Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[Idgit]

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...

Points per series is not nearly the same stat as points per game, and the fact that you can't see the difference right there in the two definitions explains your confusion in the thread in general, khiladi. And, as for your arbitrary two points/game calculation, two points per game extra last season would have won us the Chiefs and Lions game, and tied us in the final PHI game that we wouldn't have needed in order to win the NFCE, anyway. Two points/game is a lot, and it tells us a lot about the quality of an offense.

 

[percyhoward]

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

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 up to 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!

First, you were trying to say that points off turnovers skewed the offense's numbers and should be taken out. Now that you realize we didn't score a lot of points off turnovers, you've shifted to focusing only on the drives that began after turnovers.

There were 21 drives that began after an opponent's turnover, and 162 that did not. That puts you in a place where you're now drawing conclusions about an offense based on 12% of its drives, and ignoring whatever happened on the other 88%. That's the equivalent of judging a 16-game season by what happened in two games.

 

[Hostile]

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

You think I tried to psycho analyze you? Wow, that's some cool paranoia. I just happened to notice, as others did that he flattened your attempt at points. If you think I somehow wondered about your sanity because of that, I repeat, wow.

 

[khiladi]

Points per series is not nearly the same stat as points per game, and the fact that you can't see the difference right there in the two definitions explains your confusion in the thread in general, khiladi. And, as for your arbitrary two points/game calculation, two points per game extra last season would have won us the Chiefs and Lions game, and tied us in the final PHI game that we wouldn't have needed in order to win the NFCE, anyway. Two points/game is a lot, and it tells us a lot about the quality of an offense.

DO you know what the word essentially means? it's pretty much the same thing as 'not nearly the same stat'... Keep grasping at straws. And it's obviously clear you kept silent on the fact that my comment to you was about points off of defensive turnovers, of which we were 23rd.. So what was our offense doing then?

And you know what is also true about those 2 points per game? If the defense didn't get us a TD essentially against Detroit on lee's TD, the 2 pts wouldn't matter. If our offense didn't turn the ball over twice against the Eagles, meaning the Eagles capitalized off their defense forcing TOs, that 2 pts wouldn't have mattered.

 

[khiladi]

First, you were trying to say that points off turnovers skewed the offense's numbers and should be taken out. Now that you realize we didn't score a lot of points off turnovers, you've shifted to focusing only on the drives that began after turnovers.

There were 21 drives that began after an opponent's turnover, and 162 that did not. That puts you in a place where you're now drawing conclusions about an offense based on 12% of its drives, and ignoring whatever happened on the other 88%. That's the equivalent of judging a 16-game season by what happened in two games.

Show me where I said what your claiming I said first? I said a whole lot of things.

 

[khiladi]

For example, from the very beginning I said:

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?

Here I said scoring averages across the season don't tell us anything in relation to why we won or lost a game. You could score 14 points in garbage time, toss a fly pattern to Dez from the slot, on a street ball play, and these things end up obscuring numbers. Comparing Denver's offense to this offense is an utter joke based upon these averages. They scored from start to finish during their games.

When somebody blames the defense for the reason we make the playoffs from one side of their mouth and through the other side of the mouth tell as Dallas was 23rd in scoring off of TOs, how ridiculous is it? Where is this high-powered offense when the Dallas defense affords the offense around 30 extra opportunies that Opie was claiming would help them out the year prior, but ended up only 23rd?

 

[khiladi]

You think I tried to psycho analyze you? Wow, that's some cool paranoia. I just happened to notice, as others did that he flattened your attempt at points. If you think I somehow wondered about your sanity because of that, I repeat, wow.

Man, can I smoke what your smoking... It must be some seriously good stuff. Do you even believe what your typing:

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.

What part of 23rd in capitalizing off of defensive turnovers don't you understand? How does that correlate to the defense being to blame, when every time the defense made a play, our ability to capitalize was among the bottom of the league. We were 8-8. Three years in a row and your boy Opie looks worse and worse. I knw, it's hard homie. Your comparisons to Landry look like a joke and you know it 'deep down inside' which is why you've essentially become a cheerleader of another person in this conversation.

