News: BR: Dallas Cowboys Don't Need a 'Lead Dog' at Running Back

[NewsBot]

This spring, when they refused to pay big bucks to retain running back DeMarco Murray, the Dallas Cowboys became the first team in NFL history to let a reigning Associated Press Offensive Player of the Year leave town.

This does not indicate that the Cowboys are stupid.

On the surface, letting go of a guy who led the NFL in rushing by a 484-yard margin seems crazy, especially considering Murray wound up lingering longer than expected on the free-agent market before signing a relatively reasonable deal with the division-rival Philadelphia Eagles.

But the reality is this development represents a continually evolving trend that has seen running backs lose a tremendous amount of value—literally and figuratively—in recent years. We're coming off the two most pass-heavy seasons in NFL history, and not a single Super Bowl champion this century has had a first-team All-Pro running back on its roster.

The last time we had a running back taken with the first or second overall pick of the draft was 2006 (Reggie Bush). That year, 23 backs ran for 1,000 yards. Only 13 backs were able to hit that mark in both 2013 and 2014—the lowest totals this century and a 43 percent drop-off from that '06 campaign.

Brad Gagnon has covered the NFL for Bleacher Report since 2012.

Follow @Brad_Gagnon

Read more Dallas Cowboys news on BleacherReport.com

Continue reading...

 

[jobberone]

Don't kill the messenger. BR but it will stir conversation in yet another vital (/sarcasm) discussion about the RB situation.

Go Randle, Williams, DMac, Dunbar and on Donner and Blitzen. Maybe they'll get that veteran FA Rudolph.

 

[ShiningStar]

i really dont find this to be an issue, yes i wanted a RB in draft or sign a guy, and they did, they also released him but i am sure they had reason. Ok so we move on. Is this the best stable of RBs, no can it be good? sure, give it time and lets see where the chips fall. I have never been a fan of Dunbars but if he steps up and is utilized, he migiht shine. Randle did well in back up but i dont kow if he is an all down back, so lets mix it up with McFadden.


This will not be our downfall. So im going if its not priority number 1. Its going to be good enough and for some teams winning the SB it was good enough.

 

[jobberone]

i really dont find this to be an issue, yes i wanted a RB in draft or sign a guy, and they did, they also released him but i am sure they had reason. Ok so we move on. Is this the best stable of RBs, no can it be good? sure, give it time and lets see where the chips fall. I have never been a fan of Dunbars but if he steps up and is utilized, he migiht shine. Randle did well in back up but i dont kow if he is an all down back, so lets mix it up with McFadden.


This will not be our downfall. So im going if its not priority number 1. Its going to be good enough and for some teams winning the SB it was good enough.

I love the new avatar. I want one.

 

[Hardline]

I hate the running back by committee approach.we need a feature running back that will get most of the carries.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is a continued mindset that things are static in this league. If X happened yesterday, then it will continue to happen tomorrow. The premise is the league has changed it's mind about the RB position. It is not as valued. There is truth here. The league is getting away from the running game. And I'm sure the stat about SB winners is correct.

However, that does not mean being successful with a bell cow RB, or bucking the trend and being successful is out of the question. Merely look at the WR position. They were tall, then short, then fast and small, now large and strong. QB were pocket passers that took years to develop. Then it was the scrambler who could gain yards with his legs and come out of college and win. Big strong defenses that were unmovable. Then smaller faster defenses which swarm.

It is a cyclical thing.

The results vary because the ball is pointy on both ends and that employes the chaos theory when trying to predict how it will bounce.

So when points of view are blanketed in concrete statements of what is, someone will figure out a wrinkle and change the game. What is becomes what was, and the league rushes to capture and imitate the newest thing which brought success.

From my perspective, this team finally had a balance which seemed to be unstoppable. They assembled an offensive line which could open holes, and had a back who could capitalize on those holes. This caused defenses to not sit back and wait on Romo, but forced them into stopping a running game, thus making Romo's options and passing attack more difficult. Because the defense couldn't just play the pass.

I have been wrong many times, and could be this time. But I do not buy into the idea this was all the offensive line and Murray, or any jake-legged RB can produce because of a line that should be called Mount Rushmore.

But what perhaps exasperates me the most is the temperament of those who along with me suffered through mediocrity, then they became so jaded they were ready to reject what got the team where they were last year.

As I get older, I find loyalty to be a most precious aspect of people, and perhaps becoming more rare by the second.

 

[xwalker]

I hate the running back by committee approach.we need a feature running back that will get most of the carries.

There is a lot a area between RB by committee and having Murray rush 392 times which was 83% of the RB carries for the Cowboy last season.

I expect the lead RB this year to get about 60% of the carries which is still a lead back, but is much closer to RB by committee than the 83% for Murray last season.

 

[ShiningStar]

I love the new avatar. I want one.

thank you kind sir, always admired your avatar.

 

[Teague31]

Murrays deal was "relatively reasonable"? Cute.

 

[dallasdave]

thank you kind sir, always admired your avatar.

That avatar is TOTALLY AWESOME!!!

 

[dallasdave]

This spring, when they refused to pay big bucks to retain running back DeMarco Murray, the Dallas Cowboys became the first team in NFL history to let a reigning Associated Press Offensive Player of the Year leave town.

