Sturm Debunks Dak and Dunk

[willia451]

I have a large (16x20) framed picture of Tony Romo on the wall in my computer room/home office. In the photo he is dropping back to pass looking downfield. I got the picture from the Dallas Cowboys store and framed it myself. This was soon after he got the job from Drew Bledsoe.

In fact. Tony is the only Cowboy I've ever done that with. And he is the only Sports figure on any wall of my house. He's a "still active" legend in my mind. Maybe the greatest Cowboy of all time. At least to me.

So I get how some people must feel.

But he's done. He's obviously done. I have to accept that and move on.

Dak is a very, very good QB. Especially for a rookie. He's playing well. Winning games for the Cowboys. 12-2 so far. And we're lucky to have him. He needs all our support. He has mine. He's easy to like. Which is a blessing.

But Dak doesn't get a picture on the wall. Sorry Dak.

 

[Direwolf63]

You mean the team that had Joseph Randle at running back?

And I would not dare compare the grit and poise of our young QB to the vomit-wrenching cowardice of Weeden and Cassel.

McFaddon would have rushed for 1,300 yards last year had he started day 1. No doubt Zeke is better, but the Cowboys running game was fine last year, even though we had useless stiffs at QB that defenses had no trouble with.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does he struggle in the redzone Dallas is highly ranked in the redzone. Dak has faced top defenses this season and has done well. I do maintain as fans and that is what we are fans we have no say in who is on the roster, who we draft what plays are called we have no control fans have only an emotional investment in the team, we get no money, we get no rings we either get satisfaction or disappointment.

Dak has thrown down field and has hit some plays does he do it often no but he still has managed to move this team down the field and put them in scoring position as a 4th overall in points scored should be prove to any reasonable person. Can he get better? I think he can but even as a rookie he is performing at a high level if he wasn't this team would not be winning. Of course Zeke is a big part of that the Oline is a part of that as well as defense as of late but so has Dak who has made many critical plays to help this team win.

We are going to be facing NYG, SEA, and the like in the playoffs. If you want to set expectations for playoff performances off of the Bears Bengals and Browns then expect to be disappointed. If we matchup against the Falcons or Packers then I like our chances but the playoffs are anything but certain.

 

[erod]

McFaddon would have rushed for 1,300 yards last year had he started day 1. No doubt Zeke is better, but the Cowboys running game was fine last year, even though we had useless stiffs at QB that defenses had no trouble with.

McFadden got yards because teams knew the Cowboys weren't going to score more than 17 points a game if you just played a soft zone. Those were the most empty rushing yards I've ever witnessed.

 

[erod]

We are going to be facing NYG, SEA, and the like in the playoffs. If you want to set expectations for playoff performances the Bears Bengals and Browns then expect to be disappointed. If we matchup against the Falcons or Packers then I like our chances but the playoffs are anything but certain.

Can Dallas score 24 against the Giants or Seahawks? Can Dallas score 35 against Atlanta or Green Bay?

That will tell the tale in the playoffs.

 

[Direwolf63]

McFadden got yards because teams knew the Cowboys weren't going to score more than 17 points a game if you just played a soft zone. Those were the most empty rushing yards I've ever witnessed.

Wrong.

McFaddon was the only threat the offense had. Defenses tried to stop it and make the QB throw the ball. Which they couldn't do. They focused on stopping the offenses strength and forced them to their weakness. Throwing the ball.

And despite McFaddon being keyed on, he had a pretty decent year. And yet, the team went 4-12.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, that's not it.

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rex Grossman, Chris Chandler, Colin Kaepernick, Tony Eason.....

Lots of QBs have been on winning teams that even went to the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them the reason.

The bolded quarterbacks were on teams largely led by defense. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson played quarterback on teams with historic defenses - some of the best ever.

The Pats were the 6th ranked defense in 1985. The Bears were the 3rd ranked defense in 2006.

I don't think anyone is going to confuse Dak playing on a historic defense.

Chandler was a wily veteran. But every last quarterback you mentioned (outside of Kap) had well established themselves as average quarterbacks whose plus was they were seasoned veterans.

Dak is just a rookie. We don't know what his NFL career will look like. We pretty much knew who the above quarterbacks were. Just saying.

 

[Clarkson]

Speak for yourself and I hardly talk about the RZ effectiveness in a vacuum. IT relates to our difficulty to score. You are the one fixating.

My argument has been that if you can stop our running game from scoring as several teams have done then we will struggle to score. Your insistence that we can run the ball anyway despite recent history just seems obtuse to me.

The stats that I showed were team aggregate. Brady did not play all 14 games this season. The Patriots have unquestionably been poorer overall than the Dolphins once you consider total performance.

I bet that you don't even have a notion of what a 'proper test' is to evaluate. If you want to quibble with how they come up with passer rating then have at it. I'm not going to waste my time.

