Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Secondary considerations
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
plan9misfit


FF Fanatic
Most Valuable Poster (5th Ballot)
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 20362
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.
_________________

Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13185
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In 2011 with crap and crappier playing CB, the Boys had 42 sacks. In 2012, with the $50M free agent and the "highest rated CB prospect since Deion Sanders," the boys had 34 sacks. Ware played hurt both years. The purpose of a great secondary is NOT to get more sacks. Their purpose is to create more TOs and limit TDs. But, if the DL doesn't do their job and force the ball out, the secondary still won't force TOs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 23845
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Slamman wrote:
In 2011 with crap and crappier playing CB, the Boys had 42 sacks. In 2012, with the $50M free agent and the "highest rated CB prospect since Deion Sanders," the boys had 34 sacks. Ware played hurt both years. The purpose of a great secondary is NOT to get more sacks. Their purpose is to create more TOs and limit TDs. But, if the DL doesn't do their job and force the ball out, the secondary still won't force TOs.


And this would be fine to try and drive home a point if it wasn't intellectually dishonest. Given the sheer number of injuries and street free agents - you were bound to see a radical decrease in any favorable number towards us. You can't limit the scope to simply fit your argument without taking the whole picture into account.
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1488
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plan9misfit wrote:
htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.


Come on Plan, you can do better than this! The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, may not have won the SB, but they did get to FOUR STRAIGHT NFCC games, with one of the most overrated QBs ever, IN LARGE PART because they had a stud secondary! Their DL wasn't exactly star-studded either, but Jim could blitz the hell out of people with them, because he NO WORRIES about anything behind the front-7. Neither you or Slam, or anyone else has actually given any other actual teams as a reference for your OPINION, and you still say it as if it were fact. Give me some examples buddy! What teams were awesome, that had great defenses, that had great DLs, but had below average DBs? I KNOW your opinion man - give me some evidence! I am truly open for conversion on this topic, but NOBODY has given any kind of example, let alone actual proof. I expect more out you Plan. Come on man!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13185
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Texas_OutLaw7 wrote:
The_Slamman wrote:
In 2011 with crap and crappier playing CB, the Boys had 42 sacks. In 2012, with the $50M free agent and the "highest rated CB prospect since Deion Sanders," the boys had 34 sacks. Ware played hurt both years. The purpose of a great secondary is NOT to get more sacks. Their purpose is to create more TOs and limit TDs. But, if the DL doesn't do their job and force the ball out, the secondary still won't force TOs.


And this would be fine to try and drive home a point if it wasn't intellectually dishonest. Given the sheer number of injuries and street free agents - you were bound to see a radical decrease in any favorable number towards us. You can't limit the scope to simply fit your argument without taking the whole picture into account.


Great. So, would you like to explain how the sacks per game actually increased AFTER the rash of injuries on defense? Talk about intellectual dishonesty...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
plan9misfit


FF Fanatic
Most Valuable Poster (5th Ballot)
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 20362
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baixis wrote:
plan9misfit wrote:
htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.


Come on Plan, you can do better than this! The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, may not have won the SB, but they did get to FOUR STRAIGHT NFCC games, with one of the most overrated QBs ever, IN LARGE PART because they had a stud secondary! Their DL wasn't exactly star-studded either, but Jim could blitz the hell out of people with them, because he NO WORRIES about anything behind the front-7. Neither you or Slam, or anyone else has actually given any other actual teams as a reference for your OPINION, and you still say it as if it were fact. Give me some examples buddy! What teams were awesome, that had great defenses, that had great DLs, but had below average DBs? I KNOW your opinion man - give me some evidence! I am truly open for conversion on this topic, but NOBODY has given any kind of example, let alone actual proof. I expect more out you Plan. Come on man!


Jim Johnson's defensive lines lacked talent? Seriously? You're nuts. They were very well coached, and Brian Dawkins was not the sole reason they were successful. Their CBs during those years were vastly overrated. No one feared guys like Bobby Taylor. They feared guys like Hugh Douglas, which made players like Taylor better and allowed Dawkins to roam freely all over the field. Hence, a great pass rush make a secondary better, but a secondary will not make a defensive line better.

