Hidden in Plain Sight

[VACowboy]

So what? 13-3 is what we should expect?

So the team's defensive roster hasn't exactly been an empirical indicator of its success. Even last year, as horrible as the offense was and grabbing historically few turnovers, the Dallas D was still 16th in scoring defense and gave up fewer points than the NFC East champions. Following from the OP, it's not hard at all for me to believe that the offense will be explosive, the defense will be average and this team will be one game away from a February football game sometime in January.

 

[Sydla]

What's interesting is our front office formula duplicating our success in 2014 reflects our lack of priority on defense.

If you look around the NFL and NFC particular most of the top teams who are contending for Super Bowl have built great defenses with the exception of Green Bay who rely on who I think is the best QB in the NFL.

And the Packers lone ring with Rodgers was with their best defense .

Again ,interesting that the Cowboys model is quite different from teams in NFC with more proven success in recent years.

I think their formula is very New Orleans Saints-esque. Put the best offense you can on the field and hope the defense can be opportunistic like that Saints defense was.

Will it work? We are about to find out.

 

[Sydla]

So the team's defensive roster hasn't exactly been an empirical indicator of its success. Even last year, as horrible as the offense was and grabbing historically few turnovers, the Dallas D was still 16th in scoring defense and gave up fewer points than the NFC East champions. Following from the OP, it's not hard at all for me to believe that the offense will be explosive, the defense will be average and this team will be one game away from a February football game sometime in January.

But that's not really what the original poster is saying.

He's contention isn't that the Cowboys "could" be good. I think almost everyone here save for a few thinks this team could be good if things break the right way.

The OP's contention is that it's strange to him that people would have doubts about this team.

 

[Tommy]

The 2014 team has NOTHING to do with this 2016 team. Nothing what so ever. The comparison is foolish.

8-8, 8-8, 8-8, 12-4, 4-12 the last 5 years. With that recent record how can anyone sit here with a straight face and ask any of us why we have reservations? Its laughable.

You gave these 2 posts back to back. You don't make any sense.

 

[Diehardblues]

Vegas has Cowboys over/ under at 9 1/2. I think that's a reasonable number.

A case could be made for going either way.

I believe if Romo stays healthy for 16 games 10 wins is possible but remember 9 wins was enough last year to win division.

My hunch since you have to bet it before the season begins Id go with the under simply because with our history, Romo's injury and defenses concerns it appears an uphill struggle .

Plus I'm an under guy since your winning until you lose . Ha. Plus there's so many variables . But I'll be rooting like heck to go over cause 10 wins should get us in playoffs.

 

[RS12]

I find it fascinating that people still doubt the 2016 iteration of the Dallas Cowboys.

You are kidding right? I could only take this quote seriously if 2014 was your first year as a fan.

 

[Diehardblues]

But that's not really what the original poster is saying.

He's contention isn't that the Cowboys "could" be good. I think almost everyone here save for a few thinks this team could be good if things break the right way.

The OP's contention is that it's strange to him that people would have doubts about this team.

I definitely agree we could be good but I also fall in the group with concerns.

It's difficult for me to understand how you couldn't have some concerns with our defense and if Romo can stay healthy.

Who won't be holding your breathe every time Romo is hit or goes down ?

Who won't be concerned our defense can make a stop to close out a game?

 

[VACowboy]

But that's not really what the original poster is saying.

He's contention isn't that the Cowboys "could" be good. I think almost everyone here save for a few thinks this team could be good if things break the right way.

The OP's contention is that it's strange to him that people would have doubts about this team.

Well, you're right about that. It's not surprising at all. But I think the way prognosticators cite defense alone in predicting Dallas' future is interesting at the very least, like, the Dallas D has been at the bottom of the League the past few years. I think Tony Romo is a much better indicator of what this team will do, and if he stays healthy (a huge if), all bets are off--regardless of the defense.

 

[Screw The Hall]

Two years ago the Cowboys made the decision to become a power football, smack you in the mouth, football team. They are now playing to the strength of this squad, the offensive line. The first year results from that decision were magical ... from Romo, to a defense that was much better than anyone could have possibly expected, to the 12-4 record and a heartbreaking postseason defeat at Lambeau . There is no doubt that there was a synergy that reverberated across the entirety of that 2014 team based on that one decision. Our long lost "team identity" had finally been reaffirmed.

Last year was the absolute physical embodiment of "Murphy's Law". I'm throwing it out. Act as if it was a sign of something more if you like. I don't buy it.

