How a Ban of the Three-Point Stance Would Affect the Cowboys

Three-point stances could become a thing of the past, which likely would affect the entire fabric of the game.

If you have not yet heard, Commissioner Goodell is looking into whether forcing offensive and defensive linemen to stand in two-point stances (no hand in the ground) would make the game safer, i.e. less head injuries.  Seriously.

A lot of Cowboys fans have questioned how this proposed rule change might affect the Dallas’ linemen, and I actually think that, if anything, it would help the team.  At an average size of 6’5”, 327 pounds, the Cowboys offensive line is mammoth–one of the largest in the league.  This kind of size can only be overpowered with leverage, something that defensive linemen acquire, in large part, due to their starting stance.  The abolition of the three-point stance would force linemen to play with a higher initial pad level, a proposition that would decrease the impact of leverage and favor the larger individuals.

On defense, the Cowboys already have only three linemen in a three-point stance pre-snap.  Further, because they run this 3-4 scheme, their defensive linemen are substantially larger than those on other teams, particularly the defensive ends.  It seems as though an alteration in the required pre-snap stance would hurt the Cowboys’ d-line as little as it would hinder any other defensive line in the league.

Instead of standing as Marc Colombo is above, linemen would likely attempt to gain leverage by leaning forward as much as possible without touching the ground, particularly on obvious run downs.

Still, whether or not the rule helps Dallas is a moot point if the rule itself is a poor one, which I believe to be the case.  The entire sport of football, no matter your position, is about playing with proper technique and superior leverage.  Eliminating one’s ability to do this–to force players to “play high”– makes little sense.  Further, when you force players to play without leverage, the chance of injury, in my opinion, is not lessened.  In what manner is it safer for a defensive linemen to lose all pre-snap leverage and get blown off the ball?

Lastly, what is a proper two-point stance?  A wide receiver is technically in one.  Instead of linemen going into stances similar to those they are in on obvious passing downs (pictured to the right), they would likely attempt to get as low as possible without actually touching the ground, particularly in obvious running situations.  Thus, the impact and head-to-head collisions that this proposed idea would attempt to eliminate would remain, and, unfortunately, so would all of the aforementioned downsides.

What should the ‘Boys do with Deon Anderson?

The Cowboys could have a difficult roster decision looming, as starting FB Deon Anderson was arrested earlier this week in Addison, TX for allegedly brandishing a loaded gun.  Anderson could face a future league-imposed suspension should the Cowboys retain him for the 2010 season.

FB Deon Anderson's future with Dallas is uncertain at best after his recent arrest.

In my opinion, the Cowboys should allow the legal system to play out and, should Anderson be found guilty, they should cut him immediately.  Dallas made it a point of emphasis this past offseason to rid themselves of players they determined to be potential distractions, i.e. Terrell Owens, Tank Johnson, Pacman Jones, Greg Ellis, and two of those players never even had trouble with the law.

Unfortunately for Deon Anderson, he does not have the natural ability of a T.O. or Greg Ellis.  While it is nice to believe that all NFL players get treated equally, that is just not the case.  Like it or not, star players receive more leeway, both on an off the field.  Deon Anderson is a solid fullback and a much-improved blocker, but his contributions to the Cowboys are not enough, in my opinion, for him to stay on the team should he be found guilty.

As I continue to progress through my film study of the season, I have noticed the Cowboys used TE John Phillips more and more at fullback as the season rolled along.  As long as they do not give up too much in the blocking department, which did not appear to be the case on film, this is a savvy move, as Phillips is a much bigger threat to make a play out of the backfield.  Opposing defenses must at least account for his presence, meaning any loss in blocking ability from Anderson to Phillips is more than made up for by Phillips’ playmaking abilities.  His versatility to line up at multiple positions also gives the defense less knowledge as to the Cowboys’ play call, as they could line up in spread just as easily as I-formation with Phillips in the game, a luxury that could not be afforded with Anderson in the lineup.

Rookie TE John Phillips' versatility softens the blow of a potential Anderson departure.

The greatest hole Anderson’s departure would leave would be on special teams, where he made 12 tackles in 2009.  This loss, however, is well worth the Cowboys making a statement by cutting Anderson and showing the team that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.  Still, let’s hope for Anderson’s sake that these allegations are false, or at least exaggerated.

Potential Draft Picks: Brandon Spikes, ILB, Florida

As I explained before, the Cowboys really need to get younger at the inside LB position.  Bradie James and Keith Brooking really did a tremendous job last season, particularly in the leadership department, so their presence is not something that should just be tossed off to the wayside.

Florida ILB Brandon Spikes' size makes him an ideal fit in a 3-4 defense.

