Seven Statistical Nuggets As December Looms

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 23, 2009 3:12 AM CST

Random statistical thoughts and musings as we take the W against Washingston, don't apologize for it and look ahead to December.

1. Garrett's number has been called, and it's 1-800-DIAL-A-BLITZ

DC's around the league think they've figured out how to slow down the Dallas offense. In four games this year, Romo has been blitzed on more than 50% of his pass attempts. All blitzes are gambles and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Fortunately, all that blitzing did not pay off for our opponents

Dallas Cowboys Passing Attempts & Blitzes, 2009

	TB	NYG	CAR	DEN	KC	ATL	SEA	PHI	GB	WAS
Passing Attempts	27	29	33	42	34	29	36	34	39	27
Blitz on PA	12	8	12	15	21	15	19	22	14	6
Blitz in % of PA	44%	28%	36%	36%	62%	52%	53%	65%	36%	22%

2. Hey ho, let's go!

Teams are gambling that Romo will make mistakes under pressure and have pinned back their ears 139 times through week 10 this year in an attempt to throw him off his game. That's more than any other quarterback in the league. So far, Romo has held up remarkably well, maintaining a 91.4 passer rating when blitzed, only marginally down from his 95.2 non-blitz passer rating.

Quarterbacks under pressure, min 200 passing attempts through week 10, 2009

	Quarterback	Team	Passing Attempts	Blitzed	Blitz/ATT	Passer Rating Non-Blitz	Passer Rating Blitz	Difference
1	T. Romo	DAL	303	139	45.9%	95.2	91.4	-3.8
2	E. Manning	NYG	275	128	46.5%	96.5	81.5	-15.0
3	J. Cutler	CHI	338	121	35.8%	69.2	88.1	18.9
4	T. Brady	NE	352	115	32.7%	95.0	112.1	17.1
5	B.Roethlisberger	PIT	302	115	38.1%	93.8	102.5	8.7
6	P. Rivers	SD	299	112	37.5%	101.1	92.5	-8.7
7	D. Garrard	JAC	292	105	36.0%	80.2	89.4	9.1
8	J. Flacco	BAL	300	104	34.7%	86.6	98.4	11.8
9	K. Orton	DEN	287	102	35.5%	80.5	110.4	29.9
10	M. Cassel	KC	259	102	39.4%	67.7	87.1	19.4
11	M. Sanchez	NYJ	244	102	41.8%	60.5	75.0	14.5
12	M. Ryan	ATL	298	101	33.9%	67.8	100.4	32.6
13	K. Warner	ARI	353	100	28.3%	85.0	108.0	23.0
14	M. Schaub	HOU	326	98	30.1%	98.2	97.9	-0.3
15	A. Rodgers	GB	296	91	30.7%	91.3	125.4	34.1
16	B. Favre	MIN	285	86	30.2%	106.9	108.8	1.9
17	M. Stafford	DET	265	86	32.5%	54.0	70.9	16.9
18	C. Palmer	CIN	290	85	29.3%	88.7	86.6	-2.1
19	M. Hasselbeck	SEA	255	84	32.9%	86.8	72.8	-14.0
20	P. Manning	IND	357	78	21.8%	102.6	109.9	7.3
21	J. Russell	OAK	205	77	37.6%	48.1	46.9	-1.2
22	J. Campbell	WAS	254	74	29.1%	83.3	99.0	15.7
23	J. Delhomme	CAR	245	68	27.8%	75.6	44.6	-31.0
24	D. Brees	NOR	291	67	23.0%	103.0	110.0	7.1
25	M. Bulger	STL	210	62	29.5%	59.7	104.8	45.1
26	D. McNabb	PHI	218	56	25.7%	100.5	79.3	-21.2

Note on the data: Blitz numbers are taken from the ESPN QB splits. These blitz numbers are updated by Thursday for the previous Sunday, so we'll have to make do here with last week's data. Also, in case you're wondering why I chose 200 attempts as the cut-off for this list, look no further than the 26th entry to understand why.

