Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by cowboysooner, Feb 4, 2013.
ryan fumbled points away in the 2nd half
some players just get injured more than others. Does not have to be the same knee shoulder etc. They are just fragile
What is it with people on this board -- can't even acknowledge good play when it happens.
San Fran was dominant until Justin Smith got hurt. Late in the season and in the playoffs, they didn't get the pass rush they were getting pre-injury and the secondary was forced to cover longer. Aldon Smith was keyed on and neutralized because teams didn't have Justin to worry about. Injuries happen, but any team is going to fall off when their best players get hurt. Look at Houston after Cushing got hurt, the Ravens without Lewis and Suggs and the Cowboys without Lee and Carter.
I agree with you, but if the difference between defensive dominance is one player playing at 70% vs 100% then can you build a team relying on that?
Justin not at 100% was the only injury on the defense all year. That is incredibly good health compared with the Ravens who were without LaDarius Webb and Suggs and Ngata at less than 100%.
It's a tough call with the salary cap. You could say the same thing about building a strong Offense and then losing your QB or RB. A strong Defense will carry you more over a full season, going on the road, bad weather, etc.
I think the best path is to have a big play Defense that can get sacks and turnovers, a strong special teams and an Offense that can score at least league average or better.
May be our number one problem.
Their problem is their secondary is highly over-rated and has been hidden by a great front 7.
Which, of course, highlights the issue of being good/great at only 1 part of the defense. It doesn't matter which part you're good/great at if youre not good at the other part you will not get the job done.
The 49ers have a great front seven with a average, at the absolute best, secondary and they got exposed during the two championship games because of it.
This is why you need to be good at both ends to compliment one another. You don't have to be great at either one but you've got to be good at them both.
The 49ers, IMHO, got extremely lucky that the lights went out when they did and gave them a chance to settle back in and killed the Baltimore momentum because they were definately on the verge of simply being blown right off the field prior to that happening.
seems so obvious to most fans. protect your qb and be able to run the ball. thats all about the oline. thats where we get better. we need pieces for the defense but if we don't get better on the oline we will be watching the playoffs again next year
Silly as it sounds, I think is possible to overreact to those results. SF's defense was 2nd in scoring in both 2011 & 2012 (I think), and was obviously a huge part of them *getting* to the championship game both years. And their defense was effective in the second halves against Atlanta and Baltimore. I'm not sure I'd be ready to go all offense just based on that. Of course, any amount of playoff success looks pretty good to me as a Cowboy fan right now.
the defense at beginning of the season was not that bad...the cowboys just got destroyed by injuries.
I agree with you that a one or two game sample is difficult to measure. Even a 16 game regular season is not a ton of data but there is a clear trend to these playoffs. LOSERS in the divisional round to Super Bowl scored 35, 31, 28, 28, 24, 13, and 31. Outside of New England, that is a lot of points to score and go home. The 5,000 yard passers are becoming as commonplace as 55+ home runs were in the steroid era in baseball. Last night, the WINNING team gave up 468 yards of offense.
I think the game may be changing and perhaps where you spend money and draft picks should change with it.
It's not like there's one template for being successful. Look at the Giants, they won 2 in 5 years by drafting nothing but D Ends. A system or theory is only bad when it's tampered with. Give any team time to grow and it will.
it wasn't just the 40whiners it was the Ravens also....both teams are pretty marginal in the secondary (save Ed Reed), pretty mediocre in the WR dept, pretty barely above average at QB but very solid in the trenches on both sides of the ball and have decent, durable RBs.
This, IMO, contrasts us as I think we're pretty good in the secondary, very good in the WR, pretty good at QB, and horrible in the trenches with a glass RB. If you look at several of the last few SB winners you will find most of the teams were mediocre teams most of the season and got hot late then in the playoffs...but they all had a reliable OL, Running attack, and defense in the trenches. The only team that won it without these recently was probably New Orleans, who shouldn't have been there in the first place (Minnesota game). Both NYG teams, both Pitt teams, Green Bay ran it decently and played great D their year. Then if you look at the contenders this season in the playoffs...Seattle, Atlanta, Houston....all play pretty good D with solid running games and solid OL. That's why they're there at that time of year and sadly why we're not. The other thing is that I not totally sold that its a huge talent gap for units like our OL. Sure I think we could get better talent along the OL and DL and we should try really hard to do that. But I also believe that its as much unit cohesion and coaching as it is talent. Imagine where we'd be now had we traded up in '09 for Unger and used every other draft pick on OL or DL.....
Have to agree with winning in the trench's. You win there and everybody is better.
I agree, but its amazing this crappy Oline roughed up the same Dline I saw last night earlier this season.
The answer to the thread is, "no".
Dallas should not simply ignore defense because you still have to play defense.
Dallas is not a team that is built to outscore the opponent in a shootout every single week because they simply turn the ball over too much.
If you have absolutely nothing in terms of defense, you aren't winning shootouts if you turn the ball over as much as Dallas usually does.
If Dallas were to emulate anything the 49ers do, how about protecting the damn ball?
Dallas gets like 3-4 games per season where they don't turn it over. The 49ers had 7 games in 2011 and 7 games in 2012, each season being as much as Dallas' combined amount for those two seasons. You can't be turning the ball over that much.
Here are some totals for other teams in terms of the number of games without a turnover this season.
Those are the teams in the conference championship games. Each had 7 games over the course of the season and through the playoffs where they didn't turn the ball over.
Denver had 1 game this year and even Peyton looking as good as he ever has couldn't overcome it.
2011 and 2012 were above average in terms of the top teams and how many games they played without a turnover but I think Dallas really has to improve in this area.
I don't think it's a coincidence that a good number of the teams in the playoffs this year, and likely from years past, were some of the best in terms of protecting the ball.
I still think you have to have to pass rushers there's no getting past that.
Their safeties are not good against the pass. Great in the box, but not ball hawks. Neither Smith did anything in the playoffs and Ahmad Brooks is solid, nothing special. The 9ers defense overachieved last year because, the reality is, they only have 2 or 3 playmakers.
They are meant to be physical, play ball control, and protect a lead. When they give up a lead early, they aren't going to cause turnovers.
The whole notion that you shouldn't try to build a great defense b/c offenses are so good is almost ridiculous. Do people really think teams should just try to win a shootout every week?
And that's the one thing the Cowboys defense has been poor at for a very long time.
I do hold out hope that Kiffin's defense will improve this particular aspect of the defense's game.
It needs to if we're to take the next step.