The Football Educator: Sizing Up the 2014 Cowboys Defense

[MarionBarberThe4th]

It still amazes me that there are those that seem to conclude that the Cowboys will be bad because
they have been bad.

X + 0 = ?
X= the cowboys

 

[waving monkey]

j

When you are bad and have done little to upgrade the talent, what other conclusion would you expect fans to make?

jnday your one of the good posters here [there are some good one];
they couldn't spend their first pick
on defense . they spent their second and lassoed all they could at the bottom.
they are correcting as the cards fall, they can do no more.
they had to corrected a god awful offensive line and they did
now it will be defense
I might suggest that some people get caught in cognitive dissonance
if something doesn't fit their believes they reject it.

there is improvement in this building program
again I don't think we'll be a SB contender
maybe not even the play offs but we are improving

 

[waving monkey]

X + 0 = ?
X= the cowboys

I guess thats a intelligent reply but its over my head

 

[jobberone]

When you are bad and have done little to upgrade the talent, what other conclusion would you expect fans to make?

Appraising the talent on the club and projecting from that is the only objective way to quantify the odds of success or failure. What happened last year may or may not be that relevant. IF there were no changes then one might consider roughly the same outcome. That's not the case here.

You would assume the offense is a bit better based on the current situation.

One would have difficulty assessing the defense because of all the changes and the injuries last year. There are too many IFs. Will Spencer play and if so how well? Will Melton play well? And so on. I'll be surprised if the defense isn't significantly better this year though and that's based on looking at the play of the participants.

Injuries often change the scenarios unfortunately.

It's not as simple as saying a nickel came up tails five times in a row so it should come up tails again. That is an inaccurate assumption of the odds. But you get the picture.

 

[rwalters31]

It still amazes me that there are those that seem to conclude that the Cowboys will be bad because
they have been bad.

Well, until proven otherwise, it is a safe and popular stand that the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team. Only winning will change the hearts of those that have endured so many seasons of melancholy.

 

[Tawney88]

Appraising the talent on the club and projecting from that is the only objective way to quantify the odds of success or failure. What happened last year may or may not be that relevant. IF there were no changes then one might consider roughly the same outcome. That's not the case here.

You would assume the offense is a bit better based on the current situation.

One would have difficulty assessing the defense because of all the changes and the injuries last year. There are too many IFs. Will Spencer play and if so how well? Will Melton play well? And so on. I'll be surprised if the defense isn't significantly better this year though and that's based on looking at the play of the participants.

Injuries often change the scenarios unfortunately.

It's not as simple as saying a nickel came up tails five times in a row so it should come up tails again. That is an inaccurate assumption of the odds. But you get the picture.

That's actually subjective. You and I could appraise the talent differently and based on that come up with two different conclusions. There is no objective standard for predicting the success or failure of football team it all comes down to opinion, thus it's subjective.

Unless by objective you meant without bias, and I'd still disagree because we all have our own preconceptions as fans and it is nearly impossible to filter those out when making an analysis.

 

[Hostile]

I think you better look again.

No, I think you better, at the entire point of the quote. Taking it out of context as you just did doesn't make it say what I actually said.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I agree. Taking street free agents and producing the worst defense in team history was amazing to watch.

lol.

Ok.

I shudder to think how much worse they historical defense could have been if he didn't get what he did out of a bunch of scrubs. But to each their own.

 

[Risen Star]

lol.

Ok.

I shudder to think how much worse they historical defense could have been if he didn't get what he did out of a bunch of scrubs. But to each their own.

This is my point. What he got produced the worst defense this team has ever seen. He saved us from nothing. Yet the fat guy in New Orleans had to go and this guy is some defensive genius.

Marinellimania. Brother.

 

[jazzcat22]

This is my point. What he got produced the worst defense this team has ever seen. He saved us from nothing. Yet the fat guy in New Orleans had to go and this guy is some defensive genius.

Marinellimania. Brother.

The fat guy in N.O. is not a genius either. You take street players, and you get what you expect, like you said he saved us from nothing. The fat guy in N.O., when he was here, yes had some injuries too, but didn't exactly have street players. How did his defense win us any games?
As to my proof he is not a genius, he is after all the spawn of Buddy.....

 

[TwoDeep3]

Wrong.

Coaching was able to get Doug Free to play at a reasonable level in 2013. They schemed around his many weaknesses. It was a brilliant job of coaching.

Houck rarely ever got much from mid tier talent. He came to the Cowboys after Tony Wise and Jimmy built the Super Bowl winning OLines. LA was going to be great regardless of his coach and played with raw talent over precise technique. Flozell was a physically dominant type player but Houck never got him to quit false starting.

I don't remember any of his Houck's lines over-acheiving. The 2013 OL did over-achieve with a rookie playing next to a player with zero experience (Leary) and with Doug Free as 1 of the 5 starters. They also got good play from cheap 2012 free agent Bernadeau.

