DNA of our SB Teams

[AdamJT13]

Provide a post where I said that.

I thought you said you were done?

Anyhow, you disagreed that the running game has little effect on winning. You said, "the running game was the main reason the team went 12-4 in 2014." You said, "the running game is what made our passing game so efficient." You said Adrian Peterson "was the reason the Vikings won games and made the playoffs." You said "the only way the Cowboys can contend is with an elite performance by their top runner." You said, we "couldn't win (in 2015) because of an inconsistent running game."

So now you're claiming you never said the running game is what wins games?

 

[KJJ]

I thought you said you were done?

Anyhow, you disagreed that the running game has little effect on winning. You said, "the running game was the main reason the team went 12-4 in 2014." You said, "the running game is what made our passing game so efficient." You said Adrian Peterson "was the reason the Vikings won games and made the playoffs." You said "the only way the Cowboys can contend is with an elite performance by their top runner." You said, we "couldn't win (in 2015) because of an inconsistent running game."

So now you're claiming you never said the running game is what wins games?

I said all of that but I never said "running the ball better than your opponent wins games." I'm not about to let that go. All you're doing is damaging your credibility by misquoting me and continuing to cry and drag this on.

 

[AdamJT13]

I said all of that but I never said "running the ball better than your opponent wins games." I'm not about to let that go. All you're doing is damaging your credibility by misquoting me and continuing to cry and drag this on.

I wasn't quoting you, obviously. (Hence the absence of quotes, which are necessary to quote someone.)

But that is exactly what you meant when you claimed (erroneously) that "the running game was the main reason the team went 12-4 in 2014," that "the running game is what made our passing game so efficient," that the running game "was the reason the Vikings won games and made the playoffs" and that we "couldn't win (in 2015) because of an inconsistent running game."

Or don't you believe that the running game was the main reason for any of those things?

 

[KJJ]

I wasn't quoting you, obviously. (Hence the absence of quotes, which are necessary to quote someone.)

But that is exactly what you meant when you claimed (erroneously) that "the running game was the main reason the team went 12-4 in 2014," that "the running game is what made our passing game so efficient," that the running game "was the reason the Vikings won games and made the playoffs" and that we "couldn't win (in 2015) because of an inconsistent running game."

Or don't you believe that the running game was the main reason for any of those things?

To misquote someone all you have to do is slant, twist or misrepresent what someone said and that's exactly what you did. If you want to spend several days arguing over something as trivial as that go ahead. Now that you got caught with your pants down claiming I said something I didn't you're now saying that's what I meant to say. LOL

You're looking more foolish with every response. You're just peeved because you've spent almost a week making a weak case that I easily shot down and all you've done the last couple of days is cry over it. Go find a shoulder to cry on because you're not going to get any sympathy from me.

 

[AdamJT13]

To misquote someone all you have to do is slant, twist or misrepresent what someone said and that's exactly what you did.

That's not what it means to misquote someone. To misquote someone, you must first quote someone. I was not quoting you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quote

"to repeat (something written or said by another person) exactly"

"to write or say the exact words of (someone)"​

I also did not misrepresent what you said. You clearly said that the running game was the reason that we won in 2014 and that we lost in 2015.

Do you or do you not believe that the running game is what wins games?

And you can drop the sixth-grade insults. They don't work.

 

[KJJ]

I also did not misrepresent what you said. You clearly said that the running game was the reason that we won in 2014 and that we lost in 2015.

I clearly said that but you claimed I said we won in 2014 because we ran the ball better than our opponents and I never said that. You're trying to deflect from what you claimed I said just a few posts ago by using a comment I did make and it's making you look foolish. lol You clearly misrepresented what I said and are denying it. If you thought you won this argument you would have walked away days ago.

The MO you're displaying isn't of someone who thinks they won an argument it's of someone continuing to plead their case even though the hammer has already come down. It's over except it and move on.

 

[AdamJT13]

I clearly said that but you claimed I said we won in 2014 because we ran the ball better than our opponents

So you believe that running is what wins games -- but you don't have to run it better than your opponent? Is that what you're saying?

 

[jjktkk]

Talk all you want about scheme and coaching. If he doesnt have the players to execute it, it is useless. What they had on defense in Tampa compared to what we have here is laughable. I dont think there is a player on our defense that would start on that Tampa team. MAYBE Sean Lee on a healthy day? Maybe?

That's a fair assessment , but isn't Marinelli suppose to be able to coach up this group on defense, regardless of the talent level? Doesn't Marinelli have some input as to picking the talent on defense? I know there is a talent deficiency on defense with the Cowboys, but based on results, Marinelli has not lived up to expectations imo.

 

[jjktkk]

Our DNA for Super Bowls was great coaching. We don't have that now, so we must win in spite of it.

Yes great coaching with Landry and Johnson, but the talent level on those Cowboy's teams was amazing. Plus, if you stop and think about it, don't all great teams have great coaching and great players?

