Article on how predictable Cowboys were on offense

[waldoputty]

The article does a great job of finding some tendencies, but doesn't even attempt to show any proof that predictability affected scoring.

i suspect the article pulled those stats out of some database and the author did not watch and then log each play from tape.
so that is my point that statistical inference is not always possible.
at which point, you use what you have, and then apply common sense.

being 100% predictable out of certain formation simply defies common sense.
in typical game theory situations, the last thing you want to do is to allow your opponent to know your strategy.
in this case, you are allowing the defense to know your move with near 100% predictability.

by letting the defense know you are rushing, you are allowing the dc to defend less territory.
i think there is plenty of stats that support it is harder to rush the ball (or move the ball) in the red zone.

 

[GenoT]

players complained about how predictable the offense was. this article did a nice job of quantifying how predictable there were:
http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...revealing-stat-tendencies-of-cowboys-offense/

Some highlights which the articles went into depth:
2) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line with 2+ tight ends attached to the formation, Dallas ran the rock 88.9 percent of the time.
3) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when in a straight I or offset I-formation.
6) With less than three minutes remaining in a half, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when using multiple tight ends or multiple running backs.
7) Dallas passed 74.8% of the time when there was a bunch, stack, or couple as part of the formation.

You’re likely too young to know/remember, but the early-1960s GB Packers had @eleven plays in their book.

Execution > scheme...all day long.

 

[Haimerej]

So when Romo kept predicting plays from the booth... were those teams predictable?

Maybe... just maybe... hear me out now... maybe football isn't as complicated as some fans want to think. Maybe offensive plays are dependent on presnap reads and there are certain principles used by every team in the league. Maybe all the crying about predictability is just fans trying to explain why certain plays fail when they aren't executed well.

 

[waldoputty]

You’re likely too young to know/remember, but the early-1960s GB Packers had @eleven plays in their book.

Execution > scheme...all day long.

by a little, but football today is not football in 1960.
analytics is practiced for a reason.
there is a reason why the model-franchise pats try to extract every advantage they can to the point of getting penalized and suspended.
they cheat in how and where they videotape games, how they use IR, how they plow the snow, how they report injuries, how they videotape the other team's walkthroughs, how to declare eligible receivers.

whatever you say about belicheat, he knows how to get an advantage.
instead the garrett regime provides the opposition defense with near 100% predictability with what they will do out of many formations.
UNBELIEVABLE

 

[waldoputty]

So when Romo kept predicting plays from the booth... were those teams predictable?

Maybe... just maybe... hear me out now... maybe football isn't as complicated as some fans want to think. Maybe offensive plays are dependent on presnap reads and there are certain principles used by every team in the league. Maybe all the crying about predictability is just fans trying to explain why certain plays fail when they aren't executed well.

football is not nuclear physics, but you are giving the other side total certainty in many formations what you are going to do.

 

[percyhoward]

being 100% predictable out of certain formation simply defies common sense.

That may even be generally true, for whatever it's worth. But it's a stretch to say predictability is one of the reasons this team's scoring went down from 2016 to 2017.

 

[waldoputty]

That may even be generally true, for whatever it's worth. But it's a stretch to say predictability is one of the reasons this team's scoring went down from 2016 to 2017.

i am not saying that at all.
we have probably been predictable all the time.
when you are dominant, you may get away with it.
when your left tackle has a bad back and you lose your good left guard, your margin for error goes way down.
winners execute, scheme and are often lucky, particularly in the world of salary caps.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I would be curious to see how predictable our offense was during our 3 super bowls.

OK. Good question, stout fellow!
Easy answer.
Jimmy, betcha by Golly G, had, at last, talent and very mean and tenacious lads of the pig iron.
That, cerebral lout, is the diff! WE HAD THE LUXIURY OF BEING PREDICTABLE!! WE WERE THA GOOD, SODS!
We suck today. We are soft.
Jimmy would never suffer our present array of mediocre players with potential!!!!
8-8
I like puppies and unicorns.

 

[cwbyfn88]

It's not the run heavy part that bothers me.

It's the playing into our tendencies that bother me.

In this league you have to stay ahead of things.


In 2014 we came out with a power run game which was the complete opposite of the pass happy Garrett offense.

2015 Romo was injured, they got rid of Murray, and had a year of tendencies.

2016 Dak and Zeke changed things up. Teams weren't ready for them.

2017.. Year of tendencies and shut down everything we like to do.




The coaches need to stay ahead of things and keep defenders thinking but instead defenders know exactly what Dallas will do based on their tendencies.

This!

 

[Haimerej]

football is not nuclear physics, but you are giving the other side total certainty in many formations what you are going to do.

Sometimes that's to your advantage.

 

[School]

This is probably my biggest gripe with the coaching staff.

A great example from how predictability can harm your team is the 2017 Colts.

The Colts last season were the only team in the last 27 years to lose at least 7 games where they led at halftime. Even more amazing, the Colts led entering the 4th quarter in 8 of their first 11 games. The only other two teams to do that were the Eagles and Pats.

When went wrong with the Colts? A big part was that they became extremely predictable late in games.

If the Colts were leading in the 4th quarter and they lined up with less than 3 receivers, they ran the ball 100% percent of the time. Unsurprisingly, they averaged less than 2 yards on these runs. If a defense had studied their tendencies, they could completely sell out to stop the run.

