Is It a better strategy to finish the Offense or build the defense

[GhostOfPelluer]

Lets just boil this down. What is the point you are trying to make? I believe we need to improve our Defense and we need to do that by means of upgrading our ability to apply pressure.

What is it that you feel the priority is?

My point is that improving the offense can be just as effective as improving the defense when it comes to reaching the ultimate goal - winning a championship. The priority should be to improve wherever you can. If that's the pass rush, great. If that's the secondary, great. If the value isn't there for pass rush or secondary, but it is at WR or tackle, that works, too. About the only positions that wouldn't make sense are QB, RB, C, WLB and probably G.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My point is that improving the offense can be just as effective as improving the defense when it comes to reaching the ultimate goal - winning a championship. The priority should be to improve wherever you can. If that's the pass rush, great. If that's the secondary, great. If the value isn't there for pass rush or secondary, but it is at WR or tackle, that works, too. About the only positions that wouldn't make sense are QB, RB, C, WLB and probably G.

To a point, but the point can also be made the you reach a level of diminishing returns with that approach. I will point out to you that I never said anything about who we should draft or where. This is something that, apparently, you attached to this discussion.

I am generally in favor of drafting value where it can be found in the draft but, I will also say that looking at this situation, from just that point of view, is part of the problem. This is not just about who you draft and where. This is about an organization approach. We ignore our failures, as a team to address certain areas. We don't do all we can to correct the situation. We draft players at certain positions and when they don't pan out, the team says, "Well, that's who was available at the time we selected." That's true but it's also only half of the story in many cases. We do not do all we can to put ourselves in a position to get players at need areas before hand and we do not always spend in FA to ensure those areas are addressed. On top of that, much of our fan base then justifies that behavior.

As a team, we are entering a very different period or level, then what we are used to, over the past several years. We are now good enough and young enough that we can actually afford to go after an expensive piece to really get us over the top. Think Neon signing back in the day. On it's surface, that was probably not a very good financial signing but because of where we were at the time, he was a player who really helped us win a Championship. I think we need to take that approach again, if need be. We are close and this defense is not really all that bad. They just lack the ability to force decisions in critical times of the game. They need a catalyst on the Defensive side of the ball that will force QBs to make decision. We lost, not because of the call the coaches made, though I will say that I don't always agree on those. We lost because we allowed GB to dictate to us instead of forcing them to react to what should have been a very easy play to defense. If you watch that play again, you will see three DLs and a LB. It's actually not true that we only had 3 pass rushers, we actually had 4 but the LB was on a delay. He was basically spying and released as soon as Rodgers slide out of the pocket. Unfortunately, our three DLs did a poor job of contain. Two of them actually took each other out, while GB slides there Center out to protect Rodgers on the roll out. GB actually did a really nice job on that, particularly the Center. It's not easy to get in position to pick up that block.

If we can't find a way to consistently bring pressure, we are always going to get beat by good QBs. The idea of taking the best value available is no longer the right approach IMO because we have enough talent on this team to win, minus the pass rush.

That is my opinion the subject. You can't just ignore the Defense in favor of the Offense because you can't find somebody to draft. That's an excuse IMO. You have to make it happen.

 

[Ranched]

....and "Elite offenses" win first round playoffs. If you can't get by the first round, then what's a good D for?

Elite offenses don't win championships, Defense does!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

....and "Elite offenses" win first round playoffs. If you can't get by the first round, then what's a good D for?

That's an interesting point but the same, I think, could be said for the idea that says, "What's the point of winning a first round game if you can't win in the second round or even in the Super Bowl?"

I think you need both. I think teams have won with superior talent on one side of the ball but I don't think that's the norm. I think that's the exception but that is just my own opinion.

 

[LocimusPrime]

To a point, but the point can also be made the you reach a level of diminishing returns with that approach. I will point out to you that I never said anything about who we should draft or where. This is something that, apparently, you attached to this discussion.

I am generally in favor of drafting value where it can be found in the draft but, I will also say that looking at this situation, from just that point of view, is part of the problem. This is not just about who you draft and where. This is about an organization approach. We ignore our failures, as a team to address certain areas. We don't do all we can to correct the situation. We draft players at certain positions and when they don't pan out, the team says, "Well, that's who was available at the time we selected." That's true but it's also only half of the story in many cases. We do not do all we can to put ourselves in a position to get players at need areas before hand and we do not always spend in FA to ensure those areas are addressed. On top of that, much of our fan base then justifies that behavior.

