Zim has to go

[BeWare94]

With all the talent we have on Defense, and having scored the second most td's in the NFL, I am ready to blame Zim. When is he going to maximize some talent, get a pass rush and confuse someone with a blitz. I can tell you where every blitz is coming from. And the way we make some OLines we look, so do they. We dont loop and spin enough on the D line and we don't bring Roy enough.

We are bigger than most Olines on the D side and we get no push?????

We need to move Ware and Canty around some also. They can rush from many angles I believe. I am excited about Carp if he gets the nod. This guy could really get after the QB in college, but Zim will ruin him also.

How about we send someone else up the middle to help Ferguson collapse the pocket so that just one quarterback this fall won't be able to step up and f------ kill us?

 

[LD Fan]

By the way, this defense has been pretty damn good sans a few big plays given up. Look at the numbers, and look at the perfomances.

If the dog hadn't stopped to $hit he would have caught the rabbit and if Bledsoe hadn't been sacked so much we would have 2 more wins. You can't selectively take out the bad and only leave the good. The defense is decent, not great, hasn't created any consistent pressure, has been penalized too much and has given up to many big plays.

 

[LD Fan]

zimmer should be jumping in the game and batting down balls!


zimmer isnt our problem, mental mistakes by our players resulting in penaltys are.

Consistent mental mistakes results from poor preparation and that can be directly attributed to coaches.

 

[gimmesix]

Parcells has said he doesn't like to blitz. Parcells has said he likes to just line up his guys and let them beat your guys. As the stats attest, Parcells would prefer to play it safe on defense rather than gamble and get burned ... and has shown a strong detest for when we gamble and get burned.

If our guys are not beating their guys, if we are not constantly blitzing, if we play a fairly vanilla defense, I fail to see how that is Zimmer's fault. He is following marching orders ... and those marching orders work fine when the players execute their assignments.

 

[AdamJT13]

Every defense is going to get beat, but I'll take the Ravens over just about anyone-- the {expletive} with stats, but if you must have them then how about 18 interceptions, 25 sacks (including an 8 sack player), and 7 forced fumbles caused by savvy, veteran players? Guys who have done it year in and year out like Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister, and Ray Lewis.

If that was our defense, the same Zimmer critics would be complaining left and right. That defense started off great, but they've been shredded the past five weeks and against good teams -- they collapsed in the fourth quarter against Denver, allowing 10 straight points with the game on the line; they gave up 23 points and 414 yards against Carolina and couldn't keep Steve Smith from burning them for a 72-yard touchdown with the game on the line in the fourth quarter; they gave up 22 points and 403 yards against the Saints and couldn't stop Marques Colston from burning them for two touchdowns in the fourth quarter; they gave up 20 points to Cincinnati, including 10 in the fourth quarter with the game on the line; and they gave up 24 points and 367 yards to a pathetic Titans offense. In those four games, they had only seven sacks, never had more than two in any game and haven't been able to get sacks in critical situations.

Yeah, GROZ would be really happy with that kind of performance from our defense.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I have a question.

Is it Zimmer or is it BP controling Zimmer?

 

[BigDFan5]

And yet, the Cowboys are tied for second for FEWEST TD passes allowed, with 7...

They're also tied for 4th in MOST takeaways, with 19...

How very strange, for a team that can't "create turnovers, or defend the deep pass worth a crap"...

For the record, the Cowboys are also 6th in the league in completion percentage allowed, at 56.0 per cent... they're tied for 7th for most interceptions, with 10...

They rank 7th in yards per play allowed, at 4.8... they're 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 YPC...

Looks to me like some of y'all have ridiculously high standards... the only major defensive category I can find where the Boys don't rank in the top 10 is 3rd down conversion percentage, where they rank 14th, at 35.4 per cent... and I would like to see them tighten up their scoring defense, they only rank 9th, at 19.3 points per game...

No, they don't generate a lot of sacks, but they still play pretty fair defense...

And of course, it's the defense's fault that Parcells went for 2 early in the game against the Skins, then got a FG attempt blocked that cost them the game... they caused Bledsoe to throw 3 critical ints against the Jags, and again against the Iggles (5 total turnovers in that game, 1 returned for a TD)... they were responsible for Romo and Bledsoe accounting for 4 ints against the Giants... they gave up the safety on Bledsoe, and the 96 yard interception return for a TD in that game, too...

In 3 of the 4 losses, the Cowboys have committed 12 freakin' turnovers, leading DIRECTLY to 16 points (2 int returns for TDs and a safety)... compare this to 7 turnovers in their other 6 games... the other game, they dominated and should have won, but for a braindead coaching decision followed by a breakdown on special teams at the end of the game...

