This thread was meant to discuss efficiency and not effectiveness, but I'll still ask... Is there any middle ground to the absolute W and L argument? If GT beats Ole Miss 2-0 due to their long snapper snapping a ball through the endzone, was our offense more effective? What if we win despite turning the ball over 6 times and Ole Miss outgains us 350 yards to 100 yards?
I'd be happy as hell with that. I don't care if we win 726-725 or 2-0. As long as we win. As long as we win, our TEAM is more effective. And that's what counts.
But to your point, no our offense would not have been more effective in that game. Our defense would have been though.
I'll relate this to baseball again.
Sometimes we're playing a really good pitcher. In that case, I need my pitcher to match their guy and throw up as close to a shutout as possible. If their guy gives up one, I need my offense to score 2. To insist that my offense score 7 while only giving up 1 is overkill (although it does help us coaches breathe easier!).
In football, some games like Virginia Tech happen. Our defense held them to 17 points. By any measure that's pretty decent for our defense. So our offense needed to score 18...they didn't.
Turn that around though and look @ it from VT's point of view. Their defense threw up a 10-spot, so their offense only needed to score 11. They scored 17. I wouldn't say their offense was very efficient, but it was effective because they scored enough to win the game. That's all they needed to do. To put up 40 would have just been padding. That 11th point won the game.