Grizz: Saints game redux

[Chocolate Lab]

So Sean Payton's knowledge of our team had nothing to do with that arsewhipping? We were just in a slump? It was just a stroke of bad luck that the beatings began when we faced our former offensive coordinator?

Okay.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Didn't you get the memo?

That was Ware's fault. He was suppose to rush the passer AND drop into coverage during the same play.

Sadly he had regressed as a player.

Ha!

During the Seattle game, two plays were particularly memborable. Both times, Seattle motioned a receiver out wide at the last moment presnap, and both times, he was left completely uncover until Ware sprinted out to cover him.

Mike Holmgren knew Dallas' tendencies and read them like a book.

 

[Stash]

So Sean Payton's knowledge of our team had nothing to do with that arsewhipping? We were just in a slump? It was just a stroke of bad luck that the beatings began when we faced our former offensive coordinator?

Okay.

That's the theory.

Brilliant huh?

 

[superpunk]

There are all sorts of things to criticize Bill for - many deserved. But the notion that the scheme was just archaic, and 4 teams followed a blueprint for success while the 5th opted not to - is lunacy.

Over the last 4 games of the regular season we allowed 33 PPG, and allowed an average of 425 yards per game to the opposition. (As a comparison, the Tennessee Titans allowed 370 ypg last year, and the 49ers 25.8 PPG, the worst in the league) We had been ranked 4th in team defense to that piont.

Against Seattle, we allowed 19 offensive points (21 total) and 332 yards of offense. 12-14 less points and 100 less yards, because the players executed better.

If only Holmgren had watched us against the Saints.

Apparently it's the scheme's fault when the team fails, and the players' success when the team plays well. I prefer not to talk out both sides of my mouth, though. Consistency is far more rational.

 

[superpunk]

So Sean Payton's knowledge of our team had nothing to do with that arsewhipping? We were just in a slump? It was just a stroke of bad luck that the beatings began when we faced our former offensive coordinator?

Okay.

That's how slumps get started. Payton clearly knew who to pick on.

 

[TEK2000]

You guys are trying to put everything into one extreme or another. Its a big mixture of problems with the scheme AND the players combined with what our OPPONENTS were doing.

You can't just sit here and say that it was ALL our players or ALL the scheme.

My honest opinion:
The scheme we used required our players to
1) Be exceptional in reading and diagnosing the play as it occured.
2) Be exceptional in being able to win their individual battles on every single down.

When your best pass rusher (Ware) is asked to get to the QB, BUT ya gotta figure out if the RB or FB are slipping out as a reciever THEN break off into coverage to cover them, its REALLY a tough task to ask of any player.
Now, I obviously don't know if that was his responsibility throughout the Saints game, but that's what it SEEMS like from watching the game.

Karney would act as if he was going to engage Ware as Ware rushed into the backfield, then slip around him to catch the ball over Ware's head.

Someone asked why Merriman's aggressiveness didn't seem to be a detriment to the Chargers. Well, and this is just my obvservation from watching a few games, it appears that, in Wade Phillips' defensive scheme, he gives each player a minimal amount of responsibilities. SO, rather than Merriman having to attack the QB but also read the play while he rushes the QB to figure out if he needs to drop into coverage, Merriman's sole responsibility on most plays is to simply GET THE QB!!!

Why was Ware in coverage so much against Seattle? Because Seattle found ways to force him into coverage because they knew what our defensive responsibilities were on nearly every play.... just like Detroit did as well.

The players are obviously paid to play the scheme and its not completely out of the question that they SHOULD be able to handle the scheme, but the scheme we had them in certainly did not make their job very easy.

 

[cowboyeric8]

You guys are trying to put everything into one extreme or another. Its a big mixture of problems with the scheme AND the players combined with what our OPPONENTS were doing.

You can't just sit here and say that it was ALL our players or ALL the scheme.

My honest opinion:
The scheme we used required our players to
1) Be exceptional in reading and diagnosing the play as it occured.
2) Be exceptional in being able to win their individual battles on every single down.

