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

[JBS]

No, it is actually happening still, right now. There are still people denying Murray had much to do with gaining 1800 yards and how he left yards on the field. There are still people denying the proven mediocre track record of McFadden in Oakland and think because of this line he will realize his potential. There are still people believing that our unreliable three backs on the roster can combine magically to come close to the production.

What's your argument for the people who didn't want Murray back even before FA started?

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

No, it is actually happening still, right now. There are still people denying Murray had much to do with gaining 1800 yards and how he left yards on the field. There are still people denying the proven mediocre track record of McFadden in Oakland and think because of this line he will realize his potential. There are still people believing that our unreliable three backs on the roster can combine magically to come close to the production.

I'm just contending with the idea that no one was suggesting that anyone could run behind the line last season. The question of re-signing Murray was a constant throughout last season and beliefs that you don't pay running backs or that the offensive line was the difference were consistently accounted for as well. So any suggestion that no one said anything about that last year is not an accurate reflection of board discussion.

 

[ConstantReboot]

sigh...
Please do not post things without fact checking them.
Some of you guys have agendas and very poor memories.

SEA lost 5 games all year, only once had a losing streak of 2 or more games.
They came out of that streak by running Lynch all of 14 times; 4 less then the loss the week before.

There last two losses of the year were with Lynch running 24 times each.

SEA was carried by the best secondary in football and a strong running game.
That running game was based upon Lynch being assisted by 850 yards rushing from the QB.

Lynch averaged 18 carries per game in wins and 16.4 in losses. The difference is almost solely due to the 6 carry game in the week 2 loss to San Diego.

SEA got better when it got it's LB corps back and started stopping the run again.

Wrong - First of all Seattle lost 4 games all year not 5 (unless you want to count the Superbowl). Like I mentioned before they win by their defense and their running game. Their running game is just as important to their offense just as it is with their defense. Even Carroll mentioned that after they traded Percy Harvin that they needed to go back to basics - which was running the ball and defense. That is exactly what they did after they lost to the Rams.

I don't get this idea that Seattle's run game was not part of their success. It was. They had the #1 ranked run offense in the entire league even over Dallas. Why do you think one of the reasons why fans were wanting to trade away Percy Harvin? Its because they wanted to give the ball more to Lynch rather than try to give the ball to Harvin. Once they traded Percy Harvin, Lynched was their feature on offense and he averaged over 5 yards a carry. Before that, he was averaging less than 5 yards.

I also don't know why your blaming Lynch for the two last losses. They lost to the Rams not because of Lynch but because of special teams and by Rams trickery. I believe it was a fluke lost.

Secondly, Lynch had nothing to do with the lost to KC. He carried the ball 24 times for 124 yards averaging 5.2 per carry. In fact, he was the bright spot on offense during that game. If anything the defense should have been at fault for that game not Lynch.

Oh btw, when Seattle had their defense healthy during the KC game. If thats the case it just doesn't make sense to say they lost when they had injuries to their linebackers - which they didn't. Heck, Bobby Wagner played against the Cowboys. Thus I don't buy the excuse that Seattle had injuries on defense. The most likely case was that teams just beat them.

 

[ConstantReboot]

We're just not going to agree on this. SEA was hobbled defensively last year, and it showed early in the season, even though they still were winning a lot of those games. But it wasn't until Bobby Wagner got back in the lineup that they started playing really good defense again. That team plays great defense and doesn't screw up the passing game, which is why they win, period. Except in the Superbowl where, of course, they screwed up in the passing game and lost.

As for us, don't fool yourself. We were a better team on offense because we passed the ball better than we had. Some of that was playcalling--I don't dispute that running the ball helped us avoid same inadvisable passing situations. But we played significantly better defense, too. That's what put us in better game situations, and that's what really helped with the play calling. Games are easier to call when you need to protect leads than they are when you have to score points. Offensively, though, we weren't all that much more productive than we'd been the season before from series to series. We played much better on defense, and did a good job with the takeaways. That's what closed the game on the 5 games we'd lost in 2013 by a total of 8 points. What makes you think the improvement had to do with being better rested? We were better from the start of the year, on, quarter by quarter, and drive by drive.

In any event, we'll see which of us is right this season, having let the bell-cow RB walk for a relatively moderate differential on the contract on the table. We're doubling down on being able to stay in effective passing situations and investing everything in stopping the other guys' passing games better. The team, at least, doesn't seem agree with you that it was special talent in the running game that made the difference--on offense, or defense.

