Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[percyhoward]

Per ESPN and NFL.com its showing the Cowboys ranked 16th in offense. I don't about you but to me ranked 16th is CERTAINLY not one of the league's best in 201`3. Unless I'm not seeing where your getting your source from. But as I thought, our offense was not the best. In fact, it was barely middle of the pack.

You're looking at total yards, which has no correlation to wins in the NFL. The Commanders were 9th in total yards, the Texans ranked 11th. IOW, it's a really lousy stat.

Looking at 3rd down conversion stats for 2013 its showing that we ranked 25th. Better than the Oakland Raiders but one below the Cleveland Browns.

I don't know if your making this stuff up but what Im seeing is not the same as what you just stated. Once again my sources say that we were actually below the pack when it came to 3rd down conversions at ranked 25th. Thats awful.

So please stop saying that the Cowboys were one of the best when it says that they were ranked 16th in 2013. For 3rd down conversion ranking they ranked 25th. Maybe you think thats great but I think it sucks.

It's not "me" saying the Cowboys were 4th in points per drive. That's where they ranked in 2013. Here's a couple of reliable sources.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

3rd down conversions are the biggest area of needed improvement for 2014, and Linehan's hire was probably made with that in mind. That's detailed here: http://cowboyszone.com/threads/linehans-effect-on-3rd-down-dez-and-the-offense.282111/

A note about 3rd down conversions, though. The biggest misconception about conversions is that it matters what down you convert on. It doesn't. There is no inherent advantage in converting on 3rd down as opposed to 1st or 2nd. It doesn't matter when you convert, only that you convert. That's why a stat like drive success rate has a higher win correlation than 3rd down conversion percentage. What hurt us on 3rd down was that our 1st- and 2nd-down plays weren't that good unless they actually moved the chains. Fortunately, they moved the chains more often than 30 other teams' did. Dallas was 2nd only to Denver in conversions on 1st or 2nd down.

 

[Corso]

These are the points per drive when you take out possessions that began after a takeaway by the team's defense. We ranked 4th.

1. Broncos 2.68
2. Saints 2.21
3. Chargers 2.18
4. Cowboys 2.09
5. Packers 2.08
6. Bears 2.06
7. Eagles 1.95
8. Seahawks 1.93
9. Patriots 1.90
10. Lions 1.85

To try to make this as clear as possible, these are the points scored per offensive possession that did not begin after a turnover. IOW, pretend turnovers don't exist, and all possessions come after either a punt, a kickoff, or an unsuccessful 4th-down play (field goal attempt or otherwise). This is a good way to show which offenses benefited disproportionately from their own defense's takeaways. The Patriots ranked 6th in overall points per drive, but only 9th when you filter out drives that began after takeaways.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing for New England's offense to be good at scoring off opponents' turnovers anyway, just that it skews their offense's ranking in a way that it does not skew the Cowboys' (for example).

You don't disappoint.

 

[Hostile]

I'm not going to go for the simple snark and ask the question:

If Tony loves it- why has it not been utilized more in a strategic, rather than a desperate maneuver by Garrett and/or Callahan?
Especially Garrett who is apparently quite close with said QB and has coached him for years?

Whose fault is that on a strategic level?

Loaded question? You bet. For the past couple of seasons it's been painfully obvious that the no-huddle has been very effective for this team and it's QB and it's been rarely utilized until this last season and even then it was the slowest "Hurry-up" I've ever witnessed. I'd like to know why this team never went truly "Romo-Friendly" when the offensive coaching staff has been fairly consistent for nearly all of Romo's playing career? Shouldn't they know what works best for the offense? Shouldn't they recognize the moments the offense moves at it's most efficient?

I realize that the no-huddle is a gimmick, but I'm not suggesting making it a base offense- I'm asking what on this team keeps it's offense from being at it's most efficient at all times and during any situation in-game.

?

There is a problem inherent in the No Huddle. It does not give your Defense much time to recover on the sidelines. Given how our Defense has played the last 3 years, 2 of them wracked with injuries so we had scrubs on the field, would you want them on the field more often, tired, and if so why?

Now, does Tony love it? He absolutely does. We've all noted that Tony Romo is a gambler at QB. The No Huddle provides him the opportunity to do what he really does best, that is create. We have the pieces on Offense to be an effective No Huddle Offense. I do not think any of us don't see that. What we have not had are the pieces on Defense to sustain it.