Couple of observations:

Don't crack under pressure: Among the top seven quarterbacks against the blitz (passer rating against the blitz > 108) you'll find the usual suspects in Brady, Brees, Peyton Manning, Favre and Warner. Perhaps a little surprisingly, Rodgers and Orton are also among this elite group. What characterizes this group is that they are very efficient under pressure, and while they may not have had time to complete their passes to their primary receivers, they have been able to find an open man and keep the offense moving forward.
Blitz me, pleeeaase: Bulger, Rodgers and Ryan seem to thrive on blitzes. All three have ratings against the blitz that are > 30 points higher than their rating in non-blitz situations. Not surprisingly, opponents blitz them on only about 30% of their pass attempts.
Fear the Rush: Fear is an emotional response to a threat. It is a basic survival mechanism observed in quarterbacks and occurrs in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain when sacked/hit or the threat of danger from blitzes, and may lead to significant behavioral change like low completion percentages, high INT/TD ratios and vomiting in Superbowls. Four QB's have a passer rating in blitz situations that is significantly lower than in non-blitzing situations: Hasselbeck (-14.0), Eli Manning (-15.0), McNabb (-21.2) and Delhomme (-31.0). Time to seek counseling.
Hammer time: The four most blitzed quarterbacks are Eli Manning (46.5% of all ATTs), Romo (45.9%), Sanchez (41.8%) and Cassel (39.4%). Rightly or wrongly, these QB's have seemingly acquired a reputation as soft or error-prone, and defenses are trying to take advantage. Surprisingly, only Eli's rating sees a significant drop in blitz situations, while Romo's rating drops only marginally and Sanchez and Cassel actually have a better rating against the blitz.
No way we're blitzing these guys: Over the years, Peyton Manning has gained an almost mythical reputation against the Blitz, and consequently no other quarter back is blitzed less (21.8% of ATT). Drew Brees is a close second (23.0%) and it is quite a surprise to see McNabb as the third least blitzed QB (25.7%), given that that his rating against the blitz drops off significantly

3. Beginner's guide to winning in December

In his Chill Pills post, 5Blings asked what it would take to win in December. From a purely statistical point of view, the answer is fairly easy: Take care of the football better than your opponent, and you win almost all of the time.

Our sister site StampedeBlue has a long-running series called Finding the Winning Factors. In it, mgrex03 looked at the Turnover Ratio in 4,080 games from 2001 to 2008 and found that 82.5% of the teams winning the turnover battle won the game. Bob Sturm is running a tally for the current season (Running Stats Project), and through week 11, 76.5% of the teams winning the turnover battle also won the game (101-31).

Dallas is 5-8 over the last three Decembers. TO ratio for the 5 wins: +1. TO Ratio for the 8 losses: -16. No rocket science required to figure out that this is not working for the Cowboys.

Dallas Cowboys December Turnover Ratio, 2006-2008

	2006					2007				2008
	NYG	NO	ATL	PHI	DET	DET	PHI	CAR	WAS	PIT	NYG	BAL	PHI
TO ratio	-1	-2	+1	-2	-3	-1	-2	0	1	-3	2	-1	-4
Result	W	L	W	L	L	W	L	W	L	L	W	L	L

4. Save the ~~Cheerleader~~ Quarterback, save the world.

A Sack is an evil thing. I shudder at the merest thought of Romo being sacked, and I've done a lot of shuddering lately, more so than in previous years. Romo is taking close to one sack more per game this season than in 2007 and 2008. Not good.

Quarterback Sacks allowed on Tony Romo, 2006-2009

	2006	2007	2008	2009
Games	11	16	13	10
Sacks	21	24	20	23
Sacks/Game	1.9	1.5	1.5	2.3

Some of you might say, c'mon OCC don't get overexcited, those 23 sacks - while not great - are not earth shattering. We're ranked joint 18th in the NFL with 23, yeah it kinda sucks but get over it.

Let me reply with a little Algebra 101. On those 22 drives with sacks, we scored exactly one touchdown and 4 field goals for 19 points (Inexplicably, 3 of Folk's 5 missed FG's came on a drive with a sack. We also punted 11 times, fumbled three times and were intercepted once to end those drives) for an average score of 0.8 per drive. In the 89 drives without a sack, we scored 212 points or 2.5 points per drive. Statistically, that's a difference of 1.6 points per sack we're giving up, and the fumbles aren't even factored in yet.

