DMN Blog: Field position hindered Cowboys' offense

[AdamJT13]

We had one of the worst offenses in terms of redzone scoring.

We weren't even close to one of the worst. We scored a touchdown 59.1 percent of the time, which was eighth-best.

The idea that the defense somehow prohibited the offense from doing its job is absurd.

No, it's not. The more times you get the ball closer to the opponent's end zone, the easier it is to score points. Our defense was great at many things, but the lack of turnovers contributed to our offense not being able to score as many points as you'd expect.

We got the ball 13 times inside our opponent's territory, compared to 31 for the Packers. You don't think that helped them score more points? THAT is what's absurd.

 

[jterrell]

Field position doesn't help you move the ball. In fact, bad field position means you have more yards you can gain. Bad field position means you have to move the ball more in order to score, and our poor field position was one reason why we didn't score as many points as we should have.




Fourth-down percentage is relatively meaningless because it involves so few plays, and many of those come when the game is hopelessly out of reach.




That's total penalty yards, not offensive penalty yards.




Even with great field goal kicking, we wouldn't have scored that many more points. Making 27-of-31 would have put us with the fifth-best percentage, but that's only 1.3 more points per game than we scored. So instead of being 14th in points scored, we would have been 11th -- still not enough for how successful our offense was at moving the ball.

The biggest factor that would have helped, as the article mentioned, is better field position. Specifically, more possessions with a shorter field, whether from turnovers, punt returns or kickoff returns.

You are factually correct yet ignoring many truths in the same process

We were 20th in kick return average and 6th in punt return average.
We didn't have as many possessions because we ate up the clock with an offense that moved the well amazingly well up to the red zone.

We were ties for 3rd in run plays of over 40 yards and with Austin obviously very good in 40 yrd plus passing plays. Thus we were less reliant than most teams on field position.

Where we clearly failed was in short yardage.

While you minimize 4th down percentage due to total number of attempts or late game meaningless attempts you also ignore that 4th downs in a few key situations cost us ball games. 4th and goals especially.

I do not have the combined 3rd and 4th down and less than 3 stats on the year but I assure you Dallas rated poorly there. And that had FAR more to do with us not scoring more than did average starting position. To disagree is just goofy. After all we had around 100 possessions on the year so 500 yards would have put us right ta the top of the league YET we were already 2nd in total yardage such that 500 more yards wouldn't have mattered much unless it came AT THE END OF DRIVES.

Our kicking woes meant a number of points left on the board you are not counting because were too scared to attempt them so punted.

 

[Doomsay]

bur still, we're talking 5 yards--I don't think field position is the significant stat--takeaways and turnovers is more relevant (and I know it translates into field position but we are looking a primary causes with TOs and secondary with FP)

5 yds per series. That's 60 extra yards we have to compensate for per game. Not the most significant stat, but not meaningless, especially when we need a few more yards for our mistake-prone kickers.

 

[crazytown41]

Yup. We really need a playmaker in one or both of the saftey positions.

 

[jterrell]

5 yds per series. That's 60 extra yards we have to compensate for per game. Not the most significant stat, but not meaningless, especially when we need a few more yards for our mistake-prone kickers.

Where do you get that we had 12 offensive possessions per game from? That may be true but I'd love to see it proven because it seems quite high. We had ~100 possessions from returns, kick/punt, not nearly that many turnovers to get to 12 per game imho.

 

[utrunner07]

blah blah blah Toddy, Tell me when you grow up and become a real sports writer and write the "Big Red Hindered Cowboy's offense" story.

 

[67CowboysFan]

When you get a ton of yards but stuggle in the red zone, that suggests that starting a eight yards closer wouldn't really help that much.

It does not help when you add 20-30 yards of penalties on a drive either.

 

[28 Joker]

I've been saying all post season - playmaking safety.

With our pass rush, if we get that playmaking safety, turnovers will happen.

We will not get him unless the Cowboys go way up, in the top 5, but

my main man (Eric Berry) is going to the Hall of Fame if he stays healthy.

I'd try to get him. He's a class act off the field.

He's an interception machine, and he runs them back. He picks up fumbles and runs the back.

He can play CB, SS, or FS. He can play the slot guy, TE or WR.

This guy is a football player.

He hits like Dick Butkus and covers like a CB.

