Why we will break this trend - Many similar type of metrics for Super Bowl winning teams have been broken over the past 10 years. For example, from 1981 to 2005 every team that *went* to the Super Bowl (winner or loser) finished in the top-8 in points allowed. That was smashed when various teams started to make the Super Bowl (and win) despite giving up a lot of points. The G-Men in 2007 were the only team to win a Super Bowl with a negative QB Rating Differential.
Essentially, metrics like that are about probability...not certainty. Meaning that it's not a 100% guarantee that a team won't make the Super Bowl, but the odds are stacked against them. However, what similar metrics that have been blown up in the past 10 years shows that the game has likely changed so much that similar metrics likely don't have nearly as strong of a probability of happening as we think.
We also have a positive turnover differential despite the low amount of takeaways. Positive turnover differential despite a low amount of takeaways indicates a run oriented offense that can score a lot of points. I don't think we are more run oriented that most teams in the 70's, 80's and even the 90's. However, when the rest of the league is so pass happy a team that has a run/throw ratio closer to 50:50 is effectively a much more run dominant team that a team that may have ran it 55/45 back in 1981 when the rest of the league ran the ball more than they passed it. So that may explain the low takeaways, but the positive turnover differential.
Lastly, the league has changed a lot with regards to injuries and practices. That may make turnovers less likely to occur.
Why we won't break this trend - We have a rookie QB and we are in a conference with some quality, if not great QB's like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Russell Wilson and even Eli Manning. We tend to put too much pressure on ourselves when playing at home and in the past few years the team has often looked 'tight' in these games early on.
Lastly, we need to play to win instead of playing not lose and when Garrett has doubts about his job he seems to play to win. But once he starts feeling comfortable he starts playing not to lose and the offense starts to slow down its pace and we go to more man coverage on defense. If there's anything I've learned from this team the past 3 seasons it's that the offense plays much better when they pick up the pace instead of snapping the ball continually at the last nanosecond and the defense is better when it mixes zone and man coverage and is more effective in zone than man.
When Garrett plays 'not to lose', we see a slower paced offense and more man coverage and it usually burns us. He's also got to put aside the worries of Dak being a rookie and keep playing to win.
When you have those things working against you, the counter is to get takeaways and that's what could hurt the Cowboys in the end.
YR
