The first one is in response to our controversial blog this week about Anthony Spencer's future:
Bob,
Is the stat of how many snaps a given NFL player plays in a season kept anywhere? I can't seem to find it. I ask, cause your blog tells me that Spencer had 3 more sacks & 30 more tackles than Butler, but not how many plays each plays.
Jason Hathaway
Jason,
Yes, there is a website that keeps snap counts on a game-by-game basis. I am not sure why the NFL does not include these in their official stats, because it seems like something that would be both useful and desired by those that follow the sport. Surely, if a player can do more in fewer snaps, it makes you wonder if he would be better in full time duty.
My friends at www.profootballfocus.com keep these stats for each player in the league. And of the 1,053 snaps taken this season by the Dallas Cowboys defense, Anthony Spencer played 939 of them - leading the linebackers in this statistic. DeMarcus Ware played 914, Sean Lee 868, Bradie James 414, Keith Brooking 409, Victor Butler 233, Alex Albright 43, and Bruce Carter 41. So, by definition of sacks per snaps, Spencer was getting a sack once every 156 snaps while Butler once every 77.
Of course, there is more to the linebacker position than rushing the passer, but in pure pass rushing results, I believed even before this season that Butler was better at getting around the edge than Spencer. For whatever reason, Spencer doesn't have a great move to get to the QB in time to get a sack. Butler, in limited action in the NFL and extensive play in college has always figured out a way to get home.
Here are photos of the pre snap of each of Victor Butler's 3 sacks this season to see where he was lined up:
#1 - Week 3 vs Washington, Butler is in Spencer's spot and blows by the Right Tackle for a great edge sack.
#2 - Week 11 at Washington, Butler in Spencer's spot again, drops into coverage and then converges on Rex Grossman when the QB looks to scramble. This is less of a legitimate sack and more of a player forcing a QB out of play for a 1-yard loss.
#3 - Week 12 vs Miami. Interestingly here, Butler is lined up on the inside as a nickel defensive tackle. He beats Richie Incognito with a quick interior move and gets home from an odd spot on the field.
The issue that many people bring up is the idea that based on these ratios, Butler should be a fine in-house solution to the issues that Spencer's free agency presents. But, in going back and looking at many of Butler's games this week, I noticed that he seldom is in for Anthony Spencer, but when he is, it is a passing situation on 3rd Down. When Butler is in the game on 1st or 2nd down, it is generally for DeMarcus Ware. Ware, during long drives, would often require a break for a couple snaps, and they would sneak Butler on for him on 1st or 2nd down.
Why is this important to distinguish - whether Butler is more of a Ware replacement than a Spencer replacement? Because, Ware is always lined up on the weakside and Spencer is always on the strong side. Where do teams love to run the ball? On the strong side. And that is why Spencer's strength against the run is a key attribute and his ability to rush the passer is important, but not the be-all, end-all that many fans believe.
1st and 2nd down are vital to setting up 3rd and long so that you can rush the passer. If you don't stop running plays, then you get fewer sack opportunities. And it is my conclusion, that the Cowboys have never believed that Butler is a good player to stand up against the running plays that Spencer has done so well, where double teams sometimes find their way to him. Spencer makes it look rather easy at times, and the Cowboys have not really had anyone behind him for a few years who could replicate that.
Butler is a very useful player. He is a speedy edge rusher and a great pursuit guy who seems to have a superior motor to just about anyone on the defense. I want Butler around for many reasons and really like it when Rob Ryan gets all of his edge guys on the field at the same time. But, the coaching staff sees him as a fine Ware-understudy rather than a Spencer-type, based on how they use him. That is why I believe that they will either franchise Spencer or take a player like him in the draft (Courtney Upshaw, Alabama is very Spencer-like), rather than give the job to Butler. And my argument remains that while Spencer is not what I hoped, it is still a smarter decision to keep him and use my resources (especially my draft) upgrading other spots that are hurting me worse. It is all about priorities and decisions in this league and when you have 22 starters, replacing your 4th or 5th best defensive player because he is not better is missing the real challenge: Upgrading your biggest deficiencies.
The 2nd Email in our weekly mailbag is regarding the column from last week on the NFL Franchise Rankings:
Hey Sturm,
It would be interesting to see your point system for NFL Franchises applied to the league since the Cowboys' last Super Bowl in 1995. Could you rerun the numbers from 1996 to present? I would love to see how badly Jerry has ruined this franchise in the last 15 seasons.
Thanks,
Cowboy Bill
Sure. Although this one might hurt just a bit. Before we run the numbers, I want to make sure that any and all readers are familiar with the exercise, and for that, you might want to click on the link above and check out my annual NFL Franchise Rankings in the Super Bowl Era. I designed them based on a point system that rewarded 1 point for each playoff season, 3 points for each season a team advanced to the Final 4, 5 points for each season a team lost a Super Bowl, and 11 points for each won Super Bowl.
The numbers are arbitrary, but then again, so is the choice to rank from Super Bowl 1 to the present. The Steelers and the Cowboys are tied with a league-best 108 points during that stretch, with Pittsburgh owning the tie-breaker of most won Super Bowls. If you would rate since the inception of the NFL, then Green Bay and their 13 World Titles would be on top and Chicago would be close behind. If you rate since 1980, the San Francisco 49ers would lead the rankings, followed by New England and the New York Giants.
But, in answer to Cowboy Bill's query, If we simply open business in our rankings on the day following Super Bowl 30 in Arizona until present, the top 5 teams will look like this:
NFL FRANCHISE RANKS, SINCE 1996 - Top 5
| Rank | Team | Points |
| 1. | New England | 56 |
| 2. | Pittsburgh | 40 |
| 3. | Green Bay | 37 |
| 4. | New York G | 32 |
| 5. | Denver | 30 |
Above are the 5 teams that have really hit the gas in this present generation, basically since the start of the salary cap and true free agency, although again, Cowboy Bill's methodology is certainly not gracious to the Cowboys. Now, let's get the bad news as we see the Cowboys and the teams that finish below them in the standings:
NFL FRANCHISE RANKS, SINCE 1996 - Bottom 10
| Rank | Team | Points |
| 23. | Arizona | 7 |
| 24. | Dallas | 7 |
| 25. | Miami | 6 |
| 26. | Kansas City | 4 |
| 27. | Detroit | 3 |
| 28. | Washington | 3 |
| 29. | Cincinnati | 3 |
| 30. | Buffalo | 3 |
| 31. | Houston | 1 |
| 32. | Cleveland | 1 |
There is the sad reality about the last 16 seasons here in Dallas. 7 playoff berths, with a 2-7 record inside those playoff runs with the two wins (Minnesota '96, Philadelphia '09) coming in the wildcard round. They lose the tiebreaker against Arizona as the Cardinals has a Super Bowl tie breaker having played in Super Bowl 43. That ranks Dallas in 24th place since their last Super Bowl.
I actually thought it could have been worse, but imagine life in Cleveland or Detroit, a place that hasn't had a strong era since players started wearing face masks.
The grass isn't always greener if the other side of the fence is in Cleveland.
2 comments:
Looking at the franchise ranking since 1996 kind of dumb. Since you're cutting off right after winning 3 super bowls in 4 years... it's like looking at the Patriots the past 20 years but taking out all of their super bowl appearances. I'm sure they wouldn't be highly ranked either. If you want to look at someone's era (especially since I'm assuming this is a jab at Jerry Jones) you should use their entire era. How many owners have won 3 super bowls? Not too many...
Also, how do you expect a team to fare when you cut out a time period where they won 3 super bowls? Can you really expect them to be top 5-10 year in and year out? That's just being unrealistic. Cowboy fans can't complain after having already won 5 super bowls... imagine being an Eagle fan. They've never won a super bowl.
GRP712, there are 2 kinds of sports fans: the ones that critique their own team and expect the best from it and the ones that are in denial about their team and are willfully blind to their mistakes. You my friend, belong to the "in denial" club. The whole point of the above exercise was to evaluate the Cowboys, post Super Bowl era. It 16 years of incompetence, its not like its a trivial amount of time.
It's the "in denial" fans that are enablers for Jerry's disease (pretending he's a GM). Open your eyes and join the real fans--the ones that want to get better. Someone once said, "good is the enemy of great." Jerry is good at marketing. He's good at extending and expanding the Cowboys brand. He's good at fooling the media into spreading his rosy assessments of his teams talent level and potential. And all those kinds of 'good' get in the way of his team becoming great. He doesn't have to change as long as he sells tickets and merchandise and gets tons of press. But this is beginning to change. A quick look at the local sports media stories over the last couple of months should tell you where their priorities lie: with winning teams, as it should be. The Mavericks and the Rangers. Here is a link that explains the growing irrelevance of the Cowboys:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1030646-dallas-cowboys-and-jerry-jones-are-now-officially-irrelevant
Post a Comment