Another RB we are going to need

[Tio]

There is more than one way to play winning football.

Last year we were a balanced offense that ran more to protect our weak defense. We ran to set up the pass and to run out the clock.

This year the formula will likely change slightly. I think the offense will be more 50/50 in the first half.

Part of the reason is that we don't have Murray which means those short yardage plays are less of a sure thing to run it. Last year, on 3rd and 3 or less I always expected us to run and we mostly did and we converted a high % of those runs.

Another reason is that our coaches have will have more confidence in the defense. We can open up and spread the field and take more chances. Similar to our december formula last year when we were just stomping on fools.

I think ultimately our offense will be more prolific than last year, but by no means does that mean Randle is better than Murray or that the RB doesn't matter. This team is just built differently and we don't have to play offense a certain way. No matter what, we need to be able to run the ball effectively. It is still important for this Dallas Cowboys team.

 

[Idgit]

Besides Garrett and the rest of the Cowboys brass here is another HOF legend that agrees with me on the running game:

“You have to establish that you are a great running game and a great running team,” Irvin said.

Yep. I'll readily concede that lots of players, coaches, and fans believe you need a dominating running game to win in the NFL.

And then the teams who win the passing game differential go on and win the games, without much regard for how great a running team they had to beat in order to do so. Brandon Jackson? Ahmad Bradshaw? Shane Vereen? Those aren't the pieces of a great running team. They're solid role players on Super Bowl winners.

The running game serves a very important function in the NFL. It's just not an area where you need to be better than everybody else to benefit from that. Regular production gets the job done.

I liked Irvin's other comments from yesterday's interview where he said fans are going on about the RB position because they have anxiety about what they suspect could be a special season. That sounds about right to me.

 

[Doc50]

The backs available at cut downs are going to be flotsam.

Actually, we're hoping for jet-some.

 

[CATCH17]

Yep. I'll readily concede that lots of players, coaches, and fans believe you need a dominating running game to win in the NFL.

And then the teams who win the passing game differential go on and win the games, without much regard for how great a running team they had to beat in order to do so. Brandon Jackson? Ahmad Bradshaw? Shane Vereen? Those aren't the pieces of a great running team. They're solid role players on Super Bowl winners.

The running game serves a very important function in the NFL. It's just not an area where you need to be better than everybody else to benefit from that. Regular production gets the job done.

I liked Irvin's other comments from yesterday's interview where he said fans are going on about the RB position because they have anxiety about what they suspect could be a special season. That sounds about right to me.

For the Cowboys, especially in the Romo era, we are just better when the RB is rolling. So imo it needs to be a higher priority for us to run the ball with success than the average team.

I don't believe in the bell cow RB as a must but I do think we have to have a very strong run game in Dallas.

Especially with a passing scheme that doesn't do a good job of just simply getting the ball in your playmakers hands.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Yep. I'll readily concede that lots of players, coaches, and fans believe you need a dominating running game to win in the NFL.

And then the teams who win the passing game differential go on and win the games, without much regard for how great a running team they had to beat in order to do so. Brandon Jackson? Ahmad Bradshaw? Shane Vereen? Those aren't the pieces of a great running team. They're solid role players on Super Bowl winners.

The running game serves a very important function in the NFL. It's just not an area where you need to be better than everybody else to benefit from that. Regular production gets the job done.

I liked Irvin's other comments from yesterday's interview where he said fans are going on about the RB position because they have anxiety about what they suspect could be a special season. That sounds about right to me.

You are altering the point to aid your argument.

AGAIN............me, and NO ONE else is saying you HAVE TO HAVE a strong running game to win a championship. That is simply NOT the point.

Any team HAS to look at the makeup of the talent they possess and determine from that where their strengths lie. What kind of idiot with Peyton Manning at QB, or Tom Brady would devise an offense that was run dominant and neglect the advantage of Tom Brady and the way he can pass the ball?

THE POINT with the Cowboys is that THIS team has a GREAT run blocking Oline and needs to take advantage of that strength. They also clearly need to take the pressure off of Romo. With his age, and from what we have seen throughout his career. He is NOT Tom Brady. And considering the state of our defense lately, running it is another good way to protect that defense.

If you cant understand the difference between your point and mine, then I cant explain it any better to you.

ALL THAT being said it is my belief that a strong running game will improve any team no matter who is at QB. Tom Brady is better off the better his run game is to compliment his passing. If you want to argue the merits of that too, be my guest.

 

[CowboyRoy]

For the Cowboys, especially in the Romo era, we are just better when the RB is rolling. So imo it needs to be a higher priority for us to run the ball with success than the average team.

I don't believe in the bell cow RB as a must but I do think we have to have a very strong run game in Dallas.

Especially with a passing scheme that doesn't do a good job of just simply getting the ball in your playmakers hands.

You nailed it. "For the Cowboys".

Why he keeps reverting back to "you have to run the ball to win in the NFL" is beyond me. Its about THIS particular Cowboys team.

 

[CATCH17]

You nailed it. "For the Cowboys".

Why he keeps reverting back to "you have to run the ball to win in the NFL" is beyond me. Its about THIS particular Cowboys team.

Just think back to when we have looked the most dangerous in the Romo era..


Everytime we have looked really good either MB3, Felix Jones, or The Eagle were running the ball at a high level.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Yep. I'll readily concede that lots of players, coaches, and fans believe you need a dominating running game to win in the NFL.

And then the teams who win the passing game differential go on and win the games, without much regard for how great a running team they had to beat in order to do so. Brandon Jackson? Ahmad Bradshaw? Shane Vereen? Those aren't the pieces of a great running team. They're solid role players on Super Bowl winners.

The running game serves a very important function in the NFL. It's just not an area where you need to be better than everybody else to benefit from that. Regular production gets the job done.

I liked Irvin's other comments from yesterday's interview where he said fans are going on about the RB position because they have anxiety about what they suspect could be a special season. That sounds about right to me.

I would take Bradshaw(in his prime) and Vereen over Randle.... I cant even remeber Jackson.

 

[Idgit]

You are altering the point to aid your argument.

AGAIN............me, and NO ONE else is saying you HAVE TO HAVE a strong running game to win a championship. That is simply NOT the point.

Any team HAS to look at the makeup of the talent they possess and determine from that where their strengths lie. What kind of idiot with Peyton Manning at QB, or Tom Brady would devise an offense that was run dominant and neglect the advantage of Tom Brady and the way he can pass the ball?

THE POINT with the Cowboys is that THIS team has a GREAT run blocking Oline and needs to take advantage of that strength. They also clearly need to take the pressure off of Romo. With his age, and from what we have seen throughout his career. He is NOT Tom Brady. And considering the state of our defense lately, running it is another good way to protect that defense.

If you cant understand the difference between your point and mine, then I cant explain it any better to you.

ALL THAT being said it is my belief that a strong running game will improve any team no matter who is at QB. Tom Brady is better off the better his run game is to compliment his passing. If you want to argue the merits of that too, be my guest.

Let me clear up some of the mystery for you. I'm taking in generalities because you provided me with a quote that was speaking about the importance of the running game in general. If your own quote were specific to just the importance of the running game to the Dallas Cowboys, then *that's* what I would have addressed.

To your other point, Irvin did pretty much explicitly say you *have* to establish that you have a great running game. That's, like, what his quote said. The implication is that you have to have it to win, but perhaps I was reading that wrong.

As to your point that our specific team needs the running game to be effective, I'd dispute that the way I usually do. When we didn't have the running game, our offense was still effective. There's also nothing to suggest we're not going to continue to call the same mix of plays we called last season. Romo's one of the more consistent passers of his generation, and there's nothing at all to suggest we can't continue to rely on him the way the Pats rely on Brady or the Broncos relay on Manning.

The defense gets better by playing better defense. And by playing with more leads. Those two things are related. And, again, it's why we spent our FA money and our draft picks on defense and not on running backs. Get more pressure, add depth in the seconary, make it harder for good QBs to pass against you. Rely on your own good QB to not make passing game mistakes. Rely on your OL to keep you in downs and distances your very effective passing game weapons can convert in. It's a recipe for success. For the Cowboys, for any team in the NFL.

Finally, let me ask *you* a question. If it's your believe that a strong running game improves any team no matter who is at QB, then why don't teams with strong running games win more often than teams without strong running games? And why is it, instead, that teams with the most effective passing or that are the hardest to pass the ball against win so much more consistently than good running teams do? You'd think that if something really mattered, it'd lead to more wins overall, at some point, wouldn't you? I'm talking generally here again, and not just for the Dallas Cowboys, and I'm talking generally because you specifically said 'any team.'

 

[Idgit]

I would take Bradshaw(in his prime) and Vereen over Randle.... I cant even remeber Jackson.

I'm sure some people would. I'll withhold judgement on Randle until we see him in a game or two. But overall, Vereen and Bradshaw and Jackson are still just solid players. The point was they weren't playing on *great* running teams or parts of *great* running games, which was the argument I was responding to.

 

[Tio]

Finally, let me ask *you* a question. If it's your believe that a strong running game improves any team no matter who is at QB, then why don't teams with strong running games win more often than teams without strong running games? And why is it, instead, that teams with the most effective passing or that are the hardest to pass the ball against win so much more consistently than good running teams do? You'd think that if something really mattered, it'd lead to more wins overall, at some point, wouldn't you? I'm talking generally here again, and not just for the Dallas Cowboys, and I'm talking generally because you specifically said 'any team.'

This statement is over exaggerating the statistics. Both running and passing have a correlation to winning when you look at the best and worst teams at each. Passing is just more pronounced, but it isn't like it is absolute. Both are important, passing is more important. If we can't run the ball well we will not be a title contender.

 

[Idgit]

This statement is over exaggerating the statistics. Both running and passing have a correlation to winning when you look at the best and worst teams at each. Passing is just more pronounced, but it isn't like it is absolute. Both are important, passing is more important. If we can't run the ball well we will not be a title contender.

Not really. Netting out the effects of short yardage/goal line, the correlation between running effectively and winning is slight. It's the passing effectiveness differential that matters, people just don't want to accept that because it feels counterintuitive.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Just think back to when we have looked the most dangerous in the Romo era..


Everytime we have looked really good either MB3, Felix Jones, or The Eagle were running the ball at a high level.

Yep. When we had a running game to pair with Romo and take the pressure of him? 13-3 and 12-4

 

[CATCH17]

Not really. Netting out the effects of short yardage/goal line, the correlation between running effectively and winning is slight. It's the passing effectiveness differential that matters, people just don't want to accept that because it feels counterintuitive.

I accept that. Just not for this franchise.

When we win the Superbowl flinging the ball around let me know.

Also, I dont think Jason Garretts passing schemes are dynamic enough to win at the highest level compared to schemes like the Pats, Saints, Broncos, Packers, ect..

Those teams basically know how to handoff the ball to their WR's.


We are more like the Ravens and the Ravens offense won't win a championship without a RB that can bring balance.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Let me clear up some of the mystery for you. I'm taking in generalities because you provided me with a quote that was speaking about the importance of the running game in general. If your own quote were specific to just the importance of the running game to the Dallas Cowboys, then *that's* what I would have addressed.

To your other point, Irvin did pretty much explicitly say you *have* to establish that you have a great running game. That's, like, what his quote said. The implication is that you have to have it to win, but perhaps I was reading that wrong.

As to your point that our specific team needs the running game to be effective, I'd dispute that the way I usually do. When we didn't have the running game, our offense was still effective. There's also nothing to suggest we're not going to continue to call the same mix of plays we called last season. Romo's one of the more consistent passers of his generation, and there's nothing at all to suggest we can't continue to rely on him the way the Pats rely on Brady or the Broncos relay on Manning.

The defense gets better by playing better defense. And by playing with more leads. Those two things are related. And, again, it's why we spent our FA money and our draft picks on defense and not on running backs. Get more pressure, add depth in the seconary, make it harder for good QBs to pass against you. Rely on your own good QB to not make passing game mistakes. Rely on your OL to keep you in downs and distances your very effective passing game weapons can convert in. It's a recipe for success. For the Cowboys, for any team in the NFL.

