Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Parcells4Life, Mar 30, 2014.
In a word, yes. I expect we will use it quite a bit more than in the past. Tony loves it.
Where do you think the numbers come from, khiladi? From the "actual games." And I mean all of them -- not just the ones you or I selected.
Using the two best offensive metrics (points per drive and pass rating), Denver led the league. Dallas was 4th and 7th. So one thing I definitely haven't even tried to show you is that Dallas was "like Denver" in 2013. Nobody was like Denver.
What I'm trying (and failing repeatedly) to get you to understand is that, when you say our offense's numbers are skewed by 1) advantageous field position following opponents' turnovers, and 2) by the fact that so many points were scored when games were already out of reach, and you show some (repeat, some) examples of that, why would you have a problem when I look at every example of that and show that what you say is not true?
You still have not answered that.
Heard this in previous years. Next.
People here forget that the defense actually won some of our games while our offense sputtered like a car running on empty. The defense and in some cases special teams won some of our games for our sputtering offense. Example would be the game against Washington and our first game against Philly.
It amazes me to hear people say that our offense it top 5 but forget that some of the scores were made by the defense or special teams.
We had the #4 offense in points per offensive drive. No defensive or ST scores can skew this stat, because a Dallas defensive or ST score can't occur on a Dallas offensive drive.
The offense's numbers did not inordinately benefit from short fields, either. That was addressed in post #82 of this thread.
"There is a way to figure out how much of the offense's scoring was due to field position. Simply look only at the offense's drives that did NOT benefit from good starting field position. If you look at all drives in the league last year that began inside teams' own 35-yard line, Dallas ranked 3rd in the NFL in the percentage of drives that resulted in a TD. That's an average starting field position of the 20-yard line, and that's where more than 75% of all the league's drives started."
I beg to differ. If you take a look at the first Washington game last year the defense and special teams won that game. The defense was the one that placed the offense with a short field and Harris had an amazing day on special teams. The offense didn't do much. If it weren't for defemse we would have lost.
The next week we played the Eagles. Same results. The offense was putrid and scored a measley 17 points. While the defense held them in check for 3 points.
The defense was awful last year. But the offense wasn't as good as what we expected it to be. There were many 3 and outs. When the Cowboys went with their hurry up was when they started to get rolling. Maybe throwing away Garretts playbook does wonders for this offense.
Playing no huddle with a defense that is a sieve is like playing Russian roulette. If you don't produce on offense, you are screwed. The Eagles face the same dilemma.
You're only giving examples that support your point. Anybody can find examples of any offense underperforming relative to its season numbers, just as anybody can find examples of the opposite, and we could go endlessly back and forth mentioning this play from that game, but we'd just be spinning our wheels.
You have to look at every play of every game.
The offense's numbers don't benefit from stat-padding in blowout wins either (see post #89), nor are these numbers inordinately skewed by one game (post #117).
Here we go again:
Your trying to some type of argument where the defense gets fields position has no bearing on Dallas' ability to score. If Sean Lee for example, returns to ball to the opponent's 7 yard line, and our offense then scores, somehow the defense isn't responsible for scoring because it's the FG kicker who puts the ball through the posts or Dallas just scores from seven yards out a TD.
You may expect me to buy such gullible nonsense, but I don't. And again, it's an average that has no bearing on the context of a game and Winning is what matters.
It's this type of BS argument that says the reason why we lost games is because of our defense. It's stat-picking which is precisely the point. I don't have to show each and every game, I gave four games as a point, which was sufficient. We out performed offensively the Eagles in the last game of the season statistically, but we lost.
The eagles spent the most number of plays on the field of any team last year. I don't think that can hold up this year with more teams becoming familiar with their system.
In a way I agree with you and I don't disagree with what I pointed out was nothing more than an example.
But I believe there is truth to what I mentioned. There are games which the defense has actually won it for us - as what I stated in my example.
There are also games which our offense had lost it for us. See Lions, Green Bay and the Eagles game.
This was because the the inept, conservative offense that Garrett wants us to run. When we are behind and we ditch the playbook we all of a sudden become unstoppable on offense. We start to score points. Why is that?
The problem is not our offense and the players on offense. Its Garrett. His playbook and his philosophy on offense is killing this team.
Now what I want to find out a stat when we ditch the playbook, go no huddle, and simple play at a faster tempo.Versus to our same ole' methodical offense run by the playbook of Garrett? I believe we all here will have a EUREKA moment. Everyone will start to finally realize that Garrett is the problem on offense, not the players or even Romo.
When we need to score or when we need to chew time off the clock we failed and lose games. This is because Garretts play-calling and his playbook is built on 3 and outs. Thus the finger of blame should be pointed at Garrett. There is nothing wrong with our offense and once you take Garrett out of the equation, I think everyone will see an entirely different offense. Fix this glaring problem in the offense, our defense will all of a sudden will become become better.
