Defense wins in the playoffs

[Eskimo]

FWIW-we were #15 ranked overall in '93(it was the '94 team that fell short which was #1 overall).

That 94 team also fell flat against the 49ers in the regular season and then didn't help out the offense by giving the 49ers two of their 3 kick TDs that came off of offensive turnovers. Holding them to FGs at least once would have changed the complexion of that game.

They also let the 49ers offense respond everytime the offense got within striking distance.

I actually think the 94 defense may have been the best during that 4-year stretch run but it did come up short when it mattered most.

 

[Eskimo]

We also didn't play all that great down the stretch. Miami schooled us on T-Giving, Philly torched us in the first wk of Dec(they had 2 guys rushing over 100 yards that game), and, of course, Carolina took us to the woodshed in the playoffs.

Fair enough, but I really think we beat alot of lousy teams that year and played over our heads in two games in the reg. season - one against Philly and one against Carolina.

That was a good defense playing over its head. The next year would show us how weak that unit truly was. It then resulted in us changing our whole defensive scheme. Parcells himself admitted that he was lulled into complacency by the performance of that defense.

 

[Boysboy]

That 94 team also fell flat against the 49ers in the regular season and then didn't help out the offense by giving the 49ers two of their 3 kick TDs that came off of offensive turnovers. Holding them to FGs at least once would have changed the complexion of that game.

They also let the 49ers offense respond everytime the offense got within striking distance.

I actually think the 94 defense may have been the best during that 4-year stretch run but it did come up short when it mattered most.

I thought Shanahan came up with a brilliant game plan in that '94 reg season meeting-he kept bootlegging Young throughout most of the game, helping him to scramble around and avoiding pressure.

And no-our D didn't lose that game(at least not completely). Erik Williams' loss started to show, as old-man Rickey Jackson started schooling Larry Allen, and, of course, the Niners won the TO battle in this one(while we won the TO battle in our previous 3 games). Those 2 redzone TOs made a big difference in this game.

 

[Boysboy]

Fair enough, but I really think we beat alot of lousy teams that year and played over our heads in two games in the reg. season - one against Philly and one against Carolina.

That was a good defense playing over its head. The next year would show us how weak that unit truly was. It then resulted in us changing our whole defensive scheme. Parcells himself admitted that he was lulled into complacency by the performance of that defense.

With the 1st Philly game-remember McNabb had a bum ankle and a sprained thumb, and Bobby Taylor/Troy Vincent(and I believe Dawkins as well) didn't play.(When McNabb took off the support bandage in the next couple of weeks, he started to play alot better)

No-not saying we would have lost this game if otherwise, but those guys were healthy in the 2nd meeting.

The Carolina game at TX Stadium, OTOH, we played lights out, I agree.

 

[Eskimo]

I thought Shanahan came up with a brilliant game plan in that '94 reg season meeting-he kept bootlegging Young throughout most of the game, helping him to scramble around and avoiding pressure.

And no-our D didn't lose that game(at least not completely). Erik Williams' loss started to show, as old-man Rickey Jackson started schooling Larry Allen, and, of course, the Niners won the TO battle in this one(while we won the TO battle in our previous 3 games). Those 2 redzone TOs made a big difference in this game.

Part of the problem was the Allen was playing on a badly sprained ankle and we refused to put Ron Stone in the game. Stone was a good backup and would later make the Pro Bowl with the Giants. I thought it was beyond stupid to leave Allen out there hobbling.

 

[Eskimo]

With the 1st Philly game-remember McNabb had a bum ankle and a sprained thumb, and Bobby Taylor/Troy Vincent(and I believe Dawkins as well) didn't play.(When McNabb took off the support bandage in the next couple of weeks, he started to play alot better)

No-not saying we would have lost this game if otherwise, but those guys were healthy in the 2nd meeting.

The Carolina game at TX Stadium, OTOH, we played lights out, I agree.

We benefitted in that Philly game from that Randal Williams return on the surprise onsides kick and rode a wave of emotion to victory. I can't remember Philly's injury situation but I'll take your word for it.

I think the point overall stands that we played over our heads to beat them team, shorthanded as they were. We were not in their league that year and this would be shown in the game later that year where they trounced us.

 

[Boysboy]

We benefitted in that Philly game from that Randal Williams return on the surprise onsides kick and rode a wave of emotion to victory. I can't remember Philly's injury situation but I'll take your word for it.

