Zim has to go

[silverbear]

and thats the problem...we should be better than a "fair" defense...and "fair" is about what they are

Actually, I'd rate 3rd in total defense a bit better than "fair", I was just being cautious not to overstate my case...

 

[dbair1967]

Actually, I'd rate 3rd in total defense a bit better than "fair", I was just being cautious not to overstate my case...

they are 3rd in yards

yards are nice, but yards allowed can also be skewed by things like field position...ie, say a team gets the ball on your 40 and drives 40 yds for a TD...another team gets the ball on their own 1 and drives 97 yds but is stoned and doesnt score because the team sacks the QB or forces a turnover

which defense did a better job? The one that gave up only "40 yards" or the one that gave up "96 yds" but didnt allow the score and got a big play

David

 

[silverbear]

I decided to look up some things as well...

we've played two teams ranked in the top 10 in offense (Philly #1, NYG #10), Philly nailed us for 406 yds of offense and 38 pts (31 on offense)...

1) The Iggles had 383 yards of offense, you kinda forgot to deduct the 3 sacks for -23 yards the Boys had in this game...

2) The Iggles average 390.2 yards per game, which means they've averaged 391.1 yards per game in their other 8 games... so the Boys held them 8 yards under their season's average against teams other than the Cowboys...

3) They drove 12 yards for 1 TD, 5 yards for a FG... that's 10 cheap points on a short field, courtesy of the OFFENSE (beyond the 102 yard int return for a TD, that was also on the offense)...

There's 17 points allowed, on 17 yards of total offense... all of it should properly be blamed on the offense...

NYG got us for 36 pts (29 on offense) and 324 yds...

1) They average 346.9 yards per game, which means they've averaged 349.7 yards per game in their other 8 games... so the Boys held them 25 yards under their season average against any opponent other than the Dallas Cowboys...

2) They drove 14 yards for 1 TD, 38 yards for one FG (from the Boys' 48 to their 14)... IOW, turnovers gave them a short field twice, and they capitalized on it...

Throw in the 96 yard interception return for a TD, and you've given the Giants 17 points, while they gained all of 52 yards of total offense...

The Giants and Iggles have very, very good offenses, naturally they're likely to put up better numbers on our defense than those lesser offenses you mentioned... but again, taking a close look at their game stats, it becomes apparent that it was the offense, NOT the defense, that cost the team both of those games...

 

[superpunk]

at more blame the coaching staff threads.

It's the players. They've been put in great positions to make plays, and they've made some big ones, and failed at times, too. FS play has been garbage all year long. We're +4 in TO differential. We've allowed 16 TDs while taking the ball away 20 times. If it weren't for some bad TOs, some last second FGs, and a 100 yard kick return our scoring defense would look alot better.

You don't like the pressure we've been getting? Try watching the games. Blaming the coaching staff for the failings of the palyers is just lazy and weak-minded. We play a straight up style. It's working out very well for us. If you need to blame the coaching staff for something, blame them for not addressing the FS position adequately - which has cost us far more than any coaching decision on the field.

 

[silverbear]

they are 3rd in yards

They're also top 10 in virtually every other defensive stat:

7th in yards per play, at 4.8...

14th in 3rd down conversion percentage allowed, at 35.9... their single worst defensive stat, and it's still in the upper half of the league...

9th in pass defense, at 194.9 yards per game...

4th in rush defense, at 85.4 yards per game... tied for 3rd in yards per carry allowed, at 3.4...

9th in scoring defense, at 19.3 points per game...

4th in takeaways, with 19...

Spin it any way you want to, that's some decent defense right there...

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

this isnt a good defense, its a painfully average one...I am quite sure some of its Parcells, but Zimmer was a lousy defensive coordinator before Parcells got here, and he is still lousy today...Parcells likes him because he does what he is told (ie, puppet) and doesnt give him any flack

David

I respectfully disagree. I have been the biggest critic of our ("Our" LOL I get carried away but you, as a fan, know how it is) FAIL-YAH TO GET TO THE QB CONSISTENTLY. Having said that, I blame the defensive scheme (Parcells') for making us a stop-the-run defense at the expense of giving the opposing QB mostly a free ride.
Zim is just following orders. We all do to survive.
Zimmer will turn out to be one of the best defensive coaches. He just needs the freedom to make the system his own and not having to relive parcells' glory years in New York.
David, we're all fans. I hope the defense turns it up a notch for you and the rest of us. We have too many studs not to do it. And soon.

