Breakdown of Weeden's 108.8 season rating

[jnday]

Numbers clearly don't win games. They measure how games are won, so that people can better figure out what works and doesn't work.

And they do that, because the 'eyeball test' is clearly subjective, as this very thread shows. You guys can describe your eyeball tests, and I sit here wondering what games you were watching, because to me, the issues were much bigger on defense than they were on offense. Especially against ATL. Clearly, we can't both be right if we're seeing opposite things, which makes eyeballing it pointless unless you just want to group people into two groups without any support whatsoever for which group is right and which is wrong.

The support is where the stats come in. From there, it's a rational debate about whether or not the right things are being measure and if they're being measured accurately.

My eyes was watching Dallas lose the game. Your numbers was telling you that they had great QB play. My eyes saw that the great QB play wasn't so great in the second half of the game. If it was, the dense wouldn't have been so gassed.

 

[Idgit]

My eyes was watching Dallas lose the game. Your numbers was telling you that they had great QB play. My eyes saw that the great QB play wasn't so great in the second half of the game. If it was, the dense wouldn't have been so gassed.

Hold the phone. I didn't say my eyes saw great QB play. I just didn't agree with that other poster's assessment that Weeden was the reason we were killing second half drives in ATL. I saw multiple negative runs, multiple penalties, and drops putting a very mediocre QB who had no run support and one WR threat to speak up in a bunch of very low-percentage downs and distances.

The defense wasn't that gassed. They only defended, what, 66 or so plays? In week three of the season? Come, on, jnday. I think the adjective you're looking for is 'bad.' They took bad angles, missed tackles, couldn't get off blocks, and got blown up regularly by a FB. The biggest problem they had was a rookie DE who couldn't hold containment. They weren't gassed, they just weren't any good.

 

[Zman5]

Not sure that's how it works.

We only had four drives in that second half. Two were derailed by our own penalties and negative runs. One by a fourth down drop.

The negetive runs were the result of what I posted.

 

[Idgit]

The negetive runs were the result of what I posted.

They weren't though.

The first was just Free not making his block. The second was just the DT knifing through the gap and Collins/Fredrick not handing him off properly. The 3rd was a LB peeling off Martin's block and then Clutts' inability to dig him out of the hole.

There weren't negative runs in the 4th, because we were in the shotgun the whole time at that point and not running the ball. I did forget to mention, though, that we'd also given up the two sacks in that period.

For the most part, we just failed to execute across the board on offense in the second half that game. The QB wasn't perfect, but he was far from the cause of the problems.

 

[jnday]

Hold the phone. I didn't say my eyes saw great QB play. I just didn't agree with that other poster's assessment that Weeden was the reason we were killing second half drives in ATL. I saw multiple negative runs, multiple penalties, and drops putting a very mediocre QB who had no run support and one WR threat to speak up in a bunch of very low-percentage downs and distances.

The defense wasn't that gassed. They only defended, what, 66 or so plays? In week three of the season? Come, on, jnday. I think the adjective you're looking for is 'bad.' They took bad angles, missed tackles, couldn't get off blocks, and got blown up regularly by a FB. The biggest problem they had was a rookie DE who couldn't hold containment. They weren't gassed, they just weren't any good.

The whole point of the thread is that Weedan had a great QBR according to the numbers. I don't think that the numbers reflect how limited the offense is with Weedan playing. I agree that the defense struggled, but they were tired because they didn't come off the field much in the second half. Offenses are snapping the ball quicker to prevent the substitutions that the defense is known for. By the way, I miss arguing with you.

 

[Zman5]

They weren't though.

The first was just Free not making his block. The second was just the DT knifing through the gap and Collins/Fredrick not handing him off properly. The 3rd was a LB peeling off Martin's block and then Clutts' inability to dig him out of the hole.

There weren't negative runs in the 4th, because we were in the shotgun the whole time at that point and not running the ball. I did forget to mention, though, that we'd also given up the two sacks in that period.

For the most part, we just failed to execute across the board on offense in the second half that game. The QB wasn't perfect, but he was far from the cause of the problems.

Not sure what you are getting at but Atlanta played much better in the 2nd half and we played much worse. The difference between the two teams was night and day compared to the 1st half.

Why? Especially when Atlanta didn't change their pre snap look from each half. It wasn't like they were showing a different look that confused our offense. Like you said, they excuted better and we excecuted worse. Why do you think that was?

My explanation was the fact they knew our tendency to run on first down so the players played the run and not worried about the pass. A split second indecision can make a huge difference when it comes to excecution.

