Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
4,305
New mind-set follows rapid transformation of Cowboys defensive line

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/da...-transformation-of-cowboys-defensive-line.ece

IRVING — When Chris Whaley signed with the Cowboys last May as an undrafted free agent, the defensive line he joined was in the throes of transition and still recovering from a frenetic 2013 season when there was a revolving cast of 20 players.

“We had a number of situations where we were getting guys where they were practicing for two days and they’re playing 30 snaps in the game,” Cowboys coach Jason Garrett recalled.

By the time Whaley arrived, the situation hadn’t improved much. The ranks remained threadbare and the overall quality of the unit questionable. Had Whaley been healthy in 2014, it seemed he would have had a great chance to win a roster spot at one of the interior positions. But he wasn’t. Instead, he never played in a game while recovering from three torn ligaments in a knee he dislocated as a senior at Texas.

One year later, he is back on the field, and he has noticed that things around him have changed.

“We have a lot of depth and a lot of talent,” Whaley said.

Almost all of it has been accumulated during the last 14 months. Thirteen of the Cowboys’ 15 defensive linemen came to Dallas after March 2014 via free agency, the draft and even a trade. Gradually, the Cowboys have stockpiled “rushmen,” the term defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli uses to describe the four players positioned closest to the line of scrimmage in his scheme. The wave of personnel acquisitions has been a major organizational initiative pursued with the same kind of zeal seen when the Cowboys were rebuilding their offensive line.

“We feel like you have to obviously allocate some resources to that,” Garrett said. “The game is won up front. It always has been and always will be.”

That football maxim was reinforced last January in the divisional round of the playoffs. In the Cowboys’ five-point loss to Green Bay, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers managed to evade pressure and throw for 316 yards despite suffering the effects of a calf injury that limited his mobility. Rodgers’ performance was the latest indictment against a defensive line that racked up just 28 sacks, fifth-lowest in the NFL during the regular season.

So the Cowboys resolved to fix their greatest problem.

In recent months, they have added dynamic pass rushers who have negated the losses of Henry Melton, Josh Brent and Anthony Spencer — three players whose production was either spotty or absent. They signed the now-suspended former Pro Bowler Greg Hardy. They then drafted two ends, taking Randy Gregory in the second round and Ryan Russell in the fifth. Each was welcomed by Marinelli, who relies on a rotation of defensive linemen playing a limited number of snaps.

“It’s gained and we have a lot of guys back from last year,” Marinelli said. “Now, as we bring more men in, we have a few more numbers.”

And as a result, there is increased competition among teammates, which both Garrett and Marinelli value. In their eyes, players who are fighting to stay on the roster or earn an expanded role will work harder in practice and, in turn, be more prepared for the games.

“You want to go out and have somebody with that same athleticism, that same work ethic,” Whaley said. “It will actually push you to become better. I have to show it every day.”

He’s reminded of that constantly — either when he’s listening to Marinelli or walking through the team’s practice facility. A placard inside one of the meeting rooms reads, “Our core values have nothing to do with ability. They are focused on your attitude, effort and work ethic.”

The message resonates now more than ever because the Cowboys are no longer looking to plug and play defensive linemen. Instead, they can be more selective as they shape a unit with depth at all four positions.

“The battle, whether it’s for a special teams spot, a rotational spot or even a starting spot is going to be top notch,” Russell said.
More to read at link.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
I guess, but we still didn't take a single DT while we count on Crawford and spareville Golden Cock in the middle.

Still think the tone of all these articles is a little concerning -- it's like they were all written by Dallascowboys.com. Yes, I think we have a great chance at winning a Superbowl the next couple of years, but we've had one successful year. One. It's not like we're the Patriots or Ravens or Packers or Seahawks who have been on the cusp or actually winning it all for many years now.
 
Last edited:

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
4,305
It's not like we're the Patriots or Ravens or Packers or Seahawks who have been one cusp or actually winning it all for many years now.
That's been my point all along, in saying last year was a fluke of mostly luck. You're still at your core, a 8-8 squad.
 
Messages
3,455
Reaction score
0
That's been my point all along, in saying last year was a fluke of mostly luck. You're still at your core, a 8-8 squad.

