3rd down VS. 3rd down

[Cajuncowboy]

I was looking back over the year so far at some of the games I had Tivo'd and one of the things that I noticed was our 3rd down efficiency vs. our opponents.

For some reason when we get into 3rd and 3 or longer we really struggle to convert these but we give up a LOT of these same conversions.

I'm not sure what the league average is for converting these but would love to know where we rank and what our percentage of giving up these conversions are.

Obviously this is a crucial part of the game and we seem to really have problems there.

Is it play calling, execution or both?

 

[Temo]

We're 17th in the league in 3rd down conversions at 39%, and our defense is 12th in allowing 3rd down conversions at 37%.

Of course, the reason our 3rd down conversion is so low compared to our overall offensive output is probably due to the sacks and penalties we incur (at a higher rate than any other team), putting us in 3rd and long in the first place.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

We're 17th in the league in 3rd down conversions at 39%, and our defense is 12th in allowing 3rd down conversions at 37%.

Of course, the reason our 3rd down conversion is so low compared to our overall offensive output is probably due to the sacks and penalties we incur (at a higher rate than any other team), putting us in 3rd and long in the first place.

I never would have thought we were 12th on Defense overall but I am concerned about giving up the first down when it is on longer yardage. Is there a place where you can find that by down and distance?

 

[Temo]

I never would have thought we were 12th on Defense overall but I am concerned about giving up the first down when it is on longer yardage. Is there a place where you can find that by down and distance?

Been looking, can't find it anywhere.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Been looking, can't find it anywhere.

Thanks. I looked as well but not seeing anything.

 

[AdamJT13]

I never would have thought we were 12th on Defense overall

We were among the top five defenses on third down until recently.

On third-and-3 or more, we've allowed our opponents to convert 33.62 percent of the time, including defensive penalties that give our opponents first downs (which aren't normally included in conversion rates -- it would be 31.86 using the normal percentages).

On offense, we've converted 33.65 percent of the time, NOT including penalties on our opponents that give us first downs (not sure what it would be including them).

For the season, we're better than our opponents at converting third-and-3 or more, which means that your thought in the original post -- that we give up "a lot" of those conversions but struggle to convert them ourselves -- is misguided. And until the past few games, we were much better at it than our opponents.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

We were among the top five defenses on third down until recently.

On third-and-3 or more, we've allowed our opponents to convert 33.62 percent of the time, including defensive penalties that give our opponents first downs (which aren't normally included in conversion rates -- it would be 31.86 using the normal percentages).

On offense, we've converted 33.65 percent of the time, NOT including penalties on our opponents that give us first downs (not sure what it would be including them).

For the season, we're better than our opponents at converting third-and-3 or more, which means that your thought in the original post -- that we give up "a lot" of those conversions but struggle to convert them ourselves -- is misguided. And until the past few games, we were much better at it than our opponents.

Thanks for that. Maybe it seems worse than it is because it comes at critical times.

That's why I asked if someone had the numbers.

 

[AdamJT13]

Thanks for that. Maybe it seems worse than it is because it comes at critical times.

I doubt it. Yours probably is just the normal fan perception. A defense doesn't become one of the top defenses in points allowed without stopping its opponent on a lot of third downs. And a team doesn't do that and win 70 percent of its games without doing it at a lot of critical times. However, anytime the defense does allow a conversion on third-and-long (by whatever definition you use) or at a critical time, it's something that fans can't forget. And because most fans don't have any perspective of how often it typically happens -- even for their team's own offense -- they assume that it happens more than it happens to other defenses.

 

[CCBoy]

We were among the top five defenses on third down until recently.

On third-and-3 or more, we've allowed our opponents to convert 33.62 percent of the time, including defensive penalties that give our opponents first downs (which aren't normally included in conversion rates -- it would be 31.86 using the normal percentages).

On offense, we've converted 33.65 percent of the time, NOT including penalties on our opponents that give us first downs (not sure what it would be including them).

For the season, we're better than our opponents at converting third-and-3 or more, which means that your thought in the original post -- that we give up "a lot" of those conversions but struggle to convert them ourselves -- is misguided. And until the past few games, we were much better at it than our opponents.

Adam, could not that point be argued along the line that the earlier victories that would give birth to strength of execution on third downs be related more to the low success levels of that very group as a whole, and be somewhat over inflated to what will be approaching when Dallas plays the very top levels in the NFC on a weekly basis?

The peformance levels on third downs for the past two games, when Dallas played better rated teams as to defense alone, are much worse. The defense also did not fair much better despite playing a poor ranked offense with Washington. Didn't Campbell complete something like 13 straight 3rd down passes in a row?

Then as to conversion on third down:

Specifically, the Cowboys' third-down efficiency was atrocious. After converting 42 of 101 first downs (41.6 percent) over the first eight games, Dallas has converted 6 of 33 (18.0 percent) the last two.

Phillips said the reason for the downward trend isn't clear. Romo is only 5 for 14 on third-down passes the last two games. He was 0 for 5 on Sunday.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I doubt it. Yours probably is just the normal fan perception. A defense doesn't become one of the top defenses in points allowed without stopping its opponent on a lot of third downs. And a team doesn't do that and win 70 percent of its games without doing it at a lot of critical times. However, anytime the defense does allow a conversion on third-and-long (by whatever definition you use) or at a critical time, it's something that fans can't forget. And because most fans don't have any perspective of how often it typically happens -- even for their team's own offense -- they assume that it happens more than it happens to other defenses.