I can't wait to see how year two (three if you must) of this plan pans out.

 

[Diehardblues]

Well, you're right about that. It's not surprising at all. But I think the way prognosticators cite defense alone in predicting Dallas' future is interesting at the very least, like, the Dallas D has been at the bottom of the League the past few years. I think Tony Romo is a much better indicator of what this team will do, and if he stays healthy (a huge if), all bets are off--regardless of the defense.

Yep, when Romo's healthy or at least still playing Cowboys have never had a losing record and in contention until the final week.

Nothing has changed around here. We still go as Romo goes unless another QB takes us in his absence like Dak.

 

[LittleD]

Lawrence played 16 games last year and with Hardy opposite him and they only managed 31 sacks. They've added Thornton, who is more a run stuffer than a penetrator in the interior. It remains to be seen if Crawford can be that interior guy that wreaks havoc in the backfield.

This team has to figure out a way to get 8-9 more sacks above 31 to be above league average. That's not an easy thing to do, especially when you are counting on some real projects.

I honestly don't know how any Cowboys fan that is honest with themselves can look at the defensive front and think there are no real big questions there.

They will not get league average and you and I both know it. They could probably get as many as in 2014 when Selvie & company were playing.
If the Cowboys can average 28 points a game and only give up 24 points a game they should make the playoffs. At this point, no one should
expect more. If Romo goes down for any length of time, we will be picking in the top 5 again next year.

 

[UTmodisette]

The 2014 team had Romo for 15 games. The defense was 2nd on the NFL in turnovers. You cannot by any stretch of the imagination repredict these things or assume they will happen again. Schedule was different, NFC East was different, teams are all different, ect....ect.....

And although Mincey and Selvie may not have been pass rushing demons they were solid players and played well against the run. These young DE's have no history of that. Its is a big unknown. And we all know that Lawrence is gone for the first 4 games.

2014 was a dream season in just about every way. In case you havent noticed, this year isnt going that way to date.

The ONLY comparison you can rationally make with any real confidence is that the run game with Zeke and the depth should be as effective as Murray was. And honestly.................that is saying a lot still within itself.

You're right, I can't assume things will go the same as they did in 2014. But it seems like people who are optimistic about this team are crapped on for thinking things can go well, but if you are critical of the team you are allowed to assume that Romo will get seriously injured, and that the team will be mediocre at best. Did Dallas have pretty good injury luck on offense in 2014? Yes, but they also had awful injury luck on defense. The season definitely rests on Romo's ability to play at least 14 games, but as you said, you can't assume anything for the 2016 season, even the bad assumptions.

So if you take out all assumptions, the comparison to the 2014 squad is to evaluate the talent and depth of both rosters in the preseason. Amazingly, the offense is almost the same, with only Leary and Murray replaced by Collins and Elliot. Considering that most of those returning players are young it's reasonable to think the offense could be even better than that year(Obviously injuries would affect that).

The defense on the other hand is very different. Half of the defensive line is different, with Hayden(the second worst starter on that defense) replaced by Thornton, Mincey replaced by Irving, and George Selvie replaced by Mayowa. Obviously Lawrence will take that starting spot after 4 weeks, and him in his 3rd year is way better than any pass rusher Dallas had in 2014. The secondary is basically the same, except Wilcox(the worst starter on that defense) is replaced by Byron Jones who everyone can agree is a huge improvement. The only position that is worse is MLB with McClain not coming back.

I'll admit that there is more risk for Dallas because as they showed last year, it's much harder to replace injuries to Romo and Dez than it is for Elite defensive teams to replace injuries to their superstars. But I'm not going to assume the offense will be anything like the 31st ranked offense from last year until those injuries happen.

 

[jday]

If you don't understand why fans and media have concerns about this team then I have to question your ability to rationally analyze.

But let me give you two big highlights:

1. An offense that although its amazing it appears totally dependent on an old, bad back, bad collar bone, injury prone QB.
2. The defense hasnt been good for a while and we have little depth anywhere and huge problems with the pass rush and the LBer corps. And Carr is still a starting corner.

Now you have a tendency to have the cavalier attitude that "we will be fine" or "who cares" about many of these issues. Or I have heard you bring up several times that "this will be 2014 with a better defense on paper" mantra.

This is your weekly rant we discussed before where you basically say the same thing and people give you the same answers every time. I am beginning to think that you just like the attention.

I do like attention..you got me there. Actually, what I like is football discussion, which is what this is really about. And, as you may of noticed, I enjoy writing...I'm pretty good at it, I think.

