View Full Version : Running the ball more, why?
JBRockBottom31
10-27-2004, 05:58 PM
All this talk about Parcells figuring he needs to give EG more carries why? Look at the game we had against the Giants!!! We ran the ball down their throats, did we win the game? Nope. So what is all this talk about Parcells needing to run the ball. Here's the article that tipped me off!
Parcells provides clues on Cowboys' direction
04:32 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 27, 2004
By MATT MOSLEY / DallasNews.com
IRVING – A day after Cowboys coach Bill Parcells talked about "mismanaging" his team, he dropped a few clues on what direction he is planning to go.
Parcells acknowledged that veteran running back Eddie George needed more carries and said he would make a bigger commitment to the running game in order to keep his struggling defense off the field.
"I would like to run the ball more and better if we can," Parcells said during his news conference Wednesday. "That would give us a little better balance."
For the first time this season, George has spoken out this week about needing more carries to find a rhythm. In his first eight seasons in the league, George averaged over 21 carries per game. With the Cowboys, George has averaged just 12.
"Obviously if he got more carries," Parcells said. "he’d have more production."
Injuries may open the door for Williams: Now in his fourth season in the league, receiver Randal Williams still hasn't recorded a regular-season catch.
With Terry Glenn out at least two weeks with a severe right foot sprain and newly acquired receiver Quincy Morgan questionable with a right hamstring injury, Williams could finally get his chance.
Parcells said it was time for certain players to show something – and he confirmed that Williams was among that group.
"He has been here four years," Parcells said. "He ought to be able to do something."
There is a chance Williams may start even if Morgan is ready to play. Morgan is listed as Keyshawn Johnson's backup on the depth chart.
Williams had a rough training camp because of nagging injuries and a problem with dropped passes. Then he broke his shoulder blade before the start of the season.
Williams, who is also a strong special teams player, hasn't been activated for a game this season.
Frazier may get another chance: Rookie cornerback Lance Frazier made his debut as a punt returner in the fourth quarter of last Sunday's 41-20 loss to the Packers.
Frazier, who was picked up off the Ravens' practice squad three weeks ago, returned 12 punts for 282 yards (23.5 per return) and a touchdown his senior season at West Virginia.
Parcells mum on Detroit's first-round running back: Parcells didn't have much to say about Lions running back Kevin Jones, whom the Cowboys passed on in the first round of last April's draft.
Jones had 13 carries for 65 yards and his first career touchdown against the Giants last Sunday.
Asked if he regrets not taking Jones in the draft, Parcells said, "The wheel already has spun. No, I don't. We had a little bad luck with the guy we picked. [Julius Jones] broke his shoulder. Tell me who is going to get hurt before the draft."
Cundiff talks about short kickoffs: Cowboys kicker Billy Cundiff talked Wednesday about his problems with short kickoffs. He said it hadn't been a problem for most of the season.
Cundiff said he tries to use "controlled aggression" when he kicks off. He said other kickers such as Detroit's Jason Hanson and Miami's Olindo Mare explode into the ball with their entire bodies.
"Mare might squib four out of every ten balls," Cundiff said. "But he destroys the other six."
Parcells tries to move on with media: At one point during Wednesday's news conference, Parcells practically begged for questions about Detroit. He said he was tired of revisiting last week's performance against Green Bay and asked if anyone was interested in talking about the Lions.
Expect extra security if you wear costume to game: The Cowboys have announced that fans wearing costumes to Sunday's Halloween game against the Lions will be subject to an additional pat-down. Cowboys officials are encouraging fans to arrive at the stadium early due to the additional screenings. Parking gates for the noon game will open at 8 a.m. and the stadium gates will open at 9:30.
Bluefin
10-27-2004, 06:08 PM
All this talk about Parcells figuring he needs to give EG more carries why? Look at the game we had against the Giants!!! We ran the ball down their throats, did we win the game? Nope. So what is all this talk about Parcells needing to run the ball. Here's the article that tipped me off!
Here's why.
From CowboysPlus:
The Cowboys are 9-5 when they hold an edge in time of possession. And 9-2 when it runs the ball at least 30 times. And 9-4 when it rushes for more than 100 yards.
Running = Winning.
DipChit
10-27-2004, 06:20 PM
Does that mean if we just run it up the gut 30 straight times to open the game we have an 80% chance of victory?
Wow, then do it 45 straight times and it should just about guarantee victory!!!
GO Eddie GO!! ;)
Bluefin
10-27-2004, 06:28 PM
Does that mean if we just run it up the gut 30 straight times to open the game we have an 80% chance of victory?
Well, maybe not 30 straight times, but running the ball 30+ times in a game almost always leads to winning.
Bill Parcells talked about it after last season. he said it wasn't really important how well you run the ball, just how much you run the ball.
Big Bill went on to say that defenses played Dallas as they wanted to last year, meaning zone coverage to stop the passing game, not how Dallas wanted them to play, eighth defender in the box to stop the run.
Parcells said that it was important to make defenses play as you wanted them to and to get positive yards running the ball on first and second down to make things easier on the quarterback.
That's why his pass first craze caught me and some other posters so off guard at the start of the season.
It went against everything he talked about after last season.
Parcells seemed to remember that this week and promised changes.
Right now, our defense looks so inept I'm not sure anything will help, but finding and using the running game is the best bet.
DipChit
10-27-2004, 06:40 PM
Aw darn it, Bluefin. Here I thought I was on to something! Just think.. no INT's, no Sacks allowed, no worries about our WR's being banged up or anything. Drat I knew it was too good to be true! :)
But seriously, yeah it can lead to winning provided that the other team doesnt get TD's 4 or 5 times when they have the ball..
Hold them to mostly field goals.. or even nothing at all. We're all familiar with that concept, it's happened *to* us for a few years running now. Err, no pun intended.
Juke99
10-27-2004, 06:45 PM
Here's why.
From CowboysPlus:
Running = Winning.
I've always thought stats like that are as BOGUS as they get...
Ya know "Teams win 90% of the time when they rush the ball over 30 times" well, yeah...because a team that is leading in a game continually runs the ball to run out the clock...same with TOP...if a team is in the lead, they run the ball, eat up the clock...
Kinda silly stat.
DallasKnight
10-27-2004, 06:55 PM
Does that mean if we just run it up the gut 30 straight times to open the game we have an 80% chance of victory?
Wow, then do it 45 straight times and it should just about guarantee victory!!!
GO Eddie GO!! ;)
Yup, your name certainly says it all. Duh!
Obviously you can't do that unless the other team is completely helpless against the run, or you are the Chiefs playing Atlanta. You still have to mix it up otherwise they just start stacking people into the box and stuff the run.
I know you said it sarcastically. I don't care. You have had some really dumb posts and I thought I'd pound you on this one.
DipChit
10-27-2004, 07:04 PM
I know you said it sarcastically. I don't care. You have had some really dumb posts and I thought I'd pound you on this one.
<YAWN> Pound this.
Grevus
10-27-2004, 07:10 PM
Ok. Great. let's run the ball 30+ times. Maybe EG will total 100 yards!?! :rolleyes:
I'd like to see R. Lee run the ball 30 times and see what happens.
Maybe BP is realizing that he has no one to throw the ball to and now has decided to run instead.
If we run the ball 30+ times. Lee will get more than 5 carries. It all depends on the defense. We stuff them BP will run.
Here's why.
From CowboysPlus:
Running = Winning.
I've been rediculed for advocting just that because of those stats. Not running the ball has adversely hurt our TOP. That has also adversely hurt our small D.
Pound George up there 30 times and shorten the game. Parcells erred in pass happy attack. 2-4.
JJ/Lee - the brittle backs can't take NFL pounding.
Ok. Great. let's run the ball 30+ times. Maybe EG will total 100 yards!?! :rolleyes:
I'd like to see R. Lee run the ball 30 times and see what happens.
Maybe BP is realizing that he has no one to throw the ball to and now has decided to run instead.
He's as good as out - on a pass reception a defender went through his soldier. Few backs can truly carry it 30 times for 16 games.
Lee, Jones are showing they are not that type back.
AdamJT13
10-27-2004, 08:23 PM
Running the ball does not necessarily lead to winning, but winning almost always leads to running the ball. Just because winning teams usually run the ball more (but not necessarily more effectively), that doesn't mean that running is the cause and winning is the effect. In most cases, it's the opposite. The key to winning in the NFL is passing the ball effectively and keeping your opponent from passing effectively. If you do that, you'll end up running the ball to protect your lead and use the clock.
AdamJT13
10-27-2004, 08:25 PM
Not running the ball has adversely hurt our TOP.
That's a fallacy. Our defense not being able to stop teams and get off the field is what has hurt our time of possession. Our offense is actually better at holding the ball, sustaining drives and picking up first downs than it was last season, so our possessions use more clock. The problem is the defense.
That's a fallacy. Our defense not being able to stop teams and get off the field is what has hurt our time of possession. Our offense is actually better at holding the ball, sustaining drives and picking up first downs than it was last season, so our possessions use more clock. The problem is the defense.
