The Cowboys are the only team in the NFL who has not achieved this goal

I think this info should be alarming for the simple fact that it shows that this is a very bad first half team and some of the stats support that scoring in the second half is average. It simply reflects the state of the offense, which hasn't been that good.
 
SkinsandTerps;4866260 said:
The point was not really 11 points. It was simply more than 10.
11 is more than 10. Again, it wasn't 12. It was not 13. It was not even 2 TDs.

If your Skins score 4 FGs instead of 4 TDs, are you going to be concerned or elated because it is over 10?
 
jnday;4866264 said:
I think this info should be alarming for the simple fact that it shows that this is a very bad first half team and some of the stats support that scoring in the second half is average. It simply reflects the state of the offense, which hasn't been that good.
Well, I suppose it would if McLovin hadn't already shown we score the 3rd most points in the NFL in the 2nd half of games.
 
This whole thread is pathetic.

And, really shows the decline of this Cowboys team and it's fans.

Clamoring over 10 pts.. LOL...


*****, half of yous are gonna be at the edge of your seats this Sunday, PRAYING the Cowboys score 10 pts in the first half.. Then, if they do, you can sit back and maintain composure because the "stats" are in Dallas's favor if they can score 10 by the half... :lmao2:

I myself am hoping just for the Cowboys to have MORE pts at the end of the game than the other team.

Don't care how many there are.

Carry on. This is amusing. I feel like I am back in high school.
 
Alright, so I ran the regression with 1H and 2H together as variables - interestingly, it still does appear that first half scoring is more highly correlated with winning, but not greatly, and the results would be very difficult to parse.

Essentially the model works out to this: every point per game you score in the first half gets you about 0.54 wins. Every point per game you score in the second half gets you about 0.43. Then subtract 2.8. So if you average 10 in the first and 10 in the second, you should expect about 6.9 wins.

This is all a bit silly and tautological, of course, because obviously scoring is associated with winning, and football is very path-dependent. Generalizing relationships doesn't work well with path-dependence.

I think the real substantative point would concern average MARGIN in the 1st half, because I think you do actually probably have some otherwise arbitrary breakpoints there at 10 points, 14 points and 16 points that change play-calling and defensive scheme behaviors in the second half simply by merits of the number of scores it would take to cover them.

I continue to think that what we're seeing in the numbers is just our offense trying - and usually failing - to establish the run in the first half.
 
Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease
 
burmafrd;4866340 said:
Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease

Why stop at just Garrett? The whole team has been and is a failure.
 
ScipioCowboy;4864250 said:
It's such an odd stat for a team that ranks in the top 10 in total offense. I understand that points win games, but how can you run up and down the field so much and not score?
they drive the field and then penalties or turnovers.


all the time
 
ScipioCowboy;4864250 said:
It's such an odd stat for a team that ranks in the top 10 in total offense. I understand that points win games, but how can you run up and down the field so much and not score?
That's because Romo can carry the offense to 31pts in the 2nd half like he did vs WAS. sadly sometimes even that feat isn't enough.
 
Hostile;4866276 said:
Well, I suppose it would if McLovin hadn't already shown we score the 3rd most points in the NFL in the 2nd half of games.

I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.
 
jnday;4866384 said:
I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.

Most of it.
 
CowboysFanSince88;4864246 said:
The Eagles finally scored more than 10 pts before halftime which means that now we are the only team in the NFL who has yet to score more than 10 pts before the half.

So there is no reason why we can't break that sad streak this week of not scoring beyond 10 pts. The time is now

This is part of the original post in this thread, .. some need to read it and see that it was not that complicated.

It was never about 11 points, never about whether you were ahead or behind, or what the odds of winning the game were.

It was simply, .. we are the only team in the NFL who has yet to score more than 10 pts before the half.

And I'm not putting words in the OP mouth, but I think he was only saying that this was not a good thing.
 
McLovin;4866090 said:
Rank Avg First Half points by year

2007 13.1pts - 7th
2008 11.8 - 16th
2009 11.1 - 16th
2010 10.9 - 15th
2011 11.4 - 17th
2012 6.6 - 30th

Rank Avg Second Half points by year

2007 14.7pts - 2nd
2008 10.8 - 17th
2009 10.7 - 12th
2010 13.6 - 4th
2011 11.3 - 13th
2012 15.1- 3rd

This has been a 2nd half team for a while.

10 points provides a 65% correlation, but 6.6 pts is far, far lower and show a systemic, non-arbitrary problem. If McLovin did a bell curve for the league 6.6 would be in the tail with power houses like Cleveland and Jacksonville. That is standards of deviation away from average, good or our potential as evidenced by second half performance.

People can stick their head in the sand and argue the virtues of 10 vs. 11 vs. 14; but 6.6 is awful. It shows a team that is outmanned, ill-prepared or stubborn.

In any case, it does not fit with a defense that has invested in rushing the passer and coverage at the expense of employing run stuffers.
 
cowboysooner;4866446 said:
10 points provides a 65% correlation, but 6.6 pts is far, far lower and show a systemic, non-arbitrary problem. If McLovin did a bell curve for the league 6.6 would be in the tail with power houses like Cleveland and Jacksonville. That is standards of deviation away from average, good or our potential as evidenced by second half performance.

People can stick their head in the sand and argue the virtues of 10 vs. 11 vs. 14; but 6.6 is awful. It shows a team that is outmanned, ill-prepared or stubborn.

In any case, it does not fit with a defense that has invested in rushing the passer and coverage at the expense of employing run stuffers.

Great work!
 
burmafrd;4866340 said:
Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease
This thread isn't about Jason Garrett. Try and focus on the topic.
 
jnday;4866384 said:
I misread the post. I wonder how much of the second half scoring came in garbage time when teams were allowing them to move the ball to run the clock out.
Given we scored a huge chunk in a couple of come from behind wins, not enough to make it irrelevant. That would make it relevant.
 
SkinsandTerps;4866442 said:
WVC... you get props.

:starspin
For what? I have already said I misread the OP on 10 points. My point was, and is, it is arbitrary and I have exemplified this with 2 other scenarios that are being ignored. How strange.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,909
Messages
13,838,286
Members
23,782
Latest member
Cowboyfan4ver
Back
Top