Ball control or 30 points a game

[Haimerej]

I'm including all 18 games. You don't buy that the defense was gassed? That's certainly your prerogative.

TD% allowed in 4th quarter/OT
NFL avg 23.5%
Dallas 33.3% (29th)

Those stats don't say they were gassed. You realize there are multiple variables, right?

If you include all 18 it would be 7 games, not 6.

SEA 24-14 Playoff
TB 27-13
WAS 31-13
ATL 19-9
JAX 37-7
DET 20-10
NYG 20-3

 

[percyhoward]

Those stats don't say they were gassed.

Elaborate. Show your stuff, man.

TD% allowed
Drive ended in 1st-3rd qtr
Cowboys 4th 17.6%

Drive ended in 4th qtr/OT
Cowboys 28th 31.4%

 

[Cowpolk]

Both

 

[Haimerej]

Elaborate. Show your stuff, man.

TD% allowed
Drive ended in 1st-3rd qtr
Cowboys 4th 17.6%

Drive ended in 4th qtr/OT
Cowboys 28th 31.4%

I did elaborate. Multiple variables include things like adjustments, mistakes, philosophy, etc. You're attributing that entire stat to, "the defense is gassed." It's too simplistic.

 

[xwalker]

Which offense do you believe will achieve winning a Super Bowl?

I believe the way Dallas is constituted right now the defense is the strength of the team. If Dallas had a high scoring offense(30 points a game) they would be the NFC favorites, if not thee league favorites.

But when I read some of the post, others believe a ball control offense would be better, you don't need to pass more. That it would protect the defense better.

I fear more for Dallas when they play a high scoring offense than when they play a ball control offense. I believe running a ball control offense will not let you keep up if the game gets away.

When two high scoring teams meet, the team with the best defense should be favorites. Is this the best way to win a championship?

They scored more points against the Rams defense than the Patriots did in the playoffs.

 

[dckid]

Which offense do you believe will achieve winning a Super Bowl?

I believe the way Dallas is constituted right now the defense is the strength of the team. If Dallas had a high scoring offense(30 points a game) they would be the NFC favorites, if not thee league favorites.

But when I read some of the post, others believe a ball control offense would be better, you don't need to pass more. That it would protect the defense better.

I fear more for Dallas when they play a high scoring offense than when they play a ball control offense. I believe running a ball control offense will not let you keep up if the game gets away.

When two high scoring teams meet, the team with the best defense should be favorites. Is this the best way to win a championship?

Both, as many people have said. It does not have to be a zero sum game. Be a team that can adjust, look at the Patriots last year. They probably ran the ball more than we did. Also I was heard in some NFL podcast the Cowboys have an amazing record ( effectively undefeated) if they play less that 30 minutes of defense.m over the past 3 seasons.Think of how the Eagles won the SB in 2017. Think of how the Falcons lost a 28 point lead in the SB. Team thought they were playing the Patriots min the second half when they were actually playing the clock. All these thoughts I’m throwing out here come down to team management. You would think JG should have learned and see a lot since 2010.

 

[CCBoy]

Just give this fan a win differential average of two touchdowns and I'll order my NFC Championship Game tickets, next week...

 

[percyhoward]

I did elaborate. Multiple variables include things like adjustments, mistakes, philosophy, etc. You're attributing that entire stat to, "the defense is gassed." It's too simplistic.

No, I mean make a connection between one of those variables and reality, like you were trying to do with your "up by two scores" theory. Elaboration involves labor of some kind. All you're doing here is listing some suggestions of where to start. Pick one and start. Build a case. You might actually find something that supports your opinion that the 4th-quarter defensive collapse isn't mostly attributable to the fact that young defenses that rely on speed and don't have much depth get tired from flying to the ball for three quarters.

When leading by at least two scores in the 4th quarter, Dallas faced 14 drives and allowed 5 touchdowns. That's 35.7% of opponents' drives that resulted in a TD, which ranked 20th among defenses with two-score+ leads in the 4th. On all its other 4th-quarter drives (meaning when trailing, tied, or leading by less than two scores), including OT drives, Dallas faced 37 drives and allowed 11 TD (29.7%). That ranked 27th, so the Dallas defense was even worse relative to the league when not up by at least two scores late. In other words, the late-game collapses were real, not a statistical mirage produced by garbage time scores.

In fact, when the game was tied or the margin was one score or less either way in the 4th or OT, the Cowboys gave up 9 TD on 30 drives (30.0%) to rank 25th. Even omitting the NYG game in week 17, when the margin was 8 points or less in the 4th quarter or OT, Dallas ranked 21st in TD% allowed, compared to 4th over the first three quarters of the game.