When your best pass rusher (Ware) is asked to get to the QB, BUT ya gotta figure out if the RB or FB are slipping out as a reciever THEN break off into coverage to cover them, its REALLY a tough task to ask of any player.
Now, I obviously don't know if that was his responsibility throughout the Saints game, but that's what it SEEMS like from watching the game.

Karney would act as if he was going to engage Ware as Ware rushed into the backfield, then slip around him to catch the ball over Ware's head.

Someone asked why Merriman's aggressiveness didn't seem to be a detriment to the Chargers. Well, and this is just my obvservation from watching a few games, it appears that, in Wade Phillips' defensive scheme, he gives each player a minimal amount of responsibilities. SO, rather than Merriman having to attack the QB but also read the play while he rushes the QB to figure out if he needs to drop into coverage, Merriman's sole responsibility on most plays is to simply GET THE QB!!!

Why was Ware in coverage so much against Seattle? Because Seattle found ways to force him into coverage because they knew what our defensive responsibilities were on nearly every play.... just like Detroit did as well.

The players are obviously paid to play the scheme and its not completely out of the question that they SHOULD be able to handle the scheme, but the scheme we had them in certainly did not make their job very easy.

good post

 

[ScipioCowboy]

They performed better than they had been

Your above statement is akin to contending that dog poop tastes marginally better than cat poop. Both are horrible, and extoling their virtues is a trite, transparent method of argumentation.

Consider this. Dallas' struggling defensive ran up against Seattle's struggling offense, which had been saddled with terrible inconsistency and numerous injuries throughout the season. And, in the end, Seattle's struggling offense, despite key injuries, overcame Dallas' struggling defense and exceeded virtually all of their yearly averages (total yards, points scored, passing yards) in the process.

Perhaps I can explain this more concisely: Sucking less for one game does not mean that you don't suck, nor does it mean that you're about to transcend the suckage barrier.

They had been making every single opposing offense we faced the most effective in the NFL, with unreal passer ratings and high scores. Against Seattle they stepped up, and stopped the bleeding against a good offensive team. It's not that they got back to elite, but they played much better. Antoher game may have provided a further confidence boost, and step in the right direction - BACK to where they were.

Allow me to encapsulate your argument. Dallas defense was less atrocious for one game (not great, not good, merely less atrocious); therefore, if they had been to able to play two more games, they might've been able to recapture their early season dominance, despite falling victim to the same pass rushing and coverage problems that had plagued them throughout their slump.

That argument certainly exhibits the brilliance and indestructability to which you constantly allude.

Basic logic? You mean like the notion that thirty some years of coaching experience between Parcells and Zimmer was rendered irrelevent by a single game against Sean Payton?

I never said that, nor did I intimate it. I said that the Cowboys scheme was antiquated and didn't play to the strengths of its personnel.

All coaches, even great ones, must adjust their schemes and techniques as the game evolves; otherwise, they become relics, regardless of their experience level or accomplishments. Joe Gibbs, for instance, was forced to adjust his offenses that served him so well in the 80s. That was the entire reason for hiring Al Saunders.

Players have slumps.

Yeah. Players have slumps. However, eleven players getting completely eviscerated each week as they fall victim to the same plays over and over again is not a slump.

It's a scheming problem.

You might have an argument is the Saints' game was an isolated incident. It wasn't.

Look, I'm not absolving the players of blame. They've certainly earned their share. But, execution is of little consequence when the scheme is incapable of adjusting to certain offenses.

Did he make a substitution? That's certainly a possibility for improved play. We certainly benefitted from a QB substitution.

it seems more directly that you are suggesting he changed his scheme to be more sound against the run, correct?

If you're suggesting that, what made him change before their playoff game with new Orleans, where McCallister went for 140 and the Saints went over 200 yards rushing?

What I'm suggesting is really quite simple: Jim Johnson's defense showed substantial improvement for a late season stretch. Dallas' did not. You're certainly free to argue that the Cowboys would have shown similar improvement if they had played a few more games, but you're dealing solely in hypotheticals.

