Time to give up on this defense

[Galian Beast]

drafting Marti was the stupidest thing we have done, someont on here wanted us to have 5 1st rounders on the online. Well we almost have them and look at how its turned out, we could have had Dee Ford, Clinton Dix or Calvin Pryor now we got the best potienal Oline in the league but still cant stop a nose bleed.

You say that now, but the reality is that this offensive line has the potential to act as an engine for an offense that might be able to dominant this league, well into the future, buying us ample enough time to put together a defense within a year or two.

Envision the next 6 draft picks (1-3 in the next two years) Let's take it even further (1-4). 8 defensive players drafted, and maybe 3-4 free agents within that 2 year time period. Added to whatever we actually have on defense in terms of viable players such as Sean Lee... It shouldn't be all together that difficult to put together a solid defense, that when mirrored with the offense can be productive.

Of course we're not going to go 8/8 in the draft, but assuming we can get some late draft picks to produce and some UDFAs, and again not forgetting the free agents we can actually rebuild something here....

Imagine this is year zero

Sean Lee, Barry Church, JJ Wilcox, Terrance Mitchell, Anthony Hitchens, Devonte Holloman. DeMarcus Lawrence, Henry Melton, Rolondo McClain, Justin Durant.

That is 9 players.

I would say the priority is drafting/signing the following

DE
DT
CB
CB
LB

That's essentially all possible to do in Year 1 (next year). Not having to address any position on the offense, gives us a lot of flexibility.

 

[xwalker]

I have shown that, which is why I keep saying you're not listening.

I've given you a scenario in which a team spends 50% of their non special teams budget on offense and 50% on defense.

In this scenario a team would need to hit on 4-5 draft picks within a 4 year period in order to have a cost effective defense. This is assuming that the other starters on defense took up an average wage from the remainder of the budget.

When you have a team spend even more on offense, it becomes even MORE important to hit on draft picks on defense, which means you generally need to draft even more defensive players.

We can go back to last year and take an actual look at the 2013 split as opposed to just focusing on the spending on the defensive line.

Last year we were 14th in the league in offensive spending, spending 45.2 million dollars on offense. On defense we were ranked 24th in the league spending 36.8 million dollars.

The type of spending we had last year only heightens my point.

When you spend more on the offense, you have to be more successful drafting defensive players, and you also have to be wiser with how you're spending on defense. We didn't do either of these things.

Our money was tied into 30 somethings who were injury prone and in general decline.

This defensive spending limit is a made up scenario by you. It does not exist in reality. I know that you put a theory out there and now you want to prove that it a good theory, but it just doesn't hold up.

Bottom line if you spend less on offense you can spend more on defense. As long as you're under the cap, it does not matter how you got there. Having 8 starters on rookie contracts is 8 low cost contracts. It does not matter how they are split between offense and defense.

 

[Galian Beast]

Just bc we signed mincey to start doesn't mean DE isn't a gaping hole.

Gaping holes include both DE spots(we'll see what Lawrence does), 1tech, SAM LB, free safety(we need a true safety with range) and the depth behind the starters looks weak.. I don't disagree with the way the FO is going about rebuilding the D. Although I would've liked to see more resources allocated to fixing the problem, I know it's not going to happen overnight. I am simply stating that there are still gaping holes on this defense. Patching holes with scrubs will only get you so Far. They got a long way to go to fill all the holes and question marks. Hoping UDFA's and FA JAG's can come in and fill that void is not a good plan.

That's basically the crux of my OP. We have gaping holes on defense, and it will take wholesale reorganization of the defense in order to turn it around.

To the Cowboy's credit, we have built an offense at nearly every position, so much that we don't really need to address any position. There is no current hole on offense. Could we be better at LG or RT? Sure... but outside of those spots, we have potential pro bowlers at every position. And more importantly they're almost all young.

Assuming Romo can stay healthy, we should have at the least two years to fix this defense. I think we could probably do it next year.

 

[Galian Beast]

This defensive spending limit is a made up scenario by you. It does not exist in reality. I know that you put a theory out there and now you want to prove that it a good theory, but it just doesn't hold up.

