Discussion in 'News Zone' started by btcutter, Jan 16, 2013.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Yes what we need on defense are players that can defend offenses as they are evolving today.
But Dallas needs to improve on offense too. Since option plays are things defenses are struggling to defend why isn't Dallas prioritizing these plays when they play offense? After all, Romo has scrambling ability.
whoa whoa whoa, Romo is a WONDERFUL scrambling quarterback, his ability to make guys miss **IN THE POCKET** is some of the most magical stuff I've ever seen. but he is NOT, nor has he ever been, a RUNNING quarterback. to be a running quarterback running an option at NFL speed, you need dominant athletes playing quarterback. The Mike Vick, RG3, Cam Newton guys.
In summary, Romo can ole a half blocked lumbering Defensive lineman, but he wont EVER be outrunning linebackers and safeties down the sideline.
Additionally. Romo is in his 30s, has already suffered multiple broken bones, and Kyle Orton is his backup. No bueno, mi amigo.
I'm not saying we turn Romo's game into RG3s.
What I'm saying is that we should add several option plays into the arsenal and maybe run 1 or 2 a game, just enough to surprise defenses when it comes - and it can be effective since most defenses are not geared to stop it.
just the threat alone will give defenses one more thing to prepare and watch for, which can slow them down half a second enough to give the offense an advantage, mainly on running plays.
In the NFL, speed is relative. But, considering the overall team speed of the Redskins and the Eagles, I still say it is going to take at least two drafts to get this team where they need to be. But that's just my opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing, so...
BINGO! The entire article is set up to praise the Kiffin system but makes no mention of Kiffin getting torched by the read option at USC? Oregon made USC look absolutely atrocious.
As far as Dallas not being able to stop the Redskins on Thanksgiving he points out the 2nd quarter. I'm not really sure I buy into this. First and foremost, The Redskins didn't do the vast majority of the damage on read option plays in this game like they did in 2nd game. It was the passing game that pretty much scored the Redskins 2nd quarter points. Specifically two long passes that did the most damage. The pass to Robinson and the pass to Garcon, both of which came off of play action. Now, the Robinson pass did come on a play fake out of a read option look but if we're going to cite forcing an unblocked OLB to guess as the magic behind the read option, I'm not sure that explains why Danny McCray did what he did. Aikman calls the play before it happens based purely on the alignment. McCray reacts to the faked run but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that he wouldn't have reacted to play action out of a traditional formation and that it was the read option run fake specifically that opened the play up. I think the more likely scenario is that McCray just isn't that good and as Aikman put it, "didn't check the scouting report".
And then this:
If he's going to lean on Jerry's comments in this fashion without recognizing that holding the defense responsible for these games is absolutely idiotic, he's simply just reducing this part of his argument to "it was the right thing to do because that is what Dallas did".
Furthermore, even if we pretend that the defense played poorly and should be held responsible for these games, the Bears don't even run the read option and the Seahawks didn't run the read option at that point in the season. It wasn't until later that they broke it out and while I only did a quick search, I think around week 5 is where they started breaking it out. This quote from an Oct 10th blog after their game against Carolina.
So what this boils down to:
The guy is using 2 games against teams where, A) the read option wasn't even involved, and B) the defense can't even be viewed as the most guilty party, in order to support his article on why Dallas needed to change to a defense that can defend the read option when it's far from conclusive that the alternative can defend the read option any better than the 3-4.
The reality is, Seattle's success against the defense in the second half of the 3rd quarter and beyond came because Dallas doesn't have a strong DL. It's above average when healthy but against the better OLs in the NFL it needs to be great. Seattle simply lined up and ran right over Dallas.
When you throw in the fact that the DL isn't a strength to begin with and then remove Ratliff from the mix, subtract the two MLBs behind the DL and have Ware playing injured and ineffective, hell yeah teams will run on you. Read option or not, you're outmatched up front to start. Washington could have ran over Dallas any way they chose. Having the read option in play no doubt added to that because now they're forcing all these street FAs to have to think and react but the real heart of the problem was a depleted front 7.
It's not like every time Dallas faced the read option they were simply dead in the water. I think they had 3 games against it between Washington and Carolina. Only the second game against Washington can be viewed as horrid. The other two weren't that bad. Certainly no worse than Seattle, Philly or even Cincy who were all running traditional sets and walked over the defense in the running game.
Carolina: 21 attempts, 112 yards
Washington Game 1: 32 attempts, 149 yards
Not stellar by any means but lets compare this to how Seattle faired against Chicago when Seattle was running the read option.
Seattle: 32 attempts, 176 yards
The read option is certainly an intriguing idea for me. I think it presents some things to defenses that are tough to defend but the idea that a couple of teams with pretty unique QBs and great RBs are now transforming the landscape of the NFL and have forced Dallas into changing schemes is a little far fetched. Those two teams are sitting at home just like Dallas so apparently there's still more than 1 way to skin a cat. Something tells me the 49ers and Steelers are pretty content with being top defenses, regardless of what formation they line up in.
