Recommended Rewatched the First Half - Defensive Edition

[TheDude]

It's not apparent to me. The LB #53 is in the same area. Do they both need to cover the RB? There's nobody else there for the LB to cover.

Dixon is breaking toward the numbers #53 has the hash. He would cover8 on the cross.

 

[wileedog]

I get that you have a personal issue with me. I would rather have it this way and just have a petty dismissal than the other types of petty digs you typically employ.

Just want to say I have zero personal issue with you at all - in fact quite the opposite - but I read that the same way Alexander did. The idea that the coaches purposely or with intent put the defense in a disadvantageous situation for any reason sounds kind of ludicrous to me. We have a lot of young guys out there - they need confidence a lot more then they need some sort of random litmus test of awfulness.

They way both Garrett and Rod ragged on the defense afterwords leads me to believe there was no intentional challenge being posed here. They just stunk.

 

[DFWJC]

I can see what they are saying the WR are supposed to have the deep thirds and Smith is running to the middle. If you want to say that intermediate zone to take away any breaks inside for example that the WR may take is what he was in there for then fine but i don't see how that makes much difference. He pretty obviously does not recognize that Lindsey had been beat and was in trail position pretty much right from the snap. I get that he is looking for the run but he doesn't recognize it at 5 yards or even 10 yards when the WR is going by him at his spot about 12 yards deep.

I'm fine with him not having deep responsibility if that is what you want to say. I can see the argument. At the same time he is undoubtedly supposed to react in some way to what the WR is doing and it appears at least to me that he starts to see the WR out of the corner of his eye when he drifts those two steps to the sideline but that is about the extent of it before its over. it's pretty obvious he didn't see the route much less adjust to it. You see him do it repeatedly throughout the game.

As Alex so eloquently pointed out, it's a widely known issue, i just think people need to tap the brakes a little bit regarding expectations for Dixon.

That was my issue as well.

I certainly wasn't trying to bash the performance of a potentially very promising rookie.
It's just that the "football play" would be to react to what was clearly broken coverage right in front of him.
If someone wishes to disagree, fine.

 

[Redball Express]

I came away from watching the defensive performance a bit different the second time. The team was without Carr, Claiborne, Moore, Lawrence, Gardner, Spencer, McClain, McClain, Hamilton, and Johnson. So what do they decide to do? Sit Selvie, Scandrick, Church and Melton of course.

This defense had no chance and the coaches wanted it that way. They start Crawford, Webb, Mitchell, Heath and UDFA Coleman. They put Heath in Church's hybrid SS spot right over the slot which I had never seen him play before. It's like a nickel corner. I have only seen him play the deep half or middle. When Dixon came in they put him in at FS and left Heath at this new position. Where he continued to struggle. That's when I knew they didn't really care about defensive performance. They were interested in player development.

When the starters were pulled they rotated the DL between sets of downs. Not series. One line would get a few downs and then they would send in the new one. It would go Bush, Bishop, Coleman, Wilson followed by Boatwright, Rayford Ojomo Wilson. The second line was particularly porous.

They didn't go nickel either. They couldn't because they didn't have the corners to pull it off. So the Chargers got to see the exact same defense over and over and over again. A constant barrage of flags for holding and pi converted 3rd downs for SDG and you get the trainwreck that you had.

Parcells used to talk about using the preseason to put his players in what he called 'disadvantageous' circumstances and see how the players respond. Garrett always talks about handling adversity. While i think they would have preferred to have had more players rise to the occasion I think that they got about what they expected for their defense. Garrett and Marinelli tanked the defense.

Tyrone Crawford - He was up against a good tackle in Fluker. He has a very quick first step and is explosive getting upfield. That is evident. For the most part he was content getting on Fluker's shoulder on run downs and he seemed to set a nice edge. Fluker is a big strong tackle but i didn't get the impression he was doing a good job holding onto Crawford. Crawford does use his reach. It's hard to tell how it was going as the Chargers were content to run Matthews and Woodhead at our tackles and left the edges alone.

He tried the dip and rip once. I would like to see a better inside angle upfield to shorten that corner but if he can do that a few times a game he is going to get sacks. He got within a yard. As it was, Rivers simply stepped up and delivered the ball as the pocket was clear for three yards in front of him.

The Chargers really were content to just attack our weak points over and over again. With Crawford the main thing to me is he looked athletic. His first two steps are swift.

