Why the Panthers scoring struggles aren't as bad as they appear on the surface

[Mr. Scot]

8 hours ago, iamhubby1 said:

   Except, that's not what he was talking about. We are below average in Turn Overs, and Red Zone Efficiency. We pick those back up to league average, or better. And we will score more points. It's that simple and plain.

Where we stand now, the turnovers would pretty much have to be pick sixes.

Yeah, you can get a turnover that gives it to our offense in the red zone, but that's still likely just a field goal. Much further out - like the 35 - and it might not even be that.

Kudos for staying positive, Hub. I'm busted.

[LinvilleGorge]

I'm absolutely baffled by a couple of posters on this thread.

If you came over to help them get some work done at their house and busted your ass and were working circles around everyone else there while another one of their buddy's was bumbling around doing more harm than good and another buddy was passed out drunk in the yard, somehow in their minds it'd be your fault that the job didn't get done by the end of the day. If you'd worked just a little more efficiently and maybe not taken so long to eat lunch, the job would be done. Never mind the bumbling idiot and the passed out drunk.

[ReekRhymesWithFleek]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm absolutely baffled by a couple of posters on this thread.

If you came over to help them get some work done at their house and busted your ass and were working circles around everyone else there while another one of their buddy's was bumbling around doing more harm than good and another buddy was passed out drunk in the yard, somehow in their minds it'd be your fault that the job didn't get done by the end of the day. If you'd worked just a little more efficiently and maybe not taken so long to eat lunch, the job would be done. Never mind the bumbling idiot and the passed out drunk.

I bet you thought this was a brilliant analogy when you typed it out. Sad! 

[Mr. Scot]

6 hours ago, Rags said:

Okay. Sure. Let's play this game. 

Let's say we get more turnovers and we get better field position (even though it's been said field position is not really our big problem) and our red zone offense gets better, what about when our defense doesn't get TOs?

Remember in 2015 against the Hawks in the regular season? All of our tds were 80 yard drives against an amazing defense. Now we can barely score against the Saints.  This isn't a good offense. Red Zone woes isn't our only problem. 

No playoff team should rely on Turnovers entirely to score. 

One thing to consider: the type of offense that we run is one that can be inefficient in the Red Zone simply by design.

A big play offense relies on a stretched field. With a quarterback who's to hurt to throw beyond ten yards, nobody's afraid of being beaten over the top. But even when you can do that, the Red Zone is still constricted. There's less ground to cover so the threat of the big play is effectively nullified.

An effective run game goes a long way here. I'd like to think we have that, but so far the evidence is against it.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, ReekRhymesWithFleek said:

I bet you thought this was a brilliant analogy when you typed it out. Sad! 

It's actually a pretty good illustration.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, ReekRhymesWithFleek said:

I bet you thought this was a brilliant analogy when you typed it out. Sad! 

Perfectly sums up how I feel about this entire thread.

The problem with the Panthers on the field is pretty damn obvious to anyone who's spent any time watching the game of football. To act like we can simply waive a magic wand and become amazing offensively in the redzone and crack the whip and make an already great defense all of a sudden force more turnovers is just willful dumbassery.

You can't consistently win games in today's NFL with an offense that has been performing like ours, period.

I've tried to demonstrate to you guys why your thought process is flawed, but keep on keeping on I guess. I just have to learn that there's no arguing with irrationality.

[xav8tor]

8 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is why I wish that people who didn't understand statistics wouldn't try to discuss statistics. 

No one is disputing that we're below average in redzone efficiency. We're one of the worst offenses in the league. We're probably below average in damn near every offensive statistical category you can come up with. 

The bottom line is that we're below average in the redzone as well as outside the redzone. That's why we're close to last both in yardage and scoring. I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend. 

You're trying to cherry pick the stats and come up with an easy fix. Hey, if we can just force a ton of turnovers and be super efficient in the rezone then we can be a decent offense! Hate to break it to you, but redzone efficiency will generally echo overall offensive efficiency. Offense gets tougher in the redzone as the defense has less field to have to cover. It's rare to find an offense that struggles to move the ball overall that suddenly becomes efficient in the redzone. 

This.

Anyone who has taken a single intro to stats course would blow the entire OP premise up. There are numerous ways to use stats to identify problems and predict change, but that ain't even close to how it's done correctly. Years ago, I had a prof that had a neat trick he'd do to calm student fears entering into a new complex subject, regression analysis for example. He'd ask students what they were in to, and of course, lots of guys would say some form of sports. After fleshing out a few details, he would give a specific situation showing how you could use stats to gain an edge or fix a problem. I don't remember a whole lot of it, but like I said, citing a bad number, then a better one, and concluding if you achieve the better one, you'll be better off, doesn't ring any bells.

[ReekRhymesWithFleek]

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Perfectly sums up how I feel about this entire thread.

The problem with the Panthers on the field is pretty damn obvious to anyone who's spent any time watching the game of football. To act like we can simply waive a magic wand and become amazing offensively in the redzone and crack the whip and make an already great defense all of a sudden force more turnovers is just willful dumbassery.

You can't consistently win games in today's NFL with an offense that has been performing like ours, period.

I've tried to demonstrate to you guys why your thought process is flawed, but keep on keeping on I guess. I just have to learn that there's no arguing with irrationality.

Jesus Christ dude. Learn to read. 

Nobody ever said these issues were going to change the offense from being bad to being good. Nobody ever said the offense being bad isn't a severe problem. Nobody ever said the offense was going to become amazing in the end zone. In fact, I proved to you how it could be the second worst in the league (decidedly not amazing) and perform almost twice as efficiently as they are currently. 

"...crack the whip and make an already great defense all of a sudden force more turnovers is just willful dumbassery." It's "just willful dumbassery" to expect a great defense (by most estimations a Top 5-10 defense in the league) to not be the worst in the NFL at forcing turnovers? It's "just willful dumbassery" to expect a great defense to not consistently go consecutive games without forcing a turnover (first time it had happened in 3 years)? 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, xav8tor said:

This.

Anyone who has taken a single intro to stats course would blow the entire OP premise up. There are numerous ways to use stats to identify problems and predict change, but that ain't even close to how it's done correctly. Years ago, I had a prof that had a neat trick he'd do to calm student fears entering into a new complex subject, regression analysis for example. He'd ask students what they were in to, and of course, lots of guys would say some form of sports. After fleshing out a few details, he would give a specific situation showing how you could use stats to gain an edge or fix a problem. I don't remember a whole lot of it, but like I said, citing a bad number, then a better one, and concluding if you achieve the better one, you'll be better off, doesn't ring any bells.

Honestly, I blame the largely poo mainstream sports media. In defense of reek and hubby, this is the type of fatally flawed analysis consistently trotted out there by ESPN and the like. If you don't really understand statistics, it's easy to fall into those traps. And I'm not trying to position myself as some type of stats expert, I'm years removed from broad use of stats but I know sales analysis and forecasting up one side and down the other and while it may not be obvious on the surface, those things actually translate pretty easily to the world of sports.

[LinvilleGorge]

6 minutes ago, ReekRhymesWithFleek said:

Jesus Christ dude. Learn to read. 

Nobody ever said these issues were going to change the offense from being bad to being good. Nobody ever said the offense being bad isn't a severe problem. Nobody ever said the offense was going to become amazing in the end zone. In fact, I proved to you how it could be the second worst in the league (decidedly not amazing) and perform almost twice as efficiently as they are currently. 

"...crack the whip and make an already great defense all of a sudden force more turnovers is just willful dumbassery." It's "just willful dumbassery" to expect a great defense (by most estimations a Top 5-10 defense in the league) to not be the worst in the NFL at forcing turnovers? It's "just willful dumbassery" to expect a great defense to not consistently go consecutive games without forcing a turnover (first time it had happened in 3 years)? 

Like I said man, I've tried. If I haven't helped you understand why you're focusing on all the wrong things, then I'm sorry that I've failed you.

[iamhubby1]

30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Like I said man, I've tried. If I haven't helped you understand why you're focusing on all the wrong things, then I'm sorry that I've failed you.

 

    Dude. I am tired of your condescension. 

 

    You misread the OP, then got defensive and passive aggressive because you couldn't convince two random posters they were wrong. I hope you don't treat people in the real world with this level of contempt. 

 

    

    

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    Dude. I am tired of your condescension. 

 

    You misread the OP, then got defensive and passive aggressive because you couldn't convince two random posters they were wrong. I hope you don't treat people in the real world with this level of contempt. 

 

    

    

Yep, I have been condescending in this thread. For that, I apologize.. 

But, you guys have been downright irrational and delusional. I don't deal well with those things. 

[iamhubby1]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yep, I have been condescending in this thread. For that, I apologize.. 

But, you guys have been downright irrational and delusional. I don't deal well with those things. 

 

    Trying to explain two simple concepts to you, concepts that you agreed would actually add to our points totals. And that makes us irrational, and delusional? Ok, whatever you say. 

[xav8tor]

Guys, I think the problem is, at best, the OP used a couple of basic stats to ID areas needing improvement, which is all well and good, but using stats properly goes far beyond that. Better, for example, would have been identification of where, why, how we are failing in the RZ, looking for trends of consistent error, and obviously, for what has worked, while controlling for teams, schemes, personnel, and so on. Then, look forward and implement changes to game and situational plans/plays wherever possible to increase the probability of success. The real issue is that we probably don't even have anyone on staff who is qualified to perform such work, and even if we do, the evidence is that our coaches and coordinators don't listen. On the other hand, my guess is that our opponent today routinely does this sort of thing.

Edit: Scratch the guess they do it. There's a bunch of articles in the Boston Globe and NYT about how they, and a few other NFL teams, are using staff statisticians to do just what I said.