Critic's review of running game

[texbumthelife]

I don't have a problem with people calling out a player if they did screw up, but Safety is one area where fans often don't see it correctly. This is especially true for people that don't review the All-22.

A Safety can appear to be completely out of position if you don't consider what he is expecting from his surrounding teammates. Last season Wilcox got screwed several times by players like Bruce Carter when they didn't play within the "rules" of the scheme.

Oh yeah, no doubt about that. If one person is out of place in the back seven it can really make people look bad, particularly safeties.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

Exactly. If we didn't muff up so much we break 100yards rushing easily,

 

[50cent]

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.

I'm with you except for the bold part. On our first series of the game, we had an opportunity to set the tone on 1st and goal from the 5. What did we do? Pass! We followed that with a shotgun formation that led to a false start and 2 and 10. We had a couple of opportunities to exert our will, but decided to pass.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm with you except for the bold part. On our first series of the game, we had an opportunity to set the tone on 1st and goal from the 5. What did we do? Pass! We followed that with a shotgun formation that led to a false start and 2 and 10. We had a couple of opportunities to exert our will, but decided to pass.

Fair enough. I thought there were several times early in the game where we passed when we would have run the ball last year.

I didn't mind that because A) we were mostly successful doing it and B) we were stubborn at times with the run last year to our detriment IMO. But you have to balance that by showing teams at times that you are going to run the ball and there's nothing they can do about it. We didn't do that Sunday, even when we had the chance.

That's what I still want to see ... if this team can physically impose the running game on defenses. If we can do that, then they are left with an impossible task. We didn't get to see that this week, and I guess that's the thing I'm waiting to see happen: Line up on first-and-goal from the 5 and kick them in the teeth.

 

[50cent]

Fair enough. I thought there were several times early in the game where we passed when we would have run the ball last year.

I didn't mind that because A) we were mostly successful doing it and B) we were stubborn at times with the run last year to our detriment IMO. But you have to balance that by showing teams at times that you are going to run the ball and there's nothing they can do about it. We didn't do that Sunday, even when we had the chance.

That's what I still want to see ... if this team can physically impose the running game on defenses. If we can do that, then they are left with an impossible task. We didn't get to see that this week, and I guess that's the thing I'm waiting to see happen: Line up on first-and-goal from the 5 and kick them in the teeth.

I did a little more research and found that we didn't run on 3rd down once last week. We had 5 plays of 3rd and 3 or less and passed on all of them. Playing devils advocate, but we were stubborn with the pass last week. Ive seen that stubborn pass movie before and dont like the endings!

 

[gimmesix]

I did a little more research and found that we didn't run on 3rd down once last week. We had 5 plays of 3rd and 3 or less and passed on all of them. Playing devils advocate, but we were stubborn with the pass last week. Ive seen that stubborn pass movie before and dont like the endings!

I agree. There needs to be a balance, and it's very easy to get out of balance.

 

[Zman5]

I know the feeling.

Most people see what they want to see. If they didn't like Randle before the game then they'll only see the negative issues even if it is only 1 play that they remember.

So what's your opinion on Free? And how about Parnell?

 

[ufcrules1]

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.

Also keep in mind we played a team with a ridiculous bad defense. If our running game can't do much against them behind this line... then that is a big time red flag. Joe isn't the answer here, neither is DMC.

 

[ConstantReboot]

That's probably true but what I was concerned about was how easily Randle went down after initial contact. He is very good when there is room to wiggle but he seems to have problems in small spaces and he gets tackled easily.

I mentioned this few months back when someone posted a video of all the Randle's run last year. Few posters jump on me for it but it looks like Randle still has problem breaking tackles.

He does have problems. That was his problem in college as well. If he could break tackles he'd be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Some people here to get on my case cause I'm not on board with Randle entirely. I thought we could have done before. He's a change of pace back and nothing more.

 

[foofighters]

No, it's irrelevant. What Murray does for the Eagles has no bearing on what Randle/McFadden/Dunbar does for the Cowboys.