The advantage offense has over a defense is the fact they know what they are going to do with the ball. The defense doesn't until the ball is snapped. They have to wait and see what the offense is doing before reacting to the ball because they don't if it's a pass or run. Especially the LBs. LBs can't just attack the LOS because they can get burned that way if it's pass. More so on first downs since that's a down, unlike 3rd and long, it can be either type of play.

But since we run 67% of the time on first down, my guess is that Atlanta took a safe gamble and played the run on 1st down without worrying about the pass and the gamble paid off. The LBs were probably told to attack the LOS the second the ball is snapped and run toward the running back and not worry about the pass. This is why they were able to make play against our offense so much better in the 2nd half than the 1st half without chaiging the pre snap look.

 

[Idgit]

Not sure what you are getting at but Atlanta played much better in the 2nd half and we played much worse. The difference between the two teams was night and day compared to the 1st half.

Why? Especially when Atlanta didn't change their pre snap look from each half. It wasn't like they were showing a different look that confused our offense. Like you said, they excuted better and we excecuted worse. Why do you think that was?

My explanation was the fact they knew our tendency to run on first down so the players played the run and not worried about the pass. A split second indecision can make a huge difference when it comes to excecution.

The advantage offense has over a defense is the fact they know what they are going to do with the ball. The defense doesn't until the ball is snapped. They have to wait and see what the offense is doing before reacting to the ball because they don't if it's a pass or run. Especially the LBs. LBs can't just attack the LOS because they can get burned that way if it's pass. More so on first downs since that's a down, unlike 3rd and long, it can be either type of play.

But since we run 67% of the time on first down, my guess is that Atlanta took a safe gamble and played the run on 1st down without worrying about the pass and the gamble paid off. The LBs were probably told to attack the LOS the second the ball is snapped and run toward the running back and not worry about the pass. This is why they were able to make play against our offense so much better in the 2nd half than the 1st half without chaiging the pre snap look.

I think they played better because they were playing better. For the most part, it was just their DL beating our protection. Not because of tendencies, and not because of any indecision. For the most part, they just lined up and beat our guys and made their tackles.

And it's not like our tendencies with Weeden in the lineup ought to have surprised anybody in the first halves of the last two games. We did exactly what you'd expect a team in our situation to do. Including the reliance on first down running the football.

Besides, the DC isn't going to tell the LBs to just attack the line of scrimmage on the snap of the ball. That'd be foolish. They're still reading their keys and reacting accordingly. They just started tackling better and getting off their blocks. Or we started blocking worse. Either way, it was execution and not anything schematic.

 

[Zman5]

I think they played better because they were playing better. For the most part, it was just their DL beating our protection. Not because of tendencies, and not because of any indecision. For the most part, they just lined up and beat our guys and made their tackles.

And it's not like our tendencies with Weeden in the lineup ought to have surprised anybody in the first halves of the last two games. We did exactly what you'd expect a team in our situation to do. Including the reliance on first down running the football.

Besides, the DC isn't going to tell the LBs to just attack the line of scrimmage on the snap of the ball. That'd be foolish. They're still reading their keys and reacting accordingly. They just started tackling better and getting off their blocks. Or we started blocking worse. Either way, it was execution and not anything schematic.

The difference bewteen the two teams between the two halve is so great, I can't agree with your assessment they just played better without any reason.
We were running at will in the first half, we had negative yards in the second half. All whole unit of a team doesn't just start playing so much better or so much worse without a reason.

And according to the Atlanta players they were told to "cheat to the line" so DC or their HC did tell them to attack the line.

Until the game is played, you really can't bet the farm on a teams tendencie's. No HC in right mind will until they see it happening again during the game. Once they do, they'll try to use it to their advantage if needed. Atlanta had no choice to gamble since they knew they couldn't stop us after the first half. The gamble obviously paid off.

 

[Rogerthat12]

The difference bewteen the two teams between the two halve is so great, I can't agree with your assessment they just played better without any reason.
We were running at will in the first half, we had negative yards in the second half. All whole unit of a team doesn't just start playing so much better or so much worse without a reason.

And according to the Atlanta players they were told to "cheat to the line" so DC or their HC did tell them to attack the line.

Until the game is played, you really can't bet the farm on a teams tendencie's. No HC in right mind will until they see it happening again during the game. Once they do, they'll try to use it to their advantage if needed. Atlanta had no choice to gamble since they knew they couldn't stop us after the first half. The gamble obviously paid off.

Dan Quinn used some Pete C. coach speak saying they changed their attitude at the half but he also indicated that they indeed made some minor alterations, not in total scheme mind you but definitely by taking away certain tendencies they found the Cowboys demonstrating in the first half.

