Interesting OL Stat...

[JBond]

Wow. Great thread. Threads like this keep me coming back to the zone. Thank you. Like a few others I see some major holes on offense. I hope we continue to focus on the oline early in the draft. We have special players on both sides if the ball, but the oline issues continue to hold us back. It is an offensive league right now. We just need a couple more pieces.

 

[Bluestang]

It really is simple.

Ability to run in red zone = more touchdowns = more points

Passing TD
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Lions
4 Patriots
5 Cowboys

Points
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Patriots
4 Lions

15 Cowboys

It couldn't be any clearer. That 5-to-15 disparity is almost all because we couldn't run in the red zone.

Great contribution to this thread percyhoward, but really are you Garrett posting because it sounds like a Garrett stat?

I'm still in awe of what Romo was able to accomplish TD wise when things bottlenecked in the red zone because teams almost exclusively went pass defense when they knew it was coming.

This stat here just goes to prove why Garrett went shotgun when we were 2nd and goal, 3rd and goal. So for all you people that cursed at the TV about that S11 formation at the goal line well there's your proof.

 

[jterrell]

I'm glad you appreciate the effort. Bear with me for a moment.

The Giants scored 46 offensive TD
29 passing
17 rushing

The Cowboys scored 38 offensive TD
33 passing
5 rushing

There's an element of the Giants' offense that made it more successful than the Cowboys' offense, and it wasn't Eli Manning. It was the ability to run in the red zone, which resulted in 12-touchdown edge for the Giants over the Cowboys running the ball.

You're so fixated on the last regular season game, and the fact that both teams were 8-7, that you forget to ask yourself how they got to 8-7. Look at the entire regular season. The Giants did not win the division on the strength of their 3-5 finish. They won it because they started 6-2 when nobody else in the division was above .500.

If the Cowboys had started 6-2 instead of 4-4, that last game would have been meaningless.


In those first 8 weeks of the season:

* The Giants won 4 games by 4 points or less, and scored 6 rushing TD. IOW, in those four wins they scored more rushing TD than the Cowboys did all season.

* The Cowboys LOST 3 games by 4 points or less and scored 1 rushing TD.

If the two teams trade those rushing TD totals, the Giants (with 5 fewer TD runs in those close wins) certainly don't start out 6-2. 4-4 is the most likely record and 3-5 is a possibility. The Cowboys, OTOH, (with 5 extra TD runs in their close losses) are at least 5-3, and possibly 6-2.

Remember, if both teams start 5-3, then Dallas wins the division.

ROFL, bro, you are still just blowing smoke.
Again, look at the actual games and stop fixating on your pet little stat.

The Giants weren't good in the regular season. Neither were the Cowboys. Neither were the Eagles. And yet the Giants scored more rushing TDs in bad losses than the Cowboys did all year. The best rushing team of the bunch was the Eagles. How come they get excluded from the argument?

The Giants were not impressive until they beat us. They were playing at a high level the last few games of the regular season and into the playoffs. But again in the playoffs they didnt have the rushing TDs to back up your pet stat. They managed to win a Super Bowl anyway....

If your argument is it is better to be able to run the ball, so be it. I'd agree.

But if your argument is Dallas finished 1 game behind the Giants because the Giants could rush the ball into the end zone you are not only stretching you are doing so in comic fashion.

They won games with excellent QB play and lots of passing. In the first game we lost 37-34 but missed a tying 47 yard field goal with seconds left. We gave up two TDs in less than 4 minutes. They received 2 HUGE defensive penalties to assist in that final drive and passed every play except the two plunges from 1 yard out. Ballard killed us that series. Manningham dropped a TD that hit him in the hands.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011121113/2011/REG14/giants@cowboys#menu=highlights&tab=recap

In the second game they just destroyed us. Our defense, namely TNew, fell totally apart.

We gave up 750 yards passing to Manning in 2 games and couldn't cover Ballard, much less Nicks or Cruz. :bang2:

You are trying to use the Giants as an example to make your Cowboys point and it isn't a fit. The Giants value Manning, their pass rush and their DBs. That's where they spend r1 picks every year.

 

[jterrell]

It really is simple.

Ability to run in red zone = more touchdowns = more points

Passing TD
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Lions
4 Patriots
5 Cowboys

Points
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Patriots
4 Lions

15 Cowboys

It couldn't be any clearer. That 5-to-15 disparity is almost all because we couldn't run in the red zone.

Dallas finished 12th in offensive touchdowns per game.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/offensive-touchdowns-per-game
So your simple stat isn't really so clear. Defensive and special teams points factor in as well. And in fact 3 places of your disparity lies there.

The Packers finished 18th in rushing TDs. They were 1st overall in total TDs.
The Lions tied for 23rd.

BTW, the Saints averaged over 27 points per game WHEN YOU REMOVE THEIR RUSHING TDs. That is more than we had by 4 points.

Another cool stat. Demarco Murray rushed 20 times in 5 games last year. Dallas went 5-0. Perhaps Murray getting hurt had more to do with rushing woes than the OL.

Scoring is VERY important... how you score doesn't matter very much.
Short yardage situations was an issue for Dallas. Partly because they lost Murray and partly because the OL was suspect. BUT they lost the games that counted late because the defense couldn't stop anyone in the 4th quarter. ANYONE.

So we were 15th in scoring, 12th in pure scoring offense, but 26th in opponent passer rating. We were 24th in opponent yards per pass. But 9th in sack percentage. For every pet stat you want to discuss around OL there are 5 more that suggest our dreadful DB play was the cause for failure.

 

[Sarge]

Keep it churning I say.

:signmast: in a big way....

 

[IrishAnto]

Dallas finished 12th in offensive touchdowns per game.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/offensive-touchdowns-per-game
So your simple stat isn't really so clear. Defensive and special teams points factor in as well. And in fact 3 places of your disparity lies there.

The Packers finished 18th in rushing TDs. They were 1st overall in total TDs.
The Lions tied for 23rd.

BTW, the Saints averaged over 27 points per game WHEN YOU REMOVE THEIR RUSHING TDs. That is more than we had by 4 points.

Another cool stat. Demarco Murray rushed 20 times in 5 games last year. Dallas went 5-0. Perhaps Murray getting hurt had more to do with rushing woes than the OL.

Scoring is VERY important... how you score doesn't matter very much.
Short yardage situations was an issue for Dallas. Partly because they lost Murray and partly because the OL was suspect. BUT they lost the games that counted late because the defense couldn't stop anyone in the 4th quarter. ANYONE. So we were 15th in scoring, 12th in pure scoring offense, but 26th in opponent passer rating. We were 24th in opponent yards per pass. But 9th in sack percentage. For every pet stat you want to discuss around OL there are 5 more that suggest our dreadful DB play was the cause for failure.

How many points did Dallas score against Philadelphia or in the second game against the Giants?

They needed 6 field goals to beat the Commanders in the first game against them.

Both sides of the ball had a big hand in the eight losses.

However a good interior lineman drafted in the first round is more likely to have a bigger impact in improving the offense than any defensive player selected at 14 would have on that side of the ball.

 

[percyhoward]

If your argument is it is better to be able to run the ball, so be it. I'd agree.

But if your argument is Dallas finished 1 game behind the Giants because the Giants could rush the ball into the end zone you are not only stretching you are doing so in comic fashion.

I'm saying both. The second argument is just an example of why the first argument is valid.

The Giants scored 6 rushing TD in their 4 close wins, and got off to the 6-2 start.

The Cowboys scored 1 rushing TD in the 3 close losses that were part of their 4-4 start, despite the fact that the opportunities for rushing TD were there:

Game 1 @ Jets
4th Qtr: 1st-and-goal from the 3
Felix run for 1 yard. (Jets ranked 28th in run TD allowed.)
Even a 2-yard gain sets up a 2nd-and-goal from the 1. The next two plays are an incompletion and a sack/fumble.
Result: 0 points
If we score, we win 31-27 instead of losing 27-24.

Game 4 vs. Detroit
1st Qtr: 4th-and-goal from the 1
Felix run for no gain.
Result: 0 points
Nobody remembers this, because it happened in the first quarter, before the game was "on the line." If we score, we win 37-34 instead of losing 34-30. (Lions run D ranked next-to-last in ypc)

Game 5 @ NE
Two 2nd-half drives lead to 1st-and-goal situations, and both result in FG.
Result: 6 points
If we score a TD on just one of those drives, the game is tied 20-20 at the end of regulation, instead of a 20-16 loss. But we were going to have to do it throwing the ball...