 

[KJJ]

So you believe that running is what wins games -- but you don't have to run it better than your opponent? Is that what you're saying?

I never said the running game wins games or that you have to out rush your opponent to win games that's your spin. I was referring to what helped Minnesota win games in 2012 and what helped the Cowboys win games in 2014 and it was clearly the running game. In 2012 there's NO WAY the Vikings win 11 games and make the playoffs without Adrain Peterson running the football for over 2000 yards and 12 TD's. Christian Ponder passed for under 3000 yards, had only 18 TD's and his passer rating was only 81.2. You take Peterson out of the lineup that season and force Ponder to have to put the ball up all year Minn would have been lucky to win 6 games. They leaned on Peterson the entire season and he averaged 6.0 a carry. Heading into the 2014 season the Cowboys knew they had to take pressure off Romo who was coming off back surgery. They couldn't allow him to put the ball up 40+ times a game because they feared he wouldn't last the season.

They were resting him in camp and had him sit out practices during the season as a precaution so they entered 2014 determined to run the football and take pressure off him. Romo was noticeably stiff and not moving well the first 2-3 weeks. Leaning on the running game that season instead of having to lean on him like we have in the past made the Cowboys a much better team than anyone predicted that season. It made Romo a better more efficient QB just look at his league leading passer rating that year. The running game not only helped Romo but it helped the defense from being exposed like it was in 2013. Our D spent an average of 12 fewer plays off the field than they did in 2013 because of ball control due to the running game. Romo only had one 40 attempt game in 2014 including 2 playoff games compared to 5 in 2013 and he had 100 fewer passing attempts.

Games weren't falling on his shoulders like they had in the past. We didn't see the big ill-timed mistakes because he wasn't having to win games. His past problems especially in critical games have all been due to relying on him too much. Garrett stressed many times we have to run the ball more and run the ball better and that's what we did in 2014. Seattle won a SB in 2013 by playing great defense and running the football. They had a young QB who Pet Carroll didn't want having to win games. Seattle won that season by having Wilson manage games due to having a running game led by an elite back and a great defense that benefitted from the running game.

Carroll said he didn't want Wilson having to pass for 4500 yards and 37 TD's. They had a plan for their particular team that worked for them and the talent they had. When you're playing against an Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and a Peyton Manning in his prime you want to play keep away and you need an efficient running game to do it. The plan changes each week depending on the opponent and the QB you're facing. In 2011 the Cowboys had the Pats down in the closing minutes but because they weren't able to milk the clock with the running game Brady beat them in the closing seconds. Go ahead and put your spin on everything I've said to fit the obvious agenda you have but you'll just keep making yourself look foolish.

 

[AdamJT13]

I never said the running game wins games

So you didn't say the running game was why we went 12-4 in 2014 or why the Vikings made the playoffs in 2012?

Our D spent an average of 12 fewer plays off the field than they did in 2013

Again, that is totally false. I thought you dealt in facts?

 

[jobberone]

Yes great coaching with Landry and Johnson, but the talent level on those Cowboy's teams was amazing. Plus, if you stop and think about it, don't all great teams have great coaching and great players?

Yes, with emphasis on the great players.

 

[CowboyRoy]

That's a fair assessment , but isn't Marinelli suppose to be able to coach up this group on defense, regardless of the talent level? Doesn't Marinelli have some input as to picking the talent on defense? I know there is a talent deficiency on defense with the Cowboys, but based on results, Marinelli has not lived up to expectations imo.

I think he has coached some guys up. And I think the defense has been better then it actually should in some areas. But we have no talent. Name me one play maker on that defense save for Sean Lee? 9 turnovers all of last year? WOW!!! Nobody in the secondary can make a play. No one in on the line can get pressure with any consistency. Its bad.

 

[Oh_Canada]

The facts say I'm correct. Let's look at the facts from around the league in 2015 --

Teams that passed better went 202-54, a winning percentage of .789.
Teams that rushed better went 134-122, a winning percentage of .523.

Teams that passed better AND rushed better went 107-27, a winning percentage of .799.
Teams that passed better and rushed WORSE went 95-27, a winning percentage of .779.

Teams that rushed better and passed WORSE went 27-95, a winning percentage of .221.
Teams that rushed worse AND passed worse went 27-107, a winning percentage of .201.


So, teams that passed better than their opponent won almost 80 percent of the time, and it made almost no difference whether they also ran better (.799) or ran worse (.779) than their opponent.

Teams that passed worse than their opponent won only about 20 percent of the time, and it made almost no difference whether they ran the ball better (.221) or ran the ball worse (.201) than their opponent.

Teams that ran better than their opponent won about 52 percent of the time overall (slightly better than a coin flip) -- with a HUGE SWING coming whether they passed the ball better (.799) or passed the ball worse (.221) than their opponent.