Nick Hayden - He needs to be our 4th tackle at best and he is starting. This is a huge problem for this team and we desperately need McClain to get healthy. His best snap was one in which he got a little bit in the A gap so the guard could only get one arm on him. The problem is that he was still pushed backwards. He cannot hold off or get away from blockers. He needs to do a better job trying to use his hands to ward off the punch. I get that San Diego has a very good line but good teams will exploit him and we desperately need to get better.

Davon Coleman - I was a bit harsh here before and I think I need to revisit my take. He performed very poorly against the 1's. He played better against the 2's and he was making plays against the 3's. Hardwick is a very good center and he had it out for Coleman. He was looking for chances to decleat him and took advantage anytime Coleman managed to get away from Rinehart who is a very good player in his own right. Coleman never looked like it effected him. Imagine Bruce Carter facing this. He just got back up, lined up and tried again. He managed to hold his ground against the 2's on some snaps but he was inconsistent. He has to do a better job getting off blocks. He started to wear down some but I think that is to be expected.

Jeremy Mincey - He is quick enough to play line games with. They stunted him inside once, they had him take a short zone that Woodhead burned. He can get on the tackles shoulder and hold the edge which is essential for sound run defense so we can function with him. His bullrush did bring the tackle to the QB forcing Rivers to move. He is a power guy. He sets guys up with power and uses a nice inside counter which he showed gets penetration. It was interesting to see a Cowboy put his hand up and try to get to a pass.

Kyle Wilber - I thought he struggled mightily this game. He struggled filling holes because he also struggled getting away from the guards constantly out to block him. In the run defense, I give line backers somewhat of a pass for this game. The interior defensive line is a shambles but if he cannot do better against blocks than that then we are going to have some problems. On the rush he did force Rivers to make a quick throw. He seemed to react to routes run at and around him and pick up guys in his zone. On the Woodhead flare, Wilber would have typically jammed and ran with Woodhead. It was the perfect counter to that zone blitz and Rivers is a great QB and made the read immediately. I'd like to see our defensive coaches hit on some coverages.

Justin Durant - His mindset appears to be make quick decisions and run hard. He attacks. He struggled with the rest of them in the run game but he still managed to make a play. In the passing game I think these LBers at least will be active..

Bruce Carter - Bruce works hard during the offseason. Watching him take on guards, he was clearly the best at stacking and shedding them. This is the strongest I have ever seen him be.. Didn't really see the 1 string LB challenged much in the middle zones. He seemed active like Wilber. I am intrigued to see more of him. We cannot afford him to pout this year and some of the people around him are not as talented as he is. Lead. OCs are not going to gameplan him in the preseason and try to bait him short in the zones like so many did last year. We will have to see if they can still do it. He is active and active and running hard. Didn't see him react poorly to the poor performance. Hopefully we can get them some help for the defensive tackles spot.

BW Webb - I thought he did okay in pass coverage. He was aggressive with the jam and receivers. Rivers, et al went mostly away from him. I was very disappointed with his effort in pursuit. He routinely watched runners and receptions happen in his vicinity and did not attack at all. Don't sit there and stare down the completion. I hate soft players.

JJ Wilcox - He looks physical and fast. In the deep half he is recognizing route combinations and you can see him making decisions, committing and then going talk to his teammates afterward. This is going to be a work in progress i imagine but he does see the field and reacts quickly to routes. He is clearly the locked in starter as they pulled him quickly and replaced him with Dixon. He has the quickness and speed to play FS. Lets see if he can make good decisions.

In the words of our esteemed HC..

"it's a process.."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just want to say I have zero personal issue with you at all - in fact quite the opposite - but I read that the same way Alexander did. The idea that the coaches purposely or with intent put the defense in a disadvantageous situation for any reason sounds kind of ludicrous to me. We have a lot of young guys out there - they need confidence a lot more then they need some sort of random litmus test of awfulness.

They way both Garrett and Rod ragged on the defense afterwords leads me to believe there was no intentional challenge being posed here. They just stunk.

Alex is a thing unto his own. If you disagree with what I see, that is fair enough.

Those things that I listed you can at least grant me that those are valid examples of coaching decisions that were made? You just don't think that they are relevant? Is that fair?

Marinelli called out Coleman to the press when he clearly put him in a disadvantageous situation. Marinelli who doesn't call out anyone called out the UDFA that Reinhart and Hardwick had their way with? It just seems obvious to me.

 

[starfrombirth]

It's not apparent to me. The LB #53 is in the same area. Do they both need to cover the RB? There's nobody else there for the LB to cover.

