#34 Darius Jackson

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Cowboys showed they didn't think a lot of McFadden by signing him to a 2 year heavily incentive based contract that only included a $200,000 signing bonus. Jerry banked on his OL rather than at RB thinking any back could run like Murray did in 2014 and he found out he was wrong. Jerry devalued RBs and thought all he needed was a great OL. He said when they signed Collins if you can keep adding to the OL you can have a great running game without having to pay a premium for a back.

Not hard to figure out what he was saying. Listen to his comments at the end of the 2014 season saying he thought Randle could run like Murray and pointed to the production Randle had with the opportunities he received that season. Obviously he was trying to send a message to Murray's agent but Jerry believed the back didn't matter that much.

He realized last season that he made a mistake and that Romo was back having to carry the offense and it contributed to him being injured. What happened in 2015 caused Jerry to reassess the RB position and he and his staff decided to do the smart thing and pair his OL with a great back because the back matters!

I think the Cowboys showed that they weren't sure exactly what McFadden had left and that he was much closer to the end then the beginning. Jerry wanted Jones so bad when he came out that he could taste it. We tried to trade up but we didn't have what it took to get him. The Cowboys obviously thought a great deal of McFadden as a player. I think it's the situation McFadden was in when we were finally able to sign him.

 

[KJJ]

I think the Cowboys showed that they weren't sure exactly what McFadden had left and that he was much closer to the end then the beginning. Jerry wanted Jones so bad when he came out that he could taste it. We tried to trade up but we didn't have what it took to get him. The Cowboys obviously thought a great deal of McFadden as a player. I think it's the situation McFadden was in when we were finally able to sign him.

If Jerry still felt the same way about the RB position that he felt after the 2014 season and was concerned about what McFadden had left the Cowboys would have simply settled for Morris or taken a back after the first round and not invested the 4th overall pick on an RB. Jerry thought a great deal of the McFadden 8 years ago and he like everyone else knew he wasn't that same player which is why he received a minimal signing bonus and an incentive based contract. What McFadden did last season wasn't bad but it obviously wasn't good enough and it convinced Jerry that the back matters regardless how good your OL is.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If Jerry still felt the same way about the RB position that he felt after the 2014 season and was concerned about what McFadden had left the Cowboys would have simply settled for Morris or taken a back after the first round and not invested the 4th overall pick on an RB. Jerry thought a great deal of the McFadden 8 years ago and he like everyone else knew he wasn't that same player which is why he received a minimal signing bonus and an incentive based contract. What McFadden did last season wasn't bad but it obviously wasn't good enough and it convinced Jerry that the back matters regardless how good your OL is.

No. You can't look at DMacs age and think you are set but be that as it may, that doesn't mean those who believe it was not a wise use of resources are wrong.

 

[KJJ]

No. You can't look at DMacs age and think you are set but be that as it may, that doesn't mean those who believe it was not a wise use of resources are wrong.

You can't look at his age or his numbers and think you're set if the goal is to be a great team. The Cowboys found out that the back does matter and decided to go after an elite prospect with the 4th overall pick rather than see if they could make it work with a lesser back. That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[CowboyStar88]

I'm still trying to figure out why the Boys drafted him. Maybe he turns out to be a good player for them but I'm not so sure.

I'm thinking return game and ST

 

[dallasdave]

For Romo to stay healthy we need balance. We can't have him throwing the ball 40+ times a game carrying the offense like he did in the opener last season which is why we used our 4th overall pick on an RB. During our 3 straight 8-8 seasons Romo was on the field for every game except one. Having him back doesn't guarantee a good season it only helps avoid a disastrous season.

I agree, that's why a RB was so important in the draft !!!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You can't look at his age or his numbers and think you're set if the goal is to be a great team. The Cowboys found out that the back does matter and decided to go after an elite prospect with the 4th overall pick rather than see if they could make it work with a lesser back. That's the point I'm trying to make.

His numbers are not the problem. His numbers were fine on the whole and nothing that a better QB and WR performance wouldn't improve. The point you are trying to make, IMO, is not accurate.

 

[KJJ]

His numbers are not the problem. His numbers were fine on the whole and nothing that a better QB and WR performance wouldn't improve. The point you are trying to make, IMO, is not accurate.

