Can Dallas win a Super Bowl with RB By Committee?

[JoeKing]

I don't know why this is even a viable question. It's been proven several times over that the RB by committee approach can be sufficient to win a SB.

 

[Bleu Star]

I absolutely agree with you. I could be wrong but I think McFadden wins the job outright and Randle will be his back up. I don't think McFadden carries as much as Murray did and so Randle will get way more carries this year but McFadden is going to be the feature back. I believe Williams is the odd man out and Dunbar makes the team but I don't think he sees the field much.

McFadden skips leg day. So there's that.

 

[dragon_mikal]

Yes. Just not with the committee they currently have.

 

[KJJ]

The fact that they've never won a SB with RB by committee doesn't really count for much at this point. They haven't won a SB in this millennium. They've never won a SB when they had a QB who passed for over 3500 yards, does that mean we need to rotate Wheeden in or sit Romo for a few games to keep with our historical record?

I think it counts for a lot when look at what made their SB winning teams so successful. Everyone of those teams had a terrific lead back two of which are in the HOF and those teams played great defense which was aided by having an offense that could control the ball with a great runner. The reason the Cowboys never won a SB when they had a QB who passed for over 3500 yards was due to their great running game. They didn't need their QB's having to pass for over 3500 yards with the great backs and defense they had.

Romo had a career low in passing yards last season in which he played at least 15 games and it led to the best most efficient season he ever had due to having a great lead back. We've seen some very average QB's such as Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson win SB's leaning on a running game and defense. Romo is a very good QB but I don't see the Cowboys winning a SB with him if he's not getting enough help from his RB's and has to go back to airing out. Romo is at his best when he's not being asked to win games.

 

[blindzebra]

If the Cowboys don't run the ball as well (consistently) then I don't see adding more big plays in the running game helping a great deal. It's the playing keep away (time consuming drives) that made the running game so effective last season. Emmitt wasn't breaking off one long run after another during his heyday it was him being consistent that made him and the running game so effective. The Cowboys won the time of possession battle in a number of their games last season which greatly helped the defense. By maintaining the ball it helped wear down the opposition. You can take the will out of a defense by consistently picking up 4, 6 and 12 yards on the ground. The Cowboys don't need a lot of homeruns just a lot of base hits to keep them at bat. In the past the Cowboys have had more big plays in the running game with Julius Jones and to a lesser extent Felix Jones but it's been the consistent 5-8 yard runs that have moved the chains and helped the Cowboys maintain possession.

Go back to the 06 season vs the Saints when Julius Jones broke off a long run and scored. The Cowboys still got blown out due to their defense and not being able run the ball consistently. It's going to come down to the Cowboys defense and the offense picking up the tough yards on the ground especially in critical situations that's going to make or break their season. Murray was very consistent on 3rd and 2's and 3's keeping Romo from having to put the ball up in those situations. If the Cowboys struggle to pick up the tough yards or end up in a lot of long down situations Romo won't be as efficient as last season. I just don't see the Cowboys breaking off a bunch of long TD runs. Sure they'll make some big plays in the running game no question about it but trust me the key to having a successful season will be running the ball "consistently" keeping the chains moving and the defense off the field. That was the recipe for success last season.

You are missing the point. Ball control puts a huge amount of pressure on the offense. When you eat up time you limit possessions for both teams meaning you have to score at a higher percentage of drives to be successful. 40 minutes of TOP means squat if you don't get TDs on your drives.

Like it or not we left points on the field because of Murray's style last year, and that style means you will play a lot of close games. And anytime you play close games luck, injuries or mistakes will all be magnified.

Yes Emmitt was not taking runs to the house every game but he sure as hell was not turning 50 yard runs into 15 yard ones because he tried to run people over like Murray did way too many times. For me I will trade off 4.5 ypc for 4.0 ypc with some long ones sprinkled in and as we saw last year both Randle and Dunbar can make explosive runs, so if McFadden or Williams can plod for that 4.0, we can still be balanced, control TOP without having one back getting all those touches, and get those explosive plays at hopefully an increased rate with increased touches.

