NFL 2014

[Baroque]

They've only played one plus .500 team to this point and played three 2 win teams, so their opponents are losing a lot regardless. Likely correlation rather than causation.

Exactly. 9ers by contrast have played the top 4 teams in the NFL by week 7. They played every team that has only 1 loss, and they handed out two of those themselves. Dallas' schedule is a cakewalk. So is Philly's. Only decent opponents are Cards, 9ers, Colts. Meanwhile the 9ers still have to play Chargers, Cards again and Seahawks twice.

Dallas has yet to play any team with 2 losses or less.

 

[Dak]

They've only played one plus .500 team to this point and played three 2 win teams, so their opponents are losing a lot regardless. Likely correlation rather than causation.

I'd like to see a list of the teams those teams played the next week. And in my opinion most things like this are simply coincidental. I mean you can take it where ever you want - the Cowboys opponents haven't gained more than 300 yards after the second Sunday of every other month on the road, during climate change for the last 8 years.

I'm drunk this afternoon, so cheers you shitty Eagles and Cowboys fans

Exactly. 9ers by contrast have played the top 4 teams in the NFL by week 7. They played every team that has only 1 loss, and they handed out two of those themselves. Dallas' schedule is a cakewalk. So is Philly's. Only decent opponents are Cards, 9ers, Colts. Meanwhile the 9ers still have to play Chargers, Cards again and Seahawks twice.

Dallas has yet to play any team with 2 losses or less.

Doesn't work like that. To begin with, when looking at SoS, you need to remove the games that were actually played against the X team. Additionally, for the claim that playing the Cowboys causes further another in the proceeding week, you would need to also remove those games before making a counter claim about the SoS, based on win/loss %.

I'm not saying it can't be mere coincidence, but just pointing to whatever is currently in opponent w/l record column is a non-starter as a response. Also, due to injuries, additional available tape, etc, teams can be stronger or weaker throughout the season.

 

[Baroque]

So you refute our claim but you're claiming that Dallas having an affect on a team's performance the following week is an acceptable response? Somehow Dallas was so big and scary that they cause the team to lose to a completely different team a week later? Please. They're just playing losing teams.

Strength of schedule before the season (Dallas 18th, 49ers 4th)
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/115715/2014-nfl-strength-of-schedule

It's probably changed even moreso against Dallas since the season began with Seahawks and Saints having surprising numbers of losses.

[EDIT] Here's an up to date one (Dallas 21st, 49ers 2nd)
http://www.predictionmachine.com/Strength-of-Schedule-Rankings

"Strength of schedule rankings are based on the strength of the opponents that the team has played in the season to-date. Factors considered in these rankings include: margin of victory and wins and losses of opponents and the opponents of a team's opponents."

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Shut up fags!

My fucking Power Rankings!

1.Cowboys
2.Broncos
3.Eagles
4.Colts
5.Chargers
6.Packers
7.Seahawks
8.Cardinals
9.Lions
10.49ers
11.Ravens
12.Chiefs
13.Patriots
14.Bengals
15.Steelers
16.Giants
17.Texans
18.Bills
19.Bears
20.Saints
21.Falcons
22.Dolphins
23.Panthers
24.Rams
25.Redskins
26.Browns
27.Vikings
28.Titans
29.Jets
30.Buccaneers
31.Jaguars
32.Raiders

 

[Dak]

So you refute our claim but you're claiming that Dallas having an affect on a team's performance the following week is an acceptable response? Somehow Dallas was so big and scary that they cause the team to lose to a completely different team a week later? Please. They're just playing losing teams.

Strength of schedule before the season (Dallas 18th, 49ers 4th)
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/115715/2014-nfl-strength-of-schedule

It's probably changed even moreso against Dallas since the season began with Seahawks and Saints having surprising numbers of losses.

[EDIT] Here's an up to date one (Dallas 21st, 49ers 2nd)
http://www.predictionmachine.com/Strength-of-Schedule-Rankings

"Strength of schedule rankings are based on the strength of the opponents that the team has played in the season to-date. Factors considered in these rankings include: margin of victory and wins and losses of opponents and the opponents of a team's opponents."

"Dallas is so big and scary"? Really? That's how you interpreted "getting beat up"?

The inference from the post-Cowboys losses is that the teams are getting banged up to the point of being more worse for wear than usual, to the point of causing that team to play more poorly the following week. That is not an absurd claim at all. It just may be purely correlational rather than causal.

And I said, don't just post SoS. Teams become more or less difficult, and the W/L include the losses/wins to the corresponding teams. It's only useful out of context, as it were.

Dallas played the 49ers, Titans, Texans, Seahawks, Giants when they were .500 or better. That playing the Cowboys added to the loss column, and then subsequent losses in the proceeding weeks supports the hypothesis. Just going "well hey look at all the losses the opponents have now" misses the point.

The only team to win after playing the Cowboys was the Saints, and they played the Buccaneers. Even the 49ers lost after beating the Cowboys.

If we subtract the games vs Dallas as well as the games immediately after playing Dallas, Dallas opponents have a .515 win percentage. That is a winning record. Now if you tack all those removed games on, suddenly it plummets to .404.

That's the argument about the "Dallas Effect". Moving on to overall difficulty of schedule:

The 49ers have had a tough schedule, but Dallas has to play some of those teams the 49ers played + playing Philly twice.

Common opponents:

NFC East Teams
NFC West Teams
Chicago

The only real differences between the schedules is:
1.the double games in one division vs the other, and how is that not a push, purely based on wins/losses?
2.Ind for Denver: Pretty damn close to a push.
3.Jax v Oak: Definite Push, but Dallas has to play that game in London.
4.Kc v Houston: Tough to call, but I'll give it to KC.
Conclusion: Whoopty do, SF has two marginally more difficult opponents.


Edit: @Jimmy I'd place the Broncos over Dallas for the time being.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I thought so too and I know it doesn't work this way but Seahawks beat the Broncos, Cowboys beat Seahawks = 1.Cowboys

 

[Dak]

I thought so too and I know it doesn't work this way but Seahawks beat the Broncos, Cowboys beat Seahawks = 1.Cowboys

But SF beat Dallas and the Broncos beat SF. I think in a matchup right now that Denver outscores Dallas, just by virtue of the fact Dallas will have to punt at least once and I don't think Denver would have to. It doesn't matter how much you keep Peyton off the field if he scores every time he is on it. The lack of pass rush right now for Dallas gives Peyton a dream matchup.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ah good points but Michael Irvin's enthusiasm on the sideline and pregame speech gives them the edge.

 

[Baroque]

It just may be purely correlational rather than causal.

"Dallas Effect"

Lol.

It's purely correlational.

The 49ers had a similar thing going on when their defense was beasting back in 2011 or 2012. Every team they beat would end up losing the following week. Fans were saying our defense was just that tough. I didn't read much into it then and I don't read much into Dallas' version now.

Every NFL team plays hard dude. 49ers lost two centers to the Broncos this week but I'm not going to call it the Denver Effect. Buffalo lost two RBs this week but no one's calling it the Minnesota effect. 49ers have injured some players too. I surely won't go calling it the SF Effect.

You have to credit the teams they play after Dallas with the wins, they made the plays the game plan the execution the... everything except a few injuries or bruises the Dallas players may have caused. As if other teams aren't causing injuries or bruises...

Here, the teams with the most injuries are not even teams Dallas has played, except Seahawks (how many of those were caused by Dallas? if any, thanks btw):
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/injuries/pup

The 49ers main injuries: Iupati, Willis, Bowman, Lynch, Davis none of those were caused by Dallas.

 

[Baroque]

How I view it (ranked by which teams would be the most difficult opponents for the 9ers if they played this week):

1. Broncos
2. Colts
3. Patriots
4. Cards
5. Cowboys
6. Green Bay
7. Chargers
8. Ravens
9. 49ers
10. Seahawks
11. Chiefs
12. Lions
13. Eagles
14. Steelers
15. Bills
16. Bengals

Other teams, meh.

 

[Dak]

Ah good points but Michael Irvin's enthusiasm on the sideline and pregame speech gives them the edge.

Michael Irvin is about to have a meltdown about this season.

Lol.

It's purely correlational.
The 49ers had a similar thing going on when their defense was beasting back in 2011 or 2012. Every team they beat would end up losing the following week. Fans were saying our defense was just that tough. I didn't read much into it then and I don't read much into Dallas' version now.

Every NFL team plays hard dude. 49ers lost two centers to the Broncos this week but I'm not going to call it the Denver Effect. Buffalo lost two RBs this week but no one's calling it the Minnesota effect. 49ers have injured some players too. I surely won't go calling it the SF Effect.

You have to credit the teams they play after Dallas with the wins, they made the plays the game plan the execution the... everything except a few injuries or bruises the Dallas players may have caused. As if other teams aren't causing injuries or bruises...

Here, the teams with the most injuries are not even teams Dallas has played, except Seahawks (how many of those were caused by Dallas? if any, thanks btw):
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/injuries/pup

The 49ers main injuries: Iupati, Willis, Bowman, Lynch, Davis none of those were caused by Dallas.

Why isn't it possible that the 49er defense was having a similar effect at the time? You can make it on the injury list without even having made contact. Conversely, you could be purple with bruises and still be fit to play.

All NFL teams do not play equally hard. We see that year in and year out when "physical" teams play teams that are not as "physical". The Greatest Show on Turf was not physical. 49er and Seattle teams of the last few years have been physical. Some guys play at a higher intensity, and hit to hurt.

 

[Baroque]

Why isn't it possible that the 49er defense was having a similar effect at the time? You can make it on the injury list without even having made contact. Conversely, you could be purple with bruises and still be fit to play.

All NFL teams do not play equally hard. We see that year in and year out when "physical" teams play teams that are not as "physical". The Greatest Show on Turf was not physical. 49er and Seattle teams of the last few years have been physical. Some guys play at a higher intensity, and hit to hurt.

It's true the 9ers defense played harder back then, a few of those players are injured this year causing some difficulties.

I don't buy the comparison with Dallas from this season though. Dallas is ranked #20 in total defense currently the 9ers were 1 or 2 for most of that year.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

Dallas is allowing 113 avg rushing yards per game, SF that year had allowed only a single 100 yard rusher, Marshawn Lynch. And only a single rushing touchdown the entire year, also to Lynch. Dallas is not playing THAT hard, at least on defense.

I'll give you #2 in total offense and #1 in rushing yards though. Nice. Maybe Dallas is beating up D-linemen on O but they need to improve drastically on defense.

I suppose the only way to end this is list the injuries caused by every team or something.

I'm just not buying it that Dallas caused the 49ers to lose to the Bears... Dallas didn't beat us, the Bears did, we made a ton of mistakes in that game. Not due to injuries.

 

[Dak]

It's true the 9ers defense played harder back then, a few of those players are injured this year causing some difficulties.

I don't buy the comparison with Dallas from this season though. Dallas is ranked #20 in total defense currently the 9ers were 1 or 2 for most of that year.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

Dallas is allowing 113 avg rushing yards per game, SF that year had allowed only a single 100 yard rusher, Marshawn Lynch. And only a single rushing touchdown the entire year, also to Lynch. Dallas is not playing THAT hard, at least on defense.

I'll give you #2 in total offense and #1 in rushing yards though. Nice. Maybe Dallas is beating up D-linemen on O but they need to improve drastically on defense.

I suppose the only way to end this is list the injuries caused by every team or something.

I'm just not buying it that Dallas caused the 49ers to lose to the Bears... Dallas didn't beat us, the Bears did, we made a ton of mistakes in that game. Not due to injuries.

Yeah it is primarily on the offensive side of the ball, between the Oline, Murray, and Bryant. All 7 of those guys are playing punishing football. On the defensive side though, guys are swarming, and Wilcox, McClain, and Durant are lighting people up when they get a shot. Dallas isn't preventing yards but they are preventing points and getting turnovers. Obviously still no comparison to 49er or Seattle defense in terms of overall effectiveness, but the point is the overall physicality. Would you rather play against a Gore/Murray or against a scat back? Would you rather one guy hit you like he doesn't really want contact or 4 guys hit you hard? That is the difference.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Doesn't work like that. To begin with, when looking at SoS, you need to remove the games that were actually played against the X team. Additionally, for the claim that playing the Cowboys causes further another in the proceeding week, you would need to also remove those games before making a counter claim about the SoS, based on win/loss %.

In that case, you're cutting the sample size down to 4-5 other games, which isn't enough data to measure whether or not it's significant.

Beyond that, the whole theory is beyond stupid. 49ers lost a close game to the Bears. Rams lost a close game to the Eagles. Texans lost a close game to the Colts. Seahawks lost a close game to the Rams. Rams, Texans and Seahawks all played better in the 2nd half than the 1st, which is the opposite of what you would expect from a "beat up" team. Some of these games came down to a few plays, an impressive play by an opponent or a bad coaching decision.

The only team that got blown out was the Titans and that's because they suck

Furthermore, the Cowboys defense plays the fewest snaps per game of any team, so it's implausible that they are delivering more punishment to their opponents in those minimal number of snaps.

Anyway, if you were looking for evidence that Dallas was more physical than other teams it would make more sense to look at the injury report rather than their W-L record.

In sum, this is a theory that's so dumb that only Cowboy fans could believe it.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The Eagles opponents are 2-4 the week after playing the Eagles. Obviously they're getting burnt out by the fast pace and suffering the consequences the next week.

 

[MasterOLightning]

There's a lot of local folklore that the Dick Butkus era Bears beat the crap out of their opponents, and those teams sucked the next week. Whether that was true or not, the Bears of that era sucked and never won anything. There's nothing about making an opponent bad the next week that makes a team good. In fact, I'd argue that a team that made their opponent better the next week is probably more of an advantage.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

In sum, this is a theory that's so dumb that only Cowboy fans could believe it.

The Eagles opponents are 2-4 the week after playing the Eagles. Obviously they're getting burnt out by the fast pace and suffering the consequences the next week.

 

[Baroque]

In fact, I'd argue that a team that made their opponent better the next week is probably more of an advantage.

Teams are 4-0 the week after facing the 49ers (the other 2 had bye weeks)

 

[Dak]

In that case, you're cutting the sample size down to 4-5 other games, which isn't enough data to measure whether or not it's significant.

30+ games. Looking at the total, not the sum for only one team. That is enough games to establish a significant trend (as I showed before). Obviously not as good as a full season size, nor is it conclusively causal. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but causation does require correlation. That is what is being looked at in those stats.

Beyond that, the whole theory is beyond stupid. 49ers lost a close game to the Bears. Rams lost a close game to the Eagles. Texans lost a close game to the Colts. Seahawks lost a close game to the Rams. Rams, Texans and Seahawks all played better in the 2nd half than the 1st, which is the opposite of what you would expect from a "beat up" team. Some of these games came down to a few plays, an impressive play by an opponent or a bad coaching decision.

The only team that got blown out was the Titans and that's because they suck

That the lost games were close doesn't refute the theory. That the opponent played better or had a couple of amazing plays is the nature of losing in the NFL regardless. The hypothesis is that the teams played better football (as evidenced by winning) prior to playing the Cowboys. Answering that they obviously weren't because now they are playing more poorly begs the question.

Furthermore, the Cowboys defense plays the fewest snaps per game of any team, so it's implausible that they are delivering more punishment to their opponents in those minimal number of snaps.

Anyway, if you were looking for evidence that Dallas was more physical than other teams it would make more sense to look at the injury report rather than their W-L record.

I already responded to both of these.

The Eagles opponents are 2-4 the week after playing the Eagles. Obviously they're getting burnt out by the fast pace and suffering the consequences the next week.

Either a strawman or an invalid reductio.

To reiterate: I didn't say it was certain, and I said it would be something interesting to watch over the rest of the year (statistically). But it isn't outright absurd, as I have clearly demonstrated over several posts. What would be absurd, of course, is expecting a fan of a division opponent to have something positive to say about the Cowboys that hasn't been blindingly obvious to everyone.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

30+ games. Looking at the total, not the sum for only one team. That is enough games to establish a significant trend (as I showed before). Obviously not as good as a full season size, nor is it conclusively causal. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but causation does require correlation. That is what is being looked at in those stats.

They've played less than 30 games. You wouldn't count the Giants in the data since they haven't played the next week. However, I wouldn't expect someone dumb enough to believe in this theory to take that detail into consideration.

That the lost games were close doesn't refute the theory. That the opponent played better or had a couple of amazing plays is the nature of losing in the NFL regardless. The hypothesis is that the teams played better football (as evidenced by winning) prior to playing the Cowboys. Answering that they obviously weren't because now they are playing more poorly begs the question.

It's called occam's razor. No need to assume that the players were just so beat up from the week before that they couldn't win, when there are simpler explanations for why they lost (execution, opponent performance, coaching decisions on both sides, etc.)

I already responded to both of these.

You sorta did, but you mostly alluded the questions. It didn't really add up. If it's primarily the offense, then wouldn't you want to focus on the defensive performances the next week? Or is that just too obvious?

Either a strawman or an invalid reductio.

To reiterate: I didn't say it was certain, and I said it would be something interesting to watch over the rest of the year (statistically). But it isn't outright absurd, as I have clearly demonstrated over several posts. What would be absurd, of course, is expecting a fan of a division opponent to have something positive to say about the Cowboys that hasn't been blindingly obvious to everyone.

It's not much less stupid of a theory than the one you threw out there and it's almost supported with equal amounts of data. It just goes to show how easy it is to come up with a dumbass theory.

But I'm not gonna argue about this anymore. You've show time and time again that once you say something you'll fight for it tooth and nail, regardless of how stupid it is. I'll just sit back and enjoy watching you build this sandcastle of stupidity and wait for the tide to come in.