You believe that because you're just looking at his 1189 rushing yards and his 4.6 rushing average and are not looking deeper because his numbers weren't fine as a whole. He only scored 3 rushing TD's all season despite a career high in carries. All the backs who ranked ahead of him in rushing and several who ranked behind him had more rushing TD's than he did. Ronnie Hillman for Denver rushed for under 900 yards but had more than double the rushing TD's that McFadden had. Despite 279 touches rushing and receiving McFadden only scored 3 TD's. The Cowboys were the worst team in the league on 3rd and one and McFadden was part of the problem. Like I mentioned he averaged under 4.0 a carry in 8 games and had it not been for the last 4 games of the season where his rushing average was greatly inflated due to the Cowboys and their opponents playing out the schedule McFadden would have averaged under 4.0 a carry.

He played in 4 games with Romo on the field and Dez was on the field in 3 of those games and he only had one good game. In the opener McFadden averaged only 2.7 a carry in the same role Randle excelled in during the 2014 season. In week 2 with Romo on the field McFadden only averaged 3.1 a carry. With Romo on the field vs Carolina McFadden only averaged 1.9 a carry. In Oakland in 2010 with a far worse QB and WR situation and not nearly as good an OL he rushed for 1157 yards in only 13 games and had 7 rushing TD's and 3 receiving TD's. The Cowboys got what was left of McFadden.

He's not half the player he was in 2010 and the Cowboys knew it when they signed him but Jerry wanted to go cheap at RB because he had so much faith in his OL. What I've been telling you is very accurate which is why the team made the move they did at RB. The Cowboys could have stayed pat with Morris or drafted an RB in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th round but they wanted to make sure they got a terrific player at the position who has a chance to be special because Jerry found out the back matters. Argue it all you want but I'm giving you the facts. I've been dead on about the RB situation ever since Murray left and the many who've argued with me know it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You believe that because you're just looking at his 1189 rushing yards and his 4.6 rushing average and are not looking deeper because his numbers weren't fine as a whole. He only scored 3 rushing TD's all season despite a career high in carries. All the backs who ranked ahead of him in rushing and several who ranked behind him had more rushing TD's than he did. Ronnie Hillman for Denver rushed for under 900 yards but had more than double the rushing TD's that McFadden had. Despite 279 touches rushing and receiving McFadden only scored 3 TD's. The Cowboys were the worst team in the league on 3rd and one and McFadden was part of the problem. Like I mentioned he averaged under 4.0 a carry in 8 games and had it not been for the last 4 games of the season where his rushing average was greatly inflated due to the Cowboys and their opponents playing out the schedule McFadden would have averaged under 4.0 a carry.

He played in 4 games with Romo on the field and Dez was on the field in 3 of those games and he only had one good game. In the opener McFadden averaged only 2.7 a carry in the same role Randle excelled in during the 2014 season. In week 2 with Romo on the field McFadden only averaged 3.1 a carry. With Romo on the field vs Carolina McFadden only averaged 1.9 a carry. In Oakland in 2010 with a far worse QB and WR situation and not nearly as good an OL he rushed for 1157 yards in only 13 games and had 7 rushing TD's and 3 receiving TD's. The Cowboys got what was left of McFadden.

He's not half the player he was in 2010 and the Cowboys knew it when they signed him but Jerry wanted to go cheap at RB because he had so much faith in his OL. What I've been telling you is very accurate which is why the team made the move they did at RB. The Cowboys could have stayed pat with Morris or drafted an RB in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th round but they wanted to make sure they got a terrific player at the position who has a chance to be special because Jerry found out the back matters. Argue it all you want but I'm giving you the facts. I've been dead on about the RB situation ever since Murray left and the many who've argued with me know it.

First of all, I never said he was half the player or whatever. I said he was fine and he was.

This statement on the 4 games is incomplete. Come on man, at least have a real discussion on the subject matter. Over those first 4 games, he averaged 8 carries a game and the blocking scheme we were using was suited to Randal. When we changed that, he took off. Of the 8 games he averaged under 4 yards a carry, 4 of them were in the first 5 games, before we changed our Blocking Scheme and Benched Randal. The others were against Seattle, the Second Best Defense in the League, Tampa Bay, which I don't understand and have not rewatched that game to remember, Carolina the 4th best Defense in the League, and Washington, a game I remember and a game where he actually didn't play poorly in. He actually averaged 3.8 YPC in that game and he was under used in. So against a Division foe. I just don't see the same thing you are seeing.

The TD number would have to be qualified. How many attempts did he actually have on the Goal Line? Did we use other players in that situation? Did we call pass plays instead of trying to run it in?