In effect, a sack swings the balance of the game by at least 1.6 points in favor of the defense, either by forcing a punt or a longer FG try, or even just putting a team in a predictable passing situation. That's a big swing for a single play.

5. I don't believe in coincidences.

While this may not be the most opportune stat to post after two successive games in which we scored a total of 14 points, it is noteworthy nonetheless.

Top 6 NFL offenses in Yards per Play, 2009

	Yards per Play	Record
Saints*	6.4	10-0
Colts*	6.4	10-0
Cowboys*	6.2	7-3
Steelers	5.9	6-4
Patriots*	5.9	7-3
Vikings*	5.8	9-1
*Division Leaders

***

Oh, to play in Tampa once more...

Happy now, Seanrude?

***

6. Doomsday returns... Wade Phillips style. (Hat Tip to DalaiLuke for the sig)

For all the scorn and criticism heaped on Wade as a head coach, there is little doubt that he knows what he is doing as a defensive coordinator. In 9 out of 10 games this season, the Cowboys have allowed 21 or fewer points. While 'only' ranking 5th in the NFL with an average 17.5 points allowed per game, this figure ranks 1st in the NFC.

Fun with stats: Four AFC teams are ahead of the Cowboys: the Colts (15.7), Patriots (16.4), Bengals (16.7) and the Ravens (17.1). As you are well aware of course, through week 11, the AFC teams scored an average 20.8 points per game, while the NFC teams scored an average of 22.6, a difference of 1.8 points per game. If we were to adjust Dallas' 17.5 PA/Game for conference strength by subtracting 1.8 ppg, we'd have a value of 15.7, tied with the Colts for best defense in the NFL. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

7. Do you need a Top 10 Receiver for post-season success?

In my last post I pointed out that Dallas was tied with the Saints with a league-leading 7 players with more than 350 yards from scrimmage. Spreading the wealth around like this makes it unlikely that any one of our WRs will make it anywhere close to the NFL Top 10, particularly after our WR corps caught a grand total of 5 passes against Washington. Heck, T.O. had 9 catches for the Bills in a losing effort against the Jaguars. But is a top 10 WR that important?

Big Stat Wide Receivers by and large are eye-candy for the highlight reels but do not generally translate into post-season success. While a 1400+ yards WR may be great for your fantasy football team, there are plenty of ways to win games in the NFL, and a big-time receiver is not on the list of must-haves. Consider the following WR stats on play-off winning teams of the last 5 years:

Only 23% of teams with post-season wins in the last 5 years (7/31) have had at least one WR ranked in the NFL Top 10 in regular season receiving yards.
Only 1 of the last 5 Superbowl winners had a WR ranked in the NFL Top 10 that season (Colts 2006).
39% of winning post-season teams (12/31) had a top receiver with less than 1.000 regular season yards.
Notably, two playoff-winning teams featured Tight Ends as their leading receivers (ATL 04: Crumpler, SD 07: Gates).

Leading Receivers on Playoff Winning Teams by Yards and NFL Rank, 2004-2008 (SB Winners in yellow)

2004				2005				2006				2007				2008
Tm	Player	Yards	Rnk	Tm	Player	Yards	Rnk	Tm	Player	Yards	Rnk	Tm	Player	Yards	Rnk	Tm	Player	Yards	Rnk
Stl	Holt	1.372	4	Car	Smith	1.563	1	Ind	Harrison	1.366	2	NE	Moss	1.493	2	Ari	Fitzger.	1.431	2
Ind	Wayne	1.210	9	Was	Moss	1.483	2	NO	Colston	1.038	19	Sea	Engram	1.147	13	SD	Jackson	1.098	11
Phi	Owens	1.200	11	Den	Smith	1.105	13	Sea	Jackson	956	23	GB	Driver	1.048	20	Pit	Ward	1.043	15
Min	Burleson	1.006	23	NE	Branch	998	21	Chi	Moham.	863	30	Nyg	Burress	1.025	21	Bal	Mason	1.037	17
Pit	Ward	1.004	24	Pit	Ward	975	22	Phi	Brown	816	33	SD	Gates	984	25	Phi	Jackson	912	28
NE	Givens	874	32	Sea	Engram	778	35	NE	Caldwell	760	40	Jac	Williams	629	61
Nyj	Moss	838	34
Atl	Crumpler	774	43

