Tevin Coleman's 40

[burmafrd]

the coleman detractors convienently keep forgetting to mention what he was surrounded with. Yet he still got over 2000 yards with a bad foot. And yet some here are desperate to somehow make that seem like nothing.

Not a very good O line
Lousy QB play most of the season
Rest of team was not all that either.
Behind in the 4th a lot so they had to pass instead of run

Yet some are trying to claim Gordon did more. Gordon who had a top quality O line; Gordon who had better QB play; Gordon who overall had a much better team around him. And late in the game could usually count on a bunch of carries against a tiring D as Wisconsin protected a lead. And a HEALTHY gordon could still not outdue Coleman with ALL THOSE ADVANTAGES.

 

[VACowboy]

I have been outspoken about wanting to add explosion to the Cowboys running game, to the point of preferring a couple of more elusive guys to a single bell cow, if that's what it takes. This idea has been continually shot down, vehemently by some, for multiple reasons, chief among which being the idea that Jason Garrett and the Cowboys want a reprise of Demarco Murray--a RB who runs hard between the tackles, moves the chains, gets the "dirty yards" and generally batters the defense over four quarters. Now I'm reading that Tevin Coleman is the guy because he ran sub-4.4 at his pro day?

I don't care much about size or speed on a track. History proves that there just is no template for metrics that tell you what a great RB looks like. IMO, when you're choosing a player to run the ball for your team, the guy you want depends a lot on the type of running game you use and what you want out of it. And the only way to determine if a running back will get you what you need is to watch him play.

I watched a crap ton of video a coupla nights ago and posted what I saw in another thread, so I'm not going to rehash. But I have to say, what I did not see when I watched Tevin Coleman was an anvil. I'm on record as saying I like him as a player, but to my eye, he has a heck of a lot more in common with Chris Johnson than he does Marshawn Lynch. Am I wrong?

I can go either way. I like the idea of Duke Johnson and Ryan Williams splitting carries as much as I do a guy like David Cobb pounding the line of scrimmage 25 times a game. I'm all for maximizing talent and using it in whatever way gives us the best chance to win. But I'm a little confused about what we want. And when I say "we," I mean the Cowboys brain trust as well as the posters here on this board, because as much as I like Tevin Coleman, he doesn't strike me as the hammer I thought the Cowboys were looking for.

 

[locked&loaded]

"Football miracle" would be overstating what I said by quite a bit. But, dependent on the type of sprain, missing 3 games really isn't bad. The aspect that interest me is how much better he could be without the injury when he is already being considered a top 10 RB available in this year's draft..which in this particular draft, is saying something.

It wasnt just you, this board is rife with people proclaiming how spectacular it was of him to play with a broken foot.

He missed the last 3 games of the season with the sprain two years ago. No telling how long he would have been out.

His foot wasnt injured all year last year. ABQCowboy listed the games he played with a broken foot (Iowa - Purdue). He was presumably healthy in the games before (Indiana St. through North texas).

Anyway, a few months ago when I was just watching youtube highlights I was enamored with this guy. You can not deny his speed. But, when I started watching full game tape you realize he either runs straight into a pile for a yard or two, no wiggle no push, or they go into a shotgun and flip it out to him on a sweep. What is the point of having a great line (like the cowboys) if your rbs (presuming we draft coleman) best play is getting him 5 yards outside of the tackle box immediately?

Bottom line is, the creases are going to be smaller in the NFL. Yes we have a good line, great even, but that doesnt mean we can just put a sprinter in our backfield and rely on semi truck sized holes. You have to be able to cut in the hole, break tackles, make your own holes then explode and Coleman just doesnt do that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Before the ACL I think Gurley would have ran a very similar time (low 4.4 or high 4.3), even being 15-20 lbs heavier.

I don't think so. Gurley has some quickness to him but the film I've watched did not show a 4.3 guy. In fact, lots of people catch him, they just can't bring him down. He's not slow, by any means, but he's not 4.3 fast IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Official times for Coleman appear to be 4.39 and 4.4 for his Pro Day 40.

 

[dbonham]

Playing valiantly with a messed up foot is not a positive because having a messed up foot is REALLY bad for a RB. Coleman is a good open field runner but he will rarely get there in the NFL. Bad vision, only moves forward if his hips and shoulders are pointed the direction he's going. Bounces off his blockers like a pinball. Randle does a good enough job of sprinting through giant holes.

Gordon is my guy in this class, he is an incredible runner between the tackles. He is elusive but with such economy of motion as to not be counter productive ala Shady. He has elite vision and patience, timing his burst to the millisecond when a crease opens and then in two steps he's out in the second level at full speed. It's crazy how skinny he can get when navigating blocks. Would like to see us utilize a good fullback if we draft him. The main negative is when he gets hit square he goes down, very little falling forward. He gets the dirty yards but he does it through guile.

