Projected #1 Overall Pick Cam Ward Calls Out Cowboys' Defense

CowboyFrog said:
i think Disguising has alot do to with how they prepare for the week and of course talent around them...most QB's who get into the NFL can read a base defense fine...coaching matters.
Click to expand...
I agree…and while many teams may technically run the same/similar defenses, there are usually nuances that must be accounted for. That is also where coaching and preparation matter.
 
exciter said:
Stroud has had the luxury of playing with a deep receiving corps and a good run game backed by a good defense. When playing competition that was strong enough vs the run that they could play cover 2 zone he’s folded!
Daniels was still the same one read QB that I watched here in Louisiana. He moves around well enough in the pocket and finds a receiver in the scramble drill to get away with it this year in part because teams were playing him conservatively because of lack of NFL film. Just the fact that he took 56 sacks on a 12-5 team would indicate he’s not reading defenses very well. Let’s see if he can improve once DCs have had an entire offseason to break down his weaknesses and that his development wasn’t as stagnant as Strouds before we anoint him eh!
Click to expand...
Fair enough…but just to be clear, nobody said they were anointing him. That is something you chose to throw in that was never insinuated or discussed. I won’t speculate as to why.

I am fine if we disagree on the base level of knowledge a top NFL prospect possesses. Maybe you’re right.

It’s also fine if we disagree that a top NFL prospect needs to rely on his agent to provide a crash course on basic zone coverages. Maybe you’re right again.

And maybe his sack total means he has an inability to read basic zone coverages. As I said before, my bet is that it was likely more indicative of experience and an increase in the speed of the game which likely influences his processing time. But I could be wrong.

And to end on a high note with something we can agree on, there are many opportunities for improvement and time and attention is likely the best cure.
 
Spottswoode said:
Fair enough…but just to be clear, nobody said they were anointing him. That is something you chose to throw in that was never insinuated or discussed. I won’t speculate as to why.

I am fine if we disagree on the base level of knowledge a top NFL prospect possesses. Maybe you’re right.

It’s also fine if we disagree that a top NFL prospect needs to rely on his agent to provide a crash course on basic zone coverages. Maybe you’re right again.

And maybe his sack total means he has an inability to read basic zone coverages. As I said before, my bet is that it was likely more indicative of experience and an increase in the speed of the game which likely influences his processing time. But I could be wrong.

And to end on a high note with something we can agree on, there are many opportunities for improvement and time and attention is likely the best cure.
Click to expand...
Eh, I’d say there’s been a fair amount of anointing and woe as me posting on Daniel’s. Just as there was on RG3 after his rookie season.
As for “indicative of experience” that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.
Most college QBs don’t see anything close to even the most basic NFL zones in college. Playing at Miami id guess exacerbates that reality.
We played a hodgepodged together cover 2 zone last season after mostly playing man the previous 3. We did so with players who are a better fit in man coverage (Diggs) and an in the box safety (Wilson) a 5th round rookie, another in UDFA Butler who ran a legit 4.7 and had to be babysat! Showing this kid film of our defense last year in an attempt to inflate his knowledge and make drafting him more acceptable and palatable is exactly that… an agent doing his job!
 
IAmLegend said:
Not a huge deal but I found this pretty funny. We got undrafted Rookie QB's specifically calling out our porous Defense in pre-draft interviews now lol. Also odd that Ran Carthon is interviewing the likely #1 pick of the Titans when he was just fired by the Titans after the season.

Click to expand...

its great, he is showing his knowledge, but becareful kid. NFL is fluid and you are going to face them someday and you don't want bulletin board material....
 
DallasEast said:
The exact quote:


Without being too specific, Cam Ward emphasizes Dallas' defense out of any defenses he inferred watching that utilized the Tampa/Cover 2. What singles out a particular example out of a group of examples from any observer's perspective? Answer: something one example demonstrated more than any the other examples did.

Perhaps Ward's observation cannot be labeled as a callout. What Ward inferred, from his perspective, is Dallas' use of Tampa/Cover 2 stood out for him over any other teams' use of the same scheme. What does that say of this aspect of the 2024 Cowboys defense, comparative to other teams' use of the Tampa/Cover 2 last season, if the rookie's observations are 100% correct?

Callout? Maybe not. Identifying a defensive fault more prevalent than what other teams had? Well. That spotlight would not be shining as brightly on those other teams as it does solely upon Dallas in his eyes, would it?
Click to expand...
You may be right. The only way to truly know is to ask Cam.

But you had to go a long way to try to make this about the Cowboys. By your logic, the only way he could have provided an example of what he was saying without sharing a specific team would be to name every NFL team that used the coverage. And that would require that he could even name the teams using the coverage.

And your initial premise that an example must demonstrate something more than other potential examples is building an argument on a false premise. Again, by that logic, examples can only be shared when they demonstrate something more than other possible examples. Sometimes an example is just an example.

Maybe he meant to take a shot at Dallas. Maybe he named the first team that came to mind. Maybe he named the last team he watched. And maybe Cowboys fans are so frustrated with the team that they look for any signs of confirmation bias to validate their justified frustrations. Who knows.
 