These facts can not be explained away because their coach actually stated this was the case in his presser and on his coaches show.

They certainly played better but they also made some adjustments that assisted the performance.

 

[Idgit]

Dan Quinn used some Pete C. coach speak saying they changed their attitude at the half but he also indicated that they indeed made some minor alterations, not in total scheme mind you but definitely by taking away certain tendencies they found the Cowboys utilizing in the first half.

These can not be explained away because their coach actually stated this was the case in his presser and on his coaches show.

They certainly played better but they also made some adjustments that assisted the performance.

I said they didn't change much, not that they didn't change anything. Obviously both teams make adjustments at half time. But the coach and multiple defensive players all came out after that game and said that they just played better and that it wasn't the result of a major change in how they were defending our offense. We talked about it that week after that game.

Our fans want to believe that they made adjustments and we didn't counter them because that feeds into their general frustration with our coaches and with Brandon Weeden. But what really happened is we stalled our drives by getting penalties and missing blocks and giving up sacks and dropping passes, and getting flushed out of the pocket and falling short of the first down marker. Most of our issues on offense were self-inflicted and weren't the result of anybody telling ATL defenders to disregard the pass or to cheat up to the line or whatever fantasy we want to think happened.

Defensively, we were getting beat all game, so it's not a matter of adjustments there, either. Or the team getting tired or whatever other excuse is easier than we just didn't keep containment and didn't get off blocks and didn't take the ball away and didn't tackle well.

 

[Zman5]

Dan Quinn used some Pete C. coach speak saying they changed their attitude at the half but he also indicated that they indeed made some minor alterations, not in total scheme mind you but definitely by taking away certain tendencies they found the Cowboys demonstrating in the first half.

These facts can not be explained away because their coach actually stated this was the case in his presser and on his coaches show.

They certainly played better but they also made some adjustments that assisted the performance.

Exactly. The difference between the two half is so great that I just can't believe one team just played better all of sudden and one team just played horriblly without any valid reason. Atlanta players mentioned that they would cheat to the line which explains one of the changes that they made.

 

[Idgit]

The difference bewteen the two teams between the two halve is so great, I can't agree with your assessment they just played better without any reason.
We were running at will in the first half, we had negative yards in the second half. All whole unit of a team doesn't just start playing so much better or so much worse without a reason.

And according to the Atlanta players they were told to "cheat to the line" so DC or their HC did tell them to attack the line.

Until the game is played, you really can't bet the farm on a teams tendencie's. No HC in right mind will until they see it happening again during the game. Once they do, they'll try to use it to their advantage if needed. Atlanta had no choice to gamble since they knew they couldn't stop us after the first half. The gamble obviously paid off.

I agree that the difference between the Dallas offense and the Atlanta defense between the halves was unusual. But I obviously do think people randomly missing single assignments can account for a lot of what we saw. I went through the blown blocking assignments already. Then there was the flop by Weeden when he got flushed out of the pocket on the final drive. There was the drop by Williams. The two sacks. The Free holding penalty. The false start on Witten. The bad read by Randle. In addition to the negative runs, there were missed blocks on LBs that accounted for multiple 1-2 yard runs. Add it all up. You don't need people changing their game plan or making adjustments if you just have a dozen or so guys losing individual matchups on any given play or making mental errors. Once you get your team in 2nd and 15 with no Romo and no Dez and effectively limit the run options, you're pretty much going to win that series. We had four series in the half. It doesn't take a lot to derail the team we're fielding right now.

 

[Zman5]

I agree that the difference between the Dallas offense and the Atlanta defense between the halves was unusual. But I obviously do think people randomly missing single assignments can account for a lot of what we saw. I went through the blown blocking assignments already. Then there was the flop by Weeden when he got flushed out of the pocket on the final drive. There was the drop by Williams. The two sacks. The Free holding penalty. The false start on Witten. The bad read by Randle. In addition to the negative runs, there were missed blocks on LBs that accounted for multiple 1-2 yard runs. Add it all up. You don't need people changing their game plan or making adjustments if you just have a dozen or so guys losing individual matchups on any given play or making mental errors. Once you get your team in 2nd and 15 with no Romo and no Dez and effectively limit the run options, you're pretty much going to win that series. We had four series in the half. It doesn't take a lot to derail the team we're fielding right now.

As I posted after the game, all of the issues you mentioned above are direct result of failures on 1st down. That's where Atlanta stopped us cold. And what I posted about them cheating to the lines and playing to stop the run at all cost was the main reason they were able to stop us on 1st down every time we ran.

