Predictability

[Zman5]

There is a reason why, no matter what we did, EaGirls had a defender right on our player to make a tackle as the ball got to them. They were well prepared and knew our plays and tendencies.

 

[Idgit]

There is a reason why, no matter what we did, EaGirls had a defender right on our player to make a tackle as the ball got to them. They were well prepared and knew our plays and tendencies.

I think it had a lot more to do with our QB not playing well and the miscues on third downs than it did with the Eagles somehow knowing our plays and tendencies. Again, as offenses go, we're productive.

People want to believe the issue is the offense for some reason. Despite the fact that we actually have a pretty good offense and have been really bad on defense. I don't know why that is. We all see the same games. We can all review the same data after the fact.

Start converting on third downs the way we were during our winning streak, and it'll be amazing how quickly we go from everybody knowing our tendencies and us having a tired scheme to us imposing our will on the other guys and what a boon Scott Linehan is again.

 

[Zman5]

I think it had a lot more to do with our QB not playing well and the miscues on third downs than it did with the Eagles somehow knowing our plays and tendencies. Again, as offenses go, we're productive.

People want to believe the issue is the offense for some reason. Despite the fact that we actually have a pretty good offense and have been really bad on defense. I don't know why that is. We all see the same games. We can all review the same data after the fact.

Start converting on third downs the way we were during our winning streak, and it'll be amazing how quickly we go from everybody knowing our tendencies and us having a tired scheme to us imposing our will on the other guys and what a boon Scott Linehan is again.

What does Romo throwing bad passes have to do with a defender being right on our player? Even when Romo threw a good pass, the Eagirl defender was right on them to make a tackle immediately most of the game.

 

[Idgit]

What does Romo throwing bad passes have to do with a defender being right on our player? Even when Romo threw a good pass, the Eagirl defender was right on them to make a tackle immediately most of the game.

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm saying that Romo throwing bad passes was the cause of the disappointing showing and not your contention that the Eagles were right there because they somehow 'knew our plays and tendencies.' I'm saying, if Romo played better, it wouldn't have mattered where the Eagles were because we left a lot of plays that killed drives on the field due to our own execution and not because of a pretend problem with our offensive scheme.

 

[Zman5]

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm saying that Romo throwing bad passes was the cause of the disappointing showing and not your contention that the Eagles were right there because they somehow 'knew our plays and tendencies.' I'm saying, if Romo played better, it wouldn't have mattered where the Eagles were because we left a lot of plays that killed drives on the field due to our own execution and not because of a pretend problem with our offensive scheme.

As I mentioned, even when Romo threw the ball well and completed the pass, there was a EaGirl defender right on our player to make the tackle.

One of the several reasons Romo didn't play well was because EaGirls defenders were blanketing our players.

 

[Doomsay]

I don't know. I think 'keeping a team off balance' is just something fans say. It's like going to Vegas and keeping your blackjack dealer off balance by making a low probability bet. It's low-probability for a reason. I'd rather just play the odds and hope we execute better.

Not a particularly good analogy - black jack dealers don't react any differently to any kind of bet, defenses, on the other hand, do. An unexpected play isn't a low probability event, often the opposite.

 

[visionary]

It's one thing to show run in a running situation and surprise the other team with a pass every once in a while. It's another thing to look at the snap counts by down and distance and claim that you want to see a trend of your team passing it in running situations. Especially after a steady diet of posts claiming nothing but a desire to run the ball and to not abandon that philosophy. Well, we see that that commitment on the part of the coaches has already outlasted the resolve of some of the fans.

And nobody has answered the question yet: if you're able to be successful doing what the averages suggest you should do in a particular down and distance, what's the argument for not playing the averages again? It'd be one thing if we weren't a successful offense overall, and were in a position to try anything because nothing's working. But when you score more points each possession than all but a handful of teams in the entire league, what's the urgency to start calling low-probability plays for the down and distance? Gotta give me something more than 'we'll catch 'em napping, I know it!'

