn good. The Cowboys offense definatly did that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So you can stop the timing passes -- provided that a defense plays it correctly. You are saying the O can't be stopped if run correctly -- except for when a defense is able to jam the receivers. I think you are equating offense "run correctly" with "defense not performing correctly." The timing passes can be defended -- and when they are defended properly you can have a disaster. I'm sure it is tough to do this on D every down -- just like it is tough to run the O perfectly on every down.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree the offense is unstoppable or more effective than any other. Jamming the receivers does seem to be an effective strategy -- when done correctly -- for stopping this O.

No. English here. You can not stop the timing pattern if the offense executes. The defense can attempt to disrupt it but if the WR executes, you can't stop it.

I provided the example of the Cowboys because some very good defenses, tried to use this methode. It didn't work. There are some WRs your not going to be able to jam. That's the reality.

You can't Jam Randy Moss. You can't Jam TO. There are guys out there you can't Jam. If you wish to say that it's the defense that is failing to execute, that's your choice. When no defense is ever able to execute something as fundamentally important as re-routing a WR in coverage, then Ihave to say that it's not a defensive short coming. It's an offensive advantage that can't be addressed.

[AbeBeta]

You can't Jam Randy Moss. You can't Jam TO. There are guys out there you can't Jam. If you wish to say that it's the defense that is failing to execute, that's your choice. When no defense is ever able to execute something as fundamentally important as re-routing a WR in coverage, then Ihave to say that it's not a defensive short coming. It's an offensive advantage that can't be addressed.

So again this comes down to needing a super WR. But what your great WR is matched against an equally talented CB?

It is true that the offense was very effective for a 4 year stretch. However, what we saw after that point was teams, especially in the NFC East, devising defenses to throw off the timing. You see this is in the increased focus on having big corners that were effective at rerouting WRs. I think also that Philly's blitz happy defense was at least partially a response to our O as it provided another means to disrupt the timing.

Defenses did catch on to what we were doing, devised ways to stop it, and we decided to switch to a different offensive approach since we got figured out.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So again this comes down to needing a super WR. But what your great WR is matched against an equally talented CB?

It is true that the offense was very effective for a 4 year stretch. However, what we saw after that point was teams, especially in the NFC East, devising defenses to throw off the timing. You see this is in the increased focus on having big corners that were effective at rerouting WRs. I think also that Philly's blitz happy defense was at least partially a response to our O as it provided another means to disrupt the timing.

Defenses did catch on to what we were doing, devised ways to stop it, and we decided to switch to a different offensive approach since we got figured out.

I believe I said, from the outset, that you needed players with unique skills to be able to make this work.

Deion Sanders is widely regarded as the best Cover Corner. You may elect to insert another name here but basically, I go with Deion because most agree with this position. Michael Irvin, was not the best WR of his time but, in that offense, Deion could not stop him. Darrell Green is one of the best CBs I'd ever seen play. He could not stop Irvin either. Eric Allen, later Troy Vincent, lots of very good CBs. In fact, the only CB that I ever saw give Irvin trouble, in that offense was Aneas Williams. I would not say that he stopped Irvin but I would say that he had more success then anybody else. Having said that, the offense was not stopped. The other players executed and as a result, we enjoyed much success.

[Jarv]

Ware who ?

Hijack alert...lol

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ware who ?

Hijack alert...lol

Agreed, Sorry guys. I did not intend to drive this discussion into the weeds. The timing offense should really be a seperate thread.

My appoligies.

[AbeBeta]

I believe I said, from the outset, that you needed players with unique skills to be able to make this work.



And I believe I said, from the outset, that the claim that you need special players with unique skills can be made for any offensive system. What I'm not getting from you is why this system is better than any other.

Was this system better than others for a stretch in the 90's? Hell yes. Does that mean it is the most effective system - given the somewhat ideal constraints you set up? That's the point I'd like you to argue. But you are arguing around it.

I say a D that focuses on jamming guys at the line can disrupt it and you say but not with the right players on O who can't be jammed. Respectfully, that is just a crazy argument -- and again, it does nothing to distinguish a timing O from any other form of O.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I believe I said, from the outset, that the claim that you need special players with unique skills can be made for any offensive system. What I'm not getting from you is why this system is better than any other.

Was this system better than others for a stretch in the 90's? Hell yes. Does that mean it is the most effective system - given the somewhat ideal constraints you set up? That's the point I'd like you to argue. But you are arguing around it.

I say a D that focuses on jamming guys at the line can disrupt it and you say but not with the right players on O who can't be jammed. Respectfully, that is just a crazy argument -- and again, it does nothing to distinguish a timing O from any other form of O.

Last post for me, on this thread, about this subject.

Your correct, your not getting it. Your not getting it because your trying to prove your point rather then discuss this. I never said it was the best. Never happened. I said it was unstobable. You asked, what's that? I gave you my opinion of what that was. You asked, what kind of skills, I answered. You asked , what's different about this offense. I told you. You implied that if you had the best defensive players on the other side of the ball using certain techniques, it could disrupt and stop that offense. I gave example of how this was incorrect. I've done all you've asked me to. Now you need to do what's being asked of us. Stop hijacking this thread. I will definatly honor that request.

