Archer: Best case/worst case

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Best case/worst case: Dez Bryant

July, 10, 2014

By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com


IRVING, Texas – In order to break out of their 8-8 doldrums, the Dallas Cowboys will need a lot to go right in 2014.

This week we take a best-case, worst-case look at five offensive and defensive players who will go a long way in shaping the Cowboys’ season.

Dez Bryant

Best case: The numbers flow

As offensive coordinator with the Detroit Lions, Scott Linehan saw Calvin Johnson dominate the league. Heck, the Cowboys saw it last year when he put up 329 yards against their secondary. Johnson is a physical freak, almost impossible to defend. Now Linehan gets to work with Bryant as the receiver enters what should be the prime of his career. In his last two seasons, Bryant has caught 185 passes for 2,615 yards and 25 touchdowns. He is the first Cowboys’ wide receiver with back-to-back 90-catch seasons. Bryant is now the leader of the wide receiver room with Miles Austin gone. He has room to grow. He has to work on not getting frustrated when the ball doesn’t come his way. There are finer points to his route running he needs to improve. But he can do things on the field that only a select few receivers can do. Johnson is one of them. In four of his five seasons with Linehan, Johnson had at least 1,100 yards receiving and 77 catches. He topped out at 122 catches for 1,964 yards in 2012. Bryant will have a hard time putting up numbers like that with Jason Wittenon the field with him, but another 90-catch, 1,200-yard, 10-touchdown season should be considered a lock.

Worst case: Health and money

This can be a worst-case scenario for everybody on the Cowboys' roster, but Bryant has been troubled by back spasms of varying levels the last few seasons. They haven’t cost him games, but they have cost him time in games and time on the practice field. There has to be some kind of concern about the back when the Cowboys consider Bryant’s contractual future. A 25-year-old with back issues doesn’t become a 28-year-old without them. It is something that will have to be monitored. And that brings in the contract talks to this scenario. Can Bryant make sure the talk doesn’t become a distraction if something doesn’t get done before the season? Players have only one (maybe two) shots to cash in in a career. This is Bryant’s chance. He will need the numbers he has put up over the past two seasons to justify the big money from the Cowboys or another team should he somehow hit the open market. Bryant has let the emotions get the best of him at times, but he has grown on and off the field. This could be his biggest test if a deal doesn’t get done.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Best case/worst case: DeMarcus Lawrence

July, 11, 2014

By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com


IRVING, Texas -- In order to break out of their 8-8 doldrums, the Dallas Cowboys will need a lot to go right in 2014.

This week we take a best-case, worst-case look at five offensive and defensive players that will go a long way in shaping the Cowboys’ season.

DeMarcus Lawrence

Best case: He is DeMarcus Ware, circa 2005


For nine years, Ware was everything the Cowboys hoped he would be. He put up 119 sacks, a franchise record. He went to the Pro Bowl seven times. But Ware needed time to grow in his rookie year in 2005. He finished his rookie year with eight sacks, with his best game coming in Week 16 when he had a three-sack effort against Carolina. The Cowboys would love to get eight sacks from Lawrence as a rookie. Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer studied the last 32 edge rushers taken in the first round and saw they averaged 3.7 sacks per season. Lawrence was a second-round draft pick (albeit two spots from the first round). He will be given a chance to play a lot as a rookie. The Cowboys made a lot of additions to their defensive line in the offseason, but Lawrence is the lone true right defensive end. That distinction was why they gave up their third-round pick to get him in a trade with the Washington Redskins. He looks the part, with long arms and decent speed. He does not possess Ware’s athleticism (few do) but he if he can get eight sacks, the Cowboys' defensive line will be better than many believe and the Cowboys will have their pass-rusher of the present and the future.

Worst case: He is chewed up by left tackles

Rookies at any position need time. Rookie pass-rushers, as we established in the best-case scenario, need time. Lawrence will be tested in training camp by going against Tyron Smithin practice, but there has to be a hope his confidence doesn’t get damaged if Smith chews him up in the summer. If he can hold his own, then maybe that will build his confidence in getting ready to go against tackles like Jason Peters, Joe Staley and Russell Okung. The Cowboys’ approach to the defensive line this offseason has been to bring a lot of numbers. Lawrence, however, can bring the most quality, especially if Henry Melton is not fully healthy. If Lawrence doesn’t work out – or needs the normal amount of time to adjust to the NFL – then the Cowboys will have to go with quantity and throw everybody at the position from Jeremy Mincey to Tyrone Crawford to Anthony Spencer, who is coming back from microfracture surgery. The Cowboys don’t need Lawrence to lead the defense in sacks in 2014, but he must contribute more than 3.7 sacks.
 

hstour

Brand New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
625
Yes, but it happened in June. I don't think it was something that was lingering.

Lookit, I didn't want to sign Hatcher back either...not for the money he was asking for.

But he was a "loss". If he played for free, we wouldn't have had to have Melton. In a way, even a gimp Hatcher now might not be any worse than Melton who is coming off a significant injury.
What I was saying was that if he had been here and hurt his knee and was unable to play, then it's no different than if he was on another team.

Even if he could play, he wouldn't be 100% so are you going to get the same production from him as last year?