And considering no one else can provide examples to disprove my statement about coverage sacks, I need not "defend" it with anything more than history. In fact, turn to the Redskins from just a few seasons ago when good ol' Danny Boy insisted that all of his bigtime free agent DB acquisitions were to create "the coverage sack" because of how deeply they believed in it.

One thing, though: it failed miserably, and none of the players signed are still on the team.
_________________

Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyingmonkey30


Moderator
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 6440
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plan, what do you mean by there is no such thing as a coverage sack? Are you saying its a bad thing to base a defense around? Or that there straight up is no such thing as a coverage sack? Because I agree with one of those statements. Coverage sacks do happen every once and a while. There are times where the QB has nobody to throw to and after 5 seconds he gets sacked
_________________


Check out my draft thread!
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=490478t=447580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
plan9misfit


FF Fanatic
Most Valuable Poster (5th Ballot)
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 20362
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Plan, what do you mean by there is no such thing as a coverage sack? Are you saying its a bad thing to base a defense around? Or that there straight up is no such thing as a coverage sack? Because I agree with one of those statements. Coverage sacks do happen every once and a while. There are times where the QB has nobody to throw to and after 5 seconds he gets sacked


I think it's a terrible notion to build a team around or use to defend a player's high sack numbers, and I don't believe that they occur frequently enough to even base an argument around that a secondary will make a defensive line better. They don't. Games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage, not in the secondary. There is far less value added to a defensive unit at the CB or Safety position than there is at DT or DE.
_________________

Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyingmonkey30


Moderator
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 6440
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plan9misfit wrote:
flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Plan, what do you mean by there is no such thing as a coverage sack? Are you saying its a bad thing to base a defense around? Or that there straight up is no such thing as a coverage sack? Because I agree with one of those statements. Coverage sacks do happen every once and a while. There are times where the QB has nobody to throw to and after 5 seconds he gets sacked


I think it's a terrible notion to build a team around or use to defend a player's high sack numbers, and I don't believe that they occur frequently enough to even base an argument around that a secondary will make a defensive line better. They don't. Games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage, not in the secondary. There is far less value added to a defensive unit at the CB or Safety position than there is at DT or DE.


Ok so I agree with that. What I was trying to find out was if you co platelet deny that a coverage sack exists, not how frequently it occurs
_________________


Check out my draft thread!
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=490478t=447580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 23845
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plan9misfit wrote:
flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Plan, what do you mean by there is no such thing as a coverage sack? Are you saying its a bad thing to base a defense around? Or that there straight up is no such thing as a coverage sack? Because I agree with one of those statements. Coverage sacks do happen every once and a while. There are times where the QB has nobody to throw to and after 5 seconds he gets sacked


I think it's a terrible notion to build a team around or use to defend a player's high sack numbers, and I don't believe that they occur frequently enough to even base an argument around that a secondary will make a defensive line better. They don't. Games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage, not in the secondary. There is far less value added to a defensive unit at the CB or Safety position than there is at DT or DE.


To be clear, I agree there is a greater value in the trenches than the secondary - but that may be my bias given the position I played. However, I will say when they do their job, it makes my job much easier. Secondary has value. And it does impact the rest of the defense.
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1488
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plan9misfit wrote:
Baixis wrote:
plan9misfit wrote:
htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.


Come on Plan, you can do better than this! The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, may not have won the SB, but they did get to FOUR STRAIGHT NFCC games, with one of the most overrated QBs ever, IN LARGE PART because they had a stud secondary! Their DL wasn't exactly star-studded either, but Jim could blitz the hell out of people with them, because he NO WORRIES about anything behind the front-7. Neither you or Slam, or anyone else has actually given any other actual teams as a reference for your OPINION, and you still say it as if it were fact. Give me some examples buddy! What teams were awesome, that had great defenses, that had great DLs, but had below average DBs? I KNOW your opinion man - give me some evidence! I am truly open for conversion on this topic, but NOBODY has given any kind of example, let alone actual proof. I expect more out you Plan. Come on man!


Jim Johnson's defensive lines lacked talent? Seriously? You're nuts. They were very well coached, and Brian Dawkins was not the sole reason they were successful. Their CBs during those years were vastly overrated. No one feared guys like Bobby Taylor. They feared guys like Hugh Douglas, which made players like Taylor better and allowed Dawkins to roam freely all over the field. Hence, a great pass rush make a secondary better, but a secondary will not make a defensive line better.