 

[Idgit]

DO you know what the word essentially means? it's pretty much the same thing as 'not nearly the same stat'....

No it doesn't.

..Keep grasping at straws. And it's obviously clear you kept silent on the fact that my comment to you was about points off of defensive turnovers, of which we were 23rd.. So what was our offense doing then?

And you know what is also true about those 2 points per game? If the defense didn't get us a TD essentially against Detroit on lee's TD, the 2 pts wouldn't matter. If our offense didn't turn the ball over twice against the Eagles, meaning the Eagles capitalized off their defense forcing TOs, that 2 pts wouldn't have mattered.

Honestly, khiladi, I'd give you an A for effort, if that means anything. Your arguments have been pulped so badly you've had to pivot to brand new ones. Then the brand new ones get pulped, and you try to pivot back to the bloody mess you started with. It's not a debate at that point, it's just watching a guy slip around in his own entrails.

Let's just agree to disagree here and live to fight another day the next time the topic comes up. It's not like we won't both be happy if the defense plays better and the offensive points/series goes up even higher, right?

 

[khiladi]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Honestly, khiladi, I'd give you an A for effort, if that means anything. Your arguments have been pulped so badly you've had to pivot to brand new ones. Then the brand new ones get pulped, and you try to pivot back to the bloody mess you started with. It's not a debate at that point, it's just watching a guy slip around in his own entrails.

Let's just agree to disagree here and live to fight another day the next time the topic comes up. It's not like we won't both be happy if the defense plays better and the offensive points/series goes up even higher, right?[

Your story of acting like you don't care is comical. First you insert yourself in a discussion. Then, you get proven wrong and you come back with your standard, it's been beaten to death. You also throw in the statement the argument was thoroughly destroyed in some previous thread and you play the silent routine. Then somebody else comes in after you supposedly said you won't discuss the issue anymore. And then you insert yourself into the conversation as a cheerleader. And then you come back with the above typical response.

So if our defense performs better and gets another 10 TOs, are we still going to be 23rd in the league in capitalizing off turnovers? You know, because it's you that said the defense never gave the offense a chance.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, it does.

Are you really trying to debate that 'essentially' is 'pretty much the same' as 'not nearly the same'?

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, because that would essentially be just a beautiful microcosm of this whole thread. And by 'essentially' here, I don't me that it actually would not be a beautiful microcosm. I mean that it would.

 

[khiladi]

Are you really trying to debate that 'essentially' is 'pretty much the same' as 'not nearly the same'?

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, because that would essentially be just a beautiful microcosm of this whole thread. And by 'essentially' here, I don't me that it actually would not be a beautiful microcosm. I mean that it would.

My apologies on your correction of my grammar. After reading your above post once again, I am now convinced your good at catching grammar problems once in awhile. Whoopity-doo. You win the grammar argument for a day. Happy now..

So now we can come to the other point that your correction of my grammar doesn't in any way to your inability to understand statistics. Please inform me how the statement proves your point about the quality of the offense:

and the fact that you can't see the difference right there in the two definitions explains your confusion in the thread in general, khiladi. And, as for your arbitrary two points/game calculation, two points per game extra last season would have won us the Chiefs and Lions game, and tied us in the final PHI game that we wouldn't have needed in order to win the NFCE, anyway. Two points/game is a lot, and it tells us a lot about the quality of an offense.

So two points a game tells us alot about the quality of the offense how so? So you correlated this point in trying to prove the defense was at fault. Which brings me once again to the beginning point regarding your lame attempt to always blame the defense to defend Garrett, which is why I stated:

And you know what is also true about those 2 points per game? If the defense didn't get us a TD essentially against Detroit on lee's TD, the 2 pts wouldn't matter. If our offense didn't turn the ball over twice against the Eagles, meaning the Eagles capitalized off their defense forcing TOs, that 2 pts wouldn't have mattered.

You know what also.. that Kansas City game, the offense turned the ball over twice. Additionally, that Kansas City game, our Points per Possession of that game would not be what our average is per the season. Which brings me to the point. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

My point was simply that score per possession, the difference between 6 positions as an AVERAGE ACROSS THE SEASON is only two points. Thus my sarcastic phrase, "what does it even mean" in relation to it proving a team is a great offense.

 

[Hostile]

Man, can I smoke what your smoking... It must be some seriously good stuff. Do you even believe what your typing:

Smoking a ham in the old Webber. Come on over. Good stuff. I put some honey glaze on it that I mix with jalapenos and some lemon pepper. You taste the sweet, sour, salty and hot all at the same time.

I do find that funny. It still isn't psycho-analysis and I certainly am not the owner of typing or smoking. I don't know who owns them, but it isn't me.

 

[percyhoward]

If a defense gets a TO and the offense scores based upon the field position of the TO, whether field goal or TD, part of the reason the offense scored is because of the defense. It's utter BS to conclude otherwise. Points per possession don't necessarily factor these things.

You're saying that scores off turnovers skewed the offense's numbers. It couldn't possibly mean anything else.

When I took those scores out for you and you saw that it wasn't true, in a masterstroke of irony, you shifted the focus to how bad the offense was at scoring off turnovers...

When somebody blames the defense for the reason we miss the playoffs from one side of their mouth and through the other side of the mouth tell as Dallas was 23rd in scoring off of TOs, how ridiculous is it?

Points off turnovers is not, and never has been the standard for measuring the performance of an offense. If it were, then the Chiefs had the league's best offense in 2013 because they led that category. It also means the Ravens' offense was better than the Saints' offense, and Tampa was better than the Chargers. (Baltimore scored more points off turnovers than New Orleans, and the Bucs scored more than San Diego.)

There were 6,185 drives in the NFL last year, and only 618 started after a turnover. Logic doesn't lead you to look at 11% of all the drives, and ignore the other 89%. So if logic isn't leading you, then what is?

 

[khiladi]

You're saying that scores off turnovers skewed the offense's numbers. It couldn't possibly mean anything else.

When I took those scores out for you and you saw that it wasn't true, in a masterstroke of irony, you shifted the focus to how bad the offense was at scoring off turnovers...

It absolutely does skew our numbers in relation to us whether your going to blame the defense as the reason we went 8-8 and didn't make the play-offs. That doesn't mean I am arguing it's the sole reason.

You keep telling me what I said, and I am asking you to provide me were I said it. I'm even quoting you my posts from the very beginning for when you entered this conversation and my first responses to you.

Points off turnovers is not, and never has been the standard for measuring the performance of an offense. If it were, then the Chiefs had the league's best offense in 2013 because they led that category. It also means the Ravens' offense was better than the Saints' offense, and Tampa was better than the Chargers. (Baltimore scored more points off turnovers than New Orleans, and the Bucs scored more than San Diego.)

Who said it was the standard? You don't even know what your arguing about, getting lost in specific stats. What exactly was my premise, before you aim shots blindly? For you to say this, is like me saying you think turnovers have no impact on whether or not we win a game.

I just provided you a quote from the mouth of Garrett himself that talks about the necessity of getting more TOs to give the offense more chances to score, right after the firing of Rob Ryan and last year's defense did just that, by a long shot, and we were 23rd in the league in capitalizing off turnovers. And whether or not it is the 'standard' or not, does not in any way bear the contention that failing to capitalize off turnovers can very well be the difference between winning or losing as game.

I spoke about 3 plus games and our TD numbers of when we scored, this boosting our averages, but we were sputtering the whole game, only to score when we pushed the tempo or teams played really weak defense.

What I stated from the very beginning that these stats are just obfuscating the quality of our offense, it's obvious I don't agree with your premise that they mean what you say they mean. You don't win football games by trying to achieve some mathematical formula. I've said from the very beginning that it's bogus to argue that simply fixing the defense will make us a play-off team.

There were 6,185 drives in the NFL last year, and only 618 started after a turnover. Logic doesn't lead you to look at 11% of all the drives, and ignore the other 89%. So if logic isn't leading you, then what is?

Again, false premise to argue from. Simply bad logic. When you argue the defense is at fault for not making the play-offs because it did not give our offense any chances and our offense is free of blame, as many of these Garrett homers tell us, it's bogus. Our defense gave us plenty of chances and we were 23rd in the league in trying to capitalize. The Detroit game in and of itself is one game that would have put us in the play-offs. And I believe 21 of the points our offense scored were pretty much in the 4th, when we were playing catch-up while for 3 quarters we were sputtering and doing nothing. That is telling because our defense gave us chances, our offense sputtered, and when we got into a shoot-out it was when our defence had been holding the down the fort where Dallas should have never been playing catch-up. The Minnesota game is another example, except we ended up winning on the last drive when we pushed the tempo. And part of the reason we won is because our defense scored. If you negate that score, it's another loss and the offense was sputtering the whole game against a garbage team.

That's reality no matter which way you want to spin numbers.

 

[percyhoward]

It absolutely does skew our numbers in relation to us whether your going to blame the defense as the reason we went 8-8 and didn't make the play-offs.

Show me where.

NFL Rank (points per drive)
Dallas 4th

NFL Rank (points per drive not following a turnover)
Dallas 4th

I just provided you a quote from the mouth of Garrett himself that talks about the necessity of getting more TOs to give the offense more chances to score, right after the firing of Rob Ryan and last year's defense did just that, by a long shot, and we were 23rd in the league in capitalizing off turnovers. And whether or not it is the 'standard' or not, does not in any way bear the contention that failing to capitalize off turnovers can very well be the difference between winning or losing a game.

True, but how does that relate to the discussion? Failing to score points was not usually the problem for the 2013 Cowboys. The problem was failing to stop the opponent from scoring points.

You don't win football games by trying to achieve some mathematical formula.

Right, all you have to do is outscore the opponent. The Cowboys couldn't do that, despite having one of the league's best scoring offenses. That's because Dallas also had one of the league's worst defenses.

Points scored per drive
1 Den
2 SD
3 NO
4 Dal
5 Chi

Points allowed per drive
28 Was
29 Min
30 Dal
31 Chi
32 Atl

The mathematical operation involved in calculating points per drive is called simple division, and most 3rd-graders can do it. You take the number of points and divide it by the number of drives.

 

[big dog cowboy]

NFL Rank (points per drive) Dallas 4th

NFL Rank (points per drive not following a turnover) Dallas 4th

Points scored per drive
1 Den
2 SD
3 NO
4 Dal
5 Chi

Points allowed per drive
28 Was
29 Min
30 Dal
31 Chi
32 Atl

Seems pretty basic and simple to me. Thanks for the content.

 

[khiladi]

True, but how does that relate to the discussion? Failing to score points was not usually the problem for the 2013 Cowboys. The problem was failing to stop the opponent from scoring points.

I don't know how hard this is for you to understand. You entered yourself into a discussion I was having with somebody else responding to a specific contention I never made and are telling me the above, that "it doesn't relate to the discussion". What am I suppose to say to this?

I mean this is just absurd. Of course you lose, it's because the opponent scores more points then you do. That doesn't tell me anything other than they had more points. Why did they have more points? We can once again go to the Detroit game and Dallas getting it's TDs after long drought and 4 turnovers later, when the pace went up-tempo. A defense, for example, gets tired defending territory. An actual good offense like Denver would actually score 28 points against a scrubby team by the 4th, so Detroit would simply be out of it. Additionally, the opposition may play more conservative and try and allow an offense to move the ball while consuming time, instead of going aggressive during these latter minutes, which allow them to score more points.

Which brings me to the following:

Show me where.

NFL Rank (points per drive)
Dallas 4th

NFL Rank (points per drive not following a turnover)
Dallas 4th

Your like a broken record arguing premises I don't even accept. And again, falling back to averages. Against Detroit, we had 4 chances. We scored once from 7 yards out. We had three other chances to score, plus a whole bunch of wasted drives not even from a TO. All we needed was a field foal. We don't even break 2 points per drive in the Detroit game on those turnovers.

