What happened to this offense?

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Blitzen32

Also, putting up 40 points on Oakland or KC is hugely different from putting up the same vs. Seattle or Denver.

Tons of teams score in garbage time vs 2nd and 3rd string opponents.

Also, starting a possession at your opponents 5 is kinda different than starting a possession at your own 5 yard line.

Advanced stats account for all of these things, and they all firmly rank Dallas below the top 15.

Well, duh. Thanks for pointing out that better defenses are harder to score against on a per-series basis. Everybody get that? I'll put that right up with your strength-of-schedule qualification in terms of how enlightening it is.

I think we all understand that there a circumstances where point/series can be affected one way or another. That doesn't mean the statistic isn't perfectly useful in comparing the relative effectiveness of offenses when it comes to offense-adjusted scoring.

But thanks for pointing out that 'advanced stats' account for 'things.' Those of us who thought points/series was the only way to measure NFL offenses are all pretty relieved over here. I think knowing the stats are 'advanced' in particular, is really encouraging. I *know* that hearing these 'advanced stats' all rank Dallas below the top 15 is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that part.

[Blitzen32]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Well, duh. Thanks for pointing out that better defenses are harder to score against on a per-series basis. Everybody get that? I'll put that right up with your strength-of-schedule qualification in terms of how enlightening it is.

I think we all understand that there a circumstances where point/series can be affected one way or another. That doesn't mean the statistic isn't perfectly useful in comparing the relative effectiveness of offenses when it comes to offense-adjusted scoring.

But thanks for pointing out that 'advanced stats' account for 'things.' Those of us who thought points/series was the only way to measure NFL offenses are all pretty relieved over here. I think knowing the stats are 'advanced' in particular, is really encouraging. I *know* that hearing these 'advanced stats' all rank Dallas below the top 15 is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that part.

This probably sounded "intelligent" as you were typing it out huh?

Solid work.

[Blitzen32]

Originally Posted by DFWJC

You really shouldn't pull that "if you were a fan" garbage unless you know what you're talking about.

Dallas had the 5th roughest strength of schedule, with opponents having a record of 134-122.

I'm NOT even saying that they had a brutal schedule (which stats say they arguably did), but I was saying the schedule was not full of patises.

Anyway, of course I'm ticked that we haven't been to the playoffs in a few years.

However, I do not feel this team, with the players it had at the end of the season, was really a "playoff" team. Sure, they could have snuck in if they played a little better in Washington. They would have gotten smoked in the playoffs though.
They were what their record said they were. I wish it was better.

I am not sure how easy you expect things to be in a season. If 40% of your games are against teams .500 and below, then I think most fans would feel pretty great about that situation. Doesn't get too much easier than that. At some point, your team has to perform and earn some keep.

[CyberB0b]

Originally Posted by Blitzen32

I am not sure how easy you expect things to be in a season. If 40% of your games are against teams .500 and below, then I think most fans would feel pretty great about that situation. Doesn't get too much easier than that. At some point, your team has to perform and earn some keep.

At some point, you need to beat a team capable of winning and we failed to do that.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Blitzen32

This probably sounded "intelligent" as you were typing it out huh?

Solid work.

And it didn't when whoever reads things to you read it out loud for your to reply to? My apologies. Maybe try reading it again without moving your lips? We call that 'advanced reading' on the internet, and it's better than regular reading sometimes.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by Blitzen32

Tons of teams score in garbage time vs 2nd and 3rd string opponents. Also, starting a possession at your opponents 5 is kinda different than starting a possession at your own 5 yard line.

Advanced stats account for all of these things, and they all firmly rank Dallas below the top 15.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to these rankings. I can't find them myself. Then I'd like to know to what degree any of them correlate to winning. Net points per drive has a correlation of at least .90, so that's a very accurate stat for a 16-game season. I question how helpful it is to consider strength of schedule while ignoring strength of all your opponents' schedules, and strength of the schedules of *their* opponents, and so on.

I agree that there are problems with points per drive when you try to say a team that scored 24 points on 8 possessions in one game performed better than a team that scored 30 points given 11 possessions in another game, but over a full season those things tend to even themselves out.

Also, neither one of the two factors that you mentioned above -- good starting field position and garbage time scores -- apply to Dallas' 2012 season at all.

These guys had us ranked 11th, and 10th, and 11th.

I'd like to see the ones that ranked us firmly below the top 15, if you (or anybody) can provide links.

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by CyberB0b

At some point, you need to beat a team capable of winning and we failed to do that.

Of course and I totally agree.

But saying our schedule was easy when in fact it was the 5th toughest is just wrong. That was the only point I was making with him.

And pointing at that 40% of the schedule had a losing record actually backs up my point. it should be closer to 50% to be average. Turns out only 4 teams had it tougher on paper.

Like I said, they were what their record said they were...a 500 team.