Game Planning to Victory, Pt. One: Dallas' Red Zone Efficiency
by Rafael Vela on Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM CDT
83 comments
Although research suggests that any number of variables can and will intervene to affect performance and the outcome of a game, over the last few years a clear-cut pattern has been established... four factors have been identified that have a consistently high correlation to a team's winning and losing:
- Red zone efficiency
- 1st down efficiency
- Turnovers
- Explosive plays
-- Brian Billick, Developing an Offensive Game Plan (1997)
Billick frustrated Baltimore fans by running an anti-offensive while at the Ravens helm. That was probably due to Baltimore's lack of offensive skill position weapons. When he coordinated Minnesota in the '90, he ran one of the NFL's flashiest, most productive units. His ideas hold up.
With that in mind, let's use Billick's standards to assess the Cowboys' offense and defense. Some people like to slam Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett, using terms like "predictable" and "stupid." We like to go beyond the slurs here at BTB. Let's take a look under the hood to see how the '07 Cowboys offense and '08 Cowboys offense compare. Today, we're going to compare red-zone performance for the '07 offense and the '08 edition. Later, we'll examine the offense and defense in each of these four categories.
When we're finished, we should have a much clearer understanding on the real causes for the team's decline from 13-3 to 9-7. We should also have a better hand on what needs to be improved to restore the lost wins.
Dallas' Offensive Red Zone Statistics, 2007 and 2008
| 2007 | 2008 | |
| Possessions | 56 | 44 |
| Touchdowns | 30 | 26 |
| Field Goals | 18 | 8 |
| Empty possessions |
8 | 10 |
| Possessions rank | 4th | 25th |
| Touchdowns rank | 6th | 20th |
| touchdown % rank | 15th | 8th |
| scoring % rank | 16th | 31st |
Let's begin with the one good stat from 2008. Last year's team was more efficient at making touchdowns than the '07 offense, though it notched four fewer wins. Dallas ranked 8th in the percentage of times it turned a red zone possession into a touchdown.
That said, the Cowboys were not outstanding in scoring efficiency in either year. In the 13-3 year Dallas ranked a mid-pack 16th in red zone scoring possession.
Why then, was the first team so good? Look at the top two stats. The '07 Cowboys played the numbers game. They got into the red zone a whopping 56 times, ranking 4th in that category. Only Tom Brady's Pats, Peyton Manning's Colts and that year's Jaguars had more red zone possessions. And Dallas got the ball into the end zone 30 times, ranking 6th in that category.
Last year's team dropped 21% in red zone possessions from the year before. Even though it made a modest increase in touchdown efficiency, it didn't score as many touchdowns. Why the dip? We can speculate on several reasons, but I think the first down and explosive play breakdowns will offer us the evidence we're looking for. We can also look at injuries to see how they effected the offense's ability to move between the 20s. For the moment, let's just note that Dallas had 12 fewer red zone trips last year than it did the year before.
Let's also eliminate one possible culprit from the list. Nick Folk was 8-9 last year on field goal attempts where the ball was snapped inside the 20. That's an 89% success rate. The year before, Folk was 18-20 on such attempts. That's a 90% rate. Folk kicked the same. His attempts, however were more than cut in half.
So what affected Dallas? Let's begin the autopsy with category four, what I term "empty possessions." This is the number of red zone trips where Dallas didn't score. The Cowboys had two more of these last year, even though they had twelve fewer trips inside the red zone. Turnovers are the biggest culprit here, but the Tony Romo haters should hold off lurching for their voodoo dolls. There was plenty of blame to spread in this category. I can think of Marion Barber and Romo coughing up the ball inside the ten versus the Eagles. I can see Brad Johnson tossing a red zone pick in the Giants loss. I can see T.O. fumbling away a Johnson pass later in the same game.
Dallas had a red zone turnover problem, and it was team wide. But that stat will get its own story later on. Again, let's note for the time being that turnovers were a second factor, in addition to fewer possessions, that dropped this team to 31st in red zone scoring last year.
"More and more teams are playing a loose 4-across zone concept inside the red zone. The result is that there are fewer of the man-to-man match ups that made pick routes prominent in earlier years. This zone concept puts a higher priority on being able to run the ball effectively and hitting underneath routes that (hopefully) enable receivers to score after catching the ball."
-- Billick, Developing an Offensive Game Plan, p. 58
(emphasis mine)
Billick offers a common sense point. The teams that run the ball most effectively tend to be the best red zone teams. Think of the '90s Cowboys. They could and would pound the ball on anybody. When Dallas got inside the ten, Emmitt Smith was going to run off tackle or he was going to run an isolation play behind Daryl Johnston. Smith was always among the league leaders in touchdowns scored. Consequently, Michael Irvin and Troy Aikman were awful fantasy options because Dallas rarely threw for red zone touchdowns.
Now, let's examine the Garrett offenses:
Rushing TDs
- 2007 -- 14
- 2008 -- 12
Those are weak numbers. Last year's are even weaker when you consider that Felix Jones and Tashard Choice had three long TD runs between them. The '08 Cowboys had only nine red zone rushing touchdowns.
The reasons are crystal clear. K.C. Joyner's new run stats (I cannot hype his new book enough. Order it ASAP) break down rushing effectiveness by run type; he cataloged all the toss plays, all the counters, all the draws, all the iso plays, stretch plays, dives and off tackles, and found some puzzling numbers. The '08 Cowboys were quite good at plays that required the offensive linemen to pull -- the tosses, sweeps, counters, etc. They were, conversely, awful on plays that called for straight-ahead, man-to-man blocking. I can't post the stats here, but Dallas' yards per attempt on isolations, dives and off-tackle runs were abysmal.
