Ray Lewis says Cowboys Offense doesn't scare anyone

[Seven]

That's not really what the offense is designed to do. This has been said for years, but the offense is more competitive than most on a per-play basis.

I don't love our scheme, either, but the breakdowns, to the extent we have them, have been execution breakdowns. And the offense is still putting up points.

Meanwhile, our LBs can't cover and our Ss are liabilities in space and our tackling has been subpar so far this season. And we can't take the ball away from anybody. Let's focus on the real reasons we're getting beat.

NAILED IT!!!


Enough likes to put you 1 over Risen...............

 

[JD_KaPow]

Who said having those punts come in 1st half we'd be better off? I said having few longer drives in the second half that ended up with FGs would probably been better than having one short drive that ended up a TD. Stop making stuff up.

You're either arguing that we should have had more offense, or that the offense should have been distributed differently. The implication of the latter is that some of the bad drives should have come at different times.

Now you're arguing that three punts in the game was too many, and you're saying we should have put up more than the well-over-400 yards than we did (two long FG drives vs. one long (in yards) TD drive). All that seems greedy, and nitpicky, to me.

There's a very simple way to describe what happened in this game. The offense did well, the defense and special teams stunk up the joint. The explanations that involve blaming the offense are, frankly, pretty weird.

 

[Zman5]

You're either arguing that we should have had more offense, or that the offense should have been distributed differently. The implication of the latter is that some of the bad drives should have come at different times.

Now you're arguing that three punts in the game was too many, and you're saying we should have put up more than the well-over-400 yards than we did (two long FG drives vs. one long (in yards) TD drive). All that seems greedy, and nitpicky, to me.

There's a very simple way to describe what happened in this game. The offense did well, the defense and special teams stunk up the joint. The explanations that involve blaming the offense are, frankly, pretty weird.

BS. You don't even know what you replied to. You kept pointing out that the offense is fine because we scored 30 points. I pointed out that's not the end all when it comes to this team. I pointed out time of possession is important to this team.

I gave you an example of a scenario where we could have scored less points but had more time of possession in the second half that would have given us better chance of winning the game.

Offense did well in the first half but sucked in the second half. ST and Defense didn't play well but offense put the defense in a bad situation. Football is a team sport. If the other team has 19 unanswered points, your offense has to take the share of the blame.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Not really breaking any news here. This is the least creative coaching staff in the league. Offense and defense.

 

[stilltheguru88]

I guess Ray reads this forum. We have been saying this for years with this offense.

No, him and Ed Reed said this in 2008 when they embarrassed Garrett and Romo.

 

[CCBoy]

49ers scored 39 points against the Rams the week before.

Not sure it's one of the "better" defenses in the league at this point.

Then now try to explain why they handled Dallas for a whole second half...

 

[perrykemp]

Then now try to explain why they handled Dallas for a whole second half...

Who knows...

There a very few certainties in the league at this point...

Only thing I've seen for a certainly is that Denver has a Super Bowl caliber defense

 

[JD_KaPow]

BS. You don't even know what you replied to. You kept pointing out that the offense is fine because we scored 30 points. I pointed out that's not the end all when it comes to this team. I pointed out time of possession is important to this team.

I gave you an example of a scenario where we could have scored less points but had more time of possession in the second half that would have given us better chance of winning the game.

The scenario you gave had us scoring the same number of points but gaining more yards overall. Which, sure, would've been great.

Offense did well in the first half but did absolutely nothing in the second half. ST and Defense didn't play well but offense put the defense in a bad situation. Football is a team sport. If the other team has 19 unanswered points, your offense has take the share of the blame.

The offense didn't do "well" in the first half. They were insanely great, scoring on every drive and dominating TOP. Sure, they had a rough patch in the 3rd quarter, but nobody's perfect. If those 3 punts had been spread out through the game, you wouldn't even notice, even if the end result was the same. The issue is that the defense didn't stop the Rams one single time in their last five drives.

Let me give you a comparison point. Last year, regular season game against Green Bay. A game we dominated, right? We won 30-16.
In that game, we had four possessions where we didn't score. Two punts and two turnovers. Each of those drives lasted 2 minutes or less, and 4 plays or less. Exactly like Sunday, but worse (two turnovers vs. one). On the other drives, we scored 30 points, exactly like Sunday. We put up 424 yards, just like Sunday. We lost the TOP battle by the slightest of margins, just like Sunday. But we won the game, because the defense actually made a few stops and forced some turnovers. The only difference between the games in terms of offense was the order in which the scoring drives and the non-scoring drives occurred. Absolutely nobody complained about the offense in the GB game, because they were great and we won. Sunday, they were great (not perfect, of course not) and we lost.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

How exactly was that different than last year?

