Back To The Future? How The Cowboys May Be Exploiting NFL Trends With The Running Game

[AdamJT13]

I know what he says.....he is locked into a theory based on his interpretation of some numbers.....I don't think 80% is that strong of a metric....that means up to 4 teams lose every week that do exactly what he prescribes...

The average last year was less than 3.4 per week (actually 3.18 over 17 weeks). But that's because almost 20 percent of games are won by teams that played worse, overall, on offense and defense than their opponent (they ran the ball worse, stopped the run worse, passed worse and stopped the pass worse). Those games are often decided by special teams touchdowns, defensive touchdowns, field goals or missed field goals, field position, timing, key penalties, fumbles, etc. -- all of the miscellany that sometimes helps decide the game. Running the ball better than the opponent increases a team's chance of winning only slightly. Passing better than the opponent increases is tremendously.

If you don't think it's "that strong of a metric," then you're entitled to your opinion, but that's about as strong as it gets in the NFL.

 

[Nightman]

Do you think the choice of running or passing is arbitrary? Or do you think there are situations when a team needs to pass the ball to increase its chances of success? And are running and passing plays equally likely to gain the same number of yards, or result in a turnover or score?

Your running well formula doesn't include fumbles and holding penalties like your passing well formula uses sacks(which are drive killers and basically turnovers) and INTs

If you combine enough metrics you are going to get a better prediction

Gain a ton of yards when you throw
Win the turnover battle
Don't get sacked
Play better defense than your highly efficient offense and

who cares how well you run the ball...you will win 80% of the time

 

[AdamJT13]

Im sure that had to do with the fact that in 2015 we were 3 and out more often and in 2014 Romo was executing long drives hence more plays hence more passing overall.

Um, 2015? I didn't mention 2015, and Romo barely played in 2015.

But yes, Romo's ability to keep drives alive in 2014 helped increase his opportunities to pass, so he passed more. He didn't pass better because he was passing less, and some people claim -- he was actually passing more until the game was in hand, then he didn't need to keep passing.

 

[AdamJT13]

Your running well formula doesn't include fumbles and holding penalties like your passing well formula uses sacks(which are drive killers and basically turnovers) and INTs

My passing metric doesn't include fumbles or holding penalties, either. More lost fumbles occur on passing plays than on running plays. I haven't checked, but I'm guessing more penalties occur on passing plays, too -- and more significant penalties (either for or against the offense). Including those would almost certainly INCREASE the significance of passing over rushing. And we haven't even mentioned that quarterback scrambles on *designed* pass plays are actually more indicative of the passing game than the running game, even though they are included in (and usually increase) the team's running stats.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Um, 2015? I didn't mention 2015, and Romo barely played in 2015.

But yes, Romo's ability to keep drives alive in 2014 helped increase his opportunities to pass, so he passed more. He didn't pass better because he was passing less, and some people claim -- he was actually passing more until the game was in hand, then he didn't need to keep passing.

If you dont think that the strong run game helped Romo be a more efficient and better QB in 2014 then you didnt watch the games. He led the league in passer rating at 124. It was widely regarded as his best season as a pro. Are you claiming that was coincidence? How about the 12-4 record do you think that was coincidence also or maybe it had something to do with our amazing ability to run the ball as compared to the 3 previous years when we ran it poorly?

 

[CowboyRoy]

Um, 2015? I didn't mention 2015, and Romo barely played in 2015.

But yes, Romo's ability to keep drives alive in 2014 helped increase his opportunities to pass, so he passed more. He didn't pass better because he was passing less, and some people claim -- he was actually passing more until the game was in hand, then he didn't need to keep passing.

Do you think Romo had an easier time keeping drives alive with his passing when it was 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 8? Do you think when they stacked 9 men in the box and left Dez single covered because of it that this helped Romo in the least? How about when the guy bites on play action fake because he thinks we are running the ball? None of that helps the passing game eh? Football 101

 

[Nightman]

If you dont think that the strong run game helped Romo be a more efficient and better QB in 2014 then you didnt watch the games. He led the league in passer rating at 124. It was widely regarded as his best season as a pro. Are you claiming that was coincidence? How about the 12-4 record do you think that was coincidence also or maybe it had something to do with our amazing ability to run the ball as compared to the 3 previous years when we ran it poorly?

