Sturm: Decoding Linehan - Week 3 - Rams

[Sturm1310]

It will surely go down as one of the oddest games we have seen in a while, but the events of Sunday continue a stretch where it appears the Cowboys offense might finally be the type of team that can take over a game offensively by the throat and get points when necessary.

Surely, we all look forward to a day where we forget about the 1st half against the 49ers, but since then, the offense has showed a level of productivity that is awful exciting. Since the half of Week 1, the Cowboys have had the ball 25 times as an offense, and scoring 13 times. That sort of success rate will win many games, and they have assembled long, time-consuming and defense-exhausting drives during that stretch, as well.

http://sturminator.blogspot.com/2014/09/decoding-linehan-week-3-st-louis.html

Thanks!

 

[Venger]

Good writeup as always, the ability to sustain drives cannot be overemphasized. Drives are like punches, you need to land them to win. If you don't, you usually open yourself up to taking one...

 

[reddyuta]

i know it was a lot but the rams blitzed romo almost 50 % to go along with their run blitzes on 1st and 2nd downs,thats astounding to me and i dont believe the saints will blitz Romo that much,they will do what SF did and that is rush just 3 or 4 and force him to beat their coverage.

 

[percyhoward]

If the defense is going to use tendencies and common sense to limit Jason Witten and Dez Bryant on 3rd Down, then Romo has to find the match ups that are available. And they will always find attractive options given the attention Witten and Dez receive, but Romo in the past has not always trusted his supporting cast. Now, maybe something has clicked.

1. better pass protection
2. better play calling/design

From last January
http://cowboyszone.com/threads/linehans-effect-on-3rd-down-dez-and-the-offense.282111/

"A big reason the Lions were so much more successful on 3rd down than the Cowboys is that they were able to get other players involved. Detroit's 3rd-down pass rating was 70.4 to Johnson, and 83.1 to everyone else. For the Cowboys, any target not named Bryant or Witten was so bad on 3rd down, that a sack or throwaway was only a slightly worse option. How much effect will the new OC (or "passing game coordinator") have on developing other viable 3rd-down targets, and failing that, will Bryant and Witten maintain their efficiency? That's going to be interesting to see."

It's still very, very early. But you gotta like what we're seeing.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Boy are there some eye opening things in there or what! There are offensive categories where we were dead last in the league (like sustained drives) and currently we are third in the league. What this showed me also is what a mirage we were on offense the last two years. Even though it carried us to 8-8 it was smoke and mirrors. This offense has sustainability and as Bob says, is very close to elite - so far.

On a side note, I can't believe this thread doesn't have more views. This truly explains why we are 2-1 and improving - not conjecture on Jerry, Tony and Jason.

 

[Boyz981]

Thanks for the good read!

 

[Idgit]

Boy are there some eye opening things in there or what! There are offensive categories where we were dead last in the league (like sustained drives) and currently we are third in the league. What this showed me also is what a mirage we were on offense the last two years. Even though it carried us to 8-8 it was smoke and mirrors. This offense has sustainability and as Bob says, is very close to elite - so far.

On a side note, I can't believe this thread doesn't have more views. This truly explains why we are 2-1 and improving - not conjecture on Jerry, Tony and Jason.

What do you suppose the correlation is between long offensive drives and wins? I'm generally curious.

Regardless, I'm satisfied with the productive offense we've had recently (productive, again, on a points/offensive series basis). And pretty comfortable saying our issues have been largely defensive.

That said, it's nice not having to risk negative passing plays, and it makes games more fun when our team controls the ToP.

 

[percyhoward]

What do you suppose the correlation is between long offensive drives and wins? I'm generally curious..

TOP has only a moderate correlation to winning, as opposed to scoring (very strong). All else being equal, you're better off with more TOP--just not at the expense of scoring points. IOW, you'd rather have below-average TOP and rank top 5 in scoring than the other way around.

Great to control the ball, and score points though.

 

[Idgit]

TOP has only a moderate correlation to winning, as opposed to scoring (very strong). All else being equal, you're better off with more TOP--just not at the expense of scoring points. IOW, you'd rather have below-average TOP and rank top 5 in scoring than the other way around.

Great to control the ball, and score points though.

I figured it wasn't a strong correlation, or the rushing effectiveness correlation would have been stronger. And/or posters like yourself would have brought it to our attention during the long offseason. I have to admit, though, it is more fun watching games when you're not worried about the other team scoring because they can't get on the field. For that reason alone, I like watching the running game pile up yards.