Well going back and re watching some of the games I saw it several times.

And frankly, I do have a good perspective because I have watched them several times.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam, could not that point be argued along the line that the earlier victories that would give birth to strength of execution on third downs be related more to the low success levels of that very group as a whole, and be somewhat over inflated to what will be approaching when Dallas plays the very top levels in the NFC on a weekly basis?

The peformance levels on third downs for the past two games, when Dallas played better rated teams as to defense alone, are much worse.

All teams generally perform better against bad teams than they do against good teams. And the Giants and Eagles have two of the top third-down defenses (ranked third and sixth), but we converted at a 50 percent rate against them. So no, our numbers aren't overinflated.

The defense also did not fair much better despite playing a poor ranked offense with Washington. Didn't Campbell complete something like 13 straight 3rd down passes in a row?

He completed them, but not all for first downs. Like I said, the third-down defense wasn't really a problem until the past few games. Also, maybe nobody noticed, but the Washington offense has been much better lately. Our game was the first time this month that they didn't convert at least 50 percent of their third downs.

 

[AdamJT13]

Well going back and re watching some of the games I saw it several times.

And frankly, I do have a good perspective because I have watched them several times.

Watching it several times doesn't give you perspective. You said yourself you didn't know the numbers, so how could you possibly know how often we had converted or allowed a conversion, let alone how that compares to all 31 other teams?

 

[CCBoy]

Watching it several times doesn't give you perspective. You said yourself you didn't know the numbers, so how could you possibly know how often we had converted or allowed a conversion, let alone how that compares to all 31 other teams?

That logic would blow out of the water concepts of observations by a General in the field adjusting due to personal sight and then overcoming and defeating based upon sound observation, not needing the convenience of a whole array of applied stat sheets....uh, excuse me enemy, while I print up a series of stat sheets to analyze.

 

[CCBoy]

All teams generally perform better against bad teams than they do against good teams. And the Giants and Eagles have two of the top third-down defenses (ranked third and sixth), but we converted at a 50 percent rate against them. So no, our numbers aren't overinflated.




He completed them, but not all for first downs. Like I said, the third-down defense wasn't really a problem until the past few games. Also, maybe nobody noticed, but the Washington offense has been much better lately. Our game was the first time this month that they didn't convert at least 50 percent of their third downs.

That soundly rests upon the sound basis of two is better than one reasoning...as the last TWO opponents stunk up the joint, and that marks out the two presented as 'good', that ONLY leaves a total of six additional somethings that somehow affect those considerations. The past sometimes seems greener than the present, especially the closer to December one gets...so, maybe gut feelings do hold better perspectives, if one only goes back to last season. Care to provide us with what last year's, LAST month conversions ended up being? Then inform us that the first of this year was NOT affected in stats by the weaker teams involved...

 

[AdamJT13]

That logic would blow out of the water concepts of observations by a General in the field adjusting due to personal sight and then overcoming and defeating based upon sound observation, not needing the convenience of a whole array of applied stat sheets....uh, excuse me enemy, while I print up a series of stat sheets to analyze.

That soundly rests upon the sound basis of two is better than one reasoning...as the last TWO opponents stunk up the joint, and that marks out the two presented as 'good', that ONLY leaves a total of six additional somethings that somehow affect those considerations. The past sometimes seems greener than the present, especially the closer to December one gets...so, maybe gut feelings do hold better perspectives, if one only goes back to last season. Care to provide us with what last year's, LAST month conversions ended up being? Then inform us that the first of this year was NOT affected in stats by the weaker teams involved...

I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say, but I assume you're disagreeing with me about something?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Watching it several times doesn't give you perspective. You said yourself you didn't know the numbers, so how could you possibly know how often we had converted or allowed a conversion, let alone how that compares to all 31 other teams?

My perspective was within the context of the game itself. Not the rest of the league.

Which is why I asked the question.
'
Geez.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say, but I assume you're disagreeing with me about something?

He's saying that your logic regarding my perception is flawed because the over all stats don't determine the outcome of the battle.

 

[AdamJT13]

My perspective was within the context of the game itself. Not the rest of the league.

Which is why I asked the question.
'
Geez.

You yourself said "it seems worse than it is." In other words, your perspective (how "it seems") didn't match what really happens (how "it is").

Or are you disagreeing with yourself now?

 

[AdamJT13]

He's saying that your logic regarding my perception is flawed because the over all stats don't determine the outcome of the battle.

What does that have to do with this thread?

If all we were concerned about was the "outcome of the battle," nobody would care whether Jason Campbell completed any third-down passes or the Commanders converted on third downs, because we won the battle. But obviously, some people are concerned about more than the battle. They're concerned about stats such as converting on third-and-3 or more and "completing something like 13 straight 3rd down passes in a row."

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You yourself said "it seems worse than it is." In other words, your perspective (how "it seems") didn't match what really happens (how "it is").

Or are you disagreeing with yourself now?

I said my perspective was Within the game. I asked a question about the overall stats which I didn't know. It doesn't mean I don't have a good perspective of what happens on the field.

The stats question was out of curiosity. That's all.

I know the out come of the games and what transpired during them, Which really, if you think about it, is all that matters.

So no, I am not disagreeing with myself, but with someone who thinks they know what perspective I have.