1/4 mark, looking at our team

[dbair1967]

started looking at some numbers today and comparing...some thoughts:

QB---way better than past few seasons...Bledsoe's overall numbers are all excellent. QB rating of 96.2, yds per attempt of 8.6 and td % of 5.6 are all better than anything we've seen in recent seasons...

RB--numbers arnt so good so far, poor run blocking being the reason IMO...Jones has only a couple runs over 10 yards (and nobody else on the team has any)...a couple of his best runs were wiped out by penalties...still, 3.5 yds per carry stinks..for someone as explosive as he showed last yr, it should be higher...run blocking has to improve

WR/TE...we have 5 players on pace for 48 plus catches...Glenn on pace for 1600 yds, Key, Witten and Crayton all on pace for over 700 yds

on defense, the numbers arnt as good...the positives are we have 12 sacks and are on pace for 48, and have 5 ints, on pace for 20...otherwise all the numbers are pretty much as bad if not worse than last yrs dreadful performance:

rush yds allowed: 2005 115.0 4.3 yds per attempt 2004 110.25 4.2 yds per attempt...both stats are worse

pass yds allowed in 2004 220.07, 7.41 yds per attempt, 61.8% cmp
in 2005 its 225 yds a game, 7.83 yds per attempt 57.1% cmp...the yds and yds per attempt are both worse

first downs 2004 18.56, 2005 17.0...slight improvement

pts allowed 2004 25.31 2005 22.0...slight improvement, but still poor

David

 

[Future]

not good enough on D

 

[NorTex]

I think most, if not all of us, believed that our defense would take some time to gel and learn the new system.

I think they are ahead of schedule...the future looks bright!

 

[dbair1967]

I think most, if not all of us, believed that our defense would take some time to gel and learn the new system.

I think they are ahead of schedule...the future looks bright!

I still think thats an excuse more than anyting, especially considering we've played two teams with downright dreadful offenses and a third that hasnt really done much against anyone...

the fact is there are better players here, the results should be better regardless of what system they use

david

 

[dargonking999]

I think the big problem with out D is inconstency from game to game and quarter to quarter, We come out flat in the first qurter and then we play good through the rest, or we will do real good first three quarter and then make costly misatakes in the fourth, i think right now, we need to give our team time, and some wins. and then all will be right again

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And many of the supposed experts on this board thought that "more sacks" would "cure" our ills on defense... guess what?

 

[dbair1967]

And many of the supposed experts on this board thought that "more sacks" would "cure" our ills on defense... guess what?

"sacks" continue to be one of the more overrated stats there is...

its a glamour stat and gets attention, but again...if a QB drops back 30 times and is sacked 3 times in the game, but not touched at all on the other 27, are the 3 sacks (which is a season pace of 48) indicative of a good pass rush? no, it isnt

on the other hand, a team that gets two sacks that same game but consistently is in the face or knocking the opposing QB down, does have a good pass rush...our problem is so far this yr, the first scenario has played out mroe often than not...too many plays where a QB goes unbothered

you can have the guy that gets 12 sacks in a season but doesnt do anything else during the course of a game...give me the guy who gets 7-8 sacks, plays great run defense and consistently gets pressure

David

 

[MichaelWinicki]

"sacks" continue to be one of the more overrated stats there is...

its a glamour stat and gets attention, but again...if a QB drops back 30 times and is sacked 3 times in the game, but not touched at all on the other 27, are the 3 sacks (which is a season pace of 48) indicative of a good pass rush? no, it isnt

on the other hand, a team that gets two sacks that same game but consistently is in the face or knocking the opposing QB down, does have a good pass rush...our problem is so far this yr, the first scenario has played out mroe often than not...too many plays where a QB goes unbothered

you can have the guy that gets 12 sacks in a season but doesnt do anything else during the course of a game...give me the guy who gets 7-8 sacks, plays great run defense and consistently gets pressure

David

I agree David. I grew sick of the mantra last year "sacks, sacks, sacks". OK, now they are getting their sacks and the rest of the defense looks like crap. Worse that last year... our worst looking defense in a few seasons.

Personally I'd gladly trade 6 of those sacks for a defense that allows less than 4 yards per carry.

 

[AdamJT13]

And many of the supposed experts on this board thought that "more sacks" would "cure" our ills on defense... guess what?

