Replacing the culture of losing

[Seven]

I don't know how you replace the culture of losing, which goes back into the 90's not 2009, without changing the top of the organization.

Took ya long enough................dead nuts on.

 

[Galian Beast]

Who do you have as the starting dl?

Two rookies, Melton, and veteran yet to be signed.

 

[Galian Beast]

As for the culture going as far as the 90s, I disagree. That wave and culture ended. We had many productive seasons since 2003. From 2003-2007, I would say this was a pretty strong team, though it had its ups and downs.

 

[ShiningStar]

and yet some still wanted to place a lot of the blame on the Offense for last year. None so blind that will not see. With the exception of 2007 and 2009 our D was never more than average at best and usually a lot worse.

yes, as we all know in football 101, its the defense that stops the offense on 3rd downs. Dont tell anyone, Sean Lee would say mean things about Tony Romo.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think this is one of the most important aspects the team needs to look at going forward, and another reason why I am pleased that we're going in a new direction with veteran players.

This team has had a culture of losing games since we got beat by Minnesota in 2009. Defenses that blew huge leads in the 3rd and 4th quarter of games.

I don't want to entirely blame the defense, but the defense has been the largest culprit.

PPG Rank

2010 (6-10)
OFF: 7th
DEF: 31st

2011 (8-8)
OFF: 15th
DEF: 16th

2012 (8-8)
OFF: 15th
DEF: 24th

2013 (8-8)
OFF: 5th
DEF: 26th

Average
OFF: 10.5
DEF: 24.25

Clearly the defense is what is predominantly holding us back. Even when this team scores 49 points, we still manage to lose by giving up 51 points...

The defense currently doesn't have a single starter from that 2010 team. You have to go back as to 2011 when Sean Lee became a starter (but even then he was a part time starter). This team will have at a minimum 4 new starters (depending on whether or not you consider Selvie a legitimate starter and whether or not Spencer is eventually resigned and starts). I think Durant is likely gone, which takes us to 5 new starters. I think you can call Wilcox a new starter as well, which takes us to 6 new starters, which is over half the defense. The core of the defense that has remained has always been that defensive line.

Point is we should look and play very differently next year and that shouldn't be overlooked.

To give you a sense of the snap count that we're looking at, Brandon Carr had 1116 snaps as a full time healthy starter on our defense. Wilcox had 515 snaps and Jeff Heath had 594 snaps. Even our depth should look a lot better on defense next year, hopefully with guys like Selvie, Bass, Mincey, and Crawford coming off the bench.

With your defensive line, you're basically looking for your top 8. Let's take a look at our depth:

Benchmark Hayden was a starter and had 821 snaps on defense (Hatcher had 747 snaps and Selvie had 744, with Ware coming in at 628).

1. Jarius Wynn 275 snaps (Is Mincey better than Wynn?)
2. Drake Nevis 254 snaps (Is Terrell McClain better than Nevis?)
3. Everette Brown 153 snaps (Is Tyrone Crawford better than Brown?)
4. Caesar Rayford 144 snaps (Is Ben Bass better than Rayford and did Rayford play inside or outside, I can't remember how that played out).
5. Corvey Irvin 117 snaps
6. Edgar Jones 72 snaps
7. MISC 246 snaps

Total of 1261 snaps: Basically looking at two extra starters.


It was obvious what we did in the last draft, rather than add a bunch of pieces on defense where we didn't really know what we had, we focused instead on the offense, drafting a Center, Wide Receiver, Tight End, and Running Back.

The idea was to stock up on what was a known solid.

I would say that for the most part the offense focus worked, except for the fact that the team still doesn't know how to put its foot on the accelerator until it needs to. I think the squarely goes on the coaching, which is why it is nice to have Linehan here, just for a change of pace.

The first three draft picks in last years draft was all offense, I'm not convinced that the defense will get that same attention, but it should be close. I think we're going to need to get at least 3 defensive starters from this draft combined with undrafted free agency. I think from last years draft crop Holloman and Wilcox have the chance to start. Then there is Henry Melton that we just signed. That is potentially a total of 6 new starters right there. Also I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we find a starter or two in free agency after the draft.

OTC currently has us at 6.42 million under the cap. On the one hand, this doesn't include resigning Smith or Bryant, on the other hand it doesn't include the savings we will get on June 1st once Austin's base salary comes off the books. That brings us another 5 million dollars of cap space, which is a total of 11.42 million dollars. That actually gives us quite a bit of space to sign some undervalued free agents when the time comes. 3-4 million dollar a year type deals. So don't flip out that we don't sign a guy like Jared Allen to more than he is worth.

We don't need a top 5 defense next year (though that would be nice). What we need is a top 15 defense and a top 10 offense (that is consistent).

I think those things can be accomplished.

I have a question or two, GB.

The replacing of the losing culture is something I'd like to see. However, how do you target where that culture is within the organization?

