Well, where do we rank?

[sonnyboy]

Excuse me for misinterpreting you.

We could've still easily missed the playoffs though. The defense was horrific against the Rams. Brad Johnson certainly did his part in blowing that one, but he wasn't on the field getting run over by Steven Jackson or letting the Rams complete bombs down the field. I won't even get into the Giants.

New England went 11-5 without Brady, in nearly any other year that would've been enough for them to get in. To do that well without him was a testament to how well that organization is run and how good that team really is.

I'm LOL because you are being far more negative than I am optimistic.

If I only listen to you and watched no games last year, I'd have a hard time believing we won even 9 games.

The defense was terrible against the Rams and Giants because it was hung out to dry by multiple TO's and absolutely zero offensive production.

Now in the TB game when our Johnson lead offense at least managed to not give the game away, it really shined and won the game for us.

The Pats didn't go 11-5 because of an all-world 53 man roster as you think. It did so because the back-up QB played very very well. As well or better than most other teams starters.

 

[Monster Heel]

Cassel played well more due to the team around him than anything else, I'd say. I expect him to be absolutely dismal with the Chiefs. There were times when he couldn't get out of his own way and took some really bad sacks on team that has a good OL.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Thanks for the response. Question for you and other responders. How are you ranking our LB's and DL against other teams that run a 4-3.

I grouped team units they way I did for a reason. Makes for easier and more accurate comparisons.

Your comment on our OL was a prime example of why I nearly balked at starting this thread.

It's beyond rediculous. Reads like our OL play
of week 17 in Philly. Did you watch the other 15 games?

Care to name the other teams with a better OL than us?

How about those more talented front sevens(including depth)?
We lead the league with 60 sacks and finish 12th in rushing yards allowed.
Considering our mediocre secondary play (8INTs), I'm thinking some of these guys must be pretty good.

The 2009 secondary projection is a stretch and I admitted that. The fact that were running with 3 or 4 new starters is a concern, but it also makes for great opportunity for improvement.
Now if we had the same top 5 or 6 guys looking to log all the playing time this year, than any prediction of significant improvement would make no sense.

Two things I believe most of you guys are missing in your responses.
1) You're looking at these units at their worst
2) You're not actually considering the other teams.

You're frustrated with a unit such as our receivers and label them average without considering the 14 or so teams with a better group.

We do have the best Receiving Core in the NFC East.
How many teams do you actually think have better receivers?

Spencer
Austin
Hurd
Jenkins
Scandrick
Mickens

Every one of these players are still on the list of who knows. To quantify them in comparison to the league would mean you'd need more information than what you have.

Add to it that we have no clue how the WR's as a whole will play.

To suggest this team is near the top in so many categories ignores the obvious.

The jury is still out on quite a few players we expect to take their place as starters or mainstream back-ups.

To suggest any comparison to other teams in specific categories makes this anything but a stab in the dark is a stretch.

If this team breaks 50-50 on the people we have no clue about as starters, that means half the guys in the list above will fail at their jobs.

And that changes the outcome of this exercise.

 

[sonnyboy]

Spencer
Austin
Hurd
Jenkins
Scandrick
Mickens

Every one of these players are still on the list of who knows. To quantify them in comparison to the league would mean you'd need more information than what you have.

Add to it that we have no clue how the WR's as a whole will play.

To suggest this team is near the top in so many categories ignores the obvious.

The jury is still out on quite a few players we expect to take their place as starters or mainstream back-ups.

To suggest any comparison to other teams in specific categories makes this anything but a stab in the dark is a stretch.

If this team breaks 50-50 on the people we have no clue about as starters, that means half the guys in the list above will fail at their jobs.

And that changes the outcome of this exercise.

We know a lot about the players you list who'll probably start.
Spencer and Jenkins are the only projected starters you listed. Austin and Scandrick are the closest thing to straters in their projected roles.

These aren't rookies were talking about. They all have experience and have all demonstrated ability to play well in this league.

 

[TwoDeep3]

We know a lot about the players you list who'll probably start.
Spencer and Jenkins are the only projected starters you listed. Austin and Scandrick are the closest thing to straters in their projected roles.

These aren't rookies were talking about. They all have experience and have all demonstrated ability to play well in this league.

Then please enlighten me about Austin. Because from where I sit, most of the newsprint is that he is penciled in as the #2 receiver.

So what do we know about him exactly.

Three seasons and twenty-three catches. Last year he had a big game against Green Bay.

He also came back for the lat month of the season and had one catch in four games.

This is the guy who will stretch the defense and keep them honest.

So did I miss something in his sterling resume?

 

[sonnyboy]

The OL was pretty bad in a number of games, so it's not just the Philly game that has people getting reservations about them. When you look around the league, 2 teams in this very division have better OLs than the Cowboys.

As far as the front 7 goes, I think the stats are a little inflated, so it's hard to judge them on that. Wade's very aggressive and high sack totals have followed him everywhere he's gone. I judge them more on how they came up in spots. They didn't force enough turnovers. You can argue that they would've had more turnovers if not for the sacks, but you can create turnovers with sacks. Maybe the coaches need to emphasize stripping the ball more. The stats don't really reflect the run defense either. Without any advanced statistics, I feel like the Cowboys were really weak towards the left edge of the defense.