 

[blindzebra]

I think it counts for a lot when look at what made their SB winning teams so successful. Everyone of those teams had a terrific lead back two of which are in the HOF and those teams played great defense which was aided by having an offense that could control the ball with a great runner. The reason the Cowboys never won a SB when they had a QB who passed for over 3500 yards was due to their great running game. They didn't need their QB's having to pass for over 3500 yards with the great backs and defense they had.

Romo had a career low in passing yards last season in which he played at least 15 games and it led to the best most efficient season he ever had due to having a great lead back. We've seen some very average QB's such as Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson win SB's leaning on a running game and defense. Romo is a very good QB but I don't see the Cowboys winning a SB with him if he's not getting enough help from his RB's and has to go back to airing out. Romo is at his best when he's not being asked to win games.

Wrong, Romo is at his best when the defense is not giving away games. Kind of why we did not over-spend for Murray and added on all 3 levels of D in FA and the draft.

 

[JDSmith]

I think it counts for a lot when look at what made their SB winning teams so successful. Everyone of those teams had a terrific lead back two of which are in the HOF and those teams played great defense which was aided by having an offense that could control the ball with a great runner. The reason the Cowboys never won a SB when they had a QB who passed for over 3500 yards was due to their great running game. They didn't need their QB's having to pass for over 3500 yards with the great backs and defense they had.

Romo had a career low in passing yards last season in which he played at least 15 games and it led to the best most efficient season he ever had due to having a great lead back. We've seen some very average QB's such as Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson win SB's leaning on a running game and defense. Romo is a very good QB but I don't see the Cowboys winning a SB with him if he's not getting enough help from his RB's and has to go back to airing out. Romo is at his best when he's not being asked to win games.

Whether you have a great runner or not doesn't seem to matter too much in today's game. Which is why RBs have become devalued. I do agree that we would be best served by having a strong running game to help protect the defense and not force Romo to try and win games - I think his biggest flaw has always been that he tries to do too much. But honestly, it may be that he simply had to do too much since we have never really given him a good defense. The running game definitely helped the D last year, but I don't think we need one back to carry the load to such a lopsided degree to run effectively. A more balance committee approach could certainly work. I think the big issue last year was that they didn't trust Randle enough to give him more of Murray's carries - if we had McFadden last year instead of Randle I'll bet we would have seen Murray carry less because they could rely on McFadden to protect Romo. And I think that would have been better for the team because it would have kept Murray fresher late in the season.

 

[Frozen700]

NE did it.

They had super average WR's, and only 1 mega Receiver(Gronk). Our O- Line is better, and D is improving.

People love to say Romo is where Brady is, or in his area. So prove it.

 

[KJJ]

Wrong, Romo is at his best when the defense is not giving away games. Kind of why we did not over-spend for Murray and added on all 3 levels of D in FA and the draft.

No, I'm not wrong Romo is at his best when he's able to play within himself and isn't turning the ball over. His nemesis over the years has been forced throws, poor decisions and ill timed turnovers which has been mostly due to him not having a consistent running game forcing him to have to win games.

 

[blindzebra]

No, I'm not wrong Romo is at his best when he's able to play within himself and isn't turning the ball over. His nemesis over the years has been forced throws, poor decisions and ill timed turnovers which has been mostly due to him not having a consistent running game forcing him to have to win games.

No it has been mostly having a defense known for giving up scores before the half and at the end of games that added pressure to him to win it himself.

 

[jday]

I like to think....

I got this far.

 

[KJJ]

No it has been mostly having a defense known for giving up scores before the half and at the end of games that added pressure to him to win it himself.

You honestly believe it's been mostly the defense that's caused Romo's issues in previous seasons? I got news for you the defense wasn't any good last season ranking near the bottom of the league in sacks. The defense is the reason the Cowboys used their top two picks on defense and signed Hardy. The big reason the defense was better last season than in 2013 was averaging 12 fewer plays each week due to the running game. The consistent running game kept the defense fresher which helped the D make more plays and Romo wasn't forced to put the ball up near as much as in previous seasons. The defense wasn't exposed as much. The improvements we saw in Romo and the defense was a direct result of a better more consistent running game.