For what it's worth

The last time the Cowboys opened a new stadium, in 1971, they christened it with a Super Bowl win that season. Make of this what you will.
No other Quarterback in the NFL has had to pass on more 3rd and long situations (50) this year than Tony Romo. Remarkably, his conversion rate of 40% (20/50) is second best in the NFL, behind only Carson Palmer (50%).
The Cowboys have given up 23 first downs to opponents on penalties. That's bad enough for 31st place in the league, just barely ahead of the Packers with 24.
The NFC East is a combined 22-18, second only to the 24-14 AFC South in terms of winning percentages. And despite the offensive juggernauts like the Saints, Colts, Patriots and Vikings in other divisions, no division in the NFL has a better points differential (+117) than the NFC East. AFC East (+75) and AFC South (+37) complete the Top 3.

_________

Sources:

1. ProFootballFocus.com, game data usually completed 5-7 days after the game.

2. ESPN.com, blitzing data usually updated by Thursday after a game.

3.-7 Pro-Football-Reference.com, NFL Gamebooks, NFL.com, pictures courtesy of SI.Com

For what it's worth: Superbowl: Useless factoid clogging up my brain, 3rd and long: Stats Llc., Penalties: ESPN.com

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Tweet Comment 65 comments | 18 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Your best yet. I love it. Grizz should put this on the main page.

by twistmypepsi on Nov 23, 2009 3:21 AM CST reply actions

Great Post

Again

The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!

by aussie_cowboy on Nov 23, 2009 4:40 AM CST reply actions

Hi, One Cool

With all due respect, I think this post uses a bunch of random stats to make points about irrelevant years and teams.

Granted, you used the word “random” first. . .so I give you that.

Lots of “stating the obvious” too:

“All blitzes are gambles and sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.”

“Don’t crack under pressure.”

And with regard to winning in December: “Take care of the football better than your opponent, and you win almost all of the time.” Really? That’s not only obvious, but is that really all we need to do against NYG, NO and SD? The whole “Beginner’s Guide. . .” intro was off-putting. Winning in December wasn’t a problem when I became a fan — was it a problem when you became one?

And overall, I am always leery of folks who cite a lot of stats. It always seems like their dorking out a bit. Stats assume a static human dynamic — which, by definition, isn’t true. Even worse is when somebody cites stats from different teams from different years. Each year is different, to a certain degree — this depends on the coaching staff and the player turnover, of course. Who cares what happened in 1971?

There’s a lot more to this then Algebra 101. And much more than some Tampa cheerleaders with breasts so hacked and chopped that they have no nerves anymore. ;)

Like JG?

Anyway, thanks. I know I’m contentious, but I totally disagree with you here. Put the spreadsheet away and watch with your heart, please — you’ll be 3x as valuable.

by dfan77 on Nov 23, 2009 6:06 AM CST reply actions

I disagree

There was some excellent data in there, especially the spreadsheet detailing QBs’ variable performances when blitzed. OCC’s a sharp dude who pursues knowledge in sports, and that’s very commendable. ‘Dorking out’ doesn’t exclude ‘watching with your heart’, that’s a common misnomer used by those who dislike numbers.

My podcast. I'd be very appreciative of any listeners-for enjoyment, criticism, or otherwise.

by Conjunction on Nov 23, 2009 7:53 AM CST up reply actions

I would say the stats he uses are very relevant.

If watching with your heart is what led you to make this comment a few days ago;

"I like Tony but he often gives up with his face, posture, everything. Hard to say that quantitatively it has cost them games, but I’ll bet it has".

Then I hope OCC doesn’t take your advice and instead continuous to put in the research effort to make one of the best weekly posts on this fine blog.

by Luke. on Nov 23, 2009 7:57 AM CST up reply actions

Nobody on here is saying that stats perfectly define football

but their use is undeniable. Statistics show trends and allow for comparisons between teams and players. As such, stats can lend some real insight into how the game of football is decided and what things to keep an eye on with respect to the future. The real key is finding the best actual statistics that have the greatest relevance and least amount of bias, and therefore paint the best picture of what is actually taking place on the field. Without a doubt, all statistical implications and conclusions must be taken with a grain of salt and placed in conjunction with the eye test to determine their relevance, but to simply dismiss them is silly and naive.

