It's not the defense, it's the inconsistent offense

[G2]

His data actually shows the opposite if you break it down by era.
Way easier to win now if the team scores 24 than before

Does it factor in field position? I wouldn't really on just points. As I've said in another post, you have to be able to lean on the defense or special teams once in a while. He have not had that luxury.

 

[12+88=7]

I'm not going to go back and forth debating points that have nothing to do about what the article is about. I have not made anything up to prop up an agenda.

To those who don't understand and go off on different tangents, just go to Blogging the Boys and read the article yourself.

My take is the inconsistent offense was the major cause of the team not succeeding last year. I have stated this previously and stand by it.

 

[jaythecowboy]

I'm not going to go back and forth debating points that have nothing to do about what the article is about. I have not made anything up to prop up an agenda.

To those who don't understand and go off on different tangents, just go to Blogging the Boys and read the article yourself.

My take is the inconsistent offense was the major cause of the team not succeeding last year. I have stated this previously and stand by it.

Literally the whole premise of the article is built off points per game which isn't a complete indicator of efficiency. The whole rationale for drafting Zeke as the best way to help the defense was to control the clock and give less opportunities to expose the defense. How the offense performs influences defensive points per game. How the defense performs impacts offensive points per game. An offense could be constantly throwing picks and have the defense starting in the redzone. Even with an elite defense there points a game would be high, almost completely due to an inefficient offense. Between the suspect defense and trash juice special teams the Cowboys offense was always ice-skating uphill.

 

[OmerV]

You are cherry picking. The overall numbers show the defense is good enough to win. Last year 8 an 0. The offense needs to be more consistent.

I’m not sure citing over 60% of the losses would qualify as cherry picking, which usually means someone is citing a small % as representative of the whole.

I do, however, agree the offense was inconsistent last year, and that will be a key to improving as a team.

 

[12+88=7]

I’m not sure citing over 60% of the losses would qualify as cherry picking, which usually means someone is citing a small % as representative of the whole.

I do, however, agree the offense was inconsistent last year, and that will be a key to improving as a team.

Cherry picking may have been the wrong term. The points made by the poster in those games have nothing to do about the article's 10 year time frame, or 6 year, or 4 year.

All games were taken into account, not a select few.

 

[quickccc]

On Blogging the Boys there is an article showing data over the last ten years of when the offense scores 24 points and when they don't. It proves a point that I have been making. The problem with the team is not the defense, but the inconsistent offense.

It shows the numbers of last year's offense, 37 points in wins and 17 points in losses. Very up and down, the most in the NFL. The defensive numbers are 17 points in wins and 23 in losses, more consistent.

Link pleeaze ?

 

[OmerV]

Cherry picking may have been the wrong term. The points made by the poster in those games have nothing to do about the article's 10 year time frame, or 6 year, or 4 year.

All games were taken into account, not a select few.

The 24 point mark applies to all teams - all teams will win more often if the score 24 or more than if they score less. But there is a number on defense too - maybe holding teams to 17 or less would result in teams winning just as much as scoring 24 or more. In the end, it’s still a combinatIon of offense and defense that matters, and I don’t think either side of the ball was consistent enough last year.

 

[cowboyed]

I’m not sure citing over 60% of the losses would qualify as cherry picking, which usually means someone is citing a small % as representative of the whole.

I do, however, agree the offense was inconsistent last year, and that will be a key to improving as a team.

I agree that the offense was inconsistent at critical junctures of games. However I still believe most of the problem was our defense due to lack of turnovers, struggling against the run, either too conservative or hesitant covering passes thanks to the perplexing scheming on defense.

 

[DFWJC]

I don't know how you came up with TWICE. They gave up more than 24 points FIVE times just last season.

Then there are "Dak's" two playoff losses:

Green Bay 34
Dallas 31

Los Angeles 30
Dallas 22

Average score: Cowboys 26.5, Opponents 32. But yeah, it wasn't the defense.

31 really should be enough to win.
I agree.
Normally

Fwiw though, that Green Bay pass defense was truly awful.
In just one 6 game stretch they gave up between 30-47 points 5 times.
Again, 31 should do it, but getting that 31st ranked pass D in Dallas (not at Lambeau) could've easily led to 45 points by previous teams.
Possibly the worst pass D we've faced in the playoffs in 30 years

I've never laid that loss on Dak, but I don't find racking up 2nd half stats on that porous bunch any achievement either.

I think his better playoff performance, relative to the defense we faced, may have even been in the win vs Seattle. Lower stats but a tougher opponent

 

[12+88=7]

Link pleeaze ?