He also had a much better second half of the season AFTER DMurray broke Jim Brown's 50 year old record with 8 straight 100 yard games.

It is so illogical to think Defenses started to cheap up to stop DMurray and made it easier for Romo to throw.

 

[CowboyRoy]

He also had a much better second half of the season AFTER DMurray broke Jim Brown's 50 year old record with 8 straight 100 yard games.

It is so illogical to think Defenses started to cheap up to stop DMurray and made it easier for Romo to throw.

Absolutely. They are perfectly related. For the most part defenses geared up to stop Romo in the first half. It took them 8 or so games to figure the bigger threat was the run game. So they loaded up to stop murray in the 2nd 8 games. That is when Romo teed off even more when they were cheating. You cant get a better example of how they work off one another. Murray also had a much more difficult time running the ball. His average dropped quite a bit.

 

[BlindFaith]

by and large, teams get a lead by passing more efficiently than their opponent,

So, statistically, define what you deem to be efficient passing. And also define the factors that enable an efficient passing game and how you would measure those.

You will probably refer to Passer Rating or QBR. And I don't disagree with that, especially QBR. But that stat really measures the QB only and not necessarily the offensive line or if the offense if forced to pass because of a poor defense. Lots of variables there. Someone did the analysis and shows that QBR has the highest correlation to winning of all the stats. http://www.footballperspective.com/is-espns-qbr-the-best-measure-of-quarterback-play/

------Stat------------CC
ESPN QBR------0.68
ANY/A------------0.57
Passer Rating---0.56
TD/Att-------------0.54
NY/A--------------0.46
Yd/Att-------------0.45
INT/Att---------(-0.43)
Cmp%-----------0.33
Sack Rate------- (-0.21)
Pass Yds--------0.16
Attempts--------- (-0.10)


What we don't have is a Running Rating or RBR. A running efficiency rating. Well we kind of do, Football Outsiders has a rating for Running Backs, but since most teams utilize more than one running back, using that could be difficult.

So we could use Football Outsiders Offense Efficiency Ratings and focusing on the Passing DVOA and the Rushing DVOA. If you or anyone has FO's premium and can run Pass and Rush DVOA on a week to week basis and do some comparison to W/L that would be helpful. Also comparing QBR or Passer Rating to Passing DVOA and see how that compares to W/L would be helpful too.

Once we figure out how to measure efficiency for both passing and running then we need to start seeing how the two are related to each other in terms of winning. Can you win any given week with the highest pass DVOA and lowest rushing DVOA? Or vice versa. My gut tells me that there is a sliding scale that will lead us to a range of passing and rushing DVOA that leads to the most wins.

I think this is the biggest issue facing trying to evaluate the importance of the running game. Stats prove out that you don't have to rush for a lot of yards or even a high ypc average to win. I don't disagree. What's important is that you rush more than 25 times a game and be efficient. But simply using the number of rushes opens up the argument of - Well, teams rush the ball more when they are winning to run out the game. That is true. That's why DVOA seems to be a more accurate measure as it accounts for situation.

And then you have to factor in the teams Defensive performance each game. Teams giving up a lot of points will dictate what the offense can and has to do to keep up.

 

[BlindFaith]

So let's try to recap

We have found a stat that says if a team:
Passes well when they pass
Doesn't get sacked
Doesn't throw INTs
Plays better pass D than they play Offense
Gets sacks
Get INTs

That they will win close to 80% of the time

That has morphed into the Running game is of no importance

Basically. But yet they haven't explained why teams still run the ball and don't acknowledge that the running game influences the success of the passing game.

 

[AdamJT13]

If you dont think that the strong run game helped Romo be a more efficient and better QB in 2014 then you didnt watch the games.

I watched and charted every single game, just like I always do.

He led the league in passer rating at 124.

Nice try, but at least get your facts straight if you're going to attempt to use them.