that is not an unreasonable question

If you know anything about statistics you know that averages and means can be very deceptive, this is more true the smaller the sample size. In this case, the averages would include below .500 teams which would tend to skew things and not accurately reflect how good or effective we would be against good teams. If the objective is to win in the playoffs and make the SB, we need to measure our success against the top defences/teams not against the below .500 ones because we will not be facing any below .500 teams in the playoffs. When you look at our record in this "successful" year, we have one win against an above .500 team, all the other above .500 teams have beaten us. The better teams are better for a reason, they have better talent, prepare better and take advantage if your tendencies better. This is why we lose year in and year out , can't string together winning streaks, and get bounced unceremoniously by good teams. The reality is that we are not that different than we have been in the last 2-3 years, we happen to be in a year where the giants are horrible. We also have a better OL and that has hidden our other deficiencies but better teams will exploit those deficiencies and the more predictable our tendencies are, the easier they will be to exploit. When your talent is around the same level or slightly below another team, game planning and play-calling become important issues. "keeping the other team guessing" may not be the be all and end all but it is not a myth, it is an important element of the game-plan. There is a reason why teams like the patriots, GB, and philly can "plug in" players and have success.

 

[Idgit]

that is not an unreasonable question

If you know anything about statistics you know that averages and means can be very deceptive, this is more true the smaller the sample size. In this case, the averages would include below .500 teams which would tend to skew things and not accurately reflect how good or effective we would be against good teams. If the objective is to win in the playoffs and make the SB, we need to measure our success against the top defences/teams not against the below .500 ones because we will not be facing any below .500 teams in the playoffs. When you look at our record in this "successful" year, we have one win against an above .500 team, all the other above .500 teams have beaten us. The better teams are better for a reason, they have better talent, prepare better and take advantage if your tendencies better. This is why we lose year in and year out , can't string together winning streaks, and get bounced unceremoniously by good teams. The reality is that we are not that different than we have been in the last 2-3 years, we happen to be in a year where the giants are horrible. We also have a better OL and that has hidden our other deficiencies but better teams will exploit those deficiencies and the more predictable our tendencies are, the easier they will be to exploit. When your talent is around the same level or slightly below another team, game planning and play-calling become important issues. "keeping the other team guessing" may not be the be all and end all but it is not a myth, it is an important element of the game-plan. There is a reason why teams like the patriots, GB, and philly can "plug in" players and have success.

Good post, visionary.

It's going to stand to reason that all good teams have more losses against the hardest teams to beat. It doesn't follow from there that the reason they lose is scheme related. And I wouldn't argue that the best teams have better talent, prepare better, and take advantage of tendencies better. None of that is an argument for running the ball when you should be throwing it, or throwing the ball when you should be running it.

Look just at the good teams that have beaten us. The Eagles: lost to AZ, GB, and SF. SF: lost to DEN, STL, and SEA. Cardinals: lost to DEN and SEA. That's the nature of the NFL because there are more poor-to-middling teams than there are good ones.

Teams like GB and NE have success because they draft well and the prepare their players. They pass effectively, defend the pass well, and don't turn the ball over. They keep teams guessing by designing plays to beat the coverages they expect or to defend against the pressure they expect. Not from being unpredictable and running the ball on 3rd and long. It's plays like the shovel pass to Witten in the Giants (?) game, which might show up as a pass but which takes advantage of the coverages we're expecting. Or flexing Dunbar out into the pattern when the defense puts it's run defense personnel on the field on 3rd and manageable. If you read Sturm's Decoding Linehan column every week, we do things regularly to take advantage of what the defense has to do to cover our skill personnel. When you can point to errant throws and mistimed snaps and fumbles from not securing the ball properly, you don't really need to go looking a lot farther to try to find a problem with the design of the offense. Execution matters, and when a good team that's got a track record of being highly productive with it's possessions has a really bad day and you can point directly to the drive killing plays that were missed while the game was still in contention, well, it's pretty obvious that the issue is more isolated that just vaguely being 'less predictable.'

 

[visionary]

Good post, visionary.

It's going to stand to reason that all good teams have more losses against the hardest teams to beat. It doesn't follow from there that the reason they lose is scheme related. And I wouldn't argue that the best teams have better talent, prepare better, and take advantage of tendencies better. None of that is an argument for running the ball when you should be throwing it, or throwing the ball when you should be running it.

Look just at the good teams that have beaten us. The Eagles: lost to AZ, GB, and SF. SF: lost to DEN, STL, and SEA. Cardinals: lost to DEN and SEA. That's the nature of the NFL because there are more poor-to-middling teams than there are good ones.

