Dallas Cowboys: The Flex Defense VS The 4-0 Defense

Dallas Cowboys_ The Flex Defense VS The 4-0 DefenseSource:The Logical Cowboy– with a look at Tom Landry’s 4-0 defense

Source:The New Democrat

“A Deep Look into Tom Landry’s 40 Defense of the 80s”

From The Logical Cowboy

If Tom Landry had a basic defense philosophy and strategy as a defense head coach, which is how he started out as a defender when he played and as a defense coordinator with the New York Giants, before he became head coach of the expansion Cowboys in 1960, it was to make opposing offenses one-dimensional. His goal was to force the opposing offenses to throw the football all the time against his pass rushers and secondary, by taking away the other team’s running game.

Pre-1984 and starting in the mid 1960s, the base defense of the Cowboys was the flex defense:

“The Dallas Morning News has a cute article, about how the first defensive call by Rob Ryan on the first defensive play of the first preseason game of Dallas in 2011 was the 43 Flex. I recall watching that play and thinking “psycho front”. And yes, Ryan has 4 players along the line of scrimmage and 3 players at linebacker depth, but what we’re going to do in this article is talk about about Tom Landry’s first two defenses, the 43 inside and 43 outside, and how they then morphed into the flex, to better use the talents of their All-Pro defensive tackle, Bob Lilly.

The ideas for the Flex came about after Bob Lilly’s move from left defensive end to right tackle. Dick Nolan describes it as one half of the line playing a 43 inside, one half playing a 43 outside. To note, the tackles in the inside/outside are flexed. In Tom Landry’s Flex, however, it depended on which side of the offense was “strong”, or likely to be the side players would run to. Bob, in Peter Golenbock’s book, describes it as follows:

If I were on the weak side, I’d be head-up with the guard, right on the line of scrimmage, whereas the tackle on the other side would be three feet back. George Andrie would be right over the tackle and instead of being on his outside shoulder, he’d be head-up, three feet back. He would be keying my guard. I also keyed my guard.”

From Code & Football

The Cowboys pre-1984, would be in the flex defense on 1st down, against opposing offenses. It was somewhat weak against the pass, because the DT’s would intentionally line up off the line of scrimmage, so they could react how the other team is trying to run the ball or what type of passing play they would be running. Instead of just attacking the other team’s offense, regardless of what play they might run on 1st and expecting that you defense and you personal is good enough to stop what the opposing offense is truing to do to you. The flex defense was reactive, instead of proactive against opposing offenses.

Well, in 1978, the NFL changed its pass blocking and defense coverage rule, which more than anything as revolutionized what is now the modern NFL and has made NFL offense balanced. Pre-1978, most NFL teams probably ran the ball 60% of the time and only the good teams completed even more than 55% of their passes and perhaps just 50%, because offensive linemen weren’t allowed to extend their arms when blocking and defenders could essentially tackler receivers even before they got off the line of scrimmage, let alone before they got the ball. With the new blocking rules and illegal contact rule, NFL offense became balanced. Which meant the flex was no longer dominant against the run, but still effective.

Like with all great head coaches, when the league adapts against you, you either successfully adapt yourself, or you go out of business. Which is why Tom Landry went with 4-0 defense full-time in 1984 or so, to bring more pressure against opposing team’s QB’s. This is the 4-0 defense.

“The other basic Dallas defenses, beyond the 4-3 flex:

The 4-0, wherein Meg, middle linebacker Lee Roy Jordan, is removed for a defensive back, such as Barnes.

The 4-0, 6, whereupon Sarah (the strongside linebacker) is also removed and safety Randy Hughes takes his place. Barnes and Hughes are thus the fifth and sixth backs. The Cowboys had never employed six backs in a formation before last season.”

From D-Magazine

What made the Cowboys 4-0 unique, was while the Chicago Bears were bringing everybody, especially their linebackers when they rushed the QB, while the Washington Redskins were stunting and red dogging with their defensive lineman and linebackers, the Cowboys would go with their 4-0.