By quarter, here's Dallas' rank in TD% allowed for weeks 1-16, on drives when the margin was 8 points or less:

1st qtr 1st
2nd qtr 17th
3rd qtr 8th
4th qtr 21st

Here are all games including playoffs, regardless of point margin:

1st qtr 1st
2nd qtr 11th
3rd qtr 12th
4th qtr 28th

If adjustments played a big role, then our halftime adjustments were light years ahead of our in-half adjustments. I don't think it was mainly about adjustments as much as it was tired defenders.

 

[408Cowboy]

Give me 30 pts/game and I guarantee I'm going to win about all of them with the D we currently have, versus playing ball control and run the risk of some late game losses on FG's.

I'll believe it when the defense starts to show up in the playoffs.

 

[LandryFan]

I'll believe it when the defense starts to show up in the playoffs.

Agree, but the choice of scoring 30 or playing ball control offense was what the OP was throwing out there. Given the two choices, I'll take the 30 pts. The D would have to play well in the playoffs in either scenario, IMO.

 

[Haimerej]

No, I mean make a connection between one of those variables and reality, like you were trying to do with your "up by two scores" theory. Elaboration involves labor of some kind. All you're doing here is listing some suggestions of where to start. Pick one and start. Build a case. You might actually find something that supports your opinion that the 4th-quarter defensive collapse isn't mostly attributable to the fact that young defenses that rely on speed and don't have much depth get tired from flying to the ball for three quarters.

You can't build a case using only stats because stats don't tell the whole story. In order to tell the whole story I would need to rewatch every game and I'm not inclined to do that right now. But I'll do what I can with the raw numbers.

You include games they were behind to talk about a defensive "collapse" but that doesn't jibe. Addressing the losses, allowing 7 points to TEN in the 4th seems hardly a 4th qt collapse if they allowed 21 in the 2nd and 3rd. Allowing 6 points to CAR in the 4th shouldn't constitute a collapse considering they allowed 16 the whole game.

They gave up 7 in the first SEA game but had given up 17 prior to that and the offense never had them in it. HOU didn't score a 4th qt or OT TD. Having 3 of 7 offensive drives in the second half ending in 3 and outs against WAS hurts any team regardless of defensive philosophy, yet they only gave up 1 TD in the 4th of the 20 total points. That's 4 of the 11 4th qt TDs.

Let's look at the other games. Two TDs to the NYGs doesn't sound like a 4th quarter collapse when they gave up 35 total points that game. They gave up two to PHI in the OT win. If being tired was the problem there is an issue since PHI held the ball just over 22 minutes the whole game. The first PHI game they gave up 1 TD out of 20 total points. That covers 9 of the 11 you cited.

There are multiple reasons why the numbers say what they say, especially given the fact that you're taking an aggregate of the whole season. Only 5 teams gave up less points than DAL last year. Common sense dictates that the high number of games that were within one score late reflects on the offensive ineptitude moreso than any kind of defensive collapse. They lost 6 games during the regular season, scoring 68 points in those games, yet were within 1 score in half of those losses.

As I said before, short of doing a play-by-play analysis neither of us are really going to, "prove," anything. But I think I've at least made the point that attributing all of your statistical data to the defense being, "tired in the 4th," doesn't exactly hold weight, either.

Something as simple as the offense scoring more than 21 ppg (22nd) would skew those numbers in a more favorable light. There's also the whole, "credit the opponent," aspect of sports. Sometimes the other team executes better than your guys. Merely saying, "my guys must be tired," seems like wishcasting and excuses.

 

[percyhoward]

You can't build a case using only stats because stats don't tell the whole story.

Probably not solving that problem with a semantics-based cherry-picking festival though.

Not sure you understand what you previously read.

1st qtr 1st
2nd qtr 11th
3rd qtr 12th
4th qtr 28th

That means the defense was the absolute best in the league in the 1st quarter of games, and the 5th-worst in the 4th quarter of games. Not "this game" or "that game." All of them. You don't have to call it a collapse, and in fact it doesn't matter what we call it. Any game you hand-pick and say "we didn't look so bad in the 4th quarter because we sucked in the 2nd and 3rd (seriously?)" is balanced by 3 or 4 more games where we must have been very good in the first three quarters and lousy in the 4th.

That's how averages work.

 

[Reid1boys]

Which offense do you believe will achieve winning a Super Bowl?

I believe the way Dallas is constituted right now the defense is the strength of the team. If Dallas had a high scoring offense(30 points a game) they would be the NFC favorites, if not thee league favorites.

But when I read some of the post, others believe a ball control offense would be better, you don't need to pass more. That it would protect the defense better.

I fear more for Dallas when they play a high scoring offense than when they play a ball control offense. I believe running a ball control offense will not let you keep up if the game gets away.