This does not indicate that the Cowboys are stupid.

On the surface, letting go of a guy who led the NFL in rushing by a 484-yard margin seems crazy, especially considering Murray wound up lingering longer than expected on the free-agent market before signing a relatively reasonable deal with the division-rival Philadelphia Eagles.

But the reality is this development represents a continually evolving trend that has seen running backs lose a tremendous amount of value—literally and figuratively—in recent years. We're coming off the two most pass-heavy seasons in NFL history, and not a single Super Bowl champion this century has had a first-team All-Pro running back on its roster.

The last time we had a running back taken with the first or second overall pick of the draft was 2006 (Reggie Bush). That year, 23 backs ran for 1,000 yards. Only 13 backs were able to hit that mark in both 2013 and 2014—the lowest totals this century and a 43 percent drop-off from that '06 campaign.

Brad Gagnon has covered the NFL for Bleacher Report since 2012.

Follow @Brad_Gagnon

Read more Dallas Cowboys news on BleacherReport.com

Continue reading...

The Cowboys at least need a dog that barks.

 

[Howboutdemcowboys31]

I hate the running back by committee approach.we need a feature running back that will get most of the carries.

Co-sign. Even if the yardage of the 3 backs is close to Murrays, it's all about Tony's trust for me. Is he going to rush a throw because he doesn't trust the protection? Will he take more risks knowing we don't have a back to carry the load? Etc

I think Tony will be fine with all that, but we won't know till we see

 

[xwalker]

Co-sign. Even if the yardage of the 3 backs is close to Murrays, it's all about Tony's trust for me. Is he going to rush a throw because he doesn't trust the protection? Will he take more risks knowing we don't have a back to carry the load? Etc

I think Tony will be fine with all that, but we won't know till we see

McFadden is a better blocker than Murray.

Murray had some failures in pass blocking. Check ot Bob Sturm's series detailing the reason for each sack last season.

 

[DandyDon52]

There is a continued mindset that things are static in this league. If X happened yesterday, then it will continue to happen tomorrow. The premise is the league has changed it's mind about the RB position. It is not as valued. There is truth here. The league is getting away from the running game. And I'm sure the stat about SB winners is correct.

However, that does not mean being successful with a bell cow RB, or bucking the trend and being successful is out of the question. Merely look at the WR position. They were tall, then short, then fast and small, now large and strong. QB were pocket passers that took years to develop. Then it was the scrambler who could gain yards with his legs and come out of college and win. Big strong defenses that were unmovable. Then smaller faster defenses which swarm.

It is a cyclical thing.

The results vary because the ball is pointy on both ends and that employes the chaos theory when trying to predict how it will bounce.

So when points of view are blanketed in concrete statements of what is, someone will figure out a wrinkle and change the game. What is becomes what was, and the league rushes to capture and imitate the newest thing which brought success.

From my perspective, this team finally had a balance which seemed to be unstoppable. They assembled an offensive line which could open holes, and had a back who could capitalize on those holes. This caused defenses to not sit back and wait on Romo, but forced them into stopping a running game, thus making Romo's options and passing attack more difficult. Because the defense couldn't just play the pass.

I have been wrong many times, and could be this time. But I do not buy into the idea this was all the offensive line and Murray, or any jake-legged RB can produce because of a line that should be called Mount Rushmore.

But what perhaps exasperates me the most is the temperament of those who along with me suffered through mediocrity, then they became so jaded they were ready to reject what got the team where they were last year.

As I get older, I find loyalty to be a most precious aspect of people, and perhaps becoming more rare by the second.

great post, it is a cycle, that is why teams must evolve and not expect to do same thing for too long.
Also I felt same, last year they developed a offense that made it all work, then let murray go ????? hard to see the logic in that.
Now it is a burning question about can they run the ball good enough or not !

 

[Bullflop]

Agreed that we don't necessarily need a "lead dog" in the RB corps but a "battering ram" type wouldn't hurt.

 

[dallasdave]

Agreed that we don't necessarily need a "lead dog" in the RB corps but a "battering ram" type wouldn't hurt.

Need RB's that can stay healthy.

 

[Bullflop]

Need RB's that can stay healthy.

Granted. RBs who are physical presences oftentimes possess that quality. Wouldn't it be nice if we had one.

 

[xwalker]

But the reality is this development represents a continually evolving trend that has seen running backs lose a tremendous amount of value—literally and figuratively—in recent years. We're coming off the two most pass-heavy seasons in NFL history, and not a single Super Bowl champion this century has had a first-team All-Pro running back on its roster.

Didn't Seattle and Marshawn Lynch win a Super Bowl recently?

OK, I looked it up, he was 1st team All-Pro in 2012 and 2nd team All-Pro in 2014 but did not make All-Pro the season (2013) they won the Super Bowl. That's still basically an All-Pro caliber RB for all intents and purposes. He only has 301 attempts for 1257 yards and 12 TDs that season.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I dont know if we need a lead dog, but IMO we need one more back that's Randles caliber

 

[dallasdave]

Granted. RBs who are physical presences oftentimes possess that quality. Wouldn't it be nice if we had one.

yes