Sturm on the OG situation

[percyhoward]

Thanks Percy, You find some good stuff related to dallas stats. I hope you don't find the following as a challenge - just an opinion. I posted a long analysis about this topic around week 13 last year. The crux is that Dallas and Denver were outliers to overall ebb and flow. I initially did this analysis to see if I could gain an advantage at the sport book. And I did better than 65% selling dallas and denver in the first half and buying in the second half. starting around week 7.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/the-...in-the-4th-quarter.249079/page-2#post-4896306

I don't think this is assumption would be completely valid. First, there is a pretty small sample size of "drives when leading." That denominator equates to 14 TDs when leading and I assume would include First quarter Dallas leads of 3-0 which may turn to 3-7. Secondly, I would anticipate opponents yards to be higher if you play with a lead. They will be taking more shots. I would also expect that the defense would force more turnovers as they are keying in on the offense having to be one dimensional. Neither turnovers of making the opponent one dimensional were the cornerstone of dallas last year. Some of that was defensive injuries, some was the offense not being in a better position to press the opposing offense to score. In that thread, I believe I noted where Dallas was one of the best defenses in opponent first half scoring. That is washed away when your offense is 31st in first half scoring (trailing only KC). That may have changed in the last 2 weeks of the season, but not much.


I will agree that it seems to be statistically significant that passing efficiency and defending the pass is highly correlated with wins. however, as mentioned above there are outliers in every statistical analysis. Football, unlike baseball, is rather difficult to have a few stats be a baseline in all scenarios. I have spent way too many hours trying. There is some interesting work, but, as you know, each play in football is not homogenous, and it is hard to assign full season stats to prove or refute any situational assertion as the sample size is usually not large enough (i.e. personnell, plays, opponent, score, time in game, etc.)

You've done a ton of work on this, and I think without a doubt you've shown that teams that win the first half are more likely to win the game. Getting off to a strong start in a game offensively helps you win more games, because it means you have more points. While this gives the defense the advantage of a cushion, the data sure seems to show that playing with a lead didn't improve their performance on any given drive last year. By scoring more points, you've improved your team's chances of winning, but improving your team's chances of winning isn't the same as improving the performance of your defense. Maybe with a greater sample size, we'd see some defensive improvement. With a greater sample size of Dallas playing with leads, we'll see more wins either way.

 

[tupperware]

Getting off to a strong start in a game offensively helps you win more games, because it means you have more points.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Sturm must absolutely hate the Seahawks this year. They're currently the epitome of the "You can find guards anywhere" philosophy.

 

[Rockport]

I wonder what game he watched. Leary's play, the little he's played, has been an upgrade over last year. Arkin has played ok but lets be real, he's an adequate backup for a game or 2 at best. I have no faith in Bernadeau at all.

I'm still expecting the Cowboys to have a new starter, who is not curretnly on the team, opening against the Giants

Thanks Jerry! He won't be starting against the Giants, but soon enough!

 

[Corso]

There are so many that have put in so much analysis into this and I respect every single one of them.
My crux of the matter is like Chess- when you get ahead early, it makes your strategy to keep what you got so much easier while your opponent has to consider more maneuvers to out-wit you.

But all-in-all- if you can make the game simple (going into the 2nd half winning usually does that)- you win more often than not since your opponent has no choice but to gamble more than they'd like.

 

[jobberone]

Down by 14 early means about 15% chance of winning at home.

 

[iceman117]

Leary/Waters with Berny as the swing guard is good in my book actually deep too. I get the same feeling at OT with Smith/Free and Parnell as the swing. What the hell even C with Fredricks and Costa this actually looks like a strong point on the team quality starters with good depth

 

[waving monkey]

Again 2deep3

I have seen you make this comment more and more the last few weeks as this pre-season progresses. There are other teams, yada, yada, yada.

I have yet, in my time posting on message boards and seeing this type of statement, understand what another team's roster and it's success has one thing to do with this team and it's continued struggles.

So much is made by fans here of pointing to other teams and making blanket comments about their players, squads, and coaches and then somehow justifying this Dallas Cowboy's franchise over the long haul.

There are consistencies from one team to the next in regard to this game. Sound logic building the team from the lines out and a good quarterback go so much farther than any bromide about what a fan thinks some other team has or has not.

Sorry Idgit, but that type of thinking reminds me of Aesop's Fable Sour Grapes.

Can't reach 'em, then don't need nor want 'em.

And yet the season's past have seemed to dictate each year, that ain't the case.

I can't see why comparing teams that swim in the same pool as we do aren't relevant? It's our competition and who we compare too.Pointing out the holes of our competition shows all teams are struggling
with these problems because of the limited resources available. The top flight teams are better at filling those holes true. We're not top flight.