In the first 3 quarters when holding a lead, the Colts would actually pass out of formations with 2 or fewer receivers, and these passes were very effective, with a success rate far above the league average. But once the 4th quarter arrived, the Colts never passed out of these formations.

This doesn't tell the whole story of why they blew so many 2nd half and 4th quarter leads, but it was certainly a factor. Teams are getting smarter at recognizing tendencies, so it's more important than ever to not be predictable.

Here's more reading on that Colts team.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2018/the-unbelievable-story-of-the-2017-colts

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And as always, stats don't tell the whole story. Something you yourself have said.

By all means, continue to be content with a literally 40+ year old offense, but I expect more creativity and differentiation as a fan.

Anything you actually disagree with?

 

[ESisback]

And we had a larger wallet.

Now you're seeing teams throw passes to Quarterbacks in the Superbowl to try and get an edge. Bending the rules with plays like rub routes. Hurry up offenses at random. Anything to get an edge.

Except in Dallas where we are trying to replicate 1992.

Exactly. We need to keep defenses on their heels--mix things up.

 

[waldoputty]

Sometimes that's to your advantage.

Sure if they use it that way. But it seems they do not when they rush 100% of the time in certain formations with certain field position...

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

It seems this issue comes up every so often. Ray Lewis used to say Dallas was too predictable.

So what is the common denominator for this team to continually be so evident with they play selection at the line of scrimmage?

*cough* Garrett *cough*

 

[waldoputty]

This is probably my biggest gripe with the coaching staff.

A great example from how predictability can harm your team is the 2017 Colts.

The Colts last season were the only team in the last 27 years to lose at least 7 games where they led at halftime. Even more amazing, the Colts led entering the 4th quarter in 8 of their first 11 games. The only other two teams to do that were the Eagles and Pats.

When went wrong with the Colts? A big part was that they became extremely predictable late in games.

If the Colts were leading in the 4th quarter and they lined up with less than 3 receivers, they ran the ball 100% percent of the time. Unsurprisingly, they averaged less than 2 yards on these runs. If a defense had studied their tendencies, they could completely sell out to stop the run.

In the first 3 quarters when holding a lead, the Colts would actually pass out of formations with 2 or fewer receivers, and these passes were very effective, with a success rate far above the league average. But once the 4th quarter arrived, the Colts never passed out of these formations.

This doesn't tell the whole story of why they blew so many 2nd half and 4th quarter leads, but it was certainly a factor. Teams are getting smarter at recognizing tendencies, so it's more important than ever to not be predictable.

Here's more reading on that Colts team.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2018/the-unbelievable-story-of-the-2017-colts

so the colts coaches are just as bad when it comes to this
how incredibly moronic

 

[Beast_from_East]

You're still making the assumption that being unpredictable is better than being predictable but teams being unable to stop it anyway. I mean, you know we're going to run it in the red zone in a two TE set most of the time....does it matter? When we're inside the five, you know you're probably going to see Dak run an option. He scores with it regularly. The whole design of the offense is to beat teams physically. It's what we do. And we've been very effective doing it for years now.

But that begs the question, when Jerry was interviewed for an hour on his stripper bus, the media asked him "what does Dak friendly mean to you"? (Jerry mentioned earlier he wanted the offense to be more Dak friendly this year and this was a follow up question).

Jerry responded, "Being unpredictable". (he even mentioned more college elements to take advantage of Dak's mobility).

So that begs the question, if the whole design of the offense is to beat teams physical, and its what we do, and we have been very effective doing it for years, then why the need to change it?

Why does Jerry want a more "unpredictable", college based offense if it doesn't matter that the offense was predictable in the past? Why change?

 

[Haimerej]

Sure if they use it that way. But it seems they do not when they rush 100% of the time in certain formations with certain field position...

Next time they don't will be brilliant.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Straight up, I'll say again what I *always* say when this stupid 'predictability' criticism gets trotted out: if we're predictable and still one of the most productive offenses in the league season after season, what does it matter?

And then I'll follow it up with asking: and when the defense has been consistently unproductive during that same time frame, why aren't you more concerned about that?

And I'll float the general caveat that, yes, Jason Garrett is responsible for both offense and defense which means, no, this shouldn't be construed by any rational person as an attempt to defend the HC. Interesting that you always try to make it that, though.

If current Cowboy and past Cowboy players complain about the predictability, and other teams players point it out, dont you think that is a problem? Just because, at times people cant stop our run game with Zeke and the Oline doesnt have much merit. When you play the good teams, the good coaches, the good defenses that is when it all comes out. And certainly last year it caught up to us league wide. Lose a few key players on offense and that predictability really sticks out because you cant "impose your will" like you could when all play makers are present. So the "scheme" is flawed. Cant just "next man up" and expect similar results.

And the defense I am very concerned about. Been complaining for a long long time.

 

[DHCBF66]

players complained about how predictable the offense was. this article did a nice job of quantifying how predictable there were:
http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...revealing-stat-tendencies-of-cowboys-offense/

Some highlights which the articles went into depth:
2) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line with 2+ tight ends attached to the formation, Dallas ran the rock 88.9 percent of the time.
3) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when in a straight I or offset I-formation.
6) With less than three minutes remaining in a half, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when using multiple tight ends or multiple running backs.
7) Dallas passed 74.8% of the time when there was a bunch, stack, or couple as part of the formation.

you can get these stats on any team in the NFL.