What not to focus on this off season

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

The running game doesn't determine winning and losing in the NFL.

In 2011, when the Giants (whose passer rating differential was worse than ours) won the division, they outscored us 394 to 369.

They passed for 29 TD, and we passed for 33.

They ran for 17 TD, and we ran for 5.

Total TD: Giants 46, Cowboys 38

All touchdowns--even rushing touchdowns--determine winning and losing.

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

In 2011, when the Giants (whose passer rating differential was worse than ours) won the division, they outscored us 394 to 369.

They passed for 29 TD, and we passed for 33.

They ran for 17 TD, and we ran for 5.

Total TD: Giants 46, Cowboys 38

All touchdowns--even rushing touchdowns--determine winning and losing.

How you put the ball into the end zone doesn't really matter. You need to look at how the Giants were able to create 46 scoring opportunities to Dallas' 38.

[Shinywalrus]

Originally Posted by wick

If it can be statistically proven that the performance of the rushing game has virtually no effect on winning or losing, why would you engage in a strategy of spending finite resources to improve those areas of your team, thus reducing the number of resources available to shore up the areas that actually do impact winning and losing?

I think you're mostly right, but the problem is with your argument is that you're asserting a prior - that the running game has virtually no effect on winning and losing - that isn't completely correct.

The problem with most analyses of the import of the running game is that they look at the raw rushing yardage alone. Yes, it is true that raw rushing yardage often has very little explanatory power beyond passing yardage, or better, something like passing yards-per-attempt. But that doesn't actually prove that effective running doesn't have import in producing wins. The truth is that first down conversion success rates in short yardage situations, explosive running play potential and the absence of negative running plays all have meaningful contributions to victory totals.

I also think that too much Madden forces a lot of us into thinking that players are "run defenders" or "pass defenders" - for several years, we thought of Ratliff as a pure inside pass rush threat, but in more recent years, despite lacking the prototype size, he has actually been at his most effective in defending the run.

So I don't completely disagree with your premise - spending picks on running backs and thumper safeties is probably ill-advised given the importance of passing - but big, sometimes slower players who "smell" like run defenders are often pivotal parts of certain defensive schemes that very effectively defend the pass. I just don't think improving pass defense is quite as simple as, "Spend picks and FA money on pass rushers and corners."

[jnday]

Originally Posted by wick

If it can be statistically proven that the performance of the rushing game has virtually no effect on winning or losing, why would you engage in a strategy of spending finite resources to improve those areas of your team, thus reducing the number of resources available to shore up the areas that actually do impact winning and losing?

The offense that Garrett runs depends on balance to work best. You can cherry-pick stats to support any agenda.
I disagree on the run-stuffing linemen as well. Redskins game is all I have to say about that.
Running zone coverage was one of the reasons that the secondary got torched this year. Ryan ran zone coverage to hide some weaknesses due to injury. It didn't work too well with man coverage corners.

[visionary]

when Aristotle was asked who taught him to be so wise

he answered: "the stupid people"

[wick]

Originally Posted by jnday

The offense that Garrett runs depends on balance to work best. You can cherry-pick stats to support any agenda.
I disagree on the run-stuffing linemen as well. Redskins game is all I have to say about that.
Running zone coverage was one of the reasons that the secondary got torched this year. Ryan ran zone coverage to hide some weaknesses due to injury. It didn't work too well with man coverage corners.

The ultimate success of offense is measured in points. So if Garrett's offense requires successful running to work best, we'd see it show up in the yearly point totals. But we don't. There's almost no correlation whatsoever between Dallas' scoring and how well or poorly we run the ball.

(Year: Rush Yards/YPC/Points)
2007: 1,746/4.2/455
2008: 1,723/4.3/362
2009: 2,103/4.8/361
2010: 1,786/4.2/394
2011: 1,807/4.4/369
2012: 1,265/3.6/376

Note that in the Garrett era, 2009 was overwhelming the best season running the football, both in terms of total output and efficiency per carry. It was also the year we scored the fewest points.

[SkinsandTerps]

2009 They had the most yards and YPC...but you need to put in attempts, and red zone info.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by wick

The ultimate success of offense is measured in points. So if Garrett's offense requires successful running to work best, we'd see it show up in the yearly point totals. But we don't. There's almost no correlation whatsoever between Dallas' scoring and how well or poorly we run the ball.

(Year: Rush Yards/YPC/Points)
2007: 1,746/4.2/455
2008: 1,723/4.3/362
2009: 2,103/4.8/361
2010: 1,786/4.2/394
2011: 1,807/4.4/369
2012: 1,265/3.6/376

Note that in the Garrett era, 2009 was overwhelming the best season running the football, both in terms of total output and efficiency per carry. It was also the year we scored the fewest points.

2009 was also the the last playoff win. Are you after points or playoffs? Playoffs tells me that running was working.

[Star4Ever]

Originally Posted by wick

That's because they win, and thus run the ball more than other teams that don't win as much.

Or just maybe they win because they can run the ball???

[phildominator]

So having a healthy DeMarco Murray playing didn't have an impact on a better offense?

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by wick

If you want to improve in the off season, you have to pick the areas that actually correlate to winning, right? After all, each team has only a finite number of resources. Dallas, by virtue of a constrained cap, has fewer resources than most. So you have to pick for improvement only the areas that most improve your chances of winning.