Cowboys Rushing inside the NE 30 in that game:
9 carries, 13 yards 0 TD (against a run defense that ranked 24th in ypc)

A team that has the ability to run in the red zone does not lose those three games. If we win only 2 of the 3, the Giants are eliminated when they lose at home to the Skins, giving us the division.

If the Giants had scored a couple fewer rushing TD in their four close wins, and had only won 3 of the 4, then we only have to win 1 of our 3.

There's no way around it. The two team's passing games and defenses are close to a wash. And the Cowboys ran better than the Giants between the 20's. The difference in the division was red zone rushing.

 

[jterrell]

How many points did Dallas score against Philadelphia or in the second game against the Giants?

They needed 6 field goals to beat the Commanders in the first game against them.

Both sides of the ball had a big hand in the eight losses.

However a good interior lineman drafted in the first round is more likely to have a bigger impact in improving the offense than any defensive player selected at 14 would have on that side of the ball.

how many points did they give up?
thanks for making my points for me.

we gave up 34, 37, 20, 31.

over 30 ppg allowed....

in the 20-9 philly game we played basic ball because it was meaningless as week 17 would determine the division. we avg 34 ppg against in games that meant something against our two competitors for the nfce title.

and as to your last point that is just your opinion and also flies in the face of football wisdom.

 

[jterrell]

I'm saying both. The second argument is just an example of why the first argument is valid.

The Giants scored 6 rushing TD in their 4 close wins, and got off to the 6-2 start.

The Cowboys scored 1 rushing TD in the 3 close losses that were part of their 4-4 start, despite the fact that the opportunities for rushing TD were there:

Game 1 @ Jets
4th Qtr: 1st-and-goal from the 3
Felix run for 1 yard. (Jets ranked 28th in run TD allowed.)
Even a 2-yard gain sets up a 2nd-and-goal from the 1. The next two plays are an incompletion and a sack/fumble.
Result: 0 points
If we score, we win 31-27 instead of losing 27-24.

Game 4 vs. Detroit
1st Qtr: 4th-and-goal from the 1
Felix run for no gain.
Result: 0 points
Nobody remembers this, because it happened in the first quarter, before the game was "on the line." If we score, we win 37-34 instead of losing 34-30. (Lions run D ranked next-to-last in ypc)

Game 5 @ NE
Two 2nd-half drives lead to 1st-and-goal situations, and both result in FG.
Result: 6 points
If we score a TD on just one of those drives, the game is tied 20-20 at the end of regulation, instead of a 20-16 loss. But we were going to have to do it throwing the ball...

Cowboys Rushing inside the NE 30 in that game:
9 carries, 13 yards 0 TD (against a run defense that ranked 24th in ypc)

A team that has the ability to run in the red zone does not lose those three games. If we win only 2 of the 3, the Giants are eliminated when they lose at home to the Skins, giving us the division.

If the Giants had scored a couple fewer rushing TD in their four close wins, and had only won 3 of the 4, then we only have to win 1 of our 3.

There's no way around it. The two team's passing games and defenses are close to a wash. And the Cowboys ran better than the Giants between the 20's. The difference in the division was red zone rushing.

ROFL!
You know I watched the games right?
You know you can see the highlights at NFL.com still right?

Please stop insulting my intelligence with nonsensical cherry picking.

Jets: With the game tied at 24, the Cowboys had a chance for a winning drive with 59 seconds left, but Tony Romo was intercepted on the first play by Darrelle Revis, who returned it 20 yards to Dallas' 34. Four plays later, Folk kicked the go-ahead field goal against his former team.

The Jets tied it with five minutes left when Isaiah Trufant, promoted from the practice squad, ran in a blocked punt from 18 yards for a touchdown. Joe McKnight ran up the middle unblocked and got his hands on Mat McBriar's kick, which bounced right into Trufant's hands.