What you don't understand, and evidently are unable or unwilling to understand, is that it's possible to filter out an element that you believe is skewing the numbers.
I don't expect you to "buy" anything, but yes, I do have the hope that you will at least try to understand what I'm saying. FWIW, it's a good rule of thumb to ask questions rather than blindly criticize what you don't understand.
The offense was one of the league's best in 2013. How much of that was Garrett is anybody's guess.
Well, we were 7th in fewest three-and-outs as a percentage of total drives, so you lost me there. Only three teams (SD, Den, Car) had fewer total three-and-outs than the Cowboys in 2013.
I'm not going to go for the simple snark and ask the question:
If Tony loves it- why has it not been utilized more in a strategic, rather than a desperate maneuver by Garrett and/or Callahan?
Especially Garrett who is apparently quite close with said QB and has coached him for years?
Whose fault is that on a strategic level?
Loaded question? You bet. For the past couple of seasons it's been painfully obvious that the no-huddle has been very effective for this team and it's QB and it's been rarely utilized until this last season and even then it was the slowest "Hurry-up" I've ever witnessed. I'd like to know why this team never went truly "Romo-Friendly" when the offensive coaching staff has been fairly consistent for nearly all of Romo's playing career? Shouldn't they know what works best for the offense? Shouldn't they recognize the moments the offense moves at it's most efficient?
I realize that the no-huddle is a gimmick, but I'm not suggesting making it a base offense- I'm asking what on this team keeps it's offense from being at it's most efficient at all times and during any situation in-game.
I understand fully that one can filter out numbers that one believes are skewing a point. What you seem to be willing not to understand that one can also filter out numbers to manipulate a point, which gives birth to the statement that there are lies, lies and damn statistics.
The reality is your point is utterly absurd. If we start seven yards out, because Sean Lee returned an INT seventy yards and score, your argument is that the defense has no bearing in points per drive. These were pretty much your exact words.
There is no filtering out any numbers that change your absurd conclusion.
It us absurd conclusions like this that give birth to the argument that our defense is the sole reason we didn't make the playoffs.
Hmm... I see what you're driving at.
Good point and one I'd personally like to see a response to.
This is what I mean. If Lee returns an INT 70 yards or 0 yards, it's still an INT and as such would NOT be included in a stat called "possessions that did NOT begin after a turnover." Interceptions are turnovers. That interception is then completely beside the point. Furthermore, if the offense takes over at the opponent's 7, that possession would NOT be included in a stat called "drives that started inside the offense's own 35." The opponent's 7 is NOT inside the offense's 35. That possession is then completely beside the point. Did you not understand these two filters? If you think our defense's takeaways skew the offense's stats, simply take them out of the equation and you'll find out if what you think is true.
Statistics only lie when used by liars or those who don't know how to use them. In this case, at least, I fit neither of those descriptions.
Quoted for truth!
These are the points per drive when you take out possessions that began after a takeaway by the team's defense. We ranked 4th.
1. Broncos 2.68
2. Saints 2.21
3. Chargers 2.18
4. Cowboys 2.09
5. Packers 2.08
6. Bears 2.06
7. Eagles 1.95
8. Seahawks 1.93
9. Patriots 1.90
10. Lions 1.85
To try to make this as clear as possible, these are the points scored per offensive possession that did not begin after a turnover. IOW, pretend turnovers don't exist, and all possessions come after either a punt, a kickoff, or an unsuccessful 4th-down play (field goal attempt or otherwise). This is a good way to show which offenses benefited disproportionately from their own defense's takeaways. The Patriots ranked 6th in overall points per drive, but only 9th when you filter out drives that began after takeaways.
Not that it's necessarily a bad thing for New England's offense to be good at scoring off opponents' turnovers anyway, just that it skews their offense's ranking in a way that it does not skew the Cowboys' (for example).
Per ESPN and NFL.com its showing the Cowboys ranked 16th in offense. I don't about you but to me ranked 16th is CERTAINLY not one of the league's best in 201`3. Unless I'm not seeing where your getting your source from. But as I thought, our offense was not the best. In fact, it was barely middle of the pack.
Looking at 3rd down conversion stats for 2013 its showing that we ranked 25th. Better than the Oakland Raiders but one below the Cleveland Browns.
I don't know if your making this stuff up but what Im seeing is not the same as what you just stated. Once again my sources say that we were actually below the pack when it came to 3rd down conversions at ranked 25th. Thats awful.
So please stop saying that the Cowboys were one of the best when it says that they were ranked 16th in 2013. For 3rd down conversion ranking they ranked 25th. Maybe you think thats great but I think it sucks.