If Ware ends up with 5 sacks?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Whats that supposed to mean.. whats the definition of stopped? Certainly they didnt score on every possession of every game.

If they scored less than say 24 points in a given game they must have been stopped some.. unless you wanna say they stopped themselves every time that happened. I'm sure we averaged more than 4 posessions per game, didnt we?

And we scored less than, say, 24 points over 20 times in the 3 years from '92-'94. For comparisons sake, the Niners did that 15 times in that period.

But it didnt really necessarily matter much when it did happen to us because we only allowed *over* 24 points like a half dozen times over the same period.

10 years ago, I think 17 to 20 points a game was pretty good. I would consider less then 14, not so good. I would consider 10 or less, stopped.

Now, statistically, you can draw conclusions based of numbers but in reality, the question becomes, when you had to score, could you? The answer is yes. The teams of the early 90s scored and inflicted there will on others. You also have to keep in mind that we used the running game to control tempo. Typically, we didn't go out to try and score as many points as we could. That was not the way that team played. They got up on you and then used clock in the running game to control the game.

I'm amazed at how litteral you are trying to make this. No offense, in any sport, ever, has been judged on it's ability to score all the time. Obviously, if that were the case, there would not be a sport. I mean, this is commen sense. If an offense can score points when it needs to on a fairly consistant basis, if an offense can control a game, then I think you have to say that that offense is pretty damn good. The Cowboys offense definatly did that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So you can stop the timing passes -- provided that a defense plays it correctly. You are saying the O can't be stopped if run correctly -- except for when a defense is able to jam the receivers. I think you are equating offense "run correctly" with "defense not performing correctly." The timing passes can be defended -- and when they are defended properly you can have a disaster. I'm sure it is tough to do this on D every down -- just like it is tough to run the O perfectly on every down.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree the offense is unstoppable or more effective than any other. Jamming the receivers does seem to be an effective strategy -- when done correctly -- for stopping this O.

No. English here. You can not stop the timing pattern if the offense executes. The defense can attempt to disrupt it but if the WR executes, you can't stop it.

I provided the example of the Cowboys because some very good defenses, tried to use this methode. It didn't work. There are some WRs your not going to be able to jam. That's the reality.

You can't Jam Randy Moss. You can't Jam TO. There are guys out there you can't Jam. If you wish to say that it's the defense that is failing to execute, that's your choice. When no defense is ever able to execute something as fundamentally important as re-routing a WR in coverage, then Ihave to say that it's not a defensive short coming. It's an offensive advantage that can't be addressed.

 

[AbeBeta]

You can't Jam Randy Moss. You can't Jam TO. There are guys out there you can't Jam. If you wish to say that it's the defense that is failing to execute, that's your choice. When no defense is ever able to execute something as fundamentally important as re-routing a WR in coverage, then Ihave to say that it's not a defensive short coming. It's an offensive advantage that can't be addressed.

So again this comes down to needing a super WR. But what your great WR is matched against an equally talented CB?

It is true that the offense was very effective for a 4 year stretch. However, what we saw after that point was teams, especially in the NFC East, devising defenses to throw off the timing. You see this is in the increased focus on having big corners that were effective at rerouting WRs. I think also that Philly's blitz happy defense was at least partially a response to our O as it provided another means to disrupt the timing.

Defenses did catch on to what we were doing, devised ways to stop it, and we decided to switch to a different offensive approach since we got figured out.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So again this comes down to needing a super WR. But what your great WR is matched against an equally talented CB?

It is true that the offense was very effective for a 4 year stretch. However, what we saw after that point was teams, especially in the NFC East, devising defenses to throw off the timing. You see this is in the increased focus on having big corners that were effective at rerouting WRs. I think also that Philly's blitz happy defense was at least partially a response to our O as it provided another means to disrupt the timing.

Defenses did catch on to what we were doing, devised ways to stop it, and we decided to switch to a different offensive approach since we got figured out.

I believe I said, from the outset, that you needed players with unique skills to be able to make this work.

Deion Sanders is widely regarded as the best Cover Corner. You may elect to insert another name here but basically, I go with Deion because most agree with this position. Michael Irvin, was not the best WR of his time but, in that offense, Deion could not stop him. Darrell Green is one of the best CBs I'd ever seen play. He could not stop Irvin either. Eric Allen, later Troy Vincent, lots of very good CBs. In fact, the only CB that I ever saw give Irvin trouble, in that offense was Aneas Williams. I would not say that he stopped Irvin but I would say that he had more success then anybody else. Having said that, the offense was not stopped. The other players executed and as a result, we enjoyed much success.

 

[Jarv]

Ware who ?

Hijack alert...lol

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ware who ?

Hijack alert...lol

Agreed, Sorry guys. I did not intend to drive this discussion into the weeds. The timing offense should really be a seperate thread.

My appoligies.

 

[AbeBeta]

I believe I said, from the outset, that you needed players with unique skills to be able to make this work.