When two high scoring teams meet, the team with the best defense should be favorites. Is this the best way to win a championship?

we were ball control in 2014 and scored just under 30 per game. you can do both

 

[Haimerej]

Probably not solving that problem with a semantics-based cherry-picking festival though.

Not sure you understand what you read.

1st qtr 1st
2nd qtr 11th
3rd qtr 12th
4th qtr 28th

That means the defense was the absolute best in the league in the 1st quarter of games, and the 5th-worst in the 4th quarter of games. Not "this game" or "that game." All of them. You don't have to call it a collapse, and in fact it doesn't matter what we call it. Any game you hand-pick and say "we didn't look so bad in the 4th quarter because we sucked in the 2nd and 3rd (seriously?)" is balanced by 3 or 4 more games where we must have been very good in the first three quarters and lousy in the 4th.

That's how averages work.

The problem here is that I actually do understand what you're posting and it seems you don't understand the shortcomings of statistical data.

Oh, and, "seriously," you were the one who defined this data as reflecting 4th quarter "collapse" due to the defense getting, "tired." Pointing to a game in which multiple scores were given up prior to the 4th doesn't make it a collapse moreso than a trend in that one particular game. It also undermines the idea that those points were given up because they got, "tired."

Those games you referred to in your last sentence are the games you want to dismiss because they were up by 2 or more scores.

I'd also like to know how you can say going through 9 of the 11 TDs you cited is, "cherry-picking." If anything, it seems you're now playing the semantic game and avoiding addressing the multiple points I made. Reliance on statistics is common amongst fans without an actual knowledge of said sport. Perhaps you could allay those concerns with a substantive rebuttal to my statements. If anything, at least attempt to prove your assertion that the defense being tired is the main reason for these numbers.

 

[conner01]

30 points all day. Hard to score 30 without some measure of ball control anyways.

The key is moving the chains and being productive in the red zone
Doesn’t mean you can’t run the ball but you have to move the chains
Converting 3rd downs is what gets you TOP
Being productive in the red zone allows you to get more leads and run the ball late to finish out games

 

[75boyz]

The problem here is that I actually do understand what you're posting and it seems you don't understand the shortcomings of statistical data.

Oh, and, "seriously," you were the one who defined this data as reflecting 4th quarter "collapse" due to the defense getting, "tired." Pointing to a game in which multiple scores were given up prior to the 4th doesn't make it a collapse moreso than a trend in that one particular game. It also undermines the idea that those points were given up because they got, "tired."

Those games you referred to in your last sentence are the games you want to dismiss because they were up by 2 or more scores.

I'd also like to know how you can say going through 9 of the 11 TDs you cited is, "cherry-picking." If anything, it seems you're now playing the semantic game and avoiding addressing the multiple points I made. Reliance on statistics is common amongst fans without an actual knowledge of said sport. Perhaps you could allay those concerns with a substantive rebuttal to my statements. If anything, at least attempt to prove your assertion that the defense being tired is the main reason for these numbers.

A truly enjoyable rebuttal. When black and white stat figures are factually and contextually explained this way as to why said figures are not a bottom line explanation and oftentimes quite misleading. Nice job.

 

[Blackspider214]

If you are a ball control offense, you better finish the drives. Nothing worse than time consuming drives that end in only 3 or worse, turnovers or missed FG/punt. So now you have shortened the game and gave yourself less opportunities to make up for it later. Too many times we have seen Dallas absolutely dominate time of clock and only be up 3-6 points or tied. That was pretty much what happened in the Giants game to open the season in 2016. I'd rather be able to hit bigger plays at any given time. Having to drive the ball the length of the field and using 10-15 plays is just more opportunities for mistakes and turnovers.

 

[Blackspider214]

The key is moving the chains and being productive in the red zone
Doesn’t mean you can’t run the ball but you have to move the chains
Converting 3rd downs is what gets you TOP
Being productive in the red zone allows you to get more leads and run the ball late to finish out games

Having to rely on converting third down after third down is never a recipe for success. Stay in front of the chains more and pick up the yardage to gain earlier in the downs.

 

[conner01]

Having to rely on converting third down after third down is never a recipe for success. Stay in front of the chains more and pick up the yardage to gain earlier in the downs.

That would be great but you aren’t moving down the field all day without converting some 3rd downs

 

[Swagger]

I think the main point is that if a team is required to score over 35 points to win a game then they can. I.e. New England Patriots scored 37 points to beat Kansas City Chiefs in the NFC Championship game then their D only allowed 3 points against the Rams in the Superbowl.

During the 2017/18 season the Eagles scored 41 points to beat the Patriots in the Superbowl yet their D only conceded 10 points against the Falcons and 7 points versus the Vikings during the post season.

The point I think many people are question if whether Dak Prescott can lead the offense with his arm to score over 35 points if that's what it takes to win a particularly type of game during the post season.