Sturm on the OG situation

[TwoDeep3]

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.

Because the basic issue is pass rush. Something this defense has yet to master at any significant level.

 

[TwoDeep3]

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.

Leary has a degenerative knee injury that will not get better over time.

 

[waving monkey]

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.

other teams roosters have a lot of bearing on our teams rooster. we're all pulling from the same limited pool and therefore other teams have have holes ,we too have holes.That said we should not have let this oline get in such bad shape.

 

[Idgit]

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.

He was a backup we thought had starting potential when he came over from CAR. He got hurt, needed surgery, and then came up to speed gradually last year without a training camp. He was never intended to be more than a short-term placeholder on the line, and that's exactly what he's been.

Now, I'm frustrated, too, that he's been hurt in camp both offseasons he's been here. But it really isn't the end of the world to start a placeholder at the RG position for two years in a row. It's probably the single easiest regular position on offense to cover up for.

Because the basic issue is pass rush. Something this defense has yet to master at any significant level.

I wouldn't agree that the basic issue was pass rush. I'd say the bigger problem the last three years at least was a combination of CB and S play. The CBs have been addressed, for whatever that's worth. S is still a question mark. Our DL has generated reasonable pressure for a while now without a lot of help on the back end. I have my own concerns about whether or not we'll be able to defend the run adequately, and, as I said, at S, but I'm willing to take Marinelli at his word that he likes the down linemen here an awful lot for this scheme. Was in in the MIA game that Dungy came on to say that Rod said this was maybe the best front he'd ever coached? Or was that in OAK? Either way, it's a pretty convincing anecdote to counter the 'the problem is with the pass rush, not the safeties' arguments.

Leary has a degenerative knee injury that will not get better over time.

This, I know. I also know it's not affecting his play now, and it's not known how or whether it will affect him in the near future. You can't just take a young second year player the coaches are excited with and decide he's a liability because of a diagnosed condition that may or may not affect his play anytime soon. For now, at least, the team considers him a young and healthy upgrade at the LG position. To pair with a young and healthy top-10 LT and a young and healthy first-round C. That's a fairly dramatic infusion of young talent to a team in just a few short seasons. If the remaining issues are a borderline career player at RG and a RT reclamation project that appears to be going well in camp who'd handuffed with another young player the coaches think can be a starter in this league, it's hardly the end of the world. Much less something that has to bring down every positive thread in a long offseason.

 

[Idgit]

other teams roosters have a lot of bearing on our teams rooster. we're all pulling from the same limited pool and therefore other teams have have holes ,we too have holes.That said we should not have let this oline get in such bad shape.

I don't think people should just overlook what waving monkey is saying here about everybody's roosters. It's very important to take that sort of thing into account.

 

[Galian Beast]

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.

The scheme is actually extremely important. The first note is that you in general have 3 players playing deep coverage rather than 2. This means that your safeties (the biggest weakness on our defense) play less of the field than they did in the 3-4.

The second note is that we had players playing out of position and not to their strengths.

- Dropping DeMarcus Ware in coverage is a waste.
- Dropping Anthony Spencer in coverage is a waste.
- Tampa 2 allows for Lee and Carter to make plays, rather than simply focusing on stopping the runs up the middle.
- The defensive line's priority in the tampa 2 is getting after the QB not stopping the run like with the 3-4. If you compared the average weight of the 3-4 linemen compared to the 4-3 lineup that we have now, you would see that we have gotten much more athletic. Whereas in the 3-4 the average weight of the linemen was around 300 lbs, the average weight of the linemen in the tampa 2 is closer to 270-275. A considerable difference, combined with the focus of getting after the QB.

So now, not only do you have a better pass rush, but you also have better coverage. And you put the linebackers in positions where they have to make plays, and you allow them to do so.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Flat out Rogers is better than Romo. So with that in mind, all else in comparison either has to acknowledge that and compensate for the difference, or ignore it and build an argument where the foundation of such is sketchy.

Not suggesting Romo is bad, but Rogers is better. Thus when you look at the rosters - or even the roosters - and come away with some sort of suggestion this team can do what that team has accomplished, then you ignore the one bit that sets them apart.

Romo needs that line and running game to get over the hump. He also needs a defensive line that can put pressure on the other team.

As it stands, having the better defensive backfield hasn't paid dividends. And there isn't really a case you can make that the defensive backfield of the Giants, when they won, (using them as an example of a SB winner where the QB is similar to Romo's level of play) is not light years better than the one Dallas has now.

Pressure and sacks can make a backfield better. I once thought the reverse was true.

I am moving off that dime now because pressure is what made a guy like Larry Brown succeed across from Deion.

As a side note, I think one of my most "I wish" moments in the history of this franchise was to see what the defense would have been with Deion and a healthy Kevin Smith.

I believe there are many ways to get to the top. But with this team, a running game and savage pressure on the opposing quarterback are fundamentals that cannot be swapped out for lesser positive traits elswehere.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The scheme is actually extremely important. The first note is that you in general have 3 players playing deep coverage rather than 2. This means that your safeties (the biggest weakness on our defense) play less of the field than they did in the 3-4.

The second note is that we had players playing out of position and not to their strengths.

- Dropping DeMarcus Ware in coverage is a waste.
- Dropping Anthony Spencer in coverage is a waste.
- Tampa 2 allows for Lee and Carter to make plays, rather than simply focusing on stopping the runs up the middle.
- The defensive line's priority in the tampa 2 is getting after the QB not stopping the run like with the 3-4. If you compared the average weight of the 3-4 linemen compared to the 4-3 lineup that we have now, you would see that we have gotten much more athletic. Whereas in the 3-4 the average weight of the linemen was around 300 lbs, the average weight of the linemen in the tampa 2 is closer to 270-275. A considerable difference, combined with the focus of getting after the QB.

So now, not only do you have a better pass rush, but you also have better coverage. And you put the linebackers in positions where they have to make plays, and you allow them to do so.

People have tried to make the scheme argument on this board for twenty years almost. It falls under the head coach argument is more important than talent.

That was a serious argument on this board during it's first iteration and heading into what it is now.

With the right head coach the team will win. That was the sum total of the debate.

My suggestion since the salary cap is that argument doesn't hold water. Because a head coach can maybe get you a game or two, but talent is ultimately the arbiter of a season. If you have a weak minded team, scheme can hide some of that, but in the cold days of December when the games become more precious, lack of mental toughness will rear its ugly head and cause seasons to go south.

This is the problem with this team more than anything else. Garrett articulated it within the last couple of weeks on ESPN and that is the truth.

So what instills mental toughness?

It's not scheme, and while I agree dropping Spencer and Ware back is a waste, it's not like they are a top pair of defenders wreaking havoc with the other team's quarterback. Just watching Eli get the pass away time and again just before either one of those guys arrives makes my head explode.

But the real issue here is something in what you said.

- Tampa 2 allows for Lee and Carter to make plays, rather than simply focusing on stopping the runs up the middle.

We stunk against the run last year and there better be an answer for that this year or this is an 8-8 team.

Winning takes talent that has the mental toughness to pull out games and seasons when things become dire.

I'm not certain this team has that level and mental type of talent.

For years I've heard and actually said myself that this is a talented enough team.

I am beginning to suspect that may not be the truth.

 

[Fredd]

So many words, so little time...I will try to be succinct

Leary - degenerative knee...is the sky falling yet? No, when it stops him from playing, then it is an issue, until then, it isn't
OL - yes, Berny should be considered a temporary stop-gap, and Livings played well (although, not terrific) last season...he doesn't look to be able to get on the field this season, but when Leary is in there along with Fred, the team addressed two of the 4 positions on OL that needed addressing...it looks like the Free from a few years ago may be back for a return engagement so along with Smith, 4 of the 5 OL positions could be under control...so the team went after old guys (OG) with presumably something left in the tank, I applaud that. IMO, it does send a message that we are not good enough at that position, but I don't think that has been a secret
DL - the age of the unit scares me a little; the health of the unit scares me a little...if they can get on the field, then I trust Marinelli that this unit could be very good; next year? I won't be scared, I may be shrieking...spencer will be gone and we will need a replacement there (minimally)
DB - yes, we took care of the CB position and I applaud that...we had the choice of CB or OL and spent the resources on Carr and Mo...we should be set there for a while...Carr was better as a CB than anyone that was there at OL...you make choices as an organization, and this wasn't a bad one...something had to be fixed and they fixed it - you don't hear about CB being a problem any longer...safety? time will tell, but we have certainly gotten younger there

positives? LB's are scary good, WR unit is deep with a stud at the top, one very good WR (if healthy) and several youngens, TE is now a position of strength and I look forward to a lot of 12-package sets; the new defensive scheme excites me...sprinting to the ball wherever it is, is a great thing...I expect more turnovers...they could give up some big plays at times, but I think it will more 3&outs than big plays against us

Fredd is happy with the progress

 

[Galian Beast]

Flat out Rogers is better than Romo. So with that in mind, all else in comparison either has to acknowledge that and compensate for the difference, or ignore it and build an argument where the foundation of such is sketchy.

