Sturm on the OG situation

[RS12]

Bob Sturm ‏@SportsSturm19 Aug
Finally looked at Cowboys game. Am reminded that football types always say not to spend much on guards because you "can find them anywhere"

Bob Sturm ‏@SportsSturm19 Aug
Well, they lied. The Cowboys might have the biggest collection of substandard guards ever. Clearly, they can't find them.

Bob Sturm ‏@SportsSturm19 Aug
I have nothing against Arkin. But that guy can't help on Sundays. And here, he might be a starter. It is insanity.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And here we go....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I saw Arkin drive and turn Darnell Dockett. That helps on Sunday. The pass protection was good. That helps on Sunday.

 

[bayeslife]

Well it's true, the Cowboys have a bunch of substandard guards. I'm not sure he's pointing out anything new here.

 

[Staubacher]

I saw Arkin drive and turn Darnell Dockett. That helps on Sunday. The pass protection was good. That helps on Sunday.

Pass pro has been good. Run blocking lousy

 

[Galian Beast]

Pass protection has been fairly adequate, with a few head scratchers. The passing game is firing up to regular season form. If we can stay healthy, I'd expect a pretty good game this weekend.

The running game hasn't been all that productive, but with that being said, I think consistency on offense will actually improve that greatly. I don't think we're deep at all on our offensive line, which is reflective of our starting situation.

Our lines are in serious disarray, and we'll have to address them both in the next draft.

Everyone including Hatcher seems to believe this is his last year in Dallas.So his replacement needs to be found, unless Dallas really wants to put all their eggs into the Bass and Crawford basket. Jay Ratliff is probably on his last legs here. And at least shouldn't be counted on to next year. We have to come out of the draft with at least one new starter at defensive tackle. We also have to replace Spencer. Franchising him was a huge mistake. There were a lot of ends we could have gotten who are better, younger, and cheaper. And we could have gotten them long term, and saved next years draft pick in the process. It shouldn't be ignored that Ware also can't seem to stay healthy these days.

On the offensive line, we have to face the reality that we aren't working with all that much. Smith might not even be the tackle we thought he was. At some point we might end up having to replace him at left tackle, and slide him back over to the right. We're also going to have to draft a guard early and that's just one guard, assuming that Leary steps up in a big way. We still have no idea how Doug Free is going to perform this year.


Priorities

1. Guard
2. Defensive End
3. Defensive Tackle

We're ideally placed on both offense and defense, that if we can put something together in our lines without having to break the bank, we can certainly have a top ranked offense and defense.

I still think this year's defensive line has the potential to be great; I just have no confidence that they can stay healthy.

If we were able to get Moore or Waters, and Leary was healthy, I would have said this line could have been pretty serviceable if not great this year. Someone in the front office needs to pay for the money spent on Bernadeau and Livings. Those signings probably set this team back two years.

 

[Idgit]

I saw Arkin drive and turn Darnell Dockett. That helps on Sunday. The pass protection was good. That helps on Sunday.

Also, he's not going to be starting.

This angst over the RG position is unbelievable. There are contenders with holes at LT that get less attention than our RG position receives. The RG we're trotting out there is the same guy we played last season. We addressed two other starting positions on the line this offseason and have seen nothing but improved play (whatever that's worth) in three offseason games. I don't get it.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The team spent their money on corner backs.

As I recall, or for that matter do not recall, I have never heard the comment, "games are won at the corner back."

Leary is a long shot with his health to be anything but a short term fix. Freddie looks as if he can play center, and perhaps guard. I disagree about Smith and his ability to play tackle. I think he can do so and do so well.

That leaves sixty percent of your offensive line being sub-par.

If this team doesn't generate some type of running game - even though there are those around these parts now convincing themselves that a running game is no longer important - then this becomes the very same shootout team they were last year.

And regardless of what has transpired on defense thus far this pre-season, the idea that this defensive line will be great is predicated more on fortune cookie hope than anything they have done to improve.

I have tried pumping myself up to the giddy heights of play-off team and bright sun-shiny future. But as this pre-season progresses this is looking more and more like an 8-8 team again.

What really is sobering is the fact that there are some of the best players on this team that need new contracts going into next year. That bit of truth makes this appear that next year and beyond will be the same bargain basement O and D lines we see now and have seen in the past that just aren't good enough.

Sturm is correct. But what he may have missed out on with the comment that guards can be found anywhere is something Jerry says.