 

[boysfanindc]

Dmac had over 1000 yds last year, but really only saw consistent play during the final 8 games. During that stretch, he carried the offense, even with no real passing threat. He had a great year.

Morris has had zero carries for us, and his production has gone down every year in the league....of course the skins mishandled him, but it is still something to consider. Why did his time and touches go down.....why was he leap frogged by other backs......

I am not saying morris is trash and dmac is treasure, but i take what i know over what i dont know if what i know has been productive for me. I find it hard to replace production with potential, when we are discussing veteran players. I am ok with rookie potential getting an opportunity.

Btw, i wonder if action jackson could play LB

Morris was not really leap frogged by other backs last year, the skins got it in there mind they did not want to pay him. They kept trying to get Jones to be the lead back and Morris kept out playing him, plus Jones liked to lay the ball down.

It was a financial decision by the Skins.

 

[KJJ]

First of all, I never said he was half the player or whatever. I said he was fine and he was.

This statement on the 4 games is incomplete. Come on man, at least have a real discussion on the subject matter. Over those first 4 games, he averaged 8 carries a game and the blocking scheme we were using was suited to Randal. When we changed that, he took off. Of the 8 games he averaged under 4 yards a carry, 4 of them were in the first 5 games, before we changed our Blocking Scheme and Benched Randal. The others were against Seattle, the Second Best Defense in the League, Tampa Bay, which I don't understand and have not rewatched that game to remember, Carolina the 4th best Defense in the League, and Washington, a game I remember and a game where he actually didn't play poorly in. He actually averaged 3.8 YPC in that game and he was under used in. So against a Division foe. I just don't see the same thing you are seeing.

The TD number would have to be qualified. How many attempts did he actually have on the Goal Line? Did we use other players in that situation? Did we call pass plays instead of trying to run it in?

I never claimed you said he was half the player, I said he was half the player. It's an excuse to blame our blocking scheme because he was given a role and wasn't getting it done. In the first 6 games prior to him starting he only had 2 games where he averaged over 4.0 a carry. As for Randle he never got benched he got injured then had more off the field issues which is what gave McFadden his opportunity. I would have to go back to see how many times McFadden was used on the goal line but many of the so called experts here claimed he would give us some long TD runs and that never happened because he's not as fast as he use to be. Once we reached the redzone he wasn't effective which put pressure on our QBs forcing us the throw the ball.

Our points were coming via the passing game and Bailey because we couldn't run the ball when we got down close. Don't know why you keep defending McFadden when we used the 4th overall pick to replace him. All you keep doing is making excuses for why he didn't produce in certain situations. You've blamed the OL and our blocking scheme. You've blamed the fact we didn't have Romo or Dez on the field even though they were on the field during some of McFadden's poor performances.

Both Zeke and Morris are better runners than McFadden. Morris has scored 29 rushing TDs in his 4 seasons compared to only 12 TD's for McFadden over that period. McFadden doesn't have a nose for the endzone he's only had 16 rushing TD's the past 5 seasons. Murray had 13 rushing TD's in 2014 and had 6 TD's with Philly despite being in an offense that didn't fit him.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never claimed you said he was half the player, I said he was half the player. It's an excuse to blame our blocking scheme because he was given a role and wasn't getting it done. In the first 6 games prior to him starting he only had 2 games where he averaged over 4.0 a carry. As for Randle he never got benched he got injured then had more off the field issues which is what gave McFadden his opportunity. I would have to go back to see how many times McFadden was used on the goal line but many of the so called experts here claimed he would give us some long TD runs and that never happened because he's not as fast as he use to be. Once we reached the redzone he wasn't getting it done which put pressure on our QBs forcing us the throw the ball.

Our points were coming via the passing game and Bailey because we couldn't run the ball when we got down close. Don't know why you keep defending McFadden when we used the 4th overall pick to replace him. All you keep doing is making excuses for why he didn't produce in certain situations. You've blamed the OL and our blocking scheme. You've blamed the fact we didn't have Romo or Dez on the field even though they were on the field during some of McFadden's poor performances.

Both Zeke and Morris are better runners than McFadden. Morris has scored 29 rushing TDs in his 4 seasons compared to only 12 TD's for McFadden over that period. McFadden doesn't have a nose for the endzone he's only had 16 rushing TD's the past 5 seasons. Murray had 13 rushing TD's in 2014 and had 6 TD's with Philly despite being in an offense that didn't fit him.

