Sturm on the OG situation

[TheRomoSexual]

Where is the proof?

Um, you're the one who said the Cowboys don't "value" the OLine. In the last three years, we've spent two first rounders, a mid-rounder, signed and developed a highly regarded UDFA prospect, signed two FA guards and are trying to sign another vet guard. You tell me what other team has spent more, because I can't think of one.

 

[Zordon]

Um, you're the one who said the Cowboys don't "value" the OLine. In the last three years, we've spent two first rounders, a mid-rounder, signed and developed a highly regarded UDFA prospect, signed two FA guards and are trying to sign another vet guard. You tell me what other team has spent more, because I can't think of one.

All I'm asking for is proof that "we've spent more resources on the oline than any other team."

 

[TheRomoSexual]

All I'm asking for is proof that "we've spent more resources on the oline than any other team."

And I have it to you.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Arkin was very good in the Cardinals game. He only had 1 bad play.

If anyone concluded that Arkin can't play, it's not because they watched the Cardinals game. It's because they had come to the conclusion prior to that game.

You are not suggesting a prior agenda are you???

 

[Zordon]

And I have it to you.

We are the only team to draft more than one linemen in the 1st rd since 2011. That's good for us. But the guard situation is out of control. I hope Leary works out but he is not someone you can count on. Bernie I don't mind as a backup. Livings has to go. Arkin doesn't exist to me.

 

[Verdict]

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.

I appreciate your well versed and rational evaluation of the offensive line situation. At least from initial appearances we have two players who appear to have the potential to be building blocks on the offensive line in Smith and Frederick. I think you have a valid point that at some point we may have to invest in a left tackle and move Smith back to right tackle, but the jury is still out on that one. At least Free has shown he HAD the ability to play at an adequate level at some point, so there is at least a POSSIBILITY that he can do it again.

It is nice to see that Leary has shown some flashes of being a good player. We may just end up having a bit of a weak spot at right guard .....but every team is going to have some of those, especially as the season wears on and injuries start to pile up. I don't think our line story for the year is a tragedy or a horror story, but if Leary stays hurt all year long, or if Free doesn't snap back into prior form, there may not be the improvement we all want this year. But it IS still very early. Keep your fingers crossed we stay healthy .... we could still end up with a better year than last on the OL.

 

[Idgit]

I see the connection you are trying to make, but I don't think the fact that Romo threw for 4,900 yards means the offensive line was necessarily good, or even serviceable.

It doesn't. I'm just saying that, if we have a QB who can be very productive, even with a poor (bottom 10) OL last year, then we're very fortunate since it's the offensive productivity in the passing game that is instrumental in winning games and not the quality of the OL play.

But, yes, I'm also glad we're addressing some of our personnel limitations inside. I've always been in favor of getting better there, just not at the expense of other, much-harder-to-fill positions when picks and cap space are so valuable. Filling LG with a former college FA is a major, major boon.

And we went 8-8
Lost on last play of season on pressure up the middle.... Bad interior OL play

If this were why we went 8-8, then I"d agree with you. We went 8-8 because we were -13 in TO differential and because it was easy to be efficient passing against our defense. Not because of the play of Mackenzie Bernadeau, below average though it was.

 

[burmafrd]

It doesn't. I'm just saying that, if we have a QB who can be very productive, even with a poor (bottom 10) OL last year, then we're very fortunate since it's the offensive productivity in the passing game that is instrumental in winning games and not the quality of the OL play.

But, yes, I'm also glad we're addressing some of our personnel limitations inside. I've always been in favor of getting better there, just not at the expense of other, much-harder-to-fill positions when picks and cap space are so valuable. Filling LG with a former college FA is a major, major boon.



If this were why we went 8-8, then I"d agree with you. We went 8-8 because we were -13 in TO differential and because it was easy to be efficient passing against our defense. Not because of the play of Mackenzie Bernadeau, below average though it was.

you keep trying to downplay the bad O line as a contributor to our no playoffs appearences. WHY? It is OBVIOUSLY a major factor but you keep saying no.

 

[burmafrd]

Um, you're the one who said the Cowboys don't "value" the OLine. In the last three years, we've spent two first rounders, a mid-rounder, signed and developed a highly regarded UDFA prospect, signed two FA guards and are trying to sign another vet guard. You tell me what other team has spent more, because I can't think of one.

we had to spend more because of how poor we have been drafting and up until 2011 we had spent no picks higher than a couple of 3 rd rds on the O line since 2005. We neglected the O line and we are still paying the price of that neglect. Other teams have used fewer picks and done a much better job. Our real failure has been 2 fold: one, until recently Jerruh refused to use high picks on the O line; and two we were ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS in our O line judgement as regards draft picks.