Teams like GB and NE have success because they draft well and the prepare their players. They pass effectively, defend the pass well, and don't turn the ball over. They keep teams guessing by designing plays to beat the coverages they expect or to defend against the pressure they expect. Not from being unpredictable and running the ball on 3rd and long. It's plays like the shovel pass to Witten in the Giants (?) game, which might show up as a pass but which takes advantage of the coverages we're expecting. Or flexing Dunbar out into the pattern when the defense puts it's run defense personnel on the field on 3rd and manageable. If you read Sturm's Decoding Linehan column every week, we do things regularly to take advantage of what the defense has to do to cover our skill personnel. When you can point to errant throws and mistimed snaps and fumbles from not securing the ball properly, you don't really need to go looking a lot farther to try to find a problem with the design of the offense. Execution matters, and when a good team that's got a track record of being highly productive with it's possessions has a really bad day and you can point directly to the drive killing plays that were missed while the game was still in contention, well, it's pretty obvious that the issue is more isolated that just vaguely being 'less predictable.'

I agree with a lot of the points you make, however lack of predictability is part of it

Every team has tendencies however tendency does not equal predictability. If we do something 60% of the time in certain situations and from certain formations, that is a tendency the defense knows that we are slightly more likely to do that but still does not 'know' what we are going to do and so has to play 'honest' and will have to devote resources to defend what we don't end up doing and is less likely to have success. However if from a certain set or in certain situations we do something 90% of the time, that makes us predictable because it is highly likely we will do it and the defense can sell out to stop it and will likely be successful.

Many opposing players have said over the years that they knew what was coming in particular situations and the same has even documented by many members of the media. I believe that this and the lack of talented depth on the roster are major reasons for our traditional December swoon. The opposing defences get a chance to study game tape for 7-9 games and can tell with a high degree of probability what we will do in a given situation.

JMO

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm saying that Romo throwing bad passes was the cause of the disappointing showing and not your contention that the Eagles were right there because they somehow 'knew our plays and tendencies.' I'm saying, if Romo played better, it wouldn't have mattered where the Eagles were because we left a lot of plays that killed drives on the field due to our own execution and not because of a pretend problem with our offensive scheme.

I agree, Romo couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and our pass protection without the threat of a run was absolutely putrid. People can complain about us running on first down but we have been successful at it including this game. Up until the Beasley fumble and the game situation putting us at a severe disadvantage the offense was fine. After that they could dial up stunts blitzes and not give a flip about giving up running lanes from loading up a side. Leary and the OL were exposed after that.

Leary whiffing on Fletcher Cox two plays in a row and getting Romo hit and freaked out about pressure in his face was the problem on offense. I still fail to see how people can comment on playcalling when they don't even know the route combinations called. If they were not utilizing the middle of the field all game long then that is a gamePLANNING issue and not a playcall.

 

[bodi]

Yeah the coaches are trying to hide Romo's injury by leaning on the run more. If you noticed when he did try to pass they either fell short, fluttered, or just didn't have any velocity. He was off worse than ever, kinda like Game 1 all over again...

gotta agree with this - Romo is hurting more than they will tell

 

[links18]

We were running so much for two reasons: 1.) we are a run first team this year. 2.) We were trying to keep the Egirls potent offense off the field

 

[big dog cowboy]

Yeah the coaches are trying to hide Romo's injury by leaning on the run more. If you noticed when he did try to pass they either fell short, fluttered, or just didn't have any velocity. He was off worse than ever, kinda like Game 1 all over again...

Short week.

 

[Szczepanik]

They have an offense based on options and play action. There is a big difference between how their whole scheme works versus what Dallas does.

The frustrating part is even when we did run play action off of a run set, we sent two into a route.

The other part to their offense is that they don't give the same player the ball twice. Rarely they do.

I would like to see us utilize more HB draws to fool the defense that we are going to pass, then run.

 

[rd26]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to look at the Giants game also.

I think we will all agree that Romo was much sharper in this game.

Once again, I omitted the 2 minute drill, and just looked for plays outside our normal tendencies.

On first down we ran 14 times, passed 4.
We also had a pass on 2nd and 1, as well as a pass on 3rd and 1.

On the 6 passes Romo was 6 of 6 with gains of 18,12,26,15,27 and 9

The only run that was slightly out of character was a 2nd and 7 that went for 18 yards.

That's 7 of 41 plays that were "against tendency" or 17% of our plays
Average yard per play of 17.8.
Total yards 125 of 289 total yards for 43%.

Each drive we scored points on contained at least one of these plays.
The 4 drives which did not yield points, had no such plays.

For my money, even as well as Romo played against the Giants, if you take these 7 play calls out, we lose handily.

I have to agree with visionary, the goal isn't to surprise the opponent every play, but you cant let them sell out with 95% certainty that they will be correct on every play either. You must at least make the defense respect the possibility that you will go against the grain.

