DE nightmares-Is coaching the problem? - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Scotman · 05-15-2005

I watched highly drafted and highly touted DEs come through Dallas now for several years. Some of them experienced success before they came (Wiley) and some of them experienced success once they were gone. Some never experienced any success (Carver). While all three of those I've mentioned performed like slugs here, did it really have to be that way?

I just keep wondering, we tend to blame these players but I have long felt that anyone of these guys might have been vastly more effective in another scheme or on another team.

Let's assume for just a moment that it hasn't been the players but indeed the scheme and/or coaching staff. If so, where exactly would the problem lie? With the head coach? But we've had several HCs. With the DE coaches? We've had several of those, too. Zimmer? Scheme?

I'm not asking as if I know, but asking because I wonder.

Thoughts?
Scot

dargonking999 · 05-15-2005

the game is a team game, it is in part of coaching, it is in part of the inabilty of DE to play, all wrapped into one. JIMO

Chief · 05-15-2005

I think there are several reasons.

Let's start with Carver. He was highly productive at Arizona State and was considered a first-rounder by most clubs. The guy had some character flaws and weaknesses/addictions that helped derail his career.

Pittman: A reach by Jerry. Not a real bad player, but Dallas picked him too high.

Ekuban: I still believe (I'm in the minority, apparently) that Eb lacked natural football instincts. He was an explosive athlete, who lacked the "naturalness" that guys like Haley had. His back problem didn't help.

Wiley: He was awful at San Diego the last year or so, and was reportedly a locker room cancer. He was pretty good at one time, but I don't think this guy has worked hard enough to have an extended career. You can get by on natural ability for only so long. The great ones extend their careers by really working at it.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced Jim Jeffcoat is a very good coach. Apparently, Bill Parcells came to that conclusion, too.

Scheme? I don't know. You hear things about the hobbles Zimmer puts on the defensive ends. I don't know enough about football to know if that's true.

So, I think it's just a combination of things. The players were partly to blame, as well as Jeffcoat.

dargonking999 · 05-15-2005

o and by the way, when wolvrine gets here, he's gonna post a foot long post about how zimmer is the problem

LaTunaNostra · 05-15-2005

Well, if Wiley had shown up here fresh off his early success in Buffalo, I'd be looking at Bill and Zimmer as inadequate coaches.

But Marty Schottenheimer had already had his fill of him. I don't think any scheme can compensate for slow downed legs and lack of motivation (which is what the big rap on him in San Diego was...to into playing MC at area clubs and fattening his little black book and not enough into Sundays in the fall).

Of course, Wiley maintained he had to concentrate too much on playing run D in Dallas, that his first assignment was too often not edge rushing per se. Really at this point he's nothing more than Eric Ogbogu with a better pedigree..a highly situational player....not a balanced dline starter who can play both run and pass.

But it sure is on Bill and Jerry for getting fooled.

Nors · 05-15-2005

Bad DE's, Bad coaching a combination.

Offense of Ailkman, Smith. Irvin, Novacek AND OLINE, makes a defense look great......

**MichaelWinicki** · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief

I think there are several reasons.

Let's start with Carver. He was highly productive at Arizona State and was considered a first-rounder by most clubs. The guy had some character flaws and weaknesses/addictions that helped derail his career.

Pittman: A reach by Jerry. Not a real bad player, but Dallas picked him too high.

Ekuban: I still believe (I'm in the minority, apparently) that Eb lacked natural football instincts. He was an explosive athlete, who lacked the "naturalness" that guys like Haley had. His back problem didn't help.

Wiley: He was awful at San Diego the last year or so, and was reportedly a locker room cancer. He was pretty good at one time, but I don't think this guy has worked hard enough to have an extended career. You can get by on natural ability for only so long. The great ones extend their careers by really working at it.

[View Full Quote]

Nice analysis Chief... very accurate.

The other thing about Carver is that he did not have a quick enough first step off the edge. While he could still beat college OT's off the edge he couldn't beat NFL tackles. But he seemed to develop into a decent DE against the run.

The funny thing is that Pittman and to some extent Ekuban were too.

Wiley was a "car wreck".

Nors · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

Well, if Wiley had shown up here fresh off his early success in Buffalo, I'd be looking at Bill and Zimmer as inadequate coaches.

But Marty Schottenheimer had already had his fill of him. I don't think any scheme can compensate for slow downed legs and lack of motivation (which is what the big rap on him in San Diego was...to into playing MC at area clubs and fattening his little black book and not enough into Sundays in the fall).

Of course, Wiley maintained he had to concentrate too much on playing run D in Dallas, that his first assignment was too often not edge rushing per se. Really at this point he's nothing more than Eric Ogbogu with a better pedigree..a highly situational player....not a balanced dline starter who can play both run and pass.

But it sure is on Bill and Jerry for getting fooled.

Ogbogu had 4 1/2 sacks as 3rd down rusher? I think Wiley has a beef with his role - candidly

LaTunaNostra · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

Ogbogu had 4 1/2 sacks as 3rd down rusher? I think Wiley has a beef with his role - candidly

You would.

I don't care who you are - John Abraham has to play the run too, and get better at it as he does.

And if there HAD been someone to anchor the end other than Wiley, how would he have reacted to his demotion?

Ironically, by season's end, he was being pulled on PASSING downs.

Let's see what he does in Jacksonville (other than another turn on MTV Cribs).

But I think Jack Del Rio is in for another Hugh Douglasesque disappointment.

Hostile · 05-15-2005

There are a lot of combinations that lead to filure. Carver isn't even tearing up the Arena League. He came here with a swelled head, never worked hard and then had addictions derail him. Attitude was his iceberg.

