Better running game needed

[Rockport]

I've been saying this all summer and now after the first game. It's the key to being consistently successful in the red zone. It's the key to winning the game when you're up, like we were, in the 4th quarter and need to run out the clock. It's the key to keeping Romo on his feet by taking all the pressure off of his shoulders. That will affect a QB mentally by the end of the game. Callahan gave up to easily on the running game against the Giants. Garrett also believes in more balance. Here's a quote from him yesterday.

“At the end of the day it’s not about, ‘OK we get a stat sheet and you want it to be 30 runs, 30 passes.’ That’s not how we look at it. We want to be able to run the ball more and more effectively, particularly at the end of the game when we’re up a couple scores. We need to be able to hand the ball to DeMarco Murray and run the game out. We didn’t do that as well as we need to and we’ll continue to work on being better at that.”

 

[CATCH17]

It's a must in a Jason Garrett offense with the lack of creativity to get guys open.

We'll have to get teams to put another safety in the box against us because this offense got figured out a long time ago.

 

[03EBZ06]

I think having Waters in the line up will improve running game, same for protecting for Romo.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Agree we need better YPC going forward, but without Murray's performance in NY, I think we lose that game. He ran hard and fought for every yard (and held on to the ball).

 

[Rockport]

Agree we need better YPC going forward, but without Murray's performance in NY, I think we lose that game. He ran hard and fought for every yard (and held on to the ball).

Murray did a good job. We just gave up on the run.

 

[Future]

Agree we need better YPC going forward, but without Murray's performance in NY, I think we lose that game. He ran hard and fought for every yard (and held on to the ball).

Im curious, what do you consider a good YPC?

 

[Vinnie2u]

I agree but will Romo keep using the audible card on running plays.

 

[Rockport]

I agree but will Romo keep using the audible card on running plays.

We don't know how often he audibled to a pass off a run. So to make a blanket statement like this is misleading at best.

 

[CATCH17]

We don't know how often he audibled to a pass off a run. So to make a blanket statement like this is misleading at best.

True, but it must've been quite a bit for Jerry to say something about it.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Im curious, what do you consider a good YPC?

>4

 

[Future]

>4

Well, Murray was 4.3, so by that definition, the running game was good vs NYG...right?

 

[Idgit]

It doesn't follow that, because we didn't run the ball more often against NYFG that the reason was that our running game isn't good enough. We ran effectively enough against them that Tom Coughlin mentioned it in his post game comments. And that's with it being established that Romo audibled out of several called runs.

Regardless, we won the game with the running game we had, because running the ball isn't what leads to winning. Turning the ball over, scoring on defense and passing the ball effectively lead to winning. Coaches run the ball at the end of games when they have a lead to keep from making mistakes in the passing game.

The real reason the game tightened up at the end was due, as it usually is, to our inability to stop their passing game effectiveness. When we did stop it, by intercepting and returning the errant pass by Eli, we put the game away.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Well, Murray was 4.3, so by that definition, the running game was good vs NYG...right?

Yeah, it was good. Maybe average is a better description. He almost ran for 100. But, that's not to say it can get better and be more of an asset.

 

[Rockport]

It doesn't follow that, because we didn't run the ball more often against NYFG that the reason was that our running game isn't good enough. We ran effectively enough against them that Tom Coughlin mentioned it in his post game comments. And that's with it being established that Romo audibled out of several called runs.

Regardless, we won the game with the running game we had, because running the ball isn't what leads to winning. Turning the ball over, scoring on defense and passing the ball effectively lead to winning. Coaches run the ball at the end of games when they have a lead to keep from making mistakes in the passing game.

The real reason the game tightened up at the end was due, as it usually is, to our inability to stop their passing game effectiveness. When we did stop it, by intercepting and returning the errant pass by Eli, we put the game away.

Running the ball does lead to winning. We gave up to easily in the 4th quarter when we had the lead. We don't win those 5 Super Bowls without an excellent running game.

 

[Idgit]

Running the ball does lead to winning. We gave up to easily in the 4th quarter when we had the lead. We don't win those 5 Super Bowls without an excellent running game.

It doesn't. If it did, it would show up in the statistics that teams that run the ball more effectively would win more. They don't. I know you think otherwise, because you keep making threads that say so, but it's just not the case.

There's always going to be a need for a running game. This has been said forever, and nobody disputes it. But that game tightened up when the Giants started throwing the ball more effectively than we did. Running the ball more often wasn't going to change that. The game was then put away when we stopped them in the passing game and scored on defense.

Turnovers win football games. Scoring on defense wins football games. Scoring on ST wins football games. Passing the ball effectively wins football games. Running the ball gets you in situations where you can pass more effectively, or avoid passing it altogether if you're already in a situation where you've passed it more effectively than the other guys. This is why it's important. Running it better, except in short yardage and the red zone, doesn't help teams win games. If it doesn't help teams win games, it's not needed.

 

[visionary]

Running the ball does lead to winning. We gave up to easily in the 4th quarter when we had the lead. We don't win those 5 Super Bowls without an excellent running game.

i absolutely agree with you but i hope you are wearing your body armor today because they will come at you fast and furious

there is a reason every DC/coach and every player says "we have to stop the run and to be able to run the ball", none of them say... "we can ignore the run because it has little correlation with winning"

why not?

because it is not true

i can assure you that NFL teams have better statistical people working for them than are on this website so they know all the info posted here and much more

how come they are unaware of this revolutionary idea?

 

[jobberone]

Im curious, what do you consider a good YPC?

Anything over 5 is really good. Of the top ten career season leaders in YPA, 8 of 10 are QBs. Only Charles of the Chiefs and Marion Motley have career averages in the top ten. Mid fours is good esp if attempts are high. E Smith's best year was 93 at 5.3 for example.

Of the active players Charles is at 5.7, Spiller 5.3 and Peterson is at 5. Felix Jones and Charles have the highest non-QB averages of 5.9 of recent seasons' average.

 

[Rockport]

It doesn't. If it did, it would show up in the statistics that teams that run the ball more effectively would win more. They don't. I know you think otherwise, because you keep making threads that say so, but it's just not the case.

There's always going to be a need for a running game. This has been said forever, and nobody disputes it. But that game tightened up when the Giants started throwing the ball more effectively than we did. Running the ball more often wasn't going to change that. The game was then put away when we stopped them in the passing game and scored on defense.

Turnovers win football games. Scoring on defense wins football games. Scoring on ST wins football games. Passing the ball effectively wins football games. Running the ball gets you in situations where you can pass more effectively, or avoid passing it altogether if you're already in a situation where you've passed it more effectively than the other guys. This is why it's important. Running it better, except in short yardage and the red zone, doesn't help teams win games. If it doesn't help teams win games, it's not needed.

It absolutely does. I don't care about stats. You can use stats to prove ANYTHING. It's basic football. Just like to win championships you need to build from the trenches out. Which leads to a balanced attack.

 

[Rockport]

i absolutely agree with you but i hope you are wearing your body armor today because they will come at you fast and furious

there is a reason every DC/coach and every player says "we have to stop the run and to be able to run the ball", none of them say... "we can ignore the run because it has little correlation with winning"

why not?

because it is not true

i can assure you that NFL teams have better statistical people working for them than are on this website so they know all the info posted here and much more

how come they are unaware of this revolutionary idea?

The only thing I can figure is that because you don't need to run the ball in Madden, you don't need to run the ball in the real NFL? It's amazing because this has been football 101 for decades.

 

[Idgit]

It absolutely does. I don't care about stats. You can use stats to prove ANYTHING. It's basic football. Just like to win championships you need to build from the trenches out. Which leads to a balanced attack.

Well, if you don't care about measured outcomes, then there's obviously going to be any convincing you. So, I'll just politely say you're wrong again, and leave it at that.

For the record, the 'trenches' thing sounds nice, too, but unless you've got a measurement for 'winning a trench' that we can discuss, it's tough to say whether it matters or not. I will say I've seen plenty of games where teams pass the ball effectively with relatively porous protection up front.