Did you have a number in mind?
Only game I can think of where they played poorly without missing players was the Arizona game.

I think you meant to say you judge them more if not only on the spots they did not play well.

 

[sonnyboy]

Then please enlighten me about Austin. Because from where I sit, most of the newsprint is that he is penciled in as the #2 receiver.

So what do we know about him exactly.

Three seasons and twenty-three catches. Last year he had a big game against Green Bay.

He also came back for the lat month of the season and had one catch in four games.

This is the guy who will stretch the defense and keep them honest.

So did I miss something in his sterling resume?

Can't imagine where you've seen that. I haven't. As it stands now Crayton is the starter til Austin beats him out. I hope it happens. Because Crayton a nice player, consistent, but only average and doesn't threaten a defense.

You got it right on Austin. He is unproven, never said he was. What I said was that he has experience. We have seen him play. When healthy, he's done some nice things.
He's got real nice speed and real nice size. He hasn't demonstrated that he will be a very good player, only that he can be.

With all that said, I'd take him over the rookies our two division rivals will be starting and counting on from day one. These teams that are supposed to be so much better than us.

 

[sonnyboy]

QB - Unknown. First season without a real threat at WR. Did Romo make T.O. or did T.O. make Romo.

RB - Top 15 until the coaches show they can scheme these guys to success.

WR - Absolutely nothing to base any ranking on. Health and skills of people behind RW11 suggest this could be fair to famine.

TE - I'm inclined to say with Bennett and then the best TE in the biz, this is #1.

OL - Somewhere in the bottom 40% of the league's OL

DL - Top 15

LB - Ware elevates this group. What will Spencer do? James is not that great. Unknowns everywhere else. And if Carpenter has a shot at anything but being cut, this really throws up a red flag. - Top 15 only because of Ware.

Secondary - Will Newman have a full season without injury? How will the second year corners do? What will Mickens add - he has the skills from college, but can he assimilate the defense and be a contributor?

Between 15 and 20.

Not sure where to start with this mess.
Why do all the negative posters refuse to rank TE's and WR's together as a group as most preseason annuals do?
Why do you fail to understand that different teams use TEs and WRs more or less and the play of one effects the play of the other.

Do you do this to stress the position of WR which you believe is a weakness?

I won't get into each ranking but I will offer this analysis.

Being overly critical doesn't make you sound less bias or offer more credibility to your opinion.

It does demonstrate two things.
1) You can't step away from the team and evaluate it in the proper context. You can't make a fair comparison to the competition.

2) You're over analyzing the team. Lots of fans fall into this trap. Its all about us us us. Just because things don't end up the way you want you over critique things.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Just in terms of offensive line, I'd have the Cowboys somewhere in the 11-15 range. In no particular order I'd have these teams ahead of the Cowboys:

Broncos
Giants
Jets
Chiefs
Titans
Eagles
Falcons
Saints
Panthers

The Chiefs might surprise some people, but they averaged 4.8 yards/carry last year while pass blocking they were middle of the pack, giving up a sack a little under 7% of pass plays, good for 16th in the league. Still, on the basis of their run game, I'd have them in the top ten (or nine).

And then the Colts, Bears, Chargers, Dolphins and Browns are grouped in with the Cowboys with maybe the Jags and Ravens based upon those two teams' FA/draft picks.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I don't see how you possibly can assume you understand what my intent was when posting my reply or my original assessment of the team.

 

[jday]

First post and you're already screwing me up. Can't brake up the recievers and defensive front. It kills the debate.

Do you wan to list the Defensive Fronts, Receiving Cores and QB Units you'd rank over us?

You really think there's nine teams with a better one two punch than Romo Kitna?

In my defense, I didn't realize it was your first post, so welcome to the board. I may have to revise my ranking's a bit, since in holding true to your original list, I through figures out there in increments of 5. However, it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I have to be up to go to work in 5.

 

[JBS]

Cassel played well more due to the team around him than anything else, I'd say. I expect him to be absolutely dismal with the Chiefs. There were times when he couldn't get out of his own way and took some really bad sacks on team that has a good OL.

this guy has a Martin Prado avatar! I love it, the kid is playing lights out right now...

 

[Fletch]

sonnyboy, you have to go by what Florio says. Tony Romo is "comparable" to Michael Vick, so we don't rank that high at the QB position.

 

[casmith07]

I don't know that is the way you should approach it. Peyton and Eli Manning have never missed a game in their careers. Their back-ups aren't as important as Carson Palmer's or McNabb's, both of whom can't stay on the field.

Eli has missed plenty of games. Just because he's on the field doesn't mean he's actually there :

 

[Doomsday101]

13-3 couldn't have possibly been the exception, but the true indicator of the talent level. Pretty sure this team has gone 9-7, 3 of the past 4 years.

Look at who they beat in those first three games. The Browns, pretty sure they ended up with a top 5 pick. The Packers picked in the top 10 as well. And the Cowboys allowed 37 points against the Eagles (if nothing else, that was a RINGING endorsement of this GREAT defense particularly the TOP 10 secondary. )

The Cowboys had an average number of injuries, but if you want to blame the team's struggles on that, go right ahead.

Yet it only took 1 injury for the Pats to go from a top SB contending team to failing to make the playoffs. Yeah injuries do not matter at all.