It was widely regarded as his best season as a pro. Are you claiming that was coincidence?

Coincidental to what? I don't think it was coincidental to all of the parts of the passing game coming together.

How about the 12-4 record do you think that was coincidence also or maybe it had something to do with our amazing ability to run the ball as compared to the 3 previous years when we ran it poorly?

No, it had everything to do with our ability to pass better than the opponent 12 times (winning all 12) and allowing the opponent to pass better than us only four times (losing all four).

Including the playoffs, the team that passed better that season went 18-0. The team that ran better went 9-9.

Coincidence?

 

[CowboyRoy]

So, statistically, define what you deem to be efficient passing. And also define the factors that enable an efficient passing game and how you would measure those.

You will probably refer to Passer Rating or QBR. And I don't disagree with that, especially QBR. But that stat really measures the QB only and not necessarily the offensive line or if the offense if forced to pass because of a poor defense. Lots of variables there. Someone did the analysis and shows that QBR has the highest correlation to winning of all the stats. http://www.footballperspective.com/is-espns-qbr-the-best-measure-of-quarterback-play/

------Stat------------CC
ESPN QBR------0.68
ANY/A------------0.57
Passer Rating---0.56
TD/Att-------------0.54
NY/A--------------0.46
Yd/Att-------------0.45
INT/Att---------(-0.43)
Cmp%-----------0.33
Sack Rate------- (-0.21)
Pass Yds--------0.16
Attempts--------- (-0.10)


What we don't have is a Running Rating or RBR. A running efficiency rating. Well we kind of do, Football Outsiders has a rating for Running Backs, but since most teams utilize more than one running back, using that could be difficult.

So we could use Football Outsiders Offense Efficiency Ratings and focusing on the Passing DVOA and the Rushing DVOA. If you or anyone has FO's premium and can run Pass and Rush DVOA on a week to week basis and do some comparison to W/L that would be helpful. Also comparing QBR or Passer Rating to Passing DVOA and see how that compares to W/L would be helpful too.

Once we figure out how to measure efficiency for both passing and running then we need to start seeing how the two are related to each other in terms of winning. Can you win any given week with the highest pass DVOA and lowest rushing DVOA? Or vice versa. My gut tells me that there is a sliding scale that will lead us to a range of passing and rushing DVOA that leads to the most wins.

I think this is the biggest issue facing trying to evaluate the importance of the running game. Stats prove out that you don't have to rush for a lot of yards or even a high ypc average to win. I don't disagree. What's important is that you rush more than 25 times a game and be efficient. But simply using the number of rushes opens up the argument of - Well, teams rush the ball more when they are winning to run out the game. That is true. That's why DVOA seems to be a more accurate measure as it accounts for situation.

And then you have to factor in the teams Defensive performance each game. Teams giving up a lot of points will dictate what the offense can and has to do to keep up.

Forget about "by and large" We are talking about what is best for the Cowboys. Its quite clear that Romo and this poor defense all do better with a dominant run game.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I watched and charted every single game, just like I always do.




Nice try, but at least get your facts straight if you're going to attempt to use them.




Coincidental to what? I don't think it was coincidental to all of the parts of the passing game coming together.




No, it had everything to do with our ability to pass better than the opponent 12 times (winning all 12) and allowing the opponent to pass better than us only four times (losing all four).

Including the playoffs, the team that passed better that season went 18-0. The team that ran better went 9-9.

Coincidence?

-If you watched every game, then you could have just saw the difference for yourself. If you couldnt see it, then dont blame others because it was dead obvious. And in case you didnt notice Garrett and the Cowboys brass didnt miss it. It was their #1 priority to get back there with the Zeke pick

-So what facts arent straight? That he led the league with 123 and not 124? LOL How about being more specific? No doubt its some minor thing our you would have mentioned it straight out.

-Coincidence that he had his best season as a pro? Try to keep up.