To be honest, I'm not sure the 3-4 itself has some disadvantage but more-so the fact that 3-4 teams have been asking an unblocked player to basically come to a completely stop and wait for the offense to move. Ask a DT in the 4-3 to do the same and I bet that defense gets gutted in the running game. Why not just instruct the guys to have their minds made up at the snap in an attempt to force the play to either the QB or the RB? If the alternative is coming to a little jump stop and getting beaten while you get caught in between going one way or the other, what's the difference?
Before we make a move to a read option, we may want to see how defenses respond to it this offseason. There is one MAJOR problem with it, it makes your million dollar Qb a running back. Which means they are not protected anymore. The answer is crush the qb no matter what we does with the ball. if the offense gives you free shots at their qb then you take it. Kiffens 4-3 thrives on swarming to the ball. You assign one guy to take out the qb and pursuit to handle the rest. That way the first man doesnt hesitate on qb moves , just bury him. Then we will see how long the OCs are willing to risk their franchise qbs necks out there.
As it is being run right now, in the backfield and not down the line of scrimmage, I'm not sure where a team could hit a QB without drawing a flag.
Out in the open when running with it? Seems like they could slide and still get protection.
Perhaps the NFL should remove the slide component on designed runs but I think it still applies to everyone though in that you can't hit a player who "gives himself up".
Jimmy to the rescue part deux? Dungy has credited the Steel Curtain D as the model for his Tampa 2, not Jimmy's 4-3. And while Kiffin may have trouble with the read option, Jimmy's defenses did not against the similarly high powered wishbone offense.
If anything, Jerry should have brought in a guy proficient in both systems (Jimmy 4-3 and Tampa 2): Ken Norton Jr.
I love the Read Option. I don't know whether its a fad or not, but it's hella fun to watch.
I can't figure out why people keep saying the Cowboys don't have the personal to switch to a 4-3. That is bull****. They are closer to be a 4-3 than a 3-4. Hell, the team doesn't even have a real NT. Ratliff played the position, but he isn't one and now he is older too. They are also on the verge if possibly losing one of their two starting quality OLBs. (nobody else on the team is starting quality for an OLB at this point)
Switching to a 4-3 will extend Ratliff's career and Lissemore will become more effective than he was playing a 3-4 DE.
Many people question Spencer's ability to play a 4-3 DE, and I call BS there too. While he may need to add a little weight, the guy is solid and isn't easily pushed around, not to mention his ability to shed blockers is on par with D.Ware.
Linebackers? Between Lee, Carter, and Albright, you have all three linebacker positions covered. The only real question is safety and the Cowboys can address that in a draft that has quite a bit of safety talent in it or on the FA market.
The Cowboys have several players on the staff right now that can play DT in a 4-3 and some (a bet rather weak) depth for the DE position.
I think the switch to a 4-3 is a must at this point. Both personal wise (ie, who is already on the team) and scheme wise with the direction the NFL is going with the read option.
Good find. And it makes pretty good sense for what happened in the REdskin games.
Nice read and that 92 Cowboys D was nasty!
A very good read. Too bad Russell Wilson doesn't have an Aikman arm :laugh2:
according the the Break, Henderson was fed up With the fact that Ryan was blowing off meetings, and then skipped them as a response.
I agree with the previous poster. If the want to run the read option the DE should crash down on the qb and hit him everytime. If they are not hesitating for the read they are gonna get there pretty fast.
Yeah, I've targeted SAM and SDE as well. But, as you pointed out, those aren't the deal breakers for the defense. Even in the Kiffin glory years in Tampa Bay, he had some rather pedestrian guys at SOLB ... Greg Nece, Ian Gold and Al Singleton. Just guys who can play over a tight end and not get overwhelmed, but still athletic enough to pursue a ballcarrier running weakside. Even if they didn't think Albright or Wilbur could be that guy, they could probably go out on the UFA market and get that kind of guy rather cheaply with a Kirk Morrison or a Rocky McIntosh.
SDE is a little more hard to find if they let Spencer walk, but again, you're talking about finding a Greg Spires ... a 265 lbs. guy who never had more than 8 sacks a season. I'm kinda okay with just going with Crawford on base packages and substituting him out with a nickel pass rusher in sub packages.
I strongly believe with the fast pace offense with speed around the league we are seeing a paradigm shift in offensive philosophy. Part of the strategy is to wear out the defense.
The new defense required to combat the evolved (you can all it rehashed) offense has to be SPEED and DEPTH. You will need guys chasing from sideline to sideline but also need depth to rotate in players to keep them fresh. Because tired players miss tackles and that's how you give up big plays.
Speed is easier to obtain then depth in the current NFL system. To begin this new defense the first order must be increasing the speed and depth of the D line. On paper we may look OK with Ware, Ratliff, Lissamore, Hatcher and Spencer/Crawford. But Ratliff and Ware were injured. Crawford is an unknown and Spencer is unsigned. Even if they all stay healthy, you cannot expect Ware/Spencer to rush the passer and chase RG III/Chip Kelly offense all year.
I fully expect DL, another fast LB who can play multiple positions to be focus of the offseason. Oh, let's not forget OL/S.
Carter, Lee, and Sims would put plenty of speed at the LB position.
For about 3 games together.