As a team, we are entering a very different period or level, then what we are used to, over the past several years. We are now good enough and young enough that we can actually afford to go after an expensive piece to really get us over the top. Think Neon signing back in the day. On it's surface, that was probably not a very good financial signing but because of where we were at the time, he was a player who really helped us win a Championship. I think we need to take that approach again, if need be. We are close and this defense is not really all that bad. They just lack the ability to force decisions in critical times of the game. They need a catalyst on the Defensive side of the ball that will force QBs to make decision. We lost, not because of the call the coaches made, though I will say that I don't always agree on those. We lost because we allowed GB to dictate to us instead of forcing them to react to what should have been a very easy play to defense. If you watch that play again, you will see three DLs and a LB. It's actually not true that we only had 3 pass rushers, we actually had 4 but the LB was on a delay. He was basically spying and released as soon as Rodgers slide out of the pocket. Unfortunately, our three DLs did a poor job of contain. Two of them actually took each other out, while GB slides there Center out to protect Rodgers on the roll out. GB actually did a really nice job on that, particularly the Center. It's not easy to get in position to pick up that block.

If we can't find a way to consistently bring pressure, we are always going to get beat by good QBs. The idea of taking the best value available is no longer the right approach IMO because we have enough talent on this team to win, minus the pass rush.

That is my opinion the subject. You can't just ignore the Defense in favor of the Offense because you can't find somebody to draft. That's an excuse IMO. You have to make it happen.

Wow that was exactly how I was feeling And you expressed it perfectly! Thanks for posting that I'm too lazy to type that much.

Awesome

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wow that was exactly how I was feeling And you expressed it perfectly! Thanks for posting that I'm too lazy to type that much.

Awesome

Yeah, looking back on it, I am not sure I would even re-read it because of it's length, but you are welcome.

Who knew, Prime is the Right Side of the Brain to my Left Side! Man, Fridays are always a kick in the pants right?

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

To a point, but the point can also be made the you reach a level of diminishing returns with that approach. I will point out to you that I never said anything about who we should draft or where. This is something that, apparently, you attached to this discussion.

I am generally in favor of drafting value where it can be found in the draft but, I will also say that looking at this situation, from just that point of view, is part of the problem. This is not just about who you draft and where. This is about an organization approach. We ignore our failures, as a team to address certain areas. We don't do all we can to correct the situation. We draft players at certain positions and when they don't pan out, the team says, "Well, that's who was available at the time we selected." That's true but it's also only half of the story in many cases. We do not do all we can to put ourselves in a position to get players at need areas before hand and we do not always spend in FA to ensure those areas are addressed. On top of that, much of our fan base then justifies that behavior.

As a team, we are entering a very different period or level, then what we are used to, over the past several years. We are now good enough and young enough that we can actually afford to go after an expensive piece to really get us over the top. Think Neon signing back in the day. On it's surface, that was probably not a very good financial signing but because of where we were at the time, he was a player who really helped us win a Championship. I think we need to take that approach again, if need be. We are close and this defense is not really all that bad. They just lack the ability to force decisions in critical times of the game. They need a catalyst on the Defensive side of the ball that will force QBs to make decision. We lost, not because of the call the coaches made, though I will say that I don't always agree on those. We lost because we allowed GB to dictate to us instead of forcing them to react to what should have been a very easy play to defense. If you watch that play again, you will see three DLs and a LB. It's actually not true that we only had 3 pass rushers, we actually had 4 but the LB was on a delay. He was basically spying and released as soon as Rodgers slide out of the pocket. Unfortunately, our three DLs did a poor job of contain. Two of them actually took each other out, while GB slides there Center out to protect Rodgers on the roll out. GB actually did a really nice job on that, particularly the Center. It's not easy to get in position to pick up that block.

If we can't find a way to consistently bring pressure, we are always going to get beat by good QBs. The idea of taking the best value available is no longer the right approach IMO because we have enough talent on this team to win, minus the pass rush.

That is my opinion the subject. You can't just ignore the Defense in favor of the Offense because you can't find somebody to draft. That's an excuse IMO. You have to make it happen.

I don't think we're that far apart, I agree that we need more help on defense and could sorely use a pass rushing catalyst. That would likely make everything else fall into place. I also agree that once we get past Tony's contract, there will be ample cap space to play with. As is, we can create a solid amount of space with some cap maneuvering.