Not suggesting Romo is bad, but Rogers is better. Thus when you look at the rosters - or even the roosters - and come away with some sort of suggestion this team can do what that team has accomplished, then you ignore the one bit that sets them apart.

Romo needs that line and running game to get over the hump. He also needs a defensive line that can put pressure on the other team.

As it stands, having the better defensive backfield hasn't paid dividends. And there isn't really a case you can make that the defensive backfield of the Giants, when they won, (using them as an example of a SB winner where the QB is similar to Romo's level of play) is not light years better than the one Dallas has now.

Pressure and sacks can make a backfield better. I once thought the reverse was true.

I am moving off that dime now because pressure is what made a guy like Larry Brown succeed across from Deion.

As a side note, I think one of my most "I wish" moments in the history of this franchise was to see what the defense would have been with Deion and a healthy Kevin Smith.

I believe there are many ways to get to the top. But with this team, a running game and savage pressure on the opposing quarterback are fundamentals that cannot be swapped out for lesser positive traits elswehere.

Learn how to do a real comparison.

You can say Rodgers' is better but that doesn't mean your analysis is thorough. The Packers passing production in 2010 isn't tremendously greater than what Romo has ever done.

Romo's performance in 2011 was actually better than Rodgers' performance in 2010 when he won the Super Bowl.

2010
Aaron Rodgers - 65.7 percent completion rating, 3922 yards, 28 touchdowns, 11 interceptions

2011
Tony Romo - 66.3% completion rating, 4184 yards, 31 tds, 10 interceptions

You seem to want to ignore reality and points that you can't counter.

 

[TwoDeep3]

By the way, Idgit and GB. I could be totally wrong about this.

 

[Idgit]

Flat out Rogers is better than Romo. So with that in mind, all else in comparison either has to acknowledge that and compensate for the difference, or ignore it and build an argument where the foundation of such is sketchy.

Not suggesting Romo is bad, but Rogers is better. Thus when you look at the rosters - or even the roosters - and come away with some sort of suggestion this team can do what that team has accomplished, then you ignore the one bit that sets them apart.

Romo needs that line and running game to get over the hump. He also needs a defensive line that can put pressure on the other team.

As it stands, having the better defensive backfield hasn't paid dividends. And there isn't really a case you can make that the defensive backfield of the Giants, when they won, (using them as an example of a SB winner where the QB is similar to Romo's level of play) is not light years better than the one Dallas has now.

Pressure and sacks can make a backfield better. I once thought the reverse was true.

I am moving off that dime now because pressure is what made a guy like Larry Brown succeed across from Deion.

As a side note, I think one of my most "I wish" moments in the history of this franchise was to see what the defense would have been with Deion and a healthy Kevin Smith.

I believe there are many ways to get to the top. But with this team, a running game and savage pressure on the opposing quarterback are fundamentals that cannot be swapped out for lesser positive traits elswehere.

Rodgers is better than Romo, no doubt. Bu that's not to say Romo needs the line any more necessarily. He threw for 4900 yards *last* season with the 4th string C and two OGs nobody liked from the get-go, not to mention the much bigger issues at RT. And Rodgers lost his blind-side tackle, we're fielding our same starting RG. That's a significant difference on it's own. But we can agree to stipulate that the situations aren't exactly the same, if we can also agree that LTs are generally considered a lot more important than RGs.

We don't have the Giants' '07 DL, if that's the point you think I'm making. Almost no teams do, or ever have. All I want to see is a pass defense that's not ranked in the bottom third of the league. Actually, I'd like a lot more than that, but a top-10 pass defense would be gravy. I think we get there with personnel upgrades at S and the health and scheme changes in our front.

