Cowboys O scoring at a historic pace

[Nav22]

I do understand it.

There are some events one could argue subjectively if they are historic. Especially, within the immediate time frame of the event itself. That doesn't apply in all cases, and certainly doesn't apply to the one in your post. Even the #1 occurrence in your post isn't historic, let alone 5th.

Someone tell Buzz Aldrin his moon walk wasn't historic.

He wasn't there first!!!

 

[LouBrown]

It is objectively historic.

This is impossible lol.

 

[Nav22]

Nope...still don't care.

All manner of professional writing - Newpapers, e-media, government documents, academia, fiction and non-fiction..many with professional editors...have spelling and grammar errors.

But for you...it's hillarious I mispelled a word on my phone on a sports fan message board.

now THAT...is worthy.

The dimwitted are so easily amused.

Awwwww, this was a cute response!

It wasn't a typo. It wasn't fat fingers.

You simply didn't know how to spell the word.

We both know what that says about you.

 

[Nav22]

Nope...still don't care.

All manner of professional writing - Newpapers, e-media, government documents, academia, fiction and non-fiction..many with professional editors...have spelling and grammar errors.

But for you...it's hillarious I mispelled a word on my phone on a sports fan message board.

now THAT...is worthy.

The dimwitted are so easily amused.

Oh, you also can't spell "hilarious."

Was that the phone's fault too?

 

[jmnichols75]

Who argued it wasn't good or impressive?

We're talking about the word "historic". People here throw it around flippantly about everything.

Doesn't matter if it's something that has happened many times before. As long as it's near one extreme or the other, it suddenly becomes "historic."

I miss when words had actual meaning.

I get the frustration with dilution of the meaning of words. I share it. But the stat involves 27 years of data. To me, in this context, that qualifies as historic because that is a fairly lengthy amount of time. Going much further back than that probably gets--generally--into lower scoring eras, so the comparisons would become less useful. Maybe you could go back to 1995, or so, and not run into that problem (maybe you never would, I'm not absolutely certain about that)? Still, over two-and-a-half decades is quite a bit of data over a relatively lengthy span of time. While I don't think there is an absolute or inarguable definition of the word "historic", its usage here isn't ridiculous. I can see where, maybe, some might see that as questionable, but I don't think it qualifies as hyperbole or serves as evidence of a hidden agenda.

 

[zrinkill]

Dak usually plays well in the regular season ......... he will be an all time regular season Dallas winning QB.

Now this is his play in the playoffs

In the 2 games the offense has won he had 5 TD's and 1 INT while scoring an average of 27.5 points (Very good)

In the 5 games the offense has lost he had 9 TD's and 6 INT's while scoring an average of 22.8 points (Poor, with most of those points coming in the 3rd - 4th)

In example of the 3rd and 4th scoring

2017 vs Packers 18 out of 31 points scored in the 4th Quarter after being down by 3 scores

2022 vs 49'rs 10 out of 17 points scored in the 4th Quarter after being down by 3 scores

2023 vs 49'rs 6 out of 12 points coming in last play of third and 4th Quarter after being down by 2 scores

2024 vs Packers 25 points out of 32 points coming in the 3rd and 4th Quarters after being down by by 41 points

 

[jmnichols75]

4 game sample is silly, but if the sample range is 26 years, the data is the data and you’re being needlessly dismissive and pedantic

Shoot, it's actually 27 years, right?

 

[jmnichols75]

lol was waiting for this

Yeah, some people are just jumping to conclusions and/or can't read the chart. I'm not arguing that the information is the most revelatory in the world, but some of the nitpicking and reflexivity going on in this thread is...crazy.

 

[jmnichols75]

I've corrected to 7..

2020 to 2026. Pay attention.

Am I missing something? I'm questioning myself because, surely, no one would double down this way on something that seems so obviously incorrect. The comparison goes back to 2000. That so many high ranking teams are from relatively recent seasons doesn't undermine it's value (although I wouldn't argue it as much beyond just being interesting).

 

[jmnichols75]

That 6-year cutoff is one you've come up with. Unless the information in the original post is a lie (or mistake), they compared offenses of the past TWENTY years, not six. It just so happens that several of the better offenses (at least according to this statistic) have been from the past six years. That doesn't mean that comparison was limited to those six years.

As to your claim that they're comparing 4 games to full seasons, well...that's obviously not true. The chart shows "4" under the "G" heading for each team. Presumably, that means four games is the basis for comparison for all the teams listed.

Ugh...TWENTY-SEVEN years. My typo/mistake.

 

[LouBrown]

Dak usually plays well in the regular season ......... he will be an all time regular season Dallas winning QB.

