Let’s talk about defensive philosophy

[Verdict]

i realize that every team has its own philosophy and identity on defense. That is to be expected. The problem I think we have is that we “usually” seem to try to use the same defensive philosophy weekly regardless of the opponent.

Bend but don’t break may be a sound philosophy against a bad team that has a tendency to shoot itsself in the foot. While it may allow an opponent to move up and down the field slowly and methodically, it makes a team have long drives and avoids the big play. You may not pitch many shutouts with that style of defense, you won’t get beat very often by bad teams.

Against a team with a top 5 QB, it’s a recipe for disaster because the opposing QB usually is going to carve you up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Against those teams you have to play honest in your face defense and take your chances getting beat by the longer ball otherwise you suffer death by a thousand cuts.

In the Saints game the defense probably took the philosophy that Bridgewater is t going to score a lot of points so they wanted to keep everything in front of them on defense. If you look at the goal of keeping the point total low, then the defense did it’s job.

But that also ignores situational football. We needed to get some stops in the Saints game at the end and the defensive philosophy really didn’t change. We should have played much tighter on defense when we needed the stops, but we were content to continue to let them move the ball between the 20s.

I’m my opinion, it was a serious coaching gaffe to continue to use a one size fits all approach and failing to adapt to game situations.

Last year against the Saints was the first time in forever that we seemed to adjust to our opponent and game plan for them. This year against the Saints they may have started with the correct game plan but failed to adapt to the changed game situation.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

i realize that every team has its own philosophy and identity on defense. That is to be expected. The problem I think we have is that we “usually” seem to try to use the same defensive philosophy weekly regardless of the opponent.

Bend but don’t break may be a sound philosophy against a bad team that has a tendency to shoot itsself in the foot. While it may allow an opponent to move up and down the field slowly and methodically, it makes a team have long drives and avoids the big play. You may not pitch many shutouts with that style of defense, you won’t get beat very often by bad teams.

Against a team with a top 5 QB, it’s a recipe for disaster because the opposing QB usually is going to carve you up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Against those teams you have to play honest in your face defense and take your chances getting beat by the longer ball otherwise you suffer death by a thousand cuts.

In the Saints game the defense probably took the philosophy that Bridgewater is t going to score a lot of points so they wanted to keep everything in front of them on defense. If you look at the goal of keeping the point total low, then the defense did it’s job.

But that also ignores situational football. We needed to get some stops in the Saints game at the end and the defensive philosophy really didn’t change. We should have played much tighter on defense when we needed the stops, but we were content to continue to let them move the ball between the 20s.

I’m my opinion, it was a serious coaching gaffe to continue to use a one size fits all approach and failing to adapt to game situations.

Last year against the Saints was the first time in forever that we seemed to adjust to our opponent and game plan for them. This year against the Saints they may have started with the correct game plan but failed to adapt to the changed game situation.

While I tend to agree with the over all theory of your post, I do disagree about the NO game. If you start to bring pressure. i.e. blitz, that leaves you in man to man. Now, while I am not concerned with Man on the Wrs in this game, I would be terrified of Man on 41 regardless of our LBers. The CB would have thier backs to the LOS and you're one missed tackle from 41 doing some serious damage. I am sure they could have mixed in some stuff here and there and i believe they did, for example, Smith got the big sack at the end, so I know he was a blitz. I would have liked to have seen them play a tighter zone, not dropping the LBers so far back, I would have had all 11 guys within 10 yards of the ball personally forcing the QB into throws he doesn't like to make.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Actually after re-reading the OP, you didn't say Blitz.. you said tighter.. so I don't disagree at all.

 

[Future]

What are we talking about here? The Saints offense didn't do anything. We're mad b/c the O got the ball back with 1:39 and 2 TOs instead of 2:00?

 

[JD_KaPow]

What are we talking about here? The Saints offense didn't do anything. We're mad b/c the O got the ball back with 1:39 and 2 TOs instead of 2:00?

We got it back with 1:39 and no time outs. Which is still plenty of time to go kick a FG.

We moved the ball 55 yards in that time. The problem was we also ate 21 negative yards from a sack and a penalty.

 

[Verdict]

While I tend to agree with the over all theory of your post, I do disagree about the NO game. If you start to bring pressure. i.e. blitz, that leaves you in man to man. Now, while I am not concerned with Man on the Wrs in this game, I would be terrified of Man on 41 regardless of our LBers. The CB would have thier backs to the LOS and you're one missed tackle from 41 doing some serious damage. I am sure they could have mixed in some stuff here and there and i believe they did, for example, Smith got the big sack at the end, so I know he was a blitz. I would have liked to have seen them play a tighter zone, not dropping the LBers so far back, I would have had all 11 guys within 10 yards of the ball personally forcing the QB into throws he doesn't like to make.

