Generating Takeaways

jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
TheFinisher said:
This team has been horrific at creating turnovers on the defensive side of the ball, specifically in the INT department. Why has this been the case?

With the offensive philosophy we have engineered, highly efficient at moving the chains and bleeding the clock with an elite ground game, wouldn't turnovers have a greater effect on this team than most others in the NFL?

How do we fix this? If we can even slightly move our defensive takeaway output back to the league wide mean it would have a substantial effect on our W/L outlook.

Doesn't playing conservative defense negate our advantage on offense?
Click to expand...
This may have already been pointed out, but the problem has been schematic coupled with a lack of schematic fit. According to what I've read, both Claiborne and Carr's strong suit as corners was playing man, as opposed to zone. So, despite preferring zone looks (where more turnovers typically occur, due to the defense being more focused on the quarterback than the receiver) Marinelli tailored his scheme around them. This is also why many think the Cowboys allowed them to walk. Also, from what I've read, the new additions may actually be better at zone and so with the return of that in Marinelli's scheme we may indeed see more interceptions.
 
CowboyRoy

CowboyRoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,924
Reaction score
38,930
TheFinisher said:
This team has been horrific at creating turnovers on the defensive side of the ball, specifically in the INT department. Why has this been the case?

With the offensive philosophy we have engineered, highly efficient at moving the chains and bleeding the clock with an elite ground game, wouldn't turnovers have a greater effect on this team than most others in the NFL?

How do we fix this? If we can even slightly move our defensive takeaway output back to the league wide mean it would have a substantial effect on our W/L outlook.

Doesn't playing conservative defense negate our advantage on offense?
Click to expand...

Taking are typically a direct correlation with pressure on the QB. That is the quickest way to solve that one. Having big leads is another good one, which we had a lot last year. That fact tells you just how bad the defense was when it comes to play makers and pass rush.
 
Risen Star

Risen Star

Likes Collector
Messages
89,420
Reaction score
212,335
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
tm1119 said:
Unpopular opinion but I don't think the secondary was the problem. Good QB's don't throw INT's with time and a clean pocket...change that and more INT's and strip sacks will come.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Which is why I'm having a hard time getting excited about this draft class.

We drafted 3 corners.

Yay! I guess.
 
Bullflop

Bullflop

Cowboys Diehard
Messages
25,716
Reaction score
30,910
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Anytime you field a defense that is unable to get pressure and sacks, you have a secondary that is at odds to fail. Yes, to be fair, the lack of secondary talent with ball skills is also fair game for our turnover failures as well.

The Cowboys' draft this year was one that saw the defensive problems with turnovers being addressed, so we're about to find out within this year and very possibly beyond as well, if those talent acquisitions will have a positive effect or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if it takes yet another year of talent acquisitions to drastically change our turnover results. If things don't change by then, the team's defensive philosophy should very likely be examined and if found wanting, be dutifully corrected also.
 
Last edited:
Jarv

Jarv

Loud pipes saves lives.
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
8,662
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
CowboyRoy said:
Taking are typically a direct correlation with pressure on the QB. That is the quickest way to solve that one. Having big leads is another good one, which we had a lot last year. That fact tells you just how bad the defense was when it comes to play makers and pass rush.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess maybe pressures? The Giants had 35 sacks compared to our 36, yet they had 17 INTs compared to our 9 INTs. So there has to be another reason also.
 
Rogerthat12

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,605
Reaction score
9,989
We need better production up front and more aggressive secondary play with players who can make a play on the ball.

All the Corners drafted and the S Woods have demonstrated an ability, at least in college, to make plays on the ball.

It may take the youngsters some time to acclimate but if they are getting playing time in the secondary with some type of pass rush, we should start to see plays being made in the back end for a change, by our players for once!
 
ConstantReboot

ConstantReboot

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,405
Reaction score
10,074
TheFinisher said:
This team has been horrific at creating turnovers on the defensive side of the ball, specifically in the INT department. Why has this been the case?

With the offensive philosophy we have engineered, highly efficient at moving the chains and bleeding the clock with an elite ground game, wouldn't turnovers have a greater effect on this team than most others in the NFL?

How do we fix this? If we can even slightly move our defensive takeaway output back to the league wide mean it would have a substantial effect on our W/L outlook.

Doesn't playing conservative defense negate our advantage on offense?
Click to expand...

The reason is Carr and our previous two Safeties that are gone now. We drafted DBs that are quick, have great ability in breaking to the ball and be able to make plays while the ball is in the air. Qualities that Carr, Church and Wilcox didn't have.

Before we drafted Byron Jones teams threw incessantly jump balls with success. Not any more.

I believe we have the corners that can break to the ball really fast and create turnovers. Teams won't have that same success as before throwing the quick outs and if they do I believe we will have more turnovers this year and beyond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top