Thoughts about the Defense

[Kaiser]

But you don't need that many Pro Bowlers or All Pros. My guess is without looking most here cannot tell you more that 3-4 players on the Seattle D.

Exactly. Also its human nature that everyone "fights their last war" and make everything about fixing the problems from last season. If you rewind 12 months to this point last year it was all about our O Line and what disasters Free, Bern, Livings and Costa were.

If you look at things going forward, I can make a case that our O Line will be such a strength that the defensive shortcomings will be minimized by Dallas controlling the clock with an offense lead by that (extremely strong) O Line. The opposite was true last year when D Line injuries meant opposing offenses could dictate the game clock because we had no pash rush and street FA's as backups.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That's not how the math works.

1. Where did you get 12? There are 11 players on defense.

2. With your math, even if each player had a 99% chance of being good, the overall probability would be 5.94%.

Actually 10.5% --> 1 - 0.99^11

 

[Risen Star]

Lawrence, Mclaine, and Melton could make a considerable difference on Defense. That, and Marinneli being in charge. I just have a feeling they are going to surprise us...

We're talking about being a year removed from being the worst defense in the history of the team. That doesn't happen when you have talent and a wave of guys like Lawrence, the scary Terrell McClain and an injured Melton in replace of Ware, Hatcher and the fallen Lee doesn't radically, or even really, change anything.

George Selvie is our most accomplished edge rusher.

Terrell McClain, a bad backup in Houston, has the inside track on a starting spot because there's just nothing there.

We hope Tyrone Crawford can play. We don't know. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. Maybe he could but can't now coming off the Achilles. Or maybe he couldn't ever play. We don't know.

We've got a stiff like Nick Hayden who figures to stick around in at least a rotation for another year. The Cowboys are basically reliant on a couple of 7th round picks to emerge for the chance to have the DL sorta serviceable.

We started off with the worst defense we've ever had.

We exchanged an historic player like DeMarcus Ware, the 2nd most prolific pass rusher in the history of the NFL, for a rookie getting his feet wet as a down defensive end. (BTW, I didn't have much company in support of Lawrence in the winter. I read nonsense about a lack of burst and no quick twitch to his game. Now it appears that was all a smoke screen and he had a lot of people secretly rooting for him. This occurred approximately on the evening of May 9th. Good prospect. Not DeMarcus Ware.)

We've traded in Jason Hatcher for a veteran coming off a major injury who has never in his career played to the level of Hatcher last year.

We added Terrell McClain. Yes. Thee Terrell McClain.

We drafted a couple of 7th round defensive linemen.

Sean Lee blew his knee out and is out for the year.

-

Guys, I don't know about you....but I'm feeling this defense has a chance to be really good this year.

-

Yes. Maybe someday they'll carve the likeness of all this talent on a side of a mountain and call it Can't Rushmore.

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

When they hit some adversity, we will see how they react. Will they stay confident? Or will they say here we go again? That is the key.

 

[Risen Star]

I love it when internet couch scouts look at "film " and "break down" and "project" players

I miss the days when you and Stanley spadowski used to "break down" the OL and tell us how good costa, Arkin and killer kowalski were going to be

Just because you want to be "specific" does not mean you are accurate

So please spare us......some of us have been here a while

I've personally scouted these players on youtube. Please download my spreadsheet.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love it when internet couch scouts look at "film " and "break down" and "project" players

I miss the days when you and Stanley spadowski used to "break down" the OL and tell us how good costa, Arkin and killer kowalski were going to be

Just because you want to be "specific" does not mean you are accurate

So please spare us......some of us have been here a while

I never broke down OL play. That was Stan and even here you cannot point out specifics. I am going to assume you mean Costa's play against the Lions or the good stretch he had at the end of 2012. I have no idea because you are just emotional vomit here and not much substance.

You really do not say anything here more than "I am going to feel what I want to feel.' Good for you. That does not make it a worthwhile argument. It just means youre butthurt.

Fact is an empirical basis at least has a chance to be accurate. You are puking on the wall and hoping for the Mona Lisa. And I can argue with xwalker on substance. Sorry that you guys lack the ability to do else than say you are worried and then try and prop up the validity of that with platitude.

 

[Risen Star]

I should add I have some hope that we've added some pieces that could help us down the road. I'm a big fan of Lawrence. I still think Crawford can play. Gardner and Bishop give the Cowboys a reasonable chance to have found at least one effective role player.

This just isn't happening over night. They have no chance whatsoever of being very good this year. It'll take years to fix it. And that's if the personnel decisions are sound.

 

[visionary]

You need solid or better play from your 3, Mike, and FS in this D. The rest needs to be avg+ and if you want to win a SB solid to better in more than those 3 positions. That's the party line although I'd add WDE and solid DB play to my list at the very least. But you don't need that many Pro Bowlers or All Pros. My guess is without looking most here cannot tell you more that 3-4 players on the Seattle D.

