1992 Cowboys and 2013 Seahawks

[casmith07]

Yeah, I have never seen a defensive line that consistently runs down HB screens in the backfield.



No, that isn't how he played at UNC.

Yes it was. The knock on him was instincts. He played with them in 2012, and didn't in 2013. If he plays purely off his instincts and doesn't try to think about his assignments too much, he's excellent.

 

[bark]

Today I learnt me sumethin... The # 1 ranked defense on one of the best teams ever assembled was not physical. This was put out there on Dallas cowboy forum by a head proof reader... Smh
I am glad none of them opponents ever tried to just run it down our throats... Heck we may not have even sniffed the playoffs...much less finished first in defensive rankings.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

When I watched how the Seahawks dominated the high powered Denver offense it took me back to how the 1992 Cowboys dominated the high powered Bills offense. Do you guys think that this Seahawks team resembled the 1992 Cowboys with their dominating performance in the Super Bowl?

yes, in a way. I think the 1992 team would beat this team, because the offense was that much better and deeper. with that said, both teams had deep DL, versatile. good LB group and we had pretty deep secondary and very versatile.

 

[Nova]

He did and his game was not really power. It was quickness, which is why they called him Big Cat. And for the record, he didn't start on that 92 Defense. The Starters on that Defense were:

Tolbert 6'6" 268 lbs DE
Haley 6'5" 252 lbs DE
Casillas 6'3" 278 lbs DT
Maryland 6'1" 300 lbs DT

Three things come to mind, all related.

1. Yes. Seattle's defense is bigger than our guys were. But, over time players naturally get bigger. 20 years ago, would the Cowboys be considered a sizable line?

2. Seattle's defense probably more closely resembles a typical 3-4 defense up front. Bryant, McDaniel, and Mebane are all 300+ pound 2 gap players. Their alignment has Irvin standing up on the strong side like a typical ROLB and is sized about like one as well with similar responsibilities. And Clemmons has his hand in the dirt, but that's probably the only difference between he and a 3-4 LOLB. The biggest difference is that they line up in gaps opposed to lining up directly over O-lineman, hat on hat. The comparison starts to break down when you get to the other two linebackers, though.

The point is that we all are very aware that 3-4 defenses need bigger guys on the DL to function, so we probably should be comparing them to other 3-4 DLs of 1992.

3. And if that's an acceptable assumption and we're comparing them to other 3-4 DLs, the Seahawks defense is incredibly larger than two prominent 3-4s of that era (Giants and Steelers).

'92 Steelers:
LDE: Kenny Davidson 6'5", 272lbs
DT: Gerald Williams 6'3", 290lbs
RDE: Donald Evans 6'2", 282lbs
Average weight: 281lbs
'92 Giants:
LDE: Eric Dorsey: 6'5" 272lbs
NT: Erik Howard: 6'4" 275lbs
RDE: Leonard Marshall: 6'2" 282lbs
Average Weight: 276lbs
13 Seahawks:
RDE: Red Bryant 6'4" 323lbs
DT: Tony McDaniel 6'7" 307lbs
DT: Brandon Mebane 6'1" 311lbs
Average weight: 313lbs


All things being equal... were the Cowboys much smaller when you adjust for change in era?

Genuine question. I'm not old enough to remember the times.

 

[5Stars]

Sherman vs. Irvin would be a lot of fun to watch.

Yeah, Sherman would have mouthed off to Irvin and Irvin would have blasted that punk. Oh, did I say, I hate that punk Sherman?

 

[CyberB0b]

2. Seattle's defense probably more closely resembles a typical 3-4 defense up front. Bryant, McDaniel, and Mebane are all 300+ pound 2 gap players. Their alignment has Irvin standing up on the strong side like a typical ROLB and is sized about like one as well with similar responsibilities. And Clemmons has his hand in the dirt, but that's probably the only difference between he and a 3-4 LOLB. The biggest difference is that they line up in gaps opposed to lining up directly over O-lineman, hat on hat. The comparison starts to break down when you get to the other two linebackers, though.

That is due to running a 4-3 under alignment. It allows them flexibility with guys like Irvin, Avril, and Bennett. They can play at DT, DE, or pass rushing LEO.

 

[ringmaster]

yes, in a way. I think the 1992 team would beat this team, because the offense was that much better and deeper. with that said, both teams had deep DL, versatile. good LB group and we had pretty deep secondary and very versatile.