 

[locked&loaded]

I don't think so. Gurley has some quickness to him but the film I've watched did not show a 4.3 guy. In fact, lots of people catch him, they just can't bring him down. He's not slow, by any means, but he's not 4.3 fast IMO.

He is a big boy and he runs between the tackles, he is going to get caught from behind.

He wouldnt beat coleman in 100 meters but I am pretty sure he would in 60 meters.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He is a big boy and he runs between the tackles, he is going to get caught from behind.

He wouldnt beat coleman in 100 meters but I am pretty sure he would in 60 meters.

I don't think so. I think that he would not get pulled down as easily as Coleman would on contact but there is no way I think Gurley beats Coleman of the the line at any distance. Coleman is a 10.5 Hundred Meters guy and his 10, 20, 40 splits are all better then Gurley's. Don't get me wrong, I love Gurley. I think he is the best prospect in the draft. The only concern I have with him is that he takes some serious hits. That's going to take it's toll in the NFL but from a pure talent standpoint, Gurley is the best prospect in this draft at RB IMO.

 

[jnday]

the coleman detractors convienently keep forgetting to mention what he was surrounded with. Yet he still got over 2000 yards with a bad foot. And yet some here are desperate to somehow make that seem like nothing.

Not a very good O line
Lousy QB play most of the season
Rest of team was not all that either.
Behind in the 4th a lot so they had to pass instead of run

Yet some are trying to claim Gordon did more. Gordon who had a top quality O line; Gordon who had better QB play; Gordon who overall had a much better team around him. And late in the game could usually count on a bunch of carries against a tiring D as Wisconsin protected a lead. And a HEALTHY gordon could still not outdue Coleman with ALL THOSE ADVANTAGES.

Coleman's oline wasn't as bad as I thought. Most of those long runs was due to running lanes that a truck could drive through. I didn't see much of Coleman getting his yards by his own efforts and talent like great RBs sometimes do.

 

[jnday]

I don't think so. I think that he would not get pulled down as easily as Coleman would on contact but there is no way I think Gurley beats Coleman of the the line at any distance. Coleman is a 10.5 Hundred Meters guy.

Gurley was a track guy himself, so it should be s close race.

 

[reddyuta]

Playing valiantly with a messed up foot is not a positive because having a messed up foot is REALLY bad for a RB. Coleman is a good open field runner but he will rarely get there in the NFL. Bad vision, only moves forward if his hips and shoulders are pointed the direction he's going. Bounces off his blockers like a pinball. Randle does a good enough job of sprinting through giant holes.

Gordon is my guy in this class, he is an incredible runner between the tackles. He is elusive but with such economy of motion as to not be counter productive ala Shady. He has elite vision and patience, timing his burst to the millisecond when a crease opens and then in two steps he's out in the second level at full speed. It's crazy how skinny he can get when navigating blocks. Would like to see us utilize a good fullback if we draft him. The main negative is when he gets hit square he goes down, very little falling forward. He gets the dirty yards but he does it through guile.

Agree with this.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Gurley was a track guy himself, so it should be s close race.

Gurley's best 100 meter time is 10.7 so yeah, it's close but he's not as fast as Coleman. Still in all, it's close and for a guy who 222 lbs, you have to love that.

 

[Idgit]

I know through the first 6 or 7 games the number was really high. It's interesting, seems like there was a lot of really good from the OL but also some really good from the RB. Not only close to 1000 yds after contact he also had the second highest number of missed tackles against him.

That's what it was. Early in the year it was getting reported that Dallas' YBC was the 6th best rusher in the league, or whatever. That obviously changed later in the year as defenses started committing resources to the run, which is why Romo's productivity went up. Regardless, Murray was effective last season both at the beginning and at the end of the year. He was a good, hard RB who took what was there, blocked well in the passing game, did everything well. We don't have an all-around player like that on the roster and it's not reasonable to expect we'll necessarily replace him in the draft since we're going to take a RB lower than people probably want.

What we will get is a rotation of guys who are football smart and who will work hard. At least one of them, McFadden, can pass protect. And we'll rotate players situationally. We'll still have the same or a similar percentage of runs, overall, and your YPC isn't going to dip dramatically. And we'll have saved the cap and draft resources to spend on defense, where our improved pass rush and front 7 play will hopefully have the offense playing with more leads, overall. And we'll be a harder out for teams that have good QBs than we were last year, not having to rely on the ball control offense and Tony Romo to match scoring. As a team, we'll actually be *more* balanced because with our OL, it's the defense and not the running game that's deficient.

 

[burmafrd]

Coleman's oline wasn't as bad as I thought. Most of those long runs was due to running lanes that a truck could drive through. I didn't see much of Coleman getting his yards by his own efforts and talent like great RBs sometimes do.

long runs usually are the result of big holes. What made Coleman so interesting to me is that with NO QB worth the name EVERYONE knew what was coming and he still got 2000 yards playing more than half the season with a bad foot. Just think about that- he might have gotten 2500 without that injury. I think you and too many others really don't get that.

 

[jnday]

long runs usually are the result of big holes. What made Coleman so interesting to me is that with NO QB worth the name EVERYONE knew what was coming and he still got 2000 yards playing more than half the season with a bad foot. Just think about that- he might have gotten 2500 without that injury. I think you and too many others really don't get that.

I get it, but I don't think his oline was as bad as many say. I saw some impressive blocking from the oline on those long runs. Those linemen may never have a NFL career, but they are capable of doing a good job at the college level and those wide running lanes showed it. I have nothing against Coleman at all, but he didn't get those yards without help.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

long runs usually are the result of big holes. What made Coleman so interesting to me is that with NO QB worth the name EVERYONE knew what was coming and he still got 2000 yards playing more than half the season with a bad foot. Just think about that- he might have gotten 2500 without that injury. I think you and too many others really don't get that.

Indiana's OL was not very good at all. Add to that the fact that they had no passing threat and you end up with 8/9 in the box all the time. I think what he did was pretty impressive.

 

[xwalker]

the coleman detractors convienently keep forgetting to mention what he was surrounded with. Yet he still got over 2000 yards with a bad foot. And yet some here are desperate to somehow make that seem like nothing.

Not a very good O line
Lousy QB play most of the season
Rest of team was not all that either.
Behind in the 4th a lot so they had to pass instead of run

Yet some are trying to claim Gordon did more. Gordon who had a top quality O line; Gordon who had better QB play; Gordon who overall had a much better team around him. And late in the game could usually count on a bunch of carries against a tiring D as Wisconsin protected a lead. And a HEALTHY gordon could still not outdue Coleman with ALL THOSE ADVANTAGES.

When comparing Gordon and Coleman I agree with those issues; however, in general the run blocking for Coleman was not that bad. Yes, they were not consistent, but they had some smaller type OL that could move and they used a lot of movement type blocking with stretch plays and pulling OLinemen. They were often able to get defensers to take themselves out of the play due to over-aggressiveness. It was a blocking scheme that resulted in a lot of big plays because when defenders are getting into the backfield, then if they miss tackling Coleman there, they are out of position to defend the run once he is past the line.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

When comparing Gordon and Coleman I agree with those issues; however, in general the run blocking for Coleman was not that bad. Yes, they were not consistent, but they had some smaller type OL that could move and they used a lot of movement type blocking with stretch plays and pulling OLinemen. They were often able to get defensers to take themselves out of the play due to over-aggressiveness. It was a blocking scheme that resulted in a lot of big plays because when defenders are getting into the backfield, then if they miss tackling Coleman there, they are out of position to defend the run once he is past the line.

Watch them against Michigan. They were overpowered. I agree that they did well with what they had to work with but against more talented front 7 teams, they were just overmatched.

 

[jnday]

When comparing Gordon and Coleman I agree with those issues; however, in general the run blocking for Coleman was not that bad. Yes, they were not consistent, but they had some smaller type OL that could move and they used a lot of movement type blocking with stretch plays and pulling OLinemen. They were often able to get defensers to take themselves out of the play due to over-aggressiveness. It was a blocking scheme that resulted in a lot of big plays because when defenders are getting into the backfield, then if they miss tackling Coleman there, they are out of position to defend the run once he is past the line.

I kinda saw the same things that you mentioned. The line was not consistent from play to play, but they opened those wide running lanes quite often and to Colemsn's credit, he took full advantage. His vision seemed good to recognize the holes that produced so many long runs. Coleman doesn't seem like the the type of RB that will be physical in the NFL though.

 

[xwalker]

Watch them against Michigan. They were overpowered. I agree that they did well with what they had to work with but against more talented front 7 teams, they were just overmatched.

I did.

The defense made some dramatic hits behind the line at times but the OL gave him many chances to succeed.

Just look at the 1st five carries:
First hit 2 yards past the line.
First hit 2 yards past the line (fumble).
First hit 5 yards past the line (3 man DLine).
Coleman stumbles behind the line before being hit (fumble).
First hit 10 yards past the line.