The blog on ProFootballReference.com has been doing a "similarity score" breakdown on this year's teams through 6 games. Basically, they compare the 2009 teams to other historical teams based on a set of key stats (metrics listed at the bottom of this FanPost). This week, they looked at the teams that played their 6th game last week, and ranked them based on the likelihood they'll make the playoffs. The Cowboys did very well.

Six games is a small sample size to determine team similarity, and this stuff is not nearly as reliable as Baseball Prospectus player similarity scores, which have gotten to the point where they can predict a player's career arc with a decent degree of accuracy.

However, I thought it was interesting how high we were ranked, and that we compared favorably to a lot of teams that have gone on big second half winning streaks (one of the teams being the late-charging Super Bowl champion NY Giants). That, of course, would be a welcome change for Cowboys fans, as we've gotten used to fading down the stretch in recent years. Plus we're listed ahead of the Eagles, which I always like to see.

What makes me think a result like this is possible is Wade's defense-- it seems to be getting better with each game, and last year's model put on an absolute shut down clinic from Weeks 9-16 (with the obvious breakdown in the last 2 minutes of the Ravens game). So there is precedent for this crew achieving better and better defensive results as the season goes on.

What makes me think that a result like this is NOT possible is the mental mistakes (penalties, miscommunication, etc.), because those flaws have been around for 4+ years and are extremely unlikely to fix themselves within the course of one season without a change in personnel.

So I'm not putting aside money for playoff tickets yet. But I thought the statistical study was interesting.

For those interested, the metrics they used to determine team similarity:

1. Start with 1000 points;
2. Subtract 5 points for every 1 point difference in Points Scored;
3. Subtract 5 points for every 1 point difference in Points Allowed;
4. Subtract 5 points for every 1 point difference in Net Point Differential;
5. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Net Passing Yards (that is, passing yards with sacks yards lost included) on offense;
6. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Net Passing Yards Allowed on defense;
7. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Rushing Yards on offense;
8. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Rushing Yards Allowed on defense;
9. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Net Passing Yards Differential (Offensive Yards minus Defensive Yards allowed);
10. Subtract 1 point for every 10 yard difference in Rushing Yards Differential (Offensive Yards minus Defensive Yards allowed); and
11. Subtract 100 points for every difference of 1 win.

One of the topics that I've always found interesting in sports, partly because it has some particular relevance to our recent Cowboys teams (both with our quarterback and our head coach), is the idea of who is a "winner" and who isn't-- guys who fans and media deem "clutch" and guys who are considered incapable of delivering. Four or five years ago, two of the most famous non-winners in all of sports, of course, were Peyton Manning and Alex Rodriguez. Looking at the past month, I'd say that perception has changed a bit. Go back a little more than a decade, and John Elway was labeled a guy who could never get it done. That perception, of course, lasted right up until he won back-to-back Super Bowls.

A note in Peter King's MMQB column today got me thinking about this topic again, and led me to look up a few stats that I thought I'd share for discussion.

In his column, King statistically compares the careers of Andy Reid and Bill Cowher through 165 games:

Reid

Record: 100-64-1

Playoff Seasons: 7

Playoff Record: 10-7

Cowher

Record: 101-64

Playoff Seasons: 7

Playoff Record: 6-7

Bill Cohwer was one of those non-winner guys...until he won a Super Bowl. Now he is deified in Pittsburgh and several downtrodden NFL franchises want him to head up their team (I've even heard him called for a few times on these boards). Meanwhile, Philly fans are revolting because the Eagles are in contract extensions with Reid, a guy who has never gotten over the hump.

Throughout sports history, there are examples of players and coaches who at some point were unequivocally deemed "unable to get it done," either by fans, media, their own organization, etc. And there are also many example of cases where that judgement ended up being premature-- even cases like Elway or Cowher where the label was not cast off until the verrrrrrrrrrry end of a long career.

And yes, there are certainly players and coaches with resumes like these that never actually do wind up getting over the top (Dan Fouts, Marty Schottenheimer, etc.). But how do you tell? How do you distinguish 1996 John Elway from Dan Marino? How do you separate 2005 Bill Cowher from Marty Schottenheimer? How do you know which one Andy Reid will end up being? Or (and I'll now say the name that I'm sure was clearly on everyone's mind from the first sentence of this post) which one Tony Romo will end up being?

How do we make these determinations about who is a "winner" and who isn't? Do we look for signs that we think indicate a guy is "clutch"? Do we hunt for intangibles that we think indicate a player or coach's long-term potential? Eh. It's a tempting practice, but I'm skeptical. I think you really only know a guy is a winner when he wins, and that other than that there's nothing in anyone's DNA that puts them in one category or another. I know many sports fans out there believe in the idea of an inherent "clutchness" to some players. I'm not really interested in debating that here. I think statistics show, in cases of decent sample size, that on average athletes tend to perform the same in "clutch" situations as they do in all other situations. Derek Jeter's postseason batting average, for instance, is about 5 percentage points away from his career batting average. Despite all of the claims that he excels in the clutch, the reality is that he's just a very good baseball player, and he plays equally well pretty much all the time. Our impression that certain athletes are much better or much worse in these "pressure" moments are probably either due to a small sample size or powerful anecdotal memories slanting our views.

So right now, Tony Romo isn't clutch. Right now, Wade Phillips isn't a winner. And they won't be for their entire careers...right up until they are. And will that eventual triumph (if it happens) suddenly make everything that came before any different? Did Bill Cowher's DNA change when he got that Super Bowl trophy? Did he gain some quality that Andy Reid has not discovered yet? Or was he a good coach all along, and finally circumstances and a bit of luck put him in a position to become a champion? I tend to believe the latter is the case-- a good coach is a good coach, a good player is a good player, and that "winner" is a label which is only applied retroactively, can only be known with certainy after a career, not during, because otherwise what are you basing it on?

Moved this over from one of the threads to discuss it as its own topic:

This offseason, a lot of us have cited the need for a backup NT to spell the undersized Jay Ratliff this year, so Rat doesn't get worn down over the course of a long season as the starting NT.

It sounds good and makes philosophical sense to say: "Jay Ratliff is a lighter NT, he needs to be spelled or he'll be tired out and beat up by the end of the season."

But is this really true? What evidence are we seeing that The Rat got worn down last year?

Here's Jay Ratliff's 2008 statistical breakdown:

Weeks 1-10 (includes bye): 4 sacks, 25 tackles

Weeks 11-16: 3.5 sacks, 26 tackles

Where's the drop off? I realize these are very crude statistical measures, but to my eyes, Rat held up very well over the course of a full season. I'd love a good backup NT to spell him, but how many teams have good backup NTs? Who is the NT behind Casey Hampton? Behind Jamal Williams? There is of course always the danger of injury, but that's the case at every position. I don't think there are many NFL teams that wouldn't be in trouble if one of their top defensive players went down.

Certainly Jay Ratliff needs a breather every once in a while. And if he comes off the field, then yes, our options in a base 3-4 defensive formation are limited (Remi Ayodele?).

However, I would argue that the way to spell Rat is not to sub him out in a base 3-4 set. Our formations are more flexible than we probably give them credit for much of the time on this board, and for all our talk of the 3-4 defense, we are often in effect playing a 4 man line (or even a 5 man line, in the case of the 46 defense that Raf has broken down many times).

Because of that, to me the best way to take Rat off the field for a few plays is going to a 4 man line on certain downs and moving Spears and Olshansky (or even Ellis or Spencer) to the DT spots.

My point is what I hope is a reassuring one: Despite his size, Jay Ratliff has not shown a tendency to wear down, and if he did, we do not necessarily need a solid backup NT in order to give him a rest.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2009/pfw-way-we-hear-it-45

From Football Outsiders (link above):

"OK. Soapbox time. This is an article on high school quarterback Tony Lippett, who Free Press writer Matt Dorsey suggests would be a good fit for Michigan State at either quarterback or wide receiver. That's all fine and dandy, but [Lippett says in his article]... 'Some of the best wide receivers in the NFL have been converted quarterbacks.'

"Some of the best wide receivers in the NFL? No. One of the best wide receivers in the NFL: Hines Ward, and Ward played wide receiver full-time his final two years at Georgia. He's not a "converted quarterback" in the same way Patrick White will be or Eric Crouch was at safety. Besides Ward, who's the most prominent converted quarterback who's excelling as a wide receiver? Antwaan Randle El isn't one of the best wide receivers in the league according to anyone except, perhaps, the 2005 Redskins; Matt Jones has shown flashes of talent but took four years to emerge as a starter and would be considered a bust even before factoring in his drug problem. Brad Smith's career is totally stagnant. The idea that there's some sort of opportunity to extract value out of college quarterbacks by putting them at wide receiver simply isn't supported by evidence."

To me, this is an unfortunate reminder that Isaiah Stanback, despite his formidable physical skill set, is working against history in his efforts to become a productive wide receiver. I'd like to see Stanback turn into a reliable #2 or #3 WR, but I think at this point, we should be happy to see him turn into a top tier kick returner and occasional Wildcat option. I think anything much beyond that might be a pipe dream given the historical trends, and that doesn't even take into account his injury history.

THis is insane. This 49ers blog has done a MASSIVE blowout of every free agency position, using great stats and a lot of explanation. They did 3 pages ON THE FULLBACK CLASS ALONE. Crazy. So far they've gotten through QBs, RTs, and FBs:

http://mobile.ninersnation.com/2009/2/21/766755/statistical-preview-of-200

http://mobile.ninersnation.com/2009/2/19/764817/2009-statistical-preview-o

http://mobile.ninersnation.com/2009/2/17/761413/statistical-preview-of-200

So there's some really interesting info for the dedicated NFL fan in there, and they're still going to be doing FS and DE/OLB. I'm looking forward to those.

Most interesting, however, might be the chart on the QB page.

24 different QBs have taken their teams to the playoffs since 2006.

Of those QBs:

11 were acquired via free agency or trade

12 were drafted in the first round

One was drafted in the fourth round (David Garrard)

One was drafted in the sixth round (Tom brady)

One was undrafted (Tony Romo)

Twelve out of 24 drafted in the first round by the team they took to the playoffs.

Reminds you how miraculous Tony Romo's emergence really was-- an undrafted backup emerging as a top caliber NFL QB. Exceedingly rare.

With the big Pittsburgh game coming up this weekend, I am optimistically looking forward to a game against a top-tier opponent and the potential for a gutsy, statement win for this Cowboys team. We're obviously 3 days and 60 long minutes away from that now, but it's at least exciting to think about the potential for a game and a win like that, because a win over the 49ers or the Seahawks, while necessary, somehow just isn't quite as satisfying.

So as we wait for Pittsburgh, this got me to thinking: what are some of everyone's favorite Cowboys wins since they've been fans? For me, these aren't wins like the two regular season Giants blowouts last year, although those were great wins-- instead, my favorites are games like the victory over the previously unbeaten San Diego Chargers under Parcells, in which we played the PERFECT game against a more talented team and emerged with a huge win and a gametape that was a masterpiece to watch. Or even the Bucs game this year, when I finally got to watch a defense that I could have confidence in step up and put the team on its back while fielding a thoroughly ineffective backup QB against a first place opponent.

There are dozens more, obviously, even in just the past two decades-- what are some of everyone else's favorites, from any era?