JohnTurney wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 9:57 pm
Jay Z wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:04 am
I'm less impressed with Landry. Mainly because I think the Flex was a crappy pass defense. You can't win with sacks very often.
Felx a run defense with expansive keys and assignments and agree it wasn't ideal for pass defense, but the reason was it limited pass rush by having 2 guys off the line of scrimmage -- usually 1 DT and 1 DE, but sometimes other variations, like both DTs off. You cannot get good rush very other that wat. So, teams had some success throwing the ball on early downs.
But the coverages behind it were the same as the inside and outside 4-3 they used or even pass-rush fronts. But they could get a dominating pass rush when they actually went after the QB on say 2nd and 3rd and long.
Dallas over the years did give up more pass yards than some of the other great defenses, but teams also threw the ball more against them (generally top 1 or 2 over any given period of their "peak') and ran the least (fewest carriers in most cases as well). Teams had to pick their poison and apparently though running was the less deadly of the two. You just couldn't run effectively vs the Flex.
However, looking at the yards per attempt and defensive passer rating - they were a pretty good pass defense it seems-- just not one of the top 2-3-4 like say VIkings and 70s Steelers for example.
But agree with you that gave up some leverage when they were in Flex (likely run downs). Would quibble with "crappy" but I am sure you were just making a point but you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I am influenced by Herb Adderley's negative opinion of the Dallas scheme.
Other than that I compare the Dallas talent level at other positions to what they were doing with the defensive backfield, and what Dallas did to what other top teams did with their defensive backfield.
Crappy, let's use the word underachieving. Dallas had a good pass defense in 1971 with Renfro, Green, Adderley, Harris, and Waters. I just think that's FAR more talent than you actually should need to have a good pass defense. We could blame players like Phil Clark, Otto Brown, Charlie Waters at CB, Mark Washington for not being good enough. But this is Dallas. They had considerably more talent coming through the organization, on a yearly basis, than weaker teams. When I look at other positions, they were still getting positive contributions from part time players or players who started for just a year or two. So why shouldn't that have been the same with the defensive backs? With the Dolphins they had Anderson and Scott, top safties of all time, but the CBs were more average or guys in and out of the lineup. Green Bay, all time pass defense, but everyone on that pass defense was not all time all pro. Some players were plugged in and out. Steelers, Blount was the only one who saw honors.
So based on these other teams and the resources Dallas had at the time, these weaknesses always getting exposed was partially a fault of the scheme, not doing enough helping and having a defense that worked together well enough. Because the personnel resources should have been adequate. That and Adderley's comments have led me to this conclusion.