Cowboys 1-8 Against All But the Weakest Pass Defenses

[percyhoward]

This was prompted by Dallas East's post about the Cowboys' record against the league's good offenses being comparable to that of the Packers' and Steelers'.

Since Green Bay and Pittsburgh had pass defenses ranked 1st and 2nd in the NFL in defensive passer rating (We were 29th), I looked at the Cowboys' games against teams with good pass defenses, as measured by defensive passer rating.

Cowboys
vs. Top 10: 1-3
vs. middle: 0-5
vs. Bottom 10: 5-2

The Cowboys took advantage of the league's worst pass defenses on their way to 6 wins in 2010. Assuming the Eagles' backups would rank somewhere in the bottom 10 in defensive passer rating, Dallas went 5-2 against teams ranked among the ten worst pass defenses, and 1-8 against everybody else (from great to good to average to below average). The only win against a team whose pass defense did not finish in the bottom 10 in passer rating came against the 10th-ranked Giants' defense in Garrett's first game.

5-2 is exactly what the Packers and Steelers did against the bottom 10 pass defenses, although that's a combined record. What separates those two teams from the Cowboys is what they did against the rest of the league (against pass defenses that weren't awful). Including playoffs, the Packers went 10-4 and the Steelers 13-5, compared to our 1-8.

Packers
vs. Top 10: 5-1
vs. middle:5-3
vs. Bottom 10: 4-2

Steelers
vs. Top 10: 4-3
vs. middle: 9-2
vs. Bottom 10: 1-0

 

[Red Dragon]

Remarkable.

 

[Anjinsan]

Meaningless. How about the defenses for those teams?

 

[percyhoward]

Meaningless. How about the defenses for those teams?

That was actually my point in using the Packers and Steelers.

If you thought this was supposed to be an indictment of Dallas' QB's, it wasn't. It's a direct reflection of how much better our opponents' pass defenses were than our own. As I posted, those two teams' defenses were ranked 1st and 2nd in defensive passer rating, while Dallas' was 29th.

The average passer rating in the league last year was 82.2, so if your QB puts up anything between a 75.0 and an 89.9 in a game, you should go .500 in those games.

In 2010, Pittsburgh and Green Bay went 7-3 when their own quarterbacks posted a rating between 75.0-89.9 in a game. That's how good their own defenses were.

Dallas went 0-6 in the games when either Romo or Kitna posted a rating between 75.0-89.9.

 

[clutch88]

Meaningless. How about the defenses for those teams?

 

[clutch88]

This was prompted by Dallas East's post about the Cowboys' record against the league's good offenses being comparable to that of the Packers' and Steelers'.

Since Green Bay and Pittsburgh had pass defenses ranked 1st and 2nd in the NFL in defensive passer rating (We were 29th), I looked at the Cowboys' games against teams with good pass defenses, as measured by defensive passer rating.

Cowboys
vs. Top 10: 1-3
vs. middle: 0-5
vs. Bottom 10: 5-2

The Cowboys took advantage of the league's worst pass defenses on their way to 6 wins in 2010. Assuming the Eagles' backups would rank somewhere in the bottom 10 in defensive passer rating, Dallas went 5-2 against teams ranked among the ten worst pass defenses, and 1-8 against everybody else (from great to good to average to below average). The only win against a team whose pass defense did not finish in the bottom 10 in passer rating came against the 10th-ranked Giants' defense in Garrett's first game.

5-2 is exactly what the Packers and Steelers did against the bottom 10 pass defenses, although that's a combined record. What separates those two teams from the Cowboys is what they did against the rest of the league (against pass defenses that weren't awful). Including playoffs, the Packers went 10-4 and the Steelers 13-5, compared to our 1-8.

Packers
vs. Top 10: 5-1
vs. middle:5-3
vs. Bottom 10: 4-2

Steelers
vs. Top 10: 4-3
vs. middle: 9-2
vs. Bottom 10: 1-0

Thanks for the research, good job.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

In simpler terms, its Romo's fault.

 

[jobberone]

Good stuff as always.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

That was actually my point in using the Packers and Steelers.