I'm on my phone and don't know how to post link.

But go to BloggingtheBoys.com and you can read it.

 

[CowboyRoy]

On Blogging the Boys there is an article showing data over the last ten years of when the offense scores 24 points and when they don't. It proves a point that I have been making. The problem with the team is not the defense, but the inconsistent offense.

It shows the numbers of last year's offense, 37 points in wins and 17 points in losses. Very up and down, the most in the NFL. The defensive numbers are 17 points in wins and 23 in losses, more consistent.

Then there is the 10 year break down. Dallas is 62 and 18 when scoring 24 points in the last ten years.

Breaking it down further, from 2010 to 2013 Dallas was just 18 and 14 when scoring 24 points. But since 2014 Dallas is 44 and 4. Since 2016 Dallas is 32 and 2.

So the defense was not that good from 2010 to 2013, but since 2014 the defense has been excellent "WHEN" the offense performs. And during Prescott's time the defense has not been able to protect the 24 point mark TWICE.

The defense is not the best in the NFL, but it sure was and is good enough to win games when the offense shows up.

If Dallas has offensive consistency in 2020 they will win, the numbers prove it.

And in case you didn't notice, the Cowboys offense averaged 27 points a week last year.

Did you read the article that said that Romo and Dak have been carrying a bad defense for 15 years?

The ONLY thing prove AGAIN is that you don't understand football.

 

[America's Cowboy]

You are cherry picking. The overall numbers show the defense is good enough to win. Last year 8 an 0. The offense needs to be more consistent.

Bro, you mean highly paid players like this need to be more consistent?

 

[CowboyRoy]

The article was about ten years of data, not cherry picking.

Just presenting what was in the article.

Last year Prescott was the QB. Dallas 8 and 0 over 24 points, 0 and 8 when under.

So if we didn't score over 24 point we lose? And this tells you something about the offense? LOL

Again...……..you don't understand football.

If you have to score over 24 points a week to win then your defense is the problem. Duh...……..I don't get it.

 

[12+88=7]

Bro, you mean highly paid players like this need to be more consistent?

No one mentioned players. It was about units.

Off course you want to spin it into something else.

 

[12+88=7]

And in case you didn't notice, the Cowboys offense averaged 27 points a week last year.

Did you read the article that said that Romo and Dak have been carrying a bad defense for 15 years?

The ONLY thing prove AGAIN is that you don't understand football.

You don't understand the term consistency, week to week.

Scoring 50 one week and 10 the next gets you to a 30 point average, but it's not consistent.

 

[12+88=7]

So if we didn't score over 24 point we lose? And this tells you something about the offense? LOL

Again...……..you don't understand football.

If you have to score over 24 points a week to win then your defense is the problem. Duh...……..I don't get it.

It means the defense held teams below this mark, like NO, NE, PHI and still lost the game because the offense underperformed.

You never will get it.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You don't understand the term consistency, week to week.

Scoring 50 one week and 10 the next gets you to a 30 point average, but it's not consistent.

Again you simply don't understand the game if you think even great offenses are going to come out every week and be great all the time. Just doesn't work that way. And certainly a Garrett led offense isn't going to be consistent.

You have great defenses, you have weather, road conditions bad matchups, miscues, ect…...ect…..

Like last year when we played on the road and New England in the windy rain and people like you are complaining that the offense didn't go off. LOL

Garrett is gone!!!!

 

[DFWJC]

The offense feasted on poor teams but struggled to score points against teams with good defenses as receivers weren't typically wide open uncovered in ten yards of space.

It was all of the above, (offense, defense, special teams) but what you say is true.

They piled up huge stats vs a small handful of teams.
In a normal division, without two huge 2019 patsies, we may very well have ended up 6-10

I think the Giants and Skins will improve, but hopefully so will Dallas

 

[CowboyRoy]

It means the defense held teams below this mark, like NO, NE, PHI and still lost the game because the offense underperformed.

You never will get it.

Your insistence that the problem with the Cowboys last year was the #1 ranked offense in football is about as laughable as it gets. But by all means keep showing the board you are clueless about the game.

 

[12+88=7]

Again you simply don't understand the game if you think even great offenses are going to come out every week and be great all the time. Just doesn't work that way. And certainly a Garrett led offense isn't going to be consistent.

You have great defenses, you have weather, road conditions bad matchups, miscues, ect…...ect…..

Like last year when we played on the road and New England in the windy rain and people like you are complaining that the offense didn't go off. LOL

Garrett is gone!!!!

You don't have to be great, just show up and don't disappear. Dallas might actually win a defensive game.