Sustained Drive Scoring

[morasp]

That difference has to be on Callahan's play calling or players just declining in talent on the offensive side of the ball. Hard to believe the latter is actually the case.

That's my take too. Dez seems better this year and by most accounts OL play is improved. The one exception is I think someone said the red zone efficiency is improved this year.

 

[Hoofbite]

Wait, so I guess all those claims about how our defense/special teams is the only reason our offense is scoring points is bogus? I'm not saying we shouldn't be better then 13th overall with our offense(we should), but it's no where near as bad as people suggest.

I've always said people have over reacted to our offensive performances, and it looks like the stats back that statement up 100%. Though, it doesn't surprise me, our fans typically over react to everything whether good or bad.

Well the team leads the league in "points added" or whatever you want to call it. And 6.5 points out of 27.4 is pretty damn significant if you ask me.

Also, taking out the Denver game and using points per game over the other 9 games gives you less than 18 points per game and that would be bottom 10 in the NFL.

The NFL average is 20.12

Here's the list of teams from 11 to 20

11 WAS____21.22
12 IND_____21.10
13 DAL_____20.90
14 CIN_____20.70
15 MIN_____20.67
16 SF______20.11
17 TEN_____18.90
18 MIA_____18.67
19 ATL_____18.33
20 KC______18.11​

I guess the 1 thing that sticks out for me is just a simple question:

When compared to Minnesota, Tennessee, and Miami does having Tony Romo instead of Ponder/Freeman/Food-Vendor, Locker, or Tannehill really pay the dividends that it should?

 

[Picksix]

Well the team leads the league in "points added" or whatever you want to call it. And 6.5 points out of 27.4 is pretty damn significant if you ask me.

Also, taking out the Denver game and using points per game over the other 9 games gives you less than 18 points per game and that would be bottom 10 in the NFL.

The NFL average is 20.12

Here's the list of teams from 11 to 20

11 WAS____21.22
12 IND_____21.10
13 DAL_____20.90
14 CIN_____20.70
15 MIN_____20.67
16 SF______20.11
17 TEN_____18.90
18 MIA_____18.67
19 ATL_____18.33
20 KC______18.11​

I guess the 1 thing that sticks out for me is just a simple question:

When compared to Minnesota, Tennessee, and Miami does having Tony Romo instead of Ponder/Freeman/Food-Vendor, Locker, or Tannehill really pay the dividends that it should?

Well, you could also throw in the other teams in that range (like KC, SF, and ATL), and ask the same question with regards to Smith, Kapernick, and Ryan. My personal opinion, is that yes, having good/great QB is eventually better than having an average/poor one. But if you look at the last 5 games or so, Romo hasn't played much better than the ones you listed - if at all.

BTW, really appreciate the leg work you put in on this.

 

[dupree89]

We all know stats dont tell the entire story. I will point to the Lions game and then the Saints game just before halftime...at critical spots in the game, the offense too often doesnt produce. Yeah, they can have the 3-play 70 yard TD 'drive' that takes :50. But when all they need to do is go get a first down and its game over...its an epic failure. A cluster %$%$ for the ages.

 

[dstovall5]

Well the team leads the league in "points added" or whatever you want to call it. And 6.5 points out of 27.4 is pretty damn significant if you ask me.

You're definitely right about that, our defense and special teams have helped us score a lot this year. But when you took all that out and ranked our offense solely on their performance they ranked 13th, which isn't bad. It's not great either, but it's not as bad as a lot of people here make it out to be.

Also, taking out the Denver game and using points per game over the other 9 games gives you less than 18 points per game and that would be bottom 10 in the NFL.

If you're only taking out our highest scoring performance, then you're skewing the stats big time and they're useless. What would give a more telling story is if you could somehow remove the best/worst performance for every offense in the NFL, then that would definitely tell something (good or bad).

The NFL average is 20.12

Here's the list of teams from 11 to 20

11 WAS____21.22
12 IND_____21.10
13 DAL_____20.90
14 CIN_____20.70
15 MIN_____20.67
16 SF______20.11
17 TEN_____18.90
18 MIA_____18.67
19 ATL_____18.33
20 KC______18.11​

I guess the 1 thing that sticks out for me is just a simple question:

When compared to Minnesota, Tennessee, and Miami does having Tony Romo instead of Ponder/Freeman/Food-Vendor, Locker, or Tannehill really pay the dividends that it should?

You could say the same for all the other good QBs, like Stafford, Luck, Rodgers, Brady, ect; It's really unfair to them if you're measuring them strictly by their TEAM PPG and using that as a measurement of their value compared to other QBs. There's way too many variables to even attempt to compare QBs that way, different running game, different wide receivers, different opponents faced, different coaches, different play calling, and different weather, ect; In a perfect world where all the variables are the same, then yes you could use that as a metric to measure QBs, but this ain't a perfect world.

Regardless, thanks for researching all this, it must've took you some time to collect all this data. It's always neat to look at statistics in different ways and see the correlations/patterns.

 

[khiladi]

Denver game is a statistical anomaly. You can call the Saints game an anomaly, but it rawly isn't. Seventeen is around where they were offensively against multiple teams. The point is, the Denver anomaly skews the numbers way more than our poorest offensive performance.