News: DMN: Will McClay on his confidence in Cowboys' running back-by-committee approach

[Doomsday101]

SEA obviously wins because they are hard to pass against successfully because they play great defense.

We went to the playoffs because we passed very successfully.

And we ran very successfully, you can deny it all you want but Dallas was one of the top ranked rushing team in the NFL. Passing is important but the facts are fact Seattle and Dallas both very strong running teams and that helped both out very much. Sorry it goes against meaningless stats but teams with a strong running game can and do win.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I think it's more fun having dominant back. Of course, you have to actually have one of those--and one who can do it multiple years hopefully.
Even Philly plans to use a committee (RBC) this year.

RBC is the general way the league has been going with a few exceptions.

We looked at the last 9 SB winners and I think it was 7 had mostly a RBC approach.
Seattle (Lynch) and Baltimore (Rice), I think, were the only true exceptions.

But yeah, it's more fun watching a bad-*** RB (and line) demoralizing another team.

Problem is we dont really have one, or at least a reliable one. McFadden is too injury prone and Dunbar is too much of a one trick pony, and is basically redundant with McFadden.

IMO to have a real and viable RBBC committee we need one more reliable back, preferably occupying Dunbar's roster spot

 

[KDM256]

I know I'm in the minority here but I do believe the Cowboys will be fine with the RBC approach. We might not have the established household name at the RB spot but you can't deny the talent & potential at the position.

If McClay thinks this group can get it done, then I'm sure these guys will help this team whenever their number is called. The biggest question mark is can they stay healthy?

 

[darthseinfeld]

I listened to the original interview.

He was very confident that they could get a decent RB if needed; however, they asked him about OT and he was very pessimistic that they could find a decent one anywhere.

Im not so ready to dismiss Weems. I want to see more then a few bad games in 1 preseason games. Lets see if he stabilizes

Anyways, its a luxary to have a player on the bench like Parnell. Most teams dont have 3 OT's capable of being viable starters

 

[Idgit]

And we ran very successfully, you can deny it all you want but Dallas was one of the top ranked rushing team in the NFL. Passing is important but the facts are fact Seattle and Dallas both very strong running teams and that helped both out very much. Sorry it goes against meaningless stats but teams with a strong running game can and do win.

Why would I deny that we ran successfully? I never said that. And I've never denied that teams with strong running games can and do win in the NFL. Usually when they also win the passing effectiveness differential battle.

It sounds like you need to understand the opposing argument better than you clearly do.

 

[ShiningStar]

I think as long as the team is winning, we would be happy with Full Back by committee.

 

[jazzcat22]

Id like it if we actually had one

We have 3 RBs so we do have a RBBC.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I know I'm in the minority here but I do believe the Cowboys will be fine with the RBC approach. We might not have the established household name at the RB spot but you can't deny the talent & potential at the position.

If McClay thinks this group can get it done, then I'm sure these guys will help this team whenever their number is called. The biggest question mark is can they stay healthy?

Health is where I dont think what we have is viable. Given his history and the fact he has already tweeked his hamstring, you cant expect McFadden to stay healthy all year. If he tweeks his hammy again, we are real thin.

Personally I would like to see him play as a 3rd down back in a Sproles type role. I think he can thrive for a full season if he is used primarily as a receiver/blocker and occasion ( under 100 carries) runner. To do that you need one other HB equal or close to Randle

 

[Kevinicus]

Not true. You think Seattle wins because of their passing attack? The main reason why we went to the playoffs last year was because of our running game.

I'd say they mostly win because of their defense, then running game, then passing game (which half the time turns into the running game - actually if this weren't the case, they're probably not nearly as successful).

 

[darthseinfeld]

We have 3 RBs so we do have a RBBC.

We have a HB, a HB with a very extensive injury history and a scat back. We dont have a viable RBBC.

Ditch the scatback, give McFadden a Darren Sproles role to lessen the chances to get hurt and add a different back to split carries with Randle and then we would have a RBBC

 

[Idgit]

Health is where I dont think what we have is viable. Given his history and the fact he has already tweeked his hamstring, you cant expect McFadden to stay healthy all year. If he tweeks his hammy again, we are real thin.

Personally I would like to see him play as a 3rd down back in a Sproles type role. I think he can thrive for a full season if he is used primarily as a receiver/blocker and occasion ( under 100 carries) runner. To do that you need one other HB equal or close to Randle

These are my primary concerns, too. You'd like at least one solid RB who's able to stay in the lineup when Randle is a talented question mark and DMC and Dunbar both have had injury issues in their past. Even a talented guy in the PS who was more than just a longshot would help.

