Thoughts about the Defense

[Alexander]

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.

You left out Ben Bass.

 

[Alexander]

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

Great. Give me Sean Payton and not Jerry Jones's attempt at an imitation and I am on the bandwagon.

 

[CCBoy]

Great. Give me Sean Payton and not Jerry Jones's attempt at an imitation and I am on the bandwagon.

Sean Payton was under Jerry's contract, but Jerry, with some real class, allowed him to improve HIS career.

But in riding a burn barrel bus, one misses the fact that even Payton had his knuckles rapped soundly by the NFL. I'll pass on that backdrop for leadership. Serious stuff, really...

 

[TheDude]

Why exactly do we always mention


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.

the math is right if you are looking for the probability of the outcome of ONLY .5^3 . . The antithesis arguement also would hold in the assumption - there is only a 12.5% the defense is bad if all 3 units are average (50%). Completely unrelated application

 

[TheDude]

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%.

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.

I see what you are getting at but you are calcing the collective odds that 11 players will have exactly 60% odds. The probability of that exact configuration is low. In your original post you used that to extrapolate that to .1% chance to be "very good" and that was the leap that is unrelated. If the argument was that all 11 players had an 80% chance of being horrid - the conclusion above refutes that by saying "No there is only a 8.6% (.8^11) the defense will be bad if all 11 players have an 80% fail rate"

The poster was saying that if 1 player has better than average odds to be good (call it 60%) then the defense would be better. That is somewhat rhetorical but that point is better argued by a regression-esque formula
y=mx+b

y=overall prob of being good
x = player probability
m = slope/beta of each player probability - call it 1 for simplicity
b = say the intercept is 50% average

Then you get
y = 1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 + 50%
y = .6*11+50%
y = 56.6% chance

There are many flaws in this as well - first you need to assign any probability >50% a positive value (0 to 5?) and <50% a negative one (0 to -5?). Also it assumes all postions are equal weighted to the outcome (m).

Anyway, I dont disagree with your position that it is optimistic to think all things will fall perfectly enough to have a "good defense" - but I don't put it a <.01% chance

 

[Dodger12]

Sean Payton was under Jerry's contract, but Jerry, with some real class, allowed him to improve HIS career.

Jerry didn't allow him to do anything. He took a HC position. Jerry couldn't keep in Dallas even if he wanted to. "Class" has nothing to do with it. If Jerry wanted to show some class, he could have let the Landry family keep their stadium seats.

 

[CCBoy]

Jerry didn't allow him to do anything. He took a HC position. Jerry couldn't keep in Dallas even if he wanted to. "Class" has nothing to do with it. If Jerry wanted to show some class, he could have let the Landry family keep their stadium seats.

No, if Jerry had wanted Sean Payton to stay in Dallas, he simply would have upped the anti's and promoted him. No, he allowed a personnel move to occur and wished him luck...just as he did with Jimmy Johnson, Turner, and Wannstedt to move on following the franchise forcing of issues in chain of command. He didn't do it maliciously, even if angry...and you are wrong, that is class.

And issues involving seats and stadium monies, are a completely different issue...expecially when Jerry was creating 'miracles' to keep the franchise above water during the first three seasons in the league.

Not really impressed with a burn barrel pile on to seem right.

 

[Risen Star]

You left out Ben Bass.

Rod H. Marinelli.

This defense has a chance to be really good this year.

 

[hra8700]

I see what you are getting at but you are calcing the collective odds that 11 players will have exactly 60% odds. The probability of that exact configuration is low. In your original post you used that to extrapolate that to .1% chance to be "very good" and that was the leap that is unrelated. If the argument was that all 11 players had an 80% chance of being horrid - the conclusion above refutes that by saying "No there is only a 8.6% (.8^11) the defense will be bad if all 11 players have an 80% fail rate"

The poster was saying that if 1 player has better than average odds to be good (call it 60%) then the defense would be better. That is somewhat rhetorical but that point is better argued by a regression-esque formula
y=mx+b

y=overall prob of being good
x = player probability
m = slope/beta of each player probability - call it 1 for simplicity
b = say the intercept is 50% average

Then you get
y = 1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 +1*.6 + 50%
y = .6*11+50%
y = 56.6% chance

There are many flaws in this as well - first you need to assign any probability >50% a positive value (0 to 5?) and <50% a negative one (0 to -5?). Also it assumes all postions are equal weighted to the outcome (m).

Anyway, I dont disagree with your position that it is optimistic to think all things will fall perfectly enough to have a "good defense" - but I don't put it a <.01% chance

Your argument about being horrid doesn't make sense (as you know), because even if not ALL players are horrid the defense will still be bad. No one would make the argument that unless ALL players regress the defense will be good. They wont make that argument because the baseline is so bad. Because the baseline is so bad, the op's argument is that that ALL players had to meet potential (not be superstars, meet potential). Because the baseline is so bad, if you define "potential" as op laid out for each player, most would have to meet it for the defense to be good. Not 12, but most. Assuming 8/12 meet potential AND the other 4 don't regress AND there aren't major injuries....is still a long shot. Even assuming 6/12 meet potential AND no more than 1 of the rest regresses AND the team is healthier than average...the probability is low.