-IM talking about the Dallas Cowboys buddy, not the entire NFL. Why would I care what other teams do? Do we have Tom Brady? Do we have a top 5 defense? We have an old and brittle Tony Romo and a bad defense. A running game is essential to US. And again, in case you didnt notice its pretty much exactly what the brass said about why they took Zeke. In case you were watching er listening to anything lately.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I watched and charted every single game, just like I always do.




Nice try, but at least get your facts straight if you're going to attempt to use them.




Coincidental to what? I don't think it was coincidental to all of the parts of the passing game coming together.




No, it had everything to do with our ability to pass better than the opponent 12 times (winning all 12) and allowing the opponent to pass better than us only four times (losing all four).

Including the playoffs, the team that passed better that season went 18-0. The team that ran better went 9-9.

Coincidence?

You seem to be VERY confused over running vs passing. Its not a competition. Teams pass for more yards then they run so its not apples to apples. The run opens up the pass and the pass opens up the run. Its a mutual relationship. If you told Romo that the running game didnt open things up for him he would probably laugh at you. Or maybe he would just walk away without insulting you.

 

[BlindFaith]

My passing metric doesn't include fumbles or holding penalties, either. More lost fumbles occur on passing plays than on running plays. I haven't checked, but I'm guessing more penalties occur on passing plays, too -- and more significant penalties (either for or against the offense). Including those would almost certainly INCREASE the significance of passing over rushing. And we haven't even mentioned that quarterback scrambles on *designed* pass plays are actually more indicative of the passing game than the running game, even though they are included in (and usually increase) the team's running stats.

Passing is big risk big reward. Running is low risk low reward.

If a team could get 3.5 per carry on every carry and score on every drive, they would run the ball every time. Far less risk involved. But if they did that, then defenses would commit 11 players to stop the run and shut it down. This now opens up the passing game. And vice versa.

A good passing completion percentage is around 60%. This accounts for dump offs, wheel routes and screens that are really an extension of the running game. I'm sure you've included those in your passing matrix though.

Incompletions also stop the clock, extending the game.

Pass blocking is more difficult than run blocking.

Interceptions occur at a 3-1 ratio to running back fumbles at first guess. Also, putting the ball in the hands of a WR who doesn't handle the ball nearly as much as a running back could result in more fumbles, but I don't have a stat to go to for that.

Sacks are typically much more significant than a pure rushing stuff. And if you use ypc or total yards for rushing totals, stuffs are included. Sacks are not included in Passer Rating or overall passing stats.

Running the ball is the balance to the high risk of passing. If you can run efficiently. If you can't, you are left to pass more. We know that pass attempts has a negative correlation to winning.

As the article I posted in the other thread states - You need to have an efficient quarterback and an efficient rushing game that allows you to, hopefully, rush 50% of the time.

 

[Rogerthat12]

If you dont think that the strong run game helped Romo be a more efficient and better QB in 2014 then you didnt watch the games. He led the league in passer rating at 124. It was widely regarded as his best season as a pro. Are you claiming that was coincidence? How about the 12-4 record do you think that was coincidence also or maybe it had something to do with our amazing ability to run the ball as compared to the 3 previous years when we ran it poorly?

This was interesting by Sturm on the Seattle game in 2014:

Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Decoding Linehan - Week 6 - Seattle


To continue on yesterday's theme, it should be stated how uncommon it really is for a team or an offense to change its identity with merely an offseason where the only personnel change was the drafting of a right guard. Zack Martin's upgrade over Bernadeau is clear, but we won't suggest that Martin was the tipping point at all.

We continue to feel, as we wrote back in August, that the identity actually changed during last season's bye week (after the debacle in New Orleans). In that piece we previously linked, you can see all of the many theories, including the most obvious one - that they simply have to do a better job protecting their defense with common sense play-calling from the offense - but they changed their ways before Week 11 against the Giants. Since then, the Cowboys have played 12 games which is 75% of a full season and the confirmation that the Cowboys transitioned from the worst rushing team in the NFL to the best - almost overnight - is flat out stunning.

Over those 12 games, they have run for 1,696 yards (1st in the NFL) at 5.03 yards per carry (1st) and 141.3 yards per game (2nd) for 91 1st Downs (1st) and 49 10-yard runs (3rd).
What makes those numbers absurd is the fact that the 26 games previous to that from Week 1 of 2012 through Week 10 2013, Dallas ran for 2,035 yards (31st), at 3.67 yards per carry (29th), 78.3 yards per game (31st), for 115 1st Downs (29th), and 45 10-yard runs (31st). That is right, if it wasn't for Jacksonville being worse, the Cowboys flipped a switch and went from worst to nearly first in pretty much every category.

And keep in mind that the personnel is largely the same (but we must account for the time invested for maturity and continuity), when we ponder philosophical changes having the most likely affect on the proceedings. If you think about it from the standpoint of last year's bye week, Scott Linehan is no longer the Albert Einstein of this operation, but rather the specialist who helped further implement the existing idea. If the final 6 weeks of last season are not that dissimilar in the ground game to the first 6 games of this season, then we are wondering if it was more a conscious (and obvious) decision rather than an accident.

So what happened? As I wrote in the piece back during training camp, there are several things: 1) a clear controversy in the play-calling department as many speculated that Jason Garrett and Bill Callahan were at odds and that Garrett took the play-calling duty from Callahan. 2) DeMarco Murray returned to full health during the bye of 2013. 3) the Cowboys had a new Right Guard after they lost Brian Waters in Detroit and Mackenzy Bernadeau took over. 4) Tony Romo's health concerns and the Cowboys Run/Pass versus Minnesota (9 runs/51passes) were real issues and 5) on December 3, the Cowboys signed their first fullback of the entire year, Tyler Clutts.

Surely a few of those have nothing to do with the big decision, but to go from league-worst to league-best overnight without any other significant developments is difficult to fully understand. Is it possible they had the pieces for a running game before this and just never "committed" to it?

Which brings us to the latest test, a mauling of the most difficult opponent to run against in football in their stadium where teams don't run. 37 carries for 162 yards was a thing of beauty. There were several runs that went nowhere, but as a whole, the Cowboys marched the ball right down the throat of the Seahawks with enough ease to make you think that if this is the supposed toughest test for this offensive line, Dallas is going to win a lot of games.

They ran the ball primarily from power groupings, but did get 8 carries for 58 yards from 11 personnel (under center) which was aided by Joseph Randle's big 38 yard run early. 11 Personnel (1RB, 1TE, 3WR) is something that Dallas has almost never done from under center before 2014, but has already run 43 times this season for 219 yards out of this set. This is a major improvement over their productivity in previous seasons and is now a weapon that teams are taking seriously. 11 Personnel forces a defense into nickel and generally keeps the safeties back, so the run can really put an opponent in a bind.

But, now for the power. One of my favorite personnel groupings over the years has been "22" personnel. 22 personnel is the essence of the ground and pound and it declares to the entire stadium that with 2 RB and 2 TE on the field, the plan is to run the ball down your throat. The defense will usually take off a corner and put on another LB to deal with all of the muscle in the offensive huddle and then they will often counter with 9 men in the box. This is power on power.

In 2013, the Cowboys didn't even employ a FB for 12 weeks, and ran only 5 plays all year out of this set for 26 yards. All year! Well, Sunday, against the big, bad Seahawks, they ran it 11 times for 62 yards. All 11 times this personnel was on the field, they ran the ball. They declared run, then they did run. And Seattle did not come close to stopping it. If you love power football, it almost brought a tear to your eye. The Power Cowboys may exist again.

Behold - the final 3 plays of the game winning drive: NOTE THE SCORE, DALLAS IS BEHIND, NO LEAD:
http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-a.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-c.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-b.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-d.gif

STATS FOR WEEK 6 AGAINST SEATTLE : These are telling!

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/Screen-Shot-2014-10-13-at-7.45.48-PM.png

http://sturminator.blogspot.com/sea...0-05:00&max-results=10&start=11&by-date=false

These are great from Sturm, he talks about the formation and running differences in 2014 and previous years.

 

[Nightman]

Passing is big risk big reward. Running is low risk low reward.

If a team could get 3.5 per carry on every carry and score on every drive, they would run the ball every time. Far less risk involved. But if they did that, then defenses would commit 11 players to stop the run and shut it down. This now opens up the passing game. And vice versa.

A good passing completion percentage is around 60%. This accounts for dump offs, wheel routes and screens that are really an extension of the running game. I'm sure you've included those in your passing matrix though.

Incompletions also stop the clock, extending the game.

Pass blocking is more difficult than run blocking.

Interceptions occur at a 3-1 ratio to running back fumbles at first guess. Also, putting the ball in the hands of a WR who doesn't handle the ball nearly as much as a running back could result in more fumbles, but I don't have a stat to go to for that.

Sacks are typically much more significant than a pure rushing stuff. And if you use ypc or total yards for rushing totals, stuffs are included. Sacks are not included in Passer Rating or overall passing stats.

Running the ball is the balance to the high risk of passing. If you can run efficiently. If you can't, you are left to pass more. We know that pass attempts has a negative correlation to winning.

As the article I posted in the other thread states - You need to have an efficient quarterback and an efficient rushing game that allows you to, hopefully, rush 50% of the time.

I know it is college but I remember watching Nebraska not lose for almost 2 decades by only running the ball.

 

[plasticman]

If that was true, there would be a correlation. There isn't one. You can't have a causal relationship without a correlation existing.

The other 8 paragraphs of my post was a statistical comparison between his effectiveness in 2014 compared to the rest of his career.

It basically described the difference in 2014 to lower risk situations and also an improvement in passer rating in most typical circumstances.

That was my correlation foe those who beleive that Romo's #1 rating and the Cowboys 12-4 season, along with Murray setting a new Cowboy record was purely coincidental.

 

[CowboyRoy]

This was interesting by Sturm on the Seattle game in 2014:

Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Decoding Linehan - Week 6 - Seattle


To continue on yesterday's theme, it should be stated how uncommon it really is for a team or an offense to change its identity with merely an offseason where the only personnel change was the drafting of a right guard. Zack Martin's upgrade over Bernadeau is clear, but we won't suggest that Martin was the tipping point at all.

We continue to feel, as we wrote back in August, that the identity actually changed during last season's bye week (after the debacle in New Orleans). In that piece we previously linked, you can see all of the many theories, including the most obvious one - that they simply have to do a better job protecting their defense with common sense play-calling from the offense - but they changed their ways before Week 11 against the Giants. Since then, the Cowboys have played 12 games which is 75% of a full season and the confirmation that the Cowboys transitioned from the worst rushing team in the NFL to the best - almost overnight - is flat out stunning.

Over those 12 games, they have run for 1,696 yards (1st in the NFL) at 5.03 yards per carry (1st) and 141.3 yards per game (2nd) for 91 1st Downs (1st) and 49 10-yard runs (3rd).
What makes those numbers absurd is the fact that the 26 games previous to that from Week 1 of 2012 through Week 10 2013, Dallas ran for 2,035 yards (31st), at 3.67 yards per carry (29th), 78.3 yards per game (31st), for 115 1st Downs (29th), and 45 10-yard runs (31st). That is right, if it wasn't for Jacksonville being worse, the Cowboys flipped a switch and went from worst to nearly first in pretty much every category.

And keep in mind that the personnel is largely the same (but we must account for the time invested for maturity and continuity), when we ponder philosophical changes having the most likely affect on the proceedings. If you think about it from the standpoint of last year's bye week, Scott Linehan is no longer the Albert Einstein of this operation, but rather the specialist who helped further implement the existing idea. If the final 6 weeks of last season are not that dissimilar in the ground game to the first 6 games of this season, then we are wondering if it was more a conscious (and obvious) decision rather than an accident.

So what happened? As I wrote in the piece back during training camp, there are several things: 1) a clear controversy in the play-calling department as many speculated that Jason Garrett and Bill Callahan were at odds and that Garrett took the play-calling duty from Callahan. 2) DeMarco Murray returned to full health during the bye of 2013. 3) the Cowboys had a new Right Guard after they lost Brian Waters in Detroit and Mackenzy Bernadeau took over. 4) Tony Romo's health concerns and the Cowboys Run/Pass versus Minnesota (9 runs/51passes) were real issues and 5) on December 3, the Cowboys signed their first fullback of the entire year, Tyler Clutts.

Surely a few of those have nothing to do with the big decision, but to go from league-worst to league-best overnight without any other significant developments is difficult to fully understand. Is it possible they had the pieces for a running game before this and just never "committed" to it?

Which brings us to the latest test, a mauling of the most difficult opponent to run against in football in their stadium where teams don't run. 37 carries for 162 yards was a thing of beauty. There were several runs that went nowhere, but as a whole, the Cowboys marched the ball right down the throat of the Seahawks with enough ease to make you think that if this is the supposed toughest test for this offensive line, Dallas is going to win a lot of games.

They ran the ball primarily from power groupings, but did get 8 carries for 58 yards from 11 personnel (under center) which was aided by Joseph Randle's big 38 yard run early. 11 Personnel (1RB, 1TE, 3WR) is something that Dallas has almost never done from under center before 2014, but has already run 43 times this season for 219 yards out of this set. This is a major improvement over their productivity in previous seasons and is now a weapon that teams are taking seriously. 11 Personnel forces a defense into nickel and generally keeps the safeties back, so the run can really put an opponent in a bind.

But, now for the power. One of my favorite personnel groupings over the years has been "22" personnel. 22 personnel is the essence of the ground and pound and it declares to the entire stadium that with 2 RB and 2 TE on the field, the plan is to run the ball down your throat. The defense will usually take off a corner and put on another LB to deal with all of the muscle in the offensive huddle and then they will often counter with 9 men in the box. This is power on power.

In 2013, the Cowboys didn't even employ a FB for 12 weeks, and ran only 5 plays all year out of this set for 26 yards. All year! Well, Sunday, against the big, bad Seahawks, they ran it 11 times for 62 yards. All 11 times this personnel was on the field, they ran the ball. They declared run, then they did run. And Seattle did not come close to stopping it. If you love power football, it almost brought a tear to your eye. The Power Cowboys may exist again.

Behold - the final 3 plays of the game winning drive: NOTE THE SCORE, DALLAS IS BEHIND, NO LEAD:
http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-a.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-c.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-b.gif

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/22-d.gif

STATS FOR WEEK 6 AGAINST SEATTLE : These are telling!

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/Screen-Shot-2014-10-13-at-7.45.48-PM.png

http://sturminator.blogspot.com/sea...0-05:00&max-results=10&start=11&by-date=false

These are great from Sturm, he talks about the formation and running differences in 2014 and previous years.

This pretty much confirms what I already knew. That Garrett was a pass happy moron. Not only that, but he had no clue what he was doing. His liability as a play caller and pass happy nature not only ruined Wades final years here, but for most part wasted Tony Romo's career. How Jerry ever promoted and continues to employ this bozo is beyond me. I guess we can say he has finally got it with the run game, but its almost too late now. Romo is nearly fully toasted. I remember listening to all the Garrett apologists over the years telling me that it was a passing league now and we werent running because it wasnt going anywhere. All the while Demarco Murray rotted on the bench and stomped his feet that they kept going away from the run game.

 

[SultanOfSix]

This pretty much confirms what I already knew. That Garrett was a pass happy moron. Not only that, but he had no clue what he was doing. His liability as a play caller and pass happy nature not only ruined Wades final years here, but for most part wasted Tony Romo's career. How Jerry ever promoted and continues to employ this bozo is beyond me. I guess we can say he has finally got it with the run game, but its almost too late now. Romo is nearly fully toasted. I remember listening to all the Garrett apologists over the years telling me that it was a passing league now and we werent running because it wasnt going anywhere. All the while Demarco Murray rotted on the bench and stomped his feet that they kept going away from the run game.

Garrett is the epitome of "privilege" over qualifications and results. He may (eventually) succeed, but his time and room for error has decreased time and room for success for players like Romo and Witten.