Enter the 2014 off season and the youth movement. We saw last year that Kiffin and Marinelli keep fresh lungs on the field going hell bent for leather after the football. I see no reason to suspect that will change. What should change however is the average age of our Defensive depth and the focus of this year's Draft, which I think is clearly on the Defensive side of the football. I will not be surprised if of our 11 picks 7 or more of them, and most of the high picks, are on that side of the football. Would you be? I don't think any of us should.

Contrary to the negative group think on this forum, our football team actually does get it. They know what needs fixing and they know what they need to do. The results we crave have not been there. That doesn't mean it makes sense to believe every bad thing about this football team that some talking head posits.

But one thing worth considering is the No Huddle. Scott Linehan, as noted, used it quite a bit in Detroit with Matthew Stafford. Tony runs it better. I don't know that there is a fault to be determined as to why we haven't run it more often in the past. I actually think we'd have been silly to do so last year. Simply too many injuries and too battered a Defense to put them on the field quicker. That would have been bad strategy.

I'll also tell you another thing I think we will see this year, DeMarco Murray as a work horse with Dunbar coming in to spell him and keep him fresh. We will not become pass happier.

Thank you for asking in the way that you did rather than resorting to the norm. I hope my answer were satisfactory to you. If anything needs clarification, please ask. These are my opinions, and I'll stand by them.

 

[EvilJerry88]

Huddling isn't even necessary any more. I hope the offense makes a push towards the future. We have the talent to be a top offense. Not sure about the coaches though.

 

[xwalker]

Anyone think we'll see the no huddle that was there the 1st 2 weeks of season before it was scrapped due to trying to protect the defense?

Hopefully, he is as good a Garrett with point scored.

Detroit
Points per game: 13th
Yards per game: 6th

Dallas
Points per game: 5th
Yards per game: 16th

 

[Corso]

There is a problem inherent in the No Huddle. It does not give your Defense much time to recover on the sidelines. Given how our Defense has played the last 3 years, 2 of them wracked with injuries so we had scrubs on the field, would you want them on the field more often, tired, and if so why?

Now, does Tony love it? He absolutely does. We've all noted that Tony Romo is a gambler at QB. The No Huddle provides him the opportunity to do what he really does best, that is create. We have the pieces on Offense to be an effective No Huddle Offense. I do not think any of us don't see that. What we have not had are the pieces on Defense to sustain it.

Enter the 2014 off season and the youth movement. We saw last year that Kiffin and Marinelli keep fresh lungs on the field going hell bent for leather after the football. I see no reason to suspect that will change. What should change however is the average age of our Defensive depth and the focus of this year's Draft, which I think is clearly on the Defensive side of the football. I will not be surprised if of our 11 picks 7 or more of them, and most of the high picks, are on that side of the football. Would you be? I don't think any of us should.

Contrary to the negative group think on this forum, our football team actually does get it. They know what needs fixing and they know what they need to do. The results we crave have not been there. That doesn't mean it makes sense to believe every bad thing about this football team that some talking head posits.

But one thing worth considering is the No Huddle. Scott Linehan, as noted, used it quite a bit in Detroit with Matthew Stafford. Tony runs it better. I don't know that there is a fault to be determined as to why we haven't run it more often in the past. I actually think we'd have been silly to do so last year. Simply too many injuries and too battered a Defense to put them on the field quicker. That would have been bad strategy.

I'll also tell you another thing I think we will see this year, DeMarco Murray as a work horse with Dunbar coming in to spell him and keep him fresh. We will not become pass happier.

Thank you for asking in the way that you did rather than resorting to the norm. I hope my answer were satisfactory to you. If anything needs clarification, please ask. These are my opinions, and I'll stand by them.

Great answer. Thank you. Lots of things to consider there.

 

[EvilJerry88]

Hopefully, he is as good a Garrett with point scored.

Detroit
Points per game: 13th
Yards per game: 6th

Dallas
Points per game: 5th
Yards per game: 16th

Do you have a source for those statistics?

Is that offensive points per game or does that include defensive scores as well?

 

[xwalker]

Do you have a source for those statistics?

Is that offensive points per game or does that include defensive scores as well?

Offensive.

 

[percyhoward]

Do you have a source for those statistics?

Is that offensive points per game or does that include defensive scores as well?

First, no -- that's team points (includes defensive and ST scores).

Second, even if you just look at the offense's scores, "points per game" won't necessarily tell you who the best offenses were anyway.

Offensive Points Per Game, 2013
Eagles 26.6
Cowboys 24.9

But Philly's offense only produced more points because it had 18 more possessions than the Cowboys' offense in 2013.

Total Possessions, 2013
Eagles 201
Cowboys 183

So here's how they did on each possession.

