Week 8 Preview: 10,000 Reasons the Cowboys Are Better Than You Think
1. You know how the band was called 10,000 Maniacs but actually it was just Natalie Merchant and four, sometimes five, other people? So, at most, six maniacs? Well, this headline is kind of like that, in that I don’t have literally 10,000 reasons the Cowboys are better than you think. That’s the bad news. But the good news is that this will be actual reasons the Cowboys are better than you think, whereas I’m not sure the Natalie Merchant and her bandmates were clinically diagnosed with anything.
When I sat down to write about the Dallas Cowboys this week—something no one on the internet has ever done as far as I can tell—I expected to be laying out an argument for why, due to their unsustainable takeaway rate, they’d be coming back down and nestling in with the second-tier contenders in the NFC. But a closer look at the numbers revealed a different story. But before we get to the Cowboys, some words about numbers. And if you’re not a numbers person, you might want to order and wait for the arrival of this series of books before you read the rest of this column:
I’m a strong believer in the volatility of what I call the “small-sample-size stats.” In the NFL, we often lose track of the fact that the talent is quite evenly dispersed—there’s not a lot of separation between, say, the fifth- and 25th-best teams in the league. Most of the time, the difference is a play or two each week, and those plays are usually turnovers, come in the red zone, or come on fourth down.
But there are so few of those plays over the course of a season—turnovers, total series in the red zone, and fourth-down attempts—and we often fail to recognize that, when dealing with such a small sample size, it’s difficult to develop any kind of projection or draw broad conclusions about how teams will perform in these categories. There are some exceptions: If your quarterback is Jameis Winston you’re at risk of turning it more than the average team, if you have an elite four-man pass rush you will typically get more takeaways than an average defense, and if you’re a good overall team you typically perform better in fourth-down efficiency because your opponent is often forced to go for it on fourth-and-long to stay in the game while you can pick and choose your spots. Meanwhile, red-zone stats are particularly fickle not only because of the sample size but because the geometry of the game changes so drastically when the field is shortened (though teams with great running games typically fare better).
There’s also the ultimate “luck” stat: fumble recovery rate. Recovering a fumble requires all the skill of winning a coin toss; it’s pure luck and every team’s expected recovery rate is 50%, no matter how many Cardinals fans DM me to say Arizona’s 80% recovery rate through seven games (on 25 fumbles—they were picking up an extra possession per game!) was a result of them “wanting it more.” Though that apparently wasn’t the case on Thursday night when they recovered only one of the game’s four fumbles against the Packers.
Ergo, I keep a close eye on the following stats, which often show which teams are outperforming or underperforming against their record. Yes, it's great if your team is having success in these categories, but that success is difficult to maintain. You can expect them to regress toward the league average as the season goes on:
• Turnover differential: How many possessions a team is gaining/losing over the course of the season
• Fumble recoveries: Not just the percentage but, based on how many fumbles, the number recovered over expected (example: A team that has a 100% recovery rate on four fumbles hasn’t picked up as much of an advantage as a team with an 80% recovery rate over 25 fumbles)
• Fourth-down conversions made/allowed: A failed fourth down is a turnover, even if it doesn’t factor into turnover differential. Like with fumble recoveries, this stat is not just percentage, but possessions gained/lost when factoring how many fourth-down conversions tried or defended.
• Red Zone efficiency: Based on the current league average—5.0 points per red-zone possession—how many points above expected is a team scoring over all red-zone trips? How many points above expected is their defense allowing in the red zone?
Now, back to the Cowboys. Their turnover differential will almost surely regress (they’re fourth in the league at the moment), in part because their fumble luck will as well (fifth). But the number that really stands out is their red-zone offensive efficiency, which is far lower than expected. With one of the NFL’s best rushing attacks and an elite quarterback, you could identify the Cowboys as an offense that should perform above league-average in the red zone. But, through six games, they’re sitting at 27th in the NFL in red-zone points above expected. If they were league-average in the red zone, they’d have scored 13 more points this season. (And if they matched the red-zone efficiency of, say, Arizona, they’d have 28 more points.) All that is to say: While the Cowboys will probably take the ball away less frequently as the season goes on, they’ll likely start scoring more touchdowns in the red zone, canceling that out.
But the reason to be bullish on the Cowboys is more than that. Right now, they’re winning primarily through run game and defense, which is really how everyone in the league would like to win (get a lead, ram it down your opponent’s throat, go home and enjoy some celebratory kombucha). But while some teams are less equipped than others to come back if they fall off-schedule, Dak Prescott gives them an opportunity to hang around in any game and steal it back late. He’s had to do it twice this season, and he succeeded both times: re-taking a lead in Tampa on opening night (even if Tom Brady took it right back), and getting an overtime touchdown in Foxboro in their last game, two weeks ago.
In short: Dallas can win in a slog, and they can win in a shootout, and the more paths you have to winning on a weekly basis, the better your chances of winning a Super Bowl.
1b. Did you really go to a 10,000 Maniacs show expecting to see 10,000 band members on stage? Let's be reasonable, shall we?
2a. A quick look at the rest of the league shows that, yes, the Chiefs are among the biggest losers on small-sample-size stats—and, therefore, a team that has performed better than their record suggests. The Chiefs are bad defensively, but ranking 30th in fumble-recovery rate (six recoveries on 19 fumbles), 31st in turnover differential (we covered that last week), 22nd in offensive red-zone points scored above expected, and 30th in both defensive red-zone points allowed above expected and fourth-down defensive conversions allowed above expected.
If they played like they did in Nashville last week, they’ll lose 10 games this season. But if you’re looking at the season thus far holistically, they not only have nowhere to go but up, but they’re very likely going up. As for more telling numbers: The Chiefs lead the league in third-down conversion rate (they’ve been top-three in each of Patrick Mahomes’s previous three seasons as a starter) and are second in first-down efficiency (defined by gains of four yards or more on first down), behind only Dallas. They were 16th, ninth and eighth the past three seasons.
2b. As for the rest of the league, when it comes to small-sample-size performance (or, if you must, “luck”), I built a crude model that combines the above stats with point differential to get a sense of who has been the best thus far when the luck is stripped away. These teams are better (or, at least, have performed better) than you think:
The Browns have question marks at quarterback, but overall they have been one of 2021’s best teams. Cleveland ranks in the bottom half of the league in every small-sample size stat, including bottom-five in fumble luck, fourth down offense and defense, and red-zone defense.
The Bucs rank first in this model. The Chiefs rank fifth (Dallas is third and Buffalo fourth, if you’re wondering about the rest of the top five). The Colts are 11th, which is pretty good for a team with a losing record, and Detroit is 20th, pretty good for a team with a winless record.
2c. As for the teams that maybe haven’t performed as well as you think: We’ll start with the Cardinals’ mind-blowing numbers. They rank first in fumble luck (even after recovering only three of four on Thursday), fourth-down conversions made and allowed above expected, and red-zone points scored above expected. They’re also fourth in red-zone points allowed above expected. Expecting these kinds of numbers to hold over 17 games is like expecting to win Powerball in back-to-back weeks. However, the Cards’ strong point differential still keeps them at ninth in this model. Because I’m bullish on the quarterback and the defensive coordinator, I still ranked them seventh in the power rankings two weeks ago, ahead of this model, the aggregate betting markets, and other objective measures.
The Rams have also been quite fortunate on the defensive side of the ball, where they’re hanging on thanks to the second-best performances in fourth-down and red-zone defense. This metric has them at 14th overall. The Chargers—in part due to their negative point differential and the fact that this doesn’t take strength-of-schedule into play—are down at 19th. In a shocker, the Ravens rank 25th(!), though they typically can expect a better than league-average red-zone performance offensively (they’re third). Seattle is way down at 27th overall in this model, and the Bears rank 31st, ahead of only the Texans.
3. We knew the AFC South was going to be a two-team race, but the Titans can basically put it away and get an early jump on their holiday shopping if they win in Indianapolis on Sunday. It would give them a three-game lead and clinch the tiebreaker over the Colts.
The Titans have won three of four over Indy, and the last two were in very Titans style—get out to a halftime lead then ride Derrick Henry to close it out. But in their Week 3 meeting in Nashville, Indy’s issue more than anything was a limited (both physically—playing on a tweaked ankle—and in terms of his grasp of the offense) Carson Wentz. The Colts stuck around in that game but ultimately managed just six second-half points, with their league-worst red-zone offense (–27.04 points above expected over 26 red-zone trips) settling for two chip-shot field goals in a 25–16 loss.
This time around, there’s a good chance Indy will need a few more plays out of Wentz, and they should be cautiously optimistic that they can get them. Wentz has not looked like the 2017, MVP-caliber version of himself, but he does look far more comfortable in this offense than he has in years. His play inside the pocket still looks too rigid at times, but he was more adventurous in last week’s rain-soaked win in Santa Clara and for the most part didn’t get burned. The Week-2 shovel-pass interception against the Rams remains a lowlight no one can get past, but that remains his only interception of the season, and the other 250 dropbacks have been largely uneventful in a good way. He’s bringing a level of competence to the position through seven games, but Sunday will be an opportunity to go out and take control of a game, one that the Colts need.
4. And now time for a holiday tradition unlike any other: The Football Things NFL Costume Party. As we do around this time every year, we’ll run down our costume suggestions for various NFL personalities. But, in reality, you know and I know we’re just sifting through current events and trafficking in the kind of topical humor that you’ve come to know and love from a column that critics have dubbed, “like the Murphy Brown remake if it wasn’t a TV show but a poorly written column about football.” So, without further ado:
Kion Smith: a skeleton
Pat O’Donnell: novelty song writer Bobby (Boris) Pickett, of “Monster Mash” fame, circa 1965
Connor McGovern: the other Connor McGovern
Dennis Kelly: the dog from Frasier
Demetrius Harris: a conceptualization of envy
Hope you had as much fun as we did—see you next year!
5. Ladies and gentlemen . . . The Sound of Urchin!
• Question or comment? Email us.
