Critic's review of running game

[gimmesix]

Anyone who has read my posts about the running game knows I was not satisfied with what Dallas did to replace last year's offensive player of the year. So I approached our first game with skepticism about our ability to establish the run and was left a little dissatisfied on initial review by the running efforts. I've since gone back and watched the first half (so far) more closely, and was a little happier about what I saw.

My barometer for an effective running game is how the backs do on first down. My reason for this is that I believe if you can have success running the ball when teams expect you to run it then the opponent has to devote more resources to stopping the run, which opens things up for the passing game.

I initially thought the early returns were not good on first down, but Randle broke a 15-yard run on Dallas' fourth first down (after runs of 2 and 3 and a 5-yard pass on the previous three first downs) on the initial drive.

In the second quarter, Dallas also got an 8-yard first-down run by McFadden.

Now, let me say that there were a lot more 2- and 3-yarders than 5-plus-yarders, but what Dallas had to show to make the run-threat legitimate is the threat of those longer runs, so it established that. The Cowboys also very effectively made the backs a part of the passing game (finally using Dunbar the way everyone's been expecting them to for years).

It wasn't a perfect effort. We didn't show that we can pound the ball/exert our will in the running game, but turnovers didn't exactly put us in position to do that. So the jury remains out on whether we can run it at will. BUT the fact that we showed some semblance of ability to run on first down is a good start.

 

[anava]

I didnt have much problem with any of the backs. I just didn't like the predictability, need to mix in more play action on first and second downs.

 

[TrailBlazer]

I expect randle to be 3rd on the depth chart by seasons end. He can't be a lead back in this committee or anywhere else in the league. Get McFadden in the game. He's clearly better than JR.

 

[remdak]

Randle had more rushing yards than Murray and Peterson combined in Week 1. One thing I was unhappy about was that it appeared too easy to take down Randle. Looking for some explosiveness from him. But, if DMC can stay healthy, would like to see him more.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

It was an odd game because of the turnovers. The thing I worry about the most is the commitment to the running game. We showed a lot more empty sets than I would have preferred. I'm curious to see how we conduct ourselves in a more even game.

 

[DogFace]

I think most of us want to see more DMC. He is the one with the potential to break long ones and is better in pass protection.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

Randle has to do a better job of breaking arm tackles IMO

 

[jrumann59]

It was an odd game because of the turnovers. The thing I worry about the most is the commitment to the running game. We showed a lot more empty sets than I would have preferred. I'm curious to see how we conduct ourselves in a more even game.

We did but we had RB in the game at the time, he was flanked out but he was there. I think that formation and use of it was to get it on film, make teams think dunbar as a pass catcher only and maybe change to run formation or single back set when teams counter with a passing defense and only has 1 LB on the field.

 

[Apollo Creed]

The way we used Dunbar reminded me a lot of how Andy Reid used Bryant Westbrook back in his hey-day.

They go down in the stat sheet as receptions but are basically extended handoffs.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

We did but we had RB in the game at the time, he was flanked out but he was there. I think that formation and use of it was to get it on film, make teams think dunbar as a pass catcher only and maybe change to run formation or single back set when teams counter with a passing defense and only has 1 LB on the field.

I'd take dunbar vs 1LBer any day especially if you flank him out. Most of it wasn't flanked out after motion though. I expect to see that here soon maybe as early as philly.

 

[Macnalty]

Remember four of the ten possessions were in the hurry up mode so playing from behind negates the run often. That said it looked like lots of dirty yards were left on the field. Let keep our fingers crossed that Michaels can break a tackle as the backs went down too easily IMO during the giant game.

 

[Gameover]

Ra. One thing I was unhappy about was that it appeared too easy to take down Randle. .

Indeed! Too many one arm tackles.

 

[xwalker]

Anyone who has read my posts about the running game knows I was not satisfied with what Dallas did to replace last year's offensive player of the year. So I approached our first game with skepticism about our ability to establish the run and was left a little dissatisfied on initial review by the running efforts. I've since gone back and watched the first half (so far) more closely, and was a little happier about what I saw.

