Front 7 alarmingly old

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by ravidubey

It is hard to remember the last sack from a DL in our base defense made against a good team at a clutch time in the game.

The final game of last season, with New Orleans inside the 5-yard line in the third quarter, Ellis and Stewart sacked Aaron Brooks to help force the Saints to kick a FG, making the score 13-7 instead of 17-7. The offense had seven chances to take the lead but never did. Before that, Ekuban sacked Tom Brady on third down in the fourth quarter against New England, forcing a punt, when the score was still only 9-0.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Why is an average age of 30 is "alarmingly old"? (Forget for a moment that Eaton was starting in place of Carson, which raised the average by one year.)

Anyone want to guess the average age of New England's starting front seven in last year's Super Bowl? Try 31 years, 4 months. Five of them were at least 30, and four of them were at least as old as our oldest starter (32). Two of them were at least 35.

These aren't running backs we're talking about, you know.

The reason it is old is because these guys are not playing well for guys that are supposed to be in their primes. They aren't going to get any better. More likely, they are going to get worse.

NE also has one huge advantage over us - they have Richard Seymour and we don't have anyone on our front 7 who can provide anywhere close to the impact that he does. I would trade Roy Williams and Glover for him right now. He is probably one of the top 5 DL in the league.

I know you've been a big supporter of the strength of the defense last year, at least according to your statistical analysis. However, the defense came up very short against quality opponents last year while dominating below average offenses. The end result was that we beat all the teams we should have, but got soundly beaten the last four times we played teams of quality (Phil, Mia, Car in playoffs, Minn).

This front 7 isn't good enough now, and we don't have any prospects for improving internally substanitally in the near future.

[DallasEast]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

However, the defense came up very short against quality opponents last year while dominating below average offenses. The end result was that we beat all the teams we should have, but got soundly beaten the last four times we played teams of quality (Phil, Mia, Car in playoffs, Minn).

After reading this, my first thought was the old football adage, "The best defense is a good offense". Unfortunately, for Dallas last season, our offense was, at best, average.

Personally, I would like to reserve judgment on Dallas's 2004 defense for a few more games. The Vikings were able to exploit two sizable holes in the secondary--namely, at safety [Woodson] and right corner. I'm going to wait-and-see if adjustments can be made to lessen and/or prevent further exploitation.

Looking back at 2003, I have several thoughts...

First, anytime your defense prevents the opposing offense from scoring as many points as your offense is capable of [i.e. scoring average], and your offense doesn't score more points than your opponent--your offense is always to blame. Losses to the Buccaneers, Saints and the eventual world champion Patriots can solely be attributed directly to an anemic Cowboys offense.

Second, the Falcons game . Less than three minutes into the second half and leading 10-7, Dallas fumbled and gave the ball to Atlanta at the Cowboy 40. Turnovers are always bad, but turning over the ball in your territory is worse. Your offense gives your opponent a short field and forces your defense to protect even less territory. The Dallas D surrendered six points after the turnover.

After that score, the Dallas offense went three-and-out. The Dallas defense forced the Falcons to punt on their next possession. The Dallas offense went three-and-out on their next possession and only punted 39 yards. A short return put the Falcons AGAIN in Dallas territory at the Dallas 41. Another short field which the Dallas D couldn't prevent another TD. Next possession was almost an exact replay with the Falcons regaining possession at the Dallas 46 except that the defense stiffened enough to only allow a field goal.

Great field position often leads to points. And in the second half, Dallas's offense was a definite factor in giving the Falcons great field position which led to 15 points.

Third, the Philadelphia loss. I lay 50% of the blame on the defense. The nine points surrendered in the 4th quarter after long Eagles drives are indefensible [no pun intended]. But the twelve points scored by the Eagles in the THIRD quarter in a 10-10 game at that point can be placed firmly at the feet of the Dallas offense. An INT at the deep in Dallas territory? That's the offense's fault. Fumbling the ball through the endzone--which results in a safety and a punt to your opponent? Ditto. The momentum was fully in the Eagles camp which benefitted Philly with 14 third quarter points.

Fourth, the Miami loss. I would blame the Dallas D for allowing the Dolphins to drive without restraint...

...in the FIRST half. In the SECOND half?

Well, the Cowboys' offensive possessions went fumble.

Punt.

Punt.

Punt.

Interception.

4th quarter TD. Whoopie.

Interception.

Interception.

I'm not blaming the defense for making second half adjustments which limited the Dolphins to a TD and a FG. I will blame the offense for practically doing jack when there was still time to make a comeback. Sometimes... sometimes... your offense has to win the game for you.

Finally, the Panther loss. The anemic offense was fully exposed. First half: punt, punt, punt, fumble, punt, FG. Second half: punt, punt, punt, TD, interception. Sure, the defense surrendered 29 playoff points, but how exactly did the offense help us when it mattered most?

Sorry about the rant, but, imo, last season's defense was good enough to get us to the NFC championship game. Maybe even further. But last season's offense?

Nah.

[mperfection]

Originally Posted by Hollywood Henderson

Actually, if I may use the "other side of the coin"
They all should be still in their primes...

We just need MUCH better coaching on that side of the ball...It would be nice to see our players used correctly and to their strengths...Instead of whimpy ball...

Couldn't have said it better!

[ravidubey]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

The final game of last season, with New Orleans inside the 5-yard line in the third quarter, Ellis and Stewart sacked Aaron Brooks to help force the Saints to kick a FG, making the score 13-7 instead of 17-7. The offense had seven chances to take the lead but never did. Before that, Ekuban sacked Tom Brady on third down in the fourth quarter against New England, forcing a punt, when the score was still only 9-0.

So, since I don't consider the 2003 Saints a good team, the answer is one time?

And what about turnovers? Today was the first time in what seems a very long time that the defense consistantly pressured the QB for 4 quarters-- those pressures more than once resulted in turnovers. I'd really like to see more of this and hopefully not just because the coach got mad.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Consider last week's starting lineup:

Greg Ellis 29
Chad Eaton 32
LaRoi Glover 30
Marcellus Wiley 29
Al Singleton 29
Dat Nguyen 29
Dex Coakley 31

Avg age: 30

Also consider that Ogbogu is 29.

The youthful backups are relatively untalented or without serious pedigree:

Coleman 25
B James 23
C Cooper 26
Leo Carson 27

This is a defense that is probably rapidly on the decline. Perhaps not as rapidly as was on evidence last week, but to expect them to be a top-10 defense this year is simply unrealistic. We will be no better than middle of the pack which is pretty much where we were in 2002 (ranked 18th).

[View Full Quote]A serious infusion of talent and youth is required. Thankfully, we should have considerable cap space next year so long as VT doesn't earn all his incentives (it looks like EG won't earn his) with LTBE incentives rolling over this year's ununsed cap space. We will also probably have two high picks next year (the Bills don't look like world beaters either) to address this issue.

i'm gonna go over there and panic now. please let me know when it's safe to return.