DNA of our SB Teams

[AdamJT13]

I certainly don't agree with any of that Timmy Smith will always be thought of as a JAG despite his great SB performance.

Timmy Smith? He never even rushed for 500 yards in a season, let alone 1,200.

You have to look at the type of team you have and your own history.

No, you don't. It's completely irrelevant except to fans who live in the past. How you win championships does not change based on the name of the team. It's a ridiculous notion that not a single NFL general manager would even think about for a second.

 

[dre1288]

Our DNA has always been, a strong running game, time of possession, mistake free, keep away football....we should go back to featuring the run, with some play action passes down the field....we need to get back to what has worked for this team, and quit trying to copy cat other teams. we have most of the pieces in place....except for our Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith....It's time to get the stud RB this franchise needs. Draft Elliott and lets get this thing rolling. It's not rocket science.

Agree wholeheartedly!

 

[mattjames2010]

That's not as true as it once was.

2006 Colts -- 23rd in points allowed, 21st in yards allowed, 15th in passer rating allowed, 30th in sacks, 32nd in YPC allowed

2007 Giants -- 17th in points allowed, 18th in passer rating allowed, 17th in turnover percentage

2009 Saints -- 20th in points allowed, 25th in yards allowed, 25th in YPC allowed

2011 Giants -- 25th in points allowed, 27th in yards allowed, 21st in passer rating allowed, 22nd in YPC allowed

What were the Giants stats later on in the year? What was the Saints turnover rates?

 

[KJJ]

Timmy Smith? He never even rushed for 500 yards in a season, let alone 1,200.

Had Timmy Smith rushed for 1200 yards in 1987 and had a decent SB game with the Commanders winning no one would have ever remembered him. He's remembered because he set the SB rushing record that still stands of 204 yards. You can bet he'll take that 204 yards in the SB over a 1200 yard season any day.

No, you don't. It's completely irrelevant except to fans who live in the past. How you win championships does not change based on the name of the team. It's a ridiculous notion that not a single NFL general manager would even think about for a second.

Teams live in the past and certain teams like the Steelers have always been known for great defense and it stems from their history in the 70s. They draft for defense which is why they've had so many good defensive teams. They won a SB in 2008 primarily due to having the #1 defense. The Ravens draft a lot for defense because defense is what helped them win two championships. Every team wants to form an identity. The Cowboys won all 5 of their championships by being solid offensively and defensively. They didn't depend on Staubach and Aikman having to win games every week their championship teams revolved around a great running game led by an elite runner and a great defense.

They controlled the ball wearing opponents down which helped keep their defense fresh. The Cowboys have had a pass happy formula under Romo where he has to win games almost every week. Jerry has said he wished the rest of the team would play as good as Romo because he knows Romo doesn't receive much help. We were having to depend on him in the games he played last season which directly led to his injuries. Long down situations due to an inefficient running game put him in a position where the opponent could just pin their ears back and come after him.

 

[AdamJT13]

What were the Giants stats later on in the year?

In both seasons, they went 3-3 over their last six games, allowing 25.2 points per game in 2007 and 22.3 points per game in 2011. Both teams allowed at least 38 points in two of those games.

What was the Saints turnover rates?

The Saints finished third in turnover rate in 2009. But our defense finished first in turnover rate in 2014, and it certainly wasn't a "top notch" defense.

 

[mattjames2010]

In both seasons, they went 3-3 over their last six games, allowing 25.2 points per game in 2007 and 22.3 points per game in 2011. Both teams allowed at least 38 points in two of those games.



The Saints finished third in turnover rate in 2009. But our defense finished first in turnover rate in 2014, and it certainly wasn't a "top notch" defense.

How about looking at the games that mattered the most with the Giants those years? Their regular season record showed their defense wasn't dominant. Here's the points they gave up in the playoffs.

14 against Tampa, 17 against Dallas, 20 against Green Bay, 14 against New England. We then fast forward to 2011, they gave up 2 points to Atlanta, 20 against Green Bay, 17 against San Fran, 17 against New England.

Giants are an example of a team that got hot in the playoffs and their defense was dominant, taking on QBs such as Brady, Favre, Romo, and Rodgers. Both of those years, the Giants had a 9-7 record, which shows their defense wasn't all that dominant in the regular season. But their defense took it to another level in the playoffs.

A big reason the Saints won the Super Bowl in 2009 was them being top 5 in one of the most important categories in football. It should be of no surprise we were 12-4 the year we led the league in that department. We were at least "top notch" in one defensive category.

 

[AdamJT13]

Had Timmy Smith rushed for 1200 yards in 1987 and had a decent SB game with the Commanders winning no one would have ever remembered him. He's remembered because he set the SB rushing record that still stands of 204 yards. You can bet he'll take that 204 yards in the SB over a 1200 yard season any day.

Timmy Smith was a one-game wonder and irrelevant to the discussion.

Teams live in the past and certain teams like the Steelers have always been known for great defense and it stems from their history in the 70s. They draft for defense which is why they've had so many good defensive teams. They won a SB in 2008 primarily due to having the #1 defense. The Ravens draft a lot for defense because defense is what helped them win two championships. Every team wants to form an identity.

So you honestly think that the way to win a championship depends on the name of the team? Please. The 2015 Broncos' offense was not built like the 1997-98 Broncos. The 2011 Giants' offense was not built like the 1990 Giants or even the 2007 Giants. The 2010 Packers' offense was not built anything like the 1966-67 Packers. The 2008 Steelers' offense was not built anything like the 1970s Steelers or even the 2005 Steelers.

It has already been proved that the Cowboys haven't needed a singular, "elite" running back to win a championship, as you claim. Neither of our championship teams in the 1970s relied on an "elite" running back to carry the load. Dorsett and Newhouse essentially split carries in 1977, including in the playoffs. Dorsett was a rookie who was only 12th in the league in attempts and ninth in yards and had only two 100-yard games all season (he started only four games). In 1971, the carries were split three ways, and our leading rusher (Duane Thomas) was only 20th in the league in carries and 11th in yards. (Just for comparison, McFadden was eighth in carries and fourth in yards last season.)

Were you on Usenet in 1992 saying that we'd never win a championship with Emmitt carrying the ball so much because all of our previous championship teams never had a running back get more than 37 percent of the carries? That would have been just as ridiculous as what you're saying now. The championship formula doesn't change based on the name of the team, and a team doesn't have to be built just like another team with the same name in order to win a championship.

 

[AdamJT13]

Both of those years, the Giants had a 9-7 record, which shows their defense wasn't all that dominant in the regular season. But their defense took it to another level in the playoffs.

In other words, a top-notch defense isn't necessarily required (at least, not like it once was). You just need an offense that can overcome it, or a defense that gets hot in the playoffs -- or both.

A big reason the Saints won the Super Bowl in 2009 was them being top 5 in one of the most important categories in football. It should be of no surprise we were 12-4 the year we led the league in that department. We were at least "top notch" in one defensive category.

It certainly helps to be good at something.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The Landry Cowboys were a far more advanced passing team than the rest of the league. We had Dorsett and the '71 team was a combination of Thomas, Garrison and Hill. But each of those RB's were effective at catching screens. Today, they would be the equivalent of a LeSean McCoy type of player. We also featured Roger and athletic, good sized WR's. Then we had a great defense. Lots of athleticism, toughness and discipline.

The 90's featured Emmitt, but it also featured Troy (another HoF QB), and again...athletic WR's that had good size in Irvin and Harper. We again, had a very solid defense. This defense featured less stars, but was based on speed and depth. If you were pulling Casillas-Maryland-Tolbert....that meant Hennings-Lett-Jeffcoat were coming in and you wouldn't lose a step.

I think you could say that RB performance was a big key of our SB teams, but the 71 team didn't really have that stud RB and even with Emmitt, he was a good receiving tailback and the team was still an efficient passing team.

The big thing in all of this is that the defense was much better. I don't think we have to have a dominant defense. But, I think we need a defense that...game-in and game-out...puts in performances that are not worse than average.

And we still need a QB for the future.

I'd rather take Lynch and stockpile talent with lower round picks on defense like Jimmy didn.




YR

 

[cml750]

Our DNA has always been great coaching.

Yep, seems like yesterday but it was over 20 years ago.

 

[cml750]

I'd say the Cowboy Way is great QB play. If we've got that, with this OL, we've got a running game. Let's fix the defense and add a mid-round RB and get back to where we're supposed to be that way.

We have had great QB play since the last part of 2006 (save last year which should be eye opening to many) but it means little when the QB is bailing out the pitiful coaches all the time.

 

[KJJ]

Timmy Smith was a one-game wonder and irrelevant to the discussion.

You're the one who made the comment that winning championships makes JAGs into elite backs so it's not irrelevant to the discussion. Your comment was ridiculous.

So you honestly think that the way to win a championship depends on the name of the team? Please. The 2015 Broncos' offense was not built like the 1997-98 Broncos. The 2011 Giants' offense was not built like the 1990 Giants or even the 2007 Giants. The 2010 Packers' offense was not built anything like the 1966-67 Packers. The 2008 Steelers' offense was not built anything like the 1970s Steelers or even the 2005 Steelers.

The name of the team doesn't matter but most teams have a formula for success. There were some similarities with the Broncos championship team in 2015 and the championship teams they had in 97-98. Both teams had an aging HOF QB and both teams played solid defense the only real difference was the 90s Broncos had an elite back who they rode. They needed more offensive punch from their running game because their defense wasn't as dominate as the 2015 Broncos D. Sometimes teams have to change and go with the strength of their particular team. The Giants still won those 2 SBs under Eli primarily due to their defense. The SB's they won under Parcells was primarily due to defense.

It has already been proved that the Cowboys haven't needed a singular, "elite" running back to win a championship, as you claim. Neither of our championship teams in the 1970s relied on an "elite" running back to carry the load. Dorsett and Newhouse essentially split carries in 1977, including in the playoffs. Dorsett was a rookie who was only 12th in the league in attempts and ninth in yards and had only two 100-yard games all season (he started only four games). In 1971, the carries were split three ways, and our leading rusher (Duane Thomas) was only 20th in the league in carries and 11th in yards. (Just for comparison, McFadden was eighth in carries and fourth in yards last season.)

Were you on Usenet in 1992 saying that we'd never win a championship with Emmitt carrying the ball so much because all of our previous championship teams never had a running back get more than 37 percent of the carries? That would have been just as ridiculous as what you're saying now. The championship formula doesn't change based on the name of the team, and a team doesn't have to be built just like another team with the same name in order to win a championship.

The Cowboys offenses that won 5 SBs were led by an elite runner. Duane Thomas may have spilt the load in 71 but he was the back the team leaned on the most and he's the one who led the Cowboys in the SB. All those championship teams had elite backs and 4 of the Cowboys championship teams featured a HOF back. Without an elite runner the Cowboys haven't gotten past the second round of the playoffs in 20 years because it all ends up falling on Romo's shoulders. I was never under the impression the Cowboys wouldn't win a title running Emmitt wild because that's how they won games by leaning on him and playing great defense.

Back in the early 70s they had several solid backs like Garrison and Hill so they didn't need Thomas carrying the load. The Cowboys had nothing behind Emmitt we found that out the first 2 games of the 93 season when we went 0-2 during his holdout. Every team that's won a championship has a formula they try to adhere to and most of the time it's playing great defense. Some of the top offenses in NFL history never won a championship because defense wins championships.

 

[CowboyChris]

my whole point of this thread was.....If we took a RB like Elliott, we would have an offense that could impose our will on defenses....with that half of the team in place....we then can turn to some of our other needs on defense. i just fail to see a guy like Bosa or Buckner making an impact defensively like a Elliott could on offense.

 

[Idgit]

We have had great QB play since the last part of 2006 (save last year which should be eye opening to many) but it means little when the QB is bailing out the pitiful coaches all the time.

There's nothing wrong with the coaching. Except that they haven't fixed defense yet.

 

[Nation]

People who think RBBC was the issue last year need to go rewatch the offense from 2014 against Arizona when Romo was out.

 

[Sarge]

Times have changed. What stud running back did the Patriots, Bronco's or Panthers have last year?

Times have indeed changed and so have the rules that ENCOURAGE passing the ball. The running the football and TOS logic does not fit the rules of today's game. I've said it a million times. I may not like it that way, but it IS that way.

 

[AdamJT13]

You're the one who made the comment that winning championships makes JAGs into elite backs so it's not irrelevant to the discussion.

Look again at what I wrote. I clearly stated that I was referring to 1,200-yard backs --

Winning championships makes JAGs into "elite" backs. Rush for 1,200 yards on a Super Bowl team, and you're "elite." Rush for 1,200 yards on an 8-8 team, and you're "a JAG."

Obviously, Timmy Smith is not relevant to what I wrote.

The name of the team doesn't matter but most teams have a formula for success.

How you win in the NFL is the same no matter what the name of the team is. There are various ways to go about achieving that, and just because your team has a specific name, that doesn't mean you have to go about it the same way as a team with the same name from 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It's a completely misguided notion, and you obviously don't realize it even when slapped in the face with the facts.

 

[percyhoward]

Playoff Performance of Quarterback
Brees 305 of 464 3535 24 td 6 int 100.4
Rodgers 298 of 467 3454 yd 27 td 8 int 98.2
Romo 114 of 185 1318 8 td 2 int 93.0
Eli 219 of 356 2516 7 td 8 int 89.3
Brady 738 of 1183 7957 yd 56 td 28 int 88.0
Peyton 649 of 1027 7339 yd 40 td 25 int 87.4
Rivers 164 of 272 2165 11 td 9 int 85.2

Playoff Performance of Defense
Rivers' defenses 206 of 340 2184 yd 13 td 13 int 76.2
Eli's defenses 232 of 405 2355 yd 14 td 9 int 76.3
Brady's defenses 644 of 1118 7803 yd 43 td 38 int 77.8
Peyton's defenses 541 of 877 6141 yd 33 td 26 int 82.9
Rodgers' defenses 261 of 436 3441 yd 25 td 18 int 86.8
Brees' defenses 238 of 388 2823 yd 18 td 7 int 91.5
Romo's defenses 117 of 194 1582 yd 14 td 4 int 101.8

Romo's Playoff Passer Rating Differential with...
his own defense -8.8
Brees' defenses +1.5
Rodgers' defenses +6.2
Peyton's defenses +10.1
Brady's defenses +15.2
Eli's defenses +16.7
Rivers' defenses +16.8

 

[KJJ]

Look again at what I wrote. I clearly stated that I was referring to 1,200-yard backs --

Winning championships makes JAGs into "elite" backs. Rush for 1,200 yards on a Super Bowl team, and you're "elite." Rush for 1,200 yards on an 8-8 team, and you're "a JAG."

Obviously, Timmy Smith is not relevant to what I wrote.

You're being silly if you seriously think a back rushing for 1200 yards on a SB team makes them elite never heard that before. A 1200 yard season isn't going to make any back "elite" regardless what their team accomplishes. For a back to be "elite' they have to consistently produce 1200+ then they'll become an elite back regardless what kind of team they have. Walter Payton was an elite back well before the Bears ever won the SB. There's been an entire list of elite backs whose teams never even reached a SB. One great season isn't going to make any player elite.

How you win in the NFL is the same no matter what the name of the team is. There are various ways to go about achieving that, and just because your team has a specific name, that doesn't mean you have to go about it the same way as a team with the same name from 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It's a completely misguided notion, and you obviously don't realize it even when slapped in the face with the facts.

Don't know why you keep latching onto that because the name of the team doesn't matter. There's been a lot of teams that have a formula for success that's based on their history. If a team won it all with defense in the past they try and adhere to the same formula because defense still wins championships. Every SB the Giants have won was primarily due to their defense and this dates back to the 1980's. I deal with facts and you're the one who's getting slapped by them.

 

[AdamJT13]

You're being silly if you seriously think a back rushing for 1200 yards on a SB team makes them elite never heard that before.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Don't know why you keep latching onto that because the name of the team doesn't matter.

Ask yourself this: Does a team named "Patriots" have to have an elite running back to win a championship? Does a team named "Broncos" need to have an elite running back to win a championship? How about a team named "Giants"? A team named "Buccaneers"? A team named "Steelers"?

If a team won it all with defense in the past they try and adhere to the same formula because defense still wins championships.

"Defense" isn't a formula.