I do think there are a lot of things and I mean a lot that needs to go right for us to do more than compete for the NFC East crown. I don't see that as being terribly unrealistic.

I agree with you
As Xwalker said, a lot needs to go right for us to be very good and therefore competitive

 

[TheDude]

So you're saying IF 12 players that each have an over 50% chance of being good (let's say...60% each?) are good...and they stay healthier than last season (so...let's say average or above average healthiness compared to the league...or a 50% probability)...then the defense will be "very good."

SO:

.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.5=

0.00108

Or...a 0.1% chance that the Cowboys will be "very good."

WHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Realistically, the most probably scenario is that this is one of the worst defenses in the league. Very likely top 5 worst. In many ways, this defense could easily be worse than last year.

The hope will be that the offense can boost it...but obviously the Cowboys are a realistic contender to make the playoffs based on offense...they are not realistic contenders for more than that though.

Yeah this isn't gambling with no inter-correlation between parts. In that case you can argue the antithesis. If each play at 60%, then there is only a 40% of being awful.That would mean the team would have a chance to be 40%^11=.004%) *.5 = .002%. Doesn't work

 

[TheDude]

1. Sorry, redo with 11 itll be like .02%.

2. No, in that case it would be 44%. Slightly below the 50% injury adjustment. The math is absolutely correct, this is stats 101. Or maybe 000 lol.

The issue of course is that ALL 11 dont need to be good. But even saying most need to be good, and each is not extremely likely to be good, when you look at the probability as a whole that all of those disparate events will take place the picture is very grim. It's a common human error to break up probabilities into their individual components and ignore the whole. Thats why OJ simpson got off. Thats why the cowboys defense will not be good this year.

This is applying a stat 101 concept that is unrelated. Its like determining significance from correlation. The rate of decline in the 10 yr treasury since 1990 and honey bee population has a high correlation, but no significant relationship.

 

[jobberone]

Exactly. Also its human nature that everyone "fights their last war" and make everything about fixing the problems from last season. If you rewind 12 months to this point last year it was all about our O Line and what disasters Free, Bern, Livings and Costa were.

If you look at things going forward, I can make a case that our O Line will be such a strength that the defensive shortcomings will be minimized by Dallas controlling the clock with an offense lead by that (extremely strong) O Line. The opposite was true last year when D Line injuries meant opposing offenses could dictate the game clock because we had no pash rush and street FA's as backups.

Excellent points. I don't think we'll see that OL dominating teams with the run like the early 90s team but I agree they will run more and when they need to run they will do it well. So when ball control is called for I think we'll get it.

We have not idea what will be a strength or weakness yet although the OL should be the best in football IMO. A couple of injuries there could change all that (doubtful actually but possible) and the DL may turn out to be a strength. People will pooh on both of those but stuff happens.

 

[CCBoy]

We're talking about being a year removed from being the worst defense in the history of the team. That doesn't happen when you have talent and a wave of guys like Lawrence, the scary Terrell McClain and an injured Melton in replace of Ware, Hatcher and the fallen Lee doesn't radically, or even really, change anything.

George Selvie is our most accomplished edge rusher.

Terrell McClain, a bad backup in Houston, has the inside track on a starting spot because there's just nothing there.

We hope Tyrone Crawford can play. We don't know. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. Maybe he could but can't now coming off the Achilles. Or maybe he couldn't ever play. We don't know.

We've got a stiff like Nick Hayden who figures to stick around in at least a rotation for another year. The Cowboys are basically reliant on a couple of 7th round picks to emerge for the chance to have the DL sorta serviceable.

We started off with the worst defense we've ever had.

We exchanged an historic player like DeMarcus Ware, the 2nd most prolific pass rusher in the history of the NFL, for a rookie getting his feet wet as a down defensive end. (BTW, I didn't have much company in support of Lawrence in the winter. I read nonsense about a lack of burst and no quick twitch to his game. Now it appears that was all a smoke screen and he had a lot of people secretly rooting for him. This occurred approximately on the evening of May 9th. Good prospect. Not DeMarcus Ware.)

We've traded in Jason Hatcher for a veteran coming off a major injury who has never in his career played to the level of Hatcher last year.

We added Terrell McClain. Yes. Thee Terrell McClain.

We drafted a couple of 7th round defensive linemen.

Sean Lee blew his knee out and is out for the year.

-

Guys, I don't know about you....but I'm feeling this defense has a chance to be really good this year.

-

Yes. Maybe someday they'll carve the likeness of all this talent on a side of a mountain and call it Can't Rushmore.

That one, I liked. And we haven't crossed the stream into cap considerations and getting under control by next season.

 

[CCBoy]

This is applying a stat 101 concept that is unrelated. Its like determining significance from correlation. The rate of decline in the 10 yr treasury since 1990 and honey bee population has a high correlation, but no significant relationship.

Hey, thanks...this is some really good stuff. Now talk with the Pope, he could use the imput on his Bank.