I agree that we could do a lot of damage with a running game and stifling pressure against the pass. I'm not sure that's the easiest way for us to win given our current personnel. I'd be just as happy to get there playing good pass defense and keeping (and improving protections) the effective passing game. That requires us to simply get better safety play (including health from last year's starter and the two new roster additions to that position group), and a few more turnovers (which is pretty obviously what we're trying to accomplish with the scheme change). That's not nearly as tall an order as overhauling our DL and fixing a running game that was at the bottom of the league the year before.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Learn how to do a real comparison.

You can say Rodgers' is better but that doesn't mean your analysis is thorough. The Packers passing production in 2010 isn't tremendously greater than what Romo has ever done.

Romo's performance in 2011 was actually better than Rodgers' performance in 2010 when he won the Super Bowl.

2010
Aaron Rodgers - 65.7 percent completion rating, 3922 yards, 28 touchdowns, 11 interceptions

2011
Tony Romo - 66.3% completion rating, 4184 yards, 31 tds, 10 interceptions

You seem to want to ignore reality and points that you can't counter.

I don't seem to want to ignore anything but useless stats that cannot argue this.

Rogers, SB MVP
Romo, not.

When you can come up with a stat that trumps that stat, let me know.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't seem to want to ignore anything but useless stats that cannot argue this.

Rogers, SB MVP
Romo, not.

When you can come up with a stat that trumps that stat, let me know.

You can't debate reality. Romo did just as well (actually better) than Rodgers in 2011 than Rodgers did in 2010 when his team won the Super Bowl?

Someone with sense, critical thinking, and analytical skills, would be able to ascertain that the issue isn't the QB or the passing game.

Going further you can see neither team ran the ball well.

The obvious glaring difference is that Green Bay had a legitimate defense, and even then they only went 10-6 in 2010 (though they ultimately won the super bowl).

 

[TwoDeep3]

Rodgers is better than Romo, no doubt. Bu that's not to say Romo needs the line any more necessarily. He threw for 4900 yards *last* season with the 4th string C and two OGs nobody liked from the get-go, not to mention the much bigger issues at RT. And Rodgers lost his blind-side tackle, we're fielding our same starting RG. That's a significant difference on it's own. But we can agree to stipulate that the situations aren't exactly the same, if we can also agree that LTs are generally considered a lot more important than RGs.

We don't have the Giants' '07 DL, if that's the point you think I'm making. Almost no teams do, or ever have. All I want to see is a pass defense that's not ranked in the bottom third of the league. Actually, I'd like a lot more than that, but a top-10 pass defense would be gravy. I think we get there with personnel upgrades at S and the health and scheme changes in our front.

I agree that we could do a lot of damage with a running game and stifling pressure against the pass. I'm not sure that's the easiest way for us to win given our current personnel. I'd be just as happy to get there playing good pass defense and keeping (and improving protections) the effective passing game. That requires us to simply get better safety play (including health from last year's starter and the two new roster additions to that position group), and a few more turnovers (which is pretty obviously what we're trying to accomplish with the scheme change). That's not nearly as tall an order as overhauling our DL and fixing a running game that was at the bottom of the league the year before.

My position is simple.

The building of this team has ignored the things that made the Giants, and Eli successful - who is about as close to Romo in most ways in the ranks of the QBs.

This defense needs an offense that can chew up the clock.

Romo needs an offense that can play ball control.

Both the player and the unit have the same needs. Because this defense gets exposed when Romo passes too much. Then Romo has to play catch-up and it is a vicious circle.

My goal is the Super Bowl. I don't believe Dallas has the pass rush to get there, nor a quarterback that can elevate his game to the point he carries the team in crunch time.

My opinion, right or wrong.

This is not personal, by the way.

 

[Galian Beast]

My position is simple.

The building of this team has ignored the things that made the Giants, and Eli successful - who is about as close to Romo in most ways in the ranks of the QBs.

This defense needs an offense that can chew up the clock.

Romo needs an offense that can play ball control.

Both the player and the unit have the same needs. Because this defense gets exposed when Romo passes too much. Then Romo has to play catch-up and it is a vicious circle.

My goal is the Super Bowl. I don't believe Dallas has the pass rush to get there, nor a quarterback that can elevate his game to the point he carries the team in crunch time.

My opinion, right or wrong.

This is not personal, by the way.

Also not at all true. You seem fixated on the Giants, but the reality is that Romo is far more productive than Eli Manning in essentially every individual category.

The Giants winning because of their defense doesn't mean that is the only model. You've convinced yourself of this, despite the reality that doesn't match up.