 

[blindzebra]

You honestly believe it's been mostly the defense that's caused Romo's issues in previous seasons? I got news for you the defense wasn't any good last season ranking near the bottom of the league in sacks. The defense is the reason the Cowboys used their top two picks on defense and signed Hardy. The big reason the defense was better last season than in 2013 was averaging 12 fewer plays each week due to the running game. The consistent running game kept the defense fresher which helped the D make more plays and Romo wasn't forced to put the ball up near as much as in previous seasons. The defense wasn't exposed as much. The improvements we saw in Romo and the defense was a direct result of a better more consistent running game.

Funny how you think you countered my point but actually illustrated exactly what I said.

We ran to protect an out manned defense.

We picked up FA and drafted to improve what? An out manned defense.

What we didn't do was over pay for Murray or draft a RB...hmmm.

 

[KJJ]

Funny how you think you countered my point but actually illustrated exactly what I said.

We ran to protect an out manned defense.

We picked up FA and drafted to improve what? An out manned defense.

What we didn't do was over pay for Murray or draft a RB...hmmm.

It hasn't been difficult countering your points we ran to protect the defense and Romo. See how easy it was to counter that? lol Coming off back surgery the Cowboys knew Romo wouldn't likely last the season having to put the ball up 35 plus times a game. They know from his history that he's been most efficient in games in which he had a solid running game. The Cowboys have preached for years they need to run the ball more and they need to run it better. We all knew if the Cowboys could get a solid efficient running game it would help the defense and it would improve Romo's efficiency. As for the Cowboys not drafting an RB the 2 top RB's were off the board so defense became the focal point. The Cowboys and Jerry are banking on the OL but believe me if every FAN on this board was so confident the Cowboys won't miss a beat with the backs they have you wouldn't have had so many over the past few months clamoring for the team to trade the farm for AP.

I've seen one FAN on this board who claimed he's not the least bit concerned with the Cowboys RB situation but that didn't stop him from hoping the Cowboys would trade for Peterson. LOL I find it funny how many keep saying they're not worried about the Cowboys RB situation but are willing to mortgage the teams future on a 30 year old back. I'm not even concerned enough about the backs we have to want to trade the farm for Peterson. No one wanted to overpay Murray but they were okay with giving up multiple high draft picks and $25M guaranteed for an aging back. It's interesting and pretty hilarious to sift through posts marveling at the circus that's going on inside the heads of this FAN base. We've seen appreciation threads for players who haven't done crap for the Cowboys but most couldn't wait for Murray to leave. It was thanks to those who did nothing but take up a roster spot and good riddance to a player that was the teams MVP last season.

 

[rpntex]

I posted in another thread that the Cowboys have never won a SB with an RB by committee. They won SB's with Duane Thomas, Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith leading the way. I believe if the Cowboys are going to be as good a team as they were last season or have a chance to be even better one of their backs is going to have to step up and be the one the team counts on in critical games/situations and down the stretch. These backs are going to be given a great opportunity and one of them needs to emerge.

Here we go again...

The 1977 team won the Super Bowl with Dorsett carrying the ball 208 times (14.9 carries per game)during the season. Robert Newhouse carried it 180 (12.9 carries per game). The Dallas offense ran mostly from a "split back" formation, with Dorsett and Newhouse practiclly splitting carries. The running backs on the team carries the ball 468 times. That means that the lead back (Dorsett) only carried the ball 44% of the rushing plays. Newhouse carried it 38% of the rushing plays.

That is textbook "RB by committee".

 

[KJJ]

Here we go again...

The 1977 team won the Super Bowl with Dorsett carrying the ball 208 times (14.9 carries per game)during the season. Robert Newhouse carried it 180 (12.9 carries per game). The Dallas offense ran mostly from a "split back" formation, with Dorsett and Newhouse practiclly splitting carries. The running backs on the team carries the ball 468 times. That means that the lead back (Dorsett) only carried the ball 44% of the rushing plays. Newhouse carried it 38% of the rushing plays.

That is textbook "RB by committee".

What I actually posted in the other thread was that the Cowboys have never won or reached a SB without having a dynamic back in their backfield. Saying they've never won an SB with an RB by committee was incorrect because they have used multiple backs but they always had a dynamic runner who led the way during their championship years. Although Dorsett and Newhouse split carries in 77 Dorsett added an element to the Cowboys offense that they didn't have prior to his arrival.

The Cowboys would have had a much more difficult time reaching and winning the SB that season had they not had Tony Dorsett. He rushed for over 1000 yards that season, averaged 4.8 yards per carry and provided some long scoring plays that Robert Newhouse wasn't capable of.

 

[Brooksey]

No it has been mostly having a defense known for giving up scores before the half and at the end of games that added pressure to him to win it himself.

Really? It had nothing to do with three straight throws without a threat of a running game? The constant three and outs, sacks, incompletions, or "The timely turnover from Romo" was our defense's fault? LOL come on that's a major freaking reach, stop stat gathering on football outsiders dude. Sounds like you want to go back to passing it more and have an agenda.

The added pressure on Romo and the timely turnover's at the end of games were a product of over passing the football. We threw it too much and we were unbalanced for years. In 2014 our play calling was finally 50-50 and that took tremendous pressure of Romo and put a ton on opposing defenses.

Expect more of the same offense in 2015.

 

[Brooksey]

You are missing the point. Ball control puts a huge amount of pressure on the offense. When you eat up time you limit possessions for both teams meaning you have to score at a higher percentage of drives to be successful. 40 minutes of TOP means squat if you don't get TDs on your drives.

Like it or not we left points on the field because of Murray's style last year, and that style means you will play a lot of close games. And anytime you play close games luck, injuries or mistakes will all be magnified.
.

Ball Control and TOP took pressure of Romo and our defense while putting pressure on opposing defenses.
We were top 5 in scoring in 2014 and scored more than any of the previous three 8-8 seasons. We passed it around 15% less per game last year and almost scored an extra 100 points for the season.

We can win it with a running back by committee if we stick to a balanced 50-50 play system, IMO

 

[noshame]

This OL is good enough to win with a RB by committee. The key will be any RB who is in, needs to be able to protect Romo, if they can't block, it won't work, that may be the thing we miss from Murray the most.

That said, I think somebody will take the starting spot and run with it.

 

[Knotamus]

To answer the titled question... Of course Dallas can win a SB with a RB committee approach. Its only been proven several times over the last decade. Hell, the Patriots didn't even have a RB over 500 yards! So I just shake my head when I hear all the talk about how important Murray is...Its the commitment to the run game (not Murray) that's important. I didn't hear all these folks clamoring about how vital Murray was this time last year. No, Murray took advantage of his opportunity as he should have during a contract season. I keep hearing how Murray is the one that made Dallas last year.. oh yeah, so what about the seasons before last year? People purposely over look all the help Murray had to obtain his Rushing Title. Its kinda like how a lot of folks still don't consider Romo elite, although he holds multiple records, was the top rated Qb, and is top five alltime! My point is.. please, lets not act like Murray is anything remotely close to a "Emmitt" like RB. Yes, Murray had a good year, but he also had the best rated QB in the league, the best rated OL in the league, arguably the best WR in the league, the best overall TE in the league, and a team committed to finally run the ball. Oh, and did I mention it was a contract year. Amazing isn't it, how players have "breakout" season when they know they're about to get paid. Fact is, any RB in the league knows that blocking up front is the only way to have a opportunity to be successful. This is exactly why FA RB's have been basically begging the Cowboys to give them a chance.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Murray bc I always felt like he had the skillset to lead the league, but I'm tired of people acting like Dallas is doomed without him. If Murray was in McFadden's shoes in Oakland.. well, I'd be willing to bet he would have struggled too. Opportunity is the name of the game. And like proven last year, defense wins championships. In my opinion, the FO did a hell of a job this off season and on "paper" we look to be a top notch defense. The Combo of McFadden, Randle, Williams, and the forgotten Dunbar are easily talented enough to win a SB. The real question is... Is our defense improved enough to stop guys like Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs?