Cowboys defense - Not all bad

[xwalker]

200%.

I mentioned this in his Dez thread. It's too bad the forum as a whole doesn't see this yet. The OP has a history of these types of threads.

You have a history of attacking other posters but not providing any substance yourself.

You are still butthurt from years ago when I proved you wrong multiple times.

You have provided no substance in this thread or the Dez thread.

Your 1 in 5 like/post ratio is the worst I've seen.

 

[Melonfeud]

I agree to an extent but there was a high probability of winning the Rams and Packers games if a play or two on offense had gone differently.

Considering the lack of experience on defense and the lack of talent (Heath, etc..) at some positions, the fact that they've been competitive in 4 of 5 games must mean the scheme is doing some things right.

Ya,know Bro?
The common concurrence going into this season WAS that the rapid influx of drafted rookies hitting the field were NOT gonna be of optimum performance straight outta the gate,,, but methinks a stronger casing-liner rides the undercurrent thus far into it

 

[CowboyStar88]

Where are the turnovers?

 

[TheHerd]

Where are the turnovers?

Ask TWill.

 

[Melonfeud]

Lee easily could have been the difference in the Packers and Rams games.

Without a questionable doubt
but neither are those two franchises hoisting the Lombardi Trophy in "18" either
(Just laying it down as it falls)

 

[xwalker]

Ya,know Bro?
The common concurrence going into this season WAS that the rapid influx of drafted rookies hitting the field were NOT gonna be of optimum performance straight outta the gate,,, but methinks a stronger casing-liner rides the undercurrent thus far into it

It's difficult but doable to start 1 rookie with 10 saavy veterans; however, when the rookie is surrounded by other inexperienced players, the challenge increases exponentially.

 

[Melonfeud]

Ouch

Watch out,PRIME!
That's a trigger word in the 'Putty's' chamber of mental casing-liner delights

 

[Melonfeud]

It's difficult but doable to start 1 rookie with 10 saavy veterans; however, when the rookie is surrounded by other inexperienced players, the challenge increases exponentially.

Great post,man! As it's
'Salient' in fact,feature & a singular simplicity

 

[StarOfGlory]

Is it the defense has given them enough of a chance to win, or the offense has scored enough points to give them a chance to win? In our last three games we have scored, respectively, 28, 30, and 31 points. Our record in those games, despite averaging 29.7 ppg., is 1-2. How much more does the offense have to do? The defense is bad. Let's not sugarcoat this---an offense scoring almost 30 points per game should not be looking at an 1-2 record over that time period.

Now let's have a quick look at our wonderful rivals in first place, the Eagles. During their time riding to a 5-1 record, they have put backups, 3rd stringers/special teamers, and freaking practice squad players on defense and still are winning. Are Eagle defense scrubs better than our starters? Or is Jim Schwartz and his scheme that much better than ours? Is is a combination of both? Hell, I don't know, but I do know that a defense that can't win games when the offense is putting up nearly 30 ppg is not much of a defense. It sure as hell isn't Dak's fault, is it?

 

[waldoputty]

The TWill blunder was likely a 10 or 14 point swing. It was 7 points for GB but probably took away a field goal on that drive by the Cowboys.

Even with the TWill blunder, the Cowboys were a run play to use up clock away from winning. Considering they played a top 2 QB, it's hard to blame all of that game on the defense.

yea, on the coaches and the defense

 

[xwalker]

Is it the defense has given them enough of a chance to win, or the offense has scored enough points to give them a chance to win? In our last three games we have scored, respectively, 28, 30, and 31 points. Our record in those games, despite averaging 29.7 ppg., is 1-2. How much more does the offense have to do? The defense is bad. Let's not sugarcoat this---an offense scoring almost 30 points per game should not be looking at an 1-2 record over that time period.

Now let's have a quick look at our wonderful rivals in first place, the Eagles. During their time riding to a 5-1 record, they have put backups, 3rd stringers/special teamers, and freaking practice squad players on defense and still are winning. Are Eagle defense scrubs better than our starters? Or is Jim Schwartz and his scheme that much better than ours? Is is a combination of both? Hell, I don't know, but I do know that a defense that can't win games when the offense is putting up nearly 30 ppg is not much of a defense. It sure as hell isn't Dak's fault, is it?

30 points per game is the rule of thumb on what you need to score to win consistently.

20 years ago that number was 20 point but in the modern pass happy NFL teams score faster and get more possessions.

The Packers have averaged 29 points per game and the Cowboys defense held them to 28.

 

[xwalker]

Is it the defense has given them enough of a chance to win, or the offense has scored enough points to give them a chance to win? In our last three games we have scored, respectively, 28, 30, and 31 points. Our record in those games, despite averaging 29.7 ppg., is 1-2. How much more does the offense have to do? The defense is bad. Let's not sugarcoat this---an offense scoring almost 30 points per game should not be looking at an 1-2 record over that time period.

Now let's have a quick look at our wonderful rivals in first place, the Eagles. During their time riding to a 5-1 record, they have put backups, 3rd stringers/special teamers, and freaking practice squad players on defense and still are winning. Are Eagle defense scrubs better than our starters? Or is Jim Schwartz and his scheme that much better than ours? Is is a combination of both? Hell, I don't know, but I do know that a defense that can't win games when the offense is putting up nearly 30 ppg is not much of a defense. It sure as hell isn't Dak's fault, is it?

I think you need to take another look at the Eagles defensive roster...

 

[xwalker]

yea, on the coaches and the defense

I don't read minds...

 

[CCBoy]

Our defensive scheme relies on the other team's offense making self-inflicted mistakes or our defense getting turnovers. Long ago, that philosophy worked, but in today's NFL, teams are less likely to make mistakes against weak defenses and our defense is not generating turnovers.

A passive defense just makes no sense...gambling with a little aggression, couldn't be any worse. The potential for change is at least added.

 

[RS12]

This defense requires LBs that can run, currently it doesnt have any. Offense has to put up 4 TDs just to be even.

 

[perrykemp]

200%.

I mentioned this in his Dez thread. It's too bad the forum as a whole doesn't see this yet. The OP has a history of these types of threads.

xWalker is one of favorite (Top 5) posters on CZ.

I come here for his takes.... even when I don't agree with them, I think they are well formulated.

 

[armadillooutlaw]

Eh... Defense has been that bad. When you average 29.6 points a game in three games and you're only 1-2 over that span it means your defense is pretty dang bad.
You have some bright spots like Lewis, he's balling. D-Law is playing like a beast.
I like Awuzie and Woods has really impressed me. I still think Maliek is pretty good but we don't have a good 1T to eat up double teams that can help him out. We just need a Big strong hoss NT to plug the run and push the pocket. Need some good LBs besides Lee, including a MLB that can cover well and play the run. Also need a big-time weakside DE that can get after the QB. We have a lot of young talent at Corner. Upgrade MLB, NT, Weakside DE and get a good cover S and I think we could have a good defense.

 

[Gameover]

Sacks sacks sacks

How good of a run defender is Lawrence?

I don't think he's good enough

 

[SSoup]

The D stink and couldn't stop a team to save their lives when it count. Moving forward this team should focus strictly on offense. At as if there is no defense. They should be very aggressive moving forward.

Pointless aggressiveness on offense cost us the Packers game. Don't call that pass play that resulted in the pick-six? We probably win. Don't call that passing play that stopped the clock? At worst, we go to overtime, and maybe we win.

Pointless aggressiveness by a unit other than our defense (with Switzer fumbling away the football) cost us in another game.

The defense isn't good. But when the offense grinds and chews up clock, it helps. Notice the guy who pointed out earlier in this thread that the Packers only scored less because our offense held the ball so long in the 4th qtr? Our offense methodically running and eating up clock is our best chance to help the defense.

The more aggressive we get, the more careless we get. We turn the ball over and we sabotage a defense that for sure isn't good enough to beat the opposing offense and to overcome our careless turnovers by the offense and kick returners.

So asking for amped-up aggressiveness by the offense is only going to result in the offense turning the ball over more and eating less clock, and it'll result in opponents scoring even more than they already are. Your plan ends with the defense spending more time on the field and opponents scoring more and winning more easily. We're harder to beat (and to score a lot on) when we run and grind that clock down.

You're basically saying: "This defense is terrible. But I have an idea to put them on the field EVEN MORE than they already are. How's that sound?" It sounds like a bad plan to me.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

Our defensive scheme relies on the other team's offense making self-inflicted mistakes or our defense getting turnovers. Long ago, that philosophy worked, but in today's NFL, teams are less likely to make mistakes against weak defenses and our defense is not generating turnovers.

Key phrase....”LONG AGO”!