These are precisely the types of runs you need to execute inside an opponent's red zone. Tosses and counters are far less effective here, because all secondary defenders are bunched far closer to the line of scrimmage. When you're inside another team's ten, you're facing eleven-man fronts.
How many times did you find yourself screaming at the TV when Dallas lined up in the shotgun in the red zone and ran draws? How many times did you call Jason Garrett a nasty name? The Cowboys self scout their plays. They break down how each play call works. They've done this since the Landry days. The heavy draw calls were not a case of an OC getting cute, but of a play caller working his strongest hand. I've seen the run breakdowns. They don't lie.
The power run stats don't make sense. The Cowboys have big, beefy linemen, who can man block. Yet, the linemen were poor on plays that should be their bread and butter. As a result, Dallas has passed for red zone touchdowns twice as often the last two years as it has run for them. That's a lot of pressure to put on your quarterback. It's certainly not the "Romo-friendly" style of offense the Cowboys want to run.
If Dallas wants to improve its red zone performance this year, it will be on Hudson Houck and his linemen to raise their power running productivity. Turnovers will also have to come down, but the biggest change will need to come from the bigg guys on the line of scrimmage.
A reminder that camp is now just six weeks away. Grizz and I are planning extensive coverage from San Antonio. Your donations help us bring you the best camp coverage anywhere. Just click the link in the right hand column. Grizz and I thank you in advance. Don't forget that every $10 dollars you contribute gets you an entry in our drawing for two tickets to the first Cowboys game in the new stadium!
1 recs |
83 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Amazing!
That was just a ridiculously good breakdown.
I’m one of those guys that would be yelling when they were in the shotgun.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 15, 2009 12:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Tex 4 Garrett
Wade Phillips is a good coordinator, but a lousy leader of men. Jason Garrett might is just the opposite… a good Xs and Os guy, who will be a better head coach than a coordinator.
by Montecito Tex on Jun 15, 2009 12:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Option 2
Well if Hudson can’t fix the line……..we can always fire the OC and possibly HC. Hire Billick and give him a 30 year old version of Randall Cunningham. One Mike Vick. If I remember correctly the year Billick had the prolific passing years and broke scoring and passing records he had like 39 year old Randal Cunningham as qb.
uh…………er………uh……….maybe not.
by Jon B. on Jun 15, 2009 12:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Billick's awesome year had more to do with Moss and Chris Carter
than his QBs who were both good; but all they had to do was chuck it down field
by AustonianAggie on Jun 15, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It looks like Billick wrote his book
in 1996 or 1997, which was before Moss. He did have Carter and Jake Reed, but Moss can make any coach (except apparently if you are a Raiders’ coach) look like an offensive genius. To be honest, in my mind Billick’s tenure as the Vikings’ offensive coordinator was uneven and quite mediocre at times. But who am I to say…
by DavidH22 on Jun 15, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 his poor blocking up the middle was a big reason
I found Dallas to be pretty decent at conventional run plays when Kosier was still in, remember Felix Jones’ 1st TD against the Browns? Right up the middle, 11 yards red zone run
by AustonianAggie on Jun 15, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and they had a TD behind Holland vs. Seahawks
not the toughest D’s but still…
by scottmaui on Jun 16, 2009 2:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Write Up
I am thoroughly impressed by this write up. I’m looking forward to the next write-up of the series.
by twistmypepsi on Jun 15, 2009 12:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great breakdown.
A two TE set and a healthy Montre Holland could be the answer. A healthy Marion Barber III. would also be nice. This year Romo should keep down the INT ratio now that the game plan doesn’t include a round of force the ball to bigmouth.
by pick2568 on Jun 15, 2009 1:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bennett is the key
I have to agree with the two TE set being at least part of the answer. If Bennett can continue to improve both his blocking and receiving, he and Witten are going to be a challenge in the red zone and all over the field. This set will just give too many options.
Raf, welcome back – we’ve missed your articles!
by doomsdayreturns on Jun 15, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All about Montrae
I think Holland is the guy that will turn around our straight ahead blocking schemes.
He is quite a load. If he can show up quasi-fit to training camp he will win the starting job for sure. Kosier will have additional time to heal the foot.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
-Winston Churchill
by HudBaby on Jun 15, 2009 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I'll beat it to death.
No, I won’t. Thanks Raf.
Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.
Joe ThEEsman
by SB Six on Jun 15, 2009 5:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There are still a lot of factors that confound this kind of analysis. The draw plays and pulling plays obviously were effective at times, and neither statistics nor the majority of Cowboys fans would dispute that.
The problem is that, in football, situational context is absolutely huge, and has nearly infinite potential permutations. Third-and-4 is vastly different from Third-and-Three or Third-and-Five from a play-calling perspective. The opposing 20 yard line is vastly different from the 10 yard line. Ultimately you have to get into splits that have insufficient sample size to draw any conclusions whatsoever, or else aggregate into larger, vaguely associated groups like “3rd Down” or “Red Zone” that really don’t even tell more than a small part of the story.
In addition to that, probably the most important distinction is a play’s selection in comparison with the prior play calls that game, the immediately preceeding play calls, and the success of similar plays in games before that. If I looked at the average success of the draw play over the course of the season, of course I’m going to see high 1st down conversion rates, good success rates, etc. But if I look at a distribution of the outcomes and plot them on a timeline, I would almost guarantee it would show a very different story: you’re going to see a clump of high success rate draw plays, the majority of which would have occurred in weeks 1-8, and then a clump of TFLs and 0-yard rushes, the majority of which would have occurred in weeks 9-17.