I never said specifically draft. I mean in FA, too. Same concept applies, you spend on value and not reach (or overspend) just because of the need. I'd hate to give JPP $15 mill per and watch him get 7-9 sacks a season.

I also don't want to ignore the defense. I would never advocate that.

I disagree that we are at the point of diminishing returns on offense. Our offense was very good, but there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. The Giants and Vikings basically shut us down, for instance.

I also disagree that there is some organizational approach that ignores our failures. The 2015 offseason focused on the defense - specifically the pass rush. Our top FA signing was Captain Dillweed. Three of our first four draft picks were on defense. Two of our top three acquisitions were DE and the third (Jones) impacts pass coverage which can also help the pass rush. I'm not giving the team a pass for whiffing on Gregory and Hardy but it's not like they were ignoring the pass rush (our biggest weakness).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think we're that far apart, I agree that we need more help on defense and could sorely use a pass rushing catalyst. That would likely make everything else fall into place. I also agree that once we get past Tony's contract, there will be ample cap space to play with. As is, we can create a solid amount of space with some cap maneuvering.

I never said specifically draft. I mean in FA, too. Same concept applies, you spend on value and not reach (or overspend) just because of the need. I'd hate to give JPP $15 mill per and watch him get 7-9 sacks a season.

I also don't want to ignore the defense. I would never advocate that.

I disagree that we are at the point of diminishing returns on offense. Our offense was very good, but there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. The Giants and Vikings basically shut us down, for instance.

I also disagree that there is some organizational approach that ignores our failures. The 2015 offseason focused on the defense - specifically the pass rush. Our top FA signing was Captain Dillweed. Three of our first four draft picks were on defense. Two of our top three acquisitions were DE and the third (Jones) impacts pass coverage which can also help the pass rush. I'm not giving the team a pass for whiffing on Gregory and Hardy but it's not like they were ignoring the pass rush (our biggest weakness).

But they weren't really doing all they can to fix it either. That's the point. Half measures give you half measure results.

As to the Vikings and the Giants, both of those games were the result of inexperience at QB. That is something that will correct itself IMO.

 

[DandyDon52]

I do not dispute that the Coaching Staff played it's part in this as well but fundamentally, this is not just one incident. We have a problem getting off the field in critical situations and we don't seem to be able to get pressure in those situations, all too often. You make a call as a coach and it may be right or it may be wrong but when you make a call and you can't execute it, that suggests a lack of talent.

JMO

Well the reason I argue this, is that it isnt as simple as adding 1 or 2 good pass rushers to fix our defense and pressure issues.
Also that our def players are not as bad as some think.

Look at the giants, they spent money on defense, and got beat by gb like we did, one and done also.

In a close games like both our losses to gb in playoffs, and those were the 2 big games of JG's time as HC, coaching matters,
and can tilt the game in favor of the other team, with in game errors, bad play calls, or bad game plans.

On that last play, in last GB game rushing 3 against I think 6 blockers, is just about as dumb as it gets, with a qb like rodgers,
he is gonna find someone with the time he will have.
1 guy ,cook got open and he found him for a big gain. No one actually covered cook who is their go to guy lol so I see that as a error too.

If you rush 5 or 6 on that play rodgers has less time, and the wr have less time to get far down field.
It would then have to be a run after catch and that is better than letting a guy just catch it already 37 yards down field.
I also think jamming wr at the line takes away time needed to get far down field.

In that situation dallas and marinelli were playing it safe, and not to lose, rather than bold and to win.
And what appears to be safe isnt really safe.
Marinelli also is not very good on blitzing, we rarely do that very good, and then other teams do that pretty good to dallas.

Romo was hurt on blitz's each time he got hurt, not sure on seattle game , but others were guys who came free unblocked.
And that is something we never seem to be able to do.

Coaching matters, especially in big or close games and in playoffs.

If we add 2 good def players, this season, that will help sure, but it wont fix bad coaching.
and I say bad coaching, but maybe that isnt a good way to say it, as it isnt "bad" it is lets say at key times "flawed"
Same for the OC linehan, at times he is good, but other times what he does makes me
wonder what was he thinking.
Our game plans are rarely what I would call good or innovative.
It all adds up and just adding better players here and there is not a fix.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

But they weren't really doing all they can to fix it either. That's the point. Half measures give you half measure results.

As to the Vikings and the Giants, both of those games were the result of inexperience at QB. That is something that will correct itself IMO.

I guess I disagree that those were half measures. They did spend 25 out of their past 40 draft picks on defense from 2012-2016. I'll grant you that salary cap money and No. 1 picks (3 offense, 2 defense) have been spent more on offense in that same period.

