Are you concerned about the size of our DL?

[dfense]

Graph doesn't take into account 3-4 vs 4-3. And that fat Giants line couldn't get to the QB or stop the run very well last year.

That's a prime example of "stats lie".

 

[JohnsKey19]

Not when the information used is flawed.

Yeah their numbers are way off. Most of our DL are average sized or heavier for their position. Gregory is the only guy who is considered undersized, but we know he'll be a sub-package pass rusher only.

 

[AbeBeta]

Lawrence - 265
Crawford - 290
Hayden/McClain - 303
Hardy - 279

= 284

Even if you sub in Mincey as he's likely the DE in the base instead of Gregory, you are still around 284 (Mincey is 280)

More generally, it would be smarter to look at the 8 guys who will actually see action

Lawrence - 265, Crawford - 290, Hayden - 303, McClain - 302, Hardy - 280, Mincey - 280, Gregory - 255, and either Gardener (270) or Crawford (288)

That's an average of somewhere between 280 and 283

 

[AbeBeta]

Graph doesn't take into account 3-4 vs 4-3. And that fat Giants line couldn't get to the QB or stop the run very well last year.

That's a prime example of "stats lie".

1. Stats don't lie. People just are bad at using critical thinking skills to interpret them

2. The graph clearly notes 4-3 Ds.

3. Another issue with statistics is that people fail to take the time to try to understand what is being presented.

 

[Manster68]

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2015...es-by-weight-giants-heaviest-cowboys-lightest

Granted, Marinelli preaches pursuit on defense and lighter lineman should be able to do this more effectively. However, we are an extreme outlier compared to the rest of the league and giving up that much size is somewhat concerning. The defenses in Tampa Bay that Marinelli oversaw were known as prioritizing speed over size, but even that defense was anchored by two 300+ pounders in Sapp and McFarland.

I was concerned about the defensive line back in 1992 & 1993. However that seemed to have worked out pretty well as the Cowboys ended up #1 in total defense in 1992 by vast rotation of highly talented players. Jimmie Jones, Chad Hennings, Jim Jeffcoat, and Leon Lett BACKED UP Haley, Maryland, Casillias, and Tolbert.

The front office and the coaching staff are trying to duplicate that. However, many of the players today on the line are very young and very raw.

 

[Maxmadden]

If you look at the best OL in the NFL. (I will just use our OL as an example.) The defensive guys we have trouble with across the line are, lighter, faster, quick twitch guys. Suh is an exception always.

 

[Maxmadden]

I was concerned about the defensive line back in 1992 & 1993. However that seemed to have worked out pretty well as the Cowboys ended up #1 in total defense in 1992 by vast rotation of highly talented players. Jimmie Jones, Chad Hennings, Jim Jeffcoat, and Leon Lett BACKED UP Haley, Maryland, Casillias, and Tolbert.

The front office and the coaching staff are trying to duplicate that. However, many of the players today on the line are very young and very raw.

The key is, for our offense to force their offense to keep up. And I don't think we need to necessarily do that by running the ball.

 

[MonsterD]

We are light, that is a fact overall. Also consider that we will be using, J.Crawford, Mincey and Hardy as DTs a lot. I am not sure how it will play out against the run, our Lbers will be busy though.

 

[Plankton]

It was Morris.

And it was bloody effective until O'Donnell gave the game away.

The Dallas D had not seen a rushing attack like Pittsburgh's and they would have caved if not for the success of the Dallas offense and the ineffectiveness of the Steelers passing game at crucial times.

This defense appears to be designed in a similar fashion: aggressive scheme, speed, and sure tackling. If a team has a great running game they will be challenged.

Seriously?

The Cowboys faced the Eagles, Chiefs, and Commanders that season, all of whom were more productive rushing the football than the 1995 Steelers.

The Steelers averaged 3.1 ypc on 31 attempts in the game. Their running game was so effective that on a key 4th down, Bam Morris was stuffed by Shante Carver, and failed to gain the yardage necessary.

Shante Carver.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Seriously?

The Cowboys faced the Eagles, Chiefs, and Commanders that season, all of whom were more productive rushing the football than the 1995 Steelers.

The Steelers averaged 3.1 ypc on 31 attempts in the game. Their running game was so effective that on a key 4th down, Bam Morris was stuffed by Shante Carver, and failed to gain the yardage necessary.

Shante Carver.

Believe what you want. I was there; I know what I saw.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the Steelers offense was only ranked around top ten in rushing during the season but Super Bowls are always less predictable. They (Steelers) were ranked as a top-five offense that year and the running game was big part of it.

BTW, the great Dallas running game barely gained 60 yards. The entire game. Seriously.

 

[jday]

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2015...es-by-weight-giants-heaviest-cowboys-lightest

Granted, Marinelli preaches pursuit on defense and lighter lineman should be able to do this more effectively. However, we are an extreme outlier compared to the rest of the league and giving up that much size is somewhat concerning. The defenses in Tampa Bay that Marinelli oversaw were known as prioritizing speed over size, but even that defense was anchored by two 300+ pounders in Sapp and McFarland.

It certainly merits watching. In goalline situations, in particular, you have to think the Cowboys could possibly struggle to hold opposing offenses when all that is needed is a yard or less.

 

[Plankton]

Believe what you want. I was there; I know what I saw.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the Steelers offense was only ranked around top ten in rushing during the season but Super Bowls are always less predictable. They (Steelers) were ranked as a top-five offense that year and the running game was big part of it.

BTW, the great Dallas running game barely gained 60 yards. The entire game. Seriously.

And won the game. With two rushing touchdowns inside the 10 yard line, where rushing yards are hard to come by. And, they still punched it in when it counted.

When the Steelers needed one yard, they couldn't get it. Stopped by Shante Carver.

Glad you were there to enjoy the game. The Steelers had the 12th best rushing attack in yardage in 1995 - stop trying to quantify what was statistically incorrect - the Cowboys had faced better rushing attacks multiple times during the season.

 

[Maxmadden]

Believe what you want. I was there; I know what I saw.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the Steelers offense was only ranked around top ten in rushing during the season but Super Bowls are always less predictable. They (Steelers) were ranked as a top-five offense that year and the running game was big part of it.

BTW, the great Dallas running game barely gained 60 yards. The entire game. Seriously.

You saw Dallas win the Superbowl 27 - 17. Pittsburgh came out in the second half and gained momentum. O'Donnell contributed to it, but we were able to regain momentum regardless of how we did it , we did. If not for O'Donnell, we would have found some other way. It was in the cards.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

And won the game. With two rushing touchdowns inside the 10 yard line, where rushing yards are hard to come by. And, they still punched it in when it counted.

When the Steelers needed one yard, they couldn't get it. Stopped by Shante Carver.

Glad you were there to enjoy the game. The Steelers had the 12th best rushing attack in yardage in 1995 - stop trying to quantify what was statistically incorrect - the Cowboys had faced better rushing attacks multiple times during the season.

My point was: A solid running game will be able to take advantage of this defense if QB play is solid. I'm sorry you missed it, along with the Steeler turnovers (setting up easy Cowboys TDs) contributing to their inability to rely on the running game.

It was a great game, though, as have all the Cowboys Super Bowls of the 90s I had the privilege of attending.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

You saw Dallas win the Superbowl 27 - 17. Pittsburgh came out in the second half and gained momentum. O'Donnell contributed to it, but we were able to regain momentum regardless of how we did it , we did. If not for O'Donnell, we would have found some other way. It was in the cards.

I attended the two Super Bowls versus Buffalo so yes, I was expecting them to pull it off. It was in the cards.

 

[Maxmadden]

I attended the two Super Bowls versus Buffalo so yes, I was expecting them to pull it off. It was in the cards.

Next time we are in the Superbowl you gotta go. 3 -0

 

[Plankton]

My point was: A solid running game will be able to take advantage of this defense if QB play is solid. I'm sorry you missed it, along with the Steeler turnovers (setting up easy Cowboys TDs) contributing to their inability to rely on the running game.

It was a great game, though, as have all the Cowboys Super Bowls of the 90s I had the privilege of attending.

Your point, while correct in general, was not the case in this game.

They ran the ball 31 times in the game.

For the season, they averaged 31 carries per game.

In the Super Bowl, they ran for 103 yards.

They averaged 115 yards per game during the season.

For the season, the Steelers averaged 244 net yards per game passing, and 1.3 interceptions per game.

In the Super Bowl, they threw for 207 net yards, and threw three interceptions, one of which came on the last play of the game.

If anything, Pittsburgh played to their statistical model for the 1995 season. There was no inability to rely on the running game - it performed the way it had all season. The passing game also performed the way it had on the average for the season, if anything, it performed below average in terms of output.

The Cowboys didn't perform to their season level offensively. Not even close, in fact. But, when they needed to gain yards on the ground, they did.

And when Pittsburgh needed to, they couldn't.

 

[AsthmaField]

Not too worried. The key will be the rotation.

Marinelli is going to have around 8 guys rotating in throughout the game. The Dallas line will have at least 4 ends (Hardy, Gregory, Lawrence, Mincey) and probably one more of Russell or Gardner. Of those guys, Hardy, Mincey and reportedly even Lawrence can move down inside in the nickle.

T Crawford, J Crawford (reported to be mainly a DT now), Bishop, Hayden, Coleman will all be able to rotate in to stay fresh.

That is 10 overall with probably 8 active on game day.

Marinelli has said that effort and fatigue are bigger factors in the run game than an extra 20 pounds of fat on a guy.

They were ok last year and they'll be better this year.

Not worried. This is tantamount to fear mongering.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Your point, while correct in general, was not the case in this game.

They ran the ball 31 times in the game.

For the season, they averaged 31 carries per game.

In the Super Bowl, they ran for 103 yards.

They averaged 115 yards per game during the season.

For the season, the Steelers averaged 244 net yards per game passing, and 1.3 interceptions per game.

In the Super Bowl, they threw for 207 net yards, and threw three interceptions, one of which came on the last play of the game.

If anything, Pittsburgh played to their statistical model for the 1995 season. There was no inability to rely on the running game - it performed the way it had all season. The passing game also performed the way it had on the average for the season, if anything, it performed below average in terms of output.

The Cowboys didn't perform to their season level offensively. Not even close, in fact. But, when they needed to gain yards on the ground, they did.

And when Pittsburgh needed to, they couldn't.

You get a like because you just brought back some great memories! I was young, and foolish, then and I thought Super Bowl championships would rain from the sky.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Next time we are in the Superbowl you gotta go. 3 -0

No more Super Bowls for me. I was young, single and money was no object then; now I'd have to take the wife and I'd be on a tight budget. : (