 

[Craig]

Like everyone who whines about rbbc, i certainly dont like the fantasy implications. Ignoring fantasy though, i dont see how it matters.

 

[darthseinfeld]

These are my primary concerns, too. You'd like at least one solid RB who's able to stay in the lineup when Randle is a talented question mark and DMC and Dunbar both have had injury issues in their past. Even a talented guy in the PS who was more than just a longshot would help.

At the same time I do think there ia a possibility Randle can be an effective 300+ carry back. If he can do that, McFadden can be more effective.

Randle hasnt done anything to lose the job, so I don't think you will see them trade for a starter. But a vet like Zach Stacy, or a rookie like Thomas Rawls that offers a style we dont have could pay dividends.

Alot of people dont seem to want certain players because they are not any better then Randle. I understand that line of thinking but at the same time how about complimenting the backs we have. Personally I think Dunbar is redundant and most of what he does well, McFadden can do better and has the skill set to not be deficient in any key area.

 

[DFWJC]

Problem is we dont really have one, or at least a reliable one. McFadden is too injury prone and Dunbar is too much of a one trick pony, and is basically redundant with McFadden.

IMO to have a real and viable RBBC committee we need one more reliable back, preferably occupying Dunbar's roster spot

Yeah, I was just answering whether that approach works or not. it does.

The question of whether we actually have a viable one or not is another issue altogether.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Yeah, I was just answering whether that approach works or not. it does.

The question of whether we actually have a viable one or not is another issue altogether.

If you can promise me McFadden plays 16 games. Even 14, I would say yes

 

[DFWJC]

If you can promise me McFadden plays 16 games. Even 14, I would say yes

Or can he play 12 and Randle carry the load more in the other 4 or ask Dunbar to fill in more those games.

Some mix and match for 16 games that is effective.
Will it be effective? Guess we'll find out.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

...however, they asked him about OT and he was very pessimistic that they could find a decent one anywhere.

So, I guess this makes the Cowboys just like all other teams out there. If you are looking for an OT right now, you are in trouble. Huge trouble. No two ways about it. Minnesota just lost Loadholdt. Good luck finding someone now. Their hopes now ride with a 4th round rookie. If their 4th rd pick from Pitt Clemmings fails, then that team is in a world of hurt. Not only does he have to play well but he also has to stay healthy.

Fortunately, the Cowboys have a question mark at backup OT and some options and time left in camp to try some different combinations and players.

 

[Idgit]

At the same time I do think there ia a possibility Randle can be an effective 300+ carry back. If he can do that, McFadden can be more effective.

Randle hasnt done anything to lose the job, so I don't think you will see them trade for a starter. But a vet like Zach Stacy, or a rookie like Thomas Rawls that offers a style we dont have could pay dividends.

Alot of people dont seem to want certain players because they are not any better then Randle. I understand that line of thinking but at the same time how about complimenting the backs we have. Personally I think Dunbar is redundant and most of what he does well, McFadden can do better and has the skill set to not be deficient in any key area.

I agree here, too. I don't have anything against Dunbar or McFadden, I just think they are both complementary backs. With Randle a question mark, I'd be happier with another option there.

Then again, I don't think the team thinks Randle is a question mark. They have a lot of faith in him.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Am I the only one who doesn't like running back by committee?

very few teams don't have that. also, don't under estimate Randle. He was drafted for some contingency on losing murray either because he was injured or if he leaves via free agency. so lets not assume that randle can't handle it. folks wanted us to draft a RB in the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th round. well we had randle who was a 4th round pick. but for some reason the grass is always greener on the other side. a draft pick this year is better than what's on the roster.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Or can he play 12 and Randle carry the load more in the other 4 or ask Dunbar to fill in more those games.

I honestly have more faith in Randle carrying 300+ times effectively then McFadden even playing 12 with a consistent workload as a runner. However I do also think there is a good chance Randle can do that.

Personally at this stage in his career I think McFaddens abilities are wasted as a committee back and are better used as a specialist. The difference to me is that a committee back you are asking a back to shoulder a solid portion on the running load. A specialist has a defined role, whereas McFaddens to me would be a passing down back. I believe a player with 7 years in the league with a long injury history that has been battered running behind a poor line is not someone you want to count on to be a committee back. But he is a player with a solid all around skill set, still has some juice in his legs and if utilize mainly in the passing where he isnt going to take the pounding and have as much of a risk for injury as he would if he was ask to shoulder a solid portion of the running load