I think the fairer criticism is that they have more trouble identifying and developing defensive talent than they do on offense.

 

[DandyDon52]

My point is that improving the offense can be just as effective as improving the defense when it comes to reaching the ultimate goal - winning a championship. The priority should be to improve wherever you can. If that's the pass rush, great. If that's the secondary, great. If the value isn't there for pass rush or secondary, but it is at WR or tackle, that works, too. About the only positions that wouldn't make sense are QB, RB, C, WLB and probably G.

I agree with what your saying, but like I said about defense, adding better players, will help, but is not a fix.
The one thing about this last season, that bothers me, is they use the # 4 pick on a RB, who turns out is worth that pick, but
then they cower from using him.
He was saying feed me all year, but they wound up using him less in Dec, and nowhere near enough in GB game.
So we have a RB that you have to admit is top caliber, same for OL, and then they arent used in the right ways.

If they dont use the talent they have in right ways, it doesnt make for a championship team, and never will.

IMO coaching cost Atlanta a SB win, and you cant blame the players, it was the coaching.
It is ironic, as coaching also got them there, and made them a top team, but can still lose the biggest game of all .

Our team was similar, good players and some good coaching got them to 13-3 and playoffs, but also cost them the game at the end.

This is why teams like NE and GB are in playoffs every year, and why NE is in so many SB's , is they are more consistent in coaching,
although GB usually has a coaching gaff too in playoffs, like the seattle game in 2014.

The only way around coaching errors, is just to have a great defense, all star players like what denver had in 2015.
But building that is hard to do. and even with that bad coaching could screw it up in playoffs.

The other thing is in playoffs, players either step up for great plays, like the edelman catch, or they play avg, or make mistakes.
Teams that win is often due to players not making mistakes and making some great plays, and then making them at key moments.
a example is the DB that int the pass on goaline in Seattle NE SB, he stepped up made great play at key moment, and he wasnt
a high paid star, which is often the case, some guy who isnt making big money is the one that makes the key big plays.

In our game with GB , I cant think of any big plays by any of our guys.
Well Dak maybe on the 2 point conversion. that was big.

All in all, it is a combination of things that make teams SB winners, it isnt easy, and getting all those things working good at right times
Takes a good coach and staff, and I just dont think ours will ever be able to do it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well the reason I argue this, is that it isnt as simple as adding 1 or 2 good pass rushers to fix our defense and pressure issues.
Also that our def players are not as bad as some think.

Look at the giants, they spent money on defense, and got beat by gb like we did, one and done also.

In a close games like both our losses to gb in playoffs, and those were the 2 big games of JG's time as HC, coaching matters,
and can tilt the game in favor of the other team, with in game errors, bad play calls, or bad game plans.

On that last play, in last GB game rushing 3 against I think 6 blockers, is just about as dumb as it gets, with a qb like rodgers,
he is gonna find someone with the time he will have.
1 guy ,cook got open and he found him for a big gain. No one actually covered cook who is their go to guy lol so I see that as a error too.

If you rush 5 or 6 on that play rodgers has less time, and the wr have less time to get far down field.
It would then have to be a run after catch and that is better than letting a guy just catch it already 37 yards down field.
I also think jamming wr at the line takes away time needed to get far down field.

In that situation dallas and marinelli were playing it safe, and not to lose, rather than bold and to win.
And what appears to be safe isnt really safe.
Marinelli also is not very good on blitzing, we rarely do that very good, and then other teams do that pretty good to dallas.

Romo was hurt on blitz's each time he got hurt, not sure on seattle game , but others were guys who came free unblocked.
And that is something we never seem to be able to do.

Coaching matters, especially in big or close games and in playoffs.

If we add 2 good def players, this season, that will help sure, but it wont fix bad coaching.
and I say bad coaching, but maybe that isnt a good way to say it, as it isnt "bad" it is lets say at key times "flawed"
Same for the OC linehan, at times he is good, but other times what he does makes me
wonder what was he thinking.
Our game plans are rarely what I would call good or innovative.
It all adds up and just adding better players here and there is not a fix.