But you blame it all on the defense?? Don't be ridiculous, in 3 of those 4 losses they held the opponents under their season's average for total offense per game, in the 4th they came REAL close to the opponent's season average:

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...

Clearly, the biggest reason the Cowboys lost 3 of those 4 games was turnovers, not anything that the defense can be blamed for...

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...



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...

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.

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...

And Dallas is 9th in pass defense out of 32 teams. Sacks are not the sole indicator of defense it is a glamor stat but not a sole indicator of defensive play.

Against those four teams, we've allowed 305.5 yards per game, which would be good for No. 9 in the league. We've forced 2.0 turnovers per game, which would be good for No. 4 in the league. And we've had nine sacks in 124 pass attempts, which would be No. 17 in the league. Our run defense (90.25 ypg) would be No. 6 in the league. So really, the stats aren't much different against good teams -- we're still a top-10 defense in most stats and average at sacking the quarterback. (Never mind that most highly ranked defenses fatten up on weaklings and post "average" stats against good teams.)

Our defense has allowed 24.0 points per game against those teams, but when you look at it, the OFFENSE is the reason it's that much. Against good teams, our offense has turned the ball over inside our territory, leading to easy points. The Jags scored 14 of their 24 points after two interceptions gave them the ball inside our 40. The Eagles scored 10 of their 31 after back-to-back fumbles gave them the ball inside our 14. The Giants scored 10 of their 17 after two interceptions gave them the ball inside our territory, including once inside our 14. Carolina scored seven of their 14 points after an interception gave them the ball at our 24. And none of that includes the safety allowed by our offense or the TWO interceptions returned for touchdowns in those games.

Here's a question -- which defense this season would you like to see us emulate on the field and in the stats?

More fun.....rank in sacks given up by teams we've faced -

4. Washington
5. Tennessee
7. Jacksonville
12. Carolina
13. NY Giants
16. Philadelphia
21. Houston
24. Arizona

Average rank - 12th. Only two teams in the lower half of the league in sacks.

The San Diego defense? Which all GROZ humpers aspire to? They've faced St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincy, Oakland, and Pittsburgh. None of those teams are ranked higher than 23rd. The only teams ranked in the top half of the rankings that they've faced are Baltimore and Tennessee. Against those teams, they have an entire 2 sacks - both against Baltimore, the lower ranked of the teams.

Some defensive genius is sure running that team.

OTOH, we have done this against offenses in the top half of the league in giving up sacks.

4. Washington - 7 sacks (in washington's other 7 games, they've surrendered only 5)
5. Tennessee - 0 sacks
7. Jacksonville - 1 sack
12. Carolina - 3 sacks
13. NY Giants - 2 sacks
16. Philadelphia - 3 sacks

That's 16 sacks against the 7 teams we've played in the top half of the league. We are not afttening up on creampuff teams. That's an average of over 2 sacks per game, all against teams that give up less than that per game.

Dallas ranks 4th in take aways no matter how you spin it. I agree we need to do better at getting sacks but sacks are not the tell all about any defense.

If this dallas defense is a qbs dream then why is it GROZ members that we're ranked 5th overall in lowest qb rating?

Dominate defenses chicago and baltimore have 23 and 25 sacks respectively, we have 19. Behind chicago by 4 and baltimore by 6...

i dont see a huge difference... thats less than half a sack a game behind chicago...

And Baltimore has given up more yards in the air, and more touchdowns.

Green Bay has 31 sacks, and are giving up nearly 90 qb rating...

I knew you'd post a response; it was too tempting .


I'd love to see us emulate the Ravens defense on the field and could care less about the stats. How's that?

So you'd want our defense to get shredded by both the Titans and Panthers and go 1-1 instead of shutting both of them down and going 2-0?

We held those teams to a combined 28 points and a combined 433 yards, and we had a combined five sacks and six turnovers in those games.

The Ravens' defense allowed a combined 47 points and 781 yards, and they had a combined three sacks and four turnovers.

Every defense is going to get beat, but I'll take the Ravens over just about anyone-- the Hell with stats, but if you must have them then how about 18 interceptions, 25 sacks (including an 8 sack player), and 7 forced fumbles caused by savvy, veteran players? Guys who have done it year in and year out like Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister, and Ray Lewis.

It's not just that they get turnovers, but also when. Against the Saints Colsten burned McAlister for a 53 yard bomb, but Lewis and McAlister rose to the occasion and picked off an endzone pass on the same drive. This and other turnovers greatly helped their offense which was outmatched by the Saints defense.