To that end, which areas should we purposefully ignore or minimize because they needlessly waste resources without a commensurate increase in winning potential? Here's my list:

[View Full Quote]1. The running game. This includes running backs and the run blocking aspect of the offensive line. The running game doesn't determine winning and losing in the NFL. There is a mountain of statistical evidence to back this up. Since it doesn't determine winning and losing, minimize your efforts to shore it up. We can find warm bodies at running back late in the draft and in free agency. Don't sign or draft offensive linemen based on their run blocking ability or lack thereof.

2. The secondary. It's true that passing determines winning at that this applies to both sides of the ball. It's also true that Dallas was horrible against the pass in 2012. So why not upgrade the secondary? Because current NFL rules are so heavily slanted toward the passing game that expensive resources in the secondary are generally unable to perform at a level that justifies the expense. Look at Dallas this year, with four corners making significant money. We stunk anyway. Reward in the secondary is paid in turnovers, and turnovers are a function of pass rush and zone coverage that puts defenders in a position to watch the quarterback and be in the area when opportunities present themselves.

3. Run-stopping defensive linemen. This gets back to the point about the running game not determining winning and losing. As such, don't focus on getting that prototypical space-eating nose tackle or the run-stuffing defensive ends. Aside from maybe Jason Hatcher, we don't have a defensive lineman worth a lick at rushing the passer, and it's one of the big reasons why our defense stinks.

Do focus on getting as many pass rushers as possible. Do focus on changing our defensive schemes so we run more zone and create more opportunities for turnovers. Do provide more pass protection for Tony Romo so we can turn a decent passing season into a potentially elite one. Do attempt to provide even more weapons in the passing game. Those are the reasons why teams win or lose, so let's spend our resources where they matter.

While I agree that a better pass rush should help in generating turnovers, it won’t necessarily help.

If you want proof look no further than the 2008 Cowboys.

They generated 59 sacks (3rd highest in a 16 game season) however ended up 20th in generating turnovers (14 fumble recoveries and 8 interceptions).

Ultimately it’s down to running a scheme that takes advantage of the talent you have that gets the job done.

[wick]

Originally Posted by IrishAnto

While I agree that a better pass rush should help in generating turnovers, it won’t necessarily help.

If you want proof look no further than the 2008 Cowboys.

They generated 59 sacks (3rd highest in a 16 game season) however ended up 20th in generating turnovers (14 fumble recoveries and 8 interceptions).

Ultimately it’s down to running a scheme that takes advantage of the talent you have that gets the job done.

That's why I've tied pass rush to playing more zone coverage, which puts your secondary players in position to read the quarterback and follow the ball instead of a receiver. It is difficult to intercept a pass when playing man coverage. Play zone and generate a pass rush to force off schedule decisions and rushed throws and you will create turnovers. Note also that sacks is not the only indicator or even the best indicator of pass rush. The most effective pass rush results in a turnover, not a sack in which the quarterback retains possession of the ball.

[SkinsandTerps]

Originally Posted by wick

That's why I've tied pass rush to playing more zone coverage, which puts your secondary players in position to read the quarterback and follow the ball instead of a receiver. It is difficult to intercept a pass when playing man coverage. Play zone and generate a pass rush to force off schedule decisions and rushed throws and you will create turnovers. Note also that sacks is not the only indicator or even the best indicator of pass rush. The most effective pass rush results in a turnover, not a sack in which the quarterback retains possession of the ball.

So are you saying the Cowboys secondary is good enough to get those turnovers ?

I feel that you would face teams that just put a speedster out there to burn the holes in the zone.

You do know football is situational right ? Going for 4th & 1 at their 40 is a much better decision than on your own 40. However if you are down 2 scores with 3 minutes left...

[Oh_Canada]

Originally Posted by wick

That's why I've tied pass rush to playing more zone coverage, which puts your secondary players in position to read the quarterback and follow the ball instead of a receiver. It is difficult to intercept a pass when playing man coverage. Play zone and generate a pass rush to force off schedule decisions and rushed throws and you will create turnovers. Note also that sacks is not the only indicator or even the best indicator of pass rush. The most effective pass rush results in a turnover, not a sack in which the quarterback retains possession of the ball.

I happen to agree with you. The Cowboys pass rush must be improved-coupled with top end corners and hopefully better safety play the Cowboys should be much better defensively.
Offensively, the emphasis should be on finding another interior lineman who can pass protect and maybe a dynamic back who can catch passes out of the backfield.

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by wick

That's why I've tied pass rush to playing more zone coverage, which puts your secondary players in position to read the quarterback and follow the ball instead of a receiver. It is difficult to intercept a pass when playing man coverage. Play zone and generate a pass rush to force off schedule decisions and rushed throws and you will create turnovers. Note also that sacks is not the only indicator or even the best indicator of pass rush. The most effective pass rush results in a turnover, not a sack in which the quarterback retains possession of the ball.

I won't disagree with that and that why I pointed out its how you use your talent that counts most.


And while I agree that QB pressure may result in a pick while the sack won’t, the problem I have with 2008 is that you don’t get that many sacks without generating a significant amount of pressure to boot, yet because the secondary wasn’t used properly (baring in mind we had 4 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick in the secondary) we didn’t get the turnover results you’d expect from the pass rush.

The only problem I see it that our current secondary seems to be better suited to man rather than zone coverage.