They work their way out. If they didn't, we wouldn't have much hope for Romo this year, would we? Yes - a few crucial players began to play terribly where before they had played well. I'm sorry that's more inconcievable to you than "Sean Payton destroyed 30 years of coaching - and did something Bill Bellichick, Charlie Weis, Tom Coughlin etc were incapable of." But I like to stay in the realm of reason.

Logic's an amazing thing, when you actually use it and don't try to attribute failure to something you can't see or identify.

So it was just coincidence that every opponent following New Orleans eviscerated Dallas' defense using a gameplan identical Sean Payton's? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

So it was just coincidence that every late season opponent was able to force Ware into coverage? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

So it was just a massive, anti-Parcells/Zimmer conspiracy when other teams' players approached our players at the pro bowl solely to express their dismay at Dallas' defensive scheme and lack of adjustment? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

And it's just a coincidence that the Cowboys' defense has tanked virtually every year in Parcells' tenure? That's your idea of logical reasoning.

 

[DallasEast]

good post

Ditto.

 

[superpunk]

Your above statement is akin to contending that dog poop tastes marginally better than cat poop. Both are horrible, and extoling their virtues is a trite, transparent method of argumentation.

Consider this. Dallas' struggling defensive ran up against Seattle's struggling offense, which had been saddled with terrible inconsistency and numerous injuries throughout the season. And, in the end, Seattle's struggling offense, despite key injuries, overcame Dallas' struggling defense and exceeded virtually all of their yearly averages (total yards, points scored, passing yards) in the process.

Our defense showed improvement. They executed better, and the results showed. We had been allowing teams to rack up extraordinary amounts of yardage, at Seattle we at least got back to a norm - Which was not horrible. Your metaphor is adorable, but misapplied. The point was that the defense improved significantly. If it had been exposed as archaic, if there was this simple blueprint that offenses like Detroit and Atlanta were able to execute that would not have been possible.

The players played better. I'm not about to give credit for the improved play to a scheme, when it was the players who sacked up and played better than they had in weeks - in the exact same scheme. The swiss-cheese logic where only 4 teams exposed us, but the 5th somehow lacked the know-how (since we are so concerned with "scheme" to achieve what the others had.)

Allow me to encapsulate your argument. Dallas defense was less atrocious for one game (not great, not good, merely less atrocious); therefore, if they had been to able to play two more games, they might've been able to recapture their early season dominance, despite falling victim to the same pass rushing and coverage problems that had plagued them throughout their slump.

That argument certainly exhibits the brilliance and indestructability to which you constantly allude.

Your "encapsulation' is simply what you inferred, not what I said. It was a mere hypothetical. You seem to demonstrate enough thinking ability to not get hung up on something so simple, trivial and irrelevent, so I'll save you from yourself by not indulging you.

Our performance of 19 points allowed was as good as the 8th ranked team in the league last year. "Less Atrocious"? Hardly. It was a significant improvement.

What I'm suggesting is really quite simple: Jim Johnson's defense showed substantial improvement for a late season stretch. Dallas' did not. You're certainly free to argue that the Cowboys would have shown similar improvement if they had played a few more games, but you're dealing solely in hypotheticals.

Interesting non-answer.

And you seemed so sure that Johnson had changed his scheme to facillitate improvement. Seems that you didn't think your cunning parallel the whole way through.

So it was just coincidence that every opponent following New Orleans eviscerated Dallas' defense using a gameplan identical Sean Payton's? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

So it was just coincidence that every late season opponent was able to force Ware into coverage? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

So it was just a massive, anti-Parcells/Zimmer conspiracy when other teams' players approached our players at the pro bowl solely to express their dismay at Dallas' defensive scheme and lack of adjustment? That's your idea of logical reasoning?

Teams attempted these things all year long. In the preseason, we noticed the problem with players adjusting to coverage in the flats, and Ware forced off the line. It was fixed, and for 12 games, we got by. Maybe you disagree that it was the best way to run things - but it worked so long as it was executed correctly. Once the failures on the field began, they lost what they had. They got enough of it back to put themselves in position to beat a playoff team - the offense just took it's turn at faltering.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Our defense showed improvement. They executed better, and the results showed. We had been allowing teams to rack up extraordinary amounts of yardage, at Seattle we at least got back to a norm - Which was not horrible. Your metaphor is adorable, but misapplied. The point was that the defense improved significantly. If it had been exposed as archaic, if there was this simple blueprint that offenses like Detroit and Atlanta were able to execute that would not have been possible.

The players played better. I'm not about to give credit for the improved play to a scheme, when it was the players who sacked up and played better than they had in weeks - in the exact same scheme. The swiss-cheese logic where only 4 teams exposed us, but the 5th somehow lacked the know-how (since we are so concerned with "scheme" to achieve what the others had.)

Your entire argument is predicated on one highly specious assumption: that the Seattle game marked some kind of resounding turnaround for the Cowboy defense. The truth, however, suggests something quite different.

All the defensive weaknesses that Dallas had manifested over the previous four games were in full display against the Seahawks. It was Brady James and Roy Williams who were beaten for the game winning TD. It was DeMarcus Ware who was constantly forced into coverage rather than rushing the passer. It was the same anemic pass rush failing to generate pressure consistently.

The only difference was the Seattle offense, which had been struggling all season and whose primary receiver was playing through an injury.

Yet, despite Seattle's struggles, the Seahawks still surpassed virtually all of their regular season offensive averages against Dallas. They gained 332 yards (only 30 yards less than Detroit and 44 less than Atlanta) when they had averaged only 311 yards per game all season. They gained 240 yards passing when they had only averaged 190.9 yards passing per game on the season. They still scored 21 points (only two less than Philly), despite foregoing a FG from the one yard line, when they had averaged 20.9 points all season. You may deduct the safety if you wish, but you should understand that part of Seattle's 20.9 point average was almost certainly due to defensive scores.

If you deem those numbers "significant improvement," so be it.

Interesting non-answer.

And you seemed so sure that Johnson had changed his scheme to facillitate improvement. Seems that you didn't think your cunning parallel the whole way through.

What non-answer?

I merely contended that Jim Johnson's defense showed marked improvement during a late season stretch? How is that a non-answer? Is it untrue? Are you asserting that Jim Johnson had nothing to do with the resurgence of his defense?

And please, repost specifically where I said he "changed his scheme to faciliate improvement." As I recall, I said that he was capable of making adjustments, and then I remarked how the concept of adjustments seemed to elude Mike Zimmer. My whole point here is that modernized schemes should not require massive change, only adjustments to adapt to certain offenses.

Your "encapsulation' is simply what you inferred, not what I said. It was a mere hypothetical. You seem to demonstrate enough thinking ability to not get hung up on something so simple, trivial and irrelevent, so I'll save you from yourself by not indulging you.

Now this seems more along the lines of a non-answer and a transparent attempt at deflection.

Teams attempted these things all year long. In the preseason, we noticed the problem with players adjusting to coverage in the flats, and Ware forced off the line. It was fixed, and for 12 games, we got by. Maybe you disagree that it was the best way to run things - but it worked so long as it was executed correctly.

It worked until offenses adjusted, and then our staff was incapable of counter adjusting.

And you continue to avoid my question: Do you really think it's mere coincidence that every opponent after New Orleans gutted Dallas' defense using Sean Payton's game plan?

 

[superpunk]

If you deem those numbers "significant improvement," so be it.

Are you incapable of understanding that it was a significant improvement with respects to the Dallas cowboys previous 4 games, or do you just refuse?

What non-answer?

I merely contended that Jim Johnson's defense showed marked improvement during a late season stretch? How is that a non-answer? Is it untrue? Are you asserting that Jim Johnson had nothing to do with the resurgence of his defense?

And please, repost specifically where I said he "changed his scheme to faciliate improvement." As I recall, I said that he was capable of making adjustments, and then I remarked how the concept of adjustments seemed to elude Mike Zimmer. My whole point here is that modernized schemes should not require massive change, only adjustments to adapt to certain offenses.

Recall differently. You claimed that he made adjustments midseason (inasmuch as we were talking about scheme) to improve his defense. However, you have no idea what those adjustments might have been, and no idea why they failed him in the playoffs.

Now this seems more along the lines of a non-answer and a transparent attempt at deflection.