We did not operate at a quick pace and we ran more than almost any team in the league. And other teams knew we would run. What wasn't predictable about that?

It isn't different...which is why I said it cannot win 3 straight games in the postseason. The playoffs are the best of the best...teams will make you uncomfortable...average defense and simple offense...equals good regular season at best

 

[Zman5]

The scenario you gave had us scoring the same number of points but gaining more yards overall. Which, sure, would've been great.The offense didn't do "well" in the first half. They were insanely great, scoring on every drive and dominating TOP. Sure, they had a rough patch in the 3rd quarter, but nobody's perfect. If those 3 punts had been spread out through the game, you wouldn't even notice, even if the end result was the same. The issue is that the defense didn't stop the Rams one single time in their last five drives.

Let me give you a comparison point. Last year, regular season game against Green Bay. A game we dominated, right? We won 30-16.
In that game, we had four possessions where we didn't score. Two punts and two turnovers. Each of those drives lasted 2 minutes or less, and 4 plays or less. Exactly like Sunday, but worse (two turnovers vs. one). On the other drives, we scored 30 points, exactly like Sunday. We put up 424 yards, just like Sunday. We lost the TOP battle by the slightest of margins, just like Sunday. But we won the game, because the defense actually made a few stops and forced some turnovers. The only difference between the games in terms of offense was the order in which the scoring drives and the non-scoring drives occurred. Absolutely nobody complained about the offense in the GB game, because they were great and we won. Sunday, they were great (not perfect, of course not) and we lost.

The concern is that we've played the exact same type of game against Atlanta in 2015. We were winning 21-7 at one point and let them back in the game with an INT. It was 28-17 at the half time. Atlanta then shut our offense down in the second half and feasted on our tired defense. Similar to what the Rams did last Sunday. We ended up losing 39-28. We played great in the first half but did nothing in the second half. Nobody was saying our offense was great after the game.

Yeh 28 points should win you games. But not with this defense. That's how This defense isn't built to win games on it's own. Unless the offense can help keep it off the field by playing consistent for 4 quarters, we are going to have same type of losses.

 

[DiResta]

Not sure if you watch the game but we do throw the ball also.

we throw it plenty
especially when we cant run the ball
but see if we could, Ray Lewis would say Dallas is not that scary if you stop the run game which was the team last year
nobody but Giants really did, unfortunately they have far more talent on secondary than we have running routes
only a few teams have that level talent on defense and we played at least 3 already
but tell me when do these Cowboys play maybe ill watch some time

 

[Zman5]

we throw it plenty
especially when we cant run the ball
but see if we could, Ray Lewis would say Dallas is not that scary if you stop the run game which was the team last year
nobody but Giants really did, unfortunately they have far more talent on secondary than we have running routes
only a few teams have that level talent on defense and we played at least 3 already
but tell me when do these Cowboys play maybe ill watch some time

I'm not just talking about how many times we threw or ran. I'm talking about the overall scheme. I'm talking about how we threw and ran.

 

[CCBoy]

Who knows...

There a very few certainties in the league at this point...

Only thing I've seen for a certainly is that Denver has a Super Bowl caliber defense

Let's just say this...

The entire team is still in flux, as to development of starters. It has not found it's reproducible identity, nor gained enough together times for the large number of young players that will eventually settle in. Heck, the defensive line, has not yet fielded it's quota of veterans that will prove out as strong contributors. Add in Irvin to Maliek Collins, Stephen Paea, Demarcus Lawrence, Benson Mayowa, and Taco Charlton. Well, the front defensive line is still growing up to a team standard. The missing element that has to be brought onto the carpet...each and every Sunday shortly.

Jaylon Smith was supposed to be somewhat sheltered by the presence of starter, Anthony Hitchens, in the middle.

Jaylon has tried, but remains tired and exposed until more experienced.

Then on third downs and packages, Damien Wilson and Justin Durant could be used for development and transitions.

