Another RB we are going to need

[Idgit]

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.

There's no causation proved. My argument is just to do the things that correlate highly with winning and assume that causation is involved.

Real football guys do tend to say you have to run the ball effectively. But then, they also say that it's generally not worth it to go for it often on 4th down, when in many cases it actually is.

As far as the correlations go, I think the data is actually pretty convincing. It shows that passing well matters and running well does not. Except in short yardage. Not sure it matters how the overall offense affects defense as long as the defense can keep the other guys from passing effectively. But if running the ball well played a role in that, it would show up in the pass defense effectiveness relationships, and that would show up in turn in that teams that run the ball well win more often. They don't, though, so we ought to conclude it's effect is negligible or is counteracted someplace that we haven't unpacked yet.

 

[BlindFaith]

There's no causation proved. My argument is just to do the things that correlate highly with winning and assume that causation is involved.

Real football guys do tend to say you have to run the ball effectively. But then, they also say that it's generally not worth it to go for it often on 4th down, when in many cases it actually is.

As far as the correlations go, I think the data is actually pretty convincing. It shows that passing well matters and running well does not. Except in short yardage. Not sure it matters how the overall offense affects defense as long as the defense can keep the other guys from passing effectively. But if running the ball well played a role in that, it would show up in the pass defense effectiveness relationships, and that would show up in turn in that teams that run the ball well win more often. They don't, though, so we ought to conclude it's effect is negligible or is counteracted someplace that we haven't unpacked yet.

Keep unpacking.

 

[Idgit]

Keep unpacking.

I'm resisting the temptation to tell you to pack something.

If the data gets unpacked in a way that sheds more light on what's going on, I'll be all over it. For now, though, it says what it says, and it's pretty consistent with what I see when I'm watching games, so I'm going to go with it. I'll say again that the team seems to be doing pretty much the same thing when you look at who they're signing and whom they're letting walk.

 

[BlindFaith]

I'm resisting the temptation to tell you to pack something.

If the data gets unpacked in a way that sheds more light on what's going on, I'll be all over it. For now, though, it says what it says, and it's pretty consistent with what I see when I'm watching games, so I'm going to go with it. I'll say again that the team seems to be doing pretty much the same thing when you look at who they're signing and whom they're letting walk.

Post a recap of your key stats that you're basing your conclusions on. We can start there.

Football is very situational. A sets up B. B sets up A. But A may be used to less statistical success than B, but that doesn't mean A isn't necessary.

Balance is key. Demonstrating a threat to be able to both run and pass is most times very critical.

If a team can play nickel or dime all the time and still stop the run, it will be a long day. You don't have to rush for 150 yards a game. But you do have to be effective when you do run.

 

[CowboyRoy]

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.



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.

"The good running game just doesn't help teams win."

I really don't know how to argue with someone that says something like this. If you really believe this, then Ill just let it lie.

And as far as you not thinking the worst to first running game wasn't a big part of the turnaround, I'm out on that one too. Its like the two of us looking at a white house and you telling me its not white. I respect your opinion, lets move on.

 

[CowboyRoy]

All signs point to us heading into the season with those 3 backs. That back from last year couldn't be counted on either, injured all the time. Then a contract year and he stays healthy, weird huh. The point is, everyone would be perfectly fine with the same backs we had last year but 2 out of the 3 were injured at about the same rate as 2 out of 3 are this year.. same situation. We don't need another back unless someone sustains a serious injury and is out for multiple games.

That is exactly the point. The odds McFadden and Dunbar staying healthy and NOT getting injured is close to 0%. So we are going to need another back. Why are they going to wait until it happens? It is pretty obvious, since it has already happened, and there is a history, that it is going to continue to happen.

Dont wait until the scrap heap has been stripped clean. Wait for cut downs and pounce. And then there is that little factor about learning the offense.

 

[DeaconMoss]

That is exactly the point. The odds McFadden and Dunbar staying healthy and NOT getting injured is close to 0%. So we are going to need another back. Why are they going to wait until it happens? It is pretty obvious, since it has already happened, and there is a history, that it is going to continue to happen.

Dont wait until the scrap heap has been stripped clean. Wait for cut downs and pounce. And then there is that little factor about learning the offense.

Which is why we better hope Gus works out. He already knows the plays and is healthy.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Which is why we better hope Gus works out. He already knows the plays and is healthy.

Plenty of good veterans will be available shortly. Do you have something against veteran backs?

 

[BlindFaith]

There's no causation proved. My argument is just to do the things that correlate highly with winning and assume that causation is involved.

Real football guys do tend to say you have to run the ball effectively. But then, they also say that it's generally not worth it to go for it often on 4th down, when in many cases it actually is.

As far as the correlations go, I think the data is actually pretty convincing. It shows that passing well matters and running well does not. Except in short yardage. Not sure it matters how the overall offense affects defense as long as the defense can keep the other guys from passing effectively. But if running the ball well played a role in that, it would show up in the pass defense effectiveness relationships, and that would show up in turn in that teams that run the ball well win more often. They don't, though, so we ought to conclude it's effect is negligible or is counteracted someplace that we haven't unpacked yet.

Passing league? Top NFL teams utilize power-running schemes
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...ue-top-nfl-teams-utilize-powerrunning-schemes

CHFF Super Study: the evolution of NFL pass-run ratio
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...study-the-evolution-nfl-pass-run-ratio/15992/

Two really good reads that explain the importance of the running game.

1. How a physical running game wears down a defense
2. How running the ball 30+ times a game and passing less than 35 times is the key to success

3. Winning time of possession

Now, there is a lot of "the chicken or the egg" in these stats. That's what makes it hard to really evaluate the importance of each. If you are winning, then you are probably running the ball more. And then you probably win the time of possession battle.

Scoring more points than the other team is really the key stat. But if you run a fast paced offense that leaves your defense on the field the majority of the game, then you better score a LOT of points on offense.

Running the ball effectively doesn't mean a great YPC. This is the misnomer. Being good enough to be able to run the ball 30+ times a game is what's important. That means converting short yardage first downs. That means keeping down and distance in check. 3 yards per carry, if done consistently, will put you in 3rd and 4 every time. Very convertible down and distance. You could have a team that averages 5 yards per carry but it comes in chunks and isn't reliable. So YPC, as some have said, doesn't matter. That doesn't mean the running game doesn't matter. Quite the opposite.

Look at our own Cowboys last year. Ran the ball more, passed the ball less. We win.

 

[DeaconMoss]

Plenty of good veterans will be available shortly. Do you have something against veteran backs?

Bad knees, hamstrings, ankles and feet. Yeah I prefer a young RB to an older one.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Bad knees, hamstrings, ankles and feet. Yeah I prefer a young RB to an older one.

Given equal effectiveness, Ill take the young guy every time. But I will take an older proven veteran as a backup over a rookie FA. Unless the kid shows up all world in the preseason. But what are the odds of that? You can hope. For me, I think there are better odds of a good back getting cut.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Bad knees, hamstrings, ankles and feet. Yeah I prefer a young RB to an older one.

Ankles and Hammy like Dunbar and McFadden?

 

[DeaconMoss]

Ankles and Hammy like Dunbar and McFadden?

CJ2k, Pierre, Law Firm, Run DMC, S Jackson, Bradshaw.... Yeah all of them have some sort of ailment

 

[CowboyRoy]

CJ2k, Pierre, Law Firm, Run DMC, S Jackson, Bradshaw.... Yeah all of them have some sort of ailment

I wouldnt mind signing Pierre. But there will be more and probably younger options when cut downs begin.

 

[DeaconMoss]

I wouldnt mind signing Pierre. But there will be more and probably younger options when cut downs begin.

I agree. He has my vote as the best of the rest.

 

[BlindFaith]

Keep an eye on what happens in Seattle, Buffalo, Cleveland, maybe Miami. Those teams will be cutting a guy that could play here.

Buffalo - Boobie Dixon or Bryce Brown or maybe Karlos Williams
Seattle - Christine Michael, Thomas Rawls
Cleveland - Terrance West, Shane Draughn

 

[Idgit]

...Running the ball effectively doesn't mean a great YPC. This is the misnomer. Being good enough to be able to run the ball 30+ times a game is what's important. That means converting short yardage first downs. That means keeping down and distance in check. 3 yards per carry, if done consistently, will put you in 3rd and 4 every time. Very convertible down and distance. You could have a team that averages 5 yards per carry but it comes in chunks and isn't reliable. So YPC, as some have said, doesn't matter. That doesn't mean the running game doesn't matter. Quite the opposite.

Look at our own Cowboys last year. Ran the ball more, passed the ball less. We win.

This is just about exactly what I've been saying. I've never said running the ball is not important. It's obviously important. You run it to get into position to convert and keep drives going. And a big part of that is the run v. pass play calling. And you don't need an elite RB in order to do that. What you need, is an effective running game overall, including not just the back, but the OL, the TEs, and the HB, the play caller, and the QB. If you and I want to agree to change the definition of what 'effective' means, than we're in agreement.

We won more last year, though, because we played better defense agains the pass and passed it more effectively, for the record. Some of that was basically avoiding some throws because we were running instead. That's fine. There's no reason why we can't expect to be able to continue to do that this season. Or maybe we replace some of those runs with some safe throws to Beasley or Dunbar or one of the other backs, that works, too.

Either way, give me a short yardage back and one who can pass protect. Let both of them stay in the lineup more often than not, and give me our OL and I'm perfectly satisfied with what we've got at that position group. It's not an area where we need to spend significant resources to get done what we need to get done.

 

[BlindFaith]

This is just about exactly what I've been saying. I've never said running the ball is not important. It's obviously important. You run it to get into position to convert and keep drives going. And a big part of that is the run v. pass play calling. And you don't need an elite RB in order to do that. What you need, is an effective running game overall, including not just the back, but the OL, the TEs, and the HB, the play caller, and the QB. If you and I want to agree to change the definition of what 'effective' means, than we're in agreement.

We won more last year, though, because we played better defense agains the pass and passed it more effectively, for the record. Some of that was basically avoiding some throws because we were running instead. That's fine. There's no reason why we can't expect to be able to continue to do that this season. Or maybe we replace some of those runs with some safe throws to Beasley or Dunbar or one of the other backs, that works, too.

Either way, give me a short yardage back and one who can pass protect. Let both of them stay in the lineup more often than not, and give me our OL and I'm perfectly satisfied with what we've got at that position group. It's not an area where we need to spend significant resources to get done what we need to get done.

I think you still fail to understand what I'm trying to say.

The key is to be able to run the ball 30+ times a game. In order to be able to do that, you have to be consistently gaining yards running the ball.

It's no secret. Every team preaches "consistency". Being consistently healthy. Consistently having positive plays. Consistently making your blocks.

Elite RB comes into the equation in different ways. If you don't have a good oline, an "elite" back may have more luck running the ball. Or they may be able to take it to the house when a lane is there. An "elite" running back is also someone who is consistent - stays healthy, carries out the proper assignments, punishes defenses, hangs on to the ball, stays out of trouble. Also the obvious things like great speed, power, size, balance, vision etc.

Do we need an "elite" back to win? We don't need the obvious things. Our line will give us opportunities to have a consistent running attack. But we do need the "elite" factors of consistency.

Randle is an unknown with any of this. Sample size in mop up duty is no projection of what he can do with a full load. We do know he is now hurt. We do know he's struggled with assignments. We do know he's a knucklehead. We do know he has fumble issues. And we know he is clearly not an "elite" back in the obvious things category.

McFadden is closer to an "elite" back. He has the obvious things. The concern with him is his health - which is a huge issue, and scheme fit. He's not a good zone runner.

Dunbar is far from elite.

Is this how you want to roll? These three guys?

 

[BlindFaith]

We won more last year, though, because we played better defense agains the pass and passed it more effectively, for the record. Some of that was basically avoiding some throws because we were running instead. That's fine. There's no reason why we can't expect to be able to continue to do that this season. Or maybe we replace some of those runs with some safe throws to Beasley or Dunbar or one of the other backs, that works, too.

We won last year because we ran more, passed less, were more efficient when we did pass and controlled the clock.

Our defense was still below average, which yes was better than the worst defense in NFL history the year before. And a big reason why the defense was better was because they weren't on the field as long. They also got a few timely turnovers and faced many subpar QBs.

 

[Idgit]

I think you still fail to understand what I'm trying to say.

The key is to be able to run the ball 30+ times a game. In order to be able to do that, you have to be consistently gaining yards running the ball.

It's no secret. Every team preaches "consistency". Being consistently healthy. Consistently having positive plays. Consistently making your blocks.

Elite RB comes into the equation in different ways. If you don't have a good oline, an "elite" back may have more luck running the ball. Or they may be able to take it to the house when a lane is there. An "elite" running back is also someone who is consistent - stays healthy, carries out the proper assignments, punishes defenses, hangs on to the ball, stays out of trouble. Also the obvious things like great speed, power, size, balance, vision etc.

Do we need an "elite" back to win? We don't need the obvious things. Our line will give us opportunities to have a consistent running attack. But we do need the "elite" factors of consistency.

Randle is an unknown with any of this. Sample size in mop up duty is no projection of what he can do with a full load. We do know he is now hurt. We do know he's struggled with assignments. We do know he's a knucklehead. We do know he has fumble issues. And we know he is clearly not an "elite" back in the obvious things category.

McFadden is closer to an "elite" back. He has the obvious things. The concern with him is his health - which is a huge issue, and scheme fit. He's not a good zone runner.

Dunbar is far from elite.

Is this how you want to roll? These three guys?

I didn't fair to understand it, but I was sidestepping the part where I think you're off-base. You've got the cart before the horse if you think the key is to hit a magic number in terms of carries/game. You also can keep drives going just fine if you can convert in the passing game and still run it a fair amount the rest of the time.

I don't agree that there's that much debate over what elite is as far as a RB is concerned. I think fans want a big, fast, healthy player who have a good average/rush and who get touchdowns. To get that, they want to spend high picks or to trade for an established vet with a track record of success already. And that's not what I think we need. I disagree that any of our backs is close to elite by any normal definition--healthy or not--but I do think we've got a good shot of fielding a position group that can pass protect.

Short yardage and holding onto the ball is what I'm worried about, and there I think Randle is a bit of an unknown in terms of short yardage, and I worry about his fumbling. I'm not worried much about the shoplifting, and I don't think he's struggled much with assignments. He's a pretty good football player, overall, from what I've seen.

I'm not a fan of DMC, other than as a pass protector, mostly because I don't like the niggling injuries and I don't particularly trust him in the ZBS.

Dunbar, I like for what he is, which is a pass receiving change of pace back who's effective in space.

Overall, I'd be happier with having one more guy in that position group who's solidly built for short yardage and who's more likely to be healthy. Maybe Gus Johnson is that guy, probably not.