I don't have a problem being excited about the brand of D that will be put on the field next year. It's definitely going to be more exciting to watch. But if it's getting them toasted every week, cuz getting toasted is also what happens when you blitz more, then the excitement is pretty shallow.smarta5150;1488913 said:
Exactly.superpunk;1488967 said:
But the thing is, prior to that NO game (particularly in that Indy game) they were performing as a Miami bound team. Hell, they obliterated the offense that conquered all in Miami. It's extremely frustrating trying to figure out what all factored into the collapse, but I do know that before the collapse, they were playing some amazing football.WoodysGirl;1488544 said:
Those numbers are biased. The numbers reflect the Dallas defense that existed before the NO game. There's a stark difference between that defense and the defense we ended the season with. If the pre-NO defense could come back, everyone would be happy. So.......to the extent that those numbers reflect 3/4 of a season of a pretty darn good team and only 1/4 of a season of a downright turd of a team, they're not very useful in comparison.superpunk;1488967 said:
But you can't parse the year into quarters when you're looking at overall numbers. Overall numbers suggest the two teams are alot more equal than given credit for. And had they finished the season on the same level as the previous 12, then they prolly would've had better numbers.theogt;1489298 said:
They had a sprinkling of bad games on the defense. I won't pretend to know the reason, but there was no clear demarcation between when they were good and when they were bad. I think, quite honestly, that before we broke down we were pretty equivalent defenses overall. They had a better pass-rush, but we had a much better secondary. We should improve on both accounts this season.superpunk;1489301 said:
Sure you can. Like I said, if the defense that existed here in the first 3/4 of the season was still here, you'd hear very little complaint about our defense. It would have finished out the season as a top 10 (maybe top 5) defense. But there's a very stark difference. It wasn't as if we had 3 or 4 bad games throughout the season. It was 4-5 straight games of horrible play. So looking at the total numbers isn't very helpful, but if you were to look at the numbers in those 4-5 games, you'd see a very real difference.WoodysGirl;1489307 said:
I agree 100%. It was in large part a psychological problem. That's part of the reason it's so frustrating to try and analyze the collapse. Like I said, the talent was there. Not only have we improved on that talent, we're going to become more agressive on defense.
Rack;1488963 said:
You point to those 4-5 straight games and say they sucked, but I look at SD's schedule and there was a period of 4-5 games in the middle where their offense bailed them out. So ok, yeah it didn't happen at the end of the season, which is more critical. But it doesn't lessen the fact that they went through a stretch of allowing 20 or more points.theogt;1489317 said:
Again, the D will be more exciting to watch, but I doubt that the end results will be that much better than this years D. Sack numbers will be up, though. I'd be curious to see how many big plays will be given up as well. This team was succeeding at what Parcells was coaching. They might not have liked it and it might have been boring to watch and hard to learn, but it was working. At one point, they were a Top 5 D higher than SD's.theogt said:
Looking at the roster, there have been some pieces added, but it's not like they overhauled the whole thing. Much of the same players who started last year, will start the beginning of this year too. In my mind, it's not ALL about the scheme, it's about the players,too. The players are the ones who failed at executing when it mattered most. That's why I have a wait and see attitude about it all.
The offense bailed them out in the Cincinatti game, but that was about it. The points may look bad in the Denver game, but the defense only gave up 2 TDs. You also have to realize that in that 4 game stretch they were missing Merriman. We know what missing a pass-rusher can do to a team, right?WoodysGirl;1489340 said:
Once he game back, the defense looks to have settled down. Well, I just vehemently disagree with you here. And by the way, more sacks do equal a better defense. The correlation is extremely high. I've ran the numbers. They correlate better than any other stat on defense.
They were succeeding early yes. And they were a Top 5 defense then. If by improving, you mean improving on that, then it'll certainly be hard to do, I agree. But most people think of those last 5 games when thinking of this defense. And I think you can contribute a good amount of that break-down to Parcells.
I think we had 3 major problems: (1) free safety, (2) Bradie James, and (3) lack of pass-rush. With Ellis healthy and drafting Spencer, Carpenter moving inside to replace James, and the signing of Ken Hamlin, I think that's a major overhaul in terms of fixing the 3 biggest problems.
What I'm cautious about is not Wade, but the players learning his defense. It's not easy learning a new scheme, and for all intents and purposes, it's a new scheme.
theogt;1489335 said:
theogt;1489363 said:
It took me a min, cuz I finishing up watching the Rockets lose...theogt;1489335 said:
So you compared our best games to their worst games. What did you expect?WoodysGirl;1489380 said:It took me a min, cuz I finishing up watching the Rockets lose...
Anywho, since we're cherry-picking stats. And pointing which games matter more than others. How about this? I picked out the 5 game run which had everybody thinking Miami, yo!
10/22 - 11/19
Dallas Opponents - Indy ARI WAS Car NYG
SD Opponents - KC, STL, CLE, CIN, DEN
Scoring
Dallas gave up 19.2 ppg
San Diego gave up 29.4 ppg
Passing
Dallas - Avg 211 ypg
San Diego - 283.6 ypg
Rushing
Dallas - Avg 3.76 ypc 93 ypg
San Diego - Avg 4.2 ypc 121.2 ypg
Total Yards per game
Dallas 324.8
San Diego 430
-------------
You can present numbers in any fashion...and overall it'll still show the same. Both teams went thru stretches where their D caved.
You can pick and choose what points are relevant, but the facts remain is their D went thru a bad stretch that would have had this board exploding and wanting to get rid of everybody even Wade. Missing Merriman, only gave up 2 TDs. Those are the kinda excuses you hear on this board when defending the D. Point remains is the end result.theogt;1489343 said:The offense bailed them out in the Cincinatti game, but that was about it. The points may look bad in the Denver game, but the defense only gave up 2 TDs. You also have to realize that in that 4 game stretch they were missing Merriman. We know what missing a pass-rusher can do to a team, right?
I'm not defending the lack of sacks or pressure. The point I'm making is that even with all the pressure that SD was supposed to have generated, the numbers for their D ended up on par with the 'boys.
Early to me means the first 3 or 4 games. The D produced consistent numbers for 12 games. It wasn't an up and down thing throughout the season. It was consistent throughout until the NO game. Then they totally cratered. But you can't hold up those 4 games or so and say, "That's what this D really is"
I see it shoring up vs overhauling. Where do you think James is going? Do you think he's not going to play. If so, that's not being realistic. James will prolly start on 1st and 2nd.
If you read Ireland, he said that Bill's D is actually harder to learn, so the transition to Wade's is easier on the guys. And it should make them play better having played in both systems.
But isn't that what you did? You picked the 'boys worst games and compared them to San Diego's. What did you expect?theogt;1489384 said:
The initial numbers I presented were teh WHOLE season. You just think that the last 1/4 represent what the D on the whole is all about. And that's just as inaccurate as me pulling out games from the middle of the season and saying see "These guys suck too!"
I've said over and over, that the 'boys were BETTER than San Diego for much of the season. Perception says SD is better cuz they produce alot of sexy stats. Reality says the 'boys were right with them as far as skill level.
The numbers I provided don't prove anything other than the 'boys didn't have a bad defense overall. The collapsed at the wrong time, but they were not bad. The problem is that all people remember is the collapse and none of the good things they were able to do last year prior to the collapse.
DragonCowboy;1489365 said:
