AdamJT13 v. The Horde

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Second year.

What I keep seeing repeated everywhere is that zeke will get 350 plus touches. I do not see that happening at all.

I also do not see McFadden cut in any way either so I could be completely wrong on both accounts.

Well most backs are limited because they have to learn the techniques and a pro offense. By all accounts coming out of OSU's pro style offense he is the most prepared back to come out in a long long time.

I don't want to see it any year and Linehan has overworked backs in the past.

 

[theebs]

Short passing game does the same thing and is more efficient. I really wish we would run our offense like Manning, Payton, and Reid do with their backs and the extended handoff. Zeke has the requisite skills.

well they showed last year they want to throw it to the backs with dunbar and murray was thrown the ball a bunch in 14.

the great thing about zeke is he can do it all so he can run, he can pass protect, he can catch the ball and in the s11 formation can be split out like a wr similar to what they did with Rod Smith repeatedly last year.

And when morris comes in the running game shouldn't miss a beat.

Its going to be fun to watch.

 

[BourbonBalz]

You can disagree with it all you like but at the end of the day he's shown how running the ball well doesn't matter in the outcome of games. The correlation is what it is. There is no actual evidence of the causation you claim.

Fact is you can run inefficiently and pass well you will win 80% of the time while the reverse has you lose 80% of the time. It is what it is.

No. His stats mean squat in the end. Why? Because you can't look at them in a vacuum. Football has too many moving parts that are interdependent. You can't just say the stats show good passing games are more or less important because the run game greatly influences it as well. Let's put it this way. If you or anyone else does not recognize that passing games benefit greatly from very good run games, you just don't have a clue. That's why stats alone are misleading. They do NOT tell the whole story.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

well they showed last year they want to throw it to the backs with dunbar and murray was thrown the ball a bunch in 14.

the great thing about zeke is he can do it all so he can run, he can pass protect, he can catch the ball and in the s11 formation can be split out like a wr similar to what they did with Rod Smith repeatedly last year.

And when morris comes in the running game shouldn't miss a beat.

Its going to be fun to watch.

It's the Dunbar packages that I'm hopeful for. Murray was the outlet dumpoff almost entirely. I want to see our backs run wheels, flex out, and a whole lot of various screens and the like.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Let's pretend I care about stats, because I don't......

12-4. Maybe 13-3 or 14-2 because of the seemingly easy schedule. Schedules usually aren't what they seem in May though.

Elliott averages 4.8 per carry, but he only has about 300 carries (not 392 like Murray, which was stupid). So about 1450 yards. Morris/McFadden chip in another 700 combined yards.

I'll take the under on 1460 please.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. His stats mean squat in the end. Why? Because you can't look at them in a vacuum. Football has too many moving parts that are interdependent. You can't just say the stats show good passing games are more or less important because the run game greatly influences it as well. Let's put it this way. If you or anyone else does not recognize that passing games benefit greatly from very good run games, you just don't have a clue. That's why stars alone are misleading. They do NOT tell the whole story.

It's not a vacuum and the outcome of games subsumes all that goes on in the game. I'm a staunch reductionist and I agree that the paradigm we are arguing is a mindless oversimplification but all you are doing here is doubling down on your side of the oversimplification.

Again running the ball has an effect, running the ball well does not. It is all about wins and losses at the end of the day.

 

[tunahelper]

The Horde: YES WE GOT ZEKE!!1!

AdamJT13: Unfortunately, decades' worth of statistical evidence shows that rushing effectiveness has little correlation to winning. *cites said evidence in painstaking detail*

The Horde: That's stoopid! Zeke is da man!

AdamJT13: Elliott may very well be a good player. But his ability to run the ball has little bearing on whether the Cowboys win. The evidence clearly demonstrates that teams win when they pass the ball better than their opponents.

The Horde: Well...that's just your opinion man!

AdamJT13: Actually, that's a fact, not an opinion.

The Horde: But but but running teh ball makes Romo better! Just like in 2014 with Murray!

AdamJT13: There's no correlation between rushing effectiveness and passing effectiveness. *cites evidence in support of claim* In 2014, for example, the Cowboys won the games where they passed the ball better than their opponents and lost the games where they didn't. There was no correlation between Murray's rushing effectiveness in those games and Romo's passing effectiveness. *cites evidence in support of claim*

The Horde: ARE YOU BLIND? OF COURSE HAVING A DOMINANT RUN GAME HELPS DO YOU EVEN WATCH DA GAMES YOU *?#$

AdamJT13: Yes, I watched and charted every game, just like I've done for many years. What evidence do you have in support of your assertion?

The Horde: iM to busy to look it up but everyone says so

AdamJT13: *closes eyes, takes a deep breath, exhales*

Running effectively does make the passing game more potent. Case in point was our teams in the 90's. Aikman never had gaudy stats, but he was effective with his throws.
Same holds true with Romo. An overpowering run game creates more opportunities for the passing game.

 

[jobberone]

You must run the ball effectively. That's a nebulous term but I use it to mean, among others, you are running the ball well enough. One thing would be running out the clock. Another getting the dirty yards when necessary. And keeping the defense as honest as possible among others.

If you're going to argue about this topic then you need to define and reach a consensus about terminology and common ground. Adam and others are correct in saying passing and passing defense correlates to winning and rushing doesn't. This does not mean rushing is unimportant at all. It means passing/passing defense is the biggie.

Follow the money. Teams spend not just on pass pressure but on run defense......just not as much.

 

[DFWJC]

I am a life long Buckeye. You'll not hear an argument from me on picking Zeke... The sheer amount of crying done because we didnt draft Ramsey is what gets me... Or the fact we drafted a RB.

Come the end of the year they will all be eating crow.... (Zeke doubters)

I really don't know any Zeke doubters.
There were some that wanted Ramsey and more that wanted to trade down and get two players instead of Zeke...then get a RB later.

In any case, everyone sees Zeke having success

Btw, some Buckeye trivia, my dad, as a high school coach, used to run a football camp with Woody Hayes

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Washington also went on to win 4 games that year, so while they were in the SB two seasons prior, that was not the same team, not even close

I remember a lousy Cowboy team beating the future SB champs a couple years earlier.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Its about setting up 3rd down. Running well on early downs creates options in the passing game on 3rd down. Passing well on 3rd down keeps the drive going. Ultimately we score points passing the ball, that is the name of the game.

but being in 3rd and long and then making riskier throws or punting more is a problem and having a great running game to setup those third and shorts is a big time solution to it, especially when a great running game can travel and produce anywhere anytime.

I agree with that.

 

[JW82]

Well now that he has cheerleaders maybe all that will change

Lol. Congratulations Adam you are no longer the most pathetic member! Meet your stalker Joaquin!

 

[BigStar]

I happen to be in the camp that thinks for the past 5-6 years we would have won 4-5 games a year without Romo. He has carried the team. But, he hasn't had the pieces around him to make it count. A great running game helps any QB immensely in several ways. This thread and the previous one started based in one assumption: Adam said a good running game isn't an important in determine how a team performs. I and many others greatly disagree. That's all.

Fair enough (agree w/ya on Romo), we both just want the boys to win and do support Zeke now that he is on the team. He's a great player and value can be argued but still a Cowboy and will support him regardless. I'm much more of a Zeke fan offline

 

[BourbonBalz]

It's not a vacuum and the outcome of games subsumes all that goes on in the game. I'm a staunch reductionist and I agree that the paradigm we are arguing is a mindless oversimplification but all you are doing here is doubling down on your side of the oversimplification.

Again running the ball has an effect, running the ball well does not. It is all about wins and losses at the end of the day.

Yep, and a good running game, along with a good passing game and a good defense leads to wins. All can be equally important from game to game and some more important against specific opponents.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Running effectively does make the passing game more potent. Case in point was our teams in the 90's. Aikman never had gaudy stats, but he was effective with his throws.
Same holds true with Romo. An overpowering run game creates more opportunities for the passing game.

This is a great argument except the part where you ignore Adam's repeated rebuttal. He broke down the outcome of games where we ran the ball well versus where we ran the ball poorly and it came down to how efficient we passed anyway.

If you want to demonstrate how running efficiency correlates with passing efficiency but others have tried and failed. Ideology is hard to give up but I go with Thomas Paine when it comes down to that type of thing:

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep, and a good running games, along with a good passing game and a good defense leads to wins. All can be equally important from game to game and some more important against specific opponents.

Your statement does not follow what I wrote. Running efficiency does not correlate to the outcome of games.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I remember a lousy Cowboy team beating the future SB champs a couple years earlier.

I didn't argue your second point, just bringing up that Washington was in the 1991 SB was irrelevant. How many players from that team remained, and how many played at that same level?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I didn't argue your second point, just bringing up that Washington was in the 1991 SB was irrelevant. How many players from that team remained, and how many played at that same level?

But my point is still accurate, they did win the SB in '91.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Your statement does not follow what I wrote. Running efficiency does not correlate to the outcome of games.

In some games it most certainly does. It varies depending on the opponents weaknesses and strengths. You keep harping on Adam's stats and I keep telling you they do not carry the day. As I've stated many times, a great running game greatly enhances the passing game and elevates the passing efficiency stats. They are mutually beneficial to the other. I'll end this with one thing and I've got to head out. Ask every coach in the NFL how important a good running game and a good run defense is. I guarantee you what every one will say and I'll take their opinion over yours and Adam's stats.

 

[BourbonBalz]

But my point is still accurate, they did win the SB in '91.

Yeah, but it was an invalid point to the issue at hand.