 

[Verdict]

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?

The Cowboys have invested two first rounders in Smith and Frederick. We are getting better, as a team, in accumulating talent. The talent acquisition process includes the offensive line. So far the Cowboys seem to be drafting talent rather than need (for the most part) and the results seem to be encouraging. They wanted Frederick, but if any of the Big 3 offensive tackles or Cooper had fallen to us then we would not have Frederick on this team. This is a talent acquisition business ..... and we are acquiring talent. We have fewer holes now than we did two years ago. I don't think the Cowboys are avoiding the offensive line at this point, but the talent available at OL wasn't worth either the pick, or the opportunity cost of drafting another player.

 

[Corso]

In fairness, though (and you're right), his one bad play was a drive-ender. And the kind of thing he'd see a steady diet of if he were starting for us for any stretch.

That is very cogent point.

 

[burmafrd]

That is very cogent point.

Arkin's weakness would be quickly identified by opposing teams and they would concentrate on exploiting it.

 

[Corso]

Arkin's weakness would be quickly identified by opposing teams and they would concentrate on exploiting it.

I agree with you.
Thoroughly.
Not something I look forward to seeing.
He's performed decently during preseason, but I have to keep reminding myself that he's been playing against a lot of backups and nobody has game-planned against him yet.

Scary thoughts.
Here's to hoping Callahan and Garrett can gameplan to counter that.
Otherwise...
Farewell and adieu to you fare Spanish ladies,
Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain...

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Farewell and adieu to you fare Spanish ladies,
Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain...

My mind goes back to the summer of '75 and watching "Jaws".

 

[big dog cowboy]

And we went 8-8

See sig.

 

[Idgit]

you keep trying to downplay the bad O line as a contributor to our no playoffs appearences. WHY? It is OBVIOUSLY a major factor but you keep saying no.

I'm not downplaying it. It was a factor. I'm right-playing it. As to 'why,' it's what I keep saying: because there are other problems that were more important. When you've got an effective passing offense and an ineffective passing defense, it makes sense to address the defensive problems first.

I also see how much we've done to address the OL under Garrett, and support it. I don't understand why there's the impression out there that we're just ignoring things. When you replace every starter, bring in new coaches, spend multiple high picks, bring in multiple starters via FA and develop a starter and swing OT from college FA or off of other teams' practice squads, I think you deserve some credit for taking the problem seriously. The reality is, the team has taken it seriously, they're just doing it in the context of the other problem areas of the team that are simply more important.

 

[NEODOG]

See sig.

8-8 year before

 

[cowboys2233]

I'm not downplaying it. It was a factor. I'm right-playing it. As to 'why,' it's what I keep saying: because there are other problems that were more important. When you've got an effective passing offense and an ineffective passing defense, it makes sense to address the defensive problems first.

I also see how much we've done to address the OL under Garrett, and support it.

The offensive line has regressed since they started "addressing" it. What you said is fine, but proof is in the pudding and last year's line was the worst of the bunch. No time for Romo, 31st in rushing. Blech. That is not exactly a trend that inspires confidence.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

Since you dragged me into it.

I'm pretty sure Galian Beast was referring to passer rating when he said Romo's 2011 season (102.5) was better than Rodgers' 2010 season (101.3) when the Packers won the Super Bowl. Throwing more passes does not increase passer rating. It increases stats that relate to productivity, like completions, yards, TD, and INT, but it has no effect one way or the other on efficiency stats like yards per attempt, completion percentage or passer rating.

So when you say that Romo's stats were a result of the team not being able to run the ball, you need to be clear about which stats your referring to--ones that measure productivity or ones that measure efficiency. Not being able to run the ball doesn't make a passing game more efficient. If it did, you wouldn't be calling for an improvement in the run game, would you?

Now I'll just go back to minding my own business.

 

[CyberB0b]

The offensive line has regressed since they started "addressing" it. What you said is fine, but proof is in the pudding and last year's line was the worst of the bunch. No time for Romo, 31st in rushing. Blech. That is not exactly a trend that inspires confidence.

I posted this in another thread, but it applies here, as well.

Well, you are talking about an offensive line with:

A. a guy who took a huge paycut because he sucks
B. a castaway career backup who has been hurt in 2 training camps in a row
C. two guys who have never played in a real NFL game

as starters. Our best offensive lineman, Tyron Smith, hasn't even been "solid". He has been just OK.