See the thing is, every NFL team in the league has their own perspective Achilles Hill, if you will. So, the above is not about white-washing those deficiencies...I highlighted them in the very first paragraph. No, this about measuring strength against strength league wide. No one has the potential of the Cowboys offense. No one. Sure, they might check many of the same boxes that the Cowboys do on offense, but they don't check every single one. Sure, much of that hinges on Romo's health as well other key contributors...but I'm not Miss Cleo...I don't base my opinion on things that are beyond prediction. What I do know is every team in the NFL is faced with those same conditions. If their starting QB goes down, so does their Super Bowl chances. That's across the board. So why would I harp on something that could happen to any team? Kind of a waste of time you stop to truly think about it....

 

[jday]

8-8, 8-8, 8-8, 12-4, 4-12 the last 5 years. With that recent record how can anyone sit here with a straight face and ask any of us why we have reservations? Its laughable.

I didn't ask you why..I simply pointed out you are wrong.

 

[Diehardblues]

Romo's recent injuries makes him more probable than other teams.

Plus we illustrated an inability to overcome his absence which again makes Romo's absence more of an issue for us than most teams.

Teams like Denver, Houston and Pittsburgh overcame QB injuries with a great defense.

 

[VACowboy]

The 2014 team has NOTHING to do with this 2016 team. Nothing what so ever. The comparison is foolish.

Nothing whatsoever? I couldn't disagree more. It has the same QB. It has the same WR's and TE's. It has the same OL, plus La'el Collins, that has been together a year longer. And I'll take Elliot/Morris over Murray/Randle any day. On the defensive side, Sean Lee tore his ACL in OTA's two years ago and was lost for the season. OScan tore his knee up in TC last year, so 2016 will be the first of the past three seasons that we've had our two best defensive players on the field at the same time. Jones is replacing Wilcox and Thornton is replacing Hayden, so unless you want to argue George Selvie vs. the youngsters, I don't see where the 2016 version of the Cowboys D hasn't been upgraded significantly from the 2014 team.

I'll agree that it's naive to believe that the 2016 team will be 12-4 just because we replaced Murray with the #4 pick in the draft, but it's no more foolish for me to point to the success of a 2014 team with lesser talent and be optimistic than it is for concerns about the 2016 defense to create doubt. Everybody has an opinion.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I fully expect this team to be better than the 2014 version. I expect this team to be better on both sides of the ball and in ST than in 2014. I expect them to win more games than they did in 2014 and to go further in Playoffs. Winning the division is a given. No other team will even compete for the division IMO. Some of you look at the 8-8 years as being a bad thing. Granted I would have liked better but given the state of the team at that time, the state of the CAP etc. being 8-8 with a bad OL, bad DL and no secondary to speak of, was pretty impressive actually. The last 8-8 year, was a miracle IMO. To have that many injuries and still be competitive, true accomplishment. Once the OL had been revamped, some other pieces added and everyone remained fairly healthy, boom 12-4. I fully expected this team to make some serious noise last year but again, major injuries and horrible QB play, and players making the worst mistake at the worst time in the game cost us several games.

If this team can remain healthy, which is the biggest part of any team winning anything, then this team will go a long ways, this year. The defense will be better than in 2014 by a good margin. My bet is they finish in the top 12.. you heard it here! Now that Scandrick is back and Mo showing signs of being better and an actual FS roaming the back end, that frees of a lot of different types of blitzes, stunts, etc we can run. I can't wait to get this started. It's going to be a fun year!!

 

[School]

Since we no idea what to expect with injuries, I'd be interested in what people predict the Cowboys' record will be assuming the team, and Romo in particular, are healthy.

Assuming health, does anybody see this as a sub-500 team? Even last year the team was 3-1 in games Romo played, with the only loss coming to the Panthers.

 

[StarBoyz83]

If the defense doesn't get turnovers like it did in 2014 it doesn't matter if it's more talented. That was one of the main reasons for success in 2014.

 

[Diehardblues]

Since we no idea what to expect with injuries, I'd be interested in what people predict the Cowboys' record will be assuming the team, and Romo in particular, are healthy.

Assuming health, does anybody see this as a sub-500 team? Even last year the team was 3-1 in games Romo played, with the only loss coming to the Panthers.

The Cowboys have never finished with a losing record when Romo finishes the season .

And they've never had a winning record when he doesn't and why we go as Romo goes.

We've never had a great defense or Heir apparent to lead us in his absence.