Every year is different. Every team is different. I thought it was pretty clear how the Cowboys won the majority of their games last season. They used a similar formula. I dont even understand your “at the core” comment. At the core of this team are All-Pro players. If you believe this current team is going to go 8-8, thats fine, thats your opinion but leave last years team alone. They were 12-4.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
I guess, but we still didn't take a single DT while we count on Crawford and spareville Golden Cock in the middle.

Still think the tone of all these articles is a little concerning -- it's like they were all written by Dallascowboys.com. Yes, I think we have a great chance at winning a Superbowl the next couple of years, but we've had one successful year. One. It's not like we're the Patriots or Ravens or Packers or Seahawks who have been on the cusp or actually winning it all for many years now.

Yeah, someone twittered yesterday that the team was built from Garretts vision, or whatever, and the results speak for themselves.

I'm all like, bitch, we're one year removed from three consecutive .500 seasons with win and your in flops in a shitty division. Lets not act like we're world beaters yet, or Garrett is Lombardi incarnate.
 

jnday

UDFA
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
That's been my point all along, in saying last year was a fluke of mostly luck. You're still at your core, a 8-8 squad.

The running game saved the the defense from being exposed by eating up the clock. I still think the defense is very average and will be exposed if these JAG RBs don't pan out. There has not been that much of an upgrade to the defense other than rookies and rookies don't have that much of an impact. Hayden is still on the team. That tells me that the defense can't be that damn good if he is starting.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Every year is different. Every team is different.
This.

Momentum is a farce. Every year a team is redefined. Every week you have to put up your best effort, or you will get beat.

Some teams have personnel and management in place to succeed in what seems like every year. But every team makes major changes in personnel every offseason. Fans and media simply speculate as to whose going to be good based on their personnel.
 
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
11
Plus, during all three of those 8-8 years there were 3 games each year that were verifiable coaching blunders that led mainly to those losses. And yet in each of the three years, if Jason would have stayed home, Dallas could have been in the playoffs. It was the last game of each of those seasons that decided whether there was a Dallas post season.

And allowing 26 points to Green Bay when you are up 21-10 in the first half and not scoring more than a field goal is AGAIN not as much a defensive line issue as game management. One more TD wins the game. Two FGs. Running the ball. Something.
 
Messages
3,455
Reaction score
0
Plus, during all three of those 8-8 years there were 3 games each year that were verifiable coaching blunders that led mainly to those losses. And yet in each of the three years, if Jason would have stayed home, Dallas could have been in the playoffs. It was the last game of each of those seasons that decided whether there was a Dallas post season.

And allowing 26 points to Green Bay when you are up 21-10 in the first half and not scoring more than a field goal is AGAIN not as much a defensive line issue as game management. One more TD wins the game. Two FGs. Running the ball. Something.

Cowboys lost that game because they couldn’t put any pressure on Rodgers. :crapcheer
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
That's been my point all along, in saying last year was a fluke of mostly luck. You're still at your core, a 8-8 squad.

What an idiot. Continue to trumpet that bullshit even after getting schooled on it.

First off... what IS our core?

Second... claiming "luck/fluke" is not a rational argument, and is pretty much the white flag in acknowledgement that you are void of any rationale to support your "point"; especially when you use it in a one-sided fashion. Luck/fluke cuts both ways, you would claim that it was because of (good) luck/flukes is why the Cowboys went 12, and won a playoff game. The other side would be that (bad) luck/fluke is the reason why we didn't go 19-0. See?


Yet like last time you were challenged to show what games were lucky and had flukes in.

It's a different year. Is our "core" the same as the last year, or the previous years? If so, in order for it to be maintained at 8-8 according to you, wouldn't that mean there was no improvement amongst other teams' "cores"?


Doomsday said:
Only concern I would have there is finding the next marquee guy, and soon. Because I have a feeling we're not going to be able to afford Dez after this season, unless we franchise him one more time. Can't afford to do that though, a third time because that would be the highest pay scale, the top 5 QB pay scale.

If I were Stephen I would be hoping for the best, but planning for life without Dez.

Why is it a concern? We'll still be "8-8 to our core", right? On a sidenote... Dez is a WIDE RECEIVER, not a QUARTERBACK... so why are you inserting the top 5 QB scale into the argument, when Dez wouldn't receive the average of the top 5 QB salary scale, but of the average of the top 5 WR salary scale. Speaking of which... do you know what are the top 5 WR salaries for this upcoming season and the next?
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Every year is different. Every team is different. I thought it was pretty clear how the Cowboys won the majority of their games last season. They used a similar formula. I dont even understand your “at the core” comment. At the core of this team are All-Pro players. If you believe this current team is going to go 8-8, thats fine, thats your opinion but leave last years team alone. They were 12-4.