I think the point overall stands that we played over our heads to beat them team, shorthanded as they were. We were not in their league that year and this would be shown in the game later that year where they trounced us.

Even our former guys like Jimmy Johnson and Deion Sanders kept saying we were playing over our heads every single week.

Honestly-overachieving that year was probably the worst thing to happen for that year. It even FOOLED Parcells into thinking we had THIS good of a team. As a result, he didn't make the necessary upgrades that this team sorely needed(i.e. instead of getting a corner in FA like Taylor/Vincent, he got one off the PS-Pete Hunter), which all but put a fork in our season.

 

[MCowboys]

That was a good defense playing over its head. The next year would show us how weak that unit truly was. It then resulted in us changing our whole defensive scheme. Parcells himself admitted that he was lulled into complacency by the performance of that defense.

How can you compare the 2003 and 2004 defenses. Let's see, the 2003 defense had Darren Woodson, the 04 team had Tony Dixon and Lynn Scott. The 03 team had healthy corners, the 04 team lost everyone at corner to injury except Newman. When Lance Frazier is playing every down, you know your in trouble.

Are you going to say the Ravens D was "exposed" last year? They lost everyone at corner too, and look what happened this year when they got them back.

 

[Boysboy]

How can you compare the 2003 and 2004 defenses. Let's see, the 2003 defense had Darren Woodson, the 04 team had Tony Dixon and Lynn Scott. The 03 team had healthy corners, the 04 team lost everyone at corner to injury except Newman. When Lance Frazier is playing every down, you know your in trouble.

Are you going to say the Ravens D was "exposed" last year? They lost everyone at corner too, and look what happened this year when they got them back.

It wasn't just the injuries, it was Parcells and his ineptness to do anything about the secondary in the offseason. Jerry suggested he should get one(or 2) in FA(Taylor, Vincent, etc were all available). Instead, he thought getting Pete Hunter off the practice squad was a good idea.

Pt being that going into the season, we were THIN in the secondary anyways. 1/2 into the season, Pete Hunter went down, and we had to sign some rejects off the street(one being some guy who played in the Packers SBs in the late 90's, forgot his name).

Oh-and our starting QB was a great-granddaddy...that didn't help matters either.

 

[Eskimo]

How can you compare the 2003 and 2004 defenses. Let's see, the 2003 defense had Darren Woodson, the 04 team had Tony Dixon and Lynn Scott. The 03 team had healthy corners, the 04 team lost everyone at corner to injury except Newman. When Lance Frazier is playing every down, you know your in trouble.

Are you going to say the Ravens D was "exposed" last year? They lost everyone at corner too, and look what happened this year when they got them back.

The 2003 defense benefitted from not having to go up against many upper echelon offenses. They just weren't up to the task due to lack of pressure upfront and lack of a quality secondary.

The loss of Woodson hurt, but the CBs that were hurt/gone were not good players anyways - Mario Edwards, Pete Hunter, etc. are not the difference makers you make them out to be.

If it were just a matter of a couple of injured corners, why tear down the whole defense?

 

[MCowboys]

The 2003 defense benefitted from not having to go up against many upper echelon offenses. They just weren't up to the task due to lack of pressure upfront and lack of a quality secondary.

The loss of Woodson hurt, but the CBs that were hurt/gone were not good players anyways - Mario Edwards, Pete Hunter, etc. are not the difference makers you make them out to be.

If it were just a matter of a couple of injured corners, why tear down the whole defense?

First of all, Parcells wanted a 3-4, he just needed a reason to switch. The defensive problems in 04 gave him a reason.

Secondly, it is not that Edwards and Hunter were that good, it is that they were good enough not to hurt the defense. When you take away decent starters and replace them with awful players, especially at a position like corner, it's really going to hurt.

 

[Boysboy]

The 2003 defense benefitted from not having to go up against many upper echelon offenses. They just weren't up to the task due to lack of pressure upfront and lack of a quality secondary.

The loss of Woodson hurt, but the CBs that were hurt/gone were not good players anyways - Mario Edwards, Pete Hunter, etc. are not the difference makers you make them out to be.

If it were just a matter of a couple of injured corners, why tear down the whole defense?

With our '03 team-our DL was too undersized. Remember the 1st Giants game, we were controlling the clock and had a 2 score lead in the 4th, then subsequently the Giants O went into fireworks mode. I couldn't believe my eyes, but DESPITE us controlling TOP 2-1, our guys were huffing and puffing the minute the Giants tied it up late in the game.(even Madden was pointing out and was surprised as well) I thought only defenses who are on the field for too long get worn down? No?