Just looking at descriptive and summary statistics, especially of a small sample size game like football, can be very, very misleading.
by Shinywalrus on Jun 15, 2009 8:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"I would almost guarantee it would show a very different story: "
Don’t almost guarantee it. Guarantee it.
I showed my work. You show yours.
by Rafael Vela on Jun 15, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re missing the point – the above assertion you reference was just hypothesizing on my part, and had nothing to do with the real point I was trying to make – even if it isn’t the case, you have really only presented the idea that a certain play, on the average over the course of a season, was more effective than the average play of another type – you then extend that to say that it was thus intelligent to run the play that a simple average communicated was more effective. You don’t address the potential covariance of play success with particular game situations, players involved, or, most importantly, the time elapsed over a season of football. It’s not incumbent upon anyone to argue on behalf of their skepticism, because the statistical underpinnings of the presented argument simply aren’t there.
And that’s the entire point, Raf, and it’s not your fault. Football confounds statistical analysis, and this is coming from a fan of both KC and the Football Outsiders guys. Yes, KC shows us that our draw and pulling plays were more effective in general – they produced a higher mean yards per play, they produced a higher percentage of first down or otherwise “successful” plays, etc. But they give us absolutely no insight into whether those plays were equally effective down the road in the season, or in particular red zone situations, or with particular players on the field, etc.
In the above, you’re asking us to make the assumption that the average success of a play over a season is a good proxy for the success of the play at any randomly selected point in the season, you’re asking us to make the assumption that the distribution of potentially covariant factors was identical in the sample set present early in the season and late in the season, and you’re asking us to make the assumption that the characteristics that define successful running plays outside the red zone are identical to the characteristics that influence such success inside the red zone.
All I’m saying is that the nature of the sport doesn’t allow us to make those assumptions. Your statistics and your work are very intriguing – it’s just that the logical jumps you make to get to “Garrett wasn’t an idiot for calling all those plays over and over again” relies on too many blocks of statistical shifting sand.
by Shinywalrus on Jun 15, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you
there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
However, it is facinating to try to find the indicators that point to success.
For me, I’ll stick with wins and losses. And no past indicators mean a darn thing when it comes to predictors for this team, this year. Football is the single biggest proof that the past does not predict the future. How else can you explain all the worst-to-first turnarounds every year?
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 15, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it doesn't fail
that inside the redzone we weren’t as effective running and as effective in 08 as in 07. the averages will work themselves out. you might be getting “too cute” with the statistics, trying to chop it into too fine a grain, which will lose its effectiveness. it is clear that the 90’s cowboys were effective inside the redzone and effective running the ball. the 08 cowboys weren’t.
the article makes sense because I have always contended that you can’t simply rely on big plays to win games, you have to have your bread and butter. last year it seemed we relied on the big play to win games and didn’t have bread and butter stuff. we couldn’t just will our way in any types of plays and weren’t effective at taking advantage of our talents in certain areas.
plus in the redzone, the game is a little different. the space is much tighter. you face more in the box simply because there isn’t much ground to cover in the redzone. that’s why TEs and possession type WRs are more effective than speedy smaller WRs.
simply put, you need to be effective in the redzone in all the stats provided above. one, the more possessions you have, shows that your offense is controlling the clock, controlling the ball. then scoring when the opportunity comes. the stat that was more telling for me was the number of possession in the redzone. if you don’t get the opportunity, then you won’t be able to score. we didn’t have as many opportunities.
by CowboysFanatic on Jun 15, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you a politician. You sure did talk alot but you really didnt say anything.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 15, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raf, I always enjoy your breakdowns
I do have a question about one statement…. the Cowboys self-scout themselves and know what play has worked best for them in a given circumstance, I would assume the Eagles/Giants/Skins and everyone else has done the same analysis on the Cowboys. So, if Garrett is calling a draw because it has been his best hand in the past, it would seem that is also calling the play that the opposing D coordinators are expecting..thus..predictable.
And like Walrus said above, did the success rate of those calls drop as the seasonn went on?
So, the question for me, and moreso for Garrett is, “When does a coach play the chess move that says, I know he’s expecting me to do this – so instead I’m going to do this”
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Jun 15, 2009 8:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Football is about execution
When you’re in 3rd and one, you can run any play in the book, but you should be able to run simple
ones. And if you can’t, you’re in trouble.
NFL Network replayed the Cowboys Steelers game yesterday, and a lot of these problems were right there. Dallas gets into 2nd and one on its second drive and doesn’t convert with two runs.
This team had awful performances on man blocking plays. Like around 2.0 yards per attempt. That means they were awful early, middle and late to have averages like that.
by Rafael Vela on Jun 15, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not True
Dallas got into a third and two at the Pittsburgh 34. The tried to run Owens on an end around—why they wasted a precious third and short on this I’ll never know—that gained one yard. Then came the ridiculous fourth and one, where the only person who was a threat to make the first down, Tashard Choice, went in motion wide, which only left Anderson to plunge up the middle. Talk about a wasted set of plays. Pound Tashard up the middle twice, and we have a chance to convert. We might as well have punted.
There was no second one on that drive, and the play calling stunk on the final two plays.
by kindablue on Jun 15, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Truth of th ematter is championship teams should be able to pick up 3rd and 1 with the world knowing what is called.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 15, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hindsight
I thought the Owens end arounds were stupid too, but like I said that is all hindsight now. If the FB dive had worked, it’d be like “what a great play!”.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 19, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points - frustrating part of last year
Nice observation Rafael.
2nd and 1 on your second drive and you don’t convert has an impact later in the game.
We had an opportunity to develop some momentum in that game, and potentially give some confidence for the rest of season but we didn’t get it done.
Tony can’t do it all, and if we see any improvement in the O Line this year hopefully we won’t be
repeating this dismal type of success rate.
by oldtimer on Jun 15, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except There Was Not
A second and one at that point. It was third and two, then fourth and one.
And we blew both calls. Badly.
by kindablue on Jun 15, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Not Winning Football
12 fewer red zone possessions could be attributed to a combination of factors. Poor special teams play leading to poor field position. Injuries: Romo, Kosier and a poor game plan. And with that offensive line and Barber in the backfield there’s no good reason they shouldn’t be more effective running the ball in the red zone and in between the tackles in general. It also seems to suggest they need to make finding an effective lead blocker more of a priority even if you have to sacrifice a little in ability of the FB to catch the ball coming out of the backfield. Heck you have 2 talented TE’s that could pick up the slack for a FB who lacks receiving skills.
by Este on Jun 15, 2009 9:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Simpler and More Accurate Analysis
Is that good offenses gain yards for scrimmage, and avoid turnovers. My regression work showed that ten yards from scrimmage is roughly equal to one point, and losing a turnover costs a team six points. Using this formula, it predicted last year’s offense would score 359 points. In reality, they scored 362. Applying it to the 2007 offense, it predicted 435 points, when the actual number was 455. Note this formula does not take into account several of the factors many analysis discuss to death, such as penalties, situational performance or special teams. The heart of why offenses score is explained very easily, and I defy anyone to come up with a more accurate model, much less one that is so simple.
Supposedly the offense was held back by an ability to power run block in the red zone. Perhaps. Then why was our offensive efficiency in 2008 virtually identical to what it was in 2007? The points per red zone possession were 4.71 in 2007, 4.68 in 2008. That’s hardly a reason for Raf to to start pointing the finger at Hudson Houck, who appears to be his favorite scapegoat.
I’m less than convinced with this article.
by kindablue on Jun 15, 2009 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the difference between 2007 and 2008 offense
are injuries to key players, therefore making it less explosive. Losing the Cat and having Romo, MB3 and our OL banged up much of the season killed our offense IMO, that and the fact the defenses caught up with what we were doing offensively in 2007 and Garrett really didn’t adjust very well.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 15, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
plus I think Owens had lost a quarter of a step, which limited his effectiveness
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 15, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think T.O. lost a step
I think defenses realized he can’t beat press coverage or run precise routes and they took advantage of that.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 15, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
11 of which he was playing in west coast offenses
where he was constantly in motion and didn’t face press coverage that much.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 15, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is your prediction made prior to the season or just after the season when yards are tallied..
If its after the season then its useless. Move the ball more and avoid turnovers and you will score more. Nothing new there and kind of a broad stroke. It also has no value discussing red zone offense. Red zone offense is looked at as its own idenity. It has its own plays, packages, and personel. It has its own session every practice donated to it thats usually as long as the rest of the offense. Commentators harp on it, seperate stats are kept on it, and teams scout it. It is also a better predicter on how teams will fare in the playoffs.
I like the article also from the stand point that we all have opinions on why we sucked in the red zone(Garrett, Romo, Wade, execution,plays called, and line play). It seems to offer stastical data to back up opinions rather than what someone thinks they saw. It also gives us a heads up in TC and exhibition games on what to watch out for.
Im not taking a shot at you as I find that formula interesting. Im going to give it a whirl.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 15, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Far From Useless
It explains why offenses score points, and defenses prevent points. When you understand that, you understand why teams win. You say that it shows nothing new, but think about it for a minute. People spends hours talking about importance of cutting down on penalties, executing on third down or in the red zone, clutch kickers or game-changing return men. Well, guess what. If those things were as important as most everyone seems to think, given the fact you have lots of variation between teams that do all those things, you would think my formula would fall flat on its face. But it doesn’t. It captures very well (with some error, as with any model) the essence of the game. Like I said, I defy anyone else to come up with something more accurate.
Not to slam you, but you missed my point. It was not that it, in and of itself, offers is a predictor of future performance, although it could lend itself to that in future research. It allows people to understand why a team performed well or poorly, and what needs to be improved. When people finally understand the implications of the formula, it opens the door to all sorts of analysis. Ironically, if you were to apply your criticism of me to Raf’s article, he would come off looking worse: He didn’t offer a prediction, either, but more importantly his statistical analysis is not grounded in any context. Mine is grounded in statistical regression, which ties the mathematical relationship between the statistics and outcomes (points and by extension, wins).
If you believe the better read zone teams will do well in the playoffs, you’d better cite some research to back up. Otherwise, you’re just speculating.
by kindablue on Jun 15, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What will be the score of our 1st game this year.
What are the areas that need work this TC. I really dont see any value to something that doesnt give you info til after the game is played and then I dont really need to know the post game predicted score when I can glance up and see the actual score.
New orleans had the best offense last year and missed the playoffs. Well the D sucked. That would be true but if you watched the Saints play you know they lost at least 3 games because of their inability to pick up 3rd and 1. They could move the ball up and down the field but couldnt pick up 1 yard when needed.
I have always heard that the stock market goes up and downs with uncanny accuracy with the up and down movements of womens hemline. When the hemline gets higher stocks go up. When they get lower stocks go down. Im sure stock brokers know this but Im pretty sure they dig much deeper before investing or selling. Thats the second problem with your formula, its too broad to offer enough information to act on.
Raf never made predictions. He simply was showing the breakdowns in key parts of our game. He was showing why we ran some of the plays we ran. He was showing areas we need improvement in. Most of the things many of us kind of knew but confirmed it. There were parts that also had a broad stroke but he promised to build upon these more.
Mostly, Im just gratefull that someones takes the time to dig deeper into the whys of football. The varibles of football make this a tough field to break down but the more its done the better it will become. Too many times people are wrong about what the think they see.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 16, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of Bad Assumptions
On your part.
First, you assume my formula is a future predictive model. It’s not, and if you’d understood my previous reply, that would be clear. Second, I know full well Raf never made predictions, and never claimed he did. So why are you assuming that my research be a prediction, and that’s Raf’s should not be a prediction? They are both analyzing statistics. The only difference is, my research is grounded in an empirically-derived regression, whereas his is based on conjecture.
Third, you are making the assumption that the “key parts of the game”, as you call them, discriminate between successful and unsuccessful teams. Okay, let’s assume that’s true. Let’s assume those teams that perform great in critical situations like third and short or in the red zone have some inherent advantage over those that don’t. It’s the most common myth held by sports observers, and is accepted to be true without proof. Well guess what. Here’s a chance for you to prove it.
You mentioned the Saints, and claimed they didn’t make the playoffs because of at least three instances where they couldn’t convert third and one. Let’s overlook, for the sake of argument, the blindingly obvious reason why the Saints really didn’t make the playoffs last year, which was because of a defense that yielded more points than all but six other teams last season. Let’s ignore that elephant in the room to examine your claim. If the problem was the Saints couldn’t convert third and short, then they most be at a disadvantage to the other teams that could, right? And if that advantage were important, important enough to cause the Saints to lose out on points that could have carried them in to the playoffs, then my formula most be missing something. Using that logic, the Saints should have scored fewer points than predicted by my formula, because my formula is not accounting for this “key parts of the game” feature you believe is so important, and is overstating how good the Saints offense is. So my formula—using your logic—should predict the Saints scored more points than they actually did. They actually scored 465. My formula actually predicted they would have scored 421. Why is that? If your belief that the Saints offense let them down by moving “up and down the field” gaining cheap yards, then why doesn’t my model reflect that? You had a great chance to critique my formula, and you completely blew it.
It’s a common myth that sports rests on clutch performance in critical situations. Yet there is no research anywhere to support the notion. If my formula were so deficient, then you should be able to point out how important red zone performance is in the scheme of things. But in the scheme of things, within the expected range of NFL outcomes, it hardly matters at all.
The relevance of this research is that it explains very well why teams win and lose, and opens the door to all sorts of analysis that I am just getting around to performing. See, for example, my points per pass metric posts over the last two years. For those people who understand basic research, as opposed to poorly thought out and inconclusive speculation, it’s a powerful tool. For those who slavishly worship mythology, no doubt it’s incomprehensible.
by kindablue on Jun 16, 2009 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All your formula does is let you at up yards at the end of the game.
Based on your formula(and it works) you can show at the end of the games points scored. I dont need to know the score at the end of the game. I already have it. Whats the use in that.
You used the word prediction as in " using my formula it predicted the offense would score 359 points……" Didnt need the formula, its on every stat sheet.
Your formula is applied retro. I dont need anybody or any formula to tell me that if you have an offense that generates a lot of yards you will score more or if your D gives up lots of yards the other team will score more.
Im not interested in a mathmatical formula to prove or disprove key performances at key times. Ive seen genetic freaks move the ball up and down the field and score but deliver late in games. 80% of the current debates on this blog are about whether Romo has what it takes to win in Dec and Jan despite his great offensive numbers. Im not sure Einstein could come up with a formula for that.
I understand logic and stats. I like them and find them a valuable tool but I also know the saying lies, lies, and stats. I know that football has almost endless varibles and that heart, momentum, and injuries cant be predicted. Stats are valuable but they are often misused to prove an obscure point. I guess what I was looking for in this instance was info on what are the key areas I need to improve upon to score more points and allow fewer. What are the strengths of my team and weakness. What areas do I break down in against great teams.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 17, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reread My First Reply
Actually, since you missed it the first time, I’ll post it again for you. Of course the purpose of my formula is not to replace the actual points scored in a game of season; even the most dim-witted idiot can see that for himself. The purpose, if you had read above, is
to understand why a team performed well or poorly, and what needs to be improved.
Then you ask:
I guess what I was looking for in this instance was info on what are the key areas I need to improve upon to score more points and allow fewer.
The problem is, you are so concerned with the micro-level detail of why individual plays succeed, or not, that you’ve lost sight of the big picture of why teams win. To answer your rhetorical question, if the Cowboys wanted to score more points last season, a simple yardstick would be to compare their yardage and turnovers against the league average. They did well gaining yardage, a little above league average, but turned the ball over much more than the league average. Ergo, the problem was lying with turnovers: That’s a critical part of the game. Therefore, the coaching of players who handle the ball (Romo and Barber were big culprits) and the playcalling by Garrett needs to emphasize not putting the ball at risk so much. Are there lots of coaching details to be filled in? Sure. But until someone understands what is affecting the outcome, it’s pointless to start thinking of those details.