You're correct.

 

[5Stars]

Biggest difference between our defense and the Seattle defense is not physical IMO. It's our ability to tackle. That defense tackles you where they first make contact and you don't run for a lot of additional yardage. We don't do that. We are a horrible tackling team and we often allow guys to break tackles and make big plays. Until that gets fixed, we might as well stop trying to compare players and schemes because it won't matter. That will always separate these two units.

I wonder if that was the product of trying to strip the ball all the time rather than just tackling the ball carrier?

Remember when it was reported that there was a football on a stand in the defensive meeting room where when all the players entered the had to touch the football? That might have backfired on the coach who implemented it.

I've seen to many times during a Cowboy game where instead of actually wrapping up the runner, the tackler seemed to focus on the ball more than getting the guy down. But, I could be wrong, just an observation...

 

[TwoDeep3]

Seattle might find it difficult to score.

 

[Nova]

That is due to running a 4-3 under alignment. It allows them flexibility with guys like Irvin, Avril, and Bennett. They can play at DT, DE, or pass rushing LEO.

It's a 4-3 under hybrid, that has a lot more in common with the 3-4, IMO. Even the 3 tech, Mebane will often pull 2 gap duty.

The entire Left side is basically the 3-4, wiith the difference of course being alignment.

*The 4 tech [Bryant] has the same duties as a 5 tech in a fairly standard 3-4
*1 tech [McDaniel] has the same assignments as 0 in a standard 3-4.
*Irvin is an outside linebacker playing the 'under' aspect, so his responsibilities, alignment, and stance are the same as a standard 3-4 OLB.

Where it starts to break down is with Mebane, and to a smaller extent, Clemmons. Mebane is way too far in and playing 1 gap only. He's essentially Jason Hatcher and that's a pretty typical thing you'd see in a normal 4-3 under. Same with Clemmons. Clemmons is strictly rushing the passer and not dropping into coverage almost ever. But the distinction between a 3-4 OLB and 4-3 weakside DE isn't really that notable in certain schemes.

But of course, these guys will often multiple responsibilities from this formation, too.

You're not wrong. Again, it's a 4-3 under hybrid, so it can't really be classified.

Personally I just see it as more of a 3-4, because of two things

*A true 4-3 under is a single gap scheme. Like what we run.
*The majority (3/5s) of the guys around the line of scrimmage are essentially playing a 3-4.

 

[bark]

Seattle might find it difficult to score.

No way.. Marshawn lynch would have killed us the way we ran around blocks.

 

[CyberB0b]

You're not wrong. Again, it's a 4-3 under hybrid, so it can't really be classified.

Yeah, we aren't disagreeing with each other. That alignment has a lot of flexibility. It's funny, because Kiffin ran the 4-3 under in Tampa in the early 2000's, but we didn't seem to run it much last year.

 

[thechosen1n2]

When I watched how the Seahawks dominated the high powered Denver offense it took me back to how the 1992 Cowboys dominated the high powered Bills offense. Do you guys think that this Seahawks team resembled the 1992 Cowboys with their dominating performance in the Super Bowl?

Thats the first thing My Pops called and said to me. Those Seahawks remind me of the 90s cowboys...he then said. "That Darn Jerry Jones is a fool for getting rid of Jimmy Johnson"

 

[rags747]

92 team wins that bet. Aikman better than Wilson, Smith better than Lynch, Irvin better than u name it. OL was much better across the board and that 92 defense was nothing to sneeze at. I do love how Seattle played that game though, was knock em out right from the get go...boy do I misses those dominate days.

 

[Nova]

Yeah, we aren't disagreeing with each other. That alignment has a lot of flexibility. It's funny, because Kiffin ran the 4-3 under in Tampa in the early 2000's, but we didn't seem to run it much last year.

Do you mean the 4-3 over base? I didn't see that much, but I saw it a few times here and there. Same goes for the Tampa 2 coverage. Didn't see much of it.

The 4-3 under base we ran quite a bit. But we were forced into Nickel situations seemingly just as many times.

I really haven't gone back and studied the defense on coaches film to keep track of stuff like that yet. I've watched some film on the defense, but overall it's too soon to watch such a brutal performance. Maybe in May when I'm starved for football and I've watched as much tape on our draft prospects as possible.

 

[RastaRocket]

Frankly with the salary cap ... i dont think anyone will ever get a better overall d line that those early 90s cowboys team.