Points Per Drive
Cowboys 2.18
Eagles 2.12

Points per drive differential has a greater than .9 correlation to wins, which is considered very strong (1.0 is a perfect correlation). It's a little better than touchdown percentage (.88) and pass rating differential (.84). All other stats have correlations in the .70's or lower. Yards per drive (.76) and 3rd down conversion percentage (.73) are decent stats with moderate-to-strong correlations. Time of possession (.64) isn't even as good as those two.

If you want to know which stats to watch as the season goes along, they are points per drive differential and pass rating differential. "Differential" refers to the net stat -- the offense's number minus the defense's number. Offensively, Dallas ranked 4th in points per drive and 7th in pass rating. Defensively, the Cowboys ranked 30th and 26th. That put the differentials at 17th and 18th. Seattle and Denver were both top 2 in both differentials.

(The Lions' offense was 15th in points per drive, btw.)

 

[big dog cowboy]

This man's posts are priceless. Some of the most amazing content posted on this site.

 

[Cowboy06]

There is a problem inherent in the No Huddle. It does not give your Defense much time to recover on the sidelines. Given how our Defense has played the last 3 years, 2 of them wracked with injuries so we had scrubs on the field, would you want them on the field more often, tired, and if so why?

Now, does Tony love it? He absolutely does. We've all noted that Tony Romo is a gambler at QB. The No Huddle provides him the opportunity to do what he really does best, that is create. We have the pieces on Offense to be an effective No Huddle Offense. I do not think any of us don't see that. What we have not had are the pieces on Defense to sustain it.

Enter the 2014 off season and the youth movement. We saw last year that Kiffin and Marinelli keep fresh lungs on the field going hell bent for leather after the football. I see no reason to suspect that will change. What should change however is the average age of our Defensive depth and the focus of this year's Draft, which I think is clearly on the Defensive side of the football. I will not be surprised if of our 11 picks 7 or more of them, and most of the high picks, are on that side of the football. Would you be? I don't think any of us should.

Contrary to the negative group think on this forum, our football team actually does get it. They know what needs fixing and they know what they need to do. The results we crave have not been there. That doesn't mean it makes sense to believe every bad thing about this football team that some talking head posits.

But one thing worth considering is the No Huddle. Scott Linehan, as noted, used it quite a bit in Detroit with Matthew Stafford. Tony runs it better. I don't know that there is a fault to be determined as to why we haven't run it more often in the past. I actually think we'd have been silly to do so last year. Simply too many injuries and too battered a Defense to put them on the field quicker. That would have been bad strategy.

I'll also tell you another thing I think we will see this year, DeMarco Murray as a work horse with Dunbar coming in to spell him and keep him fresh. We will not become pass happier.

Thank you for asking in the way that you did rather than resorting to the norm. I hope my answer were satisfactory to you. If anything needs clarification, please ask. These are my opinions, and I'll stand by them.

I agree. What I would like to see is getting to the line sooner and doing as Denver does...making you show your hand and then using your positioning against you. This team needs to learn to grind out the clock and bully a defense, just wear them down and then break their will to play. Easier said than done, but other teams have done this.

 

[Hostile]

I agree. What I would like to see is getting to the line sooner and doing as Denver does...making you show your hand and then using your positioning against you. This team needs to learn to grind out the clock and bully a defense, just wear them down and then break their will to play. Easier said than done, but other teams have done this.

Just my opinion, but an outstanding post.

 

[khiladi]

This is what I mean. If Lee returns an INT 70 yards or 0 yards, it's still an INT and as such would NOT be included in a stat called "possessions that did NOT begin after a turnover." Interceptions are turnovers. That interception is then completely beside the point. Furthermore, if the offense takes over at the opponent's 7, that possession would NOT be included in a stat called "drives that started inside the offense's own 35." The opponent's 7 is NOT inside the offense's 35. That possession is then completely beside the point. Did you not understand these two filters? If you think our defense's takeaways skew the offense's stats, simply take them out of the equation and you'll find out if what you think is true.

Statistics only lie when used by liars or those who don't know how to use them. In this case, at least, I fit neither of those descriptions.

I know exactly what your saying, and I already addressed this when I said I'm not getting paid to analyze every game, and it still doesn't bear to the point, which is...

What I was addressing is the statistics about averages across a whole season don't mean much when they get into why we won or lost a game plain and the simple claim that our defense is the reason why we didn't make the playoffs, as if the offensive statistic about being in Denver's area makes us like Denver in terms of offense. I gave a sample size of four games of my point where our offense flat out looked like garbage for three quarters plus, only to push the pace and up our averages. And you keep going back to averages.

