Creative sprinkling of Romo

[LittleLexodus]

I do miss seeing Romo out there but this sounds highly ineffective

 

[percyhoward]

Anyone knows that if you are ahead in the 2nd half, you want to run to milk the clock. if the defense knows you are running, your efficiency goes down. that artificially reduces your rushing efficiency.

Our average goes up with a 2nd-half lead.

Dallas yards per rush (excludes QB kneels)
leading in 2nd half
64 for 329
5.14

all other rushes
164 for 829
5.05

And who said we weren't an efficient rushing team anyway? I posted that we're ranked 4th in the NFL in yards per rush. That's 4th in the 1st half, and 4th in the 2nd half.

 

[waldoputty]

Our average goes up with a 2nd-half lead.

Dallas yards per rush (excludes QB kneels)
leading in 2nd half
64 for 329
5.14

all other rushes
164 for 829
5.05

And who said we weren't an efficient rushing team anyway?

well there are other factors.
the defense is worn down sometimes.

what i am saying is using rushing efficiency is a flawed stat because the situation is far too complex to model with a one variable on one variable regression.

the ability to wear down the defense depends on the overall offense capabilities.

furthermore the difference between 5.05 and 5.14 is so small that it is probably within the error bars of a typical regression. so it is essentially the same number. the point is that the rushing efficiency stats are flawed.

 

[percyhoward]

what i am saying is using rushing efficiency is a flawed stat because the situation is far too complex to model with a one variable on one variable regression.

A flawed stat for determining what exactly?

 

[waldoputty]

A flawed stat for determining what exactly?

many like to regress points scored with rushing efficiency.
my point is that this regression does not make sense.

 

[percyhoward]

many like to regress points scored with rushing efficiency.
my point is that this regression does not make sense.

I thought you were attributing the offense's success to TOP and an improved running game. My point was that TOP and running the ball only get you so far, and that you won't score a lot of points with bad QB play.

 

[plasticman]

Hold up.....

You might have something.

My thoughts are that you would insert Tony for one full drive sometime in the first half.

Tony brings in a different skill set that could possibly exploit the fact that a defense prepared for Dak. He could perhaps do some of the things they did not gameplan.

After his initial drive the defense is now unsure as to who will quarterback the next drive. Their defensive packages may be obsolete. The personell has to be reshuffled depending on the next quarterback's skill set.

This confusion could quite possibly produce mismatches when Dak resumes.

That would be it for Ro except perhaps one or two plays on the 2nd half.

......Might work.

 

[waldoputty]

I thought you were attributing the offense's success to TOP and an improved running game. My point was that TOP and running the ball only get you so far, and that you won't score a lot of points with bad QB play.

TOP is an even more convoluted statistics that is flawed for doing regressions.
As Adam noted, pace of play is probably the biggest factor in TOP.
While playing no-huddle will dramatically affect TOP, pace of play is really an externality that makes the statistic flawed in terms of running an regression.

When you have a flawed data set, regressions based on them are also flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[DandyDon52]

no if they decide to let romo play in playoffs, they will put him in last 2-3 games, just like denver did manning.

 

[percyhoward]

Garbage in, garbage out.

What's your point, waldo?

 

[percyhoward]

The threat of rushing helps passing efficiency but can't be measured with simple stats. D-Coordinators will go 8 in the box, etc. to limit a great rushing threat. Two offenses can have 50 yards rushing in a game, but the the defense played 8 in the box against 1 offense and 7 in the box against the other. The offense that faced 8 in the box had a benefit to their passing game because 8 in the box is not the best pass defense. The rushing yardage stats were the same for both offenses so correlation to winning in regards to the rushing stats would be meaningless.

This part, on the other hand, is true. You can't simply look at yards per rush and conclude that running well doesn't help the passing game. Running well obviously helps the passing game, as we saw in 2014, and we're seeing again this year.

You can't, however, use TOP and running the ball as a recipe for success unless you also pass effectively and score points (as we saw in 2015).

 

[xwalker]

This part, on the other hand, is true. You can't simply look at yards per rush and conclude that running well doesn't help the passing game. Running well obviously helps the passing game, as we saw in 2014, and we're seeing again this year.

You can't, however, use TOP and running the ball as a recipe for success unless you also pass effectively and score points (as we saw in 2015).

There is always the question of cause vs effect in regards to stats. I feel certain that there is some percentage of "effect" involved with passing efficiency correlating to winning. It might only be a small percentage of the ratio, but I have no idea how much. One example of effect is the change in approach in the 4th quarter for both the winning team and the losing team.

Once you consider that there is some effect involved and then add in that (IIRC) the correlation is only about 80%, then the concept does not appear as strong as initial stats might make it appear, IMO.

 

[percyhoward]

There is always the question of cause vs effect in regards to stats. I feel certain that there is some percentage of "effect" involved with passing efficiency correlating to winning. It might only be a small percentage of the ratio, but I have no idea how much. One example of effect is the change in approach in the 4th quarter for both the winning team and the losing team.

It's possible to think through the effects. For example, teams are usually passing more efficiently than their opponent in order to get the lead in the first place.

 

[xwalker]

It's possible to think through the effects. For example, teams are usually passing more efficiently than their opponent in order to get the lead in the first place.

Yes, 1st half data probably supports the concept with less effect, but there could be other effect(s) that are not as obvious as 4th quarter stuff.

The primary issue is that there really is no way to conclude much of anything in regards to the importance of the running game. If it can't do that then what is the benefit of the concept?

It still doesn't tell me if a great QB is worth 2 1st round picks while a great RB is only worth a 2nd round pick. It does not tell me how much effort a D- Coordinator should focus on pass vs run.

What I would most like to know is how to best increase the probability of scoring TDs instead of Field Goals both from a team building and game planning perspective. My guess is that this is where the Cowboys run game helps them the most; however, I would not know how to measure it. We already know that rushing yardage stats don't really mean much.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I want to see Romo run the Wildcat. Make him scramble and take a hit. Then if he makes it just fine then he's good to go!!

 

[haleyrules]

I want to see Romo run the Wildcat. Make him scramble and take a hit. Then if he makes it just fine then he's good to go!!

Tony is completely finished. He will be cut, for money reasons, June 1st. Prescott will ead the charge after that!!