We ended up winning that game b/c that stupid Giants kicker kicked it out of bounds with seconds left-if he didn't, who knows? We're 0-2, the psyches of this transitional team is far different, we would have probably finished 6-10 instead, etc.

 

[Eskimo]

First of all, Parcells wanted a 3-4, he just needed a reason to switch. The defensive problems in 04 gave him a reason.

Secondly, it is not that Edwards and Hunter were that good, it is that they were good enough not to hurt the defense. When you take away decent starters and replace them with awful players, especially at a position like corner, it's really going to hurt.

Hunter and Edwards were terrible players - Frazier wasn't much of a downgrade from them.

The 04 defense was so much worse because the 03 defense overachieved, teams learned how to attack the secondary and deal with our blitzes and we faced better offenses due to us having a better record.

Much of the 03 defensive performance was smoke and mirrors.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

then we are going home early.....UNLESS all these pro bowlers get their heads out of their glass

 

[MCowboys]

Hunter and Edwards were terrible players - Frazier wasn't much of a downgrade from them.

The 04 defense was so much worse because the 03 defense overachieved, teams learned how to attack the secondary and deal with our blitzes and we faced better offenses due to us having a better record.

Much of the 03 defensive performance was smoke and mirrors.

We allowed almost 10 points per game more. That's huge. How can any scheme be really good one year, and so exposed the next? Did teams not watch any film of the Cowboys as 2003 went on? Did the next year, teams finally decide, "hey, maybe we should watch them on defense." The difference between the two defenses was like night and day. I buy that teams were more knowledgeable on how to play against our d, but not to the extent that one year the d allows 16 points a game, and the next it allows 25.

 

[Eskimo]

We allowed almost 10 points per game more. That's huge. How can any scheme be really good one year, and so exposed the next? Did teams not watch any film of the Cowboys as 2003 went on? Did the next year, teams finally decide, "hey, maybe we should watch them on defense." The difference between the two defenses was like night and day. I buy that teams were more knowledgeable on how to play against our d, but not to the extent that one year the d allows 16 points a game, and the next it allows 25.

I don't think there was any one reason why it happened but you could tell to the tale end of the year teams had figured out how to attack us. Add a tougher schedule, a couple of injuries and suddenly you have a very bad defense.

My whole point is the 03 defense was a paper #1. They really weren't the best defense in the league. My guess is their proper league rank would have been somewhere around 10th to 15th best defense in the league.

The 2004 defense, by contrast, was probably in the bottom third of the league - maybe around 25th.

 

[Boysboy]

I don't think there was any one reason why it happened but you could tell to the tale end of the year teams had figured out how to attack us. Add a tougher schedule, a couple of injuries and suddenly you have a very bad defense.

My whole point is the 03 defense was a paper #1. They really weren't the best defense in the league. My guess is their proper league rank would have been somewhere around 10th to 15th best defense in the league.

The 2004 defense, by contrast, was probably in the bottom third of the league - maybe around 25th.

I remember one of those games in '03, the Pats one-even though we MERELY held them to 12 pts(a TD and 2 FGs), they were waxing us up and down the field. It wasn't alot worse than it looked b/c both of their WRs plus their slot guy were out, and a couple of times they were threatening, their backups committed boneheaded unsportsmanlike conduct flags that killed the momentum of those drives.

Overall-we had a super easy schedule that year, and we lucked out in wk2 when the Giants kicked it out of bounds toward the end of regulation. Otherwise, 0-2 to start to season, instead of 1-1 with momentum heading after the bye week.

My BIG gripe from that season was our OFFENSE, to be honest. Sure-Quincy showed flashes of brilliance in the first 6 games, but he, along everyone else, crapped out since then. Troy Hambrick also started out great, but he too crapped out.

 

[MONT17]

I don't think any of those teams in the past would have won the super bowl with a defense full of ankle biters!

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I want to win like the Rams did and it seems we might have to.

 

[Eskimo]

I don't think any of those teams in the past would have won the super bowl with a defense full of ankle biters!

This years defense is clearly underperforming but much of the problems can be rectified if taken seriously. The one problem that can't be fixed is the lack of a NT - if we let the corners play more aggressively and bring up a extra man to play the run, we may be able to work around this problem so long as the offense is scoring points and forcing other teams to play catchup.

The first thing I do if I'm JJ is fix the NT problem next year.