NFL Offensive Rankings Without D/ST Scores

[Hoofbite]

While we did score a lot of points against Denver, it's not fair to cut out our top performance while leaving it in for other teams when comparing. In other words disregarding an outlier must be done across the board.

I went back for every team ahead of us in the scoring rankings and found their top offensive performance in terms of offensive points per game. It's not easily available so I ended up sorting through game logs to determine which points were scored offensively and defensibly. Here's what I've got assuming I made no mistakes.

Top Performances

Denver - 51 against Dallas
Saints - 49 against Dallas
New England 55 against Pittsburgh
Seattle - 45 against Jacksonville
Philadelphia- 49 against Oakland
Detroit - 38 against Packers
Chicago - 45 against Dallas

Remember we scored 48 against Denver. So we would gain on 4 of the 7 teams while losing ground on 3 of 7 if the outliers were disregarded.

Ouch. That's a lot of legwork my man. Should check out PFR for stuff like this. Probably would have helped ya save some time.

For highest point total in a game, find their schedules:

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...dium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#games::none

You can click on the link that says "share" right above the table and edit out columns or rows you don't need. Throw it into excel and move some stuff around.

For defensive scores by week you can use the PLAY FINDER:

You can also adjust the criteria and come up with punt plays and kickoffs.

 

[Hoofbite]

There's no reason to discount a touchdown because the offense had the ball outside the opponent's 20-yard line on one play, and inside its 5 on the next. It doesn't isolate any specific aspect or ability of an offense. If you want to know why we're so good in the red zone, look at the red zone plays.

The Cowboys average red zone run gains 3.8 yards, which is 2nd in the NFL. 41.9% of all our red zone runs result in either a first down or touchdown, which leads the league. As for passing, 42.6% of our red zone passes result in either a first down or TD, which ranks 2nd.

Our average gain on a red zone play is 3.6 yards, which is 5th in the league. This has nothing to do with our defense or special teams, or with the offense's starting field position. It's just good, solid red zone play.

Points are points but lets not act like punching it in from 5 yards out is any sort of indicator of overall offensive success. 1st and Goal from the 5 yard line should be 7 points and I don't necessarily think that those points are an indicator of how prolific a team is. Effectiveness in goal to go situations perhaps but not much else.

The offense would get credit for doing nothing but taking three knees and kicking a FG. These points were earned?

There have been 23 total drives that started at or inside the opponents 5 yard line. 19 have resulted in TDs. 3 FGs and KC kneeled to victory.

19 of 22 scores have been TDs so it's basically a gimme TD for almost any team. Not surprising it's the 28th ranked Giants and 31st ranked Jets who account for 2 of these 3 FGs. The Rams (20th) have the other.

I think it's entirely appropriate to censor these scores. What specific aspect or ability of an offense is isolated by keeping them? The ability to score once you get to 1st and Goal from the 5? Redzone efficiency I will agree with but any sort of statement about offensive production on a game-by-game basis? Not hardly, because these situations don't occur on a game-by-game basis for any team and don't even occur for some teams at all. You're essentially including short scoring opportunities that may or may not exist for each offense and it's based entirely on the team's defenses or special teams ability to get those chances.

86% (excluding a non-attempt by KC) of the time it's a TD spanning across various measures of Redzone success. In terms of scoring a TD in the Redzone the league average is 55.6% which means that there's a significant boost in scoring probability simply because of where the team started, and in this care where the team started had nothing to do with the offense.

Usually this is kind of a wash out because teams don't typically get many of these chances, if any at all. Probably because most of the time a turnover happens and the defender makes it that far he usually just makes it all the way. In this case, Dallas gains about 1.6 points per week as a result of 3 possessions that started inside the 5 yard line in 3 of the teams 13 games.

In terms of game-by-game scoring I think these drives are definitely confounders because even an offensive FAILURE from the 5 yard line in settling for a FG inflates the weekly average.

 

[jterrell]

22nd in total offense is more pertinent to the way we have been playing of late. Ya know, how we almost set a record for not being able to convert a 3rd down..? That happened. We're not as good as you would have us believe.

We'd have a lot more plays if we ever STOPPED a 3rd down.
The offense has bogged down at times but this concept that you should score every time is just stupid.

Our defense is historically bad in allowing yardage and not getting off the field.

This isn't complicated.

Let's look at the Aikman efficiency ratings:
Offense: 87.7 3rd in the NFL.
Defense: 60.5 30th in the NFL.