Exactly. In fact, it's lame to even called it an argument. I got into this with im awhile back and school his ass, and he started rambling off about teams from the early 2000's and how futile they were as part of his arguemrnt, despite the fact that no current player has ever been on that team.

He whines like a woman going through menopause: just argues for no other reason because she has lips, or in this case fingertips.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
The running game saved the the defense from being exposed by eating up the clock. I still think the defense is very average and will be exposed if these JAG RBs don't pan out. There has not been that much of an upgrade to the defense other than rookies and rookies don't have that much of an impact. Hayden is still on the team. That tells me that the defense can't be that damn good if he is starting.



It's called winning the battle of TOP (Time Of Possession). Football 101: Keep your offense and opposing team's defense out on the field, with long, methodical, and sustained drives and thereby wearing down the opposing team's defense, while allowing your defense to become better rested. This is usually accomplished by having a strong running game and UTILIZING IT.

In other words, a common sense approach to play calling was employed last year and we saw the desired fruits/results. Nothing groundbreaking.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Cowboys lost that game because they couldn’t put any pressure on Rodgers. :crapcheer

Despite not getting pressure on Rodgers, I cannot buy that as the sole reasoning for them losing. Murray's fumble didn't help. He had nothing but daylight in front of him. And then there was Dez's catch that was wrongfully ruled.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
Not understanding the hate. I mean, I'm generally first in line to hate on this team, but I don't think it's valid here.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
4,305
And after the "this team is great" circle jerk is finished, the fact remains that there's not alot of difference between your 8-8 finish and your 12-4 finish, it's four games that could have gone either way given, luck. Providence. Circumstances.

That's the majority of NFL teams. There are about 20 such, average, run of the mill 8-8 type squads. Any one of which can have a magic fluke 12-4 year. That's Dallas.

Then there's the five or six pretty much elite teams who somehow are right in the thick of it, every year.

Then there's the annually really bad teams. Four or five of those every year and seems to be the same bunch.

We're mired in mediocrity. Playing really close to .500 ball for the last 20 years. "You are what your record says you are" according to The Tuna. Our record says we are mediocre. Only a few more 11-5 or 12-4 or 13-3 seasons all strung together, can change that. Not the protestations of Homerville, no matter how shrill and loud they may be.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
"You are what your record says you are" according to The Tuna. Our record says we are mediocre.
What is mediocre about 12-4?

Oh, you're saying we are not what our record says we are...? Or we are what our record two years ago, or three years ago says we are.... That most recent record, forget that shiz.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
4,305
I got into this with im awhile back and school his ass, and he started rambling off about teams from the early 2000's and how futile they were as part of his arguemrnt, despite the fact that no current player has ever been on that team.
That ain't what happened and in fact that never came up. What happened was, you fucking ran for cover and never returned to the thread when your claim that Nawlins was 2-1 when we played them, was blown up and exposed to be totally wrong. They in fact were 1-2 and imploding to finish with a lousy seven and fucking nine. You got your ass stomped, and ran. Thread in question.

And now you're also the one who kept repeating Peterson's value drops after draft day. Hasn't happened.

Point being, you never admit when you're wrong, you just flee then come back later with your same failed shit, and also outright lie about past conversations.

But, it is entertaining!
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
4,305
Oh, you're saying we are not what our record says we are...? Or we are what our record two years ago, or three years ago says we are.... That most recent record, forget that shiz.
Playing .500 ball over the last 20 years with NO reason at all to believe that won't continue for the foreseeable future. Gee, they went 13-3 on 2007. Bet you were screaming SUPER BOWL NEXT YEAR!!!!!
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Playing .500 ball over the last 20 years with NO reason at all to believe that won't continue for the foreseeable future.
Ummm, how about the fact that 12-4 was the most recent record as a reason why they won't be .500? That not a reason? How about a continued strengthening OL? That not a reason? QB just had his best season ever... Not a reason? Dez Bryant, not a reason?

There are lots of reasons that you can find that this team won't be .500, if you're willing to actually, you know, think about stuff. But you don't want to do that. You just want to make sweeping generalizations and pass them off as facts. Like the team isn't committed to the run... Use your brain.
 
Top Bottom