DET: Matthew Stafford saw his defense start wiping out a 24-point deficit with interceptions returned for touchdowns on consecutive drives midway through the third quarter, then he and Calvin Johnson took over from there, leading the Detroit Lions to a stunning 34-30 victory over the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.

NE: Dan Bailey's 26-yard field goal had broken a 13-13 tie with 5:13 left. Each team ran one series before the Patriots got the ball after a punt with 2:30 remaining. Brady then completed eight of nine passes for 78 yards on an 80-play drive capped by his pass to Hernandez in the middle of the end zone.

Using the Jets and Lions game proves you are not trying to be honest. You are either lying to yourself or to the board as a whole. All Dallas had to do to win those games was not turn the ball over. We didn't lose for failure to run the ball into the end zone but because we gave those games away.

In the Pats game they also scored zero rushing TDs. The difference was Brady was deadly on the final drive as usual.

Rushing TDs have to do with the backs, ol and the play calls. If you run it in you can't pass it in. So long as you score that is what matters. Dallas wasn't bad in the red zone; they were average. Where they were bad was in pass defense; especially so with the game on the line.

 

[Zaxor]

I agree with Jterrell...

if I had a lets say a brett farve team that scored by throwing and I scored 50 times by passing there is nothing saying that I am going to score another 15 if I had ran the ball.

it seems like it would require a giant leap of fate for it to be true

 

[Zaxor]

just to add to that this is why using stats alone should never be done without the context of the game.

 

[Denim Chicken]

From the Guards we picked up in FA, I think this team is going to try to go young on the line. IMO they picked up the two FA Guards for insurance; to complete for a starting spot if our young bucks don’t work out, but also to help the younger players develop as there are a likely to be a lack off experienced linemen on the team going forward.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Looks like rather than keep a bunch of stiffs around for fear of someone being worse, we've gone the route of "keep on churning until someone sticks".

The more turnover, the higher probability of hitting on a player. I like it, to an extent.

As I went through the OLs for Callahan's career, I noticed that when he got a player he liked, he kept them but when he was not happy with production, he would change out that player, sometimes yearly until he got the right fit. I believe you that you have hit on exactly what is happening here Smitty.

 

[percyhoward]

Dallas wasn't bad in the red zone; they were average.

Stop right there. Dallas was 20th in red zone TD percentage. Below average, by any measure.

Remember, Romo had a 105.9 rating in the red zone. He threw 18 TD and 0 INT. He was one of the best QB in the league in the red zone. How did Dallas rank 20th in red zone TD percentage?

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

FG attempts
Dallas 7th
Giants 28th

Red Zone Scoring Percentage
Dallas 20th
Giants 9th

Scoring
Dallas 15th
Giants 7th

Take those five sets of stats into consideration.

What would cause numbers like that?

 

[jterrell]

Stop right there. Dallas was 20th in red zone TD percentage. Below average, by any measure.

Remember, Romo had a 105.9 rating in the red zone. He threw 18 TD and 0 INT. He was one of the best QB in the league in the red zone. How did Dallas rank 20th in red zone TD percentage?

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

FG attempts
Dallas 7th
Giants 28th

Red Zone Scoring Percentage
Dallas 20th
Giants 9th

Scoring
Dallas 15th
Giants 7th

Take those five sets of stats into consideration.

What would cause numbers like that?

1st, we were listed 17th for redzone attempts per game; the Giants 6th.
They had a lot more chances to run the ball than us and thus did run it more and had success.

We were 21st in the percentage of our 1st downs gained via the run. The Giants were 31st.

And Um 20th isnt far below average when there are 32 teams BUT that isn't Red Zone scoring percentage but TD scoring percentage in the red zone. As you list above we took and made lots of field goals. Probably in part because Bailey was outstanding for about the first 12 weeks. And partly because Romo had a couple bad early games with late INTs so we got conservative and settled for field goals.

As to the stat differentials: It would be caused by a combination of penalties, fumbles, questionable playcalls, poor snaps, and poor running in the red zone. Or at least it was in 2011... watch the friggin games.

We were 25th in rushing attempts per game but yet 17th in rushing yards. We didn't have bad production in first downs made nor in yards per carry rushing. We simply didn't run very much overall and we didn't run to the end zone.