I'm not slamming our team, no way-- we've had our own success, but they just haven't proven as stout as the Ravens have proven themselves to be, regardless of whatever stats can be dredged up. I know that sounds frustrating, but stats just can't accurately measure how good players are. If the Ravens had our offense, they might go undefeated the rest of the year.

So now I'll ask you, do you really believe our defense-- right now-- is better than Baltimore's?

If that was our defense, the same Zimmer critics would be complaining left and right. That defense started off great, but they've been shredded the past five weeks and against good teams -- they collapsed in the fourth quarter against Denver, allowing 10 straight points with the game on the line; they gave up 23 points and 414 yards against Carolina and couldn't keep Steve Smith from burning them for a 72-yard touchdown with the game on the line in the fourth quarter; they gave up 22 points and 403 yards against the Saints and couldn't stop Marques Colston from burning them for two touchdowns in the fourth quarter; they gave up 20 points to Cincinnati, including 10 in the fourth quarter with the game on the line; and they gave up 24 points and 367 yards to a pathetic Titans offense. In those four games, they had only seven sacks, never had more than two in any game and haven't been able to get sacks in critical situations.

Yeah, GROZ would be really happy with that kind of performance from our defense.

Ok frame this post and sticky it. The Groz movement should end right about here.

 

[silverbear]

When you have to run to the stat book instead of relying on your eyes, you know you're in trouble.

How very condescending of you... guess it hasn't occurred to you that I went to the stat book to CONFIRM what my eyes were telling me...

 

[bbgun]

How very condescending of you... guess it hasn't occurred to you that I went to the stat book to CONFIRM what my eyes were telling me...

No, you see what you want to see.

 

[silverbear]

you can like it all you want, but you have failed to show anyone how this has been a "good" defense...

Actually, I have done exactly that, and at some length... but for some reason, you haven't seen fit to attempt to rebut any of the statistical facts I offered...

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...

WOW, the Cowboys haven't done as good against good offenses as they have against bad ones... never mind that they've held those good offenses to numbers at or below their season averages...

Of course good offenses are gonna put up better numbers on ANY defense than bad offenses will...

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

Kinda hard to get sacks when your opponents rely heavily on 3 step drops game after game after game...

so far I think its obvious they just arnt very good,

And I think it's ridiculous to say that, given their statistical ranking this late in the season... I think it's quite possible that your standards for what constitutes a good defense in this day and age are on the unreasonable side...

 

[random Cs]

If you start edge rushing your DE's more, then you'll open up more gaps and have more trouble stopping the run.

Watch the Colts defense this sunday.

 

[silverbear]

Laugh if you want, but we aren't even getting close to knocking him down and that's what wins games in the NFL.

The past six Super Bowl participants have recorded between 40 and 50 sacks for the season (Seattle last year had 50 sacks)... the Cowboys are currently on pace for 34 sacks...

 

[silverbear]

superpunk

silverbear

Adam

you guys just owned this thread

I'm in unusually good company this time around, then...

 

[silverbear]

No, you see what you want to see.

I'd say you're the one guilty of that... what I saw was a team that gets beat when they commit stupid mistakes, and doesn't when they keep the stupid mistakes at a minimum... the thing is, most of the stupid mistakes can't be blamed on the defense-- unless you blame the defense for 100 yard kickoff return, or a safety when Bledsoe got sacked in the end zone, or 2 different lengthy (96 and 102 yards lengthy) interception returns for TDs, or any number of turnovers deep in our own end of the field...

I didn't "want" to see ANY of that, but I did... and I can't quite figure out how to blame ANY of it on the defense...

As for the relative lack of a pass rush, I'll say again that stems from the number of 3 step drops opponents are using against us... it's hard for ANY team to sack the quarterback too often when the opponents don't drop back deep in the pocket too often; those 3 step drops are designed to get the ball out in about 2 seconds, much too quickly to hope that the rush can get there...

 

[bbgun]

As for the relative lack of a pass rush, I'll say again that stems from the number of 3 step drops opponents are using against us... it's hard for ANY team to sack the quarterback too often when the opponents don't drop back deep in the pocket too often; those 3 step drops are designed to get the ball out in about 2 seconds, much too quickly to hope that the rush can get there...

Oh no! Not the dreaded three-step drop! Why, it's like kryptonite to us! How will we ever solve this riddle?? BTW, if it's so effective/popular, then there's no reason why Romo should be sacked the rest of the year, right? Or maybe he's a four-step kinda guy.

excuses, excuses

 

[silverbear]

Oh no! Not the dreaded three-step drop! Why, it's like kryptonite to us! How will we ever solve this riddle?? BTW, if it's so effective/popular, then there's no reason why Romo should be sacked the rest of the year, right? Or maybe he's a four-step kinda guy.

excuses, excuses

Responses like that tell me you really don't know a whole lot about football...