Those percentages are nearly the same every year. Passing better than your opponent is how you almost always win in the NFL. And let's not forget, in our past 38 games, the team that has passed better is 37-1 (with the only loss coming on a last-minute TD). The team that has rushed better is 19-19.

You lose.

I'm not sure if the "but we won in the 90's" proponents of spending a high pick on a back will ever get it.

To me, the formula is simple. Find a pass rush and stop the pass, protect your qb from the opposing pass rush, give your qb options to throw the ball and find a solid back who can close out games when needed.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I'm not sure if the "but we won in the 90's" proponents of spending a high pick on a back will ever get it.

To me, the formula is simple. Find a pass rush and stop the pass, protect your qb from the opposing pass rush, give your qb options to throw the ball and find a solid back who can close out games when needed.

Strong D and a strong run game with an effective QB that can win in the clutch when needed. Play action deep ball off the strong run game. That is my formula. Passing the ball 50 times a game I dont like that one. You need a Tom Brady type QB to make that work over the long haul. 90's Cowboys was absolutely perfect for me.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Strong D and a strong run game with an effective QB that can win in the clutch when needed. Play action deep ball off the strong run game. That is my formula. Passing the ball 50 times a game I dont like that one. You need a Tom Brady type QB to make that work over the long haul. 90's Cowboys was absolutely perfect for me.

90's is long gone. You cannot beat a top qb with no pass rush and a good running game. Zeke is a good back, but no running back is worth fourth overall, especially when you consider most "might" give you four prime years.

 

[KJJ]

So you didn't say the running game was why we went 12-4 in 2014 or why the Vikings made the playoffs in 2012?

I definitely said that and I pointed to the "Cowboys in 2014" and the "Vikings in 2012" as to how "they" won games but I never said the running game wins games because that would be saying that every team in the league uses the running game every season to win games and that would be totally false. You can try misrepresenting my comments all you want but I've been very clear to those who don't have an agenda. Every team is different some like the Pats and Packers win by having their QBs putting the ball up every week. It's a passing league and most teams are pass happy. Denver was winning by Manning airing it out every week putting up record numbers but it caught up with them during the playoffs and SB so they made changes heading into the 2015 season. Manning was aging and they didn't want to depend on his arm every week to win games.

They went with a different approach building a great defense and managing Manning and it helped them win a SB. How they reached the SB in 2015 was totally different than how they got there 2 years ago. If you look at Seattle they won their SB and got to another one with defense and a solid running game that allowed Wilson to manage games. Last season Wilson had to be a lot more productive due to their defense not being quite as dominant and Lynch missing a number of games. The 2014 Cowboys did what they felt they had to do to win games that season and that was to take pressure off Romo by running the ball. They didn't want the defense being exposed as much and the running game kept the defense off the field more than in 2013.

Again, that is totally false. I thought you dealt in facts?

I gave what was reported by NFL Network. Willie McGinest said the Cowboys defense spent 12 fewer plays on the field in 2014 than they did in 2013. Heath Evens later said it was 13 plays. It's been mentioned a number of times but I'm not about to look up exactly how many plays fewer the defense spent on the field in 2014 than they did in 2013. If you want to do the math and see exactly how many games it was feel free. One thing that's certain the Cowboys defense spent less time on the field in 2014 than in 2013. The link below proves what I've been saying that the running game helped the defense and that the defense spent a lot less time on the field.

http://www.footballinsiders.com/dallas-defense-looks-strong-with-mcclain-in-middle/

Having McClain in the middle of the defense was a game-changer for the Cowboys and a big reason they ticked up from the last-ranked defense in 2013 to middle of the pack in 2014. The Dallas offense had a lot to do with that as well, as their run-heavy, clock-control style kept the defense off the field. Only two defenses spent less time per game on the field than the Cowboys last season: the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Seattle Seahawks.

 

[Sydla]

FWIW, since this thread is based upon a premise that running the ball really well is the DNA of our SB teams, let's not that the defense in those years was elite.

1992 - 5th in scoring defense
1993 - 2nd in scoring defense
1995- 3rd in scoring defense

The DNA of our SB teams was that we just had really good, COMPLETE teams. Not a team with a great running game that made the passing game and defense good.

 

[Clove]

 

[KJJ]

FWIW, since this thread is based upon a premise that running the ball really well is the DNA of our SB teams, let's not that the defense in those years was elite.

1992 - 5th in scoring defense
1993 - 2nd in scoring defense
1995- 3rd in scoring defense

The DNA of our SB teams was that we just had really good, COMPLETE teams. Not a team with a great running game that made the passing game and defense good.

What helped those defenses was having a real good efficient offense that could maintain the ball due to the running game. Keeping a defense off the field and fresh is going to make any defense perform better it helped our defense in 2014. If you're not moving the ball offensively and suffering turnovers that puts your defense back on the field. If the D is on the field too long they'll get worn down.