The Cowboys would still have their 4 lineman in to attack the QB, but would have 5 defensive backs lined up on the line of scrimmage. Now, if you know the other team is not going to run the ball and you have excellent cover corners, and of course you have excellent pass rushers up front, the 4-0 can be a great defense against the pass, because you are basically leaving opposing offenses o-lines alone to block all your pass rushers, unless they go with max protection.

But, if you don’t get to the QB, now your corners are vulnerable to big pass plays. It’s the whole Las Vegas gamble, unless you know the other team’s offense so well and know you defense is up to this challenge.

I think what made the Cowboys defense special in the 1970s and even in the 1980s, when the Cowboys were no longer dominant even in the NFC East, let alone the NFC, and the entire NFL, was that they could get to the QB with just their 4 down lineman. They would also take away you’re 1st down run with just their down lineman. And maybe they would red dog linebacker Tom Henderson, just to give opposing QB’s and offensive coordinators something else to think about.

When you have Ed Jones, Harvey Marin, Randy White, Jethro Pugh, and later Jim Jeffcoat up front, you shouldn’t have to blitz or even red dog a lot, to get to the QB. But Tom Landry was always thinking and looking for new ways to make the Cowboys even better and be able to adapt to the times as they were changing in the NFL.

Posted in NFC Classic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: ‘Why Mark Meadows Lost Bid To Move Georgia Criminal Case To Federal Court’

CNN_ ‘Why Mark Meadows Lost Bid To Move Georgia Criminal Case To Federal Court’ _ The New DemocratSource:CNN– former President Donald J. Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

“A federal judge on Friday rejected former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court, a significant setback for Meadows and a troubling sign for former President Donald Trump.

US District Judge Steve Jones found that the allegations against Meadows contained in the Fulton County district attorney’s indictment on election subversion charges were largely “related to political activities” and not to Meadows’ role as White House chief of staff.

“The evidence before the Court overwhelmingly suggests that Meadows was not acting in his scope of executive branch duties during most of the Overt Acts alleged,” wrote Jones, a Barack Obama appointee.

The Friday ruling has significant implications for the former president and his 18 co-defendants in the Fulton County district attorney’s sprawling racketeering case, though the judge said the ruling did not apply to the other defendants. Meadows was the first of five defendants who already filed motions to move the case to federal court – and Trump is expected to do so, too.

FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Windham, New Hampshire, U.S., August 8, 2023. REUTERS/Reba Saldanha/File Photo
The latest in Georgia 2020 election case
Meadows unsuccessfully argued that his case, now playing out in Georgia state court, should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties as White House chief of staff. His lawyers wanted the case in federal court so they could try to get it dismissed altogether, invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

The judge’s decision could set the tone for the other defendants also trying to move their cases. It’s an ominous sign for the defendants who are hoping to invoke the same federal immunity protections.

The judge explicitly stated in his ruling that he is not offering any opinion about Fulton County’s underlying criminal case against Meadows, who has pleaded not guilty.

Jones wrote in the decision that Meadows had not met even the “‘quite low’ threshold for removal” to federal court, because his activities for the Trump campaign were outside the scope of his federal role as White House chief of staff.

“The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones wrote. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities is exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”

The Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activity as part of their official duties, was “helpful in defining the outer limits of the scope the White House Chief of Staff’s authority,” the judge said.”

From CNN

“CNN’s Gloria Borger and Jamie Gangel dissect a federal judge’s decision to reject former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court. ”

From CNN

As I said on The New Democrat : 11 days ago:

“The Meadows legal team is going to have to answer the question where is it in the interest of the United States and under Mark Meadows job description, for the White House Chief of Staff, to try to convince the Secretary of State of Georgia, to throw out enough legal votes, for then President Donald Trump to win that election in 2020. Which is what Meadows was trying to do on behalf of then candidate Trump in 2020, so the President could overturn the 2020 election and be declared the winner and be able to stay in office.

The Meadows legal team is not going to be able to do that because Meadows was clearly acting as a Trump campaign official, not as Federal Government official. And so was the President in November or December of 2020, when he was trying to do the exact same thing, when he was talking to the Georgia Secretary of State as well.

George Conway already explained in this video (that’s linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony.

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don’t serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they’re supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?”

