Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[yentl911]

Let's hope that regardless, he does things to keep the defense off balance and guessing. More draws, screens, a few trick plays, etc... Plus lets hope that is we are running the ball at 4-5 yards a carry he continues to pound the rock and doesn't start throwing it all over the field. We need to manage the game better than we did the last few seasons. That cannot be overlooked.

 

[percyhoward]

I've never sad the offense was so freaking bad, I said Garrett was bad. Our offense compensates for Garrett's ineptness, particularly Romo.

It's hard to come up with any evidence that Garrett is more responsible (or even as responsible) for the offense's success than Romo, or any other key player(s). So here, you may actually have a very good point. I certainly don't see Garrett as being one of only a few coaches who could have made the Cowboys a top 5 socring offense last year. In fact, two of the main reasons we attained that ranking were because of our red zone success--an area (along with no huddle) in which Jerry has said Romo had a big role in planning and play selection last year--, and because we drastically lowered our interception rate. You could make the argument that Romo had as much, or even more to do with the surge in scoring than Garrett.

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.

There is a way to figure out how much of the offense's scoring was due to field position. Simply look only at the offense's drives that did NOT benefit from good starting field position. If you look at all drives in the league last year that began inside teams' own 35-yard line, Dallas ranked 3rd in the NFL in the percentage of drives that resulted in a TD. That's an average starting field position of the 20-yard line, and that's where more than 75% of all the league's drives started.

So that offensive ranking is real, and who gets the credit for it is more open to interpretation. If Garrett hurt that ranking, the obvious implication is that this offense would have otherwise been second only to the Broncos.

 

[Idgit]

...There is a way to figure out how much of the offense's scoring was due to field position. Simply look only at the offense's drives that did NOT benefit from good starting field position. If you look at all drives in the league last year that began inside teams' own 35-yard line, Dallas ranked 3rd in the NFL in the percentage of drives that resulted in a TD. That's an average starting field position of the 20-yard line, and that's where more than 75% of all the league's drives started.

So that offensive ranking is real, and who gets the credit for it is more open to interpretation. If Garrett hurt that ranking, the obvious implication is that this offense would have otherwise been second only to the Broncos.

Great stuff, percy. Thanks for providing the info.

 

[khiladi]

It's hard to come up with any evidence that Garrett is more responsible (or even as responsible) for the offense's success than Romo, or any other key player(s). So here, you may actually have a very good point. I certainly don't see Garrett as being one of only a few coaches who could have made the Cowboys a top 5 socring offense last year. In fact, two of the main reasons we attained that ranking were because of our red zone success--an area (along with no huddle) in which Jerry has said Romo had a big role in planning and play selection last year--, and because we drastically lowered our interception rate. You could make the argument that Romo had as much, or even more to do with the surge in scoring than Garrett.


There is a way to figure out hoiw much of the offense's scoring was due to field position. Simply look only at the offense's drives that did NOT benefit from good starting field position. If you look at all drives in the league last year that began inside teams' own 35-yard line, Dallas ranked 3rd in the NFL in the percentage of drives that resulted in a TD. That's an average starting field position of the 20-yard line, and that's where more than 75% of all the league's drives started.

So that offensive ranking is real, and who gets the credit for it is more open to interpretation. If Garrett hurt that ranking, the obvious implication is that this offense would have otherwise been second only to the Broncos.

Again, same issue. We could look at percentages or actual number drives to compare against. We could also look at when Dallas scored and who they scored against when they were at the twenty. They could, for example be down by 12 and score on their last drive, when it's pointless. Against the Daints for example, their second TD of the game was when they started at ther own eleven and were down by over twenty and Romo called the audible to Dez on the fly. Whoopity doo about averages.

 

[khiladi]

You can take the Detroit game as an example, where we did nothing in offense for three quarters outsides a gifted TD from Sean Lee's INT. We scored 17 in the fourth, when we pushed the tempo and were behind. Whoopity-doo that we scored from starting behind the 35 to bump our percentage of averages up over the season.

So three quarters of ineptitude against a pathetic Detroit defense is somehow justified because of some mathematical computation of averages?

 

[khiladi]

Then we got the Denver game which pretty much obscured our efficiency from behind the 35 yard line in a game.

There is a reason why people say the offense fails the eye test. That doesn't mean the eye test is 'subjective'.

Averages over the season mean nothing in the context of the actual game.

 

[khiladi]

You could be magical one game and just suck the next game, going 8-8 the season. Yet, when you average things out you may be at the top of the league in scoring. Whoopy...

You don't improve your offense or defense by trying to adjust your percentages with the rest of the league, because that doesn't tell you much in terms of why a team won or lost a particular game.

You improve how you handle the actual game coaching to improve your team. We've been hearing about how great Dallas has been for the last seven years, and yet Tony keeps getting killed because Garrett can't adjust to a blitz up to the middle and all three years our defense in that decisive game played well enough for Dallas to make the playoffs and won those games. But the offense failed.

 

[Idgit]

Again, same issue. We could look at percentages or actual number drives to compare against. We could also look at when Dallas scored and who they scored against when they were at the twenty. They could, for example be down by 12 and score on their last drive, when it's pointless. Against the Daints for example, their second TD of the game was when they started at ther own eleven and were down by over twenty and Romo called the audible to Dez on the fly. Whoopity doo about averages.

Is your point that every situation is different? Because we could agree on that. If you're point is, instead, that every situation is different and so statistics don't provide an accurate measurement of what happens in a football game, well, that's just wrong.

 

[percyhoward]

Again, same issue. We could look at percentages or actual number drives to compare against. We could also look at when Dallas scored and who they scored against when they were at the twenty. They could, for example be down by 12 and score on their last drive, when it's pointless. Against the Daints for example, their second TD of the game was when they started at ther own eleven and were down by over twenty and Romo called the audible to Dez on the fly. Whoopity doo about averages.

These are the "actual" drives I'm talking about. I'm actually looking at every single drive in the NFL. The whole point, after all, is NOT to cherry pick specific drives from specific games, like your Saints example.

If you think most of the offensive success came when the game was out of reach, then you need to look at the season and test your theory. In 2013, Dallas ranked 6th in the NFL in total TD, and 4th in conversion percentage on any down. When the margin on the scoreboard was 8 points or less, we move up to 2nd in total TD, and 2nd in conversion percentage. IOW, the offense was better when it mattered most.

If you suspect Dallas' offense took advantage of bad teams, you can check that out too. In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the bottom half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 225 points on 90 drives, an average of 2.50 per drive. On average, these teams gave up 2.13 points per drive. So the Dallas offense scored 14.8% more than the rest of the NFL did against these defenses. If Dallas' offense was average, the difference should then be seen in how it performed against the better defenses it faced.

In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the top half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 174 points on 93 drives, an average of 1.87 points per drive. On average, these teams gave up 1.66 points per drive. So against these better defenses, Dallas scored 11.3% more than the league did. This was not an offense that beat up on the bad defenses it faced and was exposed by the good ones.

 

[Idgit]

These are the "actual" drives I'm talking about. I'm actually looking at every single drive in the NFL. The whole point, after all, is NOT to cherry pick specific drives from specific games, like your Saints example.

If you think most of the offensive success came when the game was out of reach, then you need to look at the season and test your theory. In 2013, Dallas ranked 6th in the NFL in total TD, and 4th in conversion percentage on any down. When the margin on the scoreboard was 8 points or less, we move up to 2nd in total TD, and 2nd in conversion percentage. IOW, the offense was better when it mattered most.

If you suspect Dallas' offense took advantage of bad teams, you can check that out too. In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the bottom half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 225 points on 90 drives, an average of 2.50 per drive. On average, these teams gave up 2.13 points per drive. So the Dallas offense scored 14.8% more than the rest of the NFL did against these defenses. If Dallas' offense was average, the difference should then be seen in how it performed against the better defenses it faced.

In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the top half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 174 points on 93 drives, an average of 1.87 points per drive. On average, these teams gave up 1.66 points per drive. So against these better defenses, Dallas scored 11.3% more than the league did. This was not an offense that beat up on the bad defenses it faced and was exposed by the good ones.

Wow. Does anybody else see that little black grease spot where khiladi had been standing? Or is that gone, too?

 

[percyhoward]

the no huddle will be stopped right after the first interception

Romo with no huddle, 2013
27 of 36 75% 325 yd 9.0 ypa 2 td 14 fd 0 int 120.7

 

[khiladi]

These are the "actual" drives I'm talking about. I'm actually looking at every single drive in the NFL. The whole point, after all, is NOT to cherry pick specific drives from specific games, like your Saints example.

