Red Zone Short Yardage: How Bad Were We?

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
The Cowboys offense in 2009 ranked near the top in total yards, but only around the middle of the league in red zone success. The reason for this is that we rolled up our yardage in large chunks, gaining 10 yards at the end of a long run (or catch and run) instead of 3, 4, and 3 yards at a time.

It isn't that we preferred the big play to several short plays as a way of advancing down the field, it's that we just weren't very good at the short plays. This shows up in our red zone numbers. And the shorter the play to be made (the less room we had to work with) the less successful we were. At least that was the case last year.

red zone short yardage--percentage of red zone first downs (or touchdowns) converted on 3rd or 4th down with 1 or 2 yards to go, or on any down from the 1- or 2-yard line.


Instead of all the Cowboys' short yardage plays from anywhere on the field, or all the plays run in the red zone, I selected only the short-yardage plays run in the red zone. Dallas had 25 such plays, which is pretty close to the league average of 24.2 red zone short yardage plays per team.

The following rankings show how our short yardage offense in the red zone in 2009 put us at the bottom of the NFL, virtually tied with the Raiders.

Short Yardage Conversion Rate in Red Zone

* = playoff team
01 GB..74% 17-23 *
02 Cin 69% 11-16 *
03 Ari 68% 17-25 *
03 Ind 68% 19-28 *
05 Pit 67% 14-21
06 NO..64% 16-25 *
07 Was 63% 15-24
08 Mia 61% 23-38
09 NE..59% 20-34 *
10 SF..58% 07-12
11 NYJ 57% 12-21 *
11 Buf 57% 04-07
13 Det 56% 10-18
14 Bal 55% 12-22 *
15 Den 54% 15-28
16 Atl 53% 18-34
17 Car 52% 15-29
18 Hou 51% 18-35
19 Chi 50% 16-32
19 KC..50% 10-20
19 TB..50% 05-10
22 Min 49% 19-39 *
23 StL 47% 09-19
23 Ten 47% 09-19
23 Jax 47% 14-30
26 Cle 45% 09-20
27 SD..42% 16-38 *
28 Phi 41% 09-22 *
29 NYG 41% 11-27
30 Sea 40% 08-20
31 Dal 36% 09-25 *
31 Oak 36% 05-14
Lg Avg 53% 412-774


Our 9 of 25 conversion rate in red zone short yardage means that we had 25 red zone plays on 3rd or 4th down with 1 or 2 yards to go, or on any down from the 1- or 2-yard line, and we gained enough yardage for a first down (or touchdown) on 9 of the 25 plays.

Last year, there were 9 playoff wins among the top 14 teams on the list. There were only 2 playoff wins among the bottom 18, both against bottom 18 teams.

As could be expected, most red zone short yardage plays are right on the goal line. 21 of the Cowboys' 25 plays in this list were from the opponent's 1- or 2-yard line. We converted 3 of 4 outside the 2, and only 6 of 21 from the 2 or closer.

All 6 conversions were TD's, and our 6-21 goal line scoring rate was also among the league's worst, percentage-wise (29%). I looked at goal line offense for the other teams at the bottom of the red zone short yardage rankings, and only Oakland's percentage (2-11, 18%) was worse than ours. Philly--a notoriously bad goal line team--was 6-17 (35%), Sea was 6-15 (40%), NYG was 7-19 (37%), and San Diego--the worst short-yardage running team in the NFL (whole field)--was 10-28 (35%) at the goal line.

Our 6-21 conversion rate on goal line (and 9-25 overall red zone) includes all plays--runs or passes.
 
I knew the Cowboys were poor in Short Yard situations -- what I am surprised at is that the Packers were #1. I would think you wouldn't see a wide open passing attack be that high on the list.

As a I look at the numbers I suspect a lot of of has to do with Aaron Rogers being a good runner and the Packers not being afraid to use Rogers in QB sneaks a lot.
 
perrykemp;3412302 said:
I knew the Cowboys were poor in Short Yard situations -- what I am surprised at is that the Packers were #1. I would think you wouldn't see a wide open passing attack be that high on the list.

As a I look at the numbers I suspect a lot of of has to do with Aaron Rogers being a good runner and the Packers not being afraid to use Rogers in QB sneaks a lot.
You're right about the Packers running more QB sneaks. With 2 yards or less to go, Rodgers converted 6 of 7 runs, and Romo converted only 1 of 1. Those are whole field numbers.

But the Packers did everything better than we did in short yardage, running with RB's or passing.

Here's the run/pass breakdown for red zone short yardage conversions
GB vs. Dal:

Dallas 9-25
run 8-18
pass 1-7

Green Bay 17-23
run 13-16
pass 4-7
 
percyhoward;3412341 said:
You're right about the Packers running more QB sneaks. With 2 yards or less to go, Rodgers converted 6 of 7 runs, and Romo converted only 1 of 1. Those are whole field numbers.

But the Packers did everything better than we did in short yardage, running with RB's or passing.

Here's the run/pass breakdown for red zone short yardage conversions
GB vs. Dal:

Dallas 9-25
run 8-18
pass 1-7

Green Bay 17-23
run 13-16
pass 4-7

The lack of sneaks REALLY surprised me last year. I'm such a fan of the quarterback sneak, if it's 3rd and a full 1yard to go I think it's a good idea to sneak on 3rd with the intent of sneaking again on 4th!

Especially with our massive Oline.
 
Doomsday101;3412308 said:
no question this is an area Dallas must improve on.

Pretty surprising that such a big, mauling offensive line should struggle so much in this area.

Simple physics says to me that this should be to their advantage.

Probably a key reason that I think guys like Hudson Houck, Davis and Gurode should be 'on notice' that good enough isn't good enough anymore.
 
stasheroo;3412351 said:
Pretty surprising that such a big, mauling offensive line should struggle so much in this area.

Simple physics says to me that this should be to their advantage.

Probably a key reason that I think guys like Hudson Houck, Davis and Gurode should be 'on notice' that good enough isn't good enough anymore.

I agree. I think short yardage is a test of wills. The OL has the big advantage they know when the snaps is they should be able to get off the line low and quick and move the pile backwards giving the back the chance to bull forward and whose momentum should be enough to pick up that 1 or 2 yards. All too often I saw our line stood up at the point of attack as well as penetration slowing the back down before they could reach the line.
 
I was hoping that the Cowboys would add a big power back to the team for short yardage situations, but that's not going to happen.
 
Doomsday101;3412355 said:
I agree. I think short yardage is a test of wills. The OL has the big advantage they know when the snaps is they should be able to get off the line low and quick and move the pile backwards giving the back the chance to bull forward and whose momentum should be enough to pick up that 1 or 2 yards. All too often I saw our line stood up at the point of attack as well as penetration slowing the back down before they could reach the line.

I hate to seem like I'm beating up on the guy, but Davis should be far more effective than he is.

A player that big and that strong should consistantly have an advantage in these situations and that doesn't seem to be the case often enough.

Pair him with Gurode and it should be advantage Cowboys but that's not regularly the case, especially recently.
 
stasheroo;3412367 said:
I hate to seem like I'm beating up on the guy, but Davis should be far more effective than he is.

A player that big and that strong should consistantly have an advantage in these situations and that doesn't seem to be the case often enough.

Pair him with Gurode and it should be advantage Cowboys but that's not regularly the case, especially recently.

I agree. Davis has to do a better job than he did this past season in these short yardage situations. We are not looking to break a long one just trying to pick up 1 or 2 yards and guys need to do a better job of firing off the ball and getting that push.
 
Doomsday101;3412371 said:
I agree. Davis has to do a better job than he did this past season in these short yardage situations. We are not looking to break a long one just trying to pick up 1 or 2 yards and guys need to do a better job of firing off the ball and getting that push.

Again, just my opinion, but I think both he and Gurode have been put 'on notice' this year that if things don't improve in 2010, 2011 isn't guaranteed for either of them.
 
stasheroo;3412373 said:
Again, just my opinion, but I think both he and Gurode have been put 'on notice' this year that if things don't improve in 2010, 2011 isn't guaranteed for either of them.

You could be right. One thing I was just thinking about in the past Dallas would run to the left instead of to the right side of the line and wonder if backs tend to like going to the left hand side more than to the right just in terms of gaining more momentum by the time they hit the line. Of course some will say because we had Allen on the left side but even before Allen was there Dallas tended to run to the left side on power plays.
 
Romo

Goalline
1/8 for 1 yard 1 1stdown/touchdown 1 pic

1st and <2
0/2 for 0 yards 0 1stdown/touchdowns 1 picks

2nd and <2
5/10 for 57 yards 4 1stdown/touchdowns 0 picks

3rd and <2
9/14 for 88 yards 8 1stdown/touchdowns 0 picks

4th and <2
1/3 for 0 yards 0 1stdown/touchdowns 1 picks

Looks like passing success

on the goal line is 1/8.
Off the goalline it's 11/21
Overall it's 12/29.

Romo's goal line rushing was:
2 for 1 yard 1 touchdown/1st down

Barber

Goalline:
12 for 5 yards and 4 1st/touchdowns

1st and <2
6 for 2 yards 2 1st/touchdowns

2nd and <2
15 for 43 yards 10 1st/touchdowns

3rd and <2
18 for 66 yards 12 1st/touchdowns

4th and <2
3 for 0 yards 0 1st/touchdowns

success rate off goalline: 20/30
success rate on goalline: 4/12
overall success rate: 24/42


Jones

2nd and <2
6 for 23 yards 4 1st/touchdowns

3rd and <2
2 for 19 yards 2 1st/touchdowns

Never attempted on goalline

success rate:

6/8

Choice

Goalline
2 for 2 yards and 1 1st/touchdown

1st and <2
1 for 2 yards 1 1st/touchdown

2nd and <2
4 for 6 yards 2 1st/touchdown

3rd and <2
5 for 10 yards 3 1st/touchdown

Success on goalline:

1/2

Off goalline:

5/8

Overall:

6/10
 
percyhoward;3412341 said:
You're right about the Packers running more QB sneaks. With 2 yards or less to go, Rodgers converted 6 of 7 runs, and Romo converted only 1 of 1. Those are whole field numbers.

But the Packers did everything better than we did in short yardage, running with RB's or passing.

Here's the run/pass breakdown for red zone short yardage conversions
GB vs. Dal:

Dallas 9-25
run 8-18
pass 1-7

Green Bay 17-23
run 13-16
pass 4-7

I do recall the Packers like to line up 4 WRs a lot and then sneak or rush Rogers up the middle. Frankly, its a very tough formation to stop if the QB (in this case Rogers) is athletic and willing to sacrifice his body by sneaking. With the Cowboy's improved WR corp, it might be something the Cowboys should look at.
 
stasheroo;3412351 said:
Pretty surprising that such a big, mauling offensive line should struggle so much in this area.

Simple physics says to me that this should be to their advantage.

Probably a key reason that I think guys like Hudson Houck, Davis and Gurode should be 'on notice' that good enough isn't good enough anymore.

I am not overly surprised. although its a big line, they are not fleet of foot. in short yardage situation everybody is bunched up. the defense just shoots the gaps as well as hold up the LOS allowing their defense to shoot the gaps. that requires quickness more than grit. groude, bigg, kosier, adams, columbo are not that quick. they may have the ability to get down field and pull etc, but for short yardage, you need to have the DL back one yard before anything. we didn't do that so well.

I am not sure that's going to change.

I would rather go with conventional offense in these situations sometimes and give it to Jones or barber, altough at goalline, the safties and CBS are bunched up at the line.
 
what? i thought the "experts" already said that we didn't score enough because we didn't get enough turnovers :rolleyes: ...it really has nothing to do with redzone efficiency and short yardage situations ;) ...
 
HanD;3412430 said:
what? i thought the "experts" already said that we didn't score enough because we didn't get enough turnovers :rolleyes: ...it really has nothing to do with redzone efficiency and short yardage situations ;) ...

Both would be a big help, getting more turnover setting up shorter fields as well as more opportunities and doing better in the redzone putting up 7 instead of 3.
 
Doomsday101;3412436 said:
Both would be a big help, getting more turnover setting up shorter fields as well as more opportunities and doing better in the redzone putting up 7 instead of 3.

Yes, it would be helpful. But even with a shortened field our Redzone woes continue we would come away with less points
:(
 
nalam;3412497 said:
Yes, it would be helpful. But even with a shortened field our Redzone woes continue we would come away with less points
:(

Yep, looks like the points/yards discrepancy is mostly due to poor goal line conversion rates and poor field goal percentage.

The stats I put up seem to show the phenomenon is almost exclusively at the goal line, with about 63% success rates in other <2yard situations.

We can't deal with the shortened field.

Any suggestions as to why????


Does anyone know if this data tends to revert to the mean or whether it is indicative of something more substantial?
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,693
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top