New Charles Haley not needed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

 

[waldoputty]

oh and about the patriots, they were losing by how many TDs before the falcons' historic collapse.
furthermore, i dont think any sane person would try to get away with what the patriots got away with.
they innovate in ways our coaches can probably not dream to aspire to.

 

[haleyrules]

Correct. The Cowboys don't need a new Charles Haley...lol...the club needs 2 new Haleys...lol. A hardnosed DE or 2 is exactly what the Club needs....Remember, the Cowboys DON'T have Bilichick....

 

[haleyrules]

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

Pressure..heat...pressure...

 

[haleyrules]

Jim jeffcoat would be the best PassRusher on this team right now. He has had more than 5 seasons of double digit sacks. 11.5,12,14,11.5,10.5. - he's got skills.

Go cowboys

Right on... Jeffcoat was one of my favourites...along with Leon Lett and Tony Tolbert...two other largely forgotten and grossly under rated Cowboy Hero's

 

[waving monkey]

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

they have wayyyy better personal to be creative with

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

oh and about the patriots, they were losing by how many TDs before the falcons' historic collapse.
furthermore, i dont think any sane person would try to get away with what the patriots got away with.
they innovate in ways our coaches can probably not dream to aspire to.

And yet they won. They also won the AFCCG and the Division round.

That anemic pass rush was a constant throughout.

And they have already demonstrated that winning without a dominant pass rusher can be done. No new innovation is necessary to prove it.

We have a very good coaching staff as well. Who won Coach of the Year?

 

[robbieruff]

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.

Appreciate your thought process and excellent post...my take - I think Haley's impact is that he helped the entire D take a quantum leap from good to great (#1 ranking his first year)...moreover, I think it is reasonable to argue that his transition from the Niners to the Boys shifted the balance of power for the 92 and 93 seasons (back2back)...I was living in the SF Bay Area during that time (went to the 92 season NFC championship at the Stick) and the prevailing opinion from the local sports media was SF traded away 3 super bowls by dealing Haley to Dallas. So yeah...individual stats in 92-93 not at the level he had in SF (he played in the 3-4 in SF btw which I believe is noteworthy)...HOWEVER, his individual PRESENCE and LEADERSHIP created a championship level defense for the few productive years he was here. A bigger testament to his greatness (HOF)...think how long it took for us to find a new Charles. From memory...Carver, Pittman, Ellis, Ekuban, and finally D Ware (about a ten year journey).

We need a player that teams fear...and one that they scheme for that elevates everyone else's level of play. Nobody else did that to the degree that Charles did on those 90's squads (from day one) and it remains to be seen whether we have such a player on this current defense (likely candidate Sean Lee?). In other words, I think we need to have that ONE GUY that sets the tone and the culture...every SB we've won you could point to someone in that role (Lily, White, and of course, Haley).

 

[conner01]

Charles Haley was the most disruptive defensive player in the league during that time period (92-95). His sack totals only tell part of the story. Quarterback hurries stats started to be tracked after he joined the Cowboys it seemed.

Sooner are later fans will learn sacks are not the only way to judge a pass rush
Disrupt the pocket and force bad decisions, pressure and make a qb uncomfortable
Sacks are the ultimate prize but stopping a qb from sitting back and picking your secondary apart is a mighty good way to win games

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Appreciate your thought process and excellent post...my take - I think Haley's impact is that he helped the entire D take a quantum leap from good to great (#1 ranking his first year)...moreover, I think it is reasonable to argue that his transition from the Niners to the Boys shifted the balance of power for the 92 and 93 seasons (back2back)...I was living in the SF Bay Area during that time (went to the 92 season NFC championship at the Stick) and the prevailing opinion from the local sports media was SF traded away 3 super bowls by dealing Haley to Dallas. So yeah...individual stats in 92-93 not at the level he had in SF (he played in the 3-4 in SF btw which I believe is noteworthy)...HOWEVER, his individual PRESENCE and LEADERSHIP created a championship level defense for the few productive years he was here. A bigger testament to his greatness (HOF)...think how long it took for us to find a new Charles. From memory...Carver, Pittman, Ellis, Ekuban, and finally D Ware (about a ten year journey).