And these are actual drives I'm talking about as well, including both the San Diego game to reflect poor offensive outings, despite the fact our defense allowed 500 yards, but still provided a TD and the Detroit game. No matter which way you spin it, averages across games doesn't tell us anything within the context of the game. We can add Chicago in the mix with two TDs in the 14 quarter, when the game was totally out of hand, yet both of those drives started before the 35. Detroit and Chicago and the Saints game give us 38 points which is two games worth of TDs. I could care less about your averages across the year about this alleged great offense when we are sputtering against Detroit and Chicago, yet we happen to score some TDs in the 4th quarter and RG3 ended up putting up upper 40s against the Bears. You take those numbers out, we can gage what their average then turns out to be.

If you think most of the offensive success came when the game was out of reach, then you need to look at the season and test your theory. In 2013, Dallas ranked 6th in the NFL in total TD, and 4th in conversion percentage on any down. When the margin on the scoreboard was 8 points or less, we move up to 2nd in total TD, and 2nd in conversion percentage. IOW, the offense was better when it mattered most.

Why do I have to look at total seasons, when we are talking about actual games. Like I said, why should I accept your argument about averages across a season, when they don't accurately reflect what happened per game. They don't tell ys anything about context You can't dictate to me what you believe is the standard bar by which you believe the greatness of an offense is measured. Additionally, I wouldn't dispute the fact our offense was better when it mattered most, because a lot of out scoring was in the last minute of the games, when we went up-tempo and Romo did what he does best I've never disputed this point. Your argument has no bearing on my contention.

If you suspect Dallas' offense took advantage of bad teams, you can check that out too. In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the bottom half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 225 points on 90 drives, an average of 2.50 per drive. On average, these teams gave up 2.13 points per drive. So the Dallas offense scored 14.8% more than the rest of the NFL did against these defenses. If Dallas' offense was average, the difference should then be seen in how it performed against the better defenses it faced.

How does that in any way bear with my point? See above and below.

In our 8 games against teams with defenses that ranked in the top half of the league in points allowed per drive, we scored 174 points on 93 drives, an average of 1.87 points per drive. On average, these teams gave up 1.66 points per drive. So against these better defenses, Dallas scored 11.3% more than the league did. This was not an offense that beat up on the bad defenses it faced and was exposed by the good ones.

Again, what's your point? We can for example, go to KC. The first nine games, none of the opposition even broke 20 points on defense. By the end of the season, only one team didn't break 20, the Commanders. They were allowing close to upper twenties. You average the numbers out across the course of a season, they are in the bottom half of the league in points allowed per drive. But in the latter half of the season, their defense was playing bad and that average went up. You can't necessarily weigh how a team plays based upon averages across the season.

We failed 3 times in a row on offense to make the play-offs. The last three times, the defense was more than adequate. Our offense didn't get the job done against the Giants, Commanders, and Eagles... That is reality

 

[khiladi]

Is your point that every situation is different? Because we could agree on that. If you're point is, instead, that every situation is different and so statistics don't provide an accurate measurement of what happens in a football game, well, that's just wrong.

If you can't understand the discussion after this thread, then really, I can't help explain it to you. Here is a clue, one more time.. What does averages across a season mean, when your arguing that a certain unit blew a game? Do you think you actually win or lose as game by trying to hit some mathematical formula of average across a season?

 

[khiladi]

We can simply go to the Eagles game and see this spin that the defense is totally at fault, if we go by the metrics upon which the claim "Dallas was amongst the worst ever statistically in defense ever" in terms of yards given up, such as passing. Well guess what, our defense gave up only 229 yards passing, while we passed for 358 yards. And we lost. You know what though. Our offense turned the ball over 3 times, while our defense got one TO. But per the Garrett-homers who know who they are, I don't want to hear them say TOs is the reason we lost, because per their argument, our defense producing more TOs by a long shot than we did with Kiffen than under Ryan or even many of Wade's years has no bearing on us winning or losing a game. The defense is solely to blame this year, yet the win against the Eagles would have put us in the playoffs.