Obviously if we amazingly go back and turn mistakes we made or incompletions into touchdown runs it would benefit us greatly. Oddly enough the same happens if you turn those same plays into TD passes....


As to Eli and his RZ rating it was hurt quite a bit by poor drops in the middle of the season; especially by the now departed Manningham. Again, with risk of repeating myself, watch the games.

The Giants and Cowboys approached running games very differently last year. The Giants were incapable of running the ball for about 12 weeks and kind of gave up on it except in the short yardage areas. It made for terrible rushing stats but they did score rushing TDs. Dallas used their running game also sparingly but more as a true wild card from anywhere on the field and utilizing more big play runners without a true short yardage guy on the roster.

The Giants went from a .500 team to the Super Bowl mostly because they got the DL and CBs healthy and playing well. Getting Prince and Tuck going late made a huge difference.

 

[percyhoward]

JT, how many rushing TD would you expect from a team that had 33 passing TD?

What would be an acceptable number, IOW?

 

[Bluestang]

1st, we were listed 17th for redzone attempts per game; the Giants 6th.
They had a lot more chances to run the ball than us and thus did run it more and had success.

We were 21st in the percentage of our 1st downs gained via the run. The Giants were 31st.

And Um 20th isnt far below average when there are 32 teams BUT that isn't Red Zone scoring percentage but TD scoring percentage in the red zone. As you list above we took and made lots of field goals. Probably in part because Bailey was outstanding for about the first 12 weeks. And partly because Romo had a couple bad early games with late INTs so we got conservative and settled for field goals.

As to the stat differentials: It would be caused by a combination of penalties, fumbles, questionable playcalls, poor snaps, and poor running in the red zone. Or at least it was in 2011... watch the friggin games.

We were 25th in rushing attempts per game but yet 17th in rushing yards. We didn't have bad production in first downs made nor in yards per carry rushing. We simply didn't run very much overall and we didn't run to the end zone.

Obviously if we amazingly go back and turn mistakes we made or incompletions into touchdown runs it would benefit us greatly. Oddly enough the same happens if you turn those same plays into TD passes....


As to Eli and his RZ rating it was hurt quite a bit by poor drops in the middle of the season; especially by the now departed Manningham. Again, with risk of repeating myself, watch the games.

The Giants and Cowboys approached running games very differently last year. The Giants were incapable of running the ball for about 12 weeks and kind of gave up on it except in the short yardage areas. It made for terrible rushing stats but they did score rushing TDs. Dallas used their running game also sparingly but more as a true wild card from anywhere on the field and utilizing more big play runners without a true short yardage guy on the roster.

The Giants went from a .500 team to the Super Bowl mostly because they got the DL and CBs healthy and playing well. Getting Prince and Tuck going late made a huge difference.

I'm pretty sure that Laurent Robinson burned Amukamara in the first Giants meeting. I know he was a first rounder but I don't recall his play being that good, do you have stats? The Giants made a huge difference with their pass rush especially the interior (Linval Joseph & Canty).


I believe Dallas' woes do stem from the poor rushing attack. Although the YPC were good, you could also look at CIN rushing stats behind Livings and you will be surprised by that number. My point is that the poor rushing attack allowed defenses to key in on the pass more than the run which made the offense predictable in the red zone.

 

[landryscorner]

The only stat I cared about last year was Romo's broken ribs.

 

[percyhoward]

if I had a lets say a brett farve team that scored by throwing and I scored 50 times by passing there is nothing saying that I am going to score another 15 if I had ran the ball.

History says that if you score 30+ passing TD, you should score about 15 rushing TD. That's 10 more than Dallas had in 2011.

The Cowboys lost five games by 4 points or less or in overtime.

We only needed to win 2 of those 5 (or 1 of the 5, if it's the first Giants game) to win the division.

How on earth are those 10 extra rushing TD not going to win 2 games?

 

[Zaxor]

History says that if you score 30+ passing TD, you should score about 15 rushing TD. That's 10 more than Dallas had in 2011.

The Cowboys lost five games by 4 points or less or in overtime.

We only needed to win 2 of those 5 (or 1 of the 5, if it's the first Giants game) to win the division.

How on earth are those 10 extra rushing TD not going to win 2 games?

Percy my friend you are looking at in in a box and not in game context