2016 NFL Week #6: Dallas Cowboys (4-1) @ Green Bay Packers (3-1)

[yimyammer]

Are we going 14-2 with Dak having two or three picks all year?

no

 

[ZeroClub]

Speaking of the final record... I know we've won four in a row and are hot right now but some people are talking like we aren't losing the rest of the year. I mean, if we're going to punk GB in Lambeau, who are we going to lose to? Maybe Pitt? Are we going 14-2 with Dak having two or three picks all year?

At least for a fleeting moment, this Cowboys team has caught lightening in a bottle. No one knows if they can sustain it, or not.

So much is up in the air. We don't know who the starting QB will be 2 and 3 weeks from this Sunday. If Dez returns to the lineup a game or two before Romo is deemed healthy, Dak will have an opportunity to show the extent to which Dak can exploit Dez's talents. That should go a long way in determining if/when Romo returns as the starter.

After enduring all of those 8-8 seasons in which mediocrity was the norm and essentially certain, and after the disaster that was the 2015 season, 2016 is so different. 2016 is unpredictable. This team could fall apart and miss the playoffs (particularly with more key injuries). This team could become truly dominant. Or they could limp into the playoffs as a third tier playoff team and exit the postseason early on.

It has been a long time since I've seen a Cowboys team with a future that was as wide open.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

no

Hater

 

[MrB]

There is no need for that. See the bolded above.

There's absolutely a need for that. When you say how they have such a dominant run defense, I'd just like you to say who they've faced. I'd even go so far as to say that the Dallas run defense would also look pretty dominant against the guys the Packers have faced.

 

[MrB]

Speaking of the final record... I know we've won four in a row and are hot right now but some people are talking like we aren't losing the rest of the year. I mean, if we're going to punk GB in Lambeau, who are we going to lose to? Maybe Pitt? Are we going 14-2 with Dak having two or three picks all year?

I could see the Cowboys losing Romo's 1st game back (Cleveland) and then losing the very next week to Pittsburgh. Then losing to the Vikings (also with Romo). That's 12-4. I honestly don't think Dak loses any game he starts this year (except the Giants of course), which will only be 2 more games.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The Vikes will eat Romo alive. Must remember, our pass-blocking isn't that great. I think they're somewhere in the 20s. Or were a week or 2 ago.

Couple that with going back to the basic route tree for the receivers and it won't be pretty.

 

[Scot]

The Vikes will eat Romo alive. Must remember, our pass-blocking isn't that great. I think they're somewhere in the 20s. Or were a week or 2 ago.

Couple that with going back to the basic route tree for the receivers and it won't be pretty.

I'm fine with Romo playing against the Vikings. With their pass rush Romo will get hurt or break something else finally proving to everyone that his body can't take a regular hit in the NFL anymore. Thus ushering in once and for good the Dak era

 

[yimyammer]

I could see the Cowboys losing Romo's 1st game back (Cleveland)

If Romo lost that game, all hell would break lose, I dont see how he could recover from a loss like that

 

[Doomsday]

There's absolutely a need for that. When you say how they have such a dominant run defense, I'd just like you to say who they've faced. I'd even go so far as to say that the Dallas run defense would also look pretty dominant against the guys the Packers have faced.

There's no need for that, since the quoted portion of TE's post covers your theory:

"FWIW, Football Outsiders has GB as the #2 run defense in the league, even adjusted for opponent."

 

[MrB]

If Romo lost that game, all hell would break lose, I dont see how he could recover from a loss like that

I think it's very possible. First, I think the Cowboys might be a little full of themselves and make the mistake of overlooking them. Every year that they have been good they seem to lay and egg against a bad team. I also think Romo is going to be very rusty. He's barely played in almost 2 years and the couple of times he did play he didn't look that great.

 

[Bushmaster78FS]

If Romo lost that game, all hell would break lose, I dont see how he could recover from a loss like that

He wouldn't. Just like he didn't lose to Miami last year. But PIT game would be the repeat of CAR game from last year, several picks and injury.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I think it's very possible. First, I think the Cowboys might be a little full of themselves and make the mistake of overlooking them. Every year that they have been good they seem to lay and egg against a bad team. I also think Romo is going to be very rusty. He's barely played in almost 2 years and the couple of times he did play he didn't look that great.

The Browns are so horrible, though. I'm not even sure they want to win that much -- I think the new regime has a multi-year plan in place and they want high draft picks. I don't know if even Sánchez would lose to them.

 

[ZeroClub]

There's no need for that, since the quoted portion of TE's post covers your theory:

"FWIW, Football Outsiders has GB as the #2 run defense in the league, even adjusted for opponent."

I don't recall which day it was, but this past week on the Cowboys Break show (on dallascowboys.com) Derek Eagleton mentioned that a local sports person (Newy Scruggs?) had looked at the rushing statistics for Green Bay's opponents so far this year .... and found that those teams were mediocre to poor rushing teams, even when their rushing statistics excluded the games vs. Green Bay.

I don't know who is right -- Football Outsiders or the person referenced by Eagleton. It wouldn't be too difficult to figure out, though.

 

[ZeroClub]

I just did the calculations.

Below are the season to date team rushing statistics for each of the Packers' opponents (these stats include the games vs the Packers):

Jacksonville - 75.2 rushing yards per game; ranks 30th in the NFL
Minnesota - 70.6 rushing yards per game; ranks 32nd in the NFL
Detroit - 89.9 rushing yards per game; ranks 23rd in the NFL
NY Giants - 83.6 rushing yards per game; ranks 27th in the NFL

In each of their games, the Packers held their opposition below the opposition's per game average.

If you were to calculate the rushing yards per game for the Packer's opposition without including the opposition's games against the Packers, here's what you'd get:

Jacksonville - 80.2 rushing yards per game; would rank 30th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Jaguars to 48 rushing yards)

Minnesota - 80.8 rushing yards per game; would rank 30th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Vikings to 30 rushing yards)

Detroit - 99.9 rushing yards per game; would rank 16th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Lions to 50 rushing yards)

NY Giants - 93.8 rushing yards per game; would rank 18th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Giants to 43 rushing yards)

Basically, the Packers have faced a couple of average range rushing attacks (Lions and Giants) and a couple of quite poor rushing attacks (Jaguars and Vikings). The Packers have held these teams well below their rushing average. The Packers have shown that their rushing defense is highly effective against average to well below average rushing offenses.

 

[Bushmaster78FS]

I just did the calculations.

Below are the season to date team rushing statistics for each of the Packers' opponents (these stats include the games vs the Packers):

Jacksonville - 75.2 rushing yards per game; ranks 30th in the NFL
Minnesota - 70.6 rushing yards per game; ranks 32nd in the NFL
Detroit - 89.9 rushing yards per game; ranks 23rd in the NFL
NY Giants - 83.6 rushing yards per game; ranks 27th in the NFL

In each of their games, the Packers held their opposition below the opposition's per game average.

If you were to calculate the rushing yards per game for the Packer's opposition without including the opposition's games against the Packers, here's what you'd get:

Jacksonville - 80.2 rushing yards per game; would rank 30th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Jaguars to 48 rushing yards)

Minnesota - 80.8 rushing yards per game; would rank 30th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Vikings to 30 rushing yards)

Detroit - 99.9 rushing yards per game; would rank 16th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Lions to 50 rushing yards)

NY Giants - 93.8 rushing yards per game; would rank 18th in the NFL
(The Packers held the Giants to 43 rushing yards)

Basically, the Packers have faced a couple of average range rushing attacks (Lions and Giants) and a couple of quite poor rushing attacks (Jaguars and Vikings). The Packers have held these teams well below their rushing average. The Packers have shown that their rushing defense is highly effective against average to well below average rushing offenses.

Basically they are up for a rude awakening.

 

[Doomsday]

If you were to calculate the rushing yards per game for the Packer's opposition without including the opposition's games against the Packers, here's what you'd get:

Wow it's surprising one game makes that much difference in the per-game averages. Of course the sample is small, only 5 games so that's why. Great job researching and calculating all of this, really cool and i really appreciate it.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Thanks for the research, ZC.

So the Packers hold teams to close to something like 46 yards below their average. Doesn't that say they do have a really good run defense?

Nobody said we couldn't run the ball at all on them, I don't think. Or that we'd only get 45 yards like those other teams have. I think we can run it on anyone. It just won't be as much or as easy as it has been.

 

[ZeroClub]

It'd be interesting to do a similar set of calculations on the Dallas running game. We know that the Cowboys' running game has been highly productive, but how good have the opposition rush defenses been? ... given that it took Zeke a few games to get on track, I guess the meaning/value of those numbers would be debatable.

 

[MrB]

What are Cincy's numbers against the run before and after Dallas?

 

[ZeroClub]

Thanks for the research, ZC.

So the Packers hold teams to close to something like 46 yards below their average. Doesn't that say they do have a really good run defense?

Nobody said we couldn't run the ball at all on them, I don't think. Or that we'd only get 45 yards like those other teams have. I think we can run it on anyone. It just won't be as much or as easy as it has been.

It seems clear that the Packers rush defense has done a fine job against average and below average rushing teams.
Will they be highly effective against a highly effective rushing team?
Maybe, maybe not.
Zeke is a threat to take it the distance each time he gets the ball.