So What Are Your Expectations Now....

vince said:

Hey if the Giants did it, anyone can do it. I'm predicting 12-4, SB contenders.

Click to expand...

Yea, but both times they did it, they had a monster pass rush - something that we lack.

Texas Ace said:

Yea, but both times they did it, they had a monster pass rush - something that we lack.

Click to expand...

I still want a pass rush, but it seems like the days of having to have premier pass rushers to win is not quite what it used to be. So many short, quick passes now, that often times the pass rush does not come into play. It certainly helps to have a pass rush, but the top 2 teams in the league in terms of sacks are Buffalo and Jax...so it is not a precursor to success.

I expect a catastrophic event to throw us back in time and finish 5-11.

If they end up 12-4 or better: SB.
11-5 or worse: one and done.

Carp said:

I still want a pass rush, but it seems like the days of having to have premier pass rushers to win is not quite what it used to be. So many short, quick passes now, that often times the pass rush does not come into play. It certainly helps to have a pass rush, but the top 2 teams in the league in terms of sacks are Buffalo and Jax...so it is not a precursor to success.

Click to expand...

Read an article today that sums up that exact thought:

An overview of Dallas's pass rush and why the lack of sacks isn't that big of a worry.


In a recent article OCC noted that, on average, an NFL QB gets rid of the ball in 2.7 seconds. Remember that number, we're going to use it later on to explain our lack of pressure in the Giants game.

But first, let's use it to show why sacks, in and of themselves, are a bad indicator of pressure. The truth is, sacks are somewhat fluky and rely on a lot of outside variables. A good example occurred in our recent game against the Texans, where J.J. Watt beat Tyron Smith off the line and seemed to have an easy sack of Tony Romo, only for Romo to do his magic and escape. Any other QB and that's almost a sure sack. Watt did everything right, and he got pressure on the QB, but it won't show up in the stat sheet as a sack. We saw other examples in Sunday's game against the Giants where Eli Manning was wrapped up and going down, but managed to throw the ball away. Pressure was there, but no sack.




But going back to that 2.7 number. Picture this: Jeremy Mincey beats his man off the snap, and has a free run to the QB, but the play is a WR screen and the ball is released in one second. No sack, and probably no pressure at all. On the other hand, if the offense has called a play where all the receivers are running verticals, Mincey can make the same play and it would probably result in a sack or hit. Exact same play by the defense, completely different outcome depending on the offensive play call. Now I'm not saying that sacks aren't important, just that getting them is not necessarily a good indicator of how well the defense is playing.

So if sacks aren't a good indicator of pressure, what is? As OCC pointed out, the Cowboys coaching staff tracks three main plays; hits, hurries, and sacks to track pressure. I call this total disruptions and here is how the Cowboys have looked so far this season:





A few things stand out: Seattle was our best game of the season by far, but the very next game against the Giants was our worst since opening week.

Now those numbers don't tell us anything in a vacuum so let's look at another team. Below are the rankings for the Houston Texans, home of MVP candidate and quarterback killer J.J. Watt:



So a quick glance at the numbers tells us a few things. Houston has 25 more total disruptions than we do, or about 3.5 per game. We're getting a similar amount of hurries, but they are getting home more often, racking up a lot more hits and sacks. A lot of that can be attributed to having the best defensive lineman in the game playing for you; anyone else think Watt is worth 3.5 more pressure plays than the combination of Selvie and Spencer?

So why did I pick Houston to compare to? A few reasons. Looking at PFF team grades for pressure, Houston has the fourth-highest pass rush grade. Guess whose number five? The Dallas Cowboys. I also like pointing out that Houston's second-worst pressure game came against Dallas. Most importantly though, is the fact that both Houston and Dallas had their worst pressure game against Eli Manning and the Giants.

The Giants Game And How Playcalling Affects Pressure

Eli Manning had the ball in his hand for 85 seconds on pass plays against Dallas. 85 seconds. Not quite a minute and a half of real time; that's how long our defense had throughout the game to hit Eli Manning. The Giants threw the ball 36 times, meaning that in general the ball left Eli's hand in 2.36 seconds.

Remember that number from earlier? If not, don't worry, it was 2.7. That is the average time it takes for a quarterback to throw the ball. That's one reason the Cowboys had so little pressure on the Giants; they obviously came into the game with a plan to get rid of the ball quickly. After their seven-sack debacle against the Eagles, who can blame them? But in reality, that Eagles game was an aberration, as shown by Houston's game against the Giants. This offseason New York moved to a West Coast system, predicated on high completion percentages and getting the ball out quickly. The result of that? Fewer pressures on your quarterback.

There was more to Dallas's lack of pressure however. When Eli did throw he was in the shotgun or ran a play-fake on nearly every play. The Giants were running bootlegs, moving Eli in the pocket, and generally doing everything they could to disrupt Dallas's pass rush.

How Dallas's Pass Rush Works

One reason a lot of people are down on Dallas's pass rush is that it's not being done in the traditional way. We rely a lot on our back seven to pressure the quarterback. Take a glance at the following table:

Pressure From Back Seven


I'm not sure how this compares to the rest of the league, but I know that for Rod Marinelli this is a lot of pressure coming off the back end. Looking at the table a trend emerges; after the New Orleans game both the quantity and the quality of rushes from the back seven drops. Not coincidentally this is when the Cowboys lost Bruce Carter to injury.

Bruce Carter: Defensive Lynchpin

I wrote before the season that Carter should be an impact player, able to cover, tackle sideline to sideline, and rush the passer. We're missing that versatility right now. Having Carter in the lineup gave the defense much more flexibility, as he could rush, cover, and play the run effectively. Rolando McClain is showing similar traits, but unfortunately none of our other linebackers are. If we decide to blitz a secondary player or McClain, that is putting a lot of stress on the remaining linebacker in coverage; one reason I think we have effectively replaced Anthony Hitchens with Kyle Wilber. With Carter in the lineup, the coaches felt secure in sending that extra rusher, knowing that between Carter and McClain there was enough speed and ability on the field to pick up the slack.



Back 7 Rush Production Per Game

What It All Means:

There are a few takeaways from all this. First and foremost, while sacks are important, and the best form of pressure, they are not a good stat for actually describing how well the defense is applying pressure. Secondly, the Giants game is probably an outlier in regards to the season. We were up against an opponent who plays a style of offense conducive to not getting sacked, coming off an embarrassing loss, whose entire gameplan appeared to be geared towards not allowing any sacks.

Most importantly however, this tells us a little about the Cowboys. Right now we are doing a good job of applying pressure, but are not getting the best kind of pressure (sacks). A lot of our pressure is coming off of smoke and mirrors, roughly 25% of our total disruptions have come from the back seven. And right now we're struggling because of the loss of Bruce Carter, who schematically makes a lot of our pressure packages possible.

I think people underrate sacks in a rush to appear football-savvy. It's the chic thing to say "sacks are overrated". Nope, they are not. OC's don't like seeing their QB on the ground and if you are getting a lot of sacks, opposing offenses will call fewer deep passing plays. Forcing them to shorten their passing game will result in more throws into traffic and more chances at INTs.

Clay_Allison said:

I think people underrate sacks in a rush to appear football-savvy. It's the chic thing to say "sacks are overrated". Nope, they are not. OC's don't like seeing their QB on the ground and if you are getting a lot of sacks, opposing offenses will call fewer deep passing plays. Forcing them to shorten their passing game will result in more throws into traffic and more chances at INTs.

Click to expand...

It is very simple...if teams run bubble screens and quick passes it is pretty much physically impossible to sack the QB. That is the truth, not a guy trying to be football savvy.

OC's don't like to see their QB on the ground? Wow...cutting edge stuff there.

Clay_Allison said:

I think people underrate sacks in a rush to appear football-savvy. It's the chic thing to say "sacks are overrated". Nope, they are not. OC's don't like seeing their QB on the ground and if you are getting a lot of sacks, opposing offenses will call fewer deep passing plays. Forcing them to shorten their passing game will result in more throws into traffic and more chances at INTs.

Click to expand...

True.

But I also think basing a team or individuals performance on the number of sacks gained is pretty pointless and not an accurate assessment of their play.

DeMarcus Ware got 15+ sacks every year, but do/did those sacks mean more than a QB pressure by Spencer which resulted in a rushed throw and an unsuccessful play?

In my opinion, no. Unless you want to base judgement on the loss of yardage that a sack produces.

Take the Seattle game.. How many sacks did we get? 1 or 2? But we applied constant pressure to Wilson. He looked uncomfortable all day, and made many bad throws because of it.

Sacks are great, yes. But pressure will force a team to shorten their passing game just as much as any sack.

If the new Triplets remain healthy, 13-3 and win the NFC East with a first round bye.

From there it comes down to the draw.

They are 3-1 to get to the Superbowl unless they are unlucky enough to face both Green Bay and Detroit with healthy Megatron in the perfect passing conditions that are ATT Stadium.

They have an even shot at beating Indy, Baltimore, San Diego, or Denver in the Superbowl.

Spitballing odds of Romo, Dez, and Murray staying healthy = 65%

65% * 75% * 50% == 24.375% chance of being Superbowl champs (16.25% if they face BOTH GB and Detroit).

Clay_Allison said:

I think people underrate sacks in a rush to appear football-savvy. It's the chic thing to say "sacks are overrated". Nope, they are not. OC's don't like seeing their QB on the ground and if you are getting a lot of sacks, opposing offenses will call fewer deep passing plays. Forcing them to shorten their passing game will result in more throws into traffic and more chances at INTs.

Click to expand...

I think it is just the opposite. I think people under-rate hurries and hits. Everyone know the sack is loss of down and yards. It also has the potential for a fumble due to the way the QB is holding the ball.

But if you want to get to Brady or Brees, just get in their face and hit them a few times. It makes the "clock in their head" run a little bit faster. They tend to get off their rhythm and start taking the quick throws.

hstour said:

I think it is just the opposite. I think people under-rate hurries and hits. Everyone know the sack is loss of down and yards. It also has the potential for a fumble due to the way the QB is holding the ball.

But if you want to get to Brady or Brees, just get in their face and hit them a few times. It makes the "clock in their head" run a little bit faster. They tend to get off their rhythm and start taking the quick throws.

Click to expand...

Don't forget passes defended. They also affect accuracy. QB's must work harder to be more accurate throwing towards coverage that has consistently deflected the ball or they may just not throw. They also lose accuracy when anticipating/ or throwing around DL who swat the ball away. Some deflected passes can result in interceptions.

Pass defended == cumulative disruption of accuracy + 100% chance of blown play + chance of interception.

Pressure == cumulative disruption of accuracy + increased chance for a blown play + increased chance for an interception.

Hits == Pressure + increased cumulative disruption of accuracy + injuries can affect performance

Sacks == Pressure + Hit + loss of yardage + 100% chance of blown play + chance of fumble + loss of clock - chance of interception.

All of the above are very important, but sacks > hits > pressures.

If the DL isn't swatting at passes and coverage isn't tight, then it becomes pitch and catch on downs where pressure fails.

The difference in a sack and disruptive hurry with a second and six situation can be a third and six or a third and twelve. Yes sacks are important.

I began the season thinking along the lines of somewhere from 6-10 to 8-8. Now I feel that wort case is 10-6.
That might be wild card territory, but I expect at a minimum 1 playoff victory. I am tempering all my hopes because
Im still skeptical. I've been conditioned to expect injury.

L.T. Fan said:

The difference in a sack and disruptive hurry with a second and six situation can be a third and six or a third and twelve. Yes sacks are important.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a question of if sacks are valuable. However weighing just how important they are is really the question. Whats the difference between a team getting 0 sacks in a game and lets say 3 sacks in a game? You know all 3 of those sacks aren't likely to kill a drive. Odds are the offense can overcome some of them. If they can't over come them, there is also a good chance they wouldn't have been able to overcome them without the loss of yardage either. So ultimately if a team has exactly the same amount of pressure but one defense has 3 or 4 sacks and one defense has 0 the actual difference in defensive results are probably not going to be all that big.

The physical sack itself does get overrated. The question then becomes, is a sack indicative of a teams ability to pressure the QB? After all if you're getting great pressure, shouldn't it be resulting in sacks? I think this is where a lot of people on this board get confused. They claim our team sucks at getting pressure this year because of our sack numbers. I don't think that is necessarily true in the situation of Dallas this year.

Now obviously I'd like to see more sacks. Just like I'd like to see more TFLs. Anytime the other team loses yardage it's a good thing. However sacks are not exactly the achilles heal of a defense. As long as they are still getting pressure.

Cowboysrock55 said:

I don't think it's a question of if sacks are valuable. However weighing just how important they are is really the question. Whats the difference between a team getting 0 sacks in a game and lets say 3 sacks in a game? You know all 3 of those sacks aren't likely to kill a drive. Odds are the offense can overcome some of them. If they can't over come them, there is also a good chance they wouldn't have been able to overcome them without the loss of yardage either. So ultimately if a team has exactly the same amount of pressure but one defense has 3 or 4 sacks and one defense has 0 the actual difference in defensive results are probably not going to be all that big.

The physical sack itself does get overrated. The question then becomes, is a sack indicative of a teams ability to pressure the QB? After all if you're getting great pressure, shouldn't it be resulting in sacks? I think this is where a lot of people on this board get confused. They claim our team sucks at getting pressure this year because of our sack numbers. I don't think that is necessarily true in the situation of Dallas this year.

Now obviously I'd like to see more sacks. Just like I'd like to see more TFLs. Anytime the other team loses yardage it's a good thing. However sacks are not exactly the achilles heal of a defense. As long as they are still getting pressure.

Click to expand...

I get that but a sack is sometimes better than a penalty even or a hurry because of the lost down and yardage. That was where I was going.

While hurries are nice, and important too, a sack has the added bonus of putting a hit on the QB. Enough hits and the QB gets uncomfortable in the pocket and more apt to make mistakes.

NoDak said:

While hurries are nice, and important too, a sack has the added bonus of putting a hit on the QB. Enough hits and the QB gets uncomfortable in the pocket and more apt to make mistakes.

Click to expand...

They also create more 3rd and longs.

I likey sackies.