Stopping the New Romo Myth

[percyhoward]

we are talking past each other. I've laid out the statistical argument above.

Your position is
- 8 drives each were how the game unfolded - drive numbers seem to be unable to be affected by either teams strategy
- the offense scored 21 points on 3 of 8 drives which is inline with some seasonal average against all opponents and all situations.
- How the failed drives end and the time or situation of the game of the failed drive is irrelevant because 3/8 is the average (or 21pts/8) and because the average was met, they blame lies mostly somewhere else.
- The end of drives irrelevant even if it is a turnover on your side of the field because the offense has already done enough.

My position is pretty simple
- 21 points doesnt win playoff games - provided only 16 of 99 games since 2006
- No drive result is in any way shape or form dependent on on past drive history.
- When there is a situation in the game, and every possession is precious in an elimination game, not capitalizing on a an opportunity that has resulted in a score 80% of the time is a wasted opportunity.
- Not scoring is one issue, but the call and result enable GB an extra possession before the half to score 3 points....a 6 point swing.

I'm fine saying the defense didnt do a stellar job, but the game plan was about keeping the DALLAS offense on the field and GB off the field because of Rogers. The strength of the team was the offense, therefore, blowing scenarios is less expected from that side than the defense.

The wagging the dog is accepting that a specific drive outcome is justified if it moves toward a historical average. A situation could have a 99% historical scoring rate, but in your argument the the offense is absolved of failing on that one drive because the 1% isnt the issue its the 2.7 pts per drive that must be maintained according to your argument.



I dont want to compare any pts/possessions I want the team to score points when the opportunity is there because points are precious and win games.



Before the game, but most assuredly I do if, as the game unfolds on the field, the 5 failed drives end deep in GB territory and each of the 5 fails had has yielded some 80% success in the entire nfl over 17 years, then yeah failing to score in over 50% of the possessions in that scenario is reason to challenge not absolve.

Fundamentally, you're looking at what the offense might have done, and I'm looking at what it actually did. I'm not saying the offense is absolved of anything, or even that it needs to be. The fact that points win games doesn't make one play or one drive more important than all of the plays in the game. In comparing offensive and defensive performances, the one drive you're talking about is no more worthy of discussion than any other toward that end.

If failing to seize on that opportunity had caused the offense to score fewer points than normal, then you would be justified in pointing to it as a reason. But it didn't. All it led to was the offense scoring fewer points than they might have. So it's not even representative of the larger sample, which says the offense matched its average, and for that matter, far exceeded the average allowed by the Packers.

At first, you didn't see the relevance of the number of possessions. Right now, what I think you're not seeing is that you're giving a ton of weight to anecdotal evidence.

 

[percyhoward]

Special teams, too, for not getting the field goal before the half. If we make that, the Packers likely don't score before halftime, and we're up 17-7 instead of 14-10.

Oh, absolutely special teams. Not just for botching the FG, but also for not jumping on Cobb's fumble on the kickoff after we went up 21-13 in the 3rd quarter.

Let's adjust that to offense 10, special teams 10, defense 30, Blandino 50

 

[TheDude]

That's not what you showed. Those numbers are for scoring "under 23 points" (or 21, if that was a typo -- I'm not sure, because nothing matches your numbers). But we didn't score 20 points or less -- we scored 21. Teams that have scored exactly 21 points in a playoff game are 8-5 since 2006 (including our loss).

Besides that, most games don't have each team with only eight possessions on which it tried to score, so you'd have to compare it only to similar games. Or look at how often 2.625 points per possession was good enough to win. In both cases, I'm guessing the points we scored should have been enough to win the majority of the time.

- there have been no 22pt games so < 23 =wins scoring 21 or less
- There have been 99 games - teams have won when scoring < 23 (which is 21 or less in reality) only 16 times.
- the average winning score has been 29 pts for all 99 wins
- the average losing score is 18pts
- There were six teams alone in 2012 that lost scoring >24, 5>27pts and 3> 30pts

21 is line of demarcation for the 16 games won,
- 6 teams who won with 21 pts (Sea v Dall 2006, NYG v Dall 2007, NE v SD 2007, GB v Philly 2010, GB v Chi 2010, NYG v NE 2011)
- 3 teams won with 20 pts (Colts v Ravens 2009, NYG v SF 2011, Ravens Texans 2011)
- 1 Team with 19
- 4 teams with 17
- 1 with 15 and 1 with 13


i'll look at per drive, but since this is only accounting for games won by a team scoring 21 or less, the results is self affirming. Could look at it on all 100 games for a more prudent sample

 

[TheDude]

Fundamentally, you're looking at what the offense might have done, and I'm looking at what it actually did. I'm not saying the offense is absolved of anything, or even that it needs to be. The fact that points win games doesn't make one play or one drive more important than all of the plays in the game. In comparing offensive and defensive performances, the one drive you're talking about is no more worthy of discussion than any other toward that end.

I apologize I know I said I'd give you the last word, but your hypothetical of what may have happened if the defense intercepted Rogers, forced more incompletions, etc, etc. opened the hypothetical debate. But if you think all drives are statistically equal in getting you closer or further from winning, then we will just disagree. The drive where Romo broke his collar bone was significant. The drive where he got knocked out in Wash was significant and likely cost the Az game and Home field. All hypotheticals, but not scoring from an opponents 26 will always be different than not scoring on a 3 and out from your 20. 3 and outs happen, but expected score is near 0 from the 20.

If failing to seize on that opportunity had caused the offense to score fewer points than normal, then you would be justified in pointing to it as a reason. But it didn't. All it led to was the offense scoring fewer points than they might have. So it's not even representative of the larger sample, which says the offense matched its average, and for that matter, far exceeded the average allowed by the Packers.

At first, you didn't see the relevance of the number of possessions. Right now, what I think you're not seeing is that you're giving a ton of weight to anecdotal evidence.

You have your mind made up. I have made my case you made yours.

 

[AdamJT13]

- there have been no 22pt games so < 23 =wins scoring 21 or less
- There have been 99 games - teams have won when scoring < 23 (which is 21 or less in reality) only 16 times.
- the average winning score has been 29 pts for all 99 wins
- the average losing score is 18pts
- There were six teams alone in 2012 that lost scoring >24, 5>27pts and 3> 30pts

21 is line of demarcation for the 16 games won,
- 6 teams who won with 21 pts (Sea v Dall 2006, NYG v Dall 2007, NE v SD 2007, GB v Philly 2010, GB v Chi 2010, NYG v NE 2011)
- 3 teams won with 20 pts (Colts v Ravens 2009, NYG v SF 2011, Ravens Texans 2011)
- 1 Team with 19
- 4 teams with 17
- 1 with 15 and 1 with 13

It makes no sense to break it down that way. A team that wins 24-10 or 28-17 would have won if it scored 21 points, too. If you look at all 99 games, 21 points would have been enough to win 65 of them (and tie four more). Or if you look at all 198 teams in those 99 games, 75 of them scored 20 points or less -- that's 38 percent of all playoff teams. And few, if any, of the teams that scored more than 21 did it on only eight possessions.

 

[AdamJT13]

Oh, absolutely special teams. Not just for botching the FG, but also for not jumping on Cobb's fumble on the kickoff after we went up 21-13 in the 3rd quarter.

I had forgotten about that. Ugh. Hanna!

 

[TheDude]

That's not what you showed. Those numbers are for scoring "under 23 points" (or 21, if that was a typo -- I'm not sure, because nothing matches your numbers). But we didn't score 20 points or less -- we scored 21. Teams that have scored exactly 21 points in a playoff game are 8-5 since 2006 (including our loss).

Besides that, most games don't have each team with only eight possessions on which it tried to score, so you'd have to compare it only to similar games. Or look at how often 2.625 points per possession was good enough to win. In both cases, I'm guessing the points we scored should have been enough to win the majority of the time.

Wt Avg winning pts per drive for all 99 winning teams is 2.10. Giants come in highest at 2.67 in their wins since 2006. Cowboys 2 wins are 2.31.

 

[AdamJT13]

Agreed, and this game was more the fault of the defense but how much of the blame does the offense get? That is what the debate has been for the last few pages. You and PH have provided stats basically saying ..."Hey, the offense shouldn't have any blame based on these stats".

I don't think either one of us ever said the offense gets no blame. Even if the offense has a pretty good game, it still shoulders some blame if you don't win. I just think the defense deserves much more of the blame for this one.

 

[percyhoward]

I apologize I know I said I'd give you the last word, but your hypothetical of what may have happened if the defense intercepted Rogers, forced more incompletions, etc, etc. opened the hypothetical debate.

It wouldn't have meant much to most people if I'd simply said "we'd probably have won if we'd lowered Rodgers' rating 17 points," so I was looking at the effect of lowering his rating in practical terms (interceptions, incompletions, etc.). In order to get the defense to hold Rodgers to his average, you need hypotheticals.

That's not the case with the offense, which really did match its average. You can just look at what the offense actually did.

 

[TheDude]

It makes no sense to break it down that way. A team that wins 24-10 or 28-17 would have won if it scored 21 points, too. If you look at all 99 games, 21 points would have been enough to win 65 of them (and tie four more). Or if you look at all 198 teams in those 99 games, 75 of them scored 20 points or less -- that's 38 percent of all playoff teams. And few, if any, of the teams that scored more than 21 did it on only eight possessions.

Sure, a team that won 24-10 or 28-17 would have won with 21, but they didnt stop scoring. Minn could have one with 2 safeties or 2 FGs instead of 34-3 in 2009.

Dallas was up 21-13 with 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. If they thought "21 points wins 65% of the playoff games - time to let off
the gas", your stat backs it up. But the actual final scores do not. Each individual game dictates its own specific scenarios

 

[TheDude]

It wouldn't have meant much to most people if I'd simply said "we'd probably have won if we'd lowered Rodgers' rating 17 points," so I was looking at the effect of lowering his rating in practical terms (interceptions, incompletions, etc.). In order to get the defense to hold Rodgers to his average, you need hypotheticals.

That's not the case with the offense, which really did match its average. You can just look at what the offense actually did.

Fair enough.

 

[AdamJT13]

Dallas was up 21-13 with 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. If they thought "21 points wins 65% of the playoff games - time to let off the gas", your stat backs it up. But the actual final scores do not. Each individual game dictates its own specific scenarios

If any team is dumb enough to stop playing defense in the third quarter because they have 21 points, they don't deserve to win. And I don't believe for a minute that our defense did that.

 

[ufcrules1]

Hindsight is 20/20 (or 50/50, if you're Cam Newton). That was a pre-snap read because of the extra blitzers. There was no way to anticipate that Beasley would be open (he had a corner and safety right over him), nor to expect to have the time to scan the field for open receivers. He knew for sure, however, that Dez would be one-on-one -- and that if he put the ball up, Dez more than likely would catch it.

I see where you are coming from and know all the details of the play. It's still much safer play to find someone open for couple of yards(even during a blitz) than to throw a pass way down field and hope your WR can come down with it. That is a low % play and extremely risky on 4th down with the whole season on the line. And lol @ Cam.

 

[ufcrules1]

I got offense 10, defense 40, Blandino 50.

Haha.... Ok, fair enough. Blandino royally screwed us and cleared himself from the party bus incident in the process. It was the perfect out for him.

We still would have had to stop the MVP with plenty of time on the clock if the catch stood though. Would have loved to see that play out. Maybe another strip sack would have happened.

 

[ufcrules1]

I always hate assessing blame for losses because there are always so many ifs in games. I know some throw the Green Bay loss at Murray's feet, some throw it at the defense, some at the officials/Blandino (although I think they'd like to throw something more solid at him), but you look back at things like the end of the half and how that might alone have changed the outcome of the game and it's really hard to point to just one thing and say that's it, that's why we lost.

This is exactly why some of us are saying it was just simply a team loss. We could have done better in just about every phase. None of the phases were good enough. At the end of that game I was super proud of my team for the season they had.

I didn't have the feeling that the defense single handedly screwed us and that was why our season was over. I feel some of our fans out there felt that way though and that is why we have had several pages of debate about it.

 

[ufcrules1]

Let's adjust that to offense 10, special teams 10, defense 30, Blandino 50

Getting better with those numbers. If we would gave gotten that Cobb fumble (which we clearly should have) and then scored a TD. I think we would have won the game. We would have been way ahead and it would have been demoralizing for GB.