Also, I find it ironic you would criticize his tone and then tell him to “put the spreadsheet away” and that he will be “3x as valuable.” Pot meet kettle.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 23, 2009 8:21 AM CST up reply actions

+1 ... excellent reply!

dfan, I’ll leave the eloquence to Cowboyfan729 and say this: relax!!!

One.Cool delivers excellent posts each week (I agree, twist, move it to the main) … this one offers both stats and commentary. If you think stats have no place in football, you’re in the minority. And the stats offered here are VERY RELEVANT to this year’s game, but seems you don’t care enough to notice the obvious :) For example, your criticism about “don’t crack under pressure” was PERFECTLY aligned with the stats being offered. Not rocket science to connect the dots.

and how can you get upset about a reference to winning when we opened the last stadium … which returns me to my original thought: relax :)

keep up the GREAT work, O.Cool

Doomsday returns... Wade Phillips style.

by DalaiLuke on Nov 23, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions

actually dcfan77

thats exactly all they need to do to beat SD, NO and the GMen. Cowboys are the only team that can beat the Cowboys, if they don’t turn the ball over, they win, it’s as simple as that.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Nov 23, 2009 8:46 AM CST up reply actions

wow...

Dude, if you don’t like something, don’t read it. Obviously you don’t have the intelligence to take it for what it is intended:

It’s fun with numbers, not the ultimate guide to understanding every aspect of football by algebraic expressions and mathematical functions.

by Damnsammit on Nov 23, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions

You cant please all the people all the time

Dfan77, I appreciate your comments.

This series of posts is not about finding the truth in stats, in fact, many of the points I’ve made are about showing correlation, not necessarily causation, and should be taken with a grain of salt. I’m happy to leave the heavy lifting on stats and analysis to Raf and others on this blog.

Damnsammit put it really well: “It’s fun with numbers, not the ultimate guide to understanding every aspect of football”.

I find it amusing to look at some of the stats that are off the beaten track, in the hope that you guys will find them either entertaining or enlightening and ideally a combination of both – and I like to think that some of combinations of data in these posts are things you don’t see too often elsewhere.

Oh, and the Cheerleader pics stay, regardless!

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 23, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions

The Cheerleader pics are a must… and I am glad you switched it up. Tampa Bay has some hot cheerleaders and so do the Dolphins.

by Damnsammit on Nov 23, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions

LOL

I saw this line of argument so many times in the ’80s and early ’90s with baseball. “Put the slide rules away and watch the game….”

What makes you think a person can’t do both?

BTW, some of those slide-rule baseball people are doing very well for themselves. The current crop of GMs all have Bill James’ books and the baseball prospectus on their shelves. The funny thing was, when that latter bunch of guys was getting ripped on usenet for being “stat geeks” a lot of them were playing the game.

by Rafael Vela on Nov 23, 2009 2:53 PM CST up reply actions

Always a critic.

Do you “watch with your heart”? Does that even make sense?

People post what they want and feel comfortable with, not how you want them to post. That’s more valuable than telling people how you think they should post.

I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...

by Aaron Novinger on Nov 23, 2009 3:03 PM CST up reply actions

Terrific Post OCC Thanks.

The QB/blitzing chart was some great info. I don’t think all the blitzes are about attacking a Romo/Garrett weakness I’d say most teams blitz us like crazy because our offensive line has a habit of making terrible decisions on who to block. With a line as penalized and inconsistent as ours has been over the last several years why wouldn’t you blitz the hell out of them?

We’re just lucky Romo makes so many Houdini plays and bails them out (or as your post stated: "No other Quarterback in the NFL has had to pass on more 3rd and long situations (50) this year than Tony Romo. Remarkably, his conversion rate of 40% (20/50) is second best in the NFL").