Please explain the year Free played and won a big contract because he was very good on the opposite side.

Somehow he was coached up on the right. But who coaches him up on the left.

Maybe he had a bad season and figured it out?

Coaching is less about some magical scheme that makes journeyman players in to pro-bowlers.

It's about a talented guy finding his groove.

 

[peplaw06]

It still amazes me that there are those that seem to conclude that the Cowboys will be bad because they have been bad.

Past performance is really the only indicator of future performance, unless you are a fan of just wildly guessing.

I presume you believe that the Cowboys offense will be good or better than it has been? Would that be because they have been good in the past?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

This is my point. What he got produced the worst defense this team has ever seen. He saved us from nothing. Yet the fat guy in New Orleans had to go and this guy is some defensive genius.

Marinellimania. Brother.

I have no issue with that fat guy in New Orleans. I thought he was shafted cause he and Garrett didn't like one another. That's just my feeling on that.

The bigger difference, to me though, is that the fat guy was the DC and had control of the entire defense while Rod had control of the D-Line. That old guy they're keeping around as basically a consultant is the guy who was supposed to be running the entire defense.

I don't know if Rod can turn this defense around to any significant degree but I do have some hope that he can do a better job than Monte was doing with the overall defense.

I prefer hoping the guy can do a better overall job than the last guy as opposed to just being a cranky cry baby and pissing all over anyone and everyone who doesn't just mope about going "oh poor me. It's just going to be so horrible this year."

If that's your bag to be moping about and just planning for everything to suck then good for you. I'm happy for you if that's what does it for you. For me I can't imagine the defense being any worse so I'll hold out some hope that Rod will make the defense play better.

I'm not expecting a miracle turnaround or some top 10 defense, maybe some people are I don't know about all that, but I do expect that he's going to have them playing better. If they're playing better that's a step in the right direction.

 

[xwalker]

Please explain the year Free played and won a big contract because he was very good on the opposite side.

Somehow he was coached up on the right. But who coaches him up on the left.

Maybe he had a bad season and figured it out?

Coaching is less about some magical scheme that makes journeyman players in to pro-bowlers.

It's about a talented guy finding his groove.

Everything fell apart for Free after the 49ers Justin Smith exposed his weakness. Smith would just get his arms under Free's and thrust upwards. For some reason Free has no strength to resist this move.

Once that was on film all pass rushers started doing it to him. That started Free on a long Journey of trying different techniques like keeping his hands low, etc.. Once he started using non standard techniques, he was getting beat because the techniques were bad. Low hand placement and other altered techniques are what OLinemen are coached NOT to do.

Free also has problems if his arms get extended out to his side. He has to work to keep his elbows in tight; otherwise he loses are power in his hands/arms. His foot quickness is the only reason that he has survived these problems.

In 2013 the Callahan and Pollack altered the OL scheme to hide Freee's problems. They had the RG keep a closer than normal spacing to Free. This minimized the outside rusher's ability to beat Free to the inside and allowed him to overset to the outside. They had Fred favor blocking right to compensate for the RG compensating forr Free. This prevented them from giving Leary help despite the fact that most inexperienced OGs like him normally get a lot of help.

They also schemed around Free's problems in run blocking. Free is a wall-off blocker and can't power block. They had a running play they used often where the RG would push Free's man wide and allow Free to just wall him off, the the RG would then kick back inside to get his man. When they had a similar run to the left, Smith didn't require any help.

 

[waving monkey]

That's actually subjective. You and I could appraise the talent differently and based on that come up with two different conclusions. There is no objective standard for predicting the success or failure of football team it all comes down to opinion, thus it's subjective.

Unless by objective you meant without bias, and I'd still disagree because we all have our own preconceptions as fans and it is nearly impossible to filter those out when making an analysis.

"there is no objective standard for predicting the success or failure of football team"

it does indeed come down to subjective opinion I totally agree
some people have the talent to read the game and some don't
some can look at a horse and say that's a winner and some can't

Again if you can't see the changes for the better
then that's on you,if their not better this year it's on me.
I don't think "W" are the only way to judge a rebuild.
Oh I can hear it all ready ,'winning is all that matters'
sometimes it takes time.

 

[jazzcat22]

Please explain the year Free played and won a big contract because he was very good on the opposite side.

Somehow he was coached up on the right. But who coaches him up on the left.

Maybe he had a bad season and figured it out?

Coaching is less about some magical scheme that makes journeyman players in to pro-bowlers.

It's about a talented guy finding his groove.

Then why have coaches, just line them up and play...like when we were kids...let the big guy over power the small guy.
But wait, then someone [similating a coach] teaches the small guy about leverage, to defeat the big guy....

