DMN: BLOG: Did DeMarcus Ware and Co. cost the Cowboys interceptions?

[Cbz40]

Did DeMarcus Ware and Co. cost the Cowboys interceptions?


9:42 AM Wed, Jun 10, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon/Blogger


Terence Newman has a theory about the Cowboys defense's low interception total last season.

"When you get a lot of sacks," Newman said, "you're not going to get a lot of turnovers."

Newman was specifically referring to picks. The Cowboys recovered 14 fumbles last season, which is a decent number. Their eight interceptions were the third fewest in the league. His logic is that you can't pick off a pass that the QB doesn't get a chance to throw.

On the other hand, one would think that a defense that racks up a league-leading 59 sacks would make opposing quarterbacks awfully nervous. As a result, a lot of hurried passes due to pressure -- or the threat of it -- would provide prime pick opportunities.

Pittsburgh, which ranked second in the league with 51 sacks, had 20 interceptions.

In the previous five seasons, the lowest interception total by a team that led the league in sacks was 15, by the 2007 Giants. The 2003 Ravens had the highest picks total (24) for a sacks leader.

Eight isn't nearly enough, no matter how many times DeMarcus Ware keeps a QB from throwing the ball.

 

[tomson75]

Sorry Newman, but I can't go with you on this one. INT's aren't dependent on or completely independent from sacks and QB pressures...but they do have a correlation. More pressure should theoretically produce more INT's IMO. It's not always going to be the case, but more often than not, it should be.

 

[big dog cowboy]

TNew is my homie, but I'm not buying that at all.

 

[Cbz40]

TNew is my homie, but I'm not buying that at all.

Just between you and me bd....I'm not either.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Hopefully in 2009 it will all come together... Sacks and INT's, that's when you have a championship defense.

 

[EPL0c0]

I think it also points to the fact that the 2ndary can't create turnovers. with injuries and such, the 2ndary wasn't all that intimidating last season.

If I'm playing Dallas, I drill it into the QB that if the play isn't there, secure the ball, take the sack, live to play another down b/c w/ the 2ndary eventually it will come. Maybe we just faced lots of smart/non-risktaking QBs in 2008.

 

[Alexander]

It is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard.

It isn't like our interceptions were just low, as the Giants were in 2007, they were pathetic. Eight interceptions is inexcusable, and that even counts for the Greg Ellis interception against Cincinnati. So we had seven interceptions from a fairly well-paid secondary with three first round draft choices playing in it at one time or another.

The blame should go directly to the secondary for not getting their jobs done. This is just excuse-making at its finest. The implication that the sack totals affected their production that profoundly is an incredible stretch.

But I don't fault Newman. He didn't just grab that little excuse out of thin air. I guarantee it was supplied to him by our excuse-making apologetic head coach and his staff.

 

[AbeBeta]

so the Steelers with 8 few sacks ended up with 12 more ints?

really, I think more the problem was that the opposing WR were catching the balls.

 

[CoCo]

I like T-New as a player but I don't like it when he opens his mouth.

 

[Vinnie2u]

TNew is no ball hawk....

 

[Yeagermeister]

Our secondary's problem is hands of stone and being in position, some times, to make the tackle instead of the int.

 

[Aven8]

It's hard to get picks when you are playing off the WR 10yds and keep every thing in front of you!!

 

[burmafrd]

Do to orders from the coaches we play off all the time especially on third downs. If you ain't close you ain't going to get many.