Ekuban was pretty good at first. Injuries were his iceberg.

We haven't had stellar d-line coaching and frankly none of them were good enough to get the job done.

No one can successfully convince me that the blame lays strictly at the feet of the scheme or the coaching though some will try. At some point in time it is okay to say the scouting department was wrong. Or that the player might have done more if ________________. (Fill in the blank.)

I don't believe Ernie Stautner could have gotten more out of them than they gave. They just weren't good enough.

AsthmaField · 05-15-2005

I think it was a lack of talent along with the situation that many of them had been put in.

Wiley was just washed up. Carver, like Mike said, lacked the quickness to succeed... add his alcoholism to that and there was no way the guy could make it.

Pittman... not talented.

Ekuban... Cheif nailed it when he said the guy lacked football instincts. He just isn't a good fooball player. Talented, but didn't know how to use it. Leverage and angles are so important. That's innate. Either you have it or you don't. Like Cheif, I don't think Eb had it.

In a nutshell, I think it was poor drafting and a little of how the coaches used them. We expected Haley, and that just wasn't happening.

Now, by altering the schemes (not just the 3-4 but the 4-3 too) I think how we'll use the pass rushers will be different and where they're coming from will be different.

I always wondered why we always left our pass rushers right where everyone expected them to be.

I saw Green Bay and Philadelphia move Reggie White all over the line to take advantage of mismatches. Same with many other teams. But we always had our best pass rusher right where the offensive coordinators expected them to be. Plain, Jane system.

That's fine if you have the athletes who can win those matchups... but we haven't had that since about '95.

That's the main reason I'm excited about the defensive changes taking place in Dallas. Not because it's 3-4 or 4-3... but I think the philosophy will now be significantly altered and how we play and attack will be completely different.

I always enjoyed watching Parcell's defenses in NY... they were plain scary. Now, we've got the players to do that, or some version of that and it should be a completely different story for opposing offenses.

Even when we were ranked highly on defense... I don't think we scared anyone. I think we simply thwarted them. We just kept them from scoring. We didn't force things or create havoc.

I think we will now.

I don't think Zimmer has been the problem, *cough, Wolverine, Cough, HH, cough*... I think it's been our philosophy which has been the same since the late 80's when Jimmy Johnson took over. The league has adapted to that and we haven't had the horses for it.

It's time for a change and I for one think it will be very good.

Juke99 · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

Ogbogu had 4 1/2 sacks as 3rd down rusher? I think Wiley has a beef with his role - candidly

Interesting that Wiley complained about having to play the run first...makes me wonder how many yards he would have been blown off the line if run defense wasn't his priority. As it was, he was consistently blocked out of every play.

Wiley was possibly the worst DE I have ever seen.

Rack Bauer · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

Well, if Wiley had shown up here fresh off his early success in Buffalo, I'd be looking at Bill and Zimmer as inadequate coaches.

But Marty Schottenheimer had already had his fill of him.

That's probably true, but Wiley did kinda get screwed as well. He was told he'd play LE (what he played in S.D.), but they moved him to RE right before the season started. When he wasn't effective at it they took him out on 3rd downs, not allowing him to rush the passer, eventhough he was told he'd be allowed to get after the QB.

I don't think it was worth it to sign Wiley either way, but I have no doubt him my mind that he would of been more effective if allowed to play where they told him he'd be playing, at LE instead of RE. And people that think it's no difference, well it is. Some guys can play either side with no problems. Myself, I feel extremely uncomfortable with my left hand on the ground going after the QB to my left. On the left side, with my right hand on the ground and going to my right, I feel a lot more comfortable.

But again, Wiley was a bad signing. I said that when it happened, but he still did get screwed, a little.

jksmith269 · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rack

That's probably true, but Wiley did kinda get screwed as well. He was told he'd play LE (what he played in S.D.), but they moved him to RE right before the season started. When he wasn't effective at it they took him out on 3rd downs, not allowing him to rush the passer, eventhough he was told he'd be allowed to get after the QB.

I don't think it was worth it to sign Wiley either way, but I have no doubt him my mind that he would of been more effective if allowed to play where they told him he'd be playing, at LE instead of RE. And people that think it's no difference, well it is. Some guys can play either side with no problems. Myself, I feel extremely uncomfortable with my left hand on the ground going after the QB to my left. On the left side, with my right hand on the ground and going to my right, I feel a lot more comfortable.

But again, Wiley was a bad signing. I said that when it happened, but he still did get screwed, a little.

I agree with ya Rack..... I never understood why take a pass rusher out on Passing downs...That never made sense to me. Watch him get like 10 sacks this year in Jax.....

O Skuul · 05-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief

I think there are several reasons.

Let's start with Carver. He was highly productive at Arizona State and was considered a first-rounder by most clubs. The guy had some character flaws and weaknesses/addictions that helped derail his career.

Pittman: A reach by Jerry. Not a real bad player, but Dallas picked him too high.

Ekuban: I still believe (I'm in the minority, apparently) that Eb lacked natural football instincts. He was an explosive athlete, who lacked the "naturalness" that guys like Haley had. His back problem didn't help.

Wiley: He was awful at San Diego the last year or so, and was reportedly a locker room cancer. He was pretty good at one time, but I don't think this guy has worked hard enough to have an extended career. You can get by on natural ability for only so long. The great ones extend their careers by really working at it.

[View Full Quote]

Very thoughtful post Chief, makes a lot of sense until I start to think about Tony Tolbert and Charles Haley, then this syndrome seems to point somewhere else. I think it could be the scheme, but I would tend to believe its almost always the talent.