 

[Galian Beast]

Explain how the Falcons had no pass rush to speak of last year, yet their secondary performed admirably. Same with the Jets and the Seahawks.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You can't debate reality. Romo did just as well (actually better) than Rodgers in 2011 than Rodgers did in 2010 when his team won the Super Bowl?

Someone with sense, critical thinking, and analytical skills, would be able to ascertain that the issue isn't the QB or the passing game.

Going further you can see neither team ran the ball well.

The obvious glaring difference is that Green Bay had a legitimate defense, and even then they only went 10-6 in 2010 (though they ultimately won the super bowl).

You build your house on stats and that is all that is meaningful. I see stats as an entertaining sideline of this sport that isn't germane.

You seem to want to make this personal. Oh well.

But all your stats have not won here with any meaningful results. So what was different about the Packers and Dallas?

Well, for starers, they won it all and Dallas didn't. Dallas playing from behind and throwing so much without a running game had more to do with Romo's stats than anything else.

And that, in and of itself crushes the stats argument.

Because stats are numbers, but those numbers have a more significant meaning behind them. And that meaning is the circumstance with which a player posts those stats. That is why I don't argue stats.

Because people like Percy love to accumulate them and extrapolate what they mean, but the real meaning is what is behind them. Why they are gaudy for Romo.

Because this team couldn't run the ball.

So when Romo puts up these stats, he also doesn't keep the ball long and time of possession eats the Dallas defense alive.

Why did Dallas lose in 2007 to the Giants?

Because they exhausted their running game in the second quarter and left Jones on the bench. The third quarter Barber had nothing in the tank and the Giants teed off on Romo.

That is a rinse repeat aspect of this team because other than that season they haven't had a way to protect Romo from carrying the team with a running game. So they rely on these passing exhibitions that fail.

Defense is called upon too often either by turnover or quick scoring or both. Then the defense wears down.

Then you are back to Romo having to carry the team and he ain't built for that.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You can't debate reality. Romo did just as well (actually better) than Rodgers in 2011 than Rodgers did in 2010 when his team won the Super Bowl?

Someone with sense, critical thinking, and analytical skills, would be able to ascertain that the issue isn't the QB or the passing game.

Going further you can see neither team ran the ball well.

The obvious glaring difference is that Green Bay had a legitimate defense, and even then they only went 10-6 in 2010 (though they ultimately won the super bowl).

You build your house on stats and that is all that is meaningful. I see stats as an entertaining sideline of this sport that isn't germane.

You seem to want to make this personal. Oh well.

But all your stats have not won here with any meaningful results. So what was different about the Packers and Dallas?

Well, for starers, they won it all and Dallas didn't. Dallas playing from behind and throwing so much without a running game had more to do with Romo's stats than anything else.

And that, in and of itself crushes the stats argument.

Because stats are numbers, but those numbers have a more significant meaning behind them. And that meaning is the circumstance with which a player posts those stats. That is why I don't argue stats.

Because people like Percy love to accumulate them and extrapolate what they mean, but the real meaning is what is behind them. Why they are gaudy for Romo.

Because this team couldn't run the ball.

So when Romo puts up these stats, he also doesn't keep the ball long and time of possession eats the Dallas defense alive.

Why did Dallas lose in 2007 to the Giants?

Because they exhausted their running game in the second quarter and left Jones on the bench. The third quarter Barber had nothing in the tank and the Giants teed off on Romo.

That is a rinse repeat aspect of this team because other than that season they haven't had a way to protect Romo from carrying the team with a running game. So they rely on these passing exhibitions that fail.

Defense is called upon too often either by turnover or quick scoring or both. Then the defense wears down.

Then you are back to Romo having to carry the team and he ain't built for that.

Also not at all true. You seem fixated on the Giants, but the reality is that Romo is far more productive than Eli Manning in essentially every individual category.

The Giants winning because of their defense doesn't mean that is the only model. You've convinced yourself of this, despite the reality that doesn't match up.

The Giants are probably the closest to what this team is in regard to quarterback and defense, except we don't have the pass rush.

I thought you'd get that point.

I guess i was wrong.

 

[TwoDeep3]

We will need to continue this tomorrow. I have to work tonight and so I must go to bed now.

It's been fun, boys.

GB - don't get angry. As I said I could be wrong. But the last several year when I have made my end of pre-season predictions, they have been pretty prophetic.