New Charles Haley not needed

[MileyDancer]

Good post.

Look at the Super Bowl winning Patriots last year. They had 34 sacks last year (tied for 16th) with their sack leader at a whopping 7 sacks.

They also have a WAYYYYY more creative DC that game-plans better than ours.

 

[waldoputty]

If there is one thing all Dallas fans can agree on is that we all want to get back to the promised land. The Super Bowl. It's been more than 21 years since we've last won a title.

As the Boys have been in building mode the past few seasons there is a name that often comes up as a missing link for this current version. Charles Haley. We need a Charles Haley-type of pass rusher is what we hear. I don't want to completely dismiss the impact of a player like Charles Haley, but let's look at his statistical imprint on the 1992-1993 Cowboys.

In fact, I remember back in 1992 and 1993 and many folks were looking at Haley's addition as a bust. In 1992 he had 6 sacks. In the 1992 postseason he had one sack total. It was underrated veteran Jim Jeffcoat who actually led that team's pass rush with 10.5 sacks in the regular season and 2 sacks in the postseason. Tony Tolbert pitched in 8.5 sacks in the regular season and 2 sacks in the postseason.

1993 was a similar story. Haley had 4 sacks in the regular season (to be fair, he battled back trouble) and had 1.5 sacks in the postseason. Jeffcoat had 6 in the regular season and 2.5 in the postseason. Tolbert led the team with 7.5 sacks in the regular season and had 3 more in the postseason.

The moral of the story is that we don't necessarily have to have a Demarcus Ware type to find postseason success. If we can generate pressure in waves with a deep rotation of fresh pass rushers - like the 1992-93 Cowboys - we can still get to our end goal. (Taco is built very similar to Tolbert and Jeffcoat, BTW).

After all, the Cowboys had a grand total of 34 sacks in the regular season in 1993 (they had 44 in 1992).

Now, Haley blew up in 1994 and 1995 and returned to his double-digit sack ways. And you can't quantify his impact on the game plan and how opposing coaches had to always account for him. But I think we can get still get to where we want to be without one dynamic guy. We can do it with steady production from a multitude of players. All we have to do is look to our history for an example.

this is plain silly.
sure not needed for the regular season, but premier franchises focus on the playoffs.

 

[stilltheguru88]

They gave up 34 points. That is not good enough for anything and I am sure they would tell you the same.

My point is some of the 34 was due to his garbage preparation. The td on Sean Lee was on the offsides on Irving. They got a free first down from a 12 man call. We were playing off the WRs until the comeback started.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My point is some of the 34 was due to his garbage preparation. The td on Sean Lee was on the offsides on Irving. They got a free first down from a 12 man call. We were playing off the WRs until the comeback started.

Marinelli spends countless hours in practice and puts a major emphasis on how his guys come off the ball. He also doesn't teach them to latch on past the stem of the route like all those holding penalties either.

At a certain point you have to hold the players accountable.

Now how he planned to substitute was poorly conceived I will grant you that but he got that defense to play over its head all season long.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Did something terrible happen to Bruce Smith and Reggie White in this weird alternate reality that you experienced?

They were among the best defense players that ever lined up. There's no arguing that. But, between them they have ONE Super Bowl title. The point being that you do not need ONE great pass rusher to win titles. It can come in many forms.

 

[gimmesix]

If there is one thing all Dallas fans can agree on is that we all want to get back to the promised land. The Super Bowl. It's been more than 21 years since we've last won a title.

As the Boys have been in building mode the past few seasons there is a name that often comes up as a missing link for this current version. Charles Haley. We need a Charles Haley-type of pass rusher is what we hear. I don't want to completely dismiss the impact of a player like Charles Haley, but let's look at his statistical imprint on the 1992-1993 Cowboys.

In fact, I remember back in 1992 and 1993 and many folks were looking at Haley's addition as a bust. In 1992 he had 6 sacks. In the 1992 postseason he had one sack total. It was underrated veteran Jim Jeffcoat who actually led that team's pass rush with 10.5 sacks in the regular season and 2 sacks in the postseason. Tony Tolbert pitched in 8.5 sacks in the regular season and 2 sacks in the postseason.

1993 was a similar story. Haley had 4 sacks in the regular season (to be fair, he battled back trouble) and had 1.5 sacks in the postseason. Jeffcoat had 6 in the regular season and 2.5 in the postseason. Tolbert led the team with 7.5 sacks in the regular season and had 3 more in the postseason.

The moral of the story is that we don't necessarily have to have a Demarcus Ware type to find postseason success. If we can generate pressure in waves with a deep rotation of fresh pass rushers - like the 1992-93 Cowboys - we can still get to our end goal. (Taco is built very similar to Tolbert and Jeffcoat, BTW).

After all, the Cowboys had a grand total of 34 sacks in the regular season in 1993 (they had 44 in 1992).

Now, Haley blew up in 1994 and 1995 and returned to his double-digit sack ways. And you can't quantify his impact on the game plan and how opposing coaches had to always account for him. But I think we can get still get to where we want to be without one dynamic guy. We can do it with steady production from a multitude of players. All we have to do is look to our history for an example.