My barometer for an effective running game is how the backs do on first down. My reason for this is that I believe if you can have success running the ball when teams expect you to run it then the opponent has to devote more resources to stopping the run, which opens things up for the passing game.

I initially thought the early returns were not good on first down, but Randle broke a 15-yard run on Dallas' fourth first down (after runs of 2 and 3 and a 5-yard pass on the previous three first downs) on the initial drive.

In the second quarter, Dallas also got an 8-yard first-down run by McFadden.

Now, let me say that there were a lot more 2- and 3-yarders than 5-plus-yarders, but what Dallas had to show to make the run-threat legitimate is the threat of those longer runs, so it established that. The Cowboys also very effectively made the backs a part of the passing game (finally using Dunbar the way everyone's been expecting them to for years).

It wasn't a perfect effort. We didn't show that we can pound the ball/exert our will in the running game, but turnovers didn't exactly put us in position to do that. So the jury remains out on whether we can run it at will. BUT the fact that we showed some semblance of ability to run on first down is a good start.

Keep in mind that Dez missed most of the game which makes it harder to run if you're comparing to what Murray did last year. Obviously, they'll have the same problem in upcoming games.

 

[MRV52]

Nothing wrong with the running game. It was one of those strange games that turnovers really affected us, and we got behind. Dmac looked good but was not used much and not sure why. This group can be a force and don't forget about CM.

 

[hornitosmonster]

the box will be loaded up so quick dump offs/screens should be the response. Think of that as an extension to the running game

 

[JD_KaPow]

I expect randle to be 3rd on the depth chart by seasons end. He can't be a lead back in this committee or anywhere else in the league. Get McFadden in the game. He's clearly better than JR.

I think most of us want to see more DMC. He is the one with the potential to break long ones and is better in pass protection.

The coaches seem to think Randle's better. Randle was significantly more productive than DMC on Sunday. I simply don't get the DMC love.

 

[gimmesix]

Keep in mind that Dez missed most of the game which makes it harder to run if you're comparing to what Murray did last year. Obviously, they'll have the same problem in upcoming games.

While that's true, Dez was in for most of the part of the game I analyzed. I think he missed a series in the first half with dehydration, but hadn't left the game entirely yet.

I do agree that him being out will make it harder to run because teams won't tend to devote a safety to covering our other receivers. We'll probably see a lot more man or cover-1 looks with an eighth in the box devoted to stopping or covering the back. Of course, that means Witten gets to eat up some linebacker coverage.

I do like how we worked the underneath with the running backs in this game and hope that's something we continue. But if we can't take advantage of the 1-on-1 matchups at receiver, we'll see a lot more underneath coverage.

 

[gimmesix]

Nothing wrong with the running game. It was one of those strange games that turnovers really affected us, and we got behind. Dmac looked good but was not used much and not sure why. This group can be a force and don't forget about CM.

Well, he looked good on one catch and one run. Other than that, he fell down in traffic and was the victim of Whitehead not blocking the safety. Very small sample size.

 

[slomoxn]

Watching what we have now and what Murray brought to the table; Murray didn't go down on first contact or shoe string tackles very often. I believe that's why his first down production was so good, the holes were there for our backs and they did an adequate job to keep the defense honest; but...- "they left a lot of meat on the bone".

 

[gimmesix]

It was an odd game because of the turnovers. The thing I worry about the most is the commitment to the running game. We showed a lot more empty sets than I would have preferred. I'm curious to see how we conduct ourselves in a more even game.

I think we did that because we were looking to create mismatches with Dunbar on a linebacker or safety. It was clear that Linehan planned to get these backs the ball in space and let them rip off some yardage. I don't know if that is going to be typical of our approach or was just something we saw against the Giants/Spagnoula that we wanted to take advantage of.