Hardly, consider it a favor done for you - before you got yourself all het up debating a hypothetical only mentioned in passing. It's not worth the time, man.

It worked until offenses adjusted, and then our staff was incapable of counter adjusting.

And you continue to avoid my question: Do you really think it's mere coincidence that every opponent after New Orleans gutted Dallas' defense using Sean Payton's game plan?

Your question was not avoided. Teams did the exact same **** to us all year long. There was just a four game stretch where we couldn't handle it. Because even though Seattle attempted the same things, they didn't work nearly so well. You might ask why? I think you already know.

TEK's post was quite good. The defense was difficult to execute - but hardly impossible. So I'll leave it there.

 

[kTXe]

TO blame BP for everything is just as stupid as blaming the players for everything. They all screwed the pooch the last part of the season.

Heaven help me, I am actually agreeing with burmafrd.

Seriously, this strikes me as such a stupid argument. Attempting to diagnose what happened to last year's defense is an exercise in futility. Personally, I think it was a combination of both extremes argued for in this thread.

TEK's post pretty much sums it up.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Are you incapable of understanding that it was a significant improvement with respects to the Dallas cowboys previous 4 games, or do you just refuse?

And do you not understand that the quality of your opponent's offense varies from game to game?

For example, holding the Cleveland Browns to 250 yards total offense is substantially less impressive than holding the New Orleans Saints to 250 yards total.

Similarly, the Saints, Eagles, and Falcons can all boast better offenses statistically in 2006 than the Seahawks. Furthermore, the Seahawks were struggling mightily as they entered the playoffs, having lost 3 of their final 4 games (sound familiar?) and weathering injuries to their receiving corp. Yet, they still managed to gain more yards and points against Dallas than they averaged all season.

Furthermore, do you realize that Dallas failed to notch even one sack against Seattle--a team that had surrendered 49 sacks on the season? Dallas at least managed 5 sacks against Detroit, 2 against the Eagles, and 4 against Atlanta.

Do you honestly consider these results "significant improvement?"

This is the kind of logic that prolongued the Campo years. The Cowboys get blasted by 30 points in week 4, then only lose by 2 points in week 7; consequently, we're all discussing the "significant improvement" made over the course of the season. In reality, there was no improvement. The opposition simply wasn't as sharp.

Recall differently. You claimed that he made adjustments midseason (inasmuch as we were talking about scheme) to improve his defense. However, you have no idea what those adjustments might have been, and no idea why they failed him in the playoffs.

So are you denying that Jim Johnson made adjustments simply because I didn't provide any specific examples?

I mean, I could've mentioned the adjustments that were discussed by Merrill Hoge. He pointed out that, over the course of a game, Johnson started blitzing Brian Dawkins from the same side as Trent Cole because the tackle would always opt to block Dawkins, giving Cole an unobstructed path into the backfield.

I could've mentioned this example, but I didn't think it necessary. Johnson's adjustment ability is renown, and anyone who denies it is probably just being obtuse.

His adjustments were ineffective in the second round of the playoffs because the Saints are a great offensive team. And, if New Orleans had been the only team to shred Dallas' D, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. But, that's not the case: the Cowboys' defense struggled against the Saints and every subsequent team--the Falcons, the Eagles, the Lions, and yes, even the Seahawks.

Hardly, consider it a favor done for you - before you got yourself all het up debating a hypothetical only mentioned in passing. It's not worth the time, man.

A favor for me. Riiiiight....

How 'bout I do you a favor and let this part of the issue die here.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Heaven help me, I am actually agreeing with burmafrd.

Seriously, this strikes me as such a stupid argument. Attempting to diagnose what happened to last year's defense is an exercise in futility. Personally, I think it was a combination of both extremes argued for in this thread.

TEK's post pretty much sums it up.

I'm not contending that the players are without fault. On the contrary, I concede that both Brady James and Roy Williams struggled in coverage late in the season.

However, if the defensive scheme/philosophy is flawed and the defense simply can't adjust to certain offenses, it doesn't matter how well the players execute.