I don’t want to sound like I’m kissing my own ass: (which would be impossible for me to day anyway, at least physically) but for anyone who predicted that Mark Meadows was actually going to win this, perhaps also believes in Santas Clause as well.

It’s clear that what Mark Meadows was doing post-2020 election day, after President Donald Trump had already lost to Joe Biden, (and that’s according to the 50 United States, including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) he was working on behalf of his de-facto client Donald J. Trump, to overturn that presidential election and just automatically declare President Trump the winner of that state. Even though it was clear that the President lost that election by 12,000 votes. Mr. Meadows wasn’t acting as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government, which is why he lost today.

Posted in CNN, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Classic Sports: ‘1986-09-15 Denver Broncos vs Pittsburgh Steelers’

1986-09-15 Denver Broncos vs Pittsburgh SteelersSource:Classic Sports– with this 1986 ABC-MNF game.

Source:The New Democrat

“John Elway takes on the Steelers early in the 1986 season”

From Classic Sports

I think the best way to describe this game from 1986, is to imagine being on a very long road, perhaps to nowhere, (at least for the car thats going south) and you see two cars pass each other going in the opposition directions. That’s the story of the 1986 Denver Broncos and 1986 Pittsburgh Steelers.

The 86 Broncos were on the rise under head coach Dan Reeves, QB John Elway, and a very good, but underrated Bronco defense. They had already been a consistent winner and AFC Playoff team the previous 10 years, but were now on the verge of being a Super Bowl team and winning 3-4 AFC Championships over the next 4 seasons and playing for 4 out of the next 6 AFC Championships during that same period.

1986 Steelers, just weren’t very good at all. They still had a very good defense, at least as far as personal. And if you look at what they had on offense, with their skilled positions at least, a pretty good team on offense, when you looks at their running backs and receivers. But a football offense without a quarterback that they can get them ball and who beats you bye himself, is like a car without tires or an engine.

Opposing teams knew that if you take away the Steelers running game, you are going to beat the Steelers, because between QB’s Mark Malone and Bubby Brister, they didn’t have much of a passing game, and their defense wasn’t good enough to beat you by themselves.

The main difference between the 1970s Steelers that won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years and the 1980s Steelers, that struggled just to have winning seasons and make the AFC Playoffs, is the QB position. When they lost Terry Bradshaw after the 1982 season, they never successfully replaced him and that showed up in a major way in 1986.

Posted in AFC Classic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: ‘Special Grand Jury Recommended Charging Lindsey Graham’

CNN_ 'Special Grand Jury Recommended Charging Lindsey Graham' (1)Source:CNN– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina)

Source:The New Democrat

“The special grand jury in Fulton County recommended charges against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), according to the special counsel grand jury report released by a judge Friday.”

From CNN

“CNN legal analysts explain why they think Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wasn’t charged after a special grand jury in Fulton County recommended charges.”

CNN_ 'Special Grand Jury Recommended Charging Lindsey Graham'Source:CNN– former Georgia prosecutor Michael Moore talking to CNN.

From CNN

At risk of beating a dead horse beyond recognition: I’m not a lawyer. I’m going off on what I read and what I’m seeing online and TV with these legal issues. But I’m with Shan Wu whose a career lawyer on this.

I think Senator Lindsey Graham wasn’t charged by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, because he cooperated with them and her grand jury, after fighting his subpoena and trying not to testify at all, with this bogus (to be kind) claim that sitting members of Congress can’t be forced to testify under oath, especially to non-Federal grand juries and prosecutors.

So I think now the questions now are what did Senator Graham tell the Fulton grand jury and how cooperative with Fulton and Fani Willis was the Senator, and what if anything will we ever learn about what Senator Graham told this grand jury. Along with the facts that the District Attorney already has a lot of evidence and great cases against the major players in trying to illegally overturn the 2020 Georgia presidential election.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: ‘Former Vice President Mike Pence On Populism & The Republican Party’

C-SPAN_ 'Former Vice President Mike Pence On Populism & The Republican Party'Source:C-SPAN– Vice President Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) and 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

Source:The New Democrat

“Mike Pence on Populism and the Republican Party During remarks in New Hampshire, 2024 Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence cautioned GOP voters on veering toward populism, saying it was akin to progressivism.”