The young secondary, may be exposed on individual plays, but the new 'rooks' are hitting and keeping the overall effect at about the top 1/3 of the NFL in yards allowed per pass. That is solid for this first 1/4th of this season.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The concern is that we've played the exact same type of game against Atlanta in 2015. We were winning 21-7 at one point and let them back in the game with an INT. It was 28-17 at the half time. Atlanta then shut our offense down in the second half and feasted on our tired defense. Similar to what the Rams did last Sunday. We ended up losing 39-28. We played great in the first half but did nothing in the second half. Nobody was saying our offense was great after the game.

Yeh 28 points should win you games. But not with this defense.

Full stop. The problem is the defense.

That's how This defense isn't built to win games on it's own. Unless the offense can help keep it off the field by playing consistent for 4 quarters, we are going to have same type of losses.

You're saying that the defense is terrible so the offense has to be perfect. Yes, the defense is terrible. That's a problem with the defense, not a problem with the offense. The offense isn't going to be perfect. There will be times when we have 3 three-and-outs in a row. It happens to everybody, no matter how good they are. If you can't win with that happening, then you don't have a good enough defense.

And when you say consistent, you presumably mean "not as good as we were in the first half, but better than we were in the second half." Yet you complain when I suggest that that means another failed drive or two in the first half vs. the second. Perhaps you just mean the offense should be great all the time, which, again, good luck with that.

 

[pitt33]

23rd. And we're coming off a game where we gave up points on nine of eleven possessions. That's where the problem still is.

I think the offense is in the process of sorting things out. They've also played some good defenses early and will probably improve for that reason alone.

And Marinelli’s scheme is predicated on a strong pass rush and extremely athletic LB’s. Having that ingredient led to many forced turnovers for his defense when he was at the helm in Tampa. The lack of turnovers from our defense in turn hurts our offense as we have trouble sustaining drives and every now and then you have to provide the offense with a short field in which to operate.

Let’s hope this defense regains and maintains it’s health and the rook’s continue to grow into their roles. This team needs that more than anything right now.

 

[Zman5]

Full stop. The problem is the defense. You're saying that the defense is terrible so the offense has to be perfect. Yes, the defense is terrible. That's a problem with the defense, not a problem with the offense. The offense isn't going to be perfect. There will be times when we have 3 three-and-outs in a row. It happens to everybody, no matter how good they are. If you can't win with that happening, then you don't have a good enough defense.

And when you say consistent, you presumably mean "not as good as we were in the first half, but better than we were in the second half." Yet you complain when I suggest that that means another failed drive or two in the first half vs. the second. Perhaps you just mean the offense should be great all the time, which, again, good luck with that.

I never implied the defense wasn't to blame. I was just pointing out that just because the offense scored some points in the first half ,it was good for the whole game. The offense can't be absolved from the loss.

I don't expect the offense to be great every quarter, but it can't punt 3 times in a row and then give up an INT to start the half. You can't keep going 3 and out and expect our defense to make a stop every time. Unless their defense is as bad as our, we are not going to win many games that way against a good offensive teams.

 

[WarDaddy]

Our fans complete inability to evaluate offensive production in context despite it constantly being pointed out to them?

The better teams maximize their resources by putting their players in the position to succeed, bridging the talent gap. While taking 5-7 years to build a throwback, pre-salary cap era team (with varying levels of success) may be appealing to some, its problematic to others who have watched other teams with lesser overall talent win the Super Bowl by having coaches who create a schematic advantage to beat more talented competition. (Ex. Saints 2009, Ravens 2012, Patriots every other year)

I'd hate to see it proven over a decade or more that Jason's approach is/was wrong because his philosophy of "just lining up and dominating one-on-one matchups" doesn't work on the highest level anymore. It worked in the early 90's for Jimmy's teams because there was no salary cap and 12 rounds in the draft. It even works now for Nick Saban at the collegiate level because again there is no salary cap or restrictions on the ability to stockpile talent. In the NFL, this strategy might work for a season or two based on schedule or matchups (or a recent run of ridiculous draft success) any given week but when you get to the playoffs you will face a team of players you can't just push around. What do you when you've met your physical match? So far our coach hasn't had an answer for that in any season. Why is it cool to have multiple players/coaches say it's easy to game plan against your team??

I'll make it plain. We've lost in the playoffs as the favorite multiple times to teams that don't go on to win it all. It has happened on every trip to the playoffs. I, as well as many others, have the ability to evaluate that. I've been evaluating it since 2007. It's getting old.