Once again, watch the play. It was not three pass rushers. It was actually 4, 3 DLs and one LB. As the play developes, the DL really breaks down. They do not contain but instead, they bunch up and allow themselves to be blocked by just three guys. Heck, not even three players, they actually take themselves out of the play, which allows the Center a clean release to get out and pick up the LB that was on the delay. There was nothing wrong with the Defensive call. The DL just flat didn't execute it. I'm not going to say the coaching staff was faultless there but on that play, that to me, was on the players. They didn't execute and made some very fundamental mistakes on a play where they should have known better.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I guess I disagree that those were half measures. They did spend 25 out of their past 40 draft picks on defense from 2012-2016. I'll grant you that salary cap money and No. 1 picks (3 offense, 2 defense) have been spent more on offense in that same period.

I think the fairer criticism is that they have more trouble identifying and developing defensive talent than they do on offense.

Fair enough but consider, Gregory coming in was not strong enough to play DE in the NFL. He had some skills but he was nowhere near being ready to be a starter or even play the run at an average skill level. He needed to be developed, do you think that's a fair statement? If you do, then you also must consider that he came into the NFL with two strikes (I believe), certainly at least one. He's a 1st round talent that everybody passes on. Several teams took him off their boards and we take him. Think about that. You know he needs to be developed, which means he will need to be in the NFL two to three years before he really becomes and every down player and you know he has real serious problem with weed. That is a huge risk to take on a player. How is that not a half measure?

Same deal with Hardy really and to be honest, he wasn't horrible when we released him. He was still our best DL. The reason let him go was public opinion. How is that not a half measure?

With the 1st round picks, where were they? Were they high and spent on the Defense or were they lower? I understand that you can't pick in the top 10 every year but that's what it takes to get a big time pass rusher most years. It also does not help that we basically can't figure out how to find pass rushers.

The past 40 years is way too broad a time period. The last 10 years is really a better sample size and in those last 10 years, we've drafted 3 defensive players in the first round. Spencer exactly 10 years ago. Claiborne, which was a horrible trade really. We gave away a lot to move up and get a CB that didn't really fit our scheme and we passed on some pretty darn good Defensive players taken later in that draft. In 2015, we took another DB in Jones. I think he's going to be a good player and don't really have a problem with that pick but still, a DB and not a pass rusher. So in 10 years, we've taken 3 Defensive players, 1 DL and that guy was really a fit for the 34 and not a DL. He was really a LB.

That is not addressing the problem. That is hardly even trying IMO. To me, that's ignoring the problem. That's Half Measure at a position that is considered a premium in the NFL and that's not going to get it done.

But it's fair enough. We just disagree and that's cool. Have a good weekend Pelluer.

 

[CWR]

I would take the best player available regardless of which side of the ball hes on. However, Id limit that to certain positions ie, WR, TE, DL, DB so on. If its close though my emphasis is clearly on DEFENSE. That said the last thing I want to do is load up on medicore defensive players and let better offensive players slide by because of need.

 

[haleyrules]

I'm always for upgrading the defense.

Thats always the best strategy.

 

[DandyDon52]

Once again, watch the play. It was not three pass rushers. It was actually 4, 3 DLs and one LB. As the play developes, the DL really breaks down. They do not contain but instead, they bunch up and allow themselves to be blocked by just three guys. Heck, not even three players, they actually take themselves out of the play, which allows the Center a clean release to get out and pick up the LB that was on the delay. There was nothing wrong with the Defensive call. The DL just flat didn't execute it. I'm not going to say the coaching staff was faultless there but on that play, that to me, was on the players. They didn't execute and made some very fundamental mistakes on a play where they should have known better.

the 4th guy LB, was more of a spy on rodgers than a blitzer, he let rodgers get too far outside before he went towards him,
and was late getting there .
The other 3 dallas linemen had no chance, as it was 3 against 6.
Montgomery stayed in to block.
That play was a designed play they practice, roll left, the center or free lineman rolls out too, the others prevent pursuit.
I think cook was intended target as all others went real deep, to clear area for cook to run to.
Cook was running deep and to the sideline whole way.
Rodgers should have thrown it more inbounds and sooner, and would have been less risky than what he did.
That required a fantastic catch by cook, which wasnt necessary as cook was wide open and could have ran out of bounds.