 

[jterrell]

Points are points but lets not act like punching it in from 5 yards out is any sort of indicator of overall offensive success. 1st and Goal from the 5 yard line should be 7 points and I don't necessarily think that those points are an indicator of how prolific a team is. Effectiveness in goal to go situations perhaps but not much else.

The offense would get credit for doing nothing but taking three knees and kicking a FG. These points were earned?

There have been 23 total drives that started at or inside the opponents 5 yard line. 19 have resulted in TDs. 3 FGs and KC kneeled to victory.

19 of 22 scores have been TDs so it's basically a gimme TD for almost any team. Not surprising it's the 28th ranked Giants and 31st ranked Jets who account for 2 of these 3 FGs. The Rams (20th) have the other.

I think it's entirely appropriate to censor these scores. What specific aspect or ability of an offense is isolated by keeping them? The ability to score once you get to 1st and Goal from the 5? Redzone efficiency I will agree with but any sort of statement about offensive production on a game-by-game basis? Not hardly, because these situations don't occur on a game-by-game basis for any team and don't even occur for some teams at all. You're essentially including short scoring opportunities that may or may not exist for each offense and it's based entirely on the team's defenses or special teams ability to get those chances.

86% (excluding a non-attempt by KC) of the time it's a TD spanning across various measures of Redzone success. In terms of scoring a TD in the Redzone the league average is 55.6% which means that there's a significant boost in scoring probability simply because of where the team started, and in this care where the team started had nothing to do with the offense.

Usually this is kind of a wash out because teams don't typically get many of these chances, if any at all. Probably because most of the time a turnover happens and the defender makes it that far he usually just makes it all the way. In this case, Dallas gains about 1.6 points per week as a result of 3 possessions that started inside the 5 yard line in 3 of the teams 13 games.

In terms of game-by-game scoring I think these drives are definitely confounders because even an offensive FAILURE from the 5 yard line in settling for a FG inflates the weekly average.

The problem with that entire diatribe is you do not get enough of a sample size to matter. 23 total times over 14 weeks of an NFL season is absurdly low. Teams are fortunate to have had 2 such drives all year.

There are tools like Aikman's efficiency ratings that account for this.

 

[percyhoward]

Points are points but lets not act like punching it in from 5 yards out is any sort of indicator of overall offensive success. 1st and Goal from the 5 yard line should be 7 points and I don't necessarily think that those points are an indicator of how prolific a team is. Effectiveness in goal to go situations perhaps but not much else.

The offense would get credit for doing nothing but taking three knees and kicking a FG. These points were earned?

There have been 23 total drives that started at or inside the opponents 5 yard line. 19 have resulted in TDs. 3 FGs and KC kneeled to victory.

19 of 22 scores have been TDs so it's basically a gimme TD for almost any team. Not surprising it's the 28th ranked Giants and 31st ranked Jets who account for 2 of these 3 FGs. The Rams (20th) have the other.

I think it's entirely appropriate to censor these scores. What specific aspect or ability of an offense is isolated by keeping them? The ability to score once you get to 1st and Goal from the 5? Redzone efficiency I will agree with but any sort of statement about offensive production on a game-by-game basis? Not hardly, because these situations don't occur on a game-by-game basis for any team and don't even occur for some teams at all. You're essentially including short scoring opportunities that may or may not exist for each offense and it's based entirely on the team's defenses or special teams ability to get those chances.

86% (excluding a non-attempt by KC) of the time it's a TD spanning across various measures of Redzone success. In terms of scoring a TD in the Redzone the league average is 55.6% which means that there's a significant boost in scoring probability simply because of where the team started, and in this care where the team started had nothing to do with the offense.

Usually this is kind of a wash out because teams don't typically get many of these chances, if any at all. Probably because most of the time a turnover happens and the defender makes it that far he usually just makes it all the way. In this case, Dallas gains about 1.6 points per week as a result of 3 possessions that started inside the 5 yard line in 3 of the teams 13 games.

In terms of game-by-game scoring I think these drives are definitely confounders because even an offensive FAILURE from the 5 yard line in settling for a FG inflates the weekly average.

Like I said, if you think starting field position is skewing the numbers, simply leave out the drives that didn't start on our opponent's side of the field, and see where we rank. Of our 150 possessions this year, 128 started outside the 50-yard line.

