Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[khiladi]

The chalk outline still thinks it has a chance, but only because it's misunderstanding the argument it just lost.

If the cheer-leading helps your mindless delusion regarding Garrett and makes your forget Opie has been demoted and is left wandering the defenses practices, keep indulging in it.

 

[Idgit]

If the cheer-leading helps your mindless delusion regarding Garrett and makes your forget Opie has been demoted and is left wandering the defenses practices, keep indulging in it.

Thanks for the permission. But this was just a good old fashioned rhetorical whuppin'. It's got nothing to do with the coach you like to call "Opie" and pretend was demoted. It's a discussion about math.

 

[Hostile]

This is coming from the guy in the context of this thread writes that a no-huddle can actually make it tough for the defense, because it puts pressure on them because they get even more tired. 3 and outs also do that, especially in quarters one to three, like what was going on against teams like Detroit, San Diego and Minnesota. I'm not sure you would get the point in the context of my point.

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrFIP1FG0BK-m5VJYlR0MtLUis_y5FdTDRZEXxcNoMlftlQadP

 

[khiladi]

Thanks for the permission. But this was just a good old fashioned rhetorical whuppin'. It's got nothing to do with the coach you like to call "Opie" and pretend was demoted. It's a discussion about math.

There you go again, in your delusional mind. First of all, your not the one discussing the issue. Secondly, to you it clearly is about defending Opie, the math included.

Thirdly, it doesn't surprise me how you also can't contemplate how we were 23rd in scoring off of defensive turnovers does nothing to establish the point you want it too.. I thought it was the defense that couldn't capitalize off our great offense. How did we get to 23rd when our defense was providing us turnovers? I thought Garrett said our defense had to help our offense out with turnovers.

 

[khiladi]

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrFIP1FG0BK-m5VJYlR0MtLUis_y5FdTDRZEXxcNoMlftlQadP

Your not only behind in debating, your behind in your use of memes.

 

[Idgit]

There you go again, in your delusional mind. First of all, your not the one discussing the issue, Secondly, to you it clearly is about defending Opie, the math included.

Thirdly, it doesn't surprise me how you also can't contemplate how we were 23rd in scoring off of defensive turnovers does nothing to establish the point you want it too.. I thought it was the defense that couldn't capitalize off our great offense.

Points per offensive series.

 

[khiladi]

Points per offensive series.

No surprise your math also sucks.,..

Not true. This information is indeed recorded. We even know the results of every one of the drives. The Cowboys had 21 such drives, which ranked 17th. They scored 50 points on these drives, which ranked 23rd.

So please explain how our points per series when Percy filtered out the scores off turnovers related to my point about not capitalizing off of defensive turnovers. Makes a lot of sense their genius...

Didn't I say like ages ago that Detroit was a game where we had four turnovers well before the fourth, and still were losing to Detroit in the fourth... What the hell was our offense doing all that time?

 

[khiladi]

Additionally, what does points per series even mean. If your talking 10 or twelve series, and your talking a difference of .2, the difference between six rankings, that amounts to 2 points per game, meaning less than a field goal. Whoopity do for what it actually tells us about an offense...

Further, this stat about points per series is essentially is the same stat as points per game.... Whoopity doo again...

 

[percyhoward]

What I am talking about is OUR defense helping OUR offense, which ultimately has no bearing on what other teams do in the context of their own games.

If we're not comparing the Cowboys to other teams, then what are we comparing them to?

So when I bring up Detroit and our 4 TOs generated by our defense and our inability to do anything, what exactly am I talking about? So are you saying that our offense is good when it can't capitalize as much as it should on TOs?

No, I'm saying our offense ranked 4th in the most meaningful offensive category -- points per drive. We were not as good as most teams at capitalizing on opponent's turnovers, but then that ignores the other 162 drives, doesn't it?

Do we need Sean Lee to return every time to the seven for us to score a TD. Not only that, your factoring out actual defensive TDs, which also help us win or lose games.

Of course any discussion of offense will factor out defensive TD.

Why the hell would I care about averages across a season in this regard? So this statistic would essentially tells us that we couldn't capitalize worth anything when our defense provided us the opportunity. How does that prove your point?

Do you even know what your talking about?

Yeah, I'm talking about the Cowboys' 162 drives that did not begin after a turnover.

Further, I didn't even say Dallas would drop middle of the pack if we talk a couple of drives. I said it's possible a team could drop to middle of the pack based on a couple of drives when talking about percentages. Further statistically, even if we bring up this mindless statistic of which I have no reason why, because it has no bearing of what I referring to, what difference does .2 points per drive actually mean to the reason why we won or lost a game?

If you lose a game by one point, and you had 10 drives, then you lost by .1 per drive.

When you factor that into an actual game, if you have around ten drives per game that's like 2 points a game. Whoopity-doo. When it comes down to it, that's less than a field goal a game, meaning a single drive.

We could have been a FG per game worse, and dropped to the middle of the pack, yes.

The point is, we weren't, so we didn't. It's like starting every game up 3-0.

Now when I ask you about the specific statistics you just high-lighted, please tell me how points per drive leads us to the conclusion that the reason Dallas didn't make the playoffs was because of our offense?

It doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion.

 

[khiladi]

I don't even know how to respond to your post, other than your claiming a position for me I never held and proceeding to throw out statistics to argue against that position. The only other comment worth responding to is the following comment which probably is what creates the confusion:

It doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion.

Yes it does and I never said you did.. You obviously haven't been paying attention..

 

[khiladi]

No, I'm saying our offense ranked 4th in the most meaningful offensive category -- points per drive. We were not as good as most teams at capitalizing on opponent's turnovers, but then that ignores the other 162 drives, doesn't it?

It does, which brings me too, which I never ignored:

Again, I never said Romo can't score when we go up-tempo and essentially abandon our game-plan. We again look at the Detroit game, we were up 13 to 7 going into the fourth, meaning your 'criteria' for a close game. Should we negate that for 3 quarters and four TOs, we should have never even been in this position? I can just as well say, if we were like Philly, our offense would have put us up maybe 24-7 in the 4th, that a crappy Detroit would not be able do anything. Additionally, you may have an argument if it's once, but it's not, it's a trend.

So please explain to me why averages tell me the offense was good in this game?

Against Minnesota, we mustered 6 points the whole first half and were down. We took the lead 10-13 on a TD drive, then our defense caused and fumble scored, us up 20-10. This happened with close to 12 minutes left in the third and for the next twenty minutes we couldn't produce anything of value until under three to go, with an up-tempo Tony Romo magic yet again.

Should we ignore this?

Oh yeah, and this should read defense:

Now when I ask you about the specific statistics you just high-lighted, please tell me how points per drive leads us to the conclusion that the reason Dallas didn't make the playoffs was because of our DEFENSE?

 

[khiladi]

It's like I said ages ago:

I'm objecting to the validity of your criteria, based upon these examples that aren't anecdotal. We scored 14 pts on TDs against Chicago when the game was already out of hand. Those 14 pts add to our average, but also obscures our offensive performance to a degree when comparing against other teams. Chicago wasn't playing aggressive defense anymore.

You don't win a game by targetting some mathematical criteria of averages over 16 games in relation to other teams. Why should I accept that as the indicator of a good offense?

 

[khiladi]

Now we will go to the mouth-piece of Jason Garrett:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...rett-lack-of-turnovers-led-to-rob-ryan-firing

"The Bears had 44 takeaways. We had 16. That's 28 more opportunities with the ball," Garrett told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram from the Senior Bowl. "Give me some of those 28 opportunities. That's something that we really sat back and thought a lot about, had a lot of discussions about -- what's the best way to try to achieve that, and then, 'OK, you want to do that, now who are the guys who can help implement that?' "

So this defense achieved what Dallas wanted with the firing, a bunch of turnovers by a long shot. Yardage given up doesn't necessarily equate to points, which is why Dallas was middle of the pack in allowing scores upto around the middle of the year with the Saints and Bears game, obscuring the totals by then. Now his defenders are blaming the defense yet again for him failing to make the play-offs.

This also clearly demonstrates that Garrett was behind the firing as well, because blaming the defense gave an excuse for the offense. He was saying the defense needed to give the Cowboys more opportunities.

Guess what happened when they got their opportunities? You guess it, 23rd in the league... Genius!

 

[Hostile]

Your not only behind in debating, your behind in your use of memes.

You know what I find funniest? You absolutely knew I was talking about the chalk line was you and not him. You never even considered for a minute that I might be talking about him. Do you know why? I'm going to tell you.

Deep down, inside yourself, you know just like the rest of us, that he spanked you.

I don't care about the meme and what is current or not. I laugh when I feel like laughing and I felt like laughing. Don't kid yourself on me ever being behind in a debate. Okay, kid yourself, but don't try to kid me. Have a nice day and cheer up.

 

[Bungarian]

I don't know why I click on a ot of these threads.

 

[Maxmadden]

I don't know why I click on a ot of these threads.

Just because it was a lopsided win doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Just because it was a lopsided win doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining.

It was only entertaining for a bit. It stopped being entertaining when no one was throwing a life preserver to the drowning man.

 

[khiladi]

You know what I find funniest? You absolutely knew I was talking about the chalk line was you and not him. You never even considered for a minute that I might be talking about him. Do you know why? I'm going to tell you.

Deep down, inside yourself, you know just like the rest of us, that he spanked you.

Or the more common sense reason is it could just be your a Garrett homer... Wow, just wow..

 

[Hostile]

Or the more common sense reason is it could just be your a Garrett homer... Wow, just wow..

Weak, at best, but thank you for the laughs.

 

[khiladi]

Weak, at best, but thank you for the laughs.

This is from the guy who was trying to resort to a lame psycho-analysis as a response...