Thank you for your reply. I wasn’t advocating blitzing linebackers. I was pointing out we needed to play more aggressive situationally sound defense rather than more conservative keep everything in front of you.

 

[Verdict]

Actually after re-reading the OP, you didn't say Blitz.. you said tighter.. so I don't disagree at all.

I replied before I read this post.

 

[xwalker]

i realize that every team has its own philosophy and identity on defense. That is to be expected. The problem I think we have is that we “usually” seem to try to use the same defensive philosophy weekly regardless of the opponent.

Bend but don’t break may be a sound philosophy against a bad team that has a tendency to shoot itsself in the foot. While it may allow an opponent to move up and down the field slowly and methodically, it makes a team have long drives and avoids the big play. You may not pitch many shutouts with that style of defense, you won’t get beat very often by bad teams.

Against a team with a top 5 QB, it’s a recipe for disaster because the opposing QB usually is going to carve you up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Against those teams you have to play honest in your face defense and take your chances getting beat by the longer ball otherwise you suffer death by a thousand cuts.

In the Saints game the defense probably took the philosophy that Bridgewater is t going to score a lot of points so they wanted to keep everything in front of them on defense. If you look at the goal of keeping the point total low, then the defense did it’s job.

But that also ignores situational football. We needed to get some stops in the Saints game at the end and the defensive philosophy really didn’t change. We should have played much tighter on defense when we needed the stops, but we were content to continue to let them move the ball between the 20s.

I’m my opinion, it was a serious coaching gaffe to continue to use a one size fits all approach and failing to adapt to game situations.

Last year against the Saints was the first time in forever that we seemed to adjust to our opponent and game plan for them. This year against the Saints they may have started with the correct game plan but failed to adapt to the changed game situation.

The Cowboys had 5 sacks in that game.

Many people think the Cowboys should put more players in coverage against Rodger this week and not blitz him very often because his stats vs the blitz are really good.

 

[CouchCoach]

First of all, changing the D isn't an option, there is only one coach in the league that can change his D, the rest are like Marinelli, that's what he does and if you can beat it, have at it. I saw no problem with what he did in NO or has done this season, they held them to no TDs and 12 points, the O was what should have changed.

GB's getting attaboys for their D and gives up 1 point less than the combined previous 3 games. Phillips is as good a DC as there is and they gave up 55 to TB at home. The NFL is a grab bag right now and who knows what team is showing up? The GB HC wants to run the ball so that's the first thing they have to shut down.

I started a thread about blitzing and while there are risks with this secondary, does anyone think they can cover the way Rodgers can extend plays? There is only one way to neutralize Rodgers, just like Brady, hit him hard and often and if 4 can't get there, bring 5 or 6. I am not suggesting that in every game but this one? Yep, they have to play in his backfield because he still has weapons unless you want to count on a bunch of drops.

Remember that playoff game? What happened with Marinelli's standard BDBD? To play that D, they have to have a top flight secondary, do you think this is that? Think Rodgers fears getting picked by these guys? There are three things that can happen when he passes the ball and the best for us doesn't happen enough and he can tight window it better than any QB. If he has time, they will win. It's that simple.

 

[CouchCoach]

The Cowboys had 5 sacks in that game.

Many people think the Cowboys should put more players in coverage against Rodger this week and not blitz him very often because his stats vs the blitz are really good.

That could be because they pick up the 5th rusher with their OL, a very good one until last game.

Sacking Rodgers isn't as easy as Bridgewater. How many did they have prior to that game against poor QB's?

 

[Verdict]

The Cowboys had 5 sacks in that game.

Many people think the Cowboys should put more players in coverage against Rodger this week and not blitz him very often because his stats vs the blitz are really good.

I’m not advocating blitzing. Against Rodgers I’m not sure that’s a sound strategy.

We need QB pressure from the front 4 and we are not getting that done. We paid Tank to be that guy and he is MIA.

 

[Ranching]

i realize that every team has its own philosophy and identity on defense. That is to be expected. The problem I think we have is that we “usually” seem to try to use the same defensive philosophy weekly regardless of the opponent.

Bend but don’t break may be a sound philosophy against a bad team that has a tendency to shoot itsself in the foot. While it may allow an opponent to move up and down the field slowly and methodically, it makes a team have long drives and avoids the big play. You may not pitch many shutouts with that style of defense, you won’t get beat very often by bad teams.

Against a team with a top 5 QB, it’s a recipe for disaster because the opposing QB usually is going to carve you up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Against those teams you have to play honest in your face defense and take your chances getting beat by the longer ball otherwise you suffer death by a thousand cuts.

In the Saints game the defense probably took the philosophy that Bridgewater is t going to score a lot of points so they wanted to keep everything in front of them on defense. If you look at the goal of keeping the point total low, then the defense did it’s job.