 

[Little Jr]

In my opinion, this is a scheming issue and, therefore, a coaching problem. When a team cannot mount a consistent pass rush and its best past rusher is constantly forced to "peel off" in coverage, the coaches are not utilizing their talent properly.

I agree that Ware was too aggressive in this game, and his overzealousness and tendency to overpursue cost the Cowboys dearly. My quesion, however, is this: Why is Merriman's aggressiveness never a detriment to San Diego?

Couldnt agree more.

 

[cowboyed]

Based on...?

How do you know the coaching staff didn't tell Ware repeatedly to watch backside containment only for Ware to not do so? Repeatedly, Parcells said a couple of guys blew coverage on the FB TD passes. Keith Davis sucking....I am pretty sure Parcells didnt tell him to be out of position. Of course, you could argue we should have had Watkins in there....

You can argue the opposite as well. One thing for sure, Parcells and the staff were not prepared for Payton and Gibbs exploiting their experience coaching for the Cowboys. How can you not take that into account in the game plan. But please don't state how do we know that Parcells did not try to counter-exploit Payton and Gibbs' game plan, lol.

When opposing teams quarterbacks comment how easy it was to exploit our defense something is wrong in coaching land. Parcells 3-4 just didn't work against teams with a multi-pronged offensive attacks.

New Orleans was our defining collapse but cracks in the foundation became evident when the Giants came to Texas Stadium and wiped the turf with us.

 

[superpunk]

Heaven help me, I am actually agreeing with burmafrd.

Seriously, this strikes me as such a stupid argument. Attempting to diagnose what happened to last year's defense is an exercise in futility. Personally, I think it was a combination of both extremes argued for in this thread.

TEK's post pretty much sums it up.

It's not so much about disagnosing - we know what was wrong. Just not whose fault that is.

And the trouble is, when you lay the majority of the blame for failure at the foot of something as broad as "scheme", you are basically absolving the players of their responsibility for playing poorly. Conversely, if they begin playing well, and your stance is that the flawed scheme was the reason for their struggle in the first place, you almost completely strip them of the credit for performing admirably. I don't think either approach is right, and if DeMarcus Ware gets 18 sacks next year, I certainly don't want to hear any **** from opposing fans about how he's just a product of Wade's "system". It's not right to think of it that way, and it's not consistent.

Let's say for a moment that all hell breaks loose, and Julius Jones has an actual break out year next year. Do you think anyone blaming Parcells' heavy hand and zone-blocking scheme is going to want to hear "Julius is actually still a mediocre back. Garrett just schemed over his mediocrity." That'd hardly fair to Julius Jones, and the countless hours of hard work he would have put in towards improving himself, I think.

Certainly schemes can put players in good positions to make plays. I don't think the defense we ran the past two years did that as well as it could have. But it can work - and it was effective. The notion that there was some simple, fatal flaw waiting to be exposed by Sean Payton ignores that we were a good defense last year before a late collapse, and rebounded this year. Did our first 12 opponents just ignore how Joe Gibbs exposed us last year?

Aaron Glenn offered a possible reason

"I don't know, just didn't have our legs under us. The last half of the season, it seemed like we were tired and our legs weren't quick. Happened the two years I was here. Like everyone was dead tired."

Then there is this from nose tackle Jason Ferguson, who readily points out Parcells' 3-4 style of defense "doesn't hide you - not a defense that will bail you out of stuff." He means, it's pretty basic. No tricks. Just mano a mano.

"Why didn't we do this? Why couldn't we help ourselves?" Ferguson said. "We stayed basic, stayed in the same thing and we didn't get it done as players."

We tried more tricks down the stretch, but nothing worked until we remedied things to an extent in Seattle. And the players deserve full credit for sacking up and playing better. The players can do it, we have some definite talent - but laying the bulk of the blame at the foot of a scheme's fatal flaw, also strips the players of the credit they deserve, good or bad.

 

[TEK2000]

Superpunk... he's saying that bother the players and the coaches share in the blame (or credit).

What else is there to argue on that?

Its a TEAM sport and the "team" includes the coaches as well as the players.

I understand what you're saying but I don't see anyone trying to put ALL of the blame on Bill Parcells and the scheme at this point in the thread.