Meaning, does this start with coaching?
Does this fall on the head of Garrett?
Is this something being taught because of the lack of thoroughness of the coaching staff in preparation?
Is the game plan at fault?
Is this the lack of skill of the head coach as a head coach?
Is this the lack of skill of the staff?
Is this a lack of common goal throughout the organization, meaning one level says one thing, the next level says something else?
Is the half time adjustments at fault?
How much in percentages is it players versus coaching?
Does this culture permeate the players to a degree that they expect to lose, or more importantly not give a damn?
Is this losing attitude the players we acquire?
Is this brought with them or do they get here?
Is the culture an entitlement attitude fostered by the team management?
What process, once you have targeted where the rubber meets the road, would you implement to resolve this culture?

How much of this is it the GM/President and his accessibility to the players, who perhaps look at this as being able to play Mommy off Daddy with the head coach?

I don't expect you to answer those. But I think targeting the well spring where this originates would be the first step. Then removing that impetus to think in a losing fashion would be next.

But there is also the fact that this may be so ingrained in the franchise that doing so would require punting and starting over with new players and coaches, and perhaps a new GM, and locking out the President from speaking with the players.

None of that will ever happen here.

So this appears, and I am not taking a shot at your reasonable post, but it looks like dumb luck will need to prevail for this culture to change.

 

[Galian Beast]

I have a question or two, GB.

The replacing of the losing culture is something I'd like to see. However, how do you target where that culture is within the organization?

Meaning, does this start with coaching?
Does this fall on the head of Garrett?
Is this something being taught because of the lack of thoroughness of the coaching staff in preparation?
Is the game plan at fault?
Is this the lack of skill of the head coach as a head coach?
Is this the lack of skill of the staff?
Is this a lack of common goal throughout the organization, meaning one level says one thing, the next level says something else?
Is the half time adjustments at fault?
How much in percentages is it players versus coaching?
Does this culture permeate the players to a degree that they expect to lose, or more importantly not give a damn?
Is this losing attitude the players we acquire?
Is this brought with them or do they get here?
Is the culture an entitlement attitude fostered by the team management?
What process, once you have targeted where the rubber meets the road, would you implement to resolve this culture?

How much of this is it the GM/President and his accessibility to the players, who perhaps look at this as being able to play Mommy off Daddy with the head coach?

I don't expect you to answer those. But I think targeting the well spring where this originates would be the first step. Then removing that impetus to think in a losing fashion would be next.

But there is also the fact that this may be so ingrained in the franchise that doing so would require punting and starting over with new players and coaches, and perhaps a new GM, and locking out the President from speaking with the players.

None of that will ever happen here.

So this appears, and I am not taking a shot at your reasonable post, but it looks like dumb luck will need to prevail for this culture to change.

A question or two? lol.

Does it start with the coaching? Yeah, I think it does. I think teams take on the personalities of their coach and their coordinators. I was never a fan of Jason Garrett, I felt he was underqualified to be an OC and certainly underqualified to be a HC. I think that when we are successful it is generally in spite of him. You can see the offense performs the best when they don't go strictly based on gameplan and go more with the flow of the moment. I think he is an overly calculating coach who thinks he is smarter than he really is. Never seen our team outcoach the opposing team. You can see our win percentage against teams above 500.

I think at some point the offensive game plan became overly cautious, and they focused on not turning the ball over. This results in much closer games, because while we don't turn the ball over as much in the passing game, the passing game is a lot less dynamic. You have to play to win, not play not to lose.

I think another reason I have disliked Garrett is I think he has kept down the skill level of the staff. He has people come in that have no chance of replacing him as head coach. We see the results pretty evidently.

I don't think it has much to do with any miscommunication perceived or otherwise.

For a while we were a second half team, so I don't think that is it either, though I felt like Kiffin was unable to change depending on what happened on the field, that might have had a lot more to do with the players. I think Romo has been pretty excellent in the 2nd half of games though, but generally not as much if he were excellent in the 1st half. I think the offense loses steam after success. I think that could be avoided if we had a dominant runner that we could rely on.

I'm not sure how much you can separate from the coaching and the players. On one hand we've had significant weaknesses in personnel groups from time to time, but I think we also have had a really vanilla scheme. I think on offense the problem is more the coaching, and on defense the problem is more the players, but it also depends on what time period you're looking at. I think there was a time when no one really knew the offense outside of Romo and maybe Witten, and Romo had to tell everyone where to be. That is on the coaches and the players, but also the front office. Hard to put a number to it.

I think the culture does permeate to the players. In 2007 and 2009 this team really played to win games a lot more. A lot of people said the media was blaming the lack of leadership simply due to the lack of wins. I don't think so anymore. I think there was a significant lack of leadership on defense, but I think that is also tied to losing. A team that expects to lose a game, has a good chance of losing it. The Patriots on the other hand go into every game feeling like they're the favorites. It's a stark contrast with the Cowboys who go up against 500+ teams and try to play not to lose to them almost every time. They play scared and they play stupid.

I don't think we're bringing players in with a losing attitude, though I also don't think we're bringing players in with winning attitudes. Who on this team has a super bowl ring and is in a leadership position. We brought in Brandon Carr, who wasn't a leader or the best player in his secondary, and somehow he is supposed to be that here? Or we bring in over the hill veterans like Brooking or Connor. Melton has played on a stalwart defense for Marinelli and was one of his star players. I'm hoping he can bring some change to this defense, but I'm still really concerned with the secondary. Who is the leader of our secondary? Scandrick? Carr? Church? How sad is that?

I don't think there is an entitlement issue with the Cowboys players or front office, probably more so with us fans. This team has not been good for a long time, I don't think anyone has a big head there. That being said there doesn't seem to have been much accountability until recently with Ware and Austin being let go. I think that has been an issue. I think franchising Spencer twice set a poor precedence as well. He had a career year after a lot of disappointing years, one in which he admitted he didn't try hard enough... That career year happened in a contract year... Basically tells players, hey... you can suck your entire contract, but do well in the last year, and we'll reward you for it.

I think they're doing exactly what they need to do, short of firing Garrett. I think Garrett has one year left to show that he has what it takes to right the ship, and if he can't I strongly believe he will be replaced. 2014 and 2015 are big years for us. Either Garrett will turns things around or another coach will in 2015, with a largely different team than what we've seen in the past.

I don't know how much I blame Jerry for, I don't buy too much any him being a puppet master and going over the coaches head. I just haven't seen the evidence for that. I think one of the biggest issues is the lack of playing time rookies get, and I saw last year that coaches were more willing to let rookies play at some times. That is one of the biggest changes that I think needs to happen. These guys are generally coming from a place of winning, and they need to be given the chance to do what they can do. We haven't had an offensive or defensive rookie of the year in quite some time... I find that troubling.

I think what we all need to realize is that winning is hard in the NFL, and if you stack things up the Cowboys in the last decade or so have probably been a top 10 or 12 team in win percentage, most teams go through phases where they are much less than 8-8. We're far from where we need to be, but the expectations for our team are much higher, that has a lot to do with Jerry. This team could easily be like the Jaguars or the Browns... yet he doesn't allow that.

 

[Galian Beast]

I think you can look at our team and look at our success when we had T.O. A lot of people didn't like Owens, but he went into every game with the mindset that he was going to dominate, and thus demanding the opportunity to do so. This worked well for us in 2007, but not so well when he started to decline. After the 08 season we cut Owens, and we actually got better on offense. People thought this was because the team was now Romo friendly, and I think that is accurate to an extent. He was now moving the ball around more, and getting picked off less. We were also scoring less touchdowns though. Romo raised the play level of Crayton, Austin, and Robinson, but what we really should have been doing was getting him legitimate receivers who could consistently do damage after the catch. Austin was that for a while, but looking back at it, I don't know if Austin was particularly a special player, or if he simply took advantage of his opportunities as afforded to him by Romo.

I think that there are a lot of parallels between Dez and T.O. in terms of their ability to perform on the field. The problem however is that our defense isn't close to what it was in 2007, and the offense isn't dynamic enough even with Dez.

In 2007, Owens got 144 targets. In 2013 Bryant got 160 targets. Owens actually had more yards and more touchdowns despite the fewer targets. I believe this is primarily because we used to throw the ball deeper down the field. I don't know if this is a limitation of an older Romo or if this is about scheme.

Romo had 19 picks that year and 36 touchdowns, last year he had 31 touchdowns and 10 interceptions.

That 5 to 9 difference doesn't seem like a big difference, but I bet if we looked at it we would see the defense made up for those extra 9 picks. Having a better defense, I think allowed Romo to be more aggressive, and allowed the coaches to be more aggressive.

The 07 cowboys were 13th in the league in points allowed on defense... Not necessarily special, but a huge difference from 26th in the league...

 

[Galian Beast]

With some cap space and some luck we can put together an entirely new defensive line in just one year.

We have 3-4 round in which we can get two starters for the defensive line, preferably in the first three rounds though. That shouldn't be too difficult. That isn't suggesting that these players will certainly be all-pro or even that they will work out, but we can at least pencil them in as starters.

Then you have Henry Melton as the cornerstone of the line. It was crucial that we sign him. I'm glad we got him and that we didn't over pay for him. Two huge victories on that front.

Then there is almost complete certainty that a defensive tackle and/or defensive end veteran will be cut in June and will be able to help us complete the line this year. Still actually a lot of defensive ends available that never got signed. It's because most teams are waiting until after the draft, and this draft being so deep won't be kind to a lot of veterans.