[AbeBeta]

Last post for me, on this thread, about this subject.

Your correct, your not getting it. Your not getting it because your trying to prove your point rather then discuss this. I never said it was the best. Never happened. I said it was unstobable. You asked, what's that? I gave you my opinion of what that was. You asked, what kind of skills, I answered. You asked , what's different about this offense. I told you. You implied that if you had the best defensive players on the other side of the ball using certain techniques, it could disrupt and stop that offense. I gave example of how this was incorrect. I've done all you've asked me to. Now you need to do what's being asked of us. Stop hijacking this thread. I will definatly honor that request.

Last one for me as well. You said it was a) unstoppable and b) no other O was unstoppable. A+B means this O would have to be "better" than others.

All you said was if you had a receiver who couldn't be jammed it wasn't possible to stop him. That's not an argument - it is a fantasy.

Mods - please kill this thread. It isn't going anywhere positive from here.

[Nors]

"On pace for" is the most useless stat ever.

On day 1 of the current baseball season Dmitri Young hit 3 home runs for the Detroit Tigers. He was "on pace for" 486 home runs this year.

I'll worry about Ware if the season is nearing an end and he hasn't impressed.

After 12 games he's spot on Pace for 5 sacks. I expected much more from him. Not a bust at all but he really has not gotten to QB's like we thought going in.

Thoughts?

[Dawgs0916]

I agree that he isnt the force we all expected. Merriman has done a much better job getting to the QB. Ware has improved in other areas though.

[Nors]

Merriman was the safer pick and obviously more prepared to perform year 1. Does Ware have LT potential to do more? I think he's a better edge rusher but struggles when engaged by NFL tackles (not ours)....

[Dawgs0916]

I don't know man, Merriman just seems more athletic. Ware to me, it looks like will turn into a good LB, but not a superior passrusher, which is what we need.

[blindzebra]

Yawn...

The redundancy continues.

[Nors]

Have an opinion on topic or just being an ***?

[Dawgs0916]

Obviously the latter...

[Nors]

Obviously the latter...

Par for the course with BZ.


I think we need Ware to get 4-5 more sacks to make a playoff run. We need to start flushing QB's more and hitting them more. Ware is our edge guy.

Show us Ware.

[blindzebra]

Have an opinion on topic or just being an ***?

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

You were getting schooled on other threads, so you wanted to rehash this one because you think you can show up Hostile.

Have not seen you at Detox, wouldn't have anything to do with your cause playing like crap and getting raked across the coals, now would it?

:lmao2:

As for my take on Ware.

He's playing nearly every defensive snap, because we have absolute crap at LB opposite him and no depth.

Because of that, teams do not fear the blitz, and I'd point out that since Al and Dat went down, Shanle and James have not gotten a sack...hmmm.

Constant double teams, too many snaps, and the rookie wall, but hey why talk football when there is back patting and I told you so's to post?:rolleyes:

[Yeagermeister]

If Ware would fake outside and go inside or at least vary his moves he'd get more sacks.

[Nors]

Nope - all excuses for Ware - he was brought here to get to QB.

So far he has underachieved for all the excuses you mentioned.

For Dallas to win we need him to step up - he was the #11 overall.

[dargonking999]

Nope - all excuses for Ware - he was brought here to get to QB.

So far he has underachieved for all the excuses you mentioned.

For Dallas to win we need him to step up - he was the #11 overall.

Yea when teams have to put a LT(teams best T) and a RB/FB/TE on him it reallymeans he's underacheiving.

Let's not forget that the rest of the LB arent average and below average LB, and havent been any kind of force.

[blindzebra]

I was wondering how long it would take for the turning on Ware to begin, since you were wanting Merriman at #11.

So very predictable.

Real fans would rather be wrong and have it help the team, they don't root for failure and injuries.

Seems very clear where some stand.

[Rack Bauer]

Yea when teams have to put a LT(teams best T) and a RB/FB/TE on him it reallymeans he's underacheiving.

Let's not forget that the rest of the LB arent average and below average LB, and havent been any kind of force.


I think you're exhaggerating just a bit. Ware doesn't get doubled that often.


How many sacks did Dwight Freeney get as a rookie? Think maybe he was double teamed a bit being that he was the only DL worth a crap on that team at the time?

Double teams occur... you still have to get to the QB. And, again, he doesn't even get doubled that often.


That said, hopefully Parcells is right and he'll improve next year. I think he played a solid game vs the Giants. If he improves from that game we have a very good chance of winning.

[blindzebra]

Yea when teams have to put a LT(teams best T) and a RB/FB/TE on him it reallymeans he's underacheiving.

Let's not forget that the rest of the LB arent average and below average LB, and havent been any kind of force.

It's not about Ware, it's about Nors not wanting him at #11.