 

[CCBoy]

The better teams maximize their resources by putting their players in the position to succeed, bridging the talent gap. While taking 5-7 years to build a throwback, pre-salary cap era team (with varying levels of success) may be appealing to some, its problematic to others who have watched other teams with lesser overall talent win the Super Bowl by having coaches who create a schematic advantage to beat more talented competition. (Ex. Saints 2009, Ravens 2012, Patriots every other year)

I'd hate to see it proven over a decade or more that Jason's approach is/was wrong because his philosophy of "just lining up and dominating one-on-one matchups" doesn't work on the highest level anymore. It worked in the early 90's for Jimmy's teams because there was no salary cap and 12 rounds in the draft. It even works now for Nick Saban at the collegiate level because again there is no salary cap or restrictions on the ability to stockpile talent. In the NFL, this strategy might work for a season or two based on schedule or matchups (or a recent run of ridiculous draft success) any given week but when you get to the playoffs you will face a team of players you can't just push around. What do you when you've met your physical match? So far our coach hasn't had an answer for that in any season. Why is it cool to have multiple players/coaches say it's easy to game plan against your team??

I'll make it plain. We've lost in the playoffs as the favorite multiple times to teams that don't go on to win it all. It has happened on every trip to the playoffs. I, as well as many others, have the ability to evaluate that. I've been evaluating it since 2007. It's getting old.

Sure, one year a person slips on ice...then another year, water allows for poor footing...and yet another year, 100 m.p.h. winds push a person off course.

One should just surmise that he is poor in weather and needs to just stay indoors.

...and then should just seek out burn barrel buddies and enjoy the heat at the barrel.

NOW, just save up for your cereal box decoder ring...

 

[Idgit]

The better teams maximize their resources by putting their players in the position to succeed, bridging the talent gap. While taking 5-7 years to build a throwback, pre-salary cap era team (with varying levels of success) may be appealing to some, its problematic to others who have watched other teams with lesser overall talent win the Super Bowl by having coaches who create a schematic advantage to beat more talented competition. (Ex. Saints 2009, Ravens 2012, Patriots every other year)

I'd hate to see it proven over a decade or more that Jason's approach is/was wrong because his philosophy of "just lining up and dominating one-on-one matchups" doesn't work on the highest level anymore. It worked in the early 90's for Jimmy's teams because there was no salary cap and 12 rounds in the draft. It even works now for Nick Saban at the collegiate level because again there is no salary cap or restrictions on the ability to stockpile talent. In the NFL, this strategy might work for a season or two based on schedule or matchups (or a recent run of ridiculous draft success) any given week but when you get to the playoffs you will face a team of players you can't just push around. What do you when you've met your physical match? So far our coach hasn't had an answer for that in any season. Why is it cool to have multiple players/coaches say it's easy to game plan against your team??

I'll make it plain. We've lost in the playoffs as the favorite multiple times to teams that don't go on to win it all. It has happened on every trip to the playoffs. I, as well as many others, have the ability to evaluate that. I've been evaluating it since 2007. It's getting old.

We've lost to the Packers twice. Both close games, both good teams, and both with some questionable calls that went against us.

The 2007 loss was one where we definitely had the better team. But at least the team that beat is whent on to win it all.

But that happens to teams every year. Lots of good teams get close every season. It's a single elimination tournament with a ball that bounces funny.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I never implied the defense wasn't to blame. I was just pointing out that just because the offense scored some points in the first half ,it was good for the whole game. The offense can't be absolved from the loss.

I don't expect the offense to be great every quarter, but it can't punt 3 times in a row and then give up an INT to start the half. You can't keep going 3 and out and expect our defense to make a stop every time. Unless their defense is as bad as our, we are not going to win many games that way against a good offensive teams.

Look at the use of language here.

The offense scored "some points" in the first half. No! The offense scored 24(!) points in the first half and were never stopped. That's an amazing half of football. Heck, that's a very good GAME of football. Especially when you factor in that they lost an entire drive because of the muffed punt.

You can't expect the defense to make a stop "every time." No! How about making one single solitary stop? How about when we pin them back at their 10 and their 12, as we did on consecutive punts? Can I expect that? The defense failed to make a single stop in the last five(!) Rams drives of the second half. That's horrific, completely independent of the offense.

The offense can absolutely be absolved from the loss. The loss is on the defense and special teams. Clearly.