Finally, let me ask *you* a question. If it's your believe that a strong running game improves any team no matter who is at QB, then why don't teams with strong running games win more often than teams without strong running games? And why is it, instead, that teams with the most effective passing or that are the hardest to pass the ball against win so much more consistently than good running teams do? You'd think that if something really mattered, it'd lead to more wins overall, at some point, wouldn't you? I'm talking generally here again, and not just for the Dallas Cowboys, and I'm talking generally because you specifically said 'any team.'

Yes, Irvins quote was more of a general statement. But he was talking about the Cowboys during that entire interview. And you and I have been debating about the run game for a while now.

And as far as the running game improving any team..............I would answer that without that running game, they would be even worse. Other parts of the team must be so bad that its not enough. Like the Bills two years ago. 2nd in the NFL in rushing, but only won 6 games. Well that was because they had a rookie QB that was terrible and could barely pass the ball.

I really love the way that the Seahawks built their team. They focused on the defense and the run game. This made them a good team. Then in one year they added talented young QB and they were instant SB contenders and won the SB. And as Wilson continues to grow, they can expand on what he does in the passing game.

Ironically, the Cowboys are heading in that direction. In about 3 years or when Romo is no longer serviceable that may just where the Cowboys are. Great run game and D, but needing to find that young QB. That's why I think their unwillingness to use this time to draft and develop air apparent to Romo is going to set them back for a few years.

 

[Idgit]

I accept that. Just not for this franchise.

When we win the Superbowl flinging the ball around let me know.

Also, I dont think Jason Garretts passing schemes are dynamic enough to win at the highest level compared to schemes like the Pats, Saints, Broncos, Packers, ect..

Those teams basically know how to handoff the ball to their WR's.

We are more like the Ravens and the Ravens offense won't win a championship without a RB that can bring balance.

Well, it's pretty well established, so it's good we can agree on it.

Look, until we field a defense that can actually stop a good QB from throwing the football, it doesn't really matter. It sounds like we'd probably agree that that's important and also something we haven't done well at all recently.

We can disagree how much the running game or balance matters for the Cowboys. I don't think we're different from any team in that regard. We've given up points too easily and have taken too many chances in the passing game as a result. It's hurt our very effective QB. If we pressure the passer and play good coverage, we're going to be playing from ahead more and making the other guys take the bigger risks. Overall, that's going to pay off.

The Ravens won that championship by having a good pass defense and then having a QB put up a 14-1 TD/INT ration (or whatever it was) in the playoff run. That's not balance. That's more passing effectiveness.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, Irvins quote was more of a general statement. But he was talking about the Cowboys during that entire interview. And you and I have been debating about the run game for a while now.

And as far as the running game improving any team..............I would answer that without that running game, they would be even worse. Other parts of the team must be so bad that its not enough. Like the Bills two years ago. 2nd in the NFL in rushing, but only won 6 games. Well that was because they had a rookie QB that was terrible and could barely pass the ball.

I really love the way that the Seahawks built their team. They focused on the defense and the run game. This made them a good team. Then in one year they added talented young QB and they were instant SB contenders and won the SB. And as Wilson continues to grow, they can expand on what he does in the passing game.

Ironically, the Cowboys are heading in that direction. In about 3 years or when Romo is no longer serviceable that may just where the Cowboys are. Great run game and D, but needing to find that young QB. That's why I think their unwillingness to use this time to draft and develop air apparent to Romo is going to set them back for a few years.

Both the Garrett quote you provided and the Irvin quote you provide were talking generally about teams and the importance of the running game, which is why I thought that's what we were debating.

I agree with you that the Bills team was bad because they couldn't pass effectively. And, if they could pass effectively, they'd be good whether they ran it effectively or not. If passing effectively (and stopping the pass effectively) is enough to win most games and running effectively is not, that should tell you something right there about what's important for an NFL team to be able to do.