Whatever the case, the facts of the matter are that once we change up our blocking scheme and gave him carries, he produced at a level that placed him 4th in the league in rushing with only 10 games started. That's a good season.

I am defending him because he played well for us and he cost next to nothing. Zeke and Morris may be better but that has nothing to do with how well McFadden played for us. Why are you throwing the guy under the buss for producing for us at excellent value?

 

[KJJ]

Whatever the case, the facts of the matter are that once we change up our blocking scheme and gave him carries, he produced at a level that placed him 4th in the league in rushing with only 10 games started. That's a good season.

I am defending him because he played well for us and he cost next to nothing. Zeke and Morris may be better but that has nothing to do with how well McFadden played for us. Why are you throwing the guy under the buss for producing for us at excellent value?

It was a season ANY decent back could have had behind the best OL in the league when given a career high in carries. McFadden may have started only 10 games but he played in every game and he received a career high in carries. He couldn't match what he did in Oakland in 2010 despite a worse QB/receiver situation with the Raiders and playing in 3 fewer games. Randle would have had the same season had he not gotten injured and in trouble.

McFadden didn't play well enough to keep us from going 4-12. You keep saying how well he played for us but if he played as well as you're trying to make it appear the team wouldn't have spent the 4th overall pick on an RB. Granted he didn't play bad but it's obvious by the moves the Cowboys made at RB that his performance last season wasn't good enough. That point can't be argued!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It was a season ANY decent back could have had behind the best OL in the league when given a career high in carries. McFadden may have started only 10 games but he played in every game and he received a career high in carries. He couldn't match what he did in Oakland in 2010 despite a worse QB/receiver situation with the Raiders and playing in 3 fewer games. Randle would have had the same season had he not gotten injured and in trouble.

McFadden didn't play well enough to keep us from going 4-12. You keep saying how well he played for us but if he played as well as you're trying to make it appear the team wouldn't have spent the 4th overall pick on an RB. Granted he didn't play bad but it's obvious by the moves the Cowboys made at RB that his performance last season wasn't good enough. That point can't be argued!

This is an interesting point. If any decent back can post these numbers and you have to think that if that decent back is the starter for all 16 games or that if you have a couple of decent backs that share the load, then the running game is in good shape and we really don't need an Elliott. This is the problem a lot of fans have and your words basically support it.

I will go out on a limb here and say that if Elliott is playing without Dez and Tony, chances are good that he won't carry us to a winning season either. The 4-12 season was not on McFadden. He was brought in to back up Randal. He was clearly not signed to be the Starter but he did that and he did a very good job of it, particularly under the circumstances, IMO.

Apparently, the point can be argued.

You seem to be trying to justify the pick of Elliott by throwing McFadden under the bus. I don't really understand that. McFadden played well for us last year and that has nothing to do with drafting Elliott.

 

[Jake0]

We'll find out a lot about the importance of running backs and what you can get away with after this year and also next year. The performances of Zeke, DJackson, Morris will unveil a lot of data. SPARQ and all that jazz.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We'll find out a lot about the importance of running backs and what you can get away with after this year and also next year. The performances of Zeke, DJackson, Morris will unveil a lot of data. SPARQ and all that jazz.

I, for one, believe in the importance of the running game. I was also in favor of drafting a RB. I just felt as if the value, combined with the state of our Defense was more important then drafting Elliot at 4. I like Elliott and I have no doubts about how good he could be. I just don't think it's a get Elliott, nothing else will work type scenario. I also don't see the value of justifying the pick at the expense of McFadden, which is what I think a lot of posters are doing. I think McFadden did a heck of a job for us and as a fan, I appreciate the effort.

I do agree with you, I think these next few seasons are going to go a long way to determining value. I think the NFL is cyclical. I think that Offenses and Defenses change all the time. You build to take advantage of situations and now that everybody is in the passing mode, the running game could prove to be very effective for teams who take advantage of it. It's certainly cheaper to do if you can make it work.

 

[KJJ]

This is an interesting point. If any decent back can post these numbers and you have to think that if that decent back is the starter for all 16 games or that if you have a couple of decent backs that share the load, then the running game is in good shape and we really don't need an Elliott. This is the problem a lot of fans have and your words basically support it.