Let's concentrate on the guys we've got and what they do. We don't need to view Murray's performance for another team to evaluate the players we have.

The only value that has is to placate us: Well, our backs did better than Murray. When the real question is did our backs do good enough for Dallas. The answer to that this week is what I wrote about in the OP.

If you want to limit yourself and only use stats that support your "thesis" because your feelbads have been hurt, then by all means do so. I am sure bspn will be calling you soon so you can be an addition to their "experts."

 

[gimmesix]

If you want to limit yourself and only use stats that support your "thesis" because your feelbads have been hurt, then by all means do so. I am sure bspn will be calling you soon so you can be an addition to their "experts."

How does what Murray does for another team and in another offense have anything to do with what Dallas' backs do in this offense?

Murray having a poor outing or a good outing for Philadelphia means nothing to our team. How Randle, McFadden, Dunbar and Michaels perform will determine if Dallas is able to establish the run well enough to make the passing game as effective as it can be, to keep the defense off the field, etc.

If you want to make yourself feel better by focusing on a player who is no longer here, then by all means do so. I'd rather focus on what we've got and consider both the positives and negatives of that.

Positives:

A few good runs on first down keeps the defense honest.

Receiving out of the backfield was tremendous.

Protection by the backs wasn't perfect, but it was enough to not get Romo killed.

Negatives:

The backs didn't generate many "dirty yards" by breaking tackles or making defenders miss.

We deserted the run at times, like around the goal line, as if we didn't trust the line and backs.

Randle fumbled in his first game as starter (but at least got it back)

 

[foofighters]

How does what Murray does for another team and in another offense have anything to do with what Dallas' backs do in this offense?

Murray having a poor outing or a good outing for Philadelphia means nothing to our team. How Randle, McFadden, Dunbar and Michaels perform will determine if Dallas is able to establish the run well enough to make the passing game as effective as it can be, to keep the defense off the field, etc.

If you want to make yourself feel better by focusing on a player who is no longer here, then by all means do so. I'd rather focus on what we've got and consider both the positives and negatives of that.

Positives:

A few good runs on first down keeps the defense honest.

Receiving out of the backfield was tremendous.

Protection by the backs wasn't perfect, but it was enough to not get Romo killed.

Negatives:

The backs didn't generate many "dirty yards" by breaking tackles or making defenders miss.

We deserted the run at times, like around the goal line, as if we didn't trust the line and backs.

Randle fumbled in his first game as starter (but at least got it back)

lol, you've really convinced yourself haven't you. You want to make assumptions based from one game. I think we need a larger sample size. I was throwing in Murray's performance because many have felt that he needed to stay here. When I make a statement I make sure I have looked at all possible angles. You want to look at one game where it appeared as if we abandoned the run, go ahead. Again, cherry pick you stats and sample size. I am done trying to convince you to look at the whole picture while you refuse to get out of tunnel vision.

deuces...

 

[gimmesix]

lol, you've really convinced yourself haven't you. You want to make assumptions based from one game. I think we need a larger sample size. I was throwing in Murray's performance because many have felt that he needed to stay here. When I make a statement I make sure I have looked at all possible angles. You want to look at one game where it appeared as if we abandoned the run, go ahead. Again, cherry pick you stats and sample size. I am done trying to convince you to look at the whole picture while you refuse to get out of tunnel vision.

deuces...

Maybe you're just not reading what I've written. I've clearly stated that it's a small sample size and we'll have to see more before we know exactly what we've got.

This thread is only based on what we've seen so far. You seem to be the one with tunnel vision, seeing only what you want to see in this thread. If you read back through what I've written and find that I've been unfair in any of it, please point it out to me and I'll be glad to discuss it. If I'm cherrypicking stats, please show me where I've done that.

I'm just beyond discussing Murray anymore since he no longer plays a role in the success or failure of this team. I would have liked for him to stay because of how he played for us the last two seasons, but did not believe Dallas should match what Philly was offering.

I think there is some sensitivity about any criticism of our backs based on the Murray vs. we're OK sides, but I've tried to be fair in my assessment of only what we saw Sunday.