Percentage of drives that began outside 50-yard line and ended in TD
2013: 23% (7th)
2012: 20% (12th)
2011: 17% (15th)
2010: 17% (16th)
2009: 22% (7th)

7th in the NFL, with 23% of such drives ending in a touchdown. Our highest percentage in five years.

Now, I guess you'll want to take out any of those possessions in which we happened to get a first down inside the 5-yard line on our way to scoring!

 

[percyhoward]

This first stat is what causes confusion, and leads people to scramble to look for explanations for how an offense that punts so often can be a successful offense.

Drives ending in punts
1. Jax 163 drives 83 punts (51%)
2. Buf 176 drives 82 punts (47%)
3. NYJ 167 drives 77 punts (46%)
4. Dal 150 drives 69 punts (46%)
5. TB 155 drives 71 punts (46%)
6. Oak 160 drives 73 punts (46%)
7. KC 163 drives 74 punts (45%)
8. Bal 167 drives 75 punts (45%)
9. Was 158 drives 69 punts (44%)
10. Ten 151 drives 66 punts (44%)


There are two simple explanations, as seen in the next two stats. This offense that punts so often is successful because it scores points and doesn't turn the ball over.

Drives ending in touchdowns
1. Den 178 drives 64 TD (36%)
2. NO 146 drives 40 TD (27%)
3. Det 161 drives 40 TD (25%)
4. Dal 150 drives 37 TD (25%)
5. SD 144 drives 36 TD (25%)
6. Sea 148 drives 36 TD (24%)
7. Chi 149 drives 36 TD (24%)
8. Phi 166 drives 39 TD (23%)
9. Car 138 drives 32 TD (23%)
10. NE 167 drives 36 TD (22%)

Drives ending in turnovers
1. NO 146 drives 11 turnovers (8%)
2T. Dal 150 drives 12 turnovers (8%)
2T. Ind 150 drives 12 turnovers (8%)
4. KC 163 drives 13 turnovers (8%)
5. Car 138 drives 13 turnovers (9%)
6. Phi 166 drives 15 turnovers (9%)
7. TB 155 drives 15 turnovers (10%)
8. Chi 149 drives 16 turnovers (11%)
9. Sea 148 drives 16 turnovers (11%)
10. SD 144 drives 16 turnovers (11%)

 

[Hoofbite]

The problem with that entire diatribe is you do not get enough of a sample size to matter. 23 total times over 14 weeks of an NFL season is absurdly low. Teams are fortunate to have had 2 such drives all year.

There are tools like Aikman's efficiency ratings that account for this.

Isn't this almost exactly what I said just before I explained how Dallas has an exceptionally high amount compared to what would be expected and that's why it is worth considering?

Usually this is kind of a wash out because teams don't typically get many of these chances, if any at all. Probably because most of the time a turnover happens and the defender makes it that far he usually just makes it all the way. In this case, Dallas gains about 1.6 points per week as a result of 3 possessions that started inside the 5 yard line in 3 of the teams 13 games.

 

[DFWJC]

22nd in total offense is more pertinent to the way we have been playing of late. Ya know, how we almost set a record for not being able to convert a 3rd down..? That happened. We're not as good as you would have us believe.

No it's not

You can rack up yards but turn it over and be terrible in redzone...kind of like early last year...and not really be that effective on offense.

Or you can be highly efficient in the redzone and not turn it over much at all...and score more...like this year.

I'll take option 2 and more points, thank you.

 

[Hoofbite]

Like I said, if you think starting field position is skewing the numbers, simply leave out the drives that didn't start on our opponent's side of the field, and see where we rank. Of our 150 possessions this year, 128 started outside the 50-yard line.

Percentage of drives that began outside 50-yard line and ended in TD
2013: 23% (7th)
2012: 20% (12th)
2011: 17% (15th)
2010: 17% (16th)
2009: 22% (7th)

7th in the NFL, with 23% of such drives ending in a touchdown. Our highest percentage in five years.

Now, I guess you'll want to take out any of those possessions in which we happened to get a first down inside the 5-yard line on our way to scoring!

That's not the same thing though so I wouldn't take those out.

 

[slomoxn]

Boy we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for something, anything to be positive about. No rings? Stats are just as good. Lose to good teams? Stats say we are just as good. Defense sucks? Well stats say they suck too. Offense mediocre? Stats say they are in top 10, don't look at record just look at stats. I get it, jerry has us looking for any silver lining we can cling to because he will ride this team to the grave with him. RIDE or DIE !!