I will go out on a limb here and say that if Elliott is playing without Dez and Tony, chances are good that he won't carry us to a winning season either. The 4-12 season was not on McFadden. He was brought in to back up Randal. He was clearly not signed to be the Starter but he did that and he did a very good job of it, particularly under the circumstances, IMO.

Apparently, the point can be argued.

You seem to be trying to justify the pick of Elliott by throwing McFadden under the bus. I don't really understand that. McFadden played well for us last year and that has nothing to do with drafting Elliott.

We had what many consider "decent" backs in Randle and McFadden and both combined for under 4.0 a carry the first couple of games contributing to Romo being injured. Romo only had one 40 attempt game in 2014 and his 45 attempts in the opener last season was the most he had since the 2013 season. He was on pace for another 40 attempt game vs Philly due to the running game not being efficient. I'm throwing all the backs we had last season under the bus they were all average and contributed to the bad season we had. McFadden is going to receive the most heat because he was our bell cow for most of the season.

I find it hilarious how many dogged Murray's outstanding performance in 2014 that garnered his 2 MVP votes and were so critical of him and many (not you) of the same posters were praising McFadden's performance last season claiming he had a great year. lol The performance of our backs including McFadden had everything to do with the Cowboys using the 4th overall pick on an RB.

A team with all the defensive needs the Cowboys have don't make that move if they feel their running game was sufficient last season. If they were concerned about McFadden's age or injury history they covered themselves with the signing of Morris and could have drafted a mid round back. We're just wasting our time continuing to argue this we're not going to agree. We need to agree to move on.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We had what many consider "decent" backs in Randle and McFadden and both combined for under 4.0 a carry the first couple of games contributing to Romo being injured. Romo only had one 40 attempt game in 2014 and his 45 attempts in the opener last season was the most he had since the 2013 season. He was on pace for another 40 attempt game vs Philly due to the running game not being efficient. I'm throwing all the backs we had last season under the bus they were all average and contributed to the bad season we had. McFadden is going to receive the most heat because he was our bell cow for most of the season.

I find it hilarious how many dogged Murray's outstanding performance in 2014 that garnered his 2 MVP votes and were so critical of him and many (not you) of the same posters were praising McFadden's performance last season claiming he had a great year. lol The performance of our backs including McFadden had everything to do with the Cowboys using the 4th overall pick on an RB.

A team with all the defensive needs the Cowboys have don't make that move if they feel their running game was sufficient last season. If they were concerned about McFadden's age or injury history they covered themselves with the signing of Morris and could have drafted a mid round back. We're just wasting our time continuing to argue this we're not going to agree. We need to agree to move on.

Fair enough. I will agree to disagree but on what, I'm not sure of. Doesn't really matter, you are right. We disagree.

 

[KJJ]

Fair enough. I will agree to disagree but on what, I'm not sure of. Doesn't really matter, you are right. We disagree.

It's obvious what we're disagreeing on you saw McFadden's performance differently than I did. We see a number of things differently and nothing we say is going to change each others opinion. This isn't the first time you and I saw things differently we argued for a number of pages on whether to re-sign Romo back in 2013. You weren't in favor of it claiming we wouldn't have the cap room and I told you that the cap can be massaged many ways and that Romo will be re-signed and to book it. Our debate started on page 3 and didn't end until page 14.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/would-you-trade-romo-for-the-1-pick.250692/page-3

 

[Angus]

I, for one, believe in the importance of the running game. I was also in favor of drafting a RB. I just felt as if the value, combined with the state of our Defense was more important then drafting Elliot at 4. I like Elliott and I have no doubts about how good he could be. I just don't think it's a get Elliott, nothing else will work type scenario. I also don't see the value of justifying the pick at the expense of McFadden, which is what I think a lot of posters are doing. I think McFadden did a heck of a job for us and as a fan, I appreciate the effort.

I do agree with you, I think these next few seasons are going to go a long way to determining value. I think the NFL is cyclical. I think that Offenses and Defenses change all the time. You build to take advantage of situations and now that everybody is in the passing mode, the running game could prove to be very effective for teams who take advantage of it. It's certainly cheaper to do if you can make it work.

I agree that the NFL is cyclical, but the best argument for Elliot over any other back or player in the draft is he is more likely to protect Romo's health than any of them, And protecting Romo's health was, I think, the most important consideration in making a selection at 4. Neither the CB/S, the DE, an OL, or another back can do the things Elliot can do on that score. Unless Romo's health is protected the season is as good as lost for all practical purposes, I fear.