 

[ravidubey]

Jacksonville-- 307 yards total offense, 306.0 yards per game average...

Iggles-- 383 yards total offense, 390.2 yards per game average...

Giants-- 328 yards total offense, 346.9 yard per game average...

Skins-- 300 yards total offense, 317.7 yards per game average...

You should join the GROZ movement as this is perfect proof that we are an average defense. With the talent we have acquired and picks blown on defense, THIS IS INEXCUSABLE.

If you'll recall our "vaunted" 2003 defense was #1 in most defensive cateogries except when we played any team worth its salt.

Low scoring. Sacks. Turnovers. Pressures. These things matter, and they really matter when accrued against quality teams.

 

[ravidubey]

They're also top 10 in virtually every other defensive stat:

7th in yards per play, at 4.8...

14th in 3rd down conversion percentage allowed, at 35.9... their single worst defensive stat, and it's still in the upper half of the league...

9th in pass defense, at 194.9 yards per game...

4th in rush defense, at 85.4 yards per game... tied for 3rd in yards per carry allowed, at 3.4...

9th in scoring defense, at 19.3 points per game...

4th in takeaways, with 19...

Spin it any way you want to, that's some decent defense right there...

Accrued against Washington, Tennessee, Houston, and Arizona. What are our defensive stats vs Philly, Jacksonville, New York, and Carolina?

 

[superpunk]

Accrued against Washington, Tennessee, Houston, and Arizona. What are our defensive stats vs Philly, Jacksonville, New York, and Carolina?

Who knows? Ask Pat Watkins.

I wonder if the coaching staff is asking him to *** up so consistently.

 

[hmcorp]

they are 3rd in yards

yards are nice, but yards allowed can also be skewed by things like field position...ie, say a team gets the ball on your 40 and drives 40 yds for a TD...another team gets the ball on their own 1 and drives 97 yds but is stoned and doesnt score because the team sacks the QB or forces a turnover

which defense did a better job? The one that gave up only "40 yards" or the one that gave up "96 yds" but didnt allow the score and got a big play

David

but they dont give up many scores. we have one of the best red zone defneses in the league dood. you are going to lose this argument.

eexcept that we DO need to sack the QB more. but that doesnt mean the defense isnt really good.

it would just be completely dominant in every way if we did sack the QB.

 

[joseephuss]

Accrued against Washington, Tennessee, Houston, and Arizona. What are our defensive stats vs Philly, Jacksonville, New York, and Carolina?

Dallas dominated Carolina's offense. They gave up 76 yards rushing, 149 yards passing and forced two turnovers.

 

[BigDFan5]

Silverbear, has owned this thread SB

 

[silverbear]

Silverbear, has owned this thread SB

What can I say, I like this defense... oh, I'd like to see a few more sacks too, but I think it's entirely possible for a team to have a Super Bowl caliber defense and not have a particularly ferocious rush...

But mostly, it seems pretty clear to me that the reason we've lost the games we have is we self-destructed in those games... we've tried to self-destruct in a couple of the games we've won, too, and the Cowboys REALLY need to get a handle on that little issue if they're to have any playoff success this season...

 

[bbgun]

When you have to run to the stat book instead of relying on your eyes, you know you're in trouble. This is a not a dominant defense. This is the 2003 defense all over again--effecient, but exposed by better teams. I didn't need "stats" to tell me the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens were of championship quality. Hell, stats might make you think Bled is a borderline HOFer. But our eyes know different.

 

[joseephuss]

When you have to run to the stat book instead of relying on your eyes, you know you're in trouble. This is a not a dominant defense. This is the 2003 defense all over again--effecient, but exposed by better teams. I didn't need "stats" to tell me the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens were of championship quality. Hell, stats might make you think Bled is a borderline HOFer. But our eyes know different.

This defense is good enough to win a Superbowl. That is what my eyes tell me. No, it is not a dominant defense, but it is good enough to get the job done. The thing that has killed them is giving up the big play. They aren't just getting beaten on those big plays. They are making mistakes. That is a correctable item. Correct those and this can be a better defense.

It also helps the defense when the offense doesn't put them in bad field position or having to play from behind.

You don't have to rely on stats to see the good things this defense can do. Now I will wait to see what they do without Ellis. I saw with my eyes that he was an important part of the defense.

