This aint the same O

[Frosty]

And their respective performances show this. You would expect a perennial top 10 offense without many injuries to rank 4th-6th, and a perennial bottom 10 defense with injuries to rank 26th-28th, and that's exactly where they are in scoring.

That's an example of an offensive failure, to be sure, but it doesn't prove anything beyond the fact the offense failed in that situation. Overall, more of this offense's drives end in touchdowns than 28 other teams, and more of its long drives end in TD than 25 other teams.

If the goal of the offense is to convert 3rd downs consistently and pile up a lot of yardage, then this offense is underachieving. If the goal is to keep its own defense off the field, it's better than most. If the main goal is to score points, and give its defense good field position, this offense is among the league's most successful.

I think the hardest part for people to understand is this offense is constantly in catchup mode. The defense doesn't get any 3 and outs, forcing them to match team's score for score just to have a chance. That is something this team can rarely do, especially against teams over .500. All these stats are interesting and they show a different perspective of the offense. Yet, when you see them on TV they often look out of sync and unable to score when they need to.

Really enjoy these type of discussions and thanks for providing awesome information.

 

[Nav22]

First downs per game allowed by the Cowboys: 24.9.

On pace to give up the most on average in a season since 1981 when the Baltimore Colts gave up 25.4. That Colts team finished 2-14.

 

[sideon]

I think the hardest part for people to understand is this offense is constantly in catchup mode. The defense doesn't get any 3 and outs, forcing them to match team's score for score just to have a chance. That is something this team can rarely do, especially against teams over .500. All these stats are interesting and they show a different perspective of the offense. Yet, when you see them on TV they often look out of sync and unable to score when they need to.

Really enjoy these type of discussions and thanks for providing awesome information.

They have not been playing catchup every year and they still struggle to produce points, the perfect example is the Chiefs game where the D kept it low scoring and miscues from the O caused them to lose that game.

 

[khiladi]

Since the Denver game, we score touchdowns on 78% of our red zone possessions, which leads the NFL.

Last year, it was 51% - 23rd

Since the Denver game, the offense has started 57 drives from inside its own 30-yard line.

2 have ended in turnovers (4% - league best). Last year, it was 21% - 25th.
12 have ended in touchdowns (21% - 8th-best). Last year, it was 19% - 12th.

I don't necessarily mean those statistics. I know our red-zone scoring has increased, primarily because oh TOs as you admit. This wasn't necessarily happening only after the Denver game.

I don't think we've ever been bad at scoring on our first possession of either half nor the last drive when we tend to push the tempo, especially our final drives when behind. The Saints game was a clear example of such a phenomenon.

None of this negates our inability to sustain drives in relation to our own offense. We are a 3 and out team.

 

[khiladi]

The Denver game was the only game this team really matched its opponent in the context of a game, by consistently marching down the field.

And again, if scoring is all that matters, then the same rule applies to the defense. Only until the Bears and Saints game did this team drop to the twenties from what I remember. We were around 17 or so for a lot of the season.

 

[Sarge]

At the end of the day, things are pretty tough when we have to debate which side of the ball is worse.

Bingo.

 

[Doomsay]

I appreciate the research. This definitely ain't the same O at all.

Yards Per Drive
2012: 34.01 (8th)
2013: 29.94 (18th)

TOP Per Drive
2012: 2:52 (4th)
2013: 2:37 (14th)

Punts Per Drive
2012: .395 (10th)
2013: .483 (30th)

If you look just at the above stats, and the stats in the OP, the offense seems like it must be in the bottom half of the league. But then you look at the most important stat of all -- scoring. Different story.

Points Per Drive
2012: 2.01 (10th)
2013: 2.21 (6th)

We're scoring more than we did last year, even with fewer yards, more punts, and less TOP. The defense also plays a role in this, giving the offense the 4th-best average starting field position. This ain't the same D either, but it's close. The difference is obviously the takeaways. Some of these takeaways have given the offense ridiculously good field position to start a drive.

Even so, if you look at only the offense's drives that start inside their own 30-yard line, 33% of those drives end in scores. That's 7th in the league. 21% end in touchdowns. That's 6th. Last year, we were 8th and 11th. IOW, more of these drives end in scores than last year.

We're doing it because we're #2 in red zone passing and #1 red zone rushing, based on the percentage of red zone plays that result in either a TD or first down. We also rank #2 in fewest turnovers per drive. Last year, we were at the opposite end of those categories.

No, the defense isn't the only problem. The offense can be better. But the defense couldn't be much worse.

Great stats as always. Given how bad our defense is, our offense has to take more risks than they do. The lack of 4th down attempts from another thread are telling as well IMO. Garrett ball.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't necessarily mean those statistics. I know our red-zone scoring has increased, primarily because oh TOs as you admit. This wasn't necessarily happening only after the Denver game.

I don't think we've ever been bad at scoring on our first possession of either half nor the last drive when we tend to push the tempo, especially our final drives when behind. The Saints game was a clear example of such a phenomenon.

None of this negates our inability to sustain drives in relation to our own offense. We are a 3 and out team.

Our red zone scoring is up -- not primarily because of takeaways by our defense -- but because we are the #1 rushing and #2 passing offense in the red zone, in terms of % of plays that result in a first down or TD. Our average gain per red zone play ranks 5th in the NFL. That has nothing to do with our defense getting takeaways.

And it would be extremely misleading to conclude simply that we are 3-and-out team, because that ignores what happens on 80% of our drives, and that statement makes 21 of the league's offenses "3-and-out" teams, because they have as many or more 3 and out's than we do.

We are a team that punts a lot, doesn't turn the ball over, and scores a lot of points along the way. The gripe with the offense, if there is one, is that more of the drives that end in punts don't instead end in FG attempts. That takes us from being a top 6 scoring offense up into the top 2 or 3.

 

[khiladi]

I think the hardest part for people to understand is this offense is constantly in catchup mode. The defense doesn't get any 3 and outs, forcing them to match team's score for score just to have a chance. That is something this team can rarely do, especially against teams over .500. All these stats are interesting and they show a different perspective of the offense. Yet, when you see them on TV they often look out of sync and unable to score when they need to.

Really enjoy these type of discussions and thanks for providing awesome information.

Dallas was up against the Giants 27-17 going into the 4th.
Dallas was up 27-7 against the Rams going into the third.
Dallas was up 21-13 against the Chargers going into the half. Dallas couldn't score after that.
Dallas was up 10-0 against the Chiefs going into the half.
Dallas was up only 6-7 going into the half against the weak Vikings. They were up 20-17 going into the 4th.
Dallas was up 13-7 against Detroit going into the 4th.
Dallas was up 14-6 going into the half against the sucky Giants.
Against the Raiders, 21-17 they were behind.

Outside of I think only four games, Dallas was up at the half. Two of them were blowouts, the Saints and Bears game. The Raiders game, Dallas then held the offense to three points the rest of the game.

 

[percyhoward]

Great stats as always. Given how bad our defense is, our offense has to take more risks than they do.

You never know when that will come back to bite you because your defense got some takeaways that would have allowed you to win if you hadn't taken too many risks that led to turnovers and lost a close game. Still, I'd like to see the offense take a few more risks, because I think we're overcompensating just like you do.

 

[percyhoward]

At the end of the day, things are pretty tough when we have to debate which side of the ball is worse.

The debate is limited to the offensive side, and is really yards vs. points.

 

[khiladi]

[quote="percyhoward, post: 5351380, member: 995"Our red zone scoring is up -- not primarily because of takeaways by our defense -- but because we are the #1 rushing and #2 passing offense in the red zone, in terms of % of plays that result in a first down or TD. Our average gain per red zone play ranks 5th in the NFL. That has nothing to do with our defense getting takeaways.

I was making a general statement, not referring to specific percentages. Common sense dictates the more chances in the red-zone, your total points scoring will go up, because you get better at it. Additionally, defensive positioning in the red-zone does have everything to do with it, because an offensive drive that starts at the three yard line because the defense forced a fumble 3 yards out or Sean Lee returning an INT seventy yards down the field to the seven as opposed to the offense breaking the twenty yard line from a drive that starts behind it leads to more success. Whether we like it or not, red-zone itself can be subjective when breaking down such measurable like this.

As far as percentage of plays that result in a first down or TD, if that is combined, again that can easily be blurred by what was mentioned above. You also take into account playing from behind and when we score.

 

[percyhoward]

I was making a general statement, not referring to specific percentages. Common sense dictates the more chances in the red-zone, your total points scoring will go up, because you get better at it.

It's not total points that I'm talking about, though -- it's the percentage of drives that end in touchdowns. You can eliminate all our drives that began on the opponent's side of the field. When you do that, you see that we rank 7th in the percentage of drives that end in a TD. The "specific percentage" is irrelevant, but ranking 7th is anything but.

Additionally, defensive positioning in the red-zone does have everything to do with it, because an offensive drive that starts at the three yard line because the defense forced a fumble 3 yards out or Sean Lee returning an INT seventy yards down the field to the seven as opposed to the offense breaking the twenty yard line from a drive that starts behind it leads to more success. Whether we like it or not, red-zone itself can be subjective when breaking down such measurable like this.

That only affects total red zone attempts and scores. I was referring to the fact that we're 5th in yards per play in the red zone. Where your defense hands you the ball has no effect on your offense's yards per play.

You don't have to focus on red zone possessions. Just look at all the offense's drives that begin inside our own 30, when the margin was 14 points or less, and compare how many of our drives end in TD to the rest of the NFL. We rank 6th.

 

[khiladi]

Actually, where you start in the red-zone does affect yards per play. If you start your drive at seven yards out, the defense may not play as hard and cede a TD, because your so close. A 3rd and seven yards to score when you had your first at the fourteen may be played differently , where the offense will just play conservative for the field goal in the former. Further, 5th per yards per play in the red-zone is probably an effectively meaningless stat in terms of reflecting offensive play in relation to the rest of the league, because the yardage your playing for is short. There probably isn't significant difference between 5th and say 18th in terms of teams. Also, percentage isn't necessarily complete for red-zone, because good offense will be in the red-zone more anyways.

And if red zone scoring turns out to be significant for this offenses be the above holds true as well, then one has to give the defense it's due in this matter to a degree.

This is why I hate stats. Stats are after the fact numbers after the game is played, which often no bearing on the context of the game. Playing toe-to-toe with scrubs like Minnesota on a regular basis, or being 4 and like 29 against losing teams in the Garrett era is more indicative of major problems than anything else. Percentages for example are also contingent upon attempts.

I don't buy that there is anything significant in a lot of these trends.

 

[percyhoward]

Actually, where you start in the red-zone does affect yards per play. If you start your drive at seven yards out, the defense may not play as hard and cede a TD, because your so close. A 3rd and seven yards to score when you...

So forget the red zone stats if you think they're skewed, and look only at the drives that began inside the offense's own 30, where 2/3 of Dallas' drives have started anyway. If you want a bigger sample size than 2/3, use the 50-yard line as the cutoff point. If you think we're doing a lot of scoring in garbage time, take out those scores.

This is why I hate stats.

If you have a good sense about what factors skew the stat, then you can filter them out. This takes some patience and work, but it beats just throwing up your hands.