Further, nobody scores .1 per drive. You either score a field goal or a TD on a particular drive. This is what I said, such a stat is essentially meaningless in reality, telling us nothing. It's like a broken record.

Right, all you have to do is outscore the opponent. The Cowboys couldn't do that, despite having one of the league's best scoring offenses. That's because Dallas also had one of the league's worst defenses.

I've addressed all this multiple times and you just re-hashing the same basic argument, based upon some premise you accept as defining what it takes to win. It's getting redundant and I'm still waiting for you to bring me proof of what you claim I said.

Points allowed per drive
28 Was
29 Min
30 Dal
31 Chi
32 Atl

Now follow me here. If I believe a team's defense, through TOs can impact the scoring of that very team's offense, what does that mean I believe when a team that plays the Cowboys, it's defense forces TOs on them and their offense proceeds to score cause of field position? Why did we lose to Philly? Is your answer going to be because they scored more than us and our defense held them to less points? Wow, just wow

Again, where is the proof regarding what you claim I claimed?

 

[percyhoward]

Of course you lose, it's because the opponent scores more points then you do. That doesn't tell me anything other than they had more points. Why did they have more points? We can once again go to the Detroit game...

We're not talking about the Detroit game. When we try to identify the reasons the team didn't make the playoffs, we're talking about every game.

Further, nobody scores .1 per drive. You either score a field goal or a TD on a particular drive.

We're not talking about a particular drive. When we try to identify the reasons the team didn't make the playoffs, we're talking about every drive.

I've addressed all this multiple times and you just re-hashing the same basic argument, based upon some premise you accept as defining what it takes to win.

Whatever either one of us says, the following is an established truth: points per drive differential (offense minus defense) has the highest win correlation of all the stats. That means the teams with the highest positive points per drive differentials were the best teams...
1. Den (1st offense, 19th defense)
2. Sea (1st defense, 9th offense)
3. NO (8th defense, 3rd offense)
4. Car (2nd defense, 10th offense)
5. Cin (3rd defense, 13 offense)

And the teams with the lowest ones were the worst teams...
28. TB (27th offense, 24th defense)
29. Hou (31st offense, 22nd defense)
30. Oak (23rd offense, 27th defense)
31. Was (24th offense, 28th defense)
32. Jac (32nd offense, 25th defense)

And this is how it plays out year after year after year. What any team's fan says about some specific play in some specific game doesn't change the above. Dallas (4th offense, 30th defense) ranked 17th in points per drive differential, which put the Cowboys in the middle of the pack as a team, 8-8.

The weakest team to get to 10 wins was Arizona. The Cardinals ranked 12th in points per drive differential (20th offense, 6th defense). Considering the fact that the Cowboys had the 4th-ranked offense, if the Dallas defense had been good enough to move up 10 spots to around 20th, that would probably have netted 10 wins for this team.

 

[khiladi]

We're not talking about the Detroit game. When we try to identify the reasons the team didn't make the playoffs, we're talking about every game.

Is that why I also spoke about Chicago, Oakland, San Diego and the Saints as well?

We're not talking about a particular drive. When we try to identify the reasons the team didn't make the playoffs, we're talking about every drive.

Is that why I spoke about 4 other games?

Whatever either one of us says, the following is an established truth: points per drive differential (offense minus defense) has the highest win correlation of all the stats.

Correlation is not causation. Once again, I don't accept your premise that it indicates wins, and the above clear establishes it. You have to go out and play the game, not go out an do math to win a game.

 

[khiladi]

BTW, we didn't make the play-offs because of our record, not because of some statistical average across the season. Thus, the Detroit game is much more of a valid statistic in this context than some average that doesn't tell us much about any specific game. 4 extra chances to score and our offense failed, except once and that from seven yards out. We could have easily capitalized and put the game out of reach. But our offense, as it's typical trend, was doing nothing until the 4th. And a defense had played 3 quarters holding down the fort.