If GUARDS is some secret code for building a business, then Jerry is one of the smartest guys around.

If we tale it at face value about GUARDS being a football term then his intellect drops more than a half century mark.

 

[TwoDeep3]

This angst over the RG position is unbelievable. There are contenders with holes at LT that get less attention than our RG position receives.

I don't get it.

I have seen you make this comment more and more the last few weeks as this pre-season progresses. There are other teams, yada, yada, yada.

I have yet, in my time posting on message boards and seeing this type of statement, understand what another team's roster and it's success has one thing to do with this team and it's continued struggles.

So much is made by fans here of pointing to other teams and making blanket comments about their players, squads, and coaches and then somehow justifying this Dallas Cowboy's franchise over the long haul.

There are consistencies from one team to the next in regard to this game. Sound logic building the team from the lines out and a good quarterback go so much farther than any bromide about what a fan thinks some other team has or has not.

Sorry Idgit, but that type of thinking reminds me of Aesop's Fable Sour Grapes.

Can't reach 'em, then don't need nor want 'em.

And yet the season's past have seemed to dictate each year, that ain't the case.

 

[BAZ]

I don't get it.

Cowboys tried to drag two guys from retirement to improve the situation, this should set off alarm bells.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Cowboys tried to drag two guys from retirement to improve the situation, this should set off alarm bells.

You, Sir, need to post much more frequently.

 

[Galian Beast]

I have seen you make this comment more and more the last few weeks as this pre-season progresses. There are other teams, yada, yada, yada.

I have yet, in my time posting on message boards and seeing this type of statement, understand what another team's roster and it's success has one thing to do with this team and it's continued struggles.

So much is made by fans here of pointing to other teams and making blanket comments about their players, squads, and coaches and then somehow justifying this Dallas Cowboy's franchise over the long haul.

There are consistencies from one team to the next in regard to this game. Sound logic building the team from the lines out and a good quarterback go so much farther than any bromide about what a fan thinks some other team has or has not.

Sorry Idgit, but that type of thinking reminds me of Aesop's Fable Sour Grapes.

Can't reach 'em, then don't need nor want 'em.

And yet the season's past have seemed to dictate each year, that ain't the case.

He makes a good point. The idea that a team is going to be completely without holes is simple fantasy.

It doesn't change the fact that the team has failed to put together a proper offensive line, but there are teams that have been able to have success despite not having altogether great offensive lines.

I'd say that our failings in our offensive line is simply augmented by our failings on defense.

If the defense can create turnovers and keep points off the board, we'll see the offense more productive, even with weaknesses on the offensive line.

When Green Bay won the super bowl in 2010, they were 5th in passing yards, and 4th in passing touchdowns. Yet they were 24th in rushing yards, and 18th in rushing touchdowns. It was actually the combination of their 10th ranked (pts) offense with their 2nd ranked (pts) defense that ranked 6th in turnovers.

With Romo last year we were ranked 3rd in passing yards and 6th in passing touchdowns. But when you combine our bottom of the barrel rushing game with the fact that the defense was 24th in points allowed and 28th in turnovers, it wasn't conducive to winning.

We've got to get better in the redzone, especially when it comes to punching in points, and we need to win the turnover battle.

I have a lot of confidence this offense and defense will be better than last year.

I think we have a decent chance at starting 4-0 this season. The lack of Dumervil and Miller on Denver's defense doesn't bode well for them either.

The schedule looked pretty difficult at first, but more and more it appears manageable. The biggest questions are how do we manage against Chip Kelly's offense and RG3. I think it's lucky that we don't play RG3 until later in the year. He could very well go done with another injury by the time we play him.

 

[TwoDeep3]

He makes a good point. The idea that a team is going to be completely without holes is simple fantasy.

It doesn't change the fact that the team has failed to put together a proper offensive line, but there are teams that have been able to have success despite not having altogether great offensive lines.

I'd say that our failings in our offensive line is simply augmented by our failings on defense.

If the defense can create turnovers and keep points off the board, we'll see the offense more productive, even with weaknesses on the offensive line.

When Green Bay won the super bowl in 2010, they were 5th in passing yards, and 4th in passing touchdowns. Yet they were 24th in rushing yards, and 18th in rushing touchdowns. It was actually the combination of their 10th ranked (pts) offense with their 2nd ranked (pts) defense that ranked 6th in turnovers.

With Romo last year we were ranked 3rd in passing yards and 6th in passing touchdowns. But when you combine our bottom of the barrel rushing game with the fact that the defense was 24th in points allowed and 28th in turnovers, it wasn't conducive to winning.

We've got to get better in the redzone, especially when it comes to punching in points, and we need to win the turnover battle.

I have a lot of confidence this offense and defense will be better than last year.

I think we have a decent chance at starting 4-0 this season. The lack of Dumervil and Miller on Denver's defense doesn't bode well for them either.

The schedule looked pretty difficult at first, but more and more it appears manageable. The biggest questions are how do we manage against Chip Kelly's offense and RG3. I think it's lucky that we don't play RG3 until later in the year. He could very well go done with another injury by the time we play him.

Sorry, GB, but my eyes glazed over with stats.

This team, The Dallas Cowboys of 2013 needs a running game. Regardless of the temperament here that suggests otherwise.

What another team did in 1946 when every Sunday was on an odd number of the month has no bearing on this team.

This team needs to blast holes and have a good running game to keep Romo closer to a bus driver and not a rocket launcher. He tends to get into trouble when he has to carry the team.

Your assessment of the defense is accurate, but then this team has the same problem there they have with the offense. The bus driver in the GM slot makes decision contrary to general football logic and builds corner backs and short sheets the trenches where games are won.

What I think may be the most interesting dichotomy on this board is the prevalent theory that Eli won it all with a tough defense and a Hail Mary duck that happened to be caught.

Yet if you place the rosters next to each other, the years the Giants won it all under Eli had solid running games and a Tenacious D line. (I have been looking for a place to put that for years now.)

If you look at the Giants and compare, can you truthfully suggest this team even comes close to what they fielded those years?

 

[Galian Beast]

Sorry, GB, but my eyes glazed over with stats.

This team, The Dallas Cowboys of 2013 needs a running game. Regardless of the temperament here that suggests otherwise.

What another team did in 1946 when every Sunday was on an odd number of the month has no bearing on this team.

This team needs to blast holes and have a good running game to keep Romo closer to a bus driver and not a rocket launcher. He tends to get into trouble when he has to carry the team.

Your assessment of the defense is accurate, but then this team has the same problem there they have with the offense. The bus driver in the GM slot makes decision contrary to general football logic and builds corner backs and short sheets the trenches where games are won.

What I think may be the most interesting dichotomy on this board is the prevalent theory that Eli won it all with a tough defense and a Hail Mary duck that happened to be caught.

Yet if you place the rosters next to each other, the years the Giants won it all under Eli had solid running games and a Tenacious D line. (I have been looking for a place to put that for years now.)

If you look at the Giants and compare, can you truthfully suggest this team even comes close to what they fielded those years?

I think you're projecting a bit. And relying on hyperbole. I'm not talking about 1946, I'm talking about recent success of teams that have had no semblance of running games.

You really have to have a multidimensional offense or a productive offense and a strong defense. I think our weakness in the running game can be covered up by our defense this year. And I'm hoping that weakness isn't all that weak at the end of the day.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think you're projecting a bit. And relying on hyperbole. I'm not talking about 1946, I'm talking about recent success of teams that have had no semblance of running games.

You really have to have a multidimensional offense or a productive offense and a strong defense. I think our weakness in the running game can be covered up by our defense this year. And I'm hoping that weakness isn't all that weak at the end of the day.

The same weakness we had before covered by a scheme change and not really any new personnel to effectuate that change.

Oh, but wait, the injuries last year.

This team, with these players, has not generated a consistent push at the other team's quarterback. That is where the defense will help, and nothing on paper suggests this got better unless you want to count players that were injured last year.

I'm still skeptical.

 

[Idgit]

I have seen you make this comment more and more the last few weeks as this pre-season progresses. There are other teams, yada, yada, yada.

I have yet, in my time posting on message boards and seeing this type of statement, understand what another team's roster and it's success has one thing to do with this team and it's continued struggles...

I make the comparison for two reasons. The primary point is that teams like GB prove that a team can be considered a contender with a significant hole in its OL, meaning a much less significant hole in the DAL line is probably not the end of the world.
The second is to highlight that a minor problem in Dallas gets more attention than a major one in other markets.

I realize that not all teams are equal, and that they have different strengths and weaknesses, so it's a valid argument that GB may be more able to cover up a hole at LT than we are at RG. But, then, we didn't lose our starting RG from last year. We're getting him back, healthier than he had been, and will a training camp under him finally, and improved play beside him.