If you thought this was supposed to be an indictment of Dallas' QB's, it wasn't. It's a direct reflection of how much better our opponents' pass defenses were than our own. As I posted, those two teams' defenses were ranked 1st and 2nd in defensive passer rating, while Dallas' was 29th.

The average passer rating in the league last year was 82.2, so if your QB puts up anything between a 75.0 and an 89.9 in a game, you should go .500 in those games.

In 2010, Pittsburgh and Green Bay went 7-3 when their own quarterbacks posted a rating between 75.0-89.9 in a game. That's how good their own defenses were.

Dallas went 0-6 in the games when either Romo or Kitna posted a rating between 75.0-89.9.

So, in essence, you're saying the Cowboys offense had to be consistently phenomenal in the passing game in order to overcome its own poor pass defense.

 

[percyhoward]

In simpler terms, its Romo's fault.

No. It's our own pass defense.

People stress the importance of the quarterback, and how it's so important to draft a good QB. It's true that your team has to have good quarterback play. What often gets overlooked is that, conversely, it's vital NOT to have a terrible pass defense, because that leads to good quarterback play out of all the quarterbacks your team faces.

Romo had a rating of 93.6 in the five games he completed, during which time his team went 1-4. The record doesn't add up, because it doesn't take the other team's QB into account. Let's compare that 1-4 record to the ten other teams whose QB had a rating five points either side of Romo (88.6-98.6)...

97.0 Roethlisberger 9-3
95.9 Freeman 10-6
93.6 Flacco 11-5
93.6 Romo 1-4
93.0 Cassel 10-5
92.0 Schaub 6-10
91.9 PManning 10-6
91.0 Ryan 13-3
90.9 Brees 11-5
90.8 Garrard 8-5
88.9 Kitna 4-5

The teams whose quarterbacks had passer ratings similar to Romo's in 2010 went a combined 92-53 in those player's games. That's a winning percentage of .634. Dallas, with the same kind of performance from Romo that those .634 teams were getting from their quarterbacks, could only manage to go .250 in Romo's games. The only three players on the list whose teams had losing records (Romo, Kitna, and Schaub) played for teams whose defensive passer ratings ranked 29th and 32nd.

That's not a coincidence. In last year's 11 playoff games, the team with the higher ranking in defensive passer rating won 10 times. The only pass defense (Saints) that lost to a lesser pass defense was playing without one of its starting safeties.

We went 1-4 when Romo was playing well enough for us to go 3-2 or 4-1. His 93.6 rating in those five games was against teams that allowed an average rating of 87.5.

In the four losses with Romo, we faced QB's who would finish the season with an average QB rating of 77.3, but our pass defense surrendered an average rating of 94.5 against them.

 

[burmafrd]

You forgot a huge factor in that 1-6. Doughboy.

We had a FS that barely knew how to get out of his own way. We had our best CB with a really painful rib injury for most of the season and the other one had as bad a sophomore slump as I ever saw. We got very little pressure on the passer from anyone but Ware.

It is not like we did not see what was wrong.

 

[percyhoward]

So, in essence, you're saying the Cowboys offense had to be consistently phenomenal in the passing game in order to overcome its own poor pass defense.

Or great in some other area, yes. But you're right that it was usually up to the passing game. Dallas only won one game in which its quarterback had a game rating below 110.

The Packers won 7 such games. The Steelers won 8.

Last year, the Packers and Steelers combined to go 7-5 when their QB had a game rating below 77.

In Romo's career, Dallas is 4-14 when Romo's game rating is anything below 80.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

The average passer rating in the league last year was 82.2, so if your QB puts up anything between a 75.0 and an 89.9 in a game, you should go .500 in those games.

Dallas went 0-6 in the games when either Romo or Kitna posted a rating between 75.0-89.9.

Interesting stats you have provided. I thought this one was eye opening. When you look at the stats at face value, months later, it appears the offense did have some success last season. I don’t know the stat, but my memory tells me the defense had issues with giving up big plays and not making stops on 3rd downs.

 

[DallasEast]

Excellent thread, percyhoward.

 

[BIGDen]

Really good stuff. If Ryan can help us develop a strong, turnover-creating defense this team will be fun to watch (assuming we shore up the OL and FS this offseasonray: ).