I love that Seahawks team, too. I'd argue that they became good because they built a defense that was very, very tough to throw against, which is what made it possible for them to simply avoid bad plays in the passing game to win the passing effectiveness differential. Offensively, they could afford to run the ball, or to just not screw things up getting turnovers, and there was a good chance they were going to win. The big extension for Wilson was a mistake, in my opinion. They would be better off spending the resources on keeping that defense young and deep, bringing in pressure players, and finding another bus driver or a capable vet to keep the offense from hurting them like it did in the Superbowl.

 

[BlindFaith]

Not really. Netting out the effects of short yardage/goal line, the correlation between running effectively and winning is slight. It's the passing effectiveness differential that matters, people just don't want to accept that because it feels counterintuitive.

I've seen this argument many times. Some stat guy shows this correlation or that causation. But when real football guys talk they STILL say that you have to run the ball effectively.

The real hard part is trying to determine all of the other variables that impact both the run game and the passing game. Not to mention how the performance of the overall offense affects the defense.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Both the Garrett quote you provided and the Irvin quote you provide were talking generally about teams and the importance of the running game, which is why I thought that's what we were debating.

I agree with you that the Bills team was bad because they couldn't pass effectively. And, if they could pass effectively, they'd be good whether they ran it effectively or not. If passing effectively (and stopping the pass effectively) is enough to win most games and running effectively is not, that should tell you something right there about what's important for an NFL team to be able to do.

I love that Seahawks team, too. I'd argue that they became good because they built a defense that was very, very tough to throw against, which is what made it possible for them to simply avoid bad plays in the passing game to win the passing effectiveness differential. Offensively, they could afford to run the ball, or to just not screw things up getting turnovers, and there was a good chance they were going to win. The big extension for Wilson was a mistake, in my opinion. They would be better off spending the resources on keeping that defense young and deep, bringing in pressure players, and finding another bus driver or a capable vet to keep the offense from hurting them like it did in the Superbowl.

Why the all or nothing thing with you? I like balance. If I had to pick a team with great passing and poor running or poor passing and great running I would take the great passing. If you have Tom Brady, wing it all you want. But the fact remains that Tom Brady with a good running game is better than Tom Brady with a poor running game.

AGAIN.......look at the Cowboys last year. Not sure why this is so difficult.

Are you really trying to argue that the Cowboys nearly worst to first running game last year wasnt a big part of their 8-8 to 12-4 turnaround?

If so, then I have no interest in debating that.

 

[Idgit]

Why the all or nothing thing with you? I like balance. If I had to pick a team with great passing and poor running or poor passing and great running I would take the great passing. If you have Tom Brady, wing it all you want. But the fact remains that Tom Brady with a good running game is better than Tom Brady with a poor running game.

Unless you're taking about short yardage/goal line, that's not really a fact. That's the point. The good running game just doesn't help teams win.

It's not really a question of 'all or nothing.' It costs money and precious resources to field an effective running game. Demarco Murray's got a $5M cap hit for the coming season. Randle's ~$500k. Getting a replacement RB with a grade high enough to be 'effective' in this last draft would have cost us more than our #1 pick (we'd have had to move up for one of the top two players available). That would have been a huge mistake.

AGAIN.......look at the Cowboys last year. Not sure why this is so difficult.

Are you really trying to argue that the Cowboys nearly worst to first running game last year wasnt a big part of their 8-8 to 12-4 turnaround?

If so, then I have no interest in debating that.

Fair enough. Yes, I'm stating that the running game was not a big part in last year's turnaround. Our offensive points/series improved, but not all that much. I do think we benefitted defensively by the ToP differential, but we also approved across the board on defense last season on a per-series basis. So it's not just that we were in better shape at the end of games because we were better rested. We defended fewer plays and gave up fewer points on individual drives because we were better than the horrible 2013 defense.

I've pointed out many times that we lost 5 games in 2013 by a total of 8 points. So, yeah, I think playing better defense in general was the reason for the turnaround. I think the team agrees, or they'd have extended Murray at the cost of continuing to improve the pass rush and the secondary depth. You don't have to continue to debate it. If you'd rather believe that it was rushing effectiveness that helped us despite it not being a factor that shows up in general when you look at what's related to winning across the board in the NFL over the last 25 years, that's your prerogative. I tend to look for the simpler explanations.