Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[khiladi]

Dallas ranked 4th in what has proven to be the most meaningful offensive stat.

People who are getting paid to analyze each and every game figured out both of those things.

Good for them that they figured out the "most meaningful stat". So are you going to actually discuss what my contention was, considering you inserted yourself into a conversation I was having with somebody else.

 

[percyhoward]

You inserted yourself into a conversation I was having with somebody else.

This is a thread started by Parcells4Life into which we've inserted ourselves. You can start a conversation with someone if you click on their username.

In response to two different people, you made two points -- one of which I said may actually be a very good one (that Garrett is not the one most responsible for the success of the offense). But you've been ignoring that one, in favor of the one that field position after a turnover positively affected Dallas' scoring totals relative to other teams'. That's a much easier point to prove or disprove, because we don't have to know which play was whose idea. We just have to look at the plays to know that it isn't true.

 

[khiladi]

This is a thread started by Parcells4Life into which we've inserted ourselves. You can start a conversation with someone if you click on their username.

In response to two different people, you made two points -- one of which I said may actually be a very good one (that Garrett is not the one most responsible for the success of the offense). But you've been ignoring that one, in favor of the one that field position after a turnover positively affected Dallas' scoring totals relative to other teams'. That's a much easier point to prove or disprove, because we don't have to know which play was whose idea. We just have to look at the plays to know that it isn't true.

I am not objecting the fact you entered yourself into this conversation. What I am objecting to you doing is your claiming that something is my contention in my conversation with somebody else and shooting it down accordingly.

As far as the bold, where did I say that? Actually, let me help you:

You can't say defense had no bearing on scoring for Dallas if the field position that they got put them in field goal range, while the offense did if they only garnered three yards and they got a field goal. That's utter BS. BS like you trying to argue Sean Lee returning an INT to the 7 against Detroit doesn't reflect on helping the offense out, because to you it's just one giant big vacuum because your extremism in defending this hot mess of a coach Garrett.

This was the comment you initially addressed, of which I was commenting on somebody else, who was not anywhere claiming what you started to claim.

 

[khiladi]

That person was not factoring out the points per possession as it relates to TOs. That person simply said:

Points per series accounts for the number of possessions.

And when I brought up this fact, they simply said one can take this into account based upon the field position they started. Yeah, I know. The person is cheer-leading you on, when she doesn't even know what she's talking about. I was simply addressing the fact that one cannot simply argue that reason we didn't make the play-offs was because of the defense. When the defense did give the offense opportunities, and no matter which way you spin it, we were 23rd in the league. Garrett wanted more chances to score, got it, but failed to deliver. Our resident Garrett-defender was simply mum on this.

This does not in any way mean, I was arguing our offense totally sucked because of this nor did I even say our offense sucked as a whole, but I did say factors like this did obscure our offensive performance. I also said your statistics consider averages which don't deal with the context of why we won or lost a game. With out 4 TOs against Detroit, if we had scored another field goal, our points per possession on the turnovers goes from 1.7 to 2.5. What do average points per possession in a season even tell me about the context of a game? I don't care about what statistical nerds say. This is what I mean when I said, "What does it even mean?" I'm saying it's because we couldn't capitalize on our turnovers in this particular game that we didn't win. When your saying the reason why we didn't make the playoffs was because of our offense, I'm calling hogwash. That is one game where the offense lost the game bar none.

Our defense gave us seven and gave the offense 3 other opportunities and we did nothing. For 3 quarters we did nothing, and when we "abandoned" our game plan and went up-tempo, we scored I believe 17 points. And that 17 points in up-tempo would actually up our scores per possession, but the context of the game would say we scored 17 in softer defenses. Should I ignore a consistent pattern of a Dallas offense constantly going up-tempo to have to score? Minnesota and others as well.

To quote myself again:

This should say "I'm simply objecting". The point being is I'm not trying to establish an alternate criteria in this context. The only point I'm refuting is the notion that the defense is solely to blame for our ills, because our offense was this high-octane powerhouse that couldn't be stopped (hyperbole) and if the defense did it's job we would have made the play-offs. That is an absolute farce. We lost games because of the offense sucking as well, and I mean sucking.

 

[percyhoward]

If you're not comparing how field position affected our offense's scoring compared to other teams', then what are you comparing it to?

I'll keep it short and simple: If you think starting field position affected our offense's scoring realtive to any other team's offense's scoring, then I'm letting you know you're wrong.

Yes, the defense was primarily the reason we didn't reach the playoffs. When having a defense that ranked even as high as 20th would have probably put us in the playoffs, there's no other conclusion to be drawn.

The fact that the offense was 23rd in the NFL in points off turnovers only meant that we had the #4 offense instead of the #3 offense, for example. Seriously, if you do the math, that's all it means. There simply weren't enough drives that beagan after turnovers to make much of a difference. Like I said, only 12% of all our drives in 2013 began after a turnover anyway. You don't seem to be getting this part.

You also don't get that one game, or a series of games, doesn't decide which teams reach the playoffs. That takes 16 games. This is a very basic truth that seems to elude you because you continue talking about certain games as if those games determined our season, and the other games somehow meant less. They didn't, of course.

4th is 4th. 30th is 30th. The rest is just talk.

 

[khiladi]

If you're not comparing how field position affected our offense's scoring compared to other teams', then what are you comparing it to?

I'll keep it short and simple: If you think starting field position affected our offense's scoring realtive to any other team's offense's scoring, then I'm letting you know you're wrong.

OMG, I don't understand where you keep drawing inferences, considering I have posts stating exactly what I was saying. What does compared to other teams means, when we went 8-8? Where we compared to other teams has no bearing on why we win a game or lose a game.

Yes, the defense was primarily the reason we didn't reach the playoffs. When having a defense that ranked even as high as 20th would have probably put us in the playoffs, there's no other conclusion to be drawn.

If the offense got a field goal against Detroit on 3 other chances, we would have made the play-offs. Your argument is utterly absurd.

The fact that the offense was 23rd in the NFL in points off turnovers only meant that we had the #4 offense instead of the #3 offense, for example. Seriously, if you do the math, that's all it means. There simply weren't enough drives that beagan after turnovers to make much of a difference. Like I said, only 12% of all our drives in 2013 began after a turnover anyway. You don't seem to be getting this part.

This is what I mean by correlation does not equal causation. One field goal off a Detroit TO would have clinched us a win. We don't win a game by averages across a season.

You also don't get that one game, or a series of games, doesn't decide which teams reach the playoffs. That takes 16 games. This is a very basic truth that seems to elude you because you continue talking about certain games as if those games determined our season, and the other games somehow meant less. They didn't, of course.

And averages across a season don't win games. I could average 4 points per possession 8 games and 1 point per possession the rest and we'd be among the best in the league in averages, but we'd still be 8 and 8.
I mean again, you've argued a presumption that I said I don't buy as the reason we make the play-offs and proceed to argue accordingly as if I accept it. I don't, which again I've said for ages, and it's not reality either. Even if it's .9 times, there is still a .1 that says otherwise even if I accepted your premise. And even then, the scoring averages tell us nothing about how we scored and when we scored. I gave an example of 30 plus points that would have increased our averages across the season, but they were effectively pointless scores in the context of the game. Scoring possessions per drive the difference again between a 4th rank and a 6th rank can be a measly 1 or 2 points in a game. A simply field goal on a TO by the defense impacts it.

 

[khiladi]

Denver's scores per possession for example were in high-scoring games, far ahead of other teams multiple times. Our offense, many of our scores were up-tempo after long droughts of doing nothing and the defense holding down the fort, as games like Detroit and Minnesota show. The difference between the scores per possession in terms of judging an offense are dramatically different. You don't just look at the number and say, 'yeah we were great'.

Nor does an average across the season have any meaning in the context of a game in most cases. I could score 5 points per possession in 8 games and 1 point per possession in the other 8 games and have a 3 points per game average per possession and still be 8-8, ranked in scores per possession among the best in the league. So what? You know what that tells me? The offense is woefully inconsistent. If your not telling me about the context of a game, I don't care not will a coach. No coach says, "I'm going to target this average, so I can win."

And as far as your latest TO comment, it's just dumb, and narrow thinking, which is precisely why you haven't even told me what my contention was. You can't just look at one statistic and say that is how to judge an offense, especially when you claim out the other side of your mouth that the defense is the reason we lost in the play-offs. Whether or not it moves us from only 3 to 4, it tells us again nothing about whether we won or lost because we couldn't capitalize on TOs.

As I said before, even when referring to points per possession, the difference between 3 and 4, as you rightly point out isn't much. This also points to the fact, as I stated before, that the differences between 1 4th ranked and a 10 nth ranked offense per game essentially can be only a point or 2. That is a field goal off a turnover and can be the reason we win or lose a game. I don't need to tell you what that means and what's more important and what's more reflective of whether the offense did it's part or didn't, irrespective of the rank in points per possession...