Bewildered over Cowboy nation these days

[Stash]

There is no excuse for Zeke. A great O-Line is in front of him that will most likely only get better. If he can't put up big numbers, I'm talking 1,500 yards with double digit TDs a year, either our line is overrated or he's not as good as advertised.

I feel like people are already setting up the excuses for him. Want to talk him up? Fine. But if you're going to set these expectations, you better criticize him when he doesn't meet them. The least I'll accept from him this upcoming seasons is 1,300 with 8 TDs. That number better be improved upon in his second year.

That's definitely what's already happening.

This line's not overrated one bit. They not only helped Murray lead the league in rushing, by 500 yards, but they brought McFadden's career back from the dead and helped him to 1,100 yards after a several week slow start while Randle wasted everyone's time.

They're every bit as good as advertised, and now it's time for Elliott to show that he is too.

And if he does, it will be great for everyone in the organization, especially him. And if he doesn't, both he, and the team's decision should be open to criticism.

The bar was already set high, the cost of acquiring him is great, so it's understandable to have high expectations. And anyone not having them is already making excuses for failure.

 

[Garrettop]

I expect Elliott to compete for the rushing title, barring injury of course. There is no greater plugnplay position in football; throw in the line and his apparent talent and if he isn't in the mix at the end of the year, something is wrong.

 

[jobberone]

As I reject yours, makes us even. You can dig into numbers all day and try to make things as complex as possible in your effort to be right, doesn't make it so. You can try to over complicate things and try to fool some people too. I'm not one of them. I know where the bar has been set, and the number nerds aren't going to adjust it.

This decision either lives up to the investment being made or it doesn't.



At least I have an argument, while you try to refer to these 'facts' that you're either unwilling or unable to reference.



While you use the word 'fact' and fail to substantiate the usage.



You're not giving me some homework assignment. You're the guy claiming something as 'fact', you back it up.

You insist gaining 'X' yards gets you to the playoffs. Winicki asked you for material to back it up. Since then only bluster. And I know you've seen of the data we speak of.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

[jobberone]

Here you go @stasheroo. https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

 

[Stash]

You insist gaining 'X' yards gets you to the playoffs. Winicki asked you for material to back it up. Since then only bluster. And I know you've seen of the data we speak of.

Sorry, it appears that you're mistaken. My insistence is that Elliott has a standard to live up to. Not that he has to carry this team to the "playoffs". I've repeatedly said that no one player can do it by themselves. Romo has clearly proven that.

Murray ran for 1,800 yards behin this offensive line, in fact, arguably a lesser version (as I feel Collins is a better player at LG than Leary is). And McFadden ran for 1,100, with both a late start and no other offensive threats to speak of.

If the other factors return (Romo, Bryant, O-line health), I think it's more than reasonable to expect Elliott to run for 1,500-1,600 yards this season. And if he doesn't, I don't think the draft investment will be worth it.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I make no claims regarding playoffs whatsoever. I have no idea what the rest of the team will do or not.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

 

[Stash]

Here you go @stasheroo. https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

First if all, thanks very much for providing this information. In all honesty, I haven't seen it before.

That said, I think this data is garbage. The 10-year sample size does more to illustrate an NFL transition than it does to give a standard blueprint for success. Do you honestly feel a 10-year snapshot is a good enough? I sure don't!

How hypocritical is it that Feng repeatedly refers to the Belichick Plan (that only worked due to a missed field goal), as some 'blueprint', and conveniently doesn't include date from that time period in his research?

And take a look at the numerous comments listed below his material and take note of how many times he's being corrected and east aware of something, or needed to consider something else?

If these are the "facts" you're basing your argue not upon, I see the issue.

Again, I appreciate you providing this article, but I think it's a piece of **** research.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

It's truly stunning.

The stat dorks will point to McFadden's meaningless yards.

LMAO

let em know how you feel...lol...

 

[percyhoward]

It's always about points, not stats.

The 10 highest scoring teams in NFL history all made the playoffs. But the only one that won a Super Bowl was the one with the best defense. The non-champion that came closest to winning it all was the one with the 2nd-best defense.

 

[erod]

The 10 highest scoring teams in NFL history all made the playoffs. But the only one that won a Super Bowl was the one with the best defense. The non-champion that came closest to winning it all was the one with the 2nd-best defense.

Defensive points allowed is virtually the same as points scored. There are lots of ways to win.

And don't make this about "total points scored" or "avg points per game." Again, those are stats, and they are often misleading. If a team scores 60 points in back-to-back games, then scores 10 points in each of the next three games, that teams looks like an offensive juggernaut, when it's really not. That's not what I mean. Games come down to points scored, but not seasons.

Time of possession can favor the losing team. Total yardage often does. Passing yards are highly misleading depending on the type of game.