 

[Sturm1310]

10 play drives, honestly, is a fancy way to say you are good at 3rd Downs. And 3rd Down conversions definitely correlate to winning. And that is before we even dive into wearing down a defense over the course of longer drives which clearly affect a defense more. 60 defensive snaps is a nice raw number to measure workload, but with no breaks between these 60, they would be exhausted. So, 5 play drives are not as taxing as 8. 8 not as bad as 12. And so on. By the 12th snap of a drive, there should be a large advantage to the offense.

 

[DandyDon1722]

What do you suppose the correlation is between long offensive drives and wins? I'm generally curious.

Regardless, I'm satisfied with the productive offense we've had recently (productive, again, on a points/offensive series basis). And pretty comfortable saying our issues have been largely defensive.

That said, it's nice not having to risk negative passing plays, and it makes games more fun when our team controls the ToP.

Let me qualify myself by saying long drives with "scores" leads to a better chance of winning. Keeping the ball on a 10 play 8 minute drive and turning it over at the five isn't going to help your chances of winning.

However...

I think long drives obviously creates time of possession which keeps the other team's offense off the field.
I think there is an aggregate physical effect of a team not being able to get off the field. We have seen this first hand.
I think long drives during a game pay off in the fourth quarter.
I think there is a psychological demoralizing effect of not being able to get off the field as a defense.
I think sustaining drives opens up the playbook because most likely you're having success running the ball and if you can do that, play action becomes more effective. You are essentially dictating the play to the defense and keeping them off balance..
I think long drives indicate a general lack of killer penalties. No always, but for the most part you are being disciplined and smart.
I think long drives means you are not turning the ball over.
I think long drives indicate the game plan is working and you are executing it.
I think long drives keeps your defense fresh.
Finally, I think long drives forces the other team's offense to press a bit when they get the ball. We have seen this firsthand also.

Correlation is not causation but at the end of the day if you are sustaining drives, I think you have a pretty good chance of winning.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Really good stuff, as always. Thanks Bob.

I was surprised to read that 6.10 "to go" on 3rd down is a good number. I'd have thought that anything greater than 3.3 indicated that the team was not "staying ahead of the chains", as it were. Perhaps you're speaking relatively. Even then, however, it's surprising that teams that habitually face more than 6 yards to go on 3rd down end up being successful, relatively speaking, at converting. Seems to take a lot of pressure off of first and second down, indicating you can stay with the run even if you're only grinding out 2 or 3 yards per carry.

 

[percyhoward]

10 play drives, honestly, is a fancy way to say you are good at 3rd Downs. And 3rd Down conversions definitely correlate to winning.

They do, just not to the degree that scoring does. Scoring is still the bottom line, in any season.

If you're great on 1st and 2nd, that can offset the effect of poor 3rd-down performance, like it did for the Cowboys last year. 3rd downs ended up being something like 18% of all plays from scrimmage. With such a horrible conversion percentage on that down, and much fewer chances to begin with, it's no wonder we had fewer total conversions (on that down) than any other team. But we were able to rank top 5 in scoring because we were also better than any other team except Denver on 1st and 2nd down, which accounted for 82% of our plays.

3rd down was the obvious area of needed improvement for the offense, and so far, so good. Especially the go-ahead drive in St. Louis. You could say that last year's top-5 offense might not have executed that drive because it would not have been able to convert all three 3rd downs. You could also make the argument that it might have scored anyway without putting itself in three different 3rd down situations. I'll still take the long drives, as long as they end in TD.

 

[Zordon]

They do, just not to the degree that scoring does. Scoring is still the bottom line, in any season.

If you're great on 1st and 2nd, that can offset the effect of poor 3rd-down performance, like it did for the Cowboys last year. 3rd downs ended up being something like 18% of all plays from scrimmage. With such a horrible conversion percentage on that down, and much fewer chances to begin with, it's no wonder we had fewer total conversions (on that down) than any other team. But we were able to rank top 5 in scoring because we were also better than any other team except Denver on 1st and 2nd down, which accounted for 82% of our plays.

3rd down was the obvious area of needed improvement for the offense, and so far, so good. Especially the go-ahead drive in St. Louis. You could say that last year's top-5 offense might not have executed that drive because it would not have been able to convert all three 3rd downs. You could also make the argument that it might have scored anyway without putting itself in three different 3rd down situations. I'll still take the long drives, as long as they end in TD.

your sig intrigues me.