It's just that writers like to think of things as static when they write their articles. NOTHING says he was going to produce at the same level as he did last year if he had stayed.

And I am with you, I wouldn't have wanted to sign him at the money he was asking for. Actually, I don't expect him to reproduce his production from last year so I am glad he went to a division (hated) rival.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
Of course Hatcher was a loss. We may have adequately replaced him, but he was a loss.
Hard to tell. Marinelli's system is designed to get the 3-technique a bunch of sacks, and Hatcher was able to fill the role last year. At his age there's no guarantee he could do it again this year or that almost anyone in this system wouldn't be just as productive.

Dallas' problems are much deeper than just replacing those sack numbers; it's the other positions that concern me.

For years Dallas has been unable to get pressure from more than just two very predictable spots. By diverting resources to the predictable Ware/Spencer or Ware/Hatcher, almost any NFL line could limit damage. QB's got sacked, but didn't often feel the pressure that caused incompletions and turnovers.

That's kind of why I'm intrigued by attacking with waves of youth. No one knows how to gameplan Dallas, and the defensive front is better insulated against injury or just one or two guys getting taken out. So I don't care if the starting 3-technique and RDE don't get 11 and 6 sacks this year as long as everyone gets involved with attacking the passer. IMO better to get 3-4 sacks from many contributors and if Melton and Lawrence emerge it's a bonus.

I'll take a competent, young team any day over a bunch of hangers on and two stars.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Hard to tell. Marinelli's system is designed to get the 3-technique a bunch of sacks, and Hatcher was able to fill the role last year. At his age there's no guarantee he could do it again this year or that almost anyone in this system wouldn't be just as productive.

Dallas' problems are much deeper than just replacing those sack numbers; it's the other positions that concern me.

For years Dallas has been unable to get pressure from more than just two very predictable spots. By diverting resources to the predictable Ware/Spencer or Ware/Hatcher, almost any NFL line could limit damage. QB's got sacked, but didn't often feel the pressure that caused incompletions and turnovers.

That's kind of why I'm intrigued by attacking with waves of youth. No one knows how to gameplan Dallas, and the defensive front is better insulated against injury or just one or two guys getting taken out. So I don't care if the starting 3-technique and RDE don't get 11 and 6 sacks this year as long as everyone gets involved with attacking the passer. IMO better to get 3-4 sacks from many contributors and if Melton and Lawrence emerge it's a bonus.

I'll take a competent, young team any day over a bunch of hangers on and two stars.
Sacks are good but consistent pressure is more important. Just keeping an opponent from completing passes due to pressure will go a long way.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Sacks are good but consistent pressure is more important. Just keeping an opponent from completing passes due to pressure will go a long way.
Sacks either put teams in a terrible position to continue the drive (extra long yardage) or end the drive on 3rd down. The more drives you kill in this game the better your scoring defense will be. If you don't make sacks you can't get in the QB's head, you can't get in the OC's head and make him shorten drops and limit his game plan. I've also seen too many QBs pressured by the Dallas front seven only to have the backfield give up the play.

Also, with this organization, who can trust their numbers saying the defense had a lot of pressures. They are going to inflate that stat and hand it to Spagnola so he can be condescending to people who say the pass rush was bad.

If the team doesn't manufacture at least 40 sacks, the pass rush isn't good enough.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
If the team doesn't manufacture at least 40 sacks, the pass rush isn't good enough.
The teams of the 90's were pedestrian by that standard with 36, 23, 44*, 34*, 47, and 36* sacks from 1990-1995 (*Superbowl). They were young, though, and got after the passer well enough to contain the other team.

Despite all the 1990's Cowboys' talent even the worst team could beat them when the offense went unbalanced. 4-12 Washington beat Dallas to start 1993 with Emmitt holding out and Aikman attempting too many passes. The pitiful Falcons also beat Dallas that year with Aikman out and Emmitt bruising his thigh on the first play.

Balance will matter for Dallas far more than pass rush again in 2014. We'll win half the games Romo plays lights out and Murray stalls and almost every game Murray dominates.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
The teams of the 90's were pedestrian by that standard with 36, 23, 44*, 34*, 47, and 36* sacks from 1990-1995 (*Superbowl). They were young, though, and got after the passer well enough to contain the other team.

Despite all the 1990's Cowboys' talent even the worst team could beat them when the offense went unbalanced. 4-12 Washington beat Dallas to start 1993 with Emmitt holding out and Aikman attempting too many passes. The pitiful Falcons also beat Dallas that year with Aikman out and Emmitt bruising his thigh on the first play.

Balance will matter for Dallas far more than pass rush again in 2014. We'll win half the games Romo plays lights out and Murray stalls and almost every game Murray dominates.
Teams didn't pass as much even in the 90s as they do now. Back then, stopping the run first was still the key. You're going to get more sacks now with a good pass rush when the opposing team drops back to pass more often.

We're not the only pass-happy team in the league, by far. Really, the game has changed drastically even in the last 10 years. There's only one star running back in the game of football right now and he may be the last one ever. Your success is going to be determined by how you defend the opposing QB and that's going to take putting the opposing QB on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom