Matt Eberflus - Cowboys offered him D-Coordnator job

[Haimerej]

Further, if one is really truly honest, Marinelli hasn't done that great a job. Most of the stats indicate that this is still a pretty mediocre defense. But I suspect they just think if they throw more talent at problems, the talent will overcome any coaching issues.

It's foolish thinking IMO.

I don't see how you can say he hasn't done well with this group. Not many teams overhaul their secondary with rookies and improve as a result.

 

[Stash]

Promotion from within is about familiarity. They know what Eberflus brings and they respect him. I believe it has more to do with consistency than simply wanting to push Marinelli aside. If they truly felt that way, they could've just fired Rod.

And that's what a normal football organization does.

Only in Dallas is someone "promoted" out of a position when the team looks to improve.

They did the same ridiculous thing with Monte Kiffin when he fielded a historically bad defense. Don't want to offend anyone or step on toes, so we'll promote him instead of firing him.

Dysfunction Junction.

 

[Richmond Cowboy]

They should hire a new HC and "promote" Garrett to assistant GM.

 

[Sydla]

I don't see how you can say he hasn't done well with this group. Not many teams overhaul their secondary with rookies and improve as a result.

I try to look at it objectively. He's not been bad but this notion that he's done a great job is an exaggeration. I am done buying "excuses" for the staff's shortcomings. And let's note.......... the "rookies" didn't really start eating up a lot of quality PT until mid to late season. And we had some pretty poor defensive showings early in the year. Further, for all the chatter about the rookies, in terms of snap counts, 4 of the 5 defensive backs with this highest snap counts for the season were vets, not rookies. So this idea that it was just a bunch of rookies running around all season in our secondary is an overstatement to defend the mediocrity of this defense.

- 13th in points per game
- 16th in sacks
- 17th in takeaways
- 26th in QB passer rating
- 25th in yards allowed per drive
- 17th in points per drive
- 25th in Football Outsiders DVOA defensive rankings

So yes, I think its exactly as I suspect............ like Garrett and the offense, I think they believe if they throw enough talent at the defense, it will overcome any coaching issues that may exist.

I don't think Marinelli is an awful DC. I think he's probably just league average or slightly above league average.

 

[Doomsay]

Just the folly of trying to play nice to Rod and ending up insulting him and simultaneously losing Eberflus. A poorly run country club.

 

[Sydla]

Promotion from within is about familiarity. They know what Eberflus brings and they respect him. I believe it has more to do with consistency than simply wanting to push Marinelli aside. If they truly felt that way, they could've just fired Rod.

Of course it's about familiarity. No one suggested otherwise.

 

[Stash]

Just the folly of trying to play nice to Rod and ending up insulting him and simultaneously losing Eberflus. A poorly run country club.

 

[Haimerej]

I try to look at it objectively. He's not been bad but this notion that he's done a great job is an exaggeration. I am done buying "excuses" for the staff's shortcomings. And let's note.......... the "rookies" didn't really start eating up a lot of quality PT until mid to late season. And we had some pretty poor defensive showings early in the year. Further, for all the chatter about the rookies, in terms of snap counts, 4 of the 5 defensive backs with this highest snap counts for the season were vets, not rookies. So this idea that it was just a bunch of rookies running around all season in our secondary is an overstatement to defend the mediocrity of this defense.

- 13th in points per game
- 16th in sacks
- 17th in takeaways
- 26th in QB passer rating
- 25th in yards allowed per drive
- 17th in points per drive
- 25th in Football Outsiders DVOA defensive rankings

So yes, I think its exactly as I suspect............ like Garrett and the offense, I think they believe if they throw enough talent at the defense, it will overcome any coaching issues that may exist.

I don't think Marinelli is an awful DC. I think he's probably just league average or slightly above league average.

Seems to me an objective approach includes more than stats. You have to evaluate the players. As I recall the poor showings from the defense, they had a lot of missed tackles. Remember the Denver game? Horrible tackling. To me, that's a player issue. Scheme puts them in position. Players are responsible for the fundamentals.

Would you say they have an abundance of talent on defense?

 

[OmerV]

Even 9-7 is a gift, some fans just can't acknowledge that fact.

If that fluke fumble doesn't happen against Oakland, that's a loss.

If the Eagles needed the week 17 game for any reason, that's a loss.

People can point to 9-7 and call it a "winning season" if they want, and "technically" it is, but any such talk smacks of desperation.

I never buy this kind of thinking for a couple of reasons:

1. To be an accurate statement it has to assume this is the only play that factored in into who won or lost - as if everything that happened before to put the Cowboys in position to benefit from the fumble doesn't count, and anything that happened after to finish off the win doesn't count.

2. Winning and losing is often about which team makes fewer mistakes, so it's not fair to count it as a negative against the Cowboys because they made fewer mistakes than Oakland. Bottom line is the fact that Oakland screwed up doesn't mean they deserved to win and the Cowboys deserved to lose.

Ultimately there is no way to deny the Cowboys had a winning season, or that they earned their wins, but the thing is you don't have to deny it to also recognize team struggled and did not have an impressive year.

 

[Sydla]

Seems to me an objective approach includes more than stats. You have to evaluate the players. As I recall the poor showings from the defense, they had a lot of missed tackles. Remember the Denver game? Horrible tackling. To me, that's a player issue. Scheme puts them in position. Players are responsible for the fundamentals.

Would you say they have an abundance of talent on defense?

I think stats are far better at telling us about where the defense is than what your eyes tell you. Because, frankly, you are defensive of Marinelli so my guess is your eyes have a bias behind them. I mean it's clear when you say, "well gee our problems were really just bad tackling and that's not Marinelli's fault".

