The Cowboys are the only team in the NFL who has not achieved this goal

[jnday]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Well, I suppose it would if McLovin hadn't already shown we score the 3rd most points in the NFL in the 2nd half of games.

I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.

[SkinsandTerps]

Originally Posted by jnday

I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.

Most of it.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

Most of it.

Which would make them average as I first posted.

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by CowboysFanSince88

The Eagles finally scored more than 10 pts before halftime which means that now we are the only team in the NFL who has yet to score more than 10 pts before the half.

So there is no reason why we can't break that sad streak this week of not scoring beyond 10 pts. The time is now

This is part of the original post in this thread, .. some need to read it and see that it was not that complicated.

It was never about 11 points, never about whether you were ahead or behind, or what the odds of winning the game were.

It was simply, .. we are the only team in the NFL who has yet to score more than 10 pts before the half.

And I'm not putting words in the OP mouth, but I think he was only saying that this was not a good thing.

[SkinsandTerps]

WVC... you get props.

[cowboysooner]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Rank Avg First Half points by year

2007 13.1pts - 7th
2008 11.8 - 16th
2009 11.1 - 16th
2010 10.9 - 15th
2011 11.4 - 17th
2012 6.6 - 30th

Rank Avg Second Half points by year

2007 14.7pts - 2nd
2008 10.8 - 17th
2009 10.7 - 12th
2010 13.6 - 4th
2011 11.3 - 13th
2012 15.1- 3rd

This has been a 2nd half team for a while.

10 points provides a 65% correlation, but 6.6 pts is far, far lower and show a systemic, non-arbitrary problem. If McLovin did a bell curve for the league 6.6 would be in the tail with power houses like Cleveland and Jacksonville. That is standards of deviation away from average, good or our potential as evidenced by second half performance.

People can stick their head in the sand and argue the virtues of 10 vs. 11 vs. 14; but 6.6 is awful. It shows a team that is outmanned, ill-prepared or stubborn.

In any case, it does not fit with a defense that has invested in rushing the passer and coverage at the expense of employing run stuffers.

[Gaede]

Originally Posted by cowboysooner

10 points provides a 65% correlation, but 6.6 pts is far, far lower and show a systemic, non-arbitrary problem. If McLovin did a bell curve for the league 6.6 would be in the tail with power houses like Cleveland and Jacksonville. That is standards of deviation away from average, good or our potential as evidenced by second half performance.

People can stick their head in the sand and argue the virtues of 10 vs. 11 vs. 14; but 6.6 is awful. It shows a team that is outmanned, ill-prepared or stubborn.

In any case, it does not fit with a defense that has invested in rushing the passer and coverage at the expense of employing run stuffers.

Great work!

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease

This thread isn't about Jason Garrett. Try and focus on the topic.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by jnday

I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.

Given we scored a huge chunk in a couple of come from behind wins, not enough to make it irrelevant. That would make it relevant.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

WVC... you get props.

For what? I have already said I misread the OP on 10 points. My point was, and is, it is arbitrary and I have exemplified this with 2 other scenarios that are being ignored. How strange.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Honestly man, it just is that I see 11 points as very arbitrary. That is my point. Is is very hard to score 11 points in the NFL. So why wasn't 10 points used? Why not 12 points? Infinitely easier to score 12 than 11. 10 would signify double digit scoring and it is also common. I would have had no issues at all if the parameter had said 2 TDs in the first half. That is alarming and I admit I had no idea we hadn't. Nor would I have likely chimed in if it was double digit scoring, or 10 points. Unless of course it was to show that we had scored 10 four times.

I also brought up the fact that it is possible to score 11 or more and still be behind.

[View Full Quote]My only point is that 11 points is a manufactured, cherry picked number that does not signify a large increase in chances of winning. Would you feel better if in one of our games we scored 4 FGs in the first half? I wouldn't, because to me that still means we are stalling drives and settling for FGs. Yet it would be above that 11 point barrier. So by the original premise this would mean we are doing something right like the rest of the league supposedly.

I don't see it that way at all. Therefore I don't see 11 points as an incredible leap over 10 points which we have done 4 times as I originally noted when I misread the OP. In other words 11 points is not a huge advantage over 10 points as it seemed to be presented.

Again, I appreciate the work you did. It was interesting and I thank you. I just do not see this as alarming. The not scoring 2 TDs...oh hell yeah. That sucks.

Let's say I'm running a marathon. Along the marathon path, there are five markers spaced at equal distances so I can keep track of my progress. Each marker includes a time stamp so I know how long it took me to get there.

While there are five markers in this marathon, there could just as easily be seven or eight or ten or a hundred markers. It doesn't matter. What's important is that all runners in the marathon are using the same markers; therefore, I have a means of comparing my progress against the other runners.

By looking at the average time it requires to reach each marker, I can know if I'm running ahead or behind most other runners.

This 10 point number is like one of those markers. It gives us a means of comparing the Cowboys against the other teams in the league. And it's an area we need to improve. That's all.

[goshan]

The average points in the 1st half (6.6?) is the statistically relevant data point. The fact that we are the only team who hasn't reached 10 is primarily a way to amplify/communicate our poor performance on Offense in the 1st half.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by cowboysooner

10 points provides a 65% correlation, but 6.6 pts is far, far lower and show a systemic, non-arbitrary problem. If McLovin did a bell curve for the league 6.6 would be in the tail with power houses like Cleveland and Jacksonville. That is standards of deviation away from average, good or our potential as evidenced by second half performance.

People can stick their head in the sand and argue the virtues of 10 vs. 11 vs. 14; but 6.6 is awful. It shows a team that is outmanned, ill-prepared or stubborn.

In any case, it does not fit with a defense that has invested in rushing the passer and coverage at the expense of employing run stuffers.

I think everyone agrees 6.6 is pathetic.

The 65% in and of itself is fairly meaningless because, as shinywalrus said, the more points you score the more you should win. Using the regression formula the 6.6pts in the first half actually projects to only 3 Dallas wins. The fact that dallas has 5 wins can partly be attributed to the high 3rd highest scoring in the second half.

You made me relook at the data.The Standard deviation after 11 games the average team H1 scoring totals 125pts with a standard deviation of +/-35pts

This equates to 66% of teams score between 14.6 and 8.2pts in the first half

Caveat: There is skew and not a good bell/gaussian distribution and normal standard deviation extrapolations can increase error from mean.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

This is part of the original post in this thread, .. some need to read it and see that it was not that complicated.

It was never about 11 points, never about whether you were ahead or behind, or what the odds of winning the game were.

It was simply, .. we are the only team in the NFL who has yet to score more than 10 pts before the half.

And I'm not putting words in the OP mouth, but I think he was only saying that this was not a good thing.

This explains the whole post. Anyway you look at it, the Cowboys not scoring more than 11 points in any first half this year speaks volumes about the coaches and players.

[CowboysFanSince88]

Originally Posted by jnday

This explains the whole post. Anyway you look at it, the Cowboys not scoring more than 11 points in any first half this year speaks volumes about the coaches and players.

Especially when you have the other option of being in FG range 4 times in 30 mins and can atleast get 12 pts or maybe even 15 pts

I just want the offense to pretend they are down 20 when the game starts