He's not in the same area X... he's 3 yards to the right of Dixon and does an immediate backpedal on the snap which says he didn't have the flat responsibility. Dixon did. And again when he starts to drive to cover his responsibility, the ball is going over his head. And as to him not being in the area of said responsibility, the ball was out in 1.5 seconds. It was an immediate read and throw. There is no way he could have read, diagnose, react, and run all that way in that short a time. Like I said he was trying to drive on his responsibility when he realized the corner was getting beat.... no man's land. I respect every thing you write X, Fuzzy too, but I just disagree with you guys on this.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He started off 15 yards deep and never got more shallow than 12 yards. Typical cover 3 has the LB take the flat and the S takes away any breaks the WR may make while the CB tries to keep up top. Dixon doesn't do that or try or cover the flat. He sits there in space and stares down the QB.

To me its simple. I don't care what the coverage is. When your teammate gets beat that bad in front of you, you need to notice and help, especially as a SAFETY.

 

[peplaw06]

Marinelli called out Coleman to the press when he clearly put him in a disadvantageous situation. Marinelli who doesn't call out anyone called out the UDFA that Reinhart and Hardwick had their way with? It just seems obvious to me.

Question...

Do you think Garrett/Marinelli intentionally put their defensive personnel in a position not to succeed, or do you think it was negligence?

 

[xwalker]

Dixon is breaking toward the numbers #53 has the hash. He would cover8 on the cross.

I'm not tied to any absolute right/wrong on this topic. It's a good discussion, but doesn't need the name calling that's being done by one poster.

 

[xwalker]

Just want to say I have zero personal issue with you at all - in fact quite the opposite - but I read that the same way Alexander did. The idea that the coaches purposely or with intent put the defense in a disadvantageous situation for any reason sounds kind of ludicrous to me. We have a lot of young guys out there - they need confidence a lot more then they need some sort of random litmus test of awfulness.

They way both Garrett and Rod ragged on the defense afterwords leads me to believe there was no intentional challenge being posed here. They just stunk.

There is a precedent for this concept. Parcells talked about it when he was here. Wade talked about sending in the defensive calls late in preseason games to intentionally put the players in a difficult situation. Garrett recently talked about doing something similar to individual players in practice.

I don't know if it happened in this situation, but it's possible.

 

[CCBoy]

Just want to say I have zero personal issue with you at all - in fact quite the opposite - but I read that the same way Alexander did. The idea that the coaches purposely or with intent put the defense in a disadvantageous situation for any reason sounds kind of ludicrous to me. We have a lot of young guys out there - they need confidence a lot more then they need some sort of random litmus test of awfulness.

They way both Garrett and Rod ragged on the defense afterwords leads me to believe there was no intentional challenge being posed here. They just stunk.

To be fair, Fuzzy conditioned that response in indicating that coaches do put players on an island just to see how they respond. Especially rooks...fearful of a visit by the Turk.

 

[CCBoy]

There is a precedent for this concept. Parcells talked about it when he was here. Wade talked about sending in the defensive calls late in preseason games to intentionally put the players in a difficult situation. Garrett recently talked about doing something similar to individual players in practice.

I don't know if it happened in this situation, but it's possible.

And if conditions present themselves during a game naturally, it still is a management/evaluation tool. It works out in the same way.

 

[CCBoy]

Question...

Do you think Garrett/Marinelli intentionally put their defensive personnel in a position not to succeed, or do you think it was negligence?

No, there is a difference in organized direction and stupidity. You intentionally challenge a young player as fully as one can, during the pre season. Or you are also doing both that player and the team a disservice.

A double negative doesn't sidestep issues, of challenging and development from the start.

I'm sure, their Mother's didn't raise a fool as well.

 

[CCBoy]

He's not in the same area X... he's 3 yards to the right of Dixon and does an immediate backpedal on the snap which says he didn't have the flat responsibility. Dixon did. And again when he starts to drive to cover his responsibility, the ball is going over his head. And as to him not being in the area of said responsibility, the ball was out in 1.5 seconds. It was an immediate read and throw. There is no way he could have read, diagnose, react, and run all that way in that short a time. Like I said he was trying to drive on his responsibility when he realized the corner was getting beat.... no man's land. I respect every thing you write X, Fuzzy too, but I just disagree with you guys on this.

That still requires a sophisticated adjustment in a game situation that is more difficult for a stronger player in that role. That is why game experiences are so important...intensity and reactions have to be more secure to succeed. But that comes with experience and seeing those situations developing under game conditions.

Crawl, walk, and then run...in a training environment still works.

