Intresting factoid about TOP and how it relates to takeaways

[Bob Sacamano]

'In 2014, the Cowboys defense was on the field for 978 snaps. In 2015, it was 997 snaps. Roughly, that is just one more snap per game -- 61.1 per game in 2014 to 62.3 in 2015. Negligible. There is almost no relation whatsoever to this ridiculous theory that the 2014 team never let the other team on the field. As you can see, they did at nearly an identical rate with Tony Romo and DeMarco Murray as did last year's team.

You certainly didn't need an eye-catching graphic to show you that the team was never ahead last season, but if we believe that most interceptions and sacks happen when a team is ahead and the other team has to force the issue with determined passes and the defense not worrying about your running game, then we can quickly see that the Cowboys defense was never in this position [to create a lot of takeaways].'

Cowboys News: Cowboys Want Ezekiel Elliott To 'Earn' Starting RB Gig? Ha Ha Ha! - Blogging The Boys

 

[Bob Sacamano]

From same article. Interesting to say the least

History Says The Cowboys Will Have Significantly More Takeaways In 2016 – Allan Uy, Footbology
In contrast to Sturm, who argues that playing with more leads will lead to more turnovers, Uy takes a different approach, and argues that historical trends suggest the Cowboys will have more takeaways in 2016.

Uy looks at teams whose turnover differential dropped by more than 10 from one season to the next (The Cowboys dropped by 20 from 31 in 2014 to 11 in 2015) and what happens in the following year. His conclusion:


Since 2002, there have been 48 instances where a team’s takeaway differential was -10 or worse. Of those 48 instances, teams achieved a positive takeaway differential in year three 36 times (75%). Of those 36, there was a double digit improvement in year three 15 times (42%). And eight teams (22%) actually improved so much in year three, they surpassed their year one takeaway totals.

 

[Hoofbite]

History Says The Cowboys Will Have Significantly More Takeaways In 2016 – Allan Uy, Footbology
In contrast to Sturm, who argues that playing with more leads will lead to more turnovers, Uy takes a different approach, and argues that historical trends suggest the Cowboys will have more takeaways in 2016.

They had 11. Hard to fucking do much worse.

 

[Midswat]

Yeah no shit we'll get more, even if by accident. 11 is putrid

 

[Doomsday]

There is almost no relation whatsoever to this ridiculous theory that the 2014 team never let the other team on the field. As you can see, they did at nearly an identical rate with Tony Romo and DeMarco Murray as did last year's team.

First of all I haven't seen or heard anyone espouse this "theory" I am pretty sure is just a straw man the writer erected, but the actual comparison if you break it down by quarter is what's relevant. In 2015 we were giving opponents way too many late shots at us vs. being able to put 'em away in 2014. In 2015 for the most part, the opponents were able to get whatever they needed whenever they needed it. Key word there is need, see below.

if we believe that most interceptions and sacks happen when a team is ahead and the other team has to force the issue with determined passes and the defense not worrying about your running game, then we can quickly see that the Cowboys defense was never in this position [to create a lot of takeaways].'

Head coaches and offensive coordinators will always default to conservatism in play calling if they can. And they can when your feckless offense can't score. This isn't some great revelation, this is NFL football.

 

[TheZoneSucks]

Yeah no shit we'll get more, even if by accident. 11 is putrid

No team in the Super Bowl era has done worse than last year's Cowboys defense. None. Not the 0-16 Lions, not the 0-14 expansion Buccaneers, and not even any 1982 strike season teams. Even the 0-8-1 Colts of 1982 only needed 9 games to do better than 11 turnovers. It was yet another franchise and/or NFL worst notch on the belt for the Garrett regime.

Here's the thing though. We cannot count on getting more even by accident as our corners cannot even make accidental interceptions, thus another all time franchise worst of both Carr and Mo coming up with a grand total of zero picks. That never happened in Cowboys history before. I'm not even sure it has ever happened to any other NFL team in the Super Bowl era.

Here is yet another all time mark of shame concerning Garrett and the secondary... the aggregate QB throwing against Claiborne over his entire tenure with Dallas is the highest rated QB ever, a full 4 points higher than Aaron Rodgers all time mark of 104.1. Get that? Every QB that has ever thrown at Claiborne has a combined rating that is the greatest of all time. That includes all the scrubs, backups, shits, you name it.

The above reasons are why I have been so adamant that the Cowboys throw this scrub out even if it means putting a rookie undrafted free agent in his place for league minimum. It is highly unlikely said UDFA would do worse. Every play that Claiborne is on the field is advantage opponent.

 

[cmd34]

The whole fanboy argument that we will dominate Time of Possession, which will lead to playing with leads, thus forcing teams to pass more, taking more chances, will automatically lead to more turnovers is just basic math. It's the same reason why Tony Romo has so many game-ending Interceptions. He has to throw late in games because we are behind and teams know the pass is coming.

The reality is that you have to have players out there that can actually create turnovers or capitalize on the additional opportunities. We took last year's defense, one of the worst in NFL history, and added Cedric Thornton, Benson Mayowa, Maliek Colins, and Charles Tapper. While Thornton is a huge upgrade over Hayden, Mayowa is not the player Greg Hardy is (not including off-the-field and locker room concerns). Tapper and Collins are rotational guys. We brought back career underachievers like Church, Carr, Claiborne, and Wilber. So, by once again not fixing the defense, especially the secondary, this Front Office and coaching staff will rely on Romo to outscore teams that can score at will on this defense. Poor, poor off-season and another year of Romo's career wasted.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Turnovers have always been highly variable. I used to look at the stats on that for different years and it was amazing how often a team that was near the top in turnovers would be near the bottom the next (or previous) year. The latest seems like it was Greg Williams that year they won the Superbowl and people acted like he'd figured out how to teach turnovers. No he didn't, they just had a great year, and went right back to average. (Another thing I've always thought made a big difference was the QBs you happen to face in a year. If you get lucky and play a lot of scrubs and/or backups, you're obviously going to get more INTs.)

And I do think having big leads plays a part when you can make teams one-dimensional. That's how the Saints did it that year and that's how we'll have to do it if it happens here. I don't see how we can't have an amazing offense with the ridiculous talent we have on that side of the ball.

 

[yimyammer]

I don't see how we can't have an amazing offense with the ridiculous talent we have on that side of the ball.

I'd agree but if there is a way, I cant help but think this organization will find a way to pull it off.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I'd agree but if there is a way, I cant help but think this organization will find a way to pull it off.

Well barring crazy injuries -- and I don't mean the typical NFL injuries this organization loves to use as an excuse, but really unusually bad injuries -- I think the offense will be almost unstoppable.

But like cmd said, the defense could be so bad they make up for it.

 

[yimyammer]

Well barring crazy injuries -- and I don't mean the typical NFL injuries this organization loves to use as an excuse, but really unusually bad injuries -- I think the offense will be almost unstoppable.

But like cmd said, the defense could be so bad they make up for it.

Hope so on the former and not on the latter

I'm just so beaten down by the number of times a player or the team was supposed to dominate only to see a big fat dud, I feel like I'm watching the Peanuts cartoon on endless loop where Lucy pulls away the ball from Charlie Brown

 

[Omegasupreme]

Well barring crazy injuries -- and I don't mean the typical NFL injuries this organization loves to use as an excuse, but really unusually bad injuries -- I think the offense will be almost unstoppable.

But like cmd said, the defense could be so bad they make up for it.

The problem I have is that if you go through the games last year there are 6 games that if the offense (ranked among the last in the league in scoring points. Points win games) just needed to sustain one TD drive to win those games despite their 15th ranked defense trying to keep the game close. What a lot of you are implying is the opposing team was responsible for keeping the games close and that the 15th ranking of the defense was more about other teams deciding not to score points and allowing the Dallas offense and luck variables to get within one or two plays of winning the game? What sort of coaches would allow that?

The defense was not productive. But they were protective and desperately changing formations and players to make up for what didn't work. Now if there is some guarantee of turnovers, I would love to see that except for stripping the ball. Interceptions are a combination of many things happening at once. Luck included.

What the Marinelli defense can improve on that directly affects an offense aggressively is sacks. Dallas looked terrible trying to blitz Barry Church which was the right idea with the wrong player. They had sub par D-lineman who didn't allow them to use blitzing players effectively. They couldn't really afford to take guys out of coverage. The Eagles with Jim Johnson spent many years blitzing effectively even without great D-line players or a great running game.

But if Dallas is going to improve their defense, it has to be sacks. If they are going to remediate their offense, they will have to get rid of the players who fail (Streets, Williams and Garrett) and increae the plays that work (crossing patterns and double moves).

The offense was stoppable with Romo in the game last year and was stopped the year before because the players who fail were allows to continue to play.

 

[Doomsday]

What a lot of you are implying is the opposing team was responsible for keeping the games close and that the 15th ranking of the defense was more about other teams deciding not to score points and allowing the Dallas offense and luck variables to get within one or two plays of winning the game? What sort of coaches would allow that?

No, man. What they did was stay more conservative than usual in their play calling. That's not the same as "deciding not to score points." That's being risk averse against a known feckless offense and not giving our idiot defense any silly turnovers. It's just conservative football. Same thing was happening to 3-13 Dallas in Landry's last year. A lot of the final scores seemed kinda close, but the team itself wasn't anywhere close to the opponents in terms of quality.

We're simply just not a very good team, and the opponents know this.

 

[Scot]

Hope so on the former and not on the latter

I'm just so beaten down by the number of times a player or the team was supposed to dominate only to see a big fat dud, I feel like I'm watching the Peanuts cartoon on endless loop where Lucy pulls away the ball from Charlie Brown

View attachment 3346

Great analogy! That's exactly what it feel like lol


Any typos in the above post can be directly contributed to Siri and her damn Autocorrect

 

[onlyonenow]

Great analogy! That's exactly what it feel like lol


Any typos in the above post can be directly contributed to Siri and her damn Autocorrect

I never felt sorry for Charlie Brown. If you are so stupid as to not realize after the first 2 or 3 times that she is always going to do the same thing then you deserve all that you get. I think stupidity should be rewarded fully.

 

[Scot]

That's the same reason I don't feel sorry for the Cowboys anymore


Any typos in the above post can be directly contributed to Siri and her damn Autocorrect

 

[Rynie]

Jesus Christ you all are miserable fucks.

 

[yimyammer]

Jesus Christ you all are miserable fucks.

Alright cocobee - YouTube

 

[Scot]

Jesus Christ you all are miserable fucks.

No, we are just realistic

There is a big difference

 

[bbgun]

never change, BTB