 

[theogt]

I can count 3 games off the top of my head that were lost almost solely because of Alan Ball.

 

[SSGMIKE]

So your saying ROMO and the BOYS struggle against the good teams?

This was prompted by Dallas East's post about the Cowboys' record against the league's good offenses being comparable to that of the Packers' and Steelers'.

Since Green Bay and Pittsburgh had pass defenses ranked 1st and 2nd in the NFL in defensive passer rating (We were 29th), I looked at the Cowboys' games against teams with good pass defenses, as measured by defensive passer rating.

Cowboys
vs. Top 10: 1-3
vs. middle: 0-5
vs. Bottom 10: 5-2

The Cowboys took advantage of the league's worst pass defenses on their way to 6 wins in 2010. Assuming the Eagles' backups would rank somewhere in the bottom 10 in defensive passer rating, Dallas went 5-2 against teams ranked among the ten worst pass defenses, and 1-8 against everybody else (from great to good to average to below average). The only win against a team whose pass defense did not finish in the bottom 10 in passer rating came against the 10th-ranked Giants' defense in Garrett's first game.

5-2 is exactly what the Packers and Steelers did against the bottom 10 pass defenses, although that's a combined record. What separates those two teams from the Cowboys is what they did against the rest of the league (against pass defenses that weren't awful). Including playoffs, the Packers went 10-4 and the Steelers 13-5, compared to our 1-8.

Packers
vs. Top 10: 5-1
vs. middle:5-3
vs. Bottom 10: 4-2

Steelers
vs. Top 10: 4-3
vs. middle: 9-2
vs. Bottom 10: 1-0

 

[DallasEast]

So your saying ROMO and the BOYS struggle against the good teams?

His post is a little more detailed than that.

 

[SSGMIKE]

Wonder where the running game fits in or ball control? or how many times ROMO threw the ball compare to the other QB in the league.... if a QB have more attempts should he have better stats? Just wondering? I wouldn't put to much into stats anyway....

No. It's our own pass defense.

People stress the importance of the quarterback, and how it's so important to draft a good QB. It's true that your team has to have good quarterback play. What often gets overlooked is that, conversely, it's vital NOT to have a terrible pass defense, because that leads to good quarterback play out of all the quarterbacks your team faces.

Romo had a rating of 93.6 in the five games he completed, during which time his team went 1-4. The record doesn't add up, because it doesn't take the other team's QB into account. Let's compare that 1-4 record to the ten other teams whose QB had a rating five points either side of Romo (88.6-98.6)...

97.0 Roethlisberger 9-3
95.9 Freeman 10-6
93.6 Flacco 11-5
93.6 Romo 1-4
93.0 Cassel 10-5
92.0 Schaub 6-10
91.9 PManning 10-6
91.0 Ryan 13-3
90.9 Brees 11-5
90.8 Garrard 8-5
88.9 Kitna 4-5

The teams whose quarterbacks had passer ratings similar to Romo's in 2010 went a combined 92-53 in those player's games. That's a winning percentage of .634. Dallas, with the same kind of performance from Romo that those .634 teams were getting from their quarterbacks, could only manage to go .250 in Romo's games. The only three players on the list whose teams had losing records (Romo, Kitna, and Schaub) played for teams whose defensive passer ratings ranked 29th and 32nd.

That's not a coincidence. In last year's 11 playoff games, the team with the higher ranking in defensive passer rating won 10 times. The only pass defense (Saints) that lost to a lesser pass defense was playing without one of its starting safeties.

We went 1-4 when Romo was playing well enough for us to go 3-2 or 4-1. His 93.6 rating in those five games was against teams that allowed an average rating of 87.5.

In the four losses with Romo, we faced QB's who would finish the season with an average QB rating of 77.3, but our pass defense surrendered an average rating of 94.5 against them.

 

[dargonking999]

Wonder where the running game fits in or ball control? or how many times ROMO threw the ball compare to the other QB in the league.... if a QB have more attempts should he have better stats? Just wondering? I wouldn't put to much into stats anyway....

So basically you didn't pay attention to anything the post said, and just rather spew that it's Romo's fault? Just wondering? I wouldn't put much into what you say anyways....