And because this is the big picture, everything else below it is basically just discussing the minor details. You tried to brush off the point made in my previous post, but I’m not going to let go of it: If those details are so important, why can’t you demonstrate empirically that they affect the big picture? If red zone performance was such a big deal, I would have to weight that into my formula to make it accurate. But I don’t need that. It works just fine. You can have the nit picking details; I’m interested in understanding strategy.
One final comment, and I’m done, because this discussion is tedious and uninteresting for me. You wondered about Romo’s performance. Two years ago I started to use my formula to predict his career performance, and was surprised at the trajectory, and equally surprised to see those predictions come true two straight years. After I finish work on my quarterbacks database, I’ll be able to normalize those results and have a more complete understanding. But I believe, after comparing his performance at this point in his career to other similar quarterbacks, I’ve got a good handle how he’ll perform for at least the next two or three years.
by kindablue on Jun 17, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I'm somewhat interested in the fact that you took the time to do this...
Why? Just for hobby or what?
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 19, 2009 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that their straight ahead running was miserable
but didn’t Tashard Choice have a much better average on those types of plays than Barber did? It’s anecdotal, I know, but I recall Barber getting nailed behind the line of scrimmage or for no gain many, many times on those types of plays, while Choice invariably seemed to eke out 1, 2, or 3 yards.
I have no statistical evidence available right now, but if memory serves the Cowboys offense had many “explosive” plays in 2008, assuming “explosive” means plays of 20 or 25 yards and more. They would have had even more Felix Jones not missed the last, what, 10 games. I’d like to know how “explosive” plays in 2008 compared to 2007. Raf I assume you are working on this?
And let’s not forget to take into account the three games with Brad Johnson at QB, especially his last two, which were two of the most dismal offensive showings in team history (even though they won one game).
In the end, I think it does come down to injries – Barber was banged up, his two best games were the only ones in which Kyle Kosier was in the lineup (I believe), Johnson at QB meant opposing defenses could focus on the run, and the loss of Felix Jones hurt a ton as well. All obvious points.
by DavidH22 on Jun 15, 2009 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don't see the OL improving
Even in 2007 it seemed that Romo got by with less sacks because of his scrambling ability.
by ym on Jun 15, 2009 11:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
In 07, ROmo woud scramble and then sling the ball; In 08, it looked to me like he was standing in the pocket waiting for the play to develop
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jun 15, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesnt have to improve, it needs to stay healthy. The running game was hurt the most and that added extra pressure on the passing game.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conclusions
I don’t know exactly what to conclude from all this analysis and debate, but here are the factors in my mind that created the drop-off in offensive performance from 2007 to 2008.
1) Injuries- This is the most obvious answer and in my mind the most influential as well . It is undeniable that this offense would have put up better numbers and looked quite different if the injuries to Romo, Felix, MBIII, Roy, Flozell and Kosier had not been sustained. This factor led to a depletion of explosive plays and limited the running game severely. It of course also made the Cowboys rely on guys like Brad Johnson and Cory Proctor to be a part of the offensive gameplan.
2) Play-calling- Once again, I think this factor was self-evident from watching the games. Too many times the Cowboys tried to get cute with plays like the end-arounds to T.O. instead of executing fundamental power football. Now I know that there has been the point raised that the Cowboys did not run those power plays because they were not effective, but if the average of a power play is 2 ypa and its 2nd and 1, why run an end-around? Instead, simply make the first down and move the ball methodically. To me, it was plays like this that showed Dallas trying to be almost too explosive/unique instead of taking first downs and moving the ball methodically. It is in this sense that the play-calling was bad last year. Sometimes you have to simply focus on holding the ball, and I felt like as 2008 went on, this was something that the Dallas offense did a poor job of compared to what the 2007 offense did (a large part of that due to the obscenely high 3rd down conversion percentage in 2007).
3)Turnovers- Now obviously the first thing that comes to mind when you say “turnovers” and “offense” is fumbles and INT’s from Dallas’s offense. And obviously, a better performance by our offense in this category would have helped a lot. However, I feel that our defense’s lack of forced turnovers hurt a ton too. No longer was our offense getting short fields like they were in 2007. Instead they were being forced to sustain long drives and punch the ball in that way. This understandably hurt our offense by my estimation.
4) Schedule- The last factor I would like to talk about is how our schedule hurt our offensive production. Now I know that many consider this factor a cop-out excuse, but for my money though, the fact that we played four of the best defenses in the last fours weeks hurt us a lot. And specifically, the big factor was that we played them in the last four weeks where teams can get almost a full grasp of your offense hurt us. I truly believe that the differences between the first Philly game and the second show this difference. I would go as far as to say that if Dallas had played Pittsburgh in the first few weeks of the season (excluding weather or injuries as a factor) that Dallas would have had a much better offensive production (not necessarily saying it would have changed the outcome). Unfortunately for us, not only did Dallas have to play four of the top 5 defenses down the stretch, but they had to play them once those teams had at least 12 games of tape to go off.
Overall, the offense in 2008 underachieved compared to the expectations set from 2007. From my prospective though, I really believe that if the four factors above can positively change (and I believe the schedule factor already has) that this Dallas offense can be a good deal better than the 2008 version.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 15, 2009 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good post and I agree with your reasons listed and could add a few more.
Last year in review was the “Perfect Storm” that prohibited us from going to the playoffs.
Injuries, play calling, turnovers and schedule all were contributing factors in our demise last year. No doubt about that.
