Our offense is more to blame this season than our defense

[JoeyBoy718]

I posted this in another thread but I think it's worthy of its own thread. Now, if you think my logic is faulty then please correct me and give your own support. I tried to use actual data to support my claim. This was in response to a post defending Romo. The point isn't to totally blame Romo. The point is to say, yes, our defense is historically bad, but our offense is more at fault (based on my numerical support) than our defense for our 5-5 season. Here it is:

Here's how I look at it... The NFL average (I just did the math myself) for points scored per game for every team (that's including horrible offenses like the Jags) is 23.2. That means any game they Cowboys fail to score at least 24 should not be blamed on the defense. An average NFL offense should be capable of scoring 24 points, so an offense that considers itself elite or near-elite should have no problem. Well, looking at the schedule so far, we've failed to score 24 in four games. We lost three of the four games we failed to score 24 (the only one we won was the 17-3 game against the Eagles). Therefore, in my opinion, three of our five losses are the offense's fault, not the defense's. That means our offense is more responsible for our mediocre season than our historically bad defense is. And who's the leader of our offense? You guessed it... Mr. Romo. If he's not a major part of the problem, I don't know who is.

 

[cowboyblue22]

loses are on the team they are not playing very well none of them
includeing romo coaches are also not doing a very good job

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I posted this in another thread but I think it's worthy of its own thread. Now, if you think my logic is faulty then please correct me and give your own support. I tried to use actual data to support my claim. This was in response to a post defending Romo. The point isn't to totally blame Romo. The point is to say, yes, our defense is historically bad, but our offense is more at fault (based on my numerical support) than our defense for our 5-5 season. Here it is:

Here's how I look at it... The NFL average (I just did the math myself) for points scored per game for every team (that's including horrible offenses like the Jags) is 23.2. That means any game they Cowboys fail to score at least 24 should not be blamed on the defense. An average NFL offense should be capable of scoring 24 points, so an offense that considers itself elite or near-elite should have no problem. Well, looking at the schedule so far, we've failed to score 24 in four games. We lost three of the four games we failed to score 24 (the only one we won was the 17-3 game against the Eagles). Therefore, in my opinion, three of our five losses are the offense's fault, not the defense's. That means our offense is more responsible for our mediocre season than our historically bad defense is. And who's the leader of our offense? You guessed it... Mr. Romo. If he's not a major part of the problem, I don't know who is.

It's flawed, you are basically saying that 17 points against the Chiefs is exactly the same as 17 points against the Saints, which obviously is not true. On the other side, giving up 49 points to the Saints may not be as bad as giving up 30 to the Chargers. You need a better method to normalize some of these numbers. There is no real reason to say that "if the offense hits the league average of points, they have done their job" other than the fact that it gives you results that you like.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

They both suck mmmmmkay?

 

[dupree89]

They both suck mmmmmkay?

i really did LOL...haha..in fact i am still laughin. the "mmmkay?" made that post.

 

[dupree89]

I
That means our offense is more responsible for our mediocre season than our historically bad defense is. .

I dont know which is more to blame. But I am more disappointed in the offense and the inconsistency.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

It's flawed, you are basically saying that 17 points against the Chiefs is exactly the same as 17 points against the Saints, which obviously is not true. On the other side, giving up 49 points to the Saints may not be as bad as giving up 30 to the Chargers. You need a better method to normalize some of these numbers. There is no real reason to say that "if the offense hits the league average of points, they have done their job" other than the fact that it gives you results that you like.

The Chiefs average 23.8 points per game. We have one of the worst defenses in the league so we have to expect teams to score at least their average against us. If we don't score 24 points, we don't beat the Chiefs. There are teams with better offenses where you need to score more points to win and teams with worse offenses where you don't need to score as many to win. The point is, the Chiefs have an average offense. You have to be able to score points. 17 points in today's NFL isn't going to cut it. I just looked at about 7 teams and they lost all but 2 games they didn't score 24 points in.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Further evidence... Our defense has held opponents to under 24 points in five of our games. We won four of those games.

In summary, we lost three of the four games we didn't score 24 points, and we won four of the five games our opponents didn't score 24 points. The only game we didn't win was the Chiefs game, but in that game we also failed to score 24 points.

 

[big dog cowboy]

There is plenty of blame to go around. To support the OP I'll throw this out there. When you don't convert any 3rd downs to sustain drives you are setting up your injury riddled defense filled with 2nd and 3rd stringers up to fail.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

There is plenty of blame to go around. To support the OP I'll throw this out there. When you don't convert any 3rd downs to sustain drives you are setting up your injury riddled defense filled with 2nd and 3rd stringers up to fail.

I agree. The failure to convert on 3rd down is pathetic.

Overall, the point of my thread, I'm not saying the defense isn't awful. I'm saying we know we're an offensive team. We have what many consider a near-elite QB and we have lots of offensive weapons. Every team has an identity and every team has its flaws. Your identity is the best way to win in spite of your flaws. The Broncos, Saints, Packers, Patriots have great offenses. They wouldn't be in Super Bowl contention every year because of their defense. As long as their defense is "good enough" they have a chance to win. Well, my argument is, 24 points seems to be good enough. You win most of the time if you score at least 24 or if you hold opponents to under 24. According to my logic, our defense has done "good enough" in 5 of our games and we won 4 of them, and our offense has been "good enough" in 6 of our games and we won 4 of them. As a team with an offensive identity, we need to be better.

 

[Corso]

I honestly think there's a real and true synergistic give and take between both sides of the field's performance in each game.

When one side isn't doing it's job- it puts more pressure on the other side and if that side collapses under the pressure:

You get history.

Now neither side is performing adequately enough to cover for the other even part-time so that means one side needs to perform admirably for an entire game (which is difficult to ask for) or hope for a balanced trade off of one side performing while the other doesn't periodically just enough to win. Kind of like gambling on Roulette. The odds are not with you on Roulette, even with some smart betting.

I'm becoming firmly entrenched in Risen Star's train of thought- both in personnel and what's involved on the personnel side .
I don't need to repeat it, you all know.

But this team's foundation on both sides of the ball has too many cracks. Nothing stands on a shattered foundation.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

The Chiefs average 23.8 points per game. We have one of the worst defenses in the league so we have to expect teams to score at least their average against us. If we don't score 24 points, we don't beat the Chiefs. There are teams with better offenses where you need to score more points to win and teams with worse offenses where you don't need to score as many to win. The point is, the Chiefs have an average offense. You have to be able to score points. 17 points in today's NFL isn't going to cut it. I just looked at about 7 teams and they lost all but 2 games they didn't score 24 points in.

Again, your premise is flawed and you just created a magic number. Just for kicks, why don't you create the defensive equivalent of this same magic number? How many times did our defense not hold the other team to the league average? (Hint: the amount of points scored in the league is the same as the amount given up )

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Again, your premise is flawed and you just created a magic number. Just for kicks, why don't you create the defensive equivalent of this same magic number? How many times did our defense not hold the other team to the league average? (Hint: the amount of points scored in the league is the same as the amount given up )

I did. The defense held opponents under 24 points in 5 games and we won 4 of them. The ONLY one we didn't win was against the Chiefs, when we also failed to score 24.

 

[tantrix1969]

I dont know which is more to blame. But I am more disappointed in the offense and the inconsistency.

exactly, I didn't expect much from our defense to begin with considering the scheme change and figured the offense would carry us

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Only on CZ could a defense that is historically bad be overlooked for an offense that is above average (statistically)....all so one can blame Romo.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Your magic number is 23.2 points, so it also follows that any time the defense gives UP more than 24 points then they have committed the same sin as the offense not getting to 24 points. Our defense has given up more than 24 points in 4 of our 5 losses (usually much more), so the defense is to blame for four of the five losses.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Your magic number is 23.2 points, so it also follows that any time the defense gives UP more than 24 points then they have committed the same sin as the offense not getting to 24 points. Our defense has given up more than 24 points in 4 of our 5 losses (usually much more), so the defense is to blame for four of the five losses.

And responsible for 4 of our 5 wins. That makes our offense 1-1.

I'm not defending our defense. I'm saying our offense should be better and more consistent. We're an offensive team. We want to be the Saints, Packers, Patriots, Broncos. What I mean by that is fans want to compare Romo to those QBs. We're not one of those teams and Romo is not one of those QBs. Our offense is a lot more mediocre than people think. But, yes, our defense is awful. I'm not defending our defense. I'm saying our offense isn't as good as people think it is and Romo isn't as good as people think he is.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I posted this in another thread but I think it's worthy of its own thread. Now, if you think my logic is faulty then please correct me and give your own support. I tried to use actual data to support my claim. This was in response to a post defending Romo. The point isn't to totally blame Romo. The point is to say, yes, our defense is historically bad, but our offense is more at fault (based on my numerical support) than our defense for our 5-5 season. Here it is:

Here's how I look at it... The NFL average (I just did the math myself) for points scored per game for every team (that's including horrible offenses like the Jags) is 23.2. That means any game they Cowboys fail to score at least 24 should not be blamed on the defense. An average NFL offense should be capable of scoring 24 points, so an offense that considers itself elite or near-elite should have no problem. Well, looking at the schedule so far, we've failed to score 24 in four games. We lost three of the four games we failed to score 24 (the only one we won was the 17-3 game against the Eagles). Therefore, in my opinion, three of our five losses are the offense's fault, not the defense's. That means our offense is more responsible for our mediocre season than our historically bad defense is. And who's the leader of our offense? You guessed it... Mr. Romo. If he's not a major part of the problem, I don't know who is.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. Everyone seems to be just blaming the defense for all our misery. However, I've counted a few games where it was actually the defense or even special teams that has carried the offense. Not a lot of people like to admit it. But our offense has be aweful. Lack of innovation and flexibility has finally caught up to this offense this year. Its time for another playbook completely different from what Garrett has brought in - and possibly time for a different coach as well.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

And responsible for 4 of our 5 wins. That makes our offense 1-1.

I'm not defending our defense. I'm saying our offense should be better and more consistent. We're an offensive team. We want to be the Saints, Packers, Patriots, Broncos. What I mean by that is fans want to compare Romo to those QBs. We're not one of those teams and Romo is not one of those QBs. Our offense is a lot more mediocre than people think. But, yes, our defense is awful. I'm not defending our defense. I'm saying our offense isn't as good as people think it is and Romo isn't as good as people think he is.

Romo is pretty obviously one of those quarterbacks and has been for a long time. I'm still amused by the people who are trying to convince me that 3rd in the NFL in touchdowns and 2nd in fewest interceptions is a bad season. At least this isn't as bad as the guy who tried to convince me that Romo has played 9 bad games out of 10.

 

[JBond]

There is plenty of blame to go around. To support the OP I'll throw this out there. When you don't convert any 3rd downs to sustain drives you are setting up your injury riddled defense filled with 2nd and 3rd stringers up to fail.

We had several mind boggling calls on third and short. I thought the game plan was based on ball control. They seemed to swing for the fences everytime to borrow from a baseball analogy.