Nonsense. Sacks and interceptions are all that matters. Defenses that don't allow other teams to score or gain yards are overrated mirages.

At least, that's what I was told a couple of years ago.

 

[Nors]

Sacks and interceptions do matter and if these trends continue or improve we'll win 9 to 10 games.

Free Safety and poor Safety play in coverage is holding this defense back so far. No suprise on that trainwreck.

 

[dbair1967]

Sacks and interceptions do matter and if these trends continue or improve we'll win 9 to 10 games.

Free Safety and poor Safety play in coverage is holding this defense back so far. No suprise on that trainwreck.

thats nonsense

free safety and poor safety play have little or nothing to do with a QB having too much time to pass

a team with mediocre to average DB's can still be awfully good defensively if they have a quality pass rush and can stop the run up front consistently...a team with good DB's but poor up front play will still look poor on defense

David

 

[Chocolate Lab]

"sacks" continue to be one of the more overrated stats there is...

its a glamour stat and gets attention, but again...if a QB drops back 30 times and is sacked 3 times in the game, but not touched at all on the other 27, are the 3 sacks (which is a season pace of 48) indicative of a good pass rush? no, it isnt

on the other hand, a team that gets two sacks that same game but consistently is in the face or knocking the opposing QB down, does have a good pass rush...our problem is so far this yr, the first scenario has played out mroe often than not...too many plays where a QB goes unbothered

you can have the guy that gets 12 sacks in a season but doesnt do anything else during the course of a game...give me the guy who gets 7-8 sacks, plays great run defense and consistently gets pressure

David

Amen, David. I've always thought this. I see some ends that just rush the passer hard, and they might do absolutely nothing on most run or pass plays. But if they get two sacks, even if they do nothing the other plays, it's like they had a great game.

And I don't know the numbers and I could be totally wrong, but I'd guess that a fair percentage of sacks happen on long yardage situations. In a case like that, is a three yard sack really that much better than an incompletion or a completion short of the first down? Either way, the offense still has to punt.

I'm not saying sacks are useless, but there's a lot more to the game than that.

But hey, sacks are easy to put on Sportscenter.

 

[Cbz40]

I believe it's the team that has the most points at the end of the game that wins....Correct?

So, if your D can keep the opposition from scoring, hold them to FGs in the redzone, get a few turn overs, and pressure the QB enough to to throw off his timing with his receivers, take away the run or whatever......make the O one dimensional...you should win. Sounds easy enough too me.

 

[Nors]

thats nonsense

free safety and poor safety play have little or nothing to do with a QB having too much time to pass

a team with mediocre to average DB's can still be awfully good defensively if they have a quality pass rush and can stop the run up front consistently...a team with good DB's but poor up front play will still look poor on defense

David

The 2 bombs we gave up to skins were in 4-3 - prevent d with Safeties deep. No pressure - agreed.

We keep racking up sacks and forcing turnovers we will win 9-10 games - easy.


Back to you Glooms!

 

[Nors]

Turnovers do matter - the better defenses/dominant teams created a lot of them....

Team Games TO's Wins

St. Louis 16 15 8
Green Bay 16 15 10
Oakland 16 18 5
Denver 16 20 10
Kansas City 16 20 7
San Francisco 16 21 2
Dallas 16 22 6
Minnesota 16 22 8
Detroit 16 24 6
Miami 16 25 4
Washington 16 26 6
Tampa Bay 16 27 5
Jacksonville 16 27 9
Cleveland 16 28 4
Philadelphia 16 28 13
New York (N) 16 28 6
Chicago 16 29 5
Arizona 16 30 6
Houston 16 30 7
Tennessee 16 30 5
Atlanta 16 32 11
Pittsburgh 16 32 15
New Orleans 16 33 8
San Diego 16 33 12
New York (A) 16 33 10
Baltimore 16 34 9
Seattle 16 35 9
New England 16 36 14
Cincinnati 16 36 8
Indianapolis 16 36 12
Carolina 16 38 7
Buffalo 16 39 9

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The ability to sack the QB is probably the strongest correlation to winning and losing. Or at least it has been over the past 5 years.

It's a stronger correlation that turnover margin.

Now, considering that Dallas is on pace for 48 sacks and a +1 turnover margin, they should contend for the playoffs if they maintain that pace.