 

[jobberone]

That's actually subjective. You and I could appraise the talent differently and based on that come up with two different conclusions. There is no objective standard for predicting the success or failure of football team it all comes down to opinion, thus it's subjective.

Unless by objective you meant without bias, and I'd still disagree because we all have our own preconceptions as fans and it is nearly impossible to filter those out when making an analysis.

Some is objective and some subjective. You can look at tackles, sacks, etc. You can break down passes you defend and in which coverage scheme. A lot of it is looking at the film knowing the players assignment in a particular defense and with what the offense is doing and showing. Coaches know where they should be lined up, where they were supposed to go, what were the keys, drops, how fast did they see the RB and how fast did they get to the flats, yada yada. Most of that is empiric. There's too much to mention but there is a lot that goes into reading film and assessing what the players are doing including on the other side of the ball. It's execution and you can generally tell who is doing what and how well. That's a very small part of the answer. It's too bad all we see on film is the superficial part of the game although we do see the results.

This game is far over anyone's head here unless they are a very very good coach.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Then why have coaches, just line them up and play...like when we were kids...let the big guy over power the small guy.
But wait, then someone [similating a coach] teaches the small guy about leverage, to defeat the big guy....

There is a need for a coach. Even Buddy Rich, the best drummer in the world had a teacher.

But to assume a coach can take a carrot and make it into a pro bowler is a little naive.

What made Landry great? Certainly his futuristic vision and understanding of the game. But he needed players that could execute his schemes.

He can coach them up, but there has to be a basis of talent to get the max results.

Else why did Landry have a 0-11-1, 4-9, 5-8, 4-10, 5-8-1, and a 7-7 before getting to the championship game? Why did Jimmy have a 1-15 season?

A coach can make a player realize his potential. But it takes talented players for coaches to reach their apex.

 

[jobberone]

Everything fell apart for Free after the 49ers Justin Smith exposed his weakness. Smith would just get his arms under Free's and thrust upwards. For some reason Free has no strength to resist this move.

Once that was on film all pass rushers started doing it to him. That started Free on a long Journey of trying different techniques like keeping his hands low, etc.. Once he started using non standard techniques, he was getting beat because the techniques were bad. Low hand placement and other altered techniques are what OLinemen are coached NOT to do.

Free also has problems if his arms get extended out to his side. He has to work to keep his elbows in tight; otherwise he loses are power in his hands/arms. His foot quickness is the only reason that he has survived these problems.

In 2013 the Callahan and Pollack altered the OL scheme to hide Freee's problems. They had the RG keep a closer than normal spacing to Free. This minimized the outside rusher's ability to beat Free to the inside and allowed him to overset to the outside. They had Fred favor blocking right to compensate for the RG compensating forr Free. This prevented them from giving Leary help despite the fact that most inexperienced OGs like him normally get a lot of help.

They also schemed around Free's problems in run blocking. Free is a wall-off blocker and can't power block. They had a running play they used often where the RG would push Free's man wide and allow Free to just wall him off, the the RG would then kick back inside to get his man. When they had a similar run to the left, Smith didn't require any help.

We generally agree and I agree Free has a problem with his hands. He is also not the strongest guy around on the field. I think he covers the outside rush well if he stays with his man and doesn't quit on the play prematurely. I didn't see that last year but did the year before. He has to keep people off him or they get under him or push him back. That's his punch and hands primarily.

I think he's a marginal to adequate run blocker who does not have the best power game but can block well at times in it. I think he ran block better last year because of better technique but more so from playing the ZBS better and having Mack on the same page. I think he did better last year with working on his kick slide a bit and staying with his guy but mostly doing better with bullrushes and inside moves although these are still a problem. I don't think his hands are that much better but some. He's just doing what you said in keeping players off him with better technique like no chicken wings with the arms/elbows. I don't see as much scheming around him as you do but I'll admit you watched more film than I did last year so you may be 100% right about that.

Parnell is much more athletically gifted if he can shake the injuries and whatever mental problem(s) he's having freezing him in his stance.

 

[wileedog]

Then why have coaches, just line them up and play...like when we were kids...let the big guy over power the small guy.
But wait, then someone [similating a coach] teaches the small guy about leverage, to defeat the big guy....

Because at this level every players has had that level of coaching already. These are the top %.01 of people ever to strap on a football helmet and almost all of them come out of top rate football programs in college where they have already learned 95% of the technique they are ever going to learn.

I think there are definite advantages to good coaching in schemes and exploiting matchups on game day. And good coaches run good organizations. But at this level its very, very hard to find a ton of examples of anyone "coaching up" lesser talent solely based on technique. At this level everyone has the same basic coaching, and it is individual athleticism and mental makeup that are bigger advantages.

Marinelli could spend the next decade teaching me everything there is to know about playing DE, and I will still never get by Tyron Smith without a machine gun. And even then its 50/50.