I also don't care what you intended to mean by your batting average comment. BA is a poor predictor to begin with and you are completely oblivious to the notion of variance and distribution.

If there is one thing that sabermetrics has taught us, the statistics are not completely random and are extremely predictive. If you want to make a case about the sample size of what is now almost a complete cycle or the randomness in RZ performance then have at it. What you have done so far is a bunch of self assuming nonsense. I won't be holding my breath.

Regardless of randomness or not to this point Dak has performed middling in the RZ relative to the rest of the league despite throwing only 1 pick. It has impacted our ability to score.

You are half as intelligent as you think you are.

If that's your point, it makes no sense. Dak has 19 total red zone TDs; exclude the running TDs all you want, but they are definitely an important part of his game. They still count, and they take away an opportunity to throw for a touchdown (because, again: YOU CAN'T SCORE TWICE IN ONE POSSESSION). He's been very effective in the red zone when we've needed him to be. 19 total red zone TDs. We are 4th in red zone TD%. So, I'll ask again: Where is he hindering our scoring? Would we be better if he were Tom Brady? Yep. Would we be better if he Colin Kaepernick? Uhh..

The Patriots have been poorer at what? QB Rating doesn't begin to measure a QBs effectiveness, in the red zone or in general. Are you going to ignore Dak's overall QB rating while harping on the importance of his red zone QB rating? Based on QB rating, Prescott is better than Rodgers. Do I think he is? Nope. What about the Browns? You think the Browns QBs have been better in the red zone than, say, Matt Stafford? Please address that one that you continue to conveniently skip. But if you seriously consider yourself smart, and think posting red zone QB rating stats definitively proves any point whatsoever (especially when it doesn't appear to correlate strongly with team success or team red zone scoring), then again: reassess how smart you think you are.

I'm a CPA who majored in accounting and finance. I can promise you I understand what tests can be run to more accurately determine how meaningful that stat alone is. My guess, using statistical common sense is: not much. Again, if you were as smart as you clearly think....

How predictive do you think red zone QB rating is? How much do you think it fluctuates week-to-week considering the relative small sample sizes? I can already tell you (again) that it doesn't correlate to team red zone TD%, or even overall offense, since the Browns, Niners, and Vikings are higher than we are, yet have far worse QBs and offenses than we do.

Dak has been a good red zone player. Our team red zone TD% and his 19 total red zone touchdowns show that. You're barking up the wrong tree and don't appear to understand much of what you're saying, but you think you sound smart saying it. Stop spewing nonsense.

 

[erod]

The bolded quarterbacks were on teams largely led by defense. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson played quarterback on teams with historic defenses - some of the best ever.

The Pats were the 6th ranked defense in 1985. The Bears were the 3rd ranked defense in 2006.

I don't think anyone is going to confuse Dak playing on a historic defense.

Chandler was a wily veteran. But every last quarterback you mentioned (outside of Kap) had well established themselves as average quarterbacks whose plus was they were seasoned veterans.

Dak is just a rookie. We don't know what his NFL career will look like. We pretty much knew who the above quarterbacks were. Just saying.

And right now, this team is being led by the most dominant offensive line and running back this league has seen in some time.

Dak's impact comes down the road. Hopefully.

That's the point. QBs come and go. Elite quarterbacks stick over time. We'll see.

 

[erod]

Wrong.

McFaddon was the only threat the offense had. Defenses tried to stop it and make the QB throw the ball. Which they couldn't do. They focused on stopping the offenses strength and forced them to their weakness. Throwing the ball.

And despite McFaddon being keyed on, he had a pretty decent year. And yet, the team went 4-12.

Wrong. He had 1,089 yards, but only 3 lousy touchdowns. That's hard to do.

Teams played ultra conservative against Dallas because they knew 18 points or more would be enough against this craptastic offense. That's why Dallas' defense had almost no turnovers. Teams took almost no chances. There was no need to.

Let McFadden run a bit, then tighten up.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are half as intelligent as you think you are.

If that's your point, it makes no sense. Dak has 19 total red zone TDs; exclude the running TDs all you want, but they are definitely an important part of his game. They still count, and they take away an opportunity to throw for a touchdown (because, again: YOU CAN'T SCORE TWICE IN ONE POSSESSION). He's been very effective in the red zone when we've needed him to be. 19 total red zone TDs. We are 4th in red zone TD%. So, I'll ask again: Where is he hindering our scoring? Would we be better if he were Tom Brady? Yep. Would we be better if he Colin Kaepernick? Uhh..

The Patriots have been poorer at what? QB Rating doesn't begin to measure a QBs effectiveness, in the red zone or in general. Are you going to ignore Dak's overall QB rating while harping on the importance of his red zone QB rating? Based on QB rating, Prescott is better than Rodgers. Do I think he is? Nope. What about the Browns? You think the Browns QBs have been better in the red zone than, say, Matt Stafford? Please address that one that you continue to conveniently skip. But if you seriously consider yourself smart, and think posting red zone QB rating stats definitively proves any point whatsoever (especially when it doesn't appear to correlate strongly with team success or team red zone scoring), then again: reassess how smart you think you are.

I'm a CPA who majored in accounting and finance. I can promise you I understand what tests can be run to more accurately determine how meaningful that stat alone is. My guess, using statistical common sense is: not much. Again, if you were as smart as you clearly think....

How predictive do you think red zone QB rating is? How much do you think it fluctuates week-to-week considering the relative small sample sizes? I can already tell you (again) that it doesn't correlate to team red zone TD%, or even overall offense, since the Browns, Niners, and Vikings are higher than we are, yet have far worse QBs and offenses than we do.

Dak has been a good red zone player. Our team red zone TD% and his 19 total red zone touchdowns show that. You're barking up the wrong tree and don't appear to understand much of what you're saying, but you think you sound smart saying it. Stop spewing nonsense.

And now comes the posturing. We both know that they issue is not that I think I am smart but that you are worried that I am smarter than you. Male machismo is nothing if not predictable.

It's great to tell me that I'm not as smart as I supposedly think I am but you were the one that brought up 'proper tests' and now that I have called you on it all you have done is appeal to your supposed authority and claim that you know. Less talk more demonstration.

Do the Browns have a better QB rating in the red zone then the Lions. Yes or no?

Also what comprises a large enough sample size to be predictive in this context. You keep asserting it but you have given nothing in the way of proof or logic. Instead its more handwaving much like your claims of randomness.

Dak has been a mediocre red zone passer as demonstrated objectively by his passer rating. You completely ignored my statement about needing to adjust the stats for everyone as you blithely insist on adding Dak and only Dak's rushing TD to his total and acting like it is valid.

 

[Direwolf63]

Wrong. He had 1,089 yards, but only 3 lousy touchdowns. That's hard to do.

Teams played ultra conservative against Dallas because they knew 18 points or more would be enough against this craptastic offense. That's why Dallas' defense had almost no turnovers. Teams took almost no chances. There was no need to.

Let McFadden run a bit, then tighten up.

Defenses don't work that way.

Co-ordinators don't say: "well we'll let so-and-so do whatever he wants between the 20's, then stop him cold in the red zone."

They simply do not plan that way. But carry on. This topic was fun for awhile. Now it's getting old and dreary. I'll just take the 12-2 with a smile on my face and move on.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Defenses don't work that way.

Co-ordinators don't say: "well we'll let so-and-so do whatever he wants between the 20's, then stop him cold in the red zone."

They simply do not plan that way. But carry on. This topic was fun for awhile. Now it's getting old and dreary. I'll just take the 12-2 with a smile on my face and move on.

I've read and heard about DC's gameplanning exactly that. It's where the term bend but don't break comes from. Marinelli in particular talks about how he focuses on RZ performance, turnovers, 3rd down, and points.

 

[erod]

Defenses don't work that way.

Co-ordinators don't say: "well we'll let so-and-so do whatever he wants between the 20's, then stop him cold in the red zone."

They simply do not plan that way. But carry on. This topic was fun for awhile. Now it's getting old and dreary. I'll just take the 12-2 with a smile on my face and move on.

I'm not talking about playing matador. But Dallas scored less than 16 points in six of the last eight games. Teams knew that field goals were about all we could muster regardless.

 

[Bleu Star]

If posed the question on whose YPA was bigger Dak or Romo I would have said Romo for sure. We constantly hear about "Dak and dunk". According to the data it's quite the opposite

Thanks again Sturm. Continuing to pump truth into a sea of idle speculation. A beautiful thing.

 

[ufcrules1]

You mean the team that had Joseph Randle at running back?

And I would not dare compare the grit and poise of our young QB to the vomit-wrenching cowardice of Weeden and Cassel.

Dak > Romo. Deal with it. You will be forced to in 2017... but don't worry.. it won't be a bad thing.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Can Dallas score 24 against the Giants or Seahawks? Can Dallas score 35 against Atlanta or Green Bay?

That will tell the tale in the playoffs.

True.

Romo didn't or couldn't when he had the opportunity.

 

[zrinkill]

You are half as intelligent as you think you are.

Doubt it.

 

[tyke1doe]

And right now, this team is being led by the most dominant offensive line and running back this league has seen in some time.

Dak's impact comes down the road. Hopefully.

That's the point. QBs come and go. Elite quarterbacks stick over time. We'll see.

Fair enough.

 

[zrinkill]

True.

Romo didn't or couldn't when he had the opportunity.

The excuses will be mind boggling.

Its like Dak replaced Roger Staubach or Troy Aikman.