 

[SultanOfSix]

"Whatever happened to predictability? The milkman, the paperboy, evening TV?"

Uh...it went to the Cowboys offense.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Yeah the coaches are trying to hide Romo's injury by leaning on the run more. If you noticed when he did try to pass they either fell short, fluttered, or just didn't have any velocity. He was off worse than ever, kinda like Game 1 all over again...

if this is the excuse, then they shouldn't make throwing deep outs the focal point of their game plan. Screens and crossing patterns would be much easier throws for the ailing Romo.......

 

[gimmesix]

Let me say, I've been reasonably happy with the play calling this season. This last game, however, has me completely baffled.

I decided to take a closer look at the first 2 1/2 quarters of Thursday's game. All these numbers are up until the 7:29 mark of the third quarter, when the iggles scored to go up 30-10. The offense was pretty much pass and pray from that point on.

1st down: 13 run, 1 pass
The lone pass was in the 2 minute drill before the half, the fumble by Beasley. That pretty much leaves us 13 for 13 running the ball on first downs.

2nd and 6 or more: 6 pass, 1 run
The lone running play came on a 2nd and 6.

2nd and 5 or less: 5 run, 1 pass
The lone pass was an 8 yard check down to Witten on 2nd and 1 with the score 23-7 I believe.

3rd down: 6 pass 2 runs
Ran the ball on a 3rd and 1 and a 3rd and 3. Converted once.

I guess maybe the logic was that they will never expect us to do exactly what is expected every single time.

There was plenty of blame to go around Thursday, but I've got no sane explanation for this play calling.

Any ideas?

I think Dallas is trying so hard to stubbornly assert that it's a running team that it isn't striking the true balance that it needs. It's not necessarily good to have a run/pass balance if you stick with running or passing on certain downs no matter what.

True balance should be shown on each of those downs you mentioned. It doesn't have to be an equal division between run and pass. You might want to run more on first down, but five passes make those runs more effective and possible net you big yardage. Add a couple more runs on second-and-6 and you might surprise a hard-charging defense that thinks of it as a pass-rushing down. Etc.

The Cowboys have tended to be an all-or-nothing team under Garrett, a team of patterns, and someone needs to break that mold.

 

[gimmesix]

Yeah the coaches are trying to hide Romo's injury by leaning on the run more. If you noticed when he did try to pass they either fell short, fluttered, or just didn't have any velocity. He was off worse than ever, kinda like Game 1 all over again...

Could be. He had a few passes sail on him against Jacksonville, but Dez running crazy all over the field and the Jaguars' ineptness covered that up. He didn't seem to be playing with the same touch or zip that we usually see from him. Maybe getting back into routine of taking Wednesday to work on his body will get Romo back to how he was playing before the Washington game.

 

[Idgit]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to look at the Giants game also.

I think we will all agree that Romo was much sharper in this game.

Once again, I omitted the 2 minute drill, and just looked for plays outside our normal tendencies.

On first down we ran 14 times, passed 4.
We also had a pass on 2nd and 1, as well as a pass on 3rd and 1.

On the 6 passes Romo was 6 of 6 with gains of 18,12,26,15,27 and 9

The only run that was slightly out of character was a 2nd and 7 that went for 18 yards.

That's 7 of 41 plays that were "against tendency" or 17% of our plays
Average yard per play of 17.8.
Total yards 125 of 289 total yards for 43%.

Each drive we scored points on contained at least one of these plays.
The 4 drives which did not yield points, had no such plays.

For my money, even as well as Romo played against the Giants, if you take these 7 play calls out, we lose handily.

I have to agree with visionary, the goal isn't to surprise the opponent every play, but you cant let them sell out with 95% certainty that they will be correct on every play either. You must at least make the defense respect the possibility that you will go against the grain.

This is good stuff, by the way. But I'm not sure you can call 2nd and 1 a rushing down. That's a great opportunity to try for a big passing play as you're very likely to pickup the first on the ground the next play if you have to. Nor is running on second and 7, really. The other four of the plays you're citing here are first-and-tens, which can be run or pass and where, I'd agree with the idea overall that we should probably be mixing in a few more passing plays.

But the difference in the Giants and Eagles games was all in our passing effectiveness. It was the +4 TDs against the Giants v. the -2 INTs against the Eagles. That's not because of the first down passing (though there were some nice plays in that group, as you pointed out). It's because of the better QB play and better pass protection, overall.