However, in the past three years, Dallas got off to good starts at sacking the QB, then fizzled afterward.

Rich....

 

[blindzebra]

The 2 bombs we gave up to skins were in 4-3 - prevent d with Safeties deep. No pressure - agreed.

We keep racking up sacks and forcing turnovers we will win 9-10 games - easy.


Back to you Glooms!

Prevent is usually 3 man line, 1 LB and 7 DBs none of that is a 4-3.

We were in the NICKEL during those plays, 4-2-5, again not the 4-3.

FYI, almost all of our sacks and turnovers have come from that nickel defense, as well and NOT THE 3-4.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Nonsense. Sacks and interceptions are all that matters. Defenses that don't allow other teams to score or gain yards are overrated mirages.

At least, that's what I was told a couple of years ago.

LOL!

You are correct sir!

 

[Manster68]

started looking at some numbers today and comparing...some thoughts:

QB---way better than past few seasons...Bledsoe's overall numbers are all excellent. QB rating of 96.2, yds per attempt of 8.6 and td % of 5.6 are all better than anything we've seen in recent seasons...

RB--numbers arnt so good so far, poor run blocking being the reason IMO...Jones has only a couple runs over 10 yards (and nobody else on the team has any)...a couple of his best runs were wiped out by penalties...still, 3.5 yds per carry stinks..for someone as explosive as he showed last yr, it should be higher...run blocking has to improve

WR/TE...we have 5 players on pace for 48 plus catches...Glenn on pace for 1600 yds, Key, Witten and Crayton all on pace for over 700 yds

on defense, the numbers arnt as good...the positives are we have 12 sacks and are on pace for 48, and have 5 ints, on pace for 20...otherwise all the numbers are pretty much as bad if not worse than last yrs dreadful performance:

rush yds allowed: 2005 115.0 4.3 yds per attempt 2004 110.25 4.2 yds per attempt...both stats are worse

pass yds allowed in 2004 220.07, 7.41 yds per attempt, 61.8% cmp
in 2005 its 225 yds a game, 7.83 yds per attempt 57.1% cmp...the yds and yds per attempt are both worse

first downs 2004 18.56, 2005 17.0...slight improvement

pts allowed 2004 25.31 2005 22.0...slight improvement, but still poor

David

I have mixed feelings about the defensive numbers and if the defensive numbers will improve.

Granted, Dallas has several key rookies playing a lot and everyone is learning a new system.

However, there are still two facets to consider.

1. (I believe Nors already mentioned it) The play of the safties in coverage. I think we Cowboy fans have learned that, with todays rules handcuffing the corners, safties today must cover well in order to be successful. This will be a major problem spot for the Cowboys throughout the season.

2. The WEAK INSIDE LINEBACKERS! The Oakland Raiders have basically brueprinted how to beat the Cowboys last week. POUND POUND POUND the running game inside. The LBs will make the tackles, but they will be several yards downfield (just like what we saw last Sunday with Lamont Jordan).

So Dallas will struggle defensively as long as Nguyun, Shanle, James, and Keith Davis are on that field for an extended period of time.

Bottom line: I don't think Dallas will improve those defensive numbers.

 

[dargonking999]

I have mixed feelings about the defensive numbers and if the defensive numbers will improve.

Granted, Dallas has several key rookies playing a lot and everyone is learning a new system.

However, there are still two facets to consider.

1. (I believe Nors already mentioned it) The play of the safties in coverage. I think we Cowboy fans have learned that, with todays rules handcuffing the corners, safties today must cover well in order to be successful. This will be a major problem spot for the Cowboys throughout the season.

2. The WEAK INSIDE LINEBACKERS! The Oakland Raiders have basically brueprinted how to beat the Cowboys last week. POUND POUND POUND the running game inside. The LBs will make the tackles, but they will be several yards downfield (just like what we saw last Sunday with Lamont Jordan).

So Dallas will struggle defensively as long as Nguyun, Shanle, James, and Keith Davis are on that field for an extended period of time.

Bottom line: I don't think Dallas will improve those defensive numbers.

Funny what i saw last sunday was everybody backpelding anticpation pass to randy moss, and nobody at te LOS expect the DL, and big holes jor jordan to run through. Say what you want about the ILB, but they held LT to 72 yards on portis to 52 yards. our LB arent Ray lewis, and Trotter, but they get the job done.