Bottom line if you spend less on offense you can spend more on defense. As long as you're under the cap, it does not matter how you got there. Having 8 starters on rookie contracts is 8 low cost contracts. It does not matter how they are split between offense and defense.

Again, you're still not listening.

The limit is only as it relates to the offense. You could in theory spend more on your defense than your offense, but for most teams it doesn't work like that because offensive players cost more, especially when you factor in the QB.

Very few teams have built their defenses up and have used QBs on their rookie contracts. It is a workable model though.

What I'm saying is that if you're balanced or even slightly spending more on offense than defense (which is the majority of teams in the nfl), you have to hit a certain amount of draft picks on defense within a finite time period in order to afford that defense.

 

[xwalker]

Again, you're still not listening.

The limit is only as it relates to the offense. You could in theory spend more on your defense than your offense, but for most teams it doesn't work like that because offensive players cost more, especially when you factor in the QB.

Very few teams have built their defenses up and have used QBs on their rookie contracts. It is a workable model though.

What I'm saying is that if you're balanced or even slightly spending more on offense than defense (which is the majority of teams in the nfl), you have to hit a certain amount of draft picks on defense within a finite time period in order to afford that defense.

I hear what you're saying, but it's just not correct.

The basis of your concept is that you have to get production from drafts picks in order to field a competitive team under the salary cap. That part is true.

Then you add on that is has to balance out between offense and defense, but that it just not true as a general statement.

If you want to make your statement specific to the 2014 and near future Cowboys team, you can make an argument that they will have to get production out of some draft picks on defense at some point because they will run out of positions on offense where they have players on rookie contracts; although that might take awhile. They have Martin, Fred, Leary and T.Williams on rookie contracts for awhile. They might end up with a rookie RT next year. They might not resign Murry which would put a young player there.

Bottom line, it's only matter how many players you have starting/contribution to the team, not how many are on offense or defense.

 

[Galian Beast]

I hear what you're saying, but it's just not correct.

The basis of your concept is that you have to get production from drafts picks in order to field a competitive team under the salary cap. That part is true.

Then you add on that is has to balance out between offense and defense, but that it just not true as a general statement.

If you want to make your statement specific to the 2014 and near future Cowboys team, you can make an argument that they will have to get production out of some draft picks on defense at some point because they will run out of positions on offense where they have players on rookie contracts; although that might take awhile. They have Martin, Fred, Leary and T.Williams on rookie contracts for awhile. They might end up with a rookie RT next year. They might not resign Murry which would put a young player there.

Bottom line, it's only matter how many players you have starting/contribution to the team, not how many are on offense or defense.

Again I don't know how you're missing this.... my point is if you spend X amount on offense, you only have Y amount left for defense and vice versa.

The ratio can be whatever you want it to be... You could spend all your budget on defense, but then to field an offense that was effective and cost efficient you would have to hit on even more draft picks.

Our offensive spending has been kept down by our ability to hit on offensive draft picks, but even with that, the offensive spending is still much higher than our defensive spending, and THUS we must hit on more defensive draft picks to field a proper defense (which can not be filled by veterans and free agents).

It's a simple concept, not sure where you're getting lost in it.

 

[5Stars]

Again I don't know how you're missing this.... my point is if you spend X amount on offense, you only have Y amount left for defense and vice versa.

The ratio can be whatever you want it to be... You could spend all your budget on defense, but then to field an offense that was effective and cost efficient you would have to hit on even more draft picks.

Our offensive spending has been kept down by our ability to hit on offensive draft picks, but even with that, the offensive spending is still much higher than our defensive spending, and THUS we must hit on more defensive draft picks to field a proper defense (which can not be filled by veterans and free agents).

It's a simple concept, not sure where you're getting lost in it.

Dude! What you just typed is just what the Cowboys are doing! So, I don't see the problem.

But to "give up" on this defense, this season? Never. One thing at a time.

 

[jobberone]

While we can wax and wane about the holes on defense, the team will look at the season and assess the problems in all three game phases including defense. There is no telling who will perform well and/or be standing at the end of the year. Players who should perform well get injured and don't while others step up or come out of nowhere.