 

[Idgit]

Cowboys tried to drag two guys from retirement to improve the situation, this should set off alarm bells.

They did that after their veteran LG, backup RG, and then Ron Leary went down with injuries and right after their starting RG returned to the lineup, gimpy. That's not exactly a shocker. And then they didn't offer either retired player enough to get them to sign. How alarming is that? There are other vets on the market they're not bothering with.

They looked at IR'ing or cutting Livings and replacing his spot on the roster with one of two available vets they thought would be upgrades at the RG position. One of those players played for Coach Callahan for 4 years and was a recent probowler. The other was a just a recent probowler. Both would have been upgrades to what we've got, and neither wanted to sign. Beyond that, they obviously don't think any of the other available vets right now represent improvement. This is hardly and emergency situation.

 

[Idgit]

The team spent their money on corner backs.

As I recall, or for that matter do not recall, I have never heard the comment, "games are won at the corner back."

Leary is a long shot with his health to be anything but a short term fix. Freddie looks as if he can play center, and perhaps guard. I disagree about Smith and his ability to play tackle. I think he can do so and do so well.

That leaves sixty percent of your offensive line being sub-par.

If this team doesn't generate some type of running game - even though there are those around these parts now convincing themselves that a running game is no longer important - then this becomes the very same shootout team they were last year.

And regardless of what has transpired on defense thus far this pre-season, the idea that this defensive line will be great is predicated more on fortune cookie hope than anything they have done to improve.

I have tried pumping myself up to the giddy heights of play-off team and bright sun-shiny future. But as this pre-season progresses this is looking more and more like an 8-8 team again.

What really is sobering is the fact that there are some of the best players on this team that need new contracts going into next year. That bit of truth makes this appear that next year and beyond will be the same bargain basement O and D lines we see now and have seen in the past that just aren't good enough.

Sturm is correct. But what he may have missed out on with the comment that guards can be found anywhere is something Jerry says.

If GUARDS is some secret code for building a business, then Jerry is one of the smartest guys around.

If we tale it at face value about GUARDS being a football term then his intellect drops more than a half century mark.

And, the fact of the matter is that games *are* won by passing well and by defending the pass. That gets said all the time. Just because it's not the same idiom, doesn't mean the argument isn't made. Not only is it frequently made on this very site, it has the huge benefit of being supported by winning correlation statistics. Unlike 'games are won in the trenches.'

And, I'm sorry, but Ron Leary is a second year starter the team is very high on. He's hardly a long-shot on this roster. Even if he were, he's not a long-shot for the next few years. Anything beyond that we'd just be speculating about. That leaves 40% of your OL 'subpar,' assuming 'par' is as good as you seem to think it is. Which gets us back to the argument as to whether or not it's relevant that teams like Green Bay or Chicago or Pittsburgh seem to be able to win games by passing well and playing good pass defense despite having problems with their protection. I'd say, instead, that having 5 average to above-average starters is unrealistic, and it's much more likely that you're going to invest your resources at C and on the edges and staff your Gs and swing positions with as many capable players as you're able to find relatively inexpensively and in the middle rounds of your average draft.

 

[Idgit]

...Oh, but wait, the injuries last year.

This team, with these players, has not generated a consistent push at the other team's quarterback. That is where the defense will help, and nothing on paper suggests this got better unless you want to count players that were injured last year.

I'm still skeptical.

And, out of pure curiosity, why in the world *wouldn't* you take into account the return of so many defensive players who have proven to be good football players and who were lost for the season last year? That seems a pretty obvious and universally agreeable thing to count on, to me.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I make the comparison for two reasons. The primary point is that teams like GB prove that a team can be considered a contender with a significant hole in its OL, meaning a much less significant hole in the DAL line is probably not the end of the world.
The second is to highlight that a minor problem in Dallas gets more attention than a major one in other markets.

I realize that not all teams are equal, and that they have different strengths and weaknesses, so it's a valid argument that GB may be more able to cover up a hole at LT than we are at RG. But, then, we didn't lose our starting RG from last year. We're getting him back, healthier than he had been, and will a training camp under him finally, and improved play beside him.

I could write a book in response, but these are opinions and thus subject to being right or wrong or both.

However, the comments about Bearnie made me laugh. The guy was a JAG where he came from and he is still a JAG now. His health doesn't cause him to watch the defender run by his glacial-like moves at blocking.

Now if we were discussing his lard bucket, that light be more germane.