Now this is his play in the playoffs

In the 2 games the offense has won he had 5 TD's and 1 INT while scoring an average of 27.5 points (Very good)

In the 5 games the offense has lost he had 9 TD's and 6 INT's while scoring an average of 22.8 points (Poor, with most of those points coming in the 3rd - 4th)

In example of the 3rd and 4th scoring

2017 vs Packers 18 out of 31 points scored in the 4th Quarter after being down by 3 scores

2022 vs 49'rs 10 out of 17 points scored in the 4th Quarter after being down by 3 scores

2023 vs 49'rs 6 out of 12 points coming in last play of third and 4th Quarter after being down by 2 scores

2024 vs Packers 25 points out of 32 points coming in the 3rd and 4th Quarters after being down by by 41 points

There's no way to be less credible than just copy-pasting an AI answer.

The Cowboys were tied against the Packers with :35 seconds left.
The Cowboys were never down by 3 scores. They trailed 23-7.
The Cowboys were TIED at the end of the 3rd quarter.
The Cowboys never trailed by 41 points.

Every single one of these is either wrong or just totally misrepresenting your stupid point about garbage time. The idea that "any game where a team is losing by 2 scores is garbage time" is incredibly stupid, especially when your definition of two scores.

Anyone can Google "Dak Prescott stats when down by two scores in the playoffs" but it makes you look really stupid when you don't actually try to think about what the response is.

 

[LouBrown]

Am I missing something? I'm questioning myself because, surely, no one would double down this way on something that seems so obviously incorrect. The comparison goes back to 2000. That so many high ranking teams are from relatively recent seasons doesn't undermine it's value (although I wouldn't argue it as much beyond just being interesting).

You are correct. Kevin can't read.

 

[Proof]

Yeah, some people are just jumping to conclusions and/or can't read the chart. I'm not arguing that the information is the most revelatory in the world, but some of the nitpicking and reflexivity going on in this thread is...crazy.

it’s just done insufferable people here. i get frustrated with this team as much as the next guy, but never feel the urge to just look for every reason to trash them and other fans

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Awwwww, this was a cute response!

It wasn't a typo. It wasn't fat fingers.

You simply didn't know how to spell the word.

We both know what that says about you.

Oh, you also can't spell "hilarious."

Was that the phone's fault too?

And you had to double reply. We know what that says about ya.

Yip yip yap yap like a little spaniel.

And nope...you can put on the smilies ion the world in there...still don't care about the likes of you grading my spelling.

 

[Nav22]

And you had to double reply. We know what that says about ya.

Yip yip yap yap like a little spaniel.

And nope...you can put on the smilies ion the world in there...still don't care about the likes of you grading my spelling.

Pretty easy to grade when the student can't spell "embarrassment" and "hilarious."

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Will we ever have a great defense to pair with this O?

Or a good defense?

Or an adequate defense?

well, we are scoring at historic pace despite Dak, which speaks volumes for everyone on offense and how good they are.

 

[Nav22]

well, we are scoring at historic pace despite Dak, which speaks volumes for everyone on offense and how good they are.

Hahah right. Dak Dilfer!

 

[McKDaddy]

Am I missing something? I'm questioning myself because, surely, no one would double down this way on something that seems so obviously incorrect. The comparison goes back to 2000. That so many high ranking teams are from relatively recent seasons doesn't undermine it's value (although I wouldn't argue it as much beyond just being interesting).

so you consider all 6 of the examples as historic?

what if the graph had listed the top 10?

the point is if you consider only what this graph represents, then the only "historic" number is the first one.

from a big picture perspective the Patriots 2007 season is the historic season for points per drive. "During their peak 4-game stretches in 2007 (such as their opening run scoring blowout totals against the Jets, Chargers, Bills, and Browns), the Patriots pushed their rolling points-per-drive average even higher past 3.8 to 4.0+ points per drive during specific compressed windows". That offense achieved cultural relevance & rewrote many other NFL records that season.

 

[Kevinicus]

This is impossible lol.

Indeed it is not.

 

[Kevinicus]

Am I missing something? I'm questioning myself because, surely, no one would double down this way on something that seems so obviously incorrect. The comparison goes back to 2000. That so many high ranking teams are from relatively recent seasons doesn't undermine it's value (although I wouldn't argue it as much beyond just being interesting).

You know it's possible to take a subset of data to help illustrate a point right?

Even at fifth over 27 years, calling it historic is ridiculous. Digging deeper and seeing it's 4th in just the last 7 reinforces that point even more. As does the fact that this whole thing is just the first 4 games of the season which is pretty irrelevant to anything.