Last edited:
blueblood70 said:
Does this kid know that we are missing 2 levels of starters, mostly on defense, does he also realize that Jayden Daniel struggled against this bad defense literally lost to us in game one, and got ran out of the game in game two, we nearly swept Washington and Jayden Daniels..

if he thinks he's better than Jayden Daniels bring it on he sounds like a overconfident egotistical young Rook that I hope we get to see because this will be bulletin board material that was a very injured defense with a one-year lame duck new defensive scheme and coach.? I wonder if he understands the worst NFL defense is better than any defense he'll ever see in college and him running his mouth not gonna be helping him in the first game he sees against any defense but I can promise you this if he meets the Cowboys here in the near future they're gonna remember this...
Click to expand...
Yeah and you know if we had Charles Haley Randy White deion Sanders Cliff Harris Bob Lilly everson Walls or any number of the real Dallas Cowboys I'd say we had a great chance of making him pay for that statement.

But with the hot boys The Business decision makers and the podcast boy this kid could very well make a fool out of this defense .
This defense with a new coordinator is about as proven as this kid is so I'm waiting to see before I make any predictions on how good it'll be.
Also remember he'll be playing with an offense that's better than anything he played with in college so there's that
I'd love to see us be able to make him pay for those statements but until we get a dominant defensive personality that hates the opposing team like Dick butkus or Deacon Jones I don't see it happening with podcast boy who wants to be everybody's friend .
 
Spottswoode said:
You may be right. The only way to truly know is to ask Cam.

But you had to go a long way to try to make this about the Cowboys. By your logic, the only way he could have provided an example of what he was saying without sharing a specific team would be to name every NFL team that used the coverage. And that would require that he could even name the teams using the coverage.

And your initial premise that an example must demonstrate something more than other potential examples is building an argument on a false premise. Again, by that logic, examples can only be shared when they demonstrate something more than other possible examples. Sometimes an example is just an example.

Maybe he meant to take a shot at Dallas. Maybe he named the first team that came to mind. Maybe he named the last team he watched. And maybe Cowboys fans are so frustrated with the team that they look for any signs of confirmation bias to validate their justified frustrations. Who knows.
Click to expand...
lol.

Perhaps what he said (which I quoted) is what he meant to say.
 
well, we couldn't maintain gap control or an edge, so our LB and S were cheating and biting. there have been huge holes in underneath zones for years. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
 
Bobhaze said:
Maybe. But there are a few other teams playing the “Tampa 2” where the Safeties are practically a mile from the los he could have mentioned.

It is certainly a somewhat outdated scheme.
Click to expand...
He mentioned Dallas because everyone wants to be a Cowboy..even the haters want to be us. The only ones that don't, are some of our fans.
 
DallasEast said:
lol.

Perhaps what he said (which I quoted) is what he meant to say.
Click to expand...
Perhaps…and perhaps Cam has beef with Dallas. Your dismissive lol suggests you weren’t really looking for other opinions of your theory. But you asked the question and I simply pointed out what I felt was the fault in your logic.
 
Spottswoode said:
Perhaps…and perhaps Cam has beef with Dallas. Your dismissive lol suggests you weren’t really looking for other opinions of your theory. But you asked the question and I simply pointed out what I felt was the fault in your logic.
Click to expand...
Now you have stated my replying with an 'lol' was dismissive. Your logical conclusion was based on a three-letter abbreviation. Yet, you have surmised my logic is faulty by basically stating I read too much into what Cam Ward actually said.

I was not being dismissive. The 'lol' was reading every assumption you made of what I said about Cam Ward's statement, at length, and proclaimed it was logical. I thought it was funny, hence the 'laughing out loud'.

You could be right about Ward's comment. I doubt it. It is not a common communicative norm for an individual to state every example within the context of a conversation--unless the individual wishes the receiver of the communication to know as many specifics of the message they are trying to convey. The exception is especially true of the norm whenever an individual does not deliver a brief summary of what they are talking about.

And Ward's answer was, in fact, brief. He chose Dallas' defense out of every Tampa/Cover 2 coverage he inferred having watched. What he observed Dallas' defense doing stood out the most for him. What he saw Dallas do imprinted the largest impression upon him. If it had not, it is extremely likely he would have either: a) mentioned another team's defense instead (not several or many as you assumed); or b) singled out none.

When a person has a lot to say, they say a lot. The four-paragraphs above illustrate that, lol (the lol is my self-reflection for my own comment's irony and has nothing to do with you). Again. Ward did not say a lot. He highlighted Dallas out of every Tampa/Cover 2 defense he could have mentioned within his brief comment. Dallas' defense is what he wanted to emphasize. He did so.

That said, what he said was not necessarily a callout. Saying it was a callout may be actually reading too much into what he did say.
 
Last edited:
FuzzyLumpkins said:
They just fired the coaching staff, and the new DC runs a base cover 3 and man scheme.

Why cannot we separate them considering the team now has a different defense?
Click to expand...
The defensive "scheme" has been a seive through the last 2 defensive coordinators and the FO is responsible for those hires and the personnel that execute them.

Anything that is on the field is the Dallas Cowboys......if Eberflus is a success than that will also be the Cowboys

It works both ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 3,778 (members: 174, guests: 3,604)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,472
Messages
13,813,092
Members
23,780
Latest member
HoppleSopple
Back
Top