I would also include poor coaching and poor execution. Overall I don’t think that the coaches did a very good job coaching and getting the best out of the players, except Campo. I think he did a good job with the rookies last year. Accountability in several areas of the team was severely lacking.
Execution by the players is a must and needs to improve this year. I will say this, Houck must get more from his group this year than the last few years. Proctor or no Proctor, this group has underperformed and is vital to our success. We must get positive yards when running the ball on 1st and 2nd downs to put us in 3rd and shorts. This will help the redzone and reduce the turnovers. I keep analyzing our team and the moves we’ve made this off season like many of us do and my worries always keep coming back to the OL. One thing that keeps coming back to me is the comment by Dan Reeves when he said that someone on the OL was tipping his hand between pass and run plays. Houck must pay attention to all details as it pertains to his line. Houck needs to get more out of less and I’m of the opinion that he hasn’t. His ability to acheive more will help our team in all areas.
Given everything that went wrong last year, it’s no wonder why we missed the playoffs. In spite of all that went wrong, we were only one game away from the playoffs. Better coaching and execusion and a little luck should put us back into the playoffs. Last year was about as bad as it gets with a team this talented.
by T Zig on Jun 15, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally Agree
I agree very strongly with the “Perfect Storm” comment. There was no better example than seeing the Philadelphia Eagles get so much energy from Oakland upsetting Tampa Bay (and understandably so) in that dreaded last week. Once Oakland won and the Bears lost (therefore giving the unlikely Eagles a shot at the playoffs), I had a terrible feeling about what was about to happen. It is truly amazing to think of how bad we consider last season when juxtaposed next to how close we were to the playoffs.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 15, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post Raf
I did not realize that the Cowboys were so poor at the power running game. It would seem that their size would give them an advantage in power running. I thought that we needed to upgrade the OL in the draft because they seemed to be confused by the better defenses. I did not realize they were loosing the physical part of the battle at the OL. How much of a factor was Cory Proctor?
by cowboy1966 on Jun 15, 2009 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Post Raf, Looking forward to the others. Elephant in the room, though:
“If Dallas wants to improve its red zone performance this year, it will be on Hudson Houck and his linemen to raise their power running productivity.”
Fans talk about our OLine as if they have this potential to be a steamrolling unit that’s going to lead this offense. Well, we’ve had Sparano, and we’ve had Houck, and we’ve had these guys together for a few years, and there really hasn’t been much improvement. It just may be that we have a very mediocre OLine, with some “names” that maybe aren’t as good as their reputations.
We lost Kosier? Every team loses an OLineman during the year. If the your OLine falls apart because you lose an average player like KKosier-and I like the guy, but he’s no annual Pro Bowler—maybe the OLine just plain isn’t that good.
I’m not saying our OLine sucks, just that it’s average, and is not going to be the savior of this team. I’ve said this for the last 2 years and get jumped on, but the stats prove it. Even in 2007, how many runs did Barber create by avoiding 2 guys behind the line of scrimmage? How many sacks did Romo escape out of?
Until the Boys learn how to draft OLine talent, this is what we’ll get.
by Realist Larry on Jun 15, 2009 12:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Larry, I tend to agree with you......
one guy going down on the line shouldn’t make the whole line fall apart. Either we have been mis-lead that our OLine is so great or Houck did a poor job last year with them. Maybe a little bit of both.
by texstar on Jun 15, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kosier
What hurt more than Kosier’s loss was Proctor’s insertion. With Holland now ready and indoctrinated in the system, I think that losing Kosier would not have the same impact if it were to happen this year as it did last year (although I do give a lot of props to Kosier’s ability to help on line calls).
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Jun 15, 2009 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I often wonder if our reputation is better than our play. Im also starting to think that Kosier was the brains behind the unit.
If we want better lineman then we should probably not wait until the 2nd day to draft them. Projects are fine but more ready made guys would be an improvement. Im hoping we get an LT in nexts year 1st round but also dedicate more picks to the Oline. Id like to see Free and McQ get extensivge playinvg time with a serious consideration for starting. If they are close then go with youth.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the goverment from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
by squidlo97 on Jun 15, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mediocre???
4 of the 5 lineman have made the Pro Bowl, many multiple times. Colombo, Davis, and Gurode are in the prime of their careers.
And yes, one guy going down can (and often does) diminish the performance of an OLine. Look at St. Louis when they lost Pace during their “Greatest Show on Turf” years. Plus, Flo was playing hurt. It was a combination of injuries, though Proctor sure made Kosier’s absence much more pronounced.
I will agree on your premise that we need to draft OLine talent better. But “statistically”, this is a great offensive line. I’ve got the stats to prove it.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 15, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Proctor Still Around?!?!?
I hope that Holland’s recent work at the center position and/or Kosier’s versatility make Proctor an easy, early training camp cut. He’s just awful! If Kosier starts, I hope Holland can be the backup G/C on game days and if Holland beats out Kosier, I hope Kosier can snap the ball and take that role.
Although Tank and Roy went to Cincinatti, Pacman went to Pros v. Joes and Ellis went to Oakland, I don’t see Proctor getting any of those opportunities; he’ll be working the door at a bar or playing a lineman in a movie…looks the part, but shouldn’t be trusted to line up across the LOS from a real football player.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 15, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
have you seen Detroit's line?
Proctor could start for them.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
-Winston Churchill
by HudBaby on Jun 15, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the coaches job to have backups ready to play
Other teams do it consistently.
Pro Bowl=media popularity contest. And they do have some talent, esp. Flo when he’s not hurt, and Gurode had one good year. Davis is inconsistent, Columbo a great blue-collar guy, but nothing special.
And Kosier=Orlando Pace? lol no response to that!
by Realist Larry on Jun 15, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
media doesn't vote for pro bowlers
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but they do influence fans.....
into thinking players are sometimes better than they are. Sometimes, just by mentioning a guy’s name alot, fans get duped into thinking they are better. Case in point-our own recently depart Roy Williams-name recognition.
by texstar on Jun 16, 2009 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the casual fan, I agree
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 16, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
unfortunately, i agree with you. I’m not sure the problem is drafting though. I think the problem is developing the talent and being patient.
However, even though we are not a very good run blocking line at all (I’ve said this many times before), when health this unit is a real good pass blocking line. 2007, we were top 3 in the league in this regard imo. Our line is stil good enough to keep 2/3 of the teams in the league off Romos back.
by foyesboys on Jun 15, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further food for thought
Very nice article. Hopefully the DMN blog boys will post it and give you your credit.
I just wanted to interject a few points into your theme.
One of the reasons that the Cowboys had fewer chances inside the red zone this season was due to poor starting field position. (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80397c13&template=without-video&confirm=true). Dallas had worse starting field position on average in 10 of their 16 games. In those 10 games, Dallas went 4-6, scoring an average of 16.6 points per game (while yielding an average of 21.6 points per game).
Conversely, the Cowboys won 5 and lost but one of their games when starting with better field position. Dallas averaged 29.8 offensive points in those games.
KC Joyner addresses this by simplifying the outcome in yards needed to score. The Cowboys had on average 3 more yards to go for a score than their opponent in 2008 (starting at their 30 yard line as opposed to the other team starting at their 33 yard line) every time Dallas touched the ball. Dallas had 190 offensive drives in 2008, meaning that the Cowboys had to drive about 570 more yards to score than their opponents.
That comes out to about 36 yards per game more than what Dallas’ opponents needed to gain. Add several other factors that I will bring up in future posts, and a great deal of the Cowboys’ struggles in 2008 come to light.
by ScarletO on Jun 15, 2009 1:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yep poor field position can be pinned on ST play, but there is another angle that seems forgoten
in 07 our running backs were JJ and MBIII. Barber was very effective, but not as a starter, in 08 we went the wrong way, IMO, about it. I hope in 09 we have Choice as a starter and Barber as a closer, that would do wanders to our running game, and I’m not even including healthy Felix here
by dcfanz on Jun 15, 2009 2:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
...justifying our release
t.o. in NFL Siberia and Ellis in the land of fruits and nuts. Not to mention Thong and Tank in the NFL’s TNT (Character welcome…cincy) and Pacman on Pros vs Joes.
If they were really talented, a real team would have come calling.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 15, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Oakland was just willing to pay a lot
I’m very curious what he signed for. Also, Oakland is historically a place for older players to go to
by AustonianAggie on Jun 15, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd play for Oakland
there’s no place like the Bay.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 15, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the bay area
but I’d live in San Fran with that money
by AustonianAggie on Jun 15, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I screw up?
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 15, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to add...
Other than THIS is the reason why anyone who likes the Cowboys on a level more than “WOOOOO, YEAH! WOO!” needs to read this site.
by Last of the Romohicans on Jun 15, 2009 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's like cell phones or google
Looking back to the days when I got all of my cowboys news from dallascowboys.com, I’m left to wonder how I managed without Rafael’s insight. Since the merger, we’ve just been plain spoiled-BTB is like the iPhone or a Blackberry (not my shitty samsung)
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 15, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I specifically mentioned Rafael because I’ve been reading his posts the longest, but all of the posts here are so insightful and thought provoking. Not to mention some of the great responses others add. I even like reading Tex’s rambling pessimism from time to time.
I don’t post often (because I’m usually to lazy to sign in once I get signed out), but I do read this site regularly. I think it’s fair to say I speak for everyone in saying thank you for the great work you guys do.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jun 15, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only took me about 5 years to find BTB
but it was worth the wait
"We play to win the game" - Herm Edwards
by nicholas.rodriguez on Jun 15, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a comment and not a criticism
..on all the statistics discussions. I know when I take a look at some of the teams numbers, I’m trying to find a trend or a pattern. Football is not played in a vacuum, or a lab where variables can be contolled. There are infinite variations of possible outcomes on every play because of the 22 players, the weather, the field position, the placement of each player on each play, ad infinitum.
So, we know we don’t have a perfect statistical model when we look at the teams. But, you can still look for and see clear trends. There’s value in that.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Jun 15, 2009 8:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My question is whether there has ever been a predictive statistic?
I mean, I can tell you that more points scored than given up is big.
Turnover margin is telling.
Penalties are bad…but not fatal.
But I’ve yet to see a single instance where one year’s performance translates into any kind of predictor of next year.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Jun 15, 2009 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Football Outsiders’ DVOA projections are predictive.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Jun 17, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, no predictive stat
the numbers above just describe or excuse why the team was a middling 9-7 last year.
What we do have are past statistical performances which, all things being equal (esp. injuries), should ensure that the offense is fairly potent in 2009.
In other words, Romo should pass for 3800 yards and 28 Tds and 16 ints and get sacked like 25 times, the running game should go for about 1800 yards and 16 TDs and about 4.0 yards per carry, and they should therefore win 10-12 games.
Very unscientific, but with no major injries that’s my opinion.
by DavidH22 on Jun 15, 2009 9:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
