kmd24 said:
That is an inaccurate assessment of my posts. Also, I find it quite comical that you think SD can "maintain" a high turnover margin given their recent history.
Given our recent history, before last season it would have been ludicrous beyond belief to propose we'd win ten games, let alone twelve. But the thing is, our
most recent history is that we are an opportunistic team that practices good ball security. Even if we don't pick up as many turnovers on defense, we can still take care of the ball on offense. That is something we control.
The whole point of this thread is that the 12-4 results SD posted in 2004 may not be indicative of the true talent of the team. I believe I have rather clearly pointed out why *I* believe that SD's results in 2004 were somewhat better than the talent on the team justifies.
Granted, you've done a better job of providing a rational explanation than most. However, you're also looking at it from a presumption that may or may not carry weight. In looking at the team's weaknesses from last season, one would be remiss not to acknowledge that this was the second-youngest team in the NFL last year, and was able to win twelve games
despite those weaknesses. If one acknowledges that
some of those weaknesses were due to the implementation of a new defensive system and inexperienced players in some key positions, it's not that much of a reach to presume that improvement in those areas is likely with a year of experience.
We had two rookies on the offensive line last year. They are both bigger and stronger this year, and now have a full year of experience working together. Could our o-line be better than last year?
We had a rookie starting at LDE alongside Jamal Williams, who was playing his first ever season at the nose. That rookie, Igor Olshansky, is ten pounds heavier this year, and has improved his technique considerably. We had two new linebackers. We had two second-year players at corner and a second-year player at SS. Is it "comical" to think they might improve since they now have a full season within the framework of the system?
And is it unreasonable to think that Wade Phillips was not able to open his full defensive playbook last year, because of the relative inexperience of the defensive personnel? Now that inexperience is no longer a factor, could we see our pass-ranking rise from 31st to, oh, 20th? 15th? Could that improvement overcome a nominal reduction in turnover differential?
Could the fact that LT is fully healthy for the first time since game four last year improve his chances for success?
I simply believe that SD was particularly fortuitous in 2003 in the turnover department. There were only 2 games in which SD lost the turnover battle. SD lost both of those games. There were three games in which SD had a rather significant turnover edge and barely won.
Again, you are suggesting turnovers are luck. I don't believe that at all. Defenses
create turnovers. Offenses
avoid turnovers. And any reduction in turnover margin we experience this year can be offset with just
slight improvement elsewhere.
The recent history of this team doesn't support the idea that it will routinely post significantly positive turnover margins. Perhaps 2004 was a turning point. More likely they will regress to the mean and post a slightly positive or slightly negative turnover margin for the 2005 season.
"This team" you keep referring to didn't exist before 2004. We had a new defensive coordinator, a new defense, eleven new starters including Gates, and a QB who matured in his third year as a starter. QBs struggle in their first years in the NFL. It happens. But a QB doesn't post a 104 QB rating because he's a fluke. And before you penalize Brees for having Gates and LT, I'll remind you Aikman had some real, real good talent around him, and a hall-of-fame offensive line in front of him. All good QBs have good playmakers around them.
Too many Cowboys fans look at 12-4 and 6-10 and write the game off. There is no reason the Cowboys cannot win this game.
I don't think anyone has said the Cowboys can't win. I think several of your fellow fans have said they likely will not, which is completely different. They aren't flipping through stat books searching for a reason why they might possibly win. Sometimes, black is black and white is white, and what you see is what you get. If you have to dig, then it means your prospects are not very apparent. When we play the Eagles in their yard this year, I will believe it's possible we will win. But I will also acknowledge it's unlikely because it's hard to beat good teams in their own yard. Sure, I will be able to go find stats to point to why we can win, but it doesn't change the looming fact that it's hard to beat good teams in their own yard.
I believe that the absence of Gates and the weak SD pass rush tips the scales in the favor of Dallas. However, the one area that SD was so much better than the Cowboys in 2004 is protecting the ball. I believe that if Dallas can avoid giving SD a short field, Dallas will win the game. That is why I believe turnovers are so important in this game.
Based on what? The Dallas pass rush was just as weak last year. Oh, wait...you had four more sacks. You're going to get consistent pressure on Drew? Can your linebackers stop the run? You realize that in a 3-4 it's the linebackers who make the tackles, right? Isn't that your biggest question-mark on defense? Has Bledsoe already overcome his flaws in one preseason under Parcells? Is the right side of your offensive line going to be able to open holes for the running game against our defense? Are you going to avoid turnovers?
The way I see it, you're assuming everything is going to transition smoothly for the Boys in this first game. I am not making that assumption.