I am of the opinion that the 2000 Ravens did not have a dominant defense. I know I am in the minority. They had a pretty good defense and they benefited greatly with a schedule where they didn't face dominant offenses. They faced very few good offenses that season. I just don't think they would have shut down the Bills, 49ers or Cowboys of the early 90s. The Dallas team that faced them in 2000 was a mere shadow of those early 90s teams.

Plus a dominant defense to me isn't just a one year wonder. It carries the team for longer than that. The Steel Curtain and Doomsday kept their franchises in the hunt for the Superbowl for many years.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I think some peoples expectations for this Defense is a bit misplaced. This is a very good Defense.. but people that Hate Zimmer would never admit that. If we were getting 20 sacks a game but giving up 1 long pass,, they would be all over him for playing to aggressive.. The facts are that Zimmer has had a top D ever since he has been here. I know some of you guys live and die by the sack total, so you are never going to be happy with a READ defense. But it works.. and our D has had us in every game we have played this year,, including the games where the O threw the games away.

Anyone that thinks our D is no good, basically just has an agenda against Zimmer and therefore, not worth listening to.

 

[ravidubey]

You don't have to rely on stats to see the good things this defense can do. Now I will wait to see what they do without Ellis. I saw with my eyes that he was an important part of the defense.

I agree. Stats do not tell the story and at the same time I can see this defense's potential to improve. That they can cover at all without generating a pass rush is remarkable and speaks to the talent of the corners. We can also stop the run fairly consistently which helps make opponents one-dimensional and can force mistakes.

I am of the opinion that the 2000 Ravens did not have a dominant defense. I know I am in the minority. They had a pretty good defense and they benefited greatly with a schedule where they didn't face dominant offenses. They faced very few good offenses that season. I just don't think they would have shut down the Bills, 49ers or Cowboys of the early 90s. The Dallas team that faced them in 2000 was a mere shadow of those early 90s teams.

Plus a dominant defense to me isn't just a one year wonder. It carries the team for longer than that. The Steel Curtain and Doomsday kept their franchises in the hunt for the Superbowl for many years.

You might be right about their not facing dominant offenses, but by the end of the year they were shocking teams because they were playing with such intensity on defense. They could stop WCO's like the Raiders or standard offenses like the Giants.

They were not one-year wonders either as they've continued their tradition for the first half of this decade. At times they have flashed that same dominant streak they showed in the 2000/2001 playoffs and have carried their offense for years.

 

[dbair1967]

but they dont give up many scores. we have one of the best red zone defneses in the league dood. you are going to lose this argument.

eexcept that we DO need to sack the QB more. but that doesnt mean the defense isnt really good.

it would just be completely dominant in every way if we did sack the QB.

but they do give up the scores when we play the better teams though, at least to-date...the defense played poorly vs Jax, Philly, NYG and in the 2nd Washington game...

David

 

[dbair1967]

What can I say, I like this defense... oh, I'd like to see a few more sacks too, but I think it's entirely possible for a team to have a Super Bowl caliber defense and not have a particularly ferocious rush...

...

you can like it all you want, but you have failed to show anyone how this has been a "good" defense...its been ok to good against the really bad teams we've played, but its been poor to mediocre when we've faced good teams...the main reason its been poor is due to the fact that they cant rush the passer worth a lick, leaving QB's way too much time to make big plays downfield

they havent played a good game yet vs a good team...we'll be facing some good offensive teams in coming weeks, we'll see how they fare...so far I think its obvious they just arnt very good, and IMO (and the opinion of many) they arnt good because of the coaching

David

 

[dbair1967]

I think some peoples expectations for this Defense is a bit misplaced. This is a very good Defense.. but people that Hate Zimmer would never admit that. If we were getting 20 sacks a game but giving up 1 long pass,, they would be all over him for playing to aggressive.. The facts are that Zimmer has had a top D ever since he has been here. I know some of you guys live and die by the sack total, so you are never going to be happy with a READ defense. But it works.. and our D has had us in every game we have played this year,, including the games where the O threw the games away.

Anyone that thinks our D is no good, basically just has an agenda against Zimmer and therefore, not worth listening to.

spoken like a true spin doctor

I dont like Zimmer or his defense because its too passive...there are too many holes in the soft zones, and we compound the problem by never getting any sort of real rush on the QB...sacks arnt everything, the 93 Championship team we had managed only 30 sacks for the season, but they had a good pass rush that altered plays...this defense doesnt do that...we rarely knock a QB down, and thats my issue with them

David