With such a talented roster, however, it will be tough for a rookie at any position, no matter where he is selected, to come onto this team and start.  Thus, Dallas really has the luxury of taking the best player available at pick #27 (should they truly stay put, as Mr. Jones has declared they will do).  If that best player available happens to be at ILB or on the offensive line, then the Cowboys will have also filled what will be a position of need within a year or two.

Earlier I profiled Alabama ILB Rolando McClain.  While he would be tremendous value at the Cowboys draft spot, chances are they would have to move up to nab him.  Florida’s Brandon Spikes, however, will almost certainly be available in the back of the first round.  With some help, he could even fall to pick #59, although if the Cowboys like him enough, they’d probably have to move up a few spots in round two to secure the great value that would come with Spikes’ selection.  Remember, this is a guy who was a consensus first-round pick before he came back for his senior season.

Scouting Report

At 6’3”, 256 pounds, Spikes definitely has the requisite size to play inside in a 3-4 defense.  He is a very instinctual player who does a great job of always being around the ball.  His aggression can sometimes lead to him being out of position, however, and he does not have the speed to recover from taking bad angles, something he does from time to time.  He may have trouble defending counters and misdirection plays in the NFL.  When he is in position, however, Spikes displays tremendous strength by keeping his legs underneath him.  Some have ridiculed him for going for the big hit too often, but I think he displays solid recognition skills of when and when not to do this.  I also believe another popular knock on Spikes, that he is sub-par in coverage, is unfounded.  While his hips and COD (change of direction) are not ideal, he does a good job getting into his drop and making a play on the football.

Projection

Spikes is a guy who will probably fall between the Cowboys’ first and second-round selections.  While they will most likely stay put at pick #27, I could see Dallas moving up from pick #59 to grab Spikes should he fall toward the back of round two.

Film Study- Double Tight Right/Left Strong/I Right/Left

While I have not yet concluded my film study for the 2009 season, I wanted to take the time to talk about a formation (and recurring play out of this formation) I noticed the Cowboys running more and more as the season progressed:  Double Tight Right (or Left) Strong (or I-formation) Right (or Left).  The differences between the side or whether it is Strong or I-formation are negligible (Strong just means the fullback is shaded slightly more strong side, toward the double tight ends).

Through 13 weeks, the Cowboys ran this formation 90 times.   The breakdown is shown below.

Incredibly, they ran the same play (a strong side dive) 66 of those times (73.3%).  Of the 24 remaining plays, 14 were runs to the weakside (often tosses outside). 

I understand it is important to set teams up for plays later in the game, or even later in the season, but running the exact same play 73.3% of the time out of a certain formation seems a bit excessive.

Any ‘excessive’ label, however, is of course reliant on how effective the play turned out to be.  If teams were truly noticing this trend on film and adjusting their defenses accordingly, we would expect the average yards per carry on the dive play from this formation to fall as the year proceeded.

Not surprisingly, this is just the trend that becomes evident after analyzing the film.  In Dallas’ first five games, they ran up the middle on the strong side out of the formation 19 times for 149 yards (7.8 yards per carry).  It is reasonable to believe teams did not yet catch on to the trend until after Week 5 at Kansas City because, in the first four weeks of the season, the team lined up in the formation just five times per game.

In the next eight games, however, that 7.8 yard average dropped to 5.0 yards per carry (45 carries for 223 yards).  Still a solid number, but a lot less impressive when taking into account that 113 of those yards came against an inept Oakland team.  In the other seven games, the Cowboys ran a strong side dive out of Double Tight Strong/I formation 34 times for 110 yards, an average yards per carry of just 3.2.

While the totals against Oakland obviously still count to the team’s total, the fact that so many of these late-season yards came against one opponent seems to suggest Oakland was the exception.  In fact, the Cowboys did not run for more than 30 yards per game using the play in any of the other games through Week 14.

Even more astonishing than the incredibly high percentage of dive plays coming out of this Double Tight formation is the fact that the Cowboys motioned into this formation 40 of the 90 plays, and on 34 of these 40 plays, they ran up the middle strong side (always in the ‘1’ or ‘2’ hole, depending on the side the tight ends were lined up on).  Thus, 85% of the time when the Cowboys motioned into Double Tight Right/Left Strong/I Right/Left, they ran the same exact play.  If the specific formation was Double Tight Left I Left, for example, then they ran up the ‘1’ hole (between Kosier and Gurode).

While teams obviously could not completely sell out against the run, knowing that there is an extremely good chance a team will run in a certain hole allows players to cheat a bit to that area, yet still be aware of the possibility for playaction.  The diminished results that this play yielded as the season progressed are a testament to this idea.

Within a week I will conclude my film study and report the final results of this breakdown, along with a wealth of other interesting observations and statistics.