 

[CCBoy]

Excellent points. I don't think we'll see that OL dominating teams with the run like the early 90s team but I agree they will run more and when they need to run they will do it well. So when ball control is called for I think we'll get it.

We have not idea what will be a strength or weakness yet although the OL should be the best in football IMO. A couple of injuries there could change all that (doubtful actually but possible) and the DL may turn out to be a strength. People will pooh on both of those but stuff happens.

I'm feeling that the Cowboys are where the Saints were about three to four seasons ago, but with an even better running game.

 

[TheDude]

That's not how the math works.

1. Where did you get 12? There are 11 players on defense.

2. With your math, even if each player had a 99% chance of being good, the overall probability would be 5.94%.

Yes, its a flawed application. Off the top of my head (for illustration), you'd construct a more of a linear relationship. the old y=mx+b is start (i.e. .6x1 + .6x2 + .6x3......6x11 + b)

However, its likely a more quadratic type formula which demonstrates convexity. That is if each player is above average, then the linear rate increase is greater as you move from 60% to 65% , etc. Conversely, you diminish slower at a certain point (there is a genuine floor that the diff between 30% and 20% may be marginal.

 

[TheDude]

Isn't that exactly what the OP said? Everything would need to come together perfectly for this defense to be "very good."

If each position group has a 50% chance of exceeding expectations we are talking about a 12.5% chance of the defense being very good. I'll leave it to you to determine whether that is a reasonable hit rate or not.

You could have also...I dunno...debated him on something. Anything....

this doesn't work either.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is not hard to make an argument about the worries on defense. I just wish people would say that Crawford was not overly productive when he was healthy and is recovering from one of the most debilitating injuries. Spencer is much the same and 6 years older. Melton is only 9 months post ACL surgery.

Lawrence is a rookie green to the league. Guys like Bishop, Coleman and Gardner are 7th rder UDFA types. We have gone over the success rate once you get to the 300th player in the draft. We would be lucky if one of them pans out.

McClain and Mincey have been up and down in their careers but the peaks have not been particularly high production wise and the troughs have been next to worthless. The average here leaves a lot to be desired.

Brent is just getting out of jail. Who knows what type of shape he is in mentally or physically.

Carter is unable to control his emotions and it affects his play. He is mentally weak. Hitchens is a rookie mid round pick learning a new position. Holloman and Durant have proven nothing. We have seen flashes in the pan like Julius Jones before who showed a couple good games and then wandered off into the badlands. Durant could not stay on the field with a litany of injuries.

McClain was cut early by the team that drafted him in the top 10. He talks about killing people and comes out in the nickel. The Ravens gave him to us for next to nothing. A couple of points on a draft chart where the 8th pick is worth 2000.

Claiborne has played well at times but he cannot stay healthy. He plays through injury but is not nearly as effective. He is willing but not overly able versus the run. Scandrick gets overpowered a lot. If you match him up against bigger receivers with clueless help like Heath over the top then watch out.

Carr will make plays but he has shown that you cannot ask him to shadow a teams best receiver and not pay for it. His zone instincts are not all that good.

Matt Johnson loves the training room. Heath was under sized and beaten deep repeatedly. Wilcox is somewhat of a headcase and i don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing yet. Church is heady and consistent but he lacks elite athleticism and it limits what he can do.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Why exactly do we always mention

this doesn't work either.

The math is correct. The premise can be debated.

It was never my point to begin with. I just got the math in order.

As you can see people are still bumbling the math.

 

[CCBoy]

Good thing that I was a soldier. We told 'em to lace 'em back up and get back out there. This time, keep up with your head down.

 

[hra8700]

Yes, its a flawed application. Off the top of my head (for illustration), you'd construct a more of a linear relationship. the old y=mx+b is start (i.e. .6x1 + .6x2 + .6x3......6x11 + b)

However, its likely a more quadratic type formula which demonstrates convexity. That is if each player is above average, then the linear rate increase is greater as you move from 60% to 65% , etc. Conversely, you diminish slower at a certain point (there is a genuine floor that the diff between 30% and 20% may be marginal.

I am not trying to model their expected performance...not even a little. Im simply translating op's statements:

"The defense could be very good if just 1 player at each position lives up to their potential.

Obviously, it could also be terrible if some key players fail to meet expectations; however, when I look at the top players at each position, I see a greater than 50 percent chance of that position being very good.

They have to stay healthier than last season."

This statement is saying that if EACH of the following 12 players (i went back and there WERE 12 listed in bold; also he says 1 player from each position group but then clarifies to say the top player in each position group then further highlights that he is referring to specific players by bolding them) were good (with an over 50% chance of this occuring in each case) AND the team stays healthy...then the team will be very good.

I said ok...but there is almost no chance of ALL of that of happening. My only point is that breaking down probabilities into individual parts confuses people into thinking the OVERALL probability is good. When it is not. Though certainly higher than .01%.