But that also ignores situational football. We needed to get some stops in the Saints game at the end and the defensive philosophy really didn’t change. We should have played much tighter on defense when we needed the stops, but we were content to continue to let them move the ball between the 20s.

I’m my opinion, it was a serious coaching gaffe to continue to use a one size fits all approach and failing to adapt to game situations.

Last year against the Saints was the first time in forever that we seemed to adjust to our opponent and game plan for them. This year against the Saints they may have started with the correct game plan but failed to adapt to the changed game situation.

Wade Phillips told me once, just allow one less point than the other team scores. We won a game 65-58 that season and I used that line when a reporter asked me if I was disappointed with my defense. I think Rod calls each game with one eye on our offense.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Marinelli and, to a lesser extent, Richard want to generate pressure by rushing only four. If a team is going to get consistent pressure with only its front four, it needs two good edge rushers—that is, rushers who can beat single blocking—and a tackle who can collapse the pocket. If the offense wants to double all three guys, it’s limited to three receivers in a pass pattern. Miami eventually resorted to this, and Bridgewater was sacked five times.

For the first time in a decade, the Cowboys have three players who can beat single blocking in Lawrence, Quinn, and Collins.

I would love it if they employed a NASCAR package like the Giants used to. The Giants would line up Mattias Kiwanuka, a linebacker, at defensive tackles. Jaylon would excel in that role.

 

[CouchCoach]

I’m not advocating blitzing. Against Rodgers I’m not sure that’s a sound strategy.

We need QB pressure from the front 4 and we are not getting that done. We paid Tank to be that guy and he is MIA.

Then, what's the answer if blitzing isn't it? I haven't heard about Bulaga, is he going to play? One T, Bulaga, went down and Bakhtiari is not 100% and they were struggling against PHL.

With Adams out, what does LaFleur do? Not much history on him about what his strategy will be but he'll have to have Rodgers agree to it.

If they can't get there with 4 rushers, what do they do? Marinelli's D is predicated on getting there with 4 and he stayed in that until they went up 21-3 and then it was too late.

 

[Verdict]

Wade Phillips told me once, just allow one less point than the other team scores. We won a game 65-58 that season and I used that line when a reporter asked me if I was disappointed with my defense. I think Rod calls each game with one eye on our offense.

IDK Ranching, it game situational awareness seemed either nonexistent in the Saints game, or they knew the situation and just chose to do the same thing.

 

[Verdict]

Then, what's the answer if blitzing isn't it? I haven't heard about Bulaga, is he going to play? One T, Bulaga, went down and Bakhtiari is not 100% and they were struggling against PHL.

With Adams out, what does LaFleur do? Not much history on him about what his strategy will be but he'll have to have Rodgers agree to it.

If they can't get there with 4 rushers, what do they do? Marinelli's D is predicated on getting there with 4 and he stayed in that until they went up 21-3 and then it was too late.

I’m not for or against it. We have to get pressure on opposing QBs. We are paying Tank to get pressure and he’s not, but obviously that ship has sailed.

Quinn IS getting pressure. That’s money well spent so far.

The DTs are not collapsing the pocket much. You can blitz a linebacker but if you have an experienced QB they can eat the blitz alive. I would use a pick and go out and trade for a legit DT. We should have signed Snacks when he was available.

 

[Doomsday101]

I was glad to see the defense playing better this past game but frankly Cowboys defense over 4 games have given up 56 total points an avg of 14 a game. I want to see more take aways but ultimately the main job of the defense is to prevent the opposing team from scoring. Only Pats and Bears have given up fewer points

 

[Ranching]

IDK Ranching, it game situational awareness seemed either nonexistent in the Saints game, or they knew the situation and just chose to do the same thing.

I think Rod loosens up when we score more points. I actually don't dissect these games very much, I just watch and enjoy. I don't like to study teams that I can't control. Lol! I'd be yanking my hair out!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We got it back with 1:39 and no time outs. Which is still plenty of time to go kick a FG.

We moved the ball 55 yards in that time. The problem was we also ate 21 negative yards from a sack and a penalty.

And we killed ourselves with some throws to the middle of the field.

 

[CouchCoach]

There is one thing I always try to keep in mind when second guessing coaching, actually several things. I am not nor have I ever been a coach and I do not know what they know and I am not talking about just coaching. I don't know what he knows or suspects about his players or their players or their coaches and what they might do. He has info/intel that I am not privy to.

I have a rather simplistic approach. Well, that's not working, why aren't they doing this. And in fact, that this might be worse. He could be selecting the poison he thinks he can survive.

The one thing I do assume, they're all doing their best and trying to win the game and it is not always apparent what the problem is the one thing I am always willing to accept, the other team played better. In NO, they played better. Not a lot but enough to win by 2 points.

And it's not always about coaching, it is about execution as well on both sides of the ball.