And considering no one else can provide examples to disprove my statement about coverage sacks, I need not "defend" it with anything more than history. In fact, turn to the Redskins from just a few seasons ago when good ol' Danny Boy insisted that all of his bigtime free agent DB acquisitions were to create "the coverage sack" because of how deeply they believed in it.

One thing, though: it failed miserably, and none of the players signed are still on the team.


Whoa buddy! I didn't say they lacked talent. I said they were not star-studded - and that is the truth! I loved Hugh! One of my favorite players ever. But I don't think he was a monster or anything. He was a GOOD player. And I think you overrate how 'overrated' those DBs were! BOTH Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent were in contention, at least, for the Pro Bowl every year, and as I said before, Dawkins was one of the best ever! I've also said that I still think the DL is more important, but it's like a 60-40 advantage at best, and NOBODY has given evidence other wise. I on the other hand, HAVE pointed out the Giants and the Eagles as two examples of this side of the argument - specific teams, specific players, specific years, etc. What have you actually given for that side of the argument? I'm directing this at you Plan, because I do expect more from you. Don't bugout with 'history' or 'no else has' type of excuses. Give me what I'm asking for, IF you can. What stud DL didn't have squat in the secondary, and actually accomplished anything??? I'm saying, that any stud DL, that actually accomplished something (lots of playoffs or SB), did so with a pretty decent secondary as well - like the Giants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13185
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baixis wrote:
plan9misfit wrote:
htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.


Come on Plan, you can do better than this! The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, may not have won the SB, but they did get to FOUR STRAIGHT NFCC games, with one of the most overrated QBs ever, IN LARGE PART because they had a stud secondary! Their DL wasn't exactly star-studded either, but Jim could blitz the hell out of people with them, because he NO WORRIES about anything behind the front-7. Neither you or Slam, or anyone else has actually given any other actual teams as a reference for your OPINION, and you still say it as if it were fact. Give me some examples buddy! What teams were awesome, that had great defenses, that had great DLs, but had below average DBs? I KNOW your opinion man - give me some evidence! I am truly open for conversion on this topic, but NOBODY has given any kind of example, let alone actual proof. I expect more out you Plan. Come on man!


Wait a second... do you seriously want actual examples of teams that won the SB that boasted elite DLs without an elite secondary? If so... how much time you got? Cause I could literally do this ish all day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1488
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Slamman wrote:
Baixis wrote:
plan9misfit wrote:
htfryar wrote:
Spencer was in a contract year the previous season, when we had poor CB play, and he had 6 sacks. Yet, you think that his career high in sacks had more to do with the fact that he was playing under the franchise tag, rather than because of the improved CB play. Why?


Because NFL history does not show that improvements in the secondary lead to more sacks. There is no correlation between them. If that were the case, then every member of the d-line should've seen his sack totals improve. But they didn't.


Come on Plan, you can do better than this! The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, may not have won the SB, but they did get to FOUR STRAIGHT NFCC games, with one of the most overrated QBs ever, IN LARGE PART because they had a stud secondary! Their DL wasn't exactly star-studded either, but Jim could blitz the hell out of people with them, because he NO WORRIES about anything behind the front-7. Neither you or Slam, or anyone else has actually given any other actual teams as a reference for your OPINION, and you still say it as if it were fact. Give me some examples buddy! What teams were awesome, that had great defenses, that had great DLs, but had below average DBs? I KNOW your opinion man - give me some evidence! I am truly open for conversion on this topic, but NOBODY has given any kind of example, let alone actual proof. I expect more out you Plan. Come on man!


Wait a second... do you seriously want actual examples of teams that won the SB that boasted elite DLs without an elite secondary? If so... how much time you got? Cause I could literally do this ish all day.


Yes Slam, I do. You don't have to them all (if you really think there are that many), but a couple examples would be nice. My point, I can't really think of any stud DL that actually accomplished anything great without a pretty decent secondary behind them. Some of you guys make it sound like a stud DL will absolutely CARRY a trash secondary, and I don't think that's the case. I think any stud DL group that accomplished anything worthwhile did so with the help of a pretty decent secondary behind them, and that even GREAT DLs don't do THAT much without a decent secondary. Thus the difference between the two is not nearly as great as guys like you and Plan make it out to be. 60-40 Slamman!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group