 

[khiladi]

Again, nowhere was I arguing your measurables were calculated incorrectly, which you don't seem to understand. What I stated is your measurables don't justify conclusions that are being drawn out if it, such as the defense was at fault, because the offense was ranked a particular place across the season.

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. And if we start talking percentages, two drives than can drop you from fourth or whatever to middle of the pack.

At the end of two seasons ago, Garrett himself emphasized TOs as helping the offense out. Suddenly this year, when we get way more TOs, we are still back to it's all the defenses fault.

 

[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. Points per possession don't necessarily factor these things. And if we start talking percentages, two drives than can drop you from fourth or whatever to middle of the pack.

True, and I agree 100%. It doesn't factor them in at all. That's why you apply a filter, like I did. And that filter is the part you don't get yet.

And if we start talking percentages, two drives can drop you from fourth or whatever to middle of the pack.

The Dallas offense scored 399 points on 183 drives (2.18 points per drive). In order for Dallas to fall into the middle of the pack (15th) you'd have to take away 59 points. So it's not just a couple of drives you're talking about. It's nine drives, with all of them ending in scores (8 touchdowns and 1 FG). But there's no reason to take away 59 points at random, so...

I'm about to state what I understand that you're thinking. Let me know if I've got it wrong.

You say that there must have been about 59 points that the offense scored because of advantageous field position after the defense forced a turnover. Surely then, when taking out those points, the offense drops to where it really should be -- middle of the pack.

Now I'm going to explain two problems with this way of thinking.

1. It assumes that no other NFL team scored any points after an opponent's turnover, so that every other team holds its spot in the rankings, while only the Cowboys fall. Not true. This same scenario is repeated over and over with every team across the league.

2. It assumes that there is no way of knowing how many drives began after a turnover, so that we're left to guess. 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.

We know this because it's possible to filter out all drives that did not begin after a turnover, so that all that's left are the ones that did.

Now, if you do the opposite, and you filter out all the drives that did begin after a turnover, this is what points per drive looks like:
1. Broncos 2.68
2. Saints 2.21
3. Chargers 2.18
4. Cowboys 2.09
5. Packers 2.08
6. Bears 2.06
7. Eagles 1.95
8. Seahawks 1.93
9. Patriots 1.90
10. Lions 1.85

The Cowboys don't fall down into the middle of the pack. They don't fall at all.

 

[Hostile]

There's not much left except the little chalk outline on the sidewalk where the body was found.

 

[Idgit]

There's not much left except the little chalk outline on the sidewalk where the body was found.

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

 

[khiladi]

The Cowboys don't fall down into the middle of the pack. They don't fall at all.

And here we go again:

Again, you keep repeating the same tired argument. You keep moving statistics, sometimes talking about percentages and sometimes points, moving to certain subjective numbers like right points, each time isolating statistics.

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.

Games in blow-outs also are indicative of a good offense, like the Eagles when they blew out the Raiders off TOs. Us, on the other hand, for the whole first half scored two TDs, one on a fumble recovery at the 2 YD that allowed us to run it in and one with a drive in the second starting with two minutes left in the half when defenses are playing the time. So against the sorry Raiders, for one whole half we score because of our defense and up-tempo soft defense and Romo when the Raiders were up 21-7. We were struggling with the Raiders for four quarters and if not for our defensive score and the Raiders being a bad team...

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.

Three absolutely horrible teams and none of these twenty plus scores on offense, one thirty were good offensive performances. And all of them are inclusive of the stats your claiming as presenting as as a power-house.

When you speak about garbage points and your subjective nitpicking of plus minus eight, Denver was blowing teams out most likely on a more regular basis than Philly. I'm not even sure, but if you take out the points of Denver and just go by this right point criteria, if Denver is worse than Dallas, does that make Denver a worse offense than the Cowboys?

 

[khiladi]

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. I'm talking about Dallas defense helping out the Dallas offense to win or lose games, thus the consistent point of emphasis, the idea that we didn't make the playoffs was because of our defense is absurd and one-sided Garrett homerism. You can spin averages all you want, but we were 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs. And we demoted Garrett, and brought in Callahan and now Linehan.

2. It assumes that there is no way of knowing how many drives began after a turnover, so that we're left to guess. 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 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? 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. 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?

Now, if you do the opposite, and you filter out all the drives that did begin after a turnover, this is what points per drive looks like:

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? 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.

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?

 

[khiladi]

There's not much left except the little chalk outline on the sidewalk where the body was found.

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.