From C-SPAN

As my colleague Fred Schneider pointed out on The New Democrat:

“Vice President Pence is not a Ronald Reagan Republican either. Ronald Reagan was always part of the Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, classical conservative wing of the Republican Party. The wing of the Republican Party who believes it’s the job of government to conserve American’s individual rights and freedom, to defend the country, keep taxes, spending, regulations, deficits down.

The Reagan Conservative wing is not:

“This is what it means to be a real American. And anyone who disagrees with us, is Un-American or immoral. And it’s the job of government to enforce our religious values on everyone else.”

If you think about it, Mike Pence when he was in the U.S. House in the 2000s and as Governor of Indiana before he became Vice President in 2017, that’s the kind of Republican Pence was. He probably had a 90% approval rating with the right-wing religious populists of the Republican Party, before he turned against Donald Trump in late 2020 and early 2021.”

I think Mike Pence is a good, decent, honest, (at least for a career politician) man who loves his country, wants the best for it, who cares about other people, including people outside of his circles. But he’s also a politician, whose running for President of the United States.

Vice President Pence also knows that the right-wing populist movement that he’s speaking out against now, was his movement before he became Vice President in 2017.

Mr. Pence also knows that for him to have a September blizzard’s chance in Los Angeles of winning the 2024 Republican nomination for President, he has to separate himself enough from this movement, (a movement that Donald has had lockdown with him since 2015) and bring Republicans who are outside of this movement, with him, while still maintaining the religious and cultural values of this movement, that he would need for him, if again, there was a snow blizzard is Los Angeles, California, in September and Vice President Pence somehow won the 2024 Republican nomination for President.

Posted in C-SPAN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Phil Mattingly: Mike Pence Doesn’t Regret Comparing Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan

Pence doesn’t regret comparing Trump to Reagan_ Here’s whySource:CNN– former Vice President of the United States Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) and 2020 presidential candidate, talking to CNN.

Source:The New Democrat

“CNN’s Phil Mattingly sits down with former Vice President and current GOP presidential candidate Mike Pence to talk about what he calls former President Donald Trump’s “road to ruin” for the GOP.”

From CNN

I guess I would respond to what Vice President Mike Pence told CNN this way, which is what Phil Mattingly also talked about.

Donald Trump wasn’t a Conservative when he announced his presidential campaign in 2015 and didn’t run as a Conservative for President in 2016. Pre-Barack Obama birtherism, Donald Trump was a New York City Democrat. Perhaps a Northeastern Republican. He wasn’t very ideological at all.

If there is anything that’s ever been consistent about Donald Trump’s politics is that he’s an opportunist who reads political polls and moods very well. He got on board with the right-wing populists (whether you want to call them the Christian-Right, Tea Party, Christian Nationalists, or MAGA) in the Republican Party in 2011-12 and saw that as his opening to run for President someday himself as a registered Republican, but certainly not a Republican ideologically.

Vice President Pence is not a Ronald Reagan Republican either. Ronald Reagan was always part of the Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, classical conservative wing of the Republican Party. The wing of the Republican Party who believes it’s the job of government to conserve American’s individual rights and freedom, to defend the country, keep taxes, spending, regulations, deficits down.

The Reagan Conservative wing is not:

“This is what it means to be a real American. And anyone who disagrees with us, is Un-American or immoral. And it’s the job of government to enforce our religious values on everyone else.”

If you think about it, Mike Pence when he was in the U.S. House in the 2000s and as Governor of Indiana before he became Vice President in 2017, that’s the kind of Republican Pence was. He probably had a 90% approval rating with the right-wing religious populists of the Republican Party, before he turned against Donald Trump in late 2020 and early 2021.

I think the real difference between Mike Pence and Donald Trump’s MAGA followers, is not very ideological, except perhaps when it comes to trade, national security, and foreign policy. But they share the same religious and cultural values. I think the real ideological difference between Vice President Pence and Donald Trump’s followers, has to do with the U.S. Constitution, American democracy, and rule of law.

We have 2 1/2 years of evidence that backs up the fact that Mr. Pence believes in the rule of law and American democracy. At least enough, that he believes no one is above the law and is entitled to public office, especially after they just lost a free and fair election. Meaning you have to win elections to get into and stay in public office. Mr. Pence also believes no one is above the law. Donald Trump and his followers don’t believe in those American values.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Forbes Magazine: ‘Lindsey Graham Blasts Rand Paul For Holding Up Aid To Ukraine’

Lindsey Graham Blasts Rand Paul For Holding Up Aid To UkraineSource:Forbes Magazine– left to right: U.S. Senator’s Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) & Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina)

Source:The New Democrat

“In remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke about aid to Ukraine.”

From Forbes Magazine

As I explain on The New Democrat  back in July: it’s easy to understand why Senator Rand Paul is against American aid to Ukraine. He’s a Republican Senator from Kentucky, which is one of the biggest places in the entire MAGA movement, at least on a per-capita basis. MAGA loves two people: Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin. Perhaps not Vladimir, but they sure as hell respect and the admire that strongman, because they love and admire strongmen.

As far as Senator Lindsey Graham: it depends on which Lindsey Graham you are talking about. He’s the Mitt Romney from back in 2011-12, of the 2020s. It depends on what the polls are telling him and what his political situation in South Carolina is telling him, if you want to know what’s his latest political position on the latest issue is.

But the Neoconservative Lindsey of course wants America to aid Ukraine and any other American ally, when they’re facing genocide and eliminate from this planet, especially from a murderous dictator, like Vladimir Putin. Because that’s what Neoconservatives believe in, which is the defense of liberal democracy and the rule of law around the world.

Posted in Forbes Magazine, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: Abby Phillip: ‘Michael Cohen Publicly Advises Donald Trump’s Co-Defendants in Georgia Case’

Michael Cohen publicly advises Trump's co-defendants in Georgia caseSource:CNN talking to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

Source:The New Democrat

“Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney for Donald Trump, gives advice to the former president’s co-defendants in the sweeping Georgia case accusing Trump and others of attempting to overturn the 2020 election.”

From CNN

I guess it’s easy to say from the outside, especially if you are not a lawyer (like myself) that of course Donald Trump’s co-defendants should cooperate with the Feds and the Fulton County prosecutors, because DJT is the top dog, top target, the guy that the Fulton County and DOJ wants the most. But, I think you could see why an insider in Trump World might say:

“Why should I cooperate? I did nothing wrong. The laws don’t apply to me like they do to Joe and Jane Average. Besides, our cult leader will get reelected and will pardon me. All I have to do is to try to delay my trial and convictions as long as possible and wait to January, 2025.”

Plus, they still believe that might be able to get their case into the Federal court and get it thrown out there and get just one MAGA person on their jury and get their case thrown out that way.

But returning to Planet Earth: (if only for a moment) Trump’s co-defendants right now are in a burning house, with just one way out. Sure, they could light another cigarette, perhaps throw some more oil on the fire and try to drag out their cases, for reasons I already laid out. But on Planet Earth, when there’s only one escape from a burning house, without getting burned yourself, intelligent, sane, and sober, people find that one door or window that they can get through and escape the burning house.

That one door or window for the Trump co-defendants, is cooperating with Fulton County and DOJ and telling them exactly what they did and everything they know about what other people did during this 2021 coup attempt, including the former President Donald J. Trump.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vanity Fair: Myra MacPherson: ‘The Roots of Evil’

Vanity Fair_ The Roots of Evil (2023) - Google SearchSource:Vanity Fair 1989 profile of convicted serial murderer Ted Bundy.

Source:The New Democrat

“When serial killer Ted Bundy went to the electric chair after ten years of scrutiny on death row—and countless reports, television programs, and books—he was still a chilling enigma. Composed, lucid, personally charming, the man who defended himself at his own trial seemed to have no connection with the other Ted Bundy, the depraved monster who lured at least thirty girls to gruesome deaths. Now, for the first time, some of the shadows have been illuminated. MYRA MACPHERSON obtained the exclusive help of psychiatrist Dr. Dorothy Lewis, who was with Bundy for his last hours, and has reconstructed the formative roots of a serial killer. What she found was a reality very different from his mother’s picture of a normal childhood and adolescence—and Bundy’s own claim that pornography was to blame.”

From Vanity Fair

I guess it’s always helpful to try to find out why serial murderers (what I call so-called serial killers) murder not just one person, not just multiple people, but why they murder anyone at all and why they enjoy murdering people. And I’m not talking about mob hitmen, but people who murder for the simple pleasure of murdering people, which is what a serial murderer is.

But if you are going to try to find out what makes a serial murderer a serial murderer, you better find out correctly and get it right, so you don’t mislabel and mis-profile people. I think the only possible thing that we know about Theodore Robert Bundy (better known as Ted Bundy) that might explain why he was a serial murderer of women, is the way his parents raised him.

Ted Bundy never knew his biological father. There are rumors that the man who should be his maternal grandfather, was actually his biological father. His mother sort of treated him like a girl and had him dress up like a girl. That might explain the strange relationships that he had with women (not just the women that he murdered and raped) but it doesn’t explain why he enjoyed murdering them.

I’m not a professional criminal profiler or a law enforcement officer, I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but the best guess that I have for by Ted Bundy was both a serial murderer and serial rapist, is the same thing that makes an alcoholic an alcoholic or any other addiction that you want to talk about.

There’s something in the addict’s system that makes them enjoy something so much, that isn’ good for them, or other people (like getting raped and murdered) and they feel that they need that so much and can’t live with that, so they’re only happy when they’re drinking too much alcohol, eating too much, smoking too much, taking illegal narcotics, or violently raping and murdering other people.

This is what I get from reading a lot and watching a lot of documentaries the last 25 years, about perhaps the most successful and most interesting, as well as most intelligent serial murderer, that America at least, has ever seen. I think a better profile about Ted Bundy and something that should be looked into, is why he was addicted to rape and murder. Because we know why he raped and murdered, he was addicted to those two evil acts.

Posted in The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Logical Cowboy: ‘How GOOD Was Randy ‘The Manster’ White Really?’

How GOOD was Randy 'The Manster' White really_Source:The Logical Cowboy– with a profile of Dallas Cowboys DT Randy White.

Source:The New Democrat

This is a follow up piece that I wrote about Randy White, back in 2017 on The New Democrat .

“Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.”

From The Logical Cowboy

I just want to correct what sounds like a minor point that the narrator of this video made, but is actually pretty important when you are talking about the the greatness of Randy White, because it goes to why he was so good and almost un-blockable for about a 10 year period in the NFL, from 1976-85.

When Randy White was drafted in 1975 as a linebacker by the Dallas Cowboys, he was already 6’4, 265 pounds, benched 450 pounds, ran a 9.6 100 and ran a 4.6. If that’s undersize for a 1970s NFL linebacker, then both Kareem-Abdul Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain were too short to play the center position in the NBA and Dallas is a small city, Texas Stadium was too small for the NFL, and Texas is one of the smallest states, at least in the Southwest.

By 1977, Randy White is playing DT full-time and becomes the best all around defensive lineman, at least in the second half of the 1970s and perhaps the entire NFL in the 1980s. You could argue Randy White or Howie Long from the Los Angeles Raiders as the best all around defensive lineman in the NFL, at least in the 1980s.

Back in the 1970s, if you were 265 pounds, you were considered to be a normal, if not good sized NFL offensive lineman. And again., White starts off at outside linebacker, before Tom Landry moves him to DT full-time in 1977.

By the early or mid 1980s, When Randy was probably the best all around defensive lineman, certainly defensive tackle in the NFL, he was 270-275 and still had the same upper body strength, as well as the same speed and quickness, at least for a NFL defensive lineman.

So we’re talking about an NFL defensive lineman. who was simply to quick, too strong, and too big, for most if not any offensive lineman, (Gene Upshaw from the Oakland Raiders and John Hannah from the New England Patriots, being exceptions to that) to be able to block one-on-one in the 1970s. (Russ Grimm from the Washington Redskins being an exception to that in the 1980s) Which is why he was such a damn good defensive tackle in the NFL, because he was simply un-blockable, at least one-on-one, for reasons that I gave out, during the period that he played.

Posted in NFL Greatest, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment