Watkins: Q&A - Will McClay talks Cowboys draft picks, philosophy and more

[Cowboysrock55]

He did his job. Crawford did not.

He didn't do his job. It's why he had so many blown plays and tackles. It's why PFF's grading system graded him out as the 81st safety in the NFL. He was burned regularly in coverage and missed too many tackles.

Crawford needed upgraded. I don't think anyone would question that either. He isn't an ideal starting 3 technique in this defense. Again that's why he graded out by PFF as the 49th DT in the NFL. Which is fine for your second best DT but certainly not good enough to be the major play maker in this defense that you need. And certainly not good enough to justify a 10 mil cap hit. Antuan Woods graded out by the same service by the way with a score that makes him the 69th DT in the NFL. Basically borderline starter as your second best DT. But we need a guy in there who is a top 20 DT in the NFL at minimum. A potential probowler. And lets face it, even 5.5 sacks isn't good enough for a 3 technique in this defense. It's what David Irving was until he went crazy.

None of this makes Heath any less of a liability in coverage and in run support. He tries hard but he just isn't good.

 

[Rev]

I seriously dont know why this is so hard. You can like the guy and still admit he needs upgraded. I can not like the guy and be ok with limited snaps as a backup. It's pretty simple. If you dont like the terminology that's used to describe him thats ok. Just be honest as to his shortcomings.

 

[Cotton]

Jeff Heath is a poor man's Bill Bates on defense.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Jeff Heath is a poor man's Bill Bates on defense.

He is the Chris Conte of our defense. Basically a shitty starting safety that Marinelli kept trotting out there with the Bears even though he sucked. I think Heath is actually worse than Conte but you get the idea.

 

[ravidubey]

With consistent, reliable interior pressure all our DBs would be a lot better in coverage.

We would even see interceptions.

I think we’ve so given up on the prospect of the DTs ever being upgraded that we’ve zeroed in on the bandaid an upgrade at safety would provide.

Well even Earl Thomas had a dominant front his whole career.

Sam and SS are the least impactful positions on this defense. They should thus be prioritized least.

It’s that simple.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

With consistent, reliable interior pressure all our DBs would be a lot better in coverage.

We would even see interceptions.

I think we’ve so given up on the prospect of the DTs ever being upgraded that we’ve zeroed in on the bandaid an upgrade at safety would provide.

Well even Earl Thomas had a dominant front his whole career.

Sam and SS are the least impactful positions on this defense. They should thus be prioritized least.

It’s that simple.

I'd be very interested to see a correlation statistic between sacks and turnovers. Look at a team like Pittsburgh last year. They tied for the most sacks in the NFL. They created great pressure and yet they were 28th in INTs. I know the assumption is that pressure creates bad passes which create turnovers. But I'm not sure how strong that correlation really is. I mean logistically speaking it makes sense. But does it really create that many more turnovers? Last year we were 16th in sacks in the NFL and yet 26th in INTs. Arizona on the other hand had the 5th most sacks and yet ranked second to last in interceptions.

Of course you also have a team like the Bears who created a ton of pressure and ranked first in the NFL in terms of INTs. So there are definitely two sides to the coin. I don't think pressure automatically means more INTs. I think you also need guys on the back end with ball awareness and an ability to capitalize. Especially at safety.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

When I looked at it years ago, turnovers were highly variable from year to year even with basically the same players on defense.

I think a ton of it is luck -- bounce of the ball plus whether you're lucky enough to face some terrible QBs who give the ball away.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

When I looked at it years ago, turnovers were highly variable from year to year even with basically the same players on defense.

I think a ton of it is luck -- bounce of the ball plus whether you're lucky enough to face some terrible QBs who give the ball away.

Yeah I definitely think a lot of luck is involved. Errant throws cause some of them. But many errant throws don't go anywhere near a defender. I'd say tipped passes probably represent a large portion of turnovers too and that's just sort of the luck of a receiver not doing his job. I'd be extremely surprised for example if the Bears can recreate what they did last year in terms of turnovers. It's why I think they plummet back down to being a team that doesn't make the playoffs. Obviously there is some scheme involved as well with INT's. If you play man coverage for example you'll get fewer turnovers. Guys backs are to the ball so they are less likely to pick off those errant throws. On the other hand when you run zone you may get beat more because there are holes in every coverage but you're more likely to pick off errant throws. Guys are facing the QB and can adjust.

 

[ravidubey]

There’s no doubt pressure makes a secondary more effective.

True there’s not always a correlation to interceptions which could be for a wide range of reasons.

If a QB is pressured, he might not throw at all for example. Or the pass gets batted into the dirt. Etc.

Bottom line is pressure, penetration, and blocking help all behind and adjacent to the one doing all of the above.

Thats a lot of other defenders helped when you are positioned in the middle of the LOS.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

There’s no doubt pressure makes a secondary more effective.

True there’s not always a correlation to interceptions which could be for a wide range of reasons.

If a QB is pressured, he might not throw at all for example. Or the pass gets batted into the dirt. Etc.

Bottom line is pressure, penetration, and blocking help all behind and adjacent to the one doing all of the above.

Thats a lot of other defenders helped when you are positioned in the middle of the LOS.

No question about it pressure helps everyone on defense. Especially pressure up the middle if you can get it. The faster the pressure is the harder it is for a QB to avoid afterall. You could have a free rusher off the edge and still have time to throw the ball. It's far more difficult when it comes up the gut.

Of course no matter how good your Dline is they won't get pressure on every play.

 

[Cotton]

It's far more difficult when it comes up the gut.

Yep, you keep a QB from being able to climb the pocket, you make it very difficult for him to even get off a safety valve pass.

 

[p1_]

No I won’t be fine with it but it’s not like he is an exclusive at making mistakes. Just go back to last seasons post on the Cowboys game post and read all the moaning and groan about the players and their performers and you wont find a that he is the only whipping boy on the team. The pissing and moaning is continual from the kickoff until the final whistle. Heath won’t be there nearly as much as others.

His gaffs and misses seem to be particularly egregious.

 

[ravidubey]

Of course no matter how good your Dline is they won't get pressure on every play.

Exactly. This was something sbk refused to admit true.

You need talent at every level of the defense.

In this scheme, the 3T is featured and so I understand the Hill pick.

Understanding doesn’t mean I’m all in though. The draft should emphasize talent over need, and this was a need pick and worse it was a reach based on coaches falling in love.

It’s not like we passed over Ed Reed to get him, but I don’t like picks based purely on a coach’s desire. Coaches don’t always make good scouts.

 

[boozeman]

Exactly. This was something sbk refused to admit true.

You need talent at every level of the defense.

But you have guys like Kris Richard saying that if they don't have pressure from the front four, then his safeties don't mean shit.

Yes, you need talent at every level. That is self-evident.

But the scenario was presented for Richard point-fucking-blank in this draft.

He had his literal pick of the top talent at safety. It was gross considering how late we picked in the 2nd.

Safety or DT. He elected to cast his vote for Hill per reports.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But you have guys like Kris Richard saying that if they don't have pressure from the front four, then his safeties don't mean shit.

Yes, you need talent at every level. That is self-evident.

But the scenario was presented for Richard point-fucking-blank in this draft.

He had his literal pick of the top talent at safety. It was gross considering how late we picked in the 2nd.

Safety or DT. He elected to cast his vote for Hill per reports.

I don't think anyone has a problem with him prioritizing a 3 technique over a safety in this defense. But what I think the real question is how Hill was even on a similar level talentwise to these safeties. And the only thing that makes sense is that Marinelli fell so in love with the player that his stock was overvalued by the Cowboys. Or at least that's what it looks like with the Marinelli/Hill stories. Had one of the safeties spent his 21st birthday hanging out with Marinelli in a hotel we may be talking about a different draft pick. Of course Marinelli probabaly wasn't even scouting safeties so that never could have happened.

 

[ravidubey]

But you have guys like Kris Richard saying that if they don't have pressure from the front four, then his safeties don't mean shit.

Yes, you need talent at every level. That is self-evident.

But the scenario was presented for Richard point-fucking-blank in this draft.

He had his literal pick of the top talent at safety. It was gross considering how late we picked in the 2nd.

Safety or DT. He elected to cast his vote for Hill per reports.

Everyone gets the priority. I’ve been saying the 3T especially (and preferably 1T too) had to be upgraded. Safety is a distant need next to those two and maybe even RE if Quinn sucks.

But even the Steel Curtain had a great corner in Mel Blount who was so good he forced the NFL to make rule changes.

sbk would scream for paragraphs on how the entire secondary were “bit players” out one half his mouth then jizz about Anthony Henry getting interceptions out the other.

 

[Simpleton]

I'm sure the scouts/McClay could see the burst/explosiveness off the ball from Hill but there's no doubt in my mind that if Marinelli hadn't gone completely ga-ga over him he wouldn't have been the pick at 58.

 

[ravidubey]

I'm sure the scouts/McClay could see the burst/explosiveness off the ball from Hill but there's no doubt in my mind that if Marinelli hadn't gone completely ga-ga over him he wouldn't have been the pick at 58.

Exactly. That makes this the “Coaches Draft”.

Several picks— Hill, Pollard, and Michael Jackson— Go against the way we’ve (rather successfully) drafted the past several years in favor of a specific pet cat of the coaching staff.

For various reasons we could have gotten all of them later in the draft. I appreciate Hill’s talent and our need, but you could have had him in the 3rd round. Ditto Pollard re: one round later.

Not saying each is not going to help— I feel good that they will, but the draft is about talent and value.