My solution

[America's Cowboy]

You can present it as fact, but it is wrong.

Buffalo dominated because they did not commit enough players to gaps. Had 0 to do with size. On weak-side counter traps, it was 4 blockers on 3 defenders every time.

Did you watch the same game? Buffalo's Oline was pushing our guys out of the way all game long. It didn't matter what Dan Quinn ran. We simply lack size among our Front 4 D-line.

Here. Rewatch and learn...

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Did you watch the same game? Buffalo's Oline was pushing our guys out of the way all game long. It didn't matter what Dan Quinn ran. We simply lack size among our Front 4 D-line.

Here. Rewatch and learn...

You're wrong. They played to numbers. Doesn't matter if the DL won their battles or not, because there were more running gaps than players to defend them.

:17, :36, :46, :58. More gaps than defenders, every single time, because they are running to numbers advantages. It has nothing to do with size.

This is what modern offenses do. If you're going to commit bodies to the gaps, they are going to throw right over the top. This is why you invest in your passing game, and a 4-play distillation of why run defense is a scheme choice, not a personnel decision.

 

[CCBoy]

unfortunately none of this can be evaluated as it doesnt matter because we made the playoffs....AS COACHES STRIVE TO DO.

they succeeded.

now that they did their job of getting the team to the next level...we have to wait and see how bad or good their game plan was when it matters.

pretty simple.

the coaches did their job of getting us to the next level. we cant judge them until a playoff game.

everyone should shut up until then

Discuss football, and learn. That is what this discussion site is about, even if some abuse the privilege. Speak up about the sport, not just the attitudes shown around some of the site.

 

[America's Cowboy]

You're wrong. They played to numbers. Doesn't matter if the DL won their battles or not, because there were more running gaps than players to defend them.

:17, :36, :46, :58. More gaps than defenders, every single time, because they are running to numbers advantages. It has nothing to do with size.

This is what modern offenses do. If you're going to commit bodies to the gaps, they are going to throw right over the top. This is why you invest in your passing game, and a 4-play distillation of why run defense is a scheme choice, not a personnel decision.

What a bunch of garbage! You don't even know WTH you are talking about, including using this mini video by Baldinger!

Baldinger is silently telling you it is about size. You just refuse to accept it. You think the Cowboys will fix this by adding more skinnier/lighter players in the gaps? Pfft, you sound like Rod Marinelli! A stubborn and failed way of thinking.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

What a bunch of garbage! You don't even know WTH you are talking about, including using this mini video by Baldinger!

Baldinger is silently telling you it is about size. You just refuse to accept it. You think the Cowboys will fix this by adding more skinnier/lighter players in the gaps? Pfft, you sound like Rod Marinelli! A stubborn and failed way of thinking.

Nope. More players in the gaps means they are unblocked lol

You are wrong. Welcome to the modern NFL.

 

[McKDaddy]

You can present it as fact, but it is wrong.

Buffalo dominated because they did not commit enough players to gaps. Had 0 to do with size. On weak-side counter traps, it was 4 blockers on 3 defenders every time.

I'm willing to go back & look but during the game I saw a lot of their guys handling our guys one on one cause I was trying to see how McGovern & Torrence did against us.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Nope. More players in the gaps means they are unblocked lol

You are wrong. Welcome to the modern NFL.

No, you are wrong! We already saw this strategy failure happen during the Rod Marinelli years.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

I'm willing to go back & look but during the game I saw a lot of their guys handling our guys one on one cause I was trying to see how McGovern & Torrence did against us.

At times, sure. But it wasn't the fundamental problem.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

No, you are wrong! We already saw this strategy failure happen during the Rod Marinelli years.

Nope. Wasn't the problem then either.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Correct.

@Mac_MaloneV1 is simply being stubborn.

I'm being stubborn? You still think its 1995.

Show me some actual evidence of where/how more weight would matter. I just showed you the film of the numbers example. You're clinging to an ideology that you simply have no proof of, other than what you learned 30 years ago.

 

[America's Cowboy]

I'm being stubborn? You still think its 1995.

Marinelli and now Dan Quinn have been doing it your way. How has that worked out against bigger and stronger opposing Olines when they run the ball down our throats?

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Marinelli and now Dan Quinn have been doing it your way. How has that worked out against bigger and stronger opposing Olines when they run the ball down our throats?

It's been fine. Run defense hasn't been a problem. It wasn't against Buffalo either, until the game was already lost because of penalties.

If it is so obvious that your way would work, it should be pretty easy to find concrete proof. It's not, so you won't.

 

[G2]

The defense has been exposed. Many here predicted it. We're undersized and understocked. They missed 12 tackles!

I have no problem calling the offense trash vs. Buffalo, they were. But 3 TDs were directly from idiotic penalties.

 

[McKDaddy]

I'm not really trying to take sides in this debate. What I will say is that my general belief in defenders that can do a better job of holding their ground will give other players a better chance to fill a gap. We were getting worked so bad that gaps were opening where there shouldn't have been. I saw other players shoot into gaps only to find themselves still out of position to make a play.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Careful, bro. Stating the obvious about how our Defense is so undersized and understocked will cause retribution from @Mac_MaloneV1 .

Cool. Show me some actual proof on how to fix it. It's not retribution, you just simply speak in platitudes that probably true 20-30 years ago, but aren't today.

Size on defense doesn't solve what happened against Buffalo. You simply saying so over and over again doesn't make it true. You don't even know how to count lol

 

[G2]

Cool. Show me some actual proof on how to fix it. It's not retribution, you just simply speak in platitudes that probably true 20-30 years ago, but aren't today.

Size on defense doesn't solve what happened against Buffalo. You simply saying so over and over again doesn't make it true. You don't even know how to count lol

The defense missed 12 tackles vs. the Bills! We have safeties playing LBer.

This isn't hard.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

The defense missed 12 tackles vs. the Bills! We have safeties playing LBer.

This isn't hard.

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying that the safeties are too small to tackle James Cook? lol. If anything, citing missed tackles proves the point that size isn't an issue, because it means they had players in position to make a play.

 

[G2]

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying that the safeties are too small to tackle James Cook? lol. If anything, citing missed tackles proves the point that size isn't an issue, because it means they had players in position to make a play.

You're not in position if you miss a dozen tackles.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

You're not in position if you miss a dozen tackles.

How do you miss a tackle if you're not there to make it?

What a dumb point.

 

[G2]

How do you miss a tackle if you're not there to make it?

What a dumb point.

How stoned are you, right now?