We need a player that teams fear...and one that they scheme for that elevates everyone else's level of play. Nobody else did that to the degree that Charles did on those 90's squads (from day one) and it remains to be seen whether we have such a player on this current defense (likely candidate Sean Lee?). In other words, I think we need to have that ONE GUY that sets the tone and the culture...every SB we've won you could point to someone in that role (Lily, White, and of course, Haley).

I agree about tone and culture. I'm definitely not opposed to adding a Charles Haley type or trying to find players who can produce a better pass rush. That wasn't the intention of my post. My point is there are different ways to the same conclusion.

As for the Cowboys jumping to the No. 1 ranking in 1992, that was partly because of Haley, no doubt. But other contributions including a young defense with a ton of talent. Tolbert, Norton, Kevin Smith, Robert Jones, Larry Brown, Russell Maryland, Jimmie Jones, Kenny Gant, Darren Woodson, Lett. Norton was 26 and the rest of those names were 25 or younger. We did have a few vets like Haley, Jeffcoat, Holt, Washington, Casillas and Everett, but most of that core was young and developed quickly. It's not unprecedented for a young, talented team - like we have this year - to make the leap.

And just having a Daddy pass rusher doesn't guarantee success, even in the postseason. Look at this year. Vic Beasley is a stud. Freeney was signed for this part of the season. Yet the Patriots were able to come from behind to beat the Falcons by passing exclusively. On their last three TD drives they had 21 pass plays and 3 running plays. There was 1 sack during that time and not near enough pressure to bother Brady.

 

[morasp]

did Rod have the requisite playas

Edit: jags do tend to get exposed

I agree. There was a lot of talk this offseason that the pass rush precedes coverage but when I watched games receivers were coming uncovered even on the quick throws. They say DBs can't cover for long periods of time but they need to be able to take away the quick passes.

 

[tyke1doe]

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 one of the greatest football minds as a coach and the greatest quarterback of this generation. Aside from that, yes, let's emulate their game plan.

 

[tyke1doe]

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

We lost to the Packers in 2014 primarily because we couldn't get pressure on a one-legged Aaron Rodgers.
We lost to the Packers this past year primarily because we couldn't get pressure on a two-legged Aaron Rodgers.

Tell me again why we don't need a War Daddy?

 

[Bullflop]

Having a Charles Haley may not be a necessity but if I had someone like him at my disposal, disposing of him wouldn't be a consideration.

 

[CowboyRoy]

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.

I always find it hilarious when people look at the patriots and say we can be like them and win. LOL

Almost as pointless as when people used to hate on Romo because he wasnt Tom Brady.

At the end of the day, we have Garrett and they have Belichek. The comparison stops there.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I always find it hilarious when people look at the patriots and say we can be like them and win. LOL

Almost as pointless as when people used to hate on Romo because he wasnt Tom Brady.

At the end of the day, we have Garrett and they have Belichek. The comparison stops there.

What the Patriots have done is admirable but they aren't infallible or untouchable. What they have proven is that there are multiple ways to win in this league - even they've done it different ways.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I always find it hilarious when people look at the patriots and say we can be like them and win. LOL

Almost as pointless as when people used to hate on Romo because he wasnt Tom Brady.

At the end of the day, we have Garrett and they have Belichek. The comparison stops there.

The point was that there are different ways to build a wining team. The supposition that we have to have guy who gets 15 sacks a year to have an effective defense is invalidated by the fact that the super bowl winners were middle of the pack in sacks and pressure--They succeeded because of a solid backfield and sound tackling.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Tell me again why we don't need a War Daddy?

Because a stable of capable DL can be just as effective. The defense does not need to rely on just one guy.

Most of the top pressure teams don't have a top 10 sack guy.

 

[CowboyRoy]

What the Patriots have done is admirable but they aren't infallible or untouchable. What they have proven is that there are multiple ways to win in this league - even they've done it different ways.

Never said they werent untouchable. But to say we can win the SB with low sacks because the Patriots did is ridiculous. Our teams are totally different. Scheme, coaching, Tom Brady, defensive discipline, ect....ect..... we simply dont have.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The point was that there are different ways to build a wining team. The supposition that we have to have guy who gets 15 sacks a year to have an effective defense is invalidated by the fact that the super bowl winners were middle of the pack in sacks and pressure--They succeeded because of a solid backfield and sound tackling.

More to the point, its all about what OUR team needs. And we have seen quite plainly that OUR team has lost now twice in the playoffs because we cant rush the passer. So although the patriots may have been able to get away with it, OUR team clearly cannot.