 

[DFWJC]

There was a lot of other good content in the OP than just stuff involving Dixon.

Maybe we could move on?

 

[peplaw06]

There is a precedent for this concept. Parcells talked about it when he was here. Wade talked about sending in the defensive calls late in preseason games to intentionally put the players in a difficult situation. Garrett recently talked about doing something similar to individual players in practice.

I don't know if it happened in this situation, but it's possible.

There's a pretty big difference between sending in calls late, or putting a player in a difficult position on one play to try to simulate game action and see their performance under fire, and intentionally and systematically scheming players into situations where you know they can't succeed and leaving them there for long stretches.

 

[peplaw06]

You intentionally challenge a young player as fully as one can, during the pre season. Or you are also doing both that player and the team a disservice.

Sure, you put players in challenging positions to see how they perform... But you do it a play here and a play there.

And this team hasn't even seen guys like Coleman and Dixon in real game action. We have no idea what they have. And we're supposed to think that instead of actually getting our first look at them in game action and putting them in position to succeed, the coaching staff said let's intentionally set them up to fail?

I mean, maybe that is what they did... I don't know. None of us do. But if that is what they did, then I have bigger questions about this coaching staff than I did before the game... and I didn't think the questions about the staff could get much bigger.

 

[xwalker]

There's a pretty big difference between sending in calls late, or putting a player in a difficult position on one play to try to simulate game action and see their performance under fire, and intentionally and systematically scheming players into situations where you know they can't succeed and leaving them there for long stretches.

He stated his opinion. You stated your opinion. Let's move on.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes and no. Get an Earl Thomas type safety, it would work like it is supposed to.

There is no perfect coverage. It is always a combination of calling the right coverages to the talent available.

I agree. There's no scheme capable of masking the talent deficiencies of this defense. The Cowboys brain trust has committed numerous resources to creating a lockdown secondary, but has yet to be successful. In my opinion, there are two primary reasons a lockdown secondary has yet to materialize:

1) No legitimate number one corner. That is, the team lacks a corner in can leave on an island with a receiver. That was supposed to be Mo Clairborne, but he's never been able to take those reins. Consequently, Brandon Carr has generally lined up at the number one, and while Carr is a good corner--the best number two corner in the league when he was with Kansas City--he's basically a glorified Larry Brown. Scandrick is making some noise at camp this year, and Clairborne was playing well before the injury. Perhaps one of them can step into the number one role. It would completely change the defense's complexion.

2) Lack of a safety with range (as you said above). JJ Wilcox could step into that role, but I've yet to see anything his game that would suggest he's a centerfield-type safety. He looks more like a strong safety. This team hasn't had a rangy safety since Darren Woodson. Ken Hamlin certainly wasn't. It's funny because Jimmy Johnson excelled at getting cover safeties--Thomas Everett, James Washington, Darren Woodson, Brock Marion. We were spoiled for a bit there.

 

[Idgit]

I agree. There's no scheme capable of masking the talent deficiencies of this defense. The Cowboys brain trust has committed numerous resources to creating a lockdown secondary, but has yet to be successful. In my opinion, there are two primary reasons a lockdown secondary has yet to materialize:

1) No legitimate number one corner. That is, the team lacks a corner in can leave on an island with a receiver. That was supposed to be Mo Clairborne, but he's never been able to take those reins. Consequently, Brandon Carr has generally lined up at the number one, and while Carr is a good corner--the best number two corner in the league when he was with Kansas City--he's basically a glorified Larry Brown. Scandrick is making some noise at camp this year, and Clairborne was playing well before the injury. Perhaps one of them can step into the number one role. It would completely change the defense's complexion.

2) Lack of a safety with range (as you said above). JJ Wilcox could step into that role, but I've yet to see anything his game that would suggest he's a centerfield-type safety. He looks more like a strong safety. This team hasn't had a rangy safety since Darren Woodson. Ken Hamlin certainly wasn't. It's funny because Jimmy Johnson excelled at getting cover safeties--Thomas Everett, James Washington, Darren Woodson, Brock Marion. We were spoiled for a bit there.

I don't see the problem with our CBs, but I'd agree that our S play has been really bad for a long time now. Range is one thing, but we've also got guys who take mis-steps, misread plays, and blow coverages all year long. It's been a nightmare.

We also have suffered through some ILBs who couldn't drop deep enough into coverage. Or, like last year, when Lee and Durant went out. And then we have guys get sucked up in play action and beat over the top.

Layer in the insufficient pressure late in the season like last year, and you're going to get what we've seen here recently.