I think there is a flawed approach from Jerry and Stephen where they think if they throw enough talent at this coaching staff, the talent will overcome any coaching shortcomings.

You place less value in coaching and how it can affect games than I do, apparently.

 

[Haimerej]

Of course it's about familiarity. No one suggested otherwise.

I'm saying that's all it was about. You said they wanted to shove Marinelli aside because they think they can improve the defense with Eberflus. I don't see that as a motivation. It was about having a good coach in Eberflus who has familiarity with what they're doing and wanting him to stay.

 

[Sydla]

I never buy this kind of thinking for a couple of reasons:

1. It assumes this is the only play that mattered in the game - as if everything that happened before to put the Cowboys in position to benefit from the fumble doesn't count,

2. Winning and losing is often about which team makes fewer mistakes, so it's not fair to count it as a negative against the Cowboys because they made fewer mistakes than Oakland. Bottom line is the Cowboys deserved to win.

I tend to agree but even if one gives them credit for the Oakland win, pounding one's chest that we had a winning season given what happened Week 17 in Philly is foolish IMO. They only won (a pathetically close game mind you) because Philly was playing slop for much of the game

 

[OmerV]

Granted there is nothing for the Cowboys or Cowboy fans to pound their chest about. It was a disappointing season. I think they earned the win against Philly too - the defense was damn impressive even when all of Philly's starters played.

 

[Alexander]

And that's what a normal football organization does.

Only in Dallas is someone "promoted" out of a position when the team looks to improve.

They did the same ridiculous thing with Monte Kiffin when he fielded a historically bad defense. Don't want to offend anyone or step on toes, so we'll promote him instead of firing him.

Dysfunction Junction.

Your new avatar is quite disturbing.

 

[Stash]

I never buy this kind of thinking for a couple of reasons:

Of course not, fandom often clouds a person's judgement.

1. It assumes this is the only play that mattered in the game - as if everything that happened before to put the Cowboys in position to benefit from the fumble doesn't count,

It assumes no such thing. It simply reiterates the fact that in this game, that one play was ultimately the determining factor. One play often is. And the fact is that if that fumble doesn't happen, Dallas loses that game. It was a lucky break.

2. Winning and losing is often about which team makes fewer mistakes, so it's not fair to count it as a negative against the Cowboys because they made fewer mistakes than Oakland. Bottom line is the Cowboys deserved to win.

They "deserved" nothing. Once again fandom impairs rational judgment.

End of the day, their is no way to logically deny that the Cowboys had a winning season - they did, and they earned the wins they got. But we can acknowledge that and at the same time acknowledge that the team struggled and did not have an impressive year.

I'm not denying the technicality of 9 being greater than 7. At the same time, I'm not blinding myself to the breaks and bounces I pointed out previously. Similar bounces that went against them against the Rams and Packers.

But several of the wins were as "unearned" as the losses.

We agree that "the team struggled and did not have an impressive year". The rest is quibbling over details.

 

[Stash]

Your new avatar is quite disturbing.

Tell me about it!

Thing gives me the creeps!

 

[Haimerej]

I think stats are far better at telling us about where the defense is than what your eyes tell you. Because, frankly, you are ultra defensive of Marinelli so my guess is your eyes have a bias behind them. I mean it's clear when you say, "well gee our problems were really just bad tackling and that's not Marinelli's fault".

Well that's not how you use quotation marks.

I

I think there is a flawed approach from Jerry and Stephen where they think if they throw enough talent at this coaching staff, the talent will overcome any coaching shortcomings.

You place less value in coaching and how it can affect games than I do, apparently.

How has Rod's coaching hurt the team?

Or will that go the way of my last unanswered question about the talent?

 

[Alexander]

This was a pretty clear case of the organization having to make a tough decision.

And it is pretty clear that when faced with that sort of decision, Jones and Co. usually elect to punt. Then a year later, they are sitting there holding the bag.

Hanging onto Marinelli as an "Asst. Head Coach" is simply sidestepping the decision and allowing things to continue, all the while extending a phantom carrot to Eberflus. He made the right choice.

 

[Sydla]

How has Rod's coaching hurt the team?

Or will that go the way of my last unanswered question about the talent?

I don't think he maximizes what he has. I think we've had a pretty average defense every year he's been here with limited improvement, if any improvement at all. We are roundly ranked in the teens in most important statistical measures most years.

Again, I must have a different expectation than you as to what our coaches should do.

Oh and as for talent, no, I don't think we have elite talent on defense. But I think a great DC would get more out of what we do have.

 

[Alexander]

Or will that go the way of my last unanswered question about the talent?

Hold on here. From what I keep seeing from fans is that the talent is great. We got a great player in Hitchens, that we simply must re-sign. The line is so much better than last year, we got Irving and Collins inside with a breakout star in Lawrence plus Taco Charlton getting better, stacking good performances on top of others, the right way. Then there is the young corners, most felt good about. So where exactly is this huge talent gap at?

You can't have it both ways.

If you feel it is the talent, you just resign yourself to the fact that Marinelli cannot field a championship defense without premium picks all over the place. You can take a look at the final four, some defenses have a ton of premium choices (Minnesota, Jacksonville), while others do not (New England, Philadelphia). If that is the case, then it is irrelevant who the DC is. The talent is just not good enough?

To me, the defense as well as the offense suffer from simplicity issues. They are both painfully outdated and can be exploited. Some innovation could cover up the warts.

It is a little bit of both as far as I see it. So then you have to decide about the talent resources. Can Dallas afford a defensive geared draft on days one and two? Seems to me the offense had a serious problem scoring points. That also demands resources.