And I believe I said, from the outset, that the claim that you need special players with unique skills can be made for any offensive system. What I'm not getting from you is why this system is better than any other.

Was this system better than others for a stretch in the 90's? Hell yes. Does that mean it is the most effective system - given the somewhat ideal constraints you set up? That's the point I'd like you to argue. But you are arguing around it.

I say a D that focuses on jamming guys at the line can disrupt it and you say but not with the right players on O who can't be jammed. Respectfully, that is just a crazy argument -- and again, it does nothing to distinguish a timing O from any other form of O.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I believe I said, from the outset, that the claim that you need special players with unique skills can be made for any offensive system. What I'm not getting from you is why this system is better than any other.

Was this system better than others for a stretch in the 90's? Hell yes. Does that mean it is the most effective system - given the somewhat ideal constraints you set up? That's the point I'd like you to argue. But you are arguing around it.

I say a D that focuses on jamming guys at the line can disrupt it and you say but not with the right players on O who can't be jammed. Respectfully, that is just a crazy argument -- and again, it does nothing to distinguish a timing O from any other form of O.

Last post for me, on this thread, about this subject.

Your correct, your not getting it. Your not getting it because your trying to prove your point rather then discuss this. I never said it was the best. Never happened. I said it was unstobable. You asked, what's that? I gave you my opinion of what that was. You asked, what kind of skills, I answered. You asked , what's different about this offense. I told you. You implied that if you had the best defensive players on the other side of the ball using certain techniques, it could disrupt and stop that offense. I gave example of how this was incorrect. I've done all you've asked me to. Now you need to do what's being asked of us. Stop hijacking this thread. I will definatly honor that request.

 

[AbeBeta]

Last post for me, on this thread, about this subject.

Your correct, your not getting it. Your not getting it because your trying to prove your point rather then discuss this. I never said it was the best. Never happened. I said it was unstobable. You asked, what's that? I gave you my opinion of what that was. You asked, what kind of skills, I answered. You asked , what's different about this offense. I told you. You implied that if you had the best defensive players on the other side of the ball using certain techniques, it could disrupt and stop that offense. I gave example of how this was incorrect. I've done all you've asked me to. Now you need to do what's being asked of us. Stop hijacking this thread. I will definatly honor that request.

Last one for me as well. You said it was a) unstoppable and b) no other O was unstoppable. A+B means this O would have to be "better" than others.

All you said was if you had a receiver who couldn't be jammed it wasn't possible to stop him. That's not an argument - it is a fantasy.

Mods - please kill this thread. It isn't going anywhere positive from here.

 

[Nors]

"On pace for" is the most useless stat ever.

On day 1 of the current baseball season Dmitri Young hit 3 home runs for the Detroit Tigers. He was "on pace for" 486 home runs this year.

I'll worry about Ware if the season is nearing an end and he hasn't impressed.

After 12 games he's spot on Pace for 5 sacks. I expected much more from him. Not a bust at all but he really has not gotten to QB's like we thought going in.

Thoughts?

 

[Dawgs0916]

I agree that he isnt the force we all expected. Merriman has done a much better job getting to the QB. Ware has improved in other areas though.

 

[Nors]

Merriman was the safer pick and obviously more prepared to perform year 1. Does Ware have LT potential to do more? I think he's a better edge rusher but struggles when engaged by NFL tackles (not ours)....

 

[Dawgs0916]

I don't know man, Merriman just seems more athletic. Ware to me, it looks like will turn into a good LB, but not a superior passrusher, which is what we need.

 

[blindzebra]

Yawn...

The redundancy continues.

 

[Nors]

Have an opinion on topic or just being an ***?

 

[Dawgs0916]

Obviously the latter...

 

[Nors]

Obviously the latter...

Par for the course with BZ.


I think we need Ware to get 4-5 more sacks to make a playoff run. We need to start flushing QB's more and hitting them more. Ware is our edge guy.

Show us Ware.

 

[blindzebra]

Have an opinion on topic or just being an ***?

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

You were getting schooled on other threads, so you wanted to rehash this one because you think you can show up Hostile.

Have not seen you at Detox, wouldn't have anything to do with your cause playing like crap and getting raked across the coals, now would it?



As for my take on Ware.

He's playing nearly every defensive snap, because we have absolute crap at LB opposite him and no depth.

Because of that, teams do not fear the blitz, and I'd point out that since Al and Dat went down, Shanle and James have not gotten a sack...hmmm.

Constant double teams, too many snaps, and the rookie wall, but hey why talk football when there is back patting and I told you so's to post?

 

[Yeagermeister]

If Ware would fake outside and go inside or at least vary his moves he'd get more sacks.

 

[Nors]

Nope - all excuses for Ware - he was brought here to get to QB.

So far he has underachieved for all the excuses you mentioned.

For Dallas to win we need him to step up - he was the #11 overall.