The key isn't sacks, it's consistent pressure. We had no players last year who could consistently make the quarterback uncomfortable. David Irving did it in spurts, and we could see how that disrupted offenses. Until someone(s) consistently makes the quarterback have to move around in the pocket, this defense will struggle.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this is plain silly.
sure not needed for the regular season, but premier franchises focus on the playoffs.

How did you get that from what he wrote? He was saying you don't need that for postseason success not to ignore playoff implications.

 

[waving monkey]

We weren't prepared for Rodgers no huddle. With us not being prepared for that I'm going to assume he didn't prepare us for his hardcount either because Irving got caught with that. Then the nonstop 3 man rushes. When we pressed them we finally came back...........then 3 man rush to end the game. But yes, we'll agree to disagree. I've watched that game several times. The defense was good enough to win.

Oh i see that secondary and pass rush that everyone pans on this board was good enough to win against the second best QB in the league.
Mr Guru we disagree but thats Ok

 

[stilltheguru88]

Marinelli spends countless hours in practice and puts a major emphasis on how his guys come off the ball. He also doesn't teach them to latch on past the stem of the route like all those holding penalties either.

At a certain point you have to hold the players accountable.

Now how he planned to substitute was poorly conceived I will grant you that but he got that defense to play over its head all season long.

When you play Rodgers you kinda have to play things differently. I expect the coach to let that be known. I guarantee the patriots wouldn't make mistakes like that and it's not on the players. Players are the same. Put Irving in New England and you won't see an offsides against Aaron Rodgers in a playoff game. I can guarantee that

 

[BourbonBalz]

We weren't prepared for Rodgers no huddle. With us not being prepared for that I'm going to assume he didn't prepare us for his hardcount either because Irving got caught with that. Then the nonstop 3 man rushes. When we pressed them we finally came back...........then 3 man rush to end the game. But yes, we'll agree to disagree. I've watched that game several times. The defense was good enough to win.

I'll always believe we lost the game this past January because of a handful of plays when we threw the ball instead of running it. I won't point them out because everyone knows the ones I'm talking about. Yes, the defense gave up some plays and points. Guess what? Green Bay had a damn good offense and a future Hall of Fame QB. It happens. We lost because we made stupid play calls in some key moments.

 

[waldoputty]

How did you get that from what he wrote? He was saying you don't need that for postseason success not to ignore playoff implications.

when i say focus on the playoffs, i meant you need haley-types for post season success.

 

[viman96]

Let's see. Pass rush with Haley or without? I'm taking Haley 100% of the time. He makes any defense better.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When you play Rodgers you kinda have to play things differently. I expect the coach to let that be known. I guarantee the patriots wouldn't make mistakes like that and it's not on the players. Players are the same. Put Irving in New England and you won't see an offsides against Aaron Rodgers in a playoff game. I can guarantee that

They did play him differently. Heath took on a significant role and shined in it for example. They had trucked out the dime packages but not as a staple.

And this notion that NE doesn't get called for penalties in the playoffs is delusional.

Fact is that Rod did not have 4 DL that could generate a pass rush and Heath was playing outstanding.

And what about Dak and the egg he laid for a quarter and a half? He just going to get a pass?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

when i say focus on the playoffs, i meant you need haley-types for post season success.

And he disagrees with that notion. The Pats just won with an anemic pass rush and no war daddy. Empirically you are demonstrably incorrect.

 

[stilltheguru88]

They did play him differently. Heath took on a significant role and shined in it for example. They had trucked out the dime packages but not as a staple.

And this notion that NE doesn't get called for penalties in the playoffs is delusional.

Fact is that Rod did not have 4 DL that could generate a pass rush and Heath was playing outstanding.

And what about Dak and the egg he laid for a quarter and a half? He just going to get a pass?

So you think the defense was prepared bro? Really? As soon as I saw the 12 man penalty and cluster **** substitutions I knew what time it was. Think what you want though

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you think the defense was prepared bro? Really? As soon as I saw the 12 man penalty and cluster **** substitutions I knew what time it was. Think what you want though

I already told you I thought the substitution plan was poorly conceived.

I put the penalties on the players nonetheless.

There is plenty of blame to go around. No need for a scapegoat.

 

[waldoputty]

So you think the defense was prepared bro? Really? As soon as I saw the 12 man penalty and cluster **** substitutions I knew what time it was. Think what you want though

we need a daddy.
but dont think they were unprepared.
marinelli was just stubborn.

 

[waldoputty]

How did you get that from what he wrote? He was saying you don't need that for postseason success not to ignore playoff implications.

this thread is just someone trying to feel better about the team.
to do that, one needs to convince himself and everyone else that a daddy is not needed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this thread is just someone trying to feel better about the team.
to do that, one needs to convince himself and everyone else that a daddy is not needed.

All your comment tells me is that you are doing the opposite.

Who won the SB last year?

How did their pass rush rank?

Who was their war daddy?

 

[waldoputty]

All your comment tells me is that you are doing the opposite.

Who won the SB last year?

How did their pass rush rank?

Who was their war daddy?

actually i am hoping xwalker is right about the 4.83 sec time and he is better than he looked on the tape.