It's fun to talk about this stuff though.

 

[jobberone]

Again I don't know how you're missing this.... my point is if you spend X amount on offense, you only have Y amount left for defense and vice versa.

The ratio can be whatever you want it to be... You could spend all your budget on defense, but then to field an offense that was effective and cost efficient you would have to hit on even more draft picks.

Our offensive spending has been kept down by our ability to hit on offensive draft picks, but even with that, the offensive spending is still much higher than our defensive spending, and THUS we must hit on more defensive draft picks to field a proper defense (which can not be filled by veterans and free agents).

It's a simple concept, not sure where you're getting lost in it.

Not so long ago we were spending the money on defense. There's a story in that.

 

[xwalker]

Again I don't know how you're missing this.... my point is if you spend X amount on offense, you only have Y amount left for defense and vice versa.

The ratio can be whatever you want it to be... You could spend all your budget on defense, but then to field an offense that was effective and cost efficient you would have to hit on even more draft picks.

Our offensive spending has been kept down by our ability to hit on offensive draft picks, but even with that, the offensive spending is still much higher than our defensive spending, and THUS we must hit on more defensive draft picks to field a proper defense (which can not be filled by veterans and free agents).

It's a simple concept, not sure where you're getting lost in it.

The team has to hit on some number of young players in order to field a competitive team under the salary cap.

You could have 10 offense starters on rookie contracts with veteran QB and 11 veteran starters on defense OR you could have 11 veteran starters on offense and 10 defensive starters on rookie contracts. Either way there would be 10 starters on rookie contracts.

 

[jobberone]

We definitely need to hit on the rookie and UDFA players if we want to stay in business as we'd like.

 

[Doc50]

If we would of fixed the DL instead of OL we would be whining and complaining still about something else.

It never ends. I am sure next year the defense will be addressed.

Did you forget how our draft targets were mainly defense this year? Draft didn't fall to us the way we wanted it too. Boo hoo.

We would of ended up with 2 possible defensive players in the first 2 rounds if the draft went ideal at the time.

Exactly.

I bet the proud confident 49er fans are whining this morning, too.

The OP was about poor showing in a couple of preseason games.
The coaches not only want to see how on-the-bubble players perform, but they want to create adversity and uncertainty in mixes, sets and coverages, in order to see how those players respond. And they don't want to drop their drawers and show anything like a regular season game plan.
An 0-4 preseason team has about the same odds of making the big show as anyone else.

Yes, we are rebuilding the defense from the ravages of age and injury, and no question that we have youth that needs to mature into their roles; but as a coach, you always feel that you can make that happen.

But, give up? Did we give up when Hitler bombed Pearl Harbour?
(John Belushi moment)

 

[dcstands4]

You say that now, but the reality is that this offensive line has the potential to act as an engine for an offense that might be able to dominant this league, well into the future, buying us ample enough time to put together a defense within a year or two.

Envision the next 6 draft picks (1-3 in the next two years) Let's take it even further (1-4). 8 defensive players drafted, and maybe 3-4 free agents within that 2 year time period. Added to whatever we actually have on defense in terms of viable players such as Sean Lee... It shouldn't be all together that difficult to put together a solid defense, that when mirrored with the offense can be productive.

Of course we're not going to go 8/8 in the draft, but assuming we can get some late draft picks to produce and some UDFAs, and again not forgetting the free agents we can actually rebuild something here....

Imagine this is year zero

Sean Lee, Barry Church, JJ Wilcox, Terrance Mitchell, Anthony Hitchens, Devonte Holloman. DeMarcus Lawrence, Henry Melton, Rolondo McClain, Justin Durant.

That is 9 players.

I would say the priority is drafting/signing the following

DE
DT
CB
CB
LB

That's essentially all possible to do in Year 1 (next year). Not having to address any position on the offense, gives us a lot of flexibility.

On paper those name look decent but we have NO IDEA what Mitchell, Hitchens, Holloman, Lawrence and Melton can do in the regular season for 60 min. Sean Lee is never going to play a full season in a Cowboys uniform. I know that it will take a few years to draft a nice defense but what we are going thru now is just plain sad.

 

[Galian Beast]

The team has to hit on some number of young players in order to field a competitive team under the salary cap.

You could have 10 offense starters on rookie contracts with veteran QB and 11 veteran starters on defense OR you could have 11 veteran starters on offense and 10 defensive starters on rookie contracts. Either way there would be 10 starters on rookie contracts.

Absolutely, the only problem you get into is that offense and defense arent the same. It's cheaper to pay veterans on defense than it is to pay them on offense, but my point remains.

 

[Galian Beast]

Not so long ago we were spending the money on defense. There's a story in that.

We were spending money but it wasn't THE money and occasionally we got what we paid for. Unfortunately we were never really hitting on defensive draft picks since 2008.

 

[Galian Beast]

Dude! What you just typed is just what the Cowboys are doing! So, I don't see the problem.

But to "give up" on this defense, this season? Never. One thing at a time.

Again, what I'm saying is this defense needs to be blown up. It's not salvagable, and we can see that. How bad is it? That we don't necessarily know, but we don't have building blocks to build upon.

Guys like Claiborne, Carr, Carter.... The 3 Cs if you would... all need to go.

 

[xwalker]

Again, what I'm saying is this defense needs to be blown up. It's not salvagable, and we can see that. How bad is it? That we don't necessarily know, but we don't have building blocks to build upon.

Guys like Claiborne, Carr, Carter.... The 3 Cs if you would... all need to go.

Hasn't it already been "blown up"?

Carter might be out of a starting job soon and will be a free agent next season.

There's no need for Claiborne to be gone because he's not that expensive, but they should keep trying to find more CBs that could possible surpass him on the depth chart.

Carr is the only one that will be a significant decision, IMO. It's a big cap hit to cut him even after this season and his base salary for next season is not out of line if he is a reasonable starting CB.

 

[Galian Beast]

Hasn't it already been "blown up"?

Carter might be out of a starting job soon and will be a free agent next season.

There's no need for Claiborne to be gone because he's not that expensive, but they should keep trying to find more CBs that could possible surpass him on the depth chart.

Carr is the only one that will be a significant decision, IMO. It's a big cap hit to cut him even after this season and his base salary for next season is not out of line if he is a reasonable starting CB.

It's not all about decisions. My point is that this defense has no foundation. Carter will/should be a free agent next year, so he is not a foundation to build on. Claiborne is actually pretty expensive for what he provides. They keep going after corners who are JAGs and it's because we've spent so much of the budget on guys like Claiborne and Carr.

If we make Carr a June 1st cut we'll save 5 million against the cap in 2015 and 6.4 million against the cap in 2016. In 2017 we'll realize full savings of 12 million dollars.

 

[xwalker]

It's not all about decisions. My point is that this defense has no foundation. Carter will/should be a free agent next year, so he is not a foundation to build on. Claiborne is actually pretty expensive for what he provides. They keep going after corners who are JAGs and it's because we've spent so much of the budget on guys like Claiborne and Carr.

If we make Carr a June 1st cut we'll save 5 million against the cap in 2015 and 6.4 million against the cap in 2016. In 2017 we'll realize full savings of 12 million dollars.

I'll agree that they don't really have a base on defense after the massive amount of turnover that they had this off-season.

Having said that they need some stability going into next season. Changing out the majority of the players again will not be that helpful. They need a core of players that know the system even if they are not Star players. For instance I would prefer to see them change out about 3 or 4 of 10 DL next season not 9 of 10 like they're doing this season.

 

[Galian Beast]

I'll agree that they don't really have a base on defense after the massive amount of turnover that they had this off-season.

Having said that they need some stability going into next season. Changing out the majority of the players again will not be that helpful. They need a core of players that know the system even if they are not Star players. For instance I would prefer to see them change out about 3 or 4 of 10 DL next season not 9 of 10 like they're doing this season.

The way I see it is if you can find someone who can play, play them. I don't need some sense of continuity on the defensive line with a bunch of JAGs.