 

[ShiningStar]

Romo with no huddle, 2013
27 of 36 75% 325 yd 9.0 ypa 2 td 14 fd 0 int 120.7

Romo with no huddle with Linehan? Could be dangerous, im not saying its great, im not saying its horrible, but the first interception, BAM, everyone wil scream the reverse. Like me with running after so many passes, one fumble, im screaming WHY DIDNT YOU THROW.

Also something to note.


What I think i write

Shining stars post are awesome 0 facts

What reality sees.

PercyHoward rebuttal with facts 100 percent.

 

[percyhoward]

Romo with no huddle with Linehan? Could be dangerous, im not saying its great, im not saying its horrible, but the first interception, BAM, everyone wil scream the reverse. Like me with running after so many passes, one fumble, im screaming WHY DIDNT YOU THROW.

Also something to note.


What I think i write

Shining stars post are awesome 0 facts

What reality sees.

PercyHoward rebuttal with facts 100 percent.

It wasn't really intended as a rebuttal, just a relevant stat. I agree that if we run more no-huddle and there happen to be more INT, you'll see people blame the no-huddle for the INT.

 

[ShiningStar]

It wasn't really intended as a rebuttal, just a relevant stat. I agree that if we run more no-huddle and there happen to be more INT, you'll see people blame the no-huddle for the INT.

oh i know, i appreciate your posts. Yes thats all im saying because the no huddle works because its not used so often. Yes i like everyone else want to see successful plays, but someone will catch on to Romos timing and pick it off as well.

My fear is still Linehan himself, yes its unfounded because i dont fully know his history or what hes capable of. Yes he was on detroit and lets face facts, when we think of play off wins and SB wins, no one thinks detriot, is that all him? No, but he wasnt a shining success either. So we have to be cautious of what he brings to the table as well. And we dont know what he will do, he may look at everything thats successful and implement it, or he may look at Romo and say "holy crap, i dont know what to do with a qb like him."

Whatever Dallas thinks or fans think of Romo, Romo is a gun slinger and thats the tale at the end of the day. He s not a stats qb, (even tho they are good, more Romo than Dallas) his mentality to try to win the game and we like Favre, live or die by the sword.

If, and this is a big couch coach, if Linehan was smart and allowed to not have job stress on him, id start small, look at film and see whats successful and build on that. If he can get T Williams to progress, kudos for us, if he cant, utilize Harris and Cole Beasly and try to do things that work and simple. Than mix it new ideas. You have Jason Witten, he moves the chains, hes not a scoring threat anymore. You have Dez who can be electic, and we are solid on Harris. Start small but successful and go from there.

 

[jobberone]

I would think we would see less no huddle to protect the defense. We know the weak point of our team is defense so wouldn't you want to do everything possible to keep them off the field whenever possible?

Yes but you have to balance that with hopefully increasing your Sc%. We need to gain a few points there. Ten would be fabulous. The no huddle also wears the D down because they can't sub as much which makes your offense better. You also should see some good mismatches particularly with the RB on a LB. There's pros and cons.

 

[percyhoward]

If, and this is a big couch coach, if Linehan was smart and allowed to not have job stress on him, id start small, look at film and see whats successful and build on that. If he can get T Williams to progress, kudos for us, if he cant, utilize Harris and Cole Beasly and try to do things that work and simple. Than mix it new ideas. You have Jason Witten, he moves the chains, hes not a scoring threat anymore. You have Dez who can be electic, and we are solid on Harris. Start small but successful and go from there.

A lot of the focus is on how Linehan will use Dez on 3rd down, but the Lions 3rd down success wasn't directly due to Megatron. Most of their 3rd down efficiency was on passes to everybody else. It will be interesting to see how he can get the other receivers involved.

 

[percyhoward]

Why do I have to look at total seasons, when we are talking about actual games. Like I said, why should I accept your argument about averages across a season, when they don't accurately reflect what happened per game. They don't tell us anything about context.

Anecdotal evidence is not the way around that, though. When you select certain games which seem more characteristic of the criteria you want to examine, it isn't because they have the virtue of being games, it's because you haven't really clearly defined those criteria. Why not just set the criteria first, then go back to the games (all the plays of all the games, not just the ones you remember) and find out if you're right or wrong? That way you eliminate confirmation bias and get a little closer to objectivity.

When you become more interested in finding out than in finding a way to be right, you'll end up being right a lot more often anyway.