He can play in the box or back deep where he is so dangerous. He can run a 4.3.

 

[theogt]

We weren't even close to one of the worst. We scored a touchdown 59.1 percent of the time, which was eighth-best.

22nd per FootballOutsiders in the redzone.

No, it's not. The more times you get the ball closer to the opponent's end zone, the easier it is to score points. Our defense was great at many things, but the lack of turnovers contributed to our offense not being able to score as many points as you'd expect.

We got the ball 13 times inside our opponent's territory, compared to 31 for the Packers. You don't think that helped them score more points? THAT is what's absurd.

Please allow me to clarify my statement by adding the qualifier, "by any material amount." And, no, I don't think an average starting position of 3-5 yards has a material difference when considered along with other factors. You can compound that by noting that the defense is only one of many factors in average starting position.

 

[Hostile]

9:03 AM Thu, Feb 18, 2010 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Gerry Fraley/Reporter E-mail | News tips

As Todd Archer pointed out earlier this month, the Dallas Cowboys' coaching staff is considering ways to get more points out of yardage. The defense should be included in the discussion.

The Cowboys' offense last season suffered from terrible field position. The average starting point was the 27.6, third-lowest in the league. Minnesota had the best average starting point, the 32.5.

The Cowboys' offense also rarely worked with a short field. The Cowboys had only 13 possessions that began in opponents' territory, fewest in the league. Green Bay had the most, with 31. Super Bowl champion New Orleans had 22 possessions that began in opponents' territory, and the Saints also scored seven defensive touchdowns.

The Cowboys' defense did well in terms of limiting points, the top goal. The next step for the defense is to make more plays that help the offense. That increases the possibility of taking a play-making safety high in the draft, if not in the first round.

This is exactly why I said that the 6380 yards of Offense we had this year does not equate to a problem scoring. It is also why I think KR is the #1 off season need along with a Kicker who can score. In all of last season's Special Teams Draft we never looked at Returns. I understand our coverage teams were our Achilles heel and we had to shore them up, but dang.

 

[the truth of it all]

poor dmn sports writers. if they dont talk mavs or rangers . .just boys this time of the year really sucks.. his article shows it too.. sad part.

Not cool.

No Jason Garretts mysterious play calling caused that see. 2009/2010 Cowboys Red Zone statistics.

 

[hmcorp]

ummmm


5 yards is a huge difference.

5 yards * 150 possessions=750 yards.

possible 7 more touchdowns

49 points.

why do the top scoring offenses all have similar short field and better field position ratings than we do.

why does philly a top scoring offense only have one more offensive touchdown than we do....yet avergaed 5 to6 more points a game.

 

[Future]

When you get a ton of yards but stuggle in the red zone, that suggests that starting a eight yards closer wouldn't really help that much.

sigh....

This is one of the lamest things I've read.

Dallas wasn't hurt by field position. We were 2nd in yardage gained so clearly moved the ball just fine.

We were hurt by:
- failing on short yardage, 4th down % ranked 28th in the league
- penalties, where we gave up the 5th most penalty yards on offense.
- field goal kicking where we were awful.

Yes and yes. A perfect example was the SD game. We get stopped 4 times from the 1 yard line and don't score. Get a turnover and start deep in SD territory, and come away with no points. I don't care if you have the 2000 Ravens defense, if you can't score with 8 plays inside the opposing 25, something is wrong with the offense.

 

[theogt]

ummmm


5 yards is a huge difference.

5 yards * 150 possessions=750 yards.

possible 7 more touchdowns

49 points.

why do the top scoring offenses all have similar short field and better field position ratings than we do.

why does philly a top scoring offense only have one more offensive touchdown than we do....yet avergaed 5 to6 more points a game.

Yes, that possibly could result in 49 more points. And it possibly could end up in 0 more points. There are many factors, such as the quality of your redzone play, the quality of your blocking (i.e., being able to punch it into the endzone from the 1 year line), etc.

Then, you add on the fact that the defense is only one of many factors in determining average starting position. For example, Dallas was 23rd in the league in kick returns according to FootballOutsiders' ranking. We averaged about 22 yards per return, whereas the best return games in the league had returners with 27+ yards per return.

Like I said, putting the defense to blame for the offense's lack of scoring is absurd.

 

[hmcorp]

Yes, that possibly could result in 49 more points. And it possibly could end up in 0 more points. There are many factors, such as the quality of your redzone play, the quality of your blocking (i.e., being able to punch it into the endzone from the 1 year line), etc.

Then, you add on the fact that the defense is only one of many factors in determining average starting position. For example, Dallas was 23rd in the league in kick returns according to FootballOutsiders' ranking. We averaged about 22 yards per return, whereas the best return games in the league had returners with 27+ yards per return.

Like I said, putting the defense to blame for the offense's lack of scoring is absurd.

I didnt blame the defense.

But how is it that philadelphia scored one more offensive touchdown than us. just 7 points more but finished with 70 more points....how?

 

[gmoney112]

Field position was a factor yes, so was our redzone efficiency. They were both factors in why we didn't score as many points as we possibly could have, i don't know why people are disagreeing here. They both need to be addressed, and really are the only things missing from us winning the whole thing. I mean, we've all been saying the same things really as far as the draft. OL, safety, return man/WR. These address the foundation of our problems.

A studier OL will help our troubles in the redzone, and a ballhawking safety/speedy return man will help shorten the field. You do whatever you can to get easy points. Averages can be deceiving but they add up. If you told a coach if they'd like to be spotted even 500 more yards than he had the previous season, he'd be a fool to say no. The NFL is a game of yards.

 

[Eskimo]

I do think there were many reasons for lack of scoring compared to yards of offense.

Adam is definitely right in that the offense didn't get many short fields to work with. I guess an interesting stat to pursue would be how well the offense did compared to the league average when normalized for starting field position. You could break down each drive into 5-yard chunks and analyze points scored. For example, for drives starting inside the 5-yard line, maybe the league average is 5.5 points per possession, for drives between 70-75 yards perhaps the league average was 3 points per possession. The only thing is I don't know if anyone tracks a statistic.

I think the OL penalties in the red zone were a big problem this year. It'd be interesting to see how we compared to the rest of the league.

I also think red zone stuff percentage on running plays was also unusually high and is likely playing a role here in the poor scoring numbers.

The FG kicker probably costs us a bit as well.

Hopefully the #5 WR will be a better KOR. With Felix becoming the starter at RB we need to move him off the unit to avoid those dangerous collisions.

 

[theogt]

I didnt blame the defense.

That's what this thread is about -- blaming the defense.

But how is it that philadelphia scored one more offensive touchdown than us. just 7 points more but finished with 70 more points....how?

Per NFL.com, they had 68 more points than us, which is the result of 1 more offensive touchdown (6), 3 more defensive/special teams touchdowns (18), 12 more field goals (36), 2 more PATs (2), and 1 more 2-point conversion (2).

I have no idea where the other 4 points went. But clearly the biggest single factor there is field goals. We had 6 more missed field goals on 6 fewer attempts. Clearly, we need to get that straightened out.

 

[theogt]

I do think there were many reasons for lack of scoring compared to yards of offense.

Adam is definitely right in that the offense didn't get many short fields to work with. I guess an interesting stat to pursue would be how well the offense did compared to the league average when normalized for starting field position. You could break down each drive into 5-yard chunks and analyze points scored. For example, for drives starting inside the 5-yard line, maybe the league average is 5.5 points per possession, for drives between 70-75 yards perhaps the league average was 3 points per possession. The only thing is I don't know if anyone tracks a statistic.

I think the OL penalties in the red zone were a big problem this year. It'd be interesting to see how we compared to the rest of the league.

I also think red zone stuff percentage on running plays was also unusually high and is likely playing a role here in the poor scoring numbers.

The FG kicker probably costs us a bit as well.

Hopefully the #5 WR will be a better KOR. With Felix becoming the starter at RB we need to move him off the unit to avoid those dangerous collisions.

FootballOutsiders analyzes every play based on down and distance and opponent. I don't recall if they factor in field zone. The result is reflected in their DVOA statistics.

 

[khiladi]

ummmm


5 yards is a huge difference.

5 yards * 150 possessions=750 yards.

possible 7 more touchdowns

49 points.

why do the top scoring offenses all have similar short field and better field position ratings than we do.

why does philly a top scoring offense only have one more offensive touchdown than we do....yet avergaed 5 to6 more points a game.

What does 750 yards have to do with it?