Over 13,000 posts and the vast majority are not about football.

[dargonking999]

I think you're exhaggerating just a bit. Ware doesn't get doubled that often.


How many sacks did Dwight Freeney get as a rookie? Think maybe he was double teamed a bit being that he was the only DL worth a crap on that team at the time?

Double teams occur... you still have to get to the QB. And, again, he doesn't even get doubled that often.


That said, hopefully Parcells is right and he'll improve next year. I think he played a solid game vs the Giants. If he improves from that game we have a very good chance of winning.


And when he doesnt, he is always at the QB, and halfastep from getting a sack.

Let's not forget, with the emergence of Ware, Ellis is on pace to become the teams first double digit sack leader since.......a long time.

[Rack Bauer]

And when he doesnt, he is always at the QB, and halfastep from getting a sack.

Let's not forget, with the emergence of Ware, Ellis is on pace to become the teams first double digit sack leader since.......a long time.



1. No, he isn't always at the QB when he's not double teamed. What games have you been watching?

2. Ebenezer Ekuban was "Close" to get a sack pretty often in Dallas. Close means jack.


3. Ellis was "on pace" to get like 16 sacks at one point LAST YEAR, then he disappeared. I think he had 8 sacks last year with like 5 games to go. He got 1 sack the last 4 or 5 games. So your attempt at a "point" is irrelevant. I wouldn't be surprised if Ellis still finishes with less then 10 sacks.

[TunaFan33]

5 sacks wouldn't be fine with me.

I simply have higher expectations for him. But he certainly doesn't need double digits.

Isn't he one of the league leaders in QB pressures?

Why is it that expectations for EVERYONE involved is INCREDIBLY high in Big D?

[TunaFan33]

1. No, he isn't always at the QB when he's not double teamed. What games have you been watching?

2. Ebenezer Ekuban was "Close" to get a sack pretty often in Dallas. Close means jack.



I believe Drew Bledsoe would tell you differently. :D

[Nors]

It's not about Ware, it's about Nors not wanting him at #11.

Over 13,000 posts and the vast majority are not about football.


Again a non football post from BZ whing about said topic.
If Ware ended up with 5 sacks as I posed the question months ago in this thread? Is that under expectations? I say yes.

Back to your rants.

[blindzebra]

Again a non football post from BZ whing about said topic.
If Ware ended up with 5 sacks as I posed the question months ago in this thread? Is that under expectations? I say yes.

Back to your rants.

How many of your 13,000 deal with football?

ACTUALLY DEAL WITH FOOTBALL?

We all know why you dug this up, I tell it like it is, and you go into your persecuted/talk football, spin mode.

You are as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow.

p.s. edit, still have not seen you at detox since your boy played like crap, FYI not posting for a week does not count as behaving for a week.:D

[Dawgs0916]

I agree that if he gets only 5 sacks it is most definantely a disappointment. Sacks was the reason he was brought here.

[blindzebra]

I agree that if he gets only 5 sacks it is most definantely a disappointment. Sacks was the reason he was brought here.

Gee, I can't even see Nors' lips move when you talk.

Quick Nors drink some water during his next post.:lmao2:

[Nors]

Gee, I can't even see Nors' lips move when you talk.

Quick Nors drink some water during his next post.:lmao2:

Yet another non football post from the BZ after he whines about "that"

Yes, its pretty clear if Ware ends with 5 sacks thats below expectations.

I'm rooting for him to tack on anotyer 4-5 more and we win out. We need to get the QB more from the edge.

[Nors]

I've posted in the week and do as I please.

Back to thread - add something football related or go away. This thread had nothing to do with Bledsoe but thats just you being a . Move on

[Taylor_Can_Hit21]

Ware will not be a bust.........1,2,5,10, 11 sack it doesn't matter...he will not be a bust

LOL...so you say if he got 1 sack next year and he averaged that throughout his career he would not be a bust?

[blindzebra]

I've posted in the week and do as I please.

Back to thread - add something football related or go away. This thread had nothing to do with Bledsoe but thats just you being a . Move on

Yawn...

Just what football related posts have you made?

Nice pot kettle post you made here, Norsy.

Speaking of going away, should I post a link to the thread where you boasted about killing the zone by leaving?

Why not put your money where your ego is, and prove it?

[Dawgs0916]

I think he meant this year only about his sack totals meaning he's a bust. I wouldn't say hes a bust but anyone who says that having only 5 sacks for the year isn't a disappointment is lying.

[Viper]

Lawrence Taylor had zero sacks in 1981, his first year.

Ware is a rookie, let him develop.

[Nors]

Ware is adjusting to NFL and new position. Remember this is a small school kid who is adjusting to a new position. As Parcells said he's not big enough to go up against NFL Tackles all game.

That has proven out - Ware can get some outside pressure but once the Tackles get into him its over. Another year in the NFL weight system will do wonders.

I was expecting more than 4-5 sacks. He has to step it up down the stretch - JMO