As you showed OCC, Garrett and Romo have this offense running third in the NFL in yards per play with an offensive line that would make Peyton Manning furious and yet so many people want to put the blame squarely on Romo or Garrett’s shoulders anytime the O struggles.

by Luke. on Nov 23, 2009 7:42 AM CST reply actions

Romo makes Garrett look good

I don’t suppose Garrett called the play “Have Romo barely evade a sack, roll left, point his finger and drill a free-lancing Crayton in the endzone for a TD.”

Maybe they did draw up and work on that play earlier in the week, but somehow I doubt it.

by DavidH22 on Nov 23, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions

They ran the exact same play against Atlanta...

Finger pointing and everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-UVsafkHmg

by Damnsammit on Nov 23, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions

Well in the last few weeks we've seen;

- Garrett’s QB miss some wide open WR’s for big gains (injury this week didn’t help)

- His #1 RB fumble inside the opponents 20

- His TE get penalized on first and goal at the 7 and first and goal at the 9

- His WR drop numerous balls and fumble away big plays

- And last but certainly not least, his offensive line repeatedly blow assignments and take penalties

I don’t suppose Garrett asked for that crappy execution either.

by Luke. on Nov 23, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

The Redskins game winner...

On Crayton’s TD tthe Redskins sent a four man rush and put everyone else in coverage. Within 3 seconds Flozell has lost his man and Romo, who looked like he was just about to pass to an open looking Miles Austin breaking to the left for the game winning TD, sees Flozell’s man is gonna hit him and pulls the ball down and spins outside where he eventually hits an ad-libing Crayton.

Romo wasn’t making Garrett look good. He was, once again, bailing out the offensive line.

by Luke. on Nov 23, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions

Good point

I hadn’t thought about blitzes being used as a way to simply attack inconsistencies in the line, I had focused more on the ‘get to the QB’ aspect, and was honestly baffled why defenses blitz us so much when Romo isn’t buckling under the pressure that much.

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 23, 2009 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

Marlana Aref, Good Lord

Sorry, give me a minute and I’ll be back to talking about football. That girl is stunning.

by Dansonofdirm on Nov 23, 2009 8:37 AM CST reply actions

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time

Fear is an emotional response to a threat. It is a basic survival mechanism observed in quarterbacks and occurrs in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain when sacked/hit or the threat of danger from blitzes, and may lead to significant behavioral change like low completion percentages, high INT/TD ratios and vomiting in Superbowls

by Mandmeisterx on Nov 23, 2009 8:48 AM CST reply actions

by Mandmeisterx on Nov 23, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions

LMAO!!!

There’s your leader ByeDawk, lol!

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Nov 23, 2009 9:00 AM CST up reply actions

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Is playing smart too much to ask?

by silverblue5 on Nov 23, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Great post

as usual OCC. Thanks

by DCowboy on Nov 23, 2009 9:00 AM CST reply actions

+1

Stats are often tuff for me to compute. You do a great job making them interesting.

I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...

by Aaron Novinger on Nov 23, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions

I Love Creamsicles

Especially double-dips.

"You have to have a stronger belief in yourself than the disbelief of others."
Antonio Ramirez Romo

by Far Rider on Nov 23, 2009 9:03 AM CST reply actions

for serious shes out of control. Name?

"On a journey to anywhere you can draw your own map."

by saidseven on Nov 23, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions

she has to have back problems

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Nov 23, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions

I Think It's Marlana Aref

"You have to have a stronger belief in yourself than the disbelief of others."
Antonio Ramirez Romo

by Far Rider on Nov 23, 2009 11:23 AM CST up reply actions

A little more about the sacks:

I think I posted this before, but since you brought it up, I’ll repeat it. According to Sirius NFL Radio, teams only score a TD on 7% of drives where they take a sack. That’s relevant not just because the Cowboys are scoring less and struggling in the red zone, but also because other teams seem to be doing well against us in the red zone. As good as our D has been, it might be time to dial up the pressure in the red zone to cut down on some of the TDs, and maybe pass a little less to increase ours.

by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 23, 2009 9:15 AM CST reply actions

I would definitely agree with those adjustments...

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 23, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

I don't recall teams doing well in the Red Zone

I remember lots of forced FGs

by AustonianAggie on Nov 24, 2009 9:47 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah...

I tried to look up stats and it does look like they have been pretty poor in the red zone overall this year, but I don’t know how much that is skewed from the first 4 weeks…

by Damnsammit on Nov 24, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions

Prior to this week, they were ranked 27th in the NFL.

They have allowed TDs on 63.2% of opponent’s red zone possessions. They are only 9th in red zone TDs allowed, though. So, they don’t let teams in the red zone that often, but when they do, they usually score a TD.

Offensively, they were 22nd in the league at TD% inside the red zone, with 48.1%. They are 17th in total Red Zone possessions. So, they only get in the Red Zone a moderate amount, but fail to score a TD more than half the time that they do.

Using those numbers, it’s easy to see why the Redskins defended us the way that they did – just make sure to not give up big plays, and you drastically reduce the chance of us scoring.

by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 24, 2009 8:02 PM CST up reply actions

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/stats/inside20

by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 24, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for those stats

I always love seeing something where those damn Giants are ranked dead last (74.3% of Red Zone defensive drives end in a TD)

by Damnsammit on Nov 24, 2009 9:52 PM CST up reply actions

As always,

Great post, OCC.

~Texas Massacre '09~

by TheHeat on Nov 23, 2009 10:43 AM CST reply actions

As always, killer analysis OCC...

And btw, I like your version of the “Tampa Two” much, much better than the Buccaneers’ actual “D” – LMAO!

Smokin’.

Is playing smart too much to ask?

by silverblue5 on Nov 23, 2009 11:01 AM CST reply actions

damn, that would have been a great title for the pics.

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 23, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions

I'm surprised it's not more along the lines of ...

the Tampa (un)Cover Two.

by GalTex on Nov 23, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions

Another great post

I really liked the points per drive with a sack stat, that shows how important it is to keep your qb upright.

A couple comments:

1. I may be wrong but I thought GB blitzed early and often in that game, but not so much late which lowered the %. Washington didn’t, but they won’t be the norm

2. I have no idea why McNabb isn’t blitzed much – we’ve had plenty of success blitzing him the last couple years I think. Wade is quietly 3-2 against Philly with good reason.

3. As luke said, I’m not totally sure the reason those teams are blitzed a lot is because of error prone qbs. In our case & Houston’s case, teams know they can get to the qb and don’t take as much risk of a big play. But maybe I’m not giving Romo enough credit – he has been mistake prone in the past.

by foyesboys on Nov 23, 2009 3:09 PM CST reply actions

The McNabb thing perplexed me as well.

I’m thinking because of his ability to run, that teams are more apt to spy on him during passing downs rather than force him out of the pocket with a blitz.

I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...

by Aaron Novinger on Nov 23, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions

some thoughts

1. I had the same feeling (GB blitzing a lot), but I have no way to split those numbers by quarter. I was actually quite surprised when those numbers came in – I had prepared that stat on the assumption the GB game would be the 5th consecutive game with > 50% blitzes. Guess you’re right with fewer blitzes in the 2nd half.

2. I believe he may be living off his past reputation, both in terms of elusiveness and his running ability. But he has slowed down a lot. Look at his rushing YPA (06: 6.6, 07: 4.7, 08: 3.8, 09: 3.9). Eagles Fans, jump in and correct me here.

3. agree

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 23, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions

No need to correct you..

I absolutely agree. Teams tend to only the heat on situational downs against McNabb. I dont think it has anything to do with his ability to run now but much more so on what he used to do. I actually kind of find it maddening that he does not take off more. For every 13 second scramble 60 yard bomb he completes there is a shoe string tackle on a first down run he could have easily had.

by IgglesFanDeployd on Nov 24, 2009 4:57 AM CST up reply actions

"send the heat"

Cobb’d it sorry.

by IgglesFanDeployd on Nov 24, 2009 4:58 AM CST up reply actions

This is probably your best installment yet, OCC

Great stuff. Even the cheerleader was above average(by this series’ extremely high standards, that is). Well done.

Epic Fail since 1985

by the red scare on Nov 23, 2009 4:56 PM CST reply actions

Good Stuff OCC

The stats are fun and informative. A very exposing article.

by oldboysfan on Nov 23, 2009 5:21 PM CST reply actions

I look forward to these posts every week. Keep it up, and thanks!

by Fernie67 on Nov 23, 2009 9:22 PM CST reply actions

Good stuff man, glad you're on our team....