And yes, obviously modeling team performance from expected player performance would be much harder than that regression. In fact given the number of variables and lack of data i very much doubt anyone could make a model that beats vegas.

Off the top of my head...probability the cowboys defense is above average is like 10-15%. Probability it is top 5 is like 1% (maybe worse).

 

[Risen Star]

Boys, football can not be broken down into a mathematical formula. Shake the PFF from your brain and stop trying.

We all know we lack talent on defense.

 

[5Stars]

Boys, football can not be broken down into a mathematical formula. Shake the PFF from your brain and stop trying.

We all know we lack talent on defense.

Jerry Jones just called me to tell you he read this post and for me to post that he say's "thanks".

(oh...he said to tell you "hi"....)

 

[xwalker]

You left out Ben Bass.

You're a year behind. Bass has been replaced by Gardner as the fan favorite.

 

[TheDude]

Your argument about being horrid doesn't make sense (as you know), because even if not ALL players are horrid the defense will still be bad. No one would make the argument that unless ALL players regress the defense will be good. They wont make that argument because the baseline is so bad. Because the baseline is so bad, the op's argument is that that ALL players had to meet potential (not be superstars, meet potential). Because the baseline is so bad, if you define "potential" as op laid out for each player, most would have to meet it for the defense to be good. Not 12, but most. Assuming 8/12 meet potential AND the other 4 don't regress AND there aren't major injuries....is still a long shot. Even assuming 6/12 meet potential AND no more than 1 of the rest regresses AND the team is healthier than average...the probability is low.

And yes, obviously modeling team performance from expected player performance would be much harder than that regression. In fact given the number of variables and lack of data i very much doubt anyone could make a model that beats vegas.

Off the top of my head...probability the cowboys defense is above average is like 10-15%. Probability it is top 5 is like 1% (maybe worse).

Its not my position, its the counter arguement if all are good than the defense still only has a <.01 chance of being good.


Stats and probabilities dont work well in football vs baseball, tennis, etc. all that aside gut feel says the will not be that good, but who knows, I dont relish playing SF, NO, Sea, Az, Indy, Philly or Wash

 

[Alexander]

You're a year behind. Bass has been replaced by Gardner as the fan favorite.

Perhaps, but Gardner has yet to get the player pub that apparently carries a lot of weight around here.

Hatcher called a Crawford Hall of Famer, while Bass was the player who was going to make it so he wasn't on the team.

You cannot just dismiss that kind of endorsement. It is almost like a guarantee.

 

[Dodger12]

No, if Jerry had wanted Sean Payton to stay in Dallas, he simply would have upped the anti's and promoted him.

Promote him to what vacant position? Parcells was still here. And Jerry didn't show any class by allowing an assistant coach to be promoted to a HC even if he is under contract which is what you stated.

And before anyone chimes in, Jerry has had moments of class and humility, but this wasn't one of them.

 

[CCBoy]

Promote him to what vacant position? Parcells was still here. And Jerry didn't show any class by allowing an assistant coach to be promoted to a HC even if he is under contract which is what you stated.

And before anyone chimes in, Jerry has had moments of class and humility, but this wasn't one of them.

If he is such a real value in the sense of a Cowboys organization, he would still correlate to that same value now.

What is going unsaid, is that allowing the move, Parcells would have been erring, and not Jerry. No, Parcells wanted his own hands free.

As to any later relationship further with the Dallas Cowboys, that ship was lost at sea when Saun Payton was banned from the NFL for an entire year.

 

[visionary]

You're a year behind. Bass has been replaced by Gardner as the fan favorite.

No one can replace Ben Bass
Players can only hope to replace him

 

[jobberone]

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.

More than a little of this is true but some is seen from the dark side. I see things differently for some but others I agree more with. The odds of catching a flush on the river is 20ish% but either you hit or you don't looking at it another less statistical way. There are a lot of ifs. The chances of hitting on them all are likely astronomically high but the converse is true. @McLovin said it more mathematically.

 

[TheDude]

More than a little of this is true but some is seen from the dark side. I see things differently for some but others I agree more with. The odds of catching a flush on the river is 20ish% but either you hit or you don't looking at it another less statistical way. There are a lot of ifs. The chances of hitting on them all are likely astronomically high but the converse is true. @McLovin said it more mathematically.

the odds of hitting that flush go to 0% if you fold on the turn. thats the beauty of the actual game. Cant wait

 

[BigStar]

I like the Atheist Safety position.

Also, the "Ron Leary jump" is a good example of what could happen with 2nd year players like Wilcox and Holloman. Even Crawford is basically a 2nd year player due to the injury.

From the game footage that I watched, I believe that R. McClain is capable of Pro Bowl level play as the MLB on base downs. As you indicated, I don't expect him to play in the Nickel, but as a base MLB he has the ability to be very good. Obviously nobody knows if he is motivated or can get in shape, but the ability both physically and from a developed skill/awareness perspective are there.

Good stuff as usual but why do you hold Church with such high esteem? Other than not being able to fix every position in one off season, I don't understand why he gets a pass? He is the old school SS that is just too slow, love his tackling though.