Baldinger: Cowboys Red Zone offense has been a Dead Zone offense

[SteveTheCowboy]

If it gets fixed it’s going to be amazing folks. We are moving the ball at an alarming rate so far

Need tds.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

No it isn't. Cherry picking specific real life scenarios is broken logic...and cherry picking imaginary scenarios even worse.

It is, though. As evidenced by the fact you’re avoiding my question. A non-flawed stat is one in which it’s always better to be leading, such as turnovers. It’s always better to collect more turnovers than your opposition. It’s not necessarily better to have a higher RZ TD percentage than your opposition.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

This actually is how logic works. Case in point:

Over the course of an NFL game, Team A is 100 percent TDs in the RZ. Team B is 40 percent TDs in the RZ. The rest were made FGs.

Which team was the likely winner?

The one with better defense?
You have no idea how logic and stats work. You can't chery pick em.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The one with better defense?
You have no idea how logic and stats work. You can't chery pick em.

Logic is about tautologies—a statement that is absolutely true no matter what. EX: The red ball is red.

In football, we know more red zone opportunities is better than fewer red zone opportunities. In the example I gave you, the team that’s 40 percent TD in the RZ had at least five RZ trips, meaning (if all the other trips were made FGs) they scored at least 23 points.

The average number of points scored last year by a team in a game was 22.7, a smidgeon below 23. Based on RZ possessions, in order for the team with 100 percent RZ efficiency to beat Team B, they would have to be 4 for 4 on RZ trips. That’s not likely.

Ergo, while a high TD RZ percentage is a worthy goal, it’s more important to maximize RZ trips.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Logic is about tautologies—a statement that is absolutely true no matter what. EX: The red ball is red.

In football, we know more red zone opportunities is better than fewer red zone opportunities. In the example I gave you, the team that’s 40 percent TD in the RZ had at least five RZ trips, meaning (if all the other trips were made FGs) they scored at least 23 points.

The average number of points scored last year by a team in a game was 22.7, a smidgeon below 23. Based on RZ possessions, in order for the team with 100 percent RZ efficiency to beat Team B, they would have to be 4 for 4 on RZ trips. That’s not likely.

Ergo, while a high TD RZ percentage is a worthy goal, it’s more important to maximize RZ trips.

Oh...I think posts have just been moved.
You asked who wins....tds or fgs.

Did that calculation include defense?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Oh...I think posts have just been moved.
You asked who wins....tds or fgs.

Did that calculation include defense?

I could see how one might think the posts moved if they failed to read my original scenario.

 

[T-RO]

Logic is about tautologies—a statement that is absolutely true no matter what. EX: The red ball is red.

In football, we know more red zone opportunities is better than fewer red zone opportunities. In the example I gave you, the team that’s 40 percent TD in the RZ had at least five RZ trips, meaning (if all the other trips were made FGs) they scored at least 23 points.

The average number of points scored last year by a team in a game was 22.7, a smidgeon below 23. Based on RZ possessions, in order for the team with 100 percent RZ efficiency to beat Team B, they would have to be 4 for 4 on RZ trips. That’s not likely.

Ergo, while a high TD RZ percentage is a worthy goal, it’s more important to maximize RZ trips.

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

Here are a few tautologies for you:

• A TD and x-p = 7 points.
• Two field goals = 6 points.
• 7 > 6

In games between two relatively well-matched teams the winner will usually be decided by three things:

1. Turnover differential
2. Red zone efficiency
3. 3rd/4th down conversion efficiency

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

Here are a few tautologies for you:

• A TD and x-p = 7 points.
• Two field goals = 6 points.
• 7 > 6

In games between two relatively well-matched teams the winner will usually be decided by three things:

1. Turnover differential
2. Red zone efficiency
3. 3rd/4th down conversion efficiency

So you would forgo an additional RZ opportunity because it might lower RZ efficiency?

 

[reddyuta]

Imo Mccarthy is the one to blame more than Dak,he has no clue what he is doing in the red zone.

 

[Captain-Crash]

so is this where we say the defense is carrying Rush,ooops I mean dak.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I could see how one might think the posts moved if they failed to read my original scenario.

It could be I missed something...but my last question would have been easier to answer "yes/no" then typing out that sentence.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

That Pollard exchange was as rough as it comes. Just terrible. I honestly think they are too cute in the red zone. Fades seldom work. They need to be much more conventional.

One thing I noticed with the blown Pollard run was...Gallup didn't get the tacklers off him. He just stood there. Weird.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

so is this where we say the defense is carrying Rush,ooops I mean dak.

Yep. And when we REALLY need Dak, against a tough defense...wonder what's gonna happen?

 

[lopey]

Yet, the offense is averaging more points per drive than last year even sans defensive scores.

So let’s disregard a glaring issue.

 

[NotForLong]

Imo Mccarthy is the one to blame more than Dak,he has no clue what he is doing in the red zone.

Imo Dak is the one to blame more than Mccarthy, he has no clue what he is doing in the red zone

 

[America's Cowboy]

Imo Dak is the one to blame more than Mccarthy, he has no clue what he is doing in the red zone

 

[Sydla]

Part of the issue here is that McCarthy blows as a RZ playcaller. He just does.

Now in this video, they would have scored on the 3rd down play if Dak and Pollard hadn't ***** up but overall, McCarthy has been a dud in the RZ.

 

[Sydla]

Imo Dak is the one to blame more than Mccarthy, he has no clue what he is doing in the red zone

I am no Dak fan here as I think he's still be too up and down week to week, but it all starts with McCarthy.

It's stunning to see so many people defensive of McCarthy. Then again, we had tons of fans defending Garrett even when it was obvious he was a boob.

 

[Proof]

Red zone is a flawed stat. Not meaningless, just flawed. Would you rather have five trips inside RZ with four FGs and one TD (20 percent conversion) or two trips and two TDS (100 percent conversion)? Clearly, the former.

well, yeah of course the example with the more points scored is preferred. how about 3 trips and 3 tds?

 

[Proof]

Logic is about tautologies—a statement that is absolutely true no matter what. EX: The red ball is red.

In football, we know more red zone opportunities is better than fewer red zone opportunities. In the example I gave you, the team that’s 40 percent TD in the RZ had at least five RZ trips, meaning (if all the other trips were made FGs) they scored at least 23 points.

The average number of points scored last year by a team in a game was 22.7, a smidgeon below 23. Based on RZ possessions, in order for the team with 100 percent RZ efficiency to beat Team B, they would have to be 4 for 4 on RZ trips. That’s not likely.

Ergo, while a high TD RZ percentage is a worthy goal, it’s more important to maximize RZ trips.

I replied before seeing you addressing this here (and previously). Maximizing rz trips is the point, yes. 4 fg's and a td is 19 points though.