Definitely, no team in the cap era will be able to match the 90's Cowboys.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Three things come to mind, all related.

1. Yes. Seattle's defense is bigger than our guys were. But, over time players naturally get bigger. 20 years ago, would the Cowboys be considered a sizable line?

2. Seattle's defense probably more closely resembles a typical 3-4 defense up front. Bryant, McDaniel, and Mebane are all 300+ pound 2 gap players. Their alignment has Irvin standing up on the strong side like a typical ROLB and is sized about like one as well with similar responsibilities. And Clemmons has his hand in the dirt, but that's probably the only difference between he and a 3-4 LOLB. The biggest difference is that they line up in gaps opposed to lining up directly over O-lineman, hat on hat. The comparison starts to break down when you get to the other two linebackers, though.

The point is that we all are very aware that 3-4 defenses need bigger guys on the DL to function, so we probably should be comparing them to other 3-4 DLs of 1992.

3. And if that's an acceptable assumption and we're comparing them to other 3-4 DLs, the Seahawks defense is incredibly larger than two prominent 3-4s of that era (Giants and Steelers).

'92 Steelers:
LDE: Kenny Davidson 6'5", 272lbs
DT: Gerald Williams 6'3", 290lbs
RDE: Donald Evans 6'2", 282lbs
Average weight: 281lbs
'92 Giants:
LDE: Eric Dorsey: 6'5" 272lbs
NT: Erik Howard: 6'4" 275lbs
RDE: Leonard Marshall: 6'2" 282lbs
Average Weight: 276lbs
13 Seahawks:
RDE: Red Bryant 6'4" 323lbs
DT: Tony McDaniel 6'7" 307lbs
DT: Brandon Mebane 6'1" 311lbs
Average weight: 313lbs


All things being equal... were the Cowboys much smaller when you adjust for change in era?

Genuine question. I'm not old enough to remember the times.

I actually didn't really intend to make size the issue. My point is that the actual style of defensive scheme and play is different. The Cowboys defense of those 90s teams were not built to be strong and physical like the Eagles defenses were, for example. They were built to be quick and agile. They did it with speed and quickness.

The Seattle defense is not that way. They are designed to be physical at the point of attack and just overpower you. Very different approach to playing Defense. Our Offense was explosive and designed around ball control. We planned on having the ball for long periods of time. Our defense was designed to three and out the opposition. Seattle's defense is built to last for as long as it takes. Just a different style and approach to playing defense IMO.

However, if you want to look at average sizes of defenses in the 90s, perhaps we can do that. According to this article, average height and weight of DEs and DTs in the early 90s were as follows:

DE 6'3" 277 lbs.

DT 6'2" 300 lbs.


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493

So, I mean, even if you look at the averages, we were still undersized on our DL but again, I don't really think it has anything to do with actual size. It's more about the style of play IMO.

 

[CyberB0b]

Do you mean the 4-3 over base? I didn't see that much, but I saw it a few times here and there. Same goes for the Tampa 2 coverage. Didn't see much of it.

The 4-3 under base we ran quite a bit. But we were forced into Nickel situations seemingly just as many times.

I really haven't gone back and studied the defense on coaches film to keep track of stuff like that yet. I've watched some film on the defense, but overall it's too soon to watch such a brutal performance. Maybe in May when I'm starved for football and I've watched as much tape on our draft prospects as possible.

I just loaded up the coaches film for week 1. It looks like we ran a traditional stack formation for most of the 4-3 plays.

 

[ringmaster]

Thats the first thing My Pops called and said to me. Those Seahawks remind me of the 90s cowboys...he then said. "That Darn Jerry Jones is a fool for getting rid of Jimmy Johnson"

Your dad was right on the money with that one for sure.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I wonder if that was the product of trying to strip the ball all the time rather than just tackling the ball carrier?

Remember when it was reported that there was a football on a stand in the defensive meeting room where when all the players entered the had to touch the football? That might have backfired on the coach who implemented it.

I've seen to many times during a Cowboy game where instead of actually wrapping up the runner, the tackler seemed to focus on the ball more than getting the guy down. But, I could be wrong, just an observation...

I'd like to think that it was but honestly, I don't really think so. We were a terrible tackling team even before we put such an emphasis on creating TOs. I just think we don't draft players who are fundamentally sound.

I believe that once you get into the Pro's, it's a lot more about coaching scheme and a lot less about teaching technique fundamentals. JMO though.