Once we were in 2nd and 3rd and long, it made stopping our offense easier. If you look at the All22, every second half posessions look the same for their defense. Stop us for negative yards on first down. Stop the short pass on 2nd down for minimum gain. Have 6 defenders at the 1st down marker to stop long pass or let us catch a dump off and run to the receiver and gang tackle.

That was their adjustment. Stopping us on 1st down at all cost. And knowing we'll most likely run on first down, made it so much easier for them.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I said they didn't change much, not that they didn't change anything. Obviously both teams make adjustments at half time. But the coach and multiple defensive players all came out after that game and said that they just played better and that it wasn't the result of a major change in how they were defending our offense. We talked about it that week after that game.

Our fans want to believe that they made adjustments and we didn't counter them because that feeds into their general frustration with our coaches and with Brandon Weeden. But what really happened is we stalled our drives by getting penalties and missing blocks and giving up sacks and dropping passes, and getting flushed out of the pocket and falling short of the first down marker. Most of our issues on offense were self-inflicted and weren't the result of anybody telling ATL defenders to disregard the pass or to cheat up to the line or whatever fantasy we want to think happened.

Defensively, we were getting beat all game, so it's not a matter of adjustments there, either. Or the team getting tired or whatever other excuse is easier than we just didn't keep containment and didn't get off blocks and didn't take the ball away and didn't tackle well.

Dan Quinn indicated they made minor adjustments to take away tendencies that were demonstrated in the first half.

Specifically they were certain routes and how they were attacking the line.

Defensively, Dallas was not getting beat up in the first half, Weeden supplied 7 points according to Garrett and Weeden himself, notwithstanding the Garrett clock issue, so basically they gave up 10 points, 3 of which could have been avoided if Garrett used the clock properly.

The Dallas defense won the third down conversion battle in the first half and it reflects in the numbers. Atlanta punted 4 of 6 times.

They lost the third down conversion battle in the second half and it also reflects in the numbers.

 

[Rogerthat12]

As I posted after the game, all of the issues you mentioned above are direct result of failures on 1st down. That's where Atlanta stopped us cold. And what I posted about them cheating to the lines and playing to stop the run at all cost was the main reason they were able to stop us on 1st down every time we ran.

Once we were in 2nd and 3rd and long, it made stopping our offense easier. If you look at the All22, every second half posessions look the same for their defense. Stop us for negative yards on first down. Stop the short pass on 2nd down for minimum gain. Have 6 defenders at the 1st down marker to stop long pass or let us catch a dump off and run to the receiver and gang tackle.

That was their adjustment. Stopping us on 1st down at all cost. And knowing we'll most likely run on first down, made it so much easier for them.

Correct, they saw the tendency to run on first and then throw routes underneath, attack the line and take away the underneath routes.

 

[Sarge]

Precisely why I have never put much stock into the quarterback rating formula or statistic.

 

[Doomsay]

They really didn't change much at all. They just tackled better. They got off blocks. We helped them with a drop and some offensive penalties. And then our defense collapsed.

Their own HC and several players said as much explicitly after the game.

You have to read the whole article and watch the all 22. They didn't necessarily change the scheme or personnel, but they did commit to stopping the run in the 2nd half (they were "predicting our run plays") and began cheating on the underneath routes, particularly Dunbar's. In both circumstances, it was because they knew we weren't going to pass deep or we had formulaicly committed to an obvious run.

 

[camelboy]

You have a very skewed idea of what someone who is probably the 30th to 40th best QB in the league should be.

If he was mobile, could read defenses and always threw the ball away every time... in addition to having his arm and size... he wouldn't be Weeden he would be John Elway. Got any more insane requirements for a backup QB (which by the way no other backup QBs seem to have either)?

I am not arguing to prove losses are on Weeden or to ask for Joe Montana as our back up QB. I just wanted to point out that pulling some numbers to prove that he was better than Elway, or Brady, or whoever is not helping, he is what he is. To me when he puts 20+ point on the board I just look at the defense and say "now step up and do what we all thought you'd do once Romo went down". So I put most of the blame on the defense.
Still Weeden, despite doing what we all agree as enough, frustrated the **** out of us all with the drive killing bad throws, holding into balls too long... I hope in his remaining games he grows more confident and more comfortable.

But we can agree to disagree anyway.. we all want the same thing ultimately

 

[percyhoward]

Precisely why I have never put much stock into the quarterback rating formula or statistic.

W Romo 103.3 Manning 70.7
W Romo/Weeden 106.0 Bradford 65.6
L Ryan 109.1 Weeden 87.8
L Brees 119.4 Weeden 105.6

 

[65fastback2plus2]

so can we take the 2 first halves from the last 2 games and make them 1 game so we can be 3-1? hah