It's like in business. The art of sales often conflicts with the calculated science of operations. Both are important, but it's sales that grows a company. Always. Operations doesn't like to admit it, but it's true.

Such is the case with the "operations-minded" stat mongers.

 

[erod]

You were doing so well until that 32 teams comment. Lol. Teams that wouldn't? Teams already with a top RB and the Patriots. I like the pick but statements like these are simply awful and uneducated.

The implication is that every team would do the same given the same conditions. Was that not evidently implied?

 

[jobberone]

First if all, thanks very much for providing this information. In all honesty, I haven't seen it before.

That said, I think this data is garbage. The 10-year sample size does more to illustrate an NFL transition than it does to give a standard blueprint for success. Do you honestly feel a 10-year snapshot is a good enough? I sure don't!

How hypocritical is it that Feng repeatedly refers to the Belichick Plan (that only worked due to a missed field goal), as some 'blueprint', and conveniently doesn't include date from that time period in his research?

And take a look at the numerous comments listed below his material and take note of how many times he's being corrected and east aware of something, or needed to consider something else?

If these are the "facts" you're basing your argue not upon, I see the issue.

Again, I appreciate you providing this article, but I think it's a piece of **** research.

There's plenty more out there for inquiring minds. The data is sound looking at the volume available for any and all. That's just one piece.

 

[percyhoward]

Defensive points allowed is virtually the same as points scored.

It's exactly the same. The only difference is point of view.

And don't make this about "total points scored" or "avg points per game." Again, those are stats, and they are often misleading. If a team scores 60 points in back-to-back games, then scores 10 points in each of the next three games, that teams looks like an offensive juggernaut, when it's really not.

Which one of those 10 wasn't an offensive juggernaut?

 

[erod]

It's exactly the same. The only difference is point of view.


Which one of those 10 wasn't an offensive juggernaut?

We're agreeing with each other essentially. Points, points, and more points. There are lots of ways to score and prevent both, but ultimately, they're the only "stats" that matter.

Football is the ultimately cause-and-effect game. Special teams have a HUGE effect on games, and yet field position never gets considered statistically. Time of possession overly favors the ball control teams, so the quick-strike offenses or teams with dynamic defenses and special teams get lost in those numbers. And on and on.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The implication is that every team would do the same given the same conditions. Was that not evidently implied?

Implied or not, that is not a true statement. Teams value positions differently so by saying, "same conditions" meaning Jerry and company running the show then yes. Other then that, that statement is, IMO, untrue. More to the point, I'd actually say that there is no way to substantiate your claims. That's probably the better way of saying it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't agree with points scored being the same as points allowed. Very different IMO.

 

[erod]

Implied or not, that is not a true statement. Teams value positions differently so by saying, "same conditions" meaning Jerry and company running the show then yes. Other then that, that statement is, IMO, untrue. More to the point, I'd actually say that there is no way to substantiate your claims. That's probably the better way of saying it.

The point being, putting a potential superstar at running back behind a great offensive line is hardly the "unnecessary luxury" that some of our fan bases (and local media) are claiming. All 32 teams would see the logic in Elliott here, I am certain. And I don't hesitate to say that's what the winning organizations would do.

It's rare to have such a scenario. Most teams drafting at #4 have gawd awful offensive lines, so it's a bandaid on a gushing wound for them. Not here.

 

[Primetime42]

Why? I'm using him as much as I can now. And, if the time comes, I'll move on to the next young running back to run behind this offensive line.

I don't think his usage will be "monitored" in that sense, but he'll only be 25 at the end of his rookie deal and tbh, I expect an extension at 24, so...

 

[percyhoward]

I don't agree with points scored being the same as points allowed. Very different IMO.

One couldn't be more important than the other, since they're the same thing, just seen from two different points of view.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The point being, putting a potential superstar at running back behind a great offensive line is hardly the "unnecessary luxury" that some of our fan bases (and local media) are claiming. All 32 teams would see the logic in Elliott here, I am certain. And I don't hesitate to say that's what the winning organizations would do.

It's rare to have such a scenario. Most teams drafting at #4 have gawd awful offensive lines, so it's a bandaid on a gushing wound for them. Not here.

If that's what you believe, that's fine but, your statements in absolutes are wrong. Every team in the same situation would not have done what we did. Some would have looked at the RBs available, looked at our ability to run the football and picked a Defensive Starter and a back later.

Sorry, I just don't agree that because we did this, every team would have made the same decision.

 

[zrinkill]

Not hardly. Most laughed at McFadden's signing and thought the draft would make it right. No pick came, and they were disgusted.

Now the pick comes, and McFadden is suddenly the answer and Elliott is a "luxury".

Hypocrisy abounds among the masses.

Very true post.