Which I was already inclined to believe... LOL...

3 step drops are designed to get the ball off to the intended receiver quickly, so as to minimize the exposure of the quarterback in the pocket... they are used extensively by teams that fear the other team's pass rush, or their own (in)ability to protect their QB... it makes for a short passing offense, much like we've seen from the Skins this year under Mark Brunell...

As for Romo never being sacked again the rest of the season, the Boys don't really use the 3 step drop as much as other teams, particularly not with Romo in the lineup... they seem to be looking downfield (at least, mid-range downfield) more than most teams do, which requires more 5 and 7 step drops...

 

[Billy Bullocks]

If the dog hadn't stopped to $hit he would have caught the rabbit and if Bledsoe hadn't been sacked so much we would have 2 more wins. You can't selectively take out the bad and only leave the good. The defense is decent, not great, hasn't created any consistent pressure, has been penalized too much and has given up to many big plays.

I think I clearly stated exactly what you just phrased in a paragraph in one sentence. They have been good minus a few big plays. You can fault them for probably 1 or 2 games, at the most. Otherwise it's been other factors.

 

[cowboyed]

Plain truth from the gridiron, men.

Where do I begin?
Why blame Zim for blown assignments? As Parcells has found out, you can train your team but you cant prevent the on-field blunders by the entire team.

Not enough blitz? Have you ever asked yourself why? Maybe because that under Parcells' scheme, the front 3 or even more defend against the run primarily and the linebackers do a prevent and lateral coverage on most defensive plays.
That means less of an effort to blitz, or, in plain parlance, to get to the QB.
The scheme is actually doing well, No. 4 in the NFL against the run, last I heard.
The achilles heel has been a secondary that has an infusion of new faces and an out of sync Woodson who in some plays has covered the WR when he should be -- yes -- blitzing or just lying in wait and then hitting. Hard.
And as pointed out in this Forum, our linebackers job is not to blitz under the parcells scheme.
Zim is trying to fit the pieces of a very talented young corps of players into the 4-3 (or is it 3-4?), players who are still maturing. Now with Ellis out, that minimizes further our weapons. So replacing him will not be a blitzing linebacker or roaming back.
heck. Zim MUST STAY.
Zim has consistently cobbled together credible defenses, good ones.
He's not the one dropping passes, causing penalties and missing assignments.
With one of those close games back, everyone would be praising Zim for the good job. Now they want to pile on.
Too bad.
:starspin :starspin :starspin

You still have some serious man love for Woodson, don't you? I believe you were trying to state Roy Williams, were you not? I don't blame you for having a Freudian unconscious desire for Woodson.

 

[superpunk]

If that was our defense, the same Zimmer critics would be complaining left and right. That defense started off great, but they've been shredded the past five weeks and against good teams -- they collapsed in the fourth quarter against Denver, allowing 10 straight points with the game on the line; they gave up 23 points and 414 yards against Carolina and couldn't keep Steve Smith from burning them for a 72-yard touchdown with the game on the line in the fourth quarter; they gave up 22 points and 403 yards against the Saints and couldn't stop Marques Colston from burning them for two touchdowns in the fourth quarter; they gave up 20 points to Cincinnati, including 10 in the fourth quarter with the game on the line; and they gave up 24 points and 367 yards to a pathetic Titans offense. In those four games, they had only seven sacks, never had more than two in any game and haven't been able to get sacks in critical situations.

Yeah, GROZ would be really happy with that kind of performance from our defense.

But.....but.....Ray Lewis dances....

 

[dbair1967]

Responses like that tell me you really don't know a whole lot about football...

Which I was already inclined to believe... LOL...

3 step drops are designed to get the ball off to the intended receiver quickly, so as to minimize the exposure of the quarterback in the pocket... they are used extensively by teams that fear the other team's pass rush, or their own (in)ability to protect their QB... it makes for a short passing offense, much like we've seen from the Skins this year under Mark Brunell...

As for Romo never being sacked again the rest of the season, the Boys don't really use the 3 step drop as much as other teams, particularly not with Romo in the lineup... they seem to be looking downfield (at least, mid-range downfield) more than most teams do, which requires more 5 and 7 step drops...

teams using 3 step drops are not why we arnt getting sacks...there might be a few examples of that, but even when teams use deep drops we get nowhere near the QB

David