I should have made my sarcasm more obvious.
The article suggests that scoring went down because we were too predictable in 2017. It offers almost no evidence of this by showing the results of these "predictable" plays. For example, it doesn't compare the results of plays when we followed our tendencies with the results of plays that didn't follow those tendencies. It doesn't compare the results of the predictable plays in the first half of a game (or the season) with the second half. That's how I'd go about proving that our predictability caused the drop in scoring.
In the 11 games played by all 5 starting OL in 2017, we scored more points on the average drive (2.70) than we did in 2016 (2.54).
regarding your particular point, i tend to think the cowboys scheme is so well known that the defense knew what to do with the 1st play in the 1st game of the year.
In my 1st class in stats, the professor taught us how stats can be manipulated.
sure, one can defend a position by asking the other side to provide undeniable statistical proof that is hard to come by.
at a certain point, it becomes common sense.
we ask ourselves, if adrian clayborn knows whether it is a pass or rush, do you think green is better off or worse off. if it is not clayborn, how about some of the top pass rushers. or do you want the defense to know before hand whether it is pass or rush - so there is less of the field to defend?