Its more than just defense,
Its not controlling the clock as well. We went from 4th in TOP to 31st. Pats won two Super Bowls with Antoine Smith. Weiss said you have to be committed to running the ball, running effectively not a prerequisite. A commitment to the run. He is a BB/BP disciple.
BP said - "Bill Parcells talked about it after last season. he said it wasn't really important how well you run the ball, just how much you run the ball."
10-6 team ran it 10 more times a game and had a 5 minute TOP decrease by abondoning the run.
Bill overestimated his pass attack and it backfired on him. Not to mention not getting that blue chip RCB and a FS.
In his defense - the Scouts and past 10 drafts are KILLING him - literally.
AdamJT13
10-27-2004, 08:59 PM
How many times do I have to say it, Nors? Our time of possession is down because of our DEFENSE, not our offense. Our offense is holding the ball longer than it did last year, but our time of possession is down because our defense allows the other team to hold it MUCH longer than last year.
Last year, our offense held the ball an average of 2:39 per possession. This year, we're up to 2:55 because we move the ball, pick up first downs and run more plays.
Last year, our defense allowed other teams to hold the ball an average of 2:20 per possession. We kept teams from getting first downs, stopped them on third down and made them go three-and-out quite often. This year, our defense lets teams hold the ball a whopping 3:07 per possession because we let them pick up first downs, convert on third downs and run more plays.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but in football, teams alternate possessions the majority of the time. One team gets it, then the other team gets it. You can have the greatest ball-control offense of all time and run 10 minutes off the clock with every possession, but if your defense lets the opponent keep it for 11 minutes per possession, you'll LOSE the time of possession battle. That's what's happening to us right now. Even though our offense is near the top of the league in ball control, our defense is near the bottom. With every exchange of possessions, we're losing an average of 12 seconds in time of possession because our defense can't get off the field.
How many times do I have to say it, Nors? Our time of possession is down because of our DEFENSE, not our offense. Our offense is holding the ball longer than it did last year, but our time of possession is down because our defense allows the other team to hold it MUCH longer than last year.
Last year, our offense held the ball an average of 2:39 per possession. This year, we're up to 2:55 because we move the ball, pick up first downs and run more plays.
Last year, our defense allowed other teams to hold the ball an average of 2:20 per possession. We kept teams from getting first downs, stopped them on third down and made them go three-and-out quite often. This year, our defense lets teams hold the ball a whopping 3:07 per possession because we let them pick up first downs, convert on third downs and run more plays.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but in football, teams alternate possessions the majority of the time. One team gets it, then the other team gets it. You can have the greatest ball-control offense of all time and run 10 minutes off the clock with every possession, but if your defense lets the opponent keep it for 11 minutes per possession, you'll LOSE the time of possession battle. That's what's happening to us right now. Even though our offense is near the top of the league in ball control, our defense is near the bottom. With every exchange of possessions, we're losing an average of 12 seconds in time of possession because our defense can't get off the field.
Run the TOP on Eddie George led drives:)
We are not scoring more and have abandoned the run.
"Bill Parcells talked about it after last season. he said it wasn't really important how well you run the ball, just how much you run the ball."
I defer to Bill here, he's right. Look at the stat on 30+ carries.
THIS ALL SAID - Turnover margin is drowning this team also -
jimmy40
10-27-2004, 09:14 PM
How many times do I have to say it, Nors? Our time of possession is down because of our DEFENSE, not our offense. Our offense is holding the ball longer than it did last year, but our time of possession is down because our defense allows the other team to hold it MUCH longer than last year.
Last year, our offense held the ball an average of 2:39 per possession. This year, we're up to 2:55 because we move the ball, pick up first downs and run more plays.
Last year, our defense allowed other teams to hold the ball an average of 2:20 per possession. We kept teams from getting first downs, stopped them on third down and made them go three-and-out quite often. This year, our defense lets teams hold the ball a whopping 3:07 per possession because we let them pick up first downs, convert on third downs and run more plays.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but in football, teams alternate possessions the majority of the time. One team gets it, then the other team gets it. You can have the greatest ball-control offense of all time and run 10 minutes off the clock with every possession, but if your defense lets the opponent keep it for 11 minutes per possession, you'll LOSE the time of possession battle. That's what's happening to us right now. Even though our offense is near the top of the league in ball control, our defense is near the bottom. With every exchange of possessions, we're losing an average of 12 seconds in time of possession because our defense can't get off the field. You should have been in the presidential debates.
no kidding....
Nice job Adam in explaining your view....and facts to prove it.
Hostile
10-27-2004, 11:31 PM
How many times do I have to say it, Nors? Our time of possession is down because of our DEFENSE, not our offense. Our offense is holding the ball longer than it did last year, but our time of possession is down because our defense allows the other team to hold it MUCH longer than last year.
Last year, our offense held the ball an average of 2:39 per possession. This year, we're up to 2:55 because we move the ball, pick up first downs and run more plays.
Last year, our defense allowed other teams to hold the ball an average of 2:20 per possession. We kept teams from getting first downs, stopped them on third down and made them go three-and-out quite often. This year, our defense lets teams hold the ball a whopping 3:07 per possession because we let them pick up first downs, convert on third downs and run more plays.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but in football, teams alternate possessions the majority of the time. One team gets it, then the other team gets it. You can have the greatest ball-control offense of all time and run 10 minutes off the clock with every possession, but if your defense lets the opponent keep it for 11 minutes per possession, you'll LOSE the time of possession battle. That's what's happening to us right now. Even though our offense is near the top of the league in ball control, our defense is near the bottom. With every exchange of possessions, we're losing an average of 12 seconds in time of possession because our defense can't get off the field.
Let me ask you a follow up question because what you are saying makes perfect sense.
Are we also averaging fewer possessions per game? It seems like it to me.
Fewer chances overall would translate to less time to use the clock.
AdamJT13
10-28-2004, 02:01 AM
Let me ask you a follow up question because what you are saying makes perfect sense.
Are we also averaging fewer possessions per game? It seems like it to me.
Fewer chances overall would translate to less time to use the clock.
Absolutely. We've had 59 possessions (not including short, meaningless possessions at the end of halves), and our opponents have had 59. That's less than 10 per game, compared to the NFL average of about 12. Our offense and our opponent's offense both hold the ball longer than the NFL average, so the number of possessions per game is reduced.
I can go back through last year's games to count our possessions, but a quick look at the stats suggests we had about 189 -- or about 11.8 per game. (We had 28 offensive touchdowns, 29 field-goal attempts, 29 turnovers, eight failed fourth downs and 95 punts.) If we continue at our current pace, we'll finish this season with 157 possessions.
starfrombirth
10-28-2004, 07:26 AM
Well, maybe not 30 straight times, but running the ball 30+ times in a game almost always leads to winning..
That is quite possibly the most rediculous statement i've ever heard. If this was indeed the case then everyone would just run it thirty times. The fact is it's how well you run it during those thirty times. If you look at the games we won (or any team for that matter) running those thirty times..look at what the majority of those runs did for the team. Creating 2nd/3rd and short or even 1st downs. Now T'ham wasn't a long yarder. We all know that but when they used him, his 2 yd gains usually put us in a situation where we could qtrbck sneak or short run so teams had to respect that and opened up the long pass play. So to Big Bill I say: It's not how many times you run but also how well your run is used. :mad:
MichaelWinicki
10-28-2004, 07:49 AM
That is quite possibly the most rediculous statement i've ever heard. If this was indeed the case then everyone would just run it thirty times. The fact is it's how well you run it during those thirty times. If you look at the games we won (or any team for that matter) running those thirty times..look at what the majority of those runs did for the team. Creating 2nd/3rd and short or even 1st downs. Now T'ham wasn't a long yarder. We all know that but when they used him, his 2 yd gains usually put us in a situation where we could qtrbck sneak or short run so teams had to respect that and opened up the long pass play. So to Big Bill I say: It's not how many times you run but also how well your run is used. :mad:
You're right... And of course Adam is right (which is almost always the case :D ).
Bluefin is wrong in this instance and Nors (which is almost always the case :D ) is also wrong.
Ineffective running won't win you football balls any more quickly than ineffective passing.
We run Eddie George for 25 times at a 3.3ypc average and we still won't win.
MichaelWinicki
10-28-2004, 07:52 AM
How many times do I have to say it, Nors? Our time of possession is down because of our DEFENSE, not our offense. Our offense is holding the ball longer than it did last year, but our time of possession is down because our defense allows the other team to hold it MUCH longer than last year.
Last year, our offense held the ball an average of 2:39 per possession. This year, we're up to 2:55 because we move the ball, pick up first downs and run more plays.
Last year, our defense allowed other teams to hold the ball an average of 2:20 per possession. We kept teams from getting first downs, stopped them on third down and made them go three-and-out quite often. This year, our defense lets teams hold the ball a whopping 3:07 per possession because we let them pick up first downs, convert on third downs and run more plays.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but in football, teams alternate possessions the majority of the time. One team gets it, then the other team gets it. You can have the greatest ball-control offense of all time and run 10 minutes off the clock with every possession, but if your defense lets the opponent keep it for 11 minutes per possession, you'll LOSE the time of possession battle. That's what's happening to us right now. Even though our offense is near the top of the league in ball control, our defense is near the bottom. With every exchange of possessions, we're losing an average of 12 seconds in time of possession because our defense can't get off the field.
For some reason we've got a lot of folks wanting to see the Cowboys put together a whole bunch of 3 & outs, which is exactly what will happen if we rely on Eddie George to tote the rock for more than 20 plays a game.
MichaelWinicki
10-28-2004, 08:05 AM
Actually it's kind of cute seeing Nors try to take on Adam... :)
Actually it's kind of cute seeing Nors try to take on Adam... :)
We are running the ball more efficiently this year than last, ypc
We are not committed to the run and are losing.
Yes our defense is failing (your wuss 4-3) and no RCB :rolleyes: THAT WASN'T CALLED?
Parcells words - not Adams below
Adam - please post teams average possesion per series.
Then please post average series with Eddie George as feature back.
Thanks -
"Parcells acknowledged that veteran running back Eddie George needed more carries and said he would make a bigger commitment to the running game in order to keep his struggling defense off the field.
"I would like to run the ball more and better if we can," Parcells said during his news conference Wednesday. "That would give us a little better balance."
MichaelWinicki
10-28-2004, 08:45 AM
We are running the ball more efficiently this year than last, ypc
We are not committed to the run and are losing.
Yes our defense is failing (your wuss 4-3) and no RCB :rolleyes: THAT WASN'T CALLED?
Parcells words - not Adams below
Adam - please post teams average possesion per series.
Then please post average series with Eddie George as feature back.
Thanks -
"Parcells acknowledged that veteran running back Eddie George needed more carries and said he would make a bigger commitment to the running game in order to keep his struggling defense off the field.
"I would like to run the ball more and better if we can," Parcells said during his news conference Wednesday. "That would give us a little better balance."
Nors, if we rush Eddie George 25 times and if he picks up less than 90 yards and we lose, I swear I'm calling SBK on you. :D
Nors, if we rush Eddie George 25 times and if he picks up less than 90 yards and we lose, I swear I'm calling SBK on you. :D
Its not like this pass happy attack is working.
D needs scheme changes bad also :D
MichaelWinicki
10-28-2004, 09:01 AM
Its not like this pass happy attack is working.
D needs scheme changes bad also :D
Nors I don't disagree with that. But what everyone is doing is trying to point their fingers at one thing and saying "this is it". This is why we're losing. The fact is it's a whole lotta things-- but most swirl around the talent issue.
The first being that it's not a very talented football team at many of the positions. It just isn't. And when that is fixed, many of our other problems will fall into place.
Wiley
Eaton
Eddie George
Vinny
Whomever our RCB is
Dixon
Tucker
The fact is I doubt anyone of those guys would be able to start for a playoff team-- none of them. They all rank in the bottom part of the league (if not the bottom) in terms of what they can produce given their talent/ages.
Talent is what our problem is more than anything.
DallasKnight
10-28-2004, 09:02 AM
It is my firm Belief that if we keep the O as IS! and Our D was the same as last year, we'd be 4-2 or better. Nors, your theory has too many holes in it.
DipChit
10-28-2004, 09:07 AM
Well Nors, it's one thing to talk about having a little "better balance" and another for you to keep throwing the "we were 5-1 last year!" thing out there to try and justify what you're saying.
If you look at Hambricks attempts last year (ouch.. do i have to?), in the 6 games where he had the most carries they were all indeed wins. BUT they werent wins *because* he carried the ball so many times. By in large (save the Giants win early) in all those games we were in total control of the game due to the way the defense was playing against totally crappy offenses that were no threat at all.
For example..The most carries he had? 33 vs Wash the second time around. Hello, we won the game 27-0. They could still be playing that game and the Skins wouldnt have scored yet.
Second most carries? 24 vs Detroit. Another 37-7 shellacking once again the defense shutting out the opponent. 24 vs NYJ. Here again, Jets with V-V-Vinnie, no real threat.
23 carries vs Zona. Emmitt goes down quick. Win the game 24-7.
If you wanna say we won those games because we kept feeding the ball to Hambrick, go ahead. I'll say we could've kept feeding *you* the ball in those games and we still would've won.
On the flipside, while Bill might've run it a lil bit more in a couple of these early season games this year, it certainly wouldnt have made any difference in the blowout losses because the defense wasnt good enough against those type teams to ever take any control. And running it certainly wouldnt have given yourself a better chance of scoring TD's sooooo, there ya go.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.