Dallas only rushing 3 made it all easy for rodgers.
I think if Rodgers stays in pocket, that LB never rushes him, as I had seen it before, on the play where gb got the td on sean lee
The LB was spying and never moved lol the way he spyed made him mostly useless, so dallas like only used 10 guys
which against GB isnt that smart.
he also played too far back , and rodgers doesnt run that much, so a spy is stupid.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Fair enough but consider, Gregory coming in was not strong enough to play DE in the NFL. He had some skills but he was nowhere near being ready to be a starter or even play the run at an average skill level. He needed to be developed, do you think that's a fair statement? If you do, then you also must consider that he came into the NFL with two strikes (I believe), certainly at least one. He's a 1st round talent that everybody passes on. Several teams took him off their boards and we take him. Think about that. You know he needs to be developed, which means he will need to be in the NFL two to three years before he really becomes and every down player and you know he has real serious problem with weed. That is a huge risk to take on a player. How is that not a half measure?

Same deal with Hardy really and to be honest, he wasn't horrible when we released him. He was still our best DL. The reason let him go was public opinion. How is that not a half measure?

With the 1st round picks, where were they? Were they high and spent on the Defense or were they lower? I understand that you can't pick in the top 10 every year but that's what it takes to get a big time pass rusher most years. It also does not help that we basically can't figure out how to find pass rushers.

The past 40 years is way too broad a time period. The last 10 years is really a better sample size and in those last 10 years, we've drafted 3 defensive players in the first round. Spencer exactly 10 years ago. Claiborne, which was a horrible trade really. We gave away a lot to move up and get a CB that didn't really fit our scheme and we passed on some pretty darn good Defensive players taken later in that draft. In 2015, we took another DB in Jones. I think he's going to be a good player and don't really have a problem with that pick but still, a DB and not a pass rusher. So in 10 years, we've taken 3 Defensive players, 1 DL and that guy was really a fit for the 34 and not a DL. He was really a LB.

That is not addressing the problem. That is hardly even trying IMO. To me, that's ignoring the problem. That's Half Measure at a position that is considered a premium in the NFL and that's not going to get it done.

But it's fair enough. We just disagree and that's cool. Have a good weekend Pelluer.

The reason they let Hardy go had nothing to do with public criticism and everything to do with him being a selfish tool who skipped meetings and played half-***ed. He was a clubhouse cancer.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

the 4th guy LB, was more of a spy on rodgers than a blitzer, he let rodgers get too far outside before he went towards him,
and was late getting there .
The other 3 dallas linemen had no chance, as it was 3 against 6.
Montgomery stayed in to block.
That play was a designed play they practice, roll left, the center or free lineman rolls out too, the others prevent pursuit.
I think cook was intended target as all others went real deep, to clear area for cook to run to.
Cook was running deep and to the sideline whole way.
Rodgers should have thrown it more inbounds and sooner, and would have been less risky than what he did.
That required a fantastic catch by cook, which wasnt necessary as cook was wide open and could have ran out of bounds.

Dallas only rushing 3 made it all easy for rodgers.
I think if Rodgers stays in pocket, that LB never rushes him, as I had seen it before, on the play where gb got the td on sean lee
The LB was spying and never moved lol the way he spyed made him mostly useless, so dallas like only used 10 guys
which against GB isnt that smart.
he also played too far back , and rodgers doesnt run that much, so a spy is stupid.

The 4th guy came on a delayed blitz, once Rodgers left the pocket so my original statement, it was not just three DLs, is accurate. That LB was there, specifically for the roll out. Either way, the DL made the mistake on that play. They basically took each other out. You can say that it was a poor call and maybe it was but we can't know that because the DL executed so poorly. However, the real discussion here should be, would we have called that particular defense if we had a player who could beat the OL off the snap? If we had a guy who could bend and really rush, would we have done that? I would guess that the answer would probably be no. The Defense works with the talent they have. If you don't have that guy and you've watched your DL get stonewalled most of the season in similar situations, that effects what and how you call a game. Conversely, if you have a guy who has created consistent pressure, you are likely to dance with that guy.

That's what you should really be discussing.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The reason they let Hardy go had nothing to do with public criticism and everything to do with him being a selfish tool who skipped meetings and played half-***ed. He was a clubhouse cancer.

He was also the only guy who could get pressure but that's here nor there isn't it? Lets assume you are right and the real reason they let him go was that he was a cancer. Doesn't that prove that the team used half measures to begin with, on the signing? It's not as if his behavior was a revelation. The Cowboys knew who he was and what he was when they signed him.

 

[Vinnie2u]

He was also the only guy who could get pressure but that's here nor there isn't it? Lets assume you are right and the real reason they let him go was that he was a cancer. Doesn't that prove that the team used half measures to begin with, on the signing? It's not as if his behavior was a revelation. The Cowboys knew who he was and what he was when they signed him.

It's like dating a stripper and expecting her to be a happy housewife.