And as for your “visual aids”…seems like an appropriate time to give thanks.

Drinking the Blue Kool-Aid since 1980. "Ohhhhhh yeeeaaaaahhhh!"

by ImpactNate on Nov 24, 2009 3:20 PM CST reply actions

AS MUCH AS I LOVE THESE POSTS

u stole my (stolen) catch phrase with #4 and therefore will get no REC from me!!!!

that is my famous (annoying) quote from the game threads the last two seasons, in reference to giving Tashard Choice the ball more

Coach Winters: Mississippi State's offensive set. 2nd & 2 on our own 24, what defensive set might we call?
Alvin Mack: Eagle Zipper Hero, unless the setback shifts into the I.
Coach Winters: Good..[clicks to next slide], third and seven?
Alvin Mack: Oakie Thunder Lion. {What's your assignment?}
Alvin Mack: Kill the quarterback. {{Coach Winters clicks to next slide}}
Alvin Mack: Hit the tight end so hard his girlfriend dies. {{Coach Winters clicks to next slide}}
Alvin Mack: Kill everybody.

by KD Drummond on Nov 24, 2009 4:08 PM CST reply actions

I can’t believe I did it, but I actually went and looked that up, KDP. What you really said was

SCREW THE CHEERLEADER, RUN THE ROOKIE, SAVE THE WORLD

Close, but no cigar. Gimme back my rec. Right now :-)

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 24, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions

INDEED

hahaha- you sir, have earned your rec.

by KD Drummond on Nov 24, 2009 8:28 PM CST up reply actions

#6...{sniff}...makes me feel like a proud papa

If you had twisted that statistic any more we’d need salt on that pretzel.

Try taking only points given up by the Defense (minus ST & Pick-6s). We lead the league by a decent amount.

But you didn’t take into account the curvature of the earth…tsk, tsk.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson

by Fighter15 on Nov 24, 2009 8:32 PM CST reply actions

One of these days

I’ll find a way to get the cowboys to the top of every stat I post – and get a Nobel Prize for discovering the grand unification theory along the way.

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 25, 2009 2:03 AM CST up reply actions

Then you can tackle Global Warming

Oh wait…the planet’s not warming?

At least Al Gore can still claim the Internet.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson

by Fighter15 on Nov 25, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions

+1000000000000000

by mhuff13 on Nov 25, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions

Ha

Yes but in response they’ve relabeled it the vague and ubiquitous ‘climate change’.

by Luke. on Nov 26, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

Gee, the climate changes

Who’d a thunk it? Next you’ll tell me the Dinosaurs are extinct.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson

by Fighter15 on Nov 26, 2009 6:59 PM CST up reply actions

The ubiquitous 'you'

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson

by Fighter15 on Nov 26, 2009 7:00 PM CST up reply actions

one of my faves

The NFC East is a combined 22-18, second only to the 24-14 AFC South in terms of winning percentages. And despite the offensive juggernauts like the Saints, Colts, Patriots and Vikings in other divisions, no division in the NFL has a better points differential (117) than the NFC East. AFC East (75) and AFC South (+37) complete the Top 3.

It’s hilarious to hear the national mediots over the last couple weeks talk about the NFC East is overrated and that it is an average division. Coincidentally of course with the Cowboys moving to the top of the standings. They couldn’t say anything negative when we were on a roll, so they downplayed the competition.

I can’t wait for the day when blogs rule the media world..

by KD Drummond on Nov 24, 2009 8:35 PM CST reply actions

Can you break down the turnovers even further?

Something tells me that fumbles are less likely to hurt teams than INT’s because of the return yardage.

"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."

- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers

by 5Blings on Nov 25, 2009 10:57 PM CST reply actions

Amazing, I know

but I would think that fumbles have a net zero field position, whereas INTs are usually somewhat positive net yards.

Further, fumbles often negate big gains.

Nevertheless, all turnovers (including missed FGs, unsuccessful 4th downs, and ST letdowns [Return TDs, long run backs]) would qualify as equally major.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. - Thomas Jefferson

by Fighter15 on Nov 26, 2009 1:40 AM CST up reply actions