Hey Idgit thanks for your input and I respect your opinion although I have to disagree.

I honestly believe that we were better last year because we ran the ball and it was effective. Thus Romo was more effective in passing and our defense was kept off the field because we were winning the TOP battle.

Like I mentioned before, teams knew we were going to run on 1st and 2nd downs. Thus that brought an extra man to the box. Because we were so effective in running it gave us 3rd and short situations. We exploited that situation by keeping Murray in and it kept defenses guessing whether we were going to run or pass. This opened up a lot of one on one with Bryant on the outside, and Witten and Beasley up the middle.

As for Seattle they did have the top defense in the entire league. But I don't think that they were that decimated by injuries. Heck Bobby Wagner played against us in Seattle and therefore wasn't the reason why they lost. We were just the better team that day along with their other losses except for the Rams. Which I believe won due to trick plays.

Seattle wins by not only their defense but by also running the ball. Its not secret that when Beastmode is in the game their offense is different. Defenses would tee off on Lynch and they used the play action quite often during passing downs. If no one is open Wilson takes off. Thats basically their success on offense.

Lastly, I don't know why you say that the team doesn't agree with me regarding the running game. I believe it was the reason why we were so successful last year and I just hope this year we can stick with an effective run game. I would hate for us to go back to being a passing team once again. We need to have balance. That was the reason we were so successful and hopefully they will stick with it again this year as well.

 

[Doomsday101]

I've heard the same thing (in bold), the odd thing is though that we see here in Cowboysland and around the league that many times backups have a larger yards/carry stats.

Look, we all want a top ten RB on our team, the one thing I can say about RBBC is that it makes it harder for an opposing team, week in and week out, to game plan for our offense. Team use practice squad scout team players to emulate the top people they want to stop on the opposing teams week after week. With a RBBC approach the opposing team does not have the time or resources in one week of play to focus on all 3 backs and their tendencies. For example, say in week one we run JR 20 times and he get 120 yards. The next week Philly (game 2) studies JR's film and picks up on his tendencies and DMAC and Dunbar combine for 15 swing/circle passes, something they are not prepared for. Then, the week after that we run DMAC 20 times and that is something the other opposing team hasn't seen as of yet. They key is keeping opposing teams off-guard.

Again, would I like to see another Emmitt Smith on our team, of course....But since we don't, let's take advantage of what we do have and keep other teams guessing.

Yes because they are coming in for a few carries as the defense is getting worn. Hambrick looked all world when he would come in for Emmitt but once he was asked to carry the bigger load those numbers dropped drastically. There is little to know about a player YPC when they avg 3 carries a game. 1 good run and the YPC look great.
I really do not think it is harder on a defense when you use RBBC one your 2nd and 3rd guy are normally less talented or they would be a starter and 2 they tend to come in on certain downs and situations. Heck all you’re doing is tipping the play off to the defense.
I think in the end one of these RB will show enough to be the lead RB and get the majority of the runs with the other coming into give breathers

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes because they are coming in for a few carries as the defense is getting worn. Hambrick looked all world when he would come in for Emmitt but once he was asked to carry the bigger load those numbers dropped drastically. There is little to know about a player YPC when they avg 3 carries a game. 1 good run and the YPC look great.
I really do not think it is harder on a defense when you use RBBC one your 2nd and 3rd guy are normally less talented or they would be a starter and 2 they tend to come in on certain downs and situations. Heck all you’re doing is tipping the play off to the defense.
I think in the end one of these RB will show enough to be the lead RB and get the majority of the runs with the other coming into give breathers

Randle last year had only 26 carries when the score differential was less than 14 points.
He averaged 5.73 ypc. Since it is such a very small sample size, removing his best carry (38) reduces his ypc to 4.44.

He had 27 carries when the score differential was 14 points or more.
He averaged 7.69 ypc.

So more than half of his carries last year came in mop up duty where he had a high ypc.

The team only trusted him with 26 carries when the game was still a game. You take out the 1 carry he had that was over 13 yards, and his ypc drops to 4.44.

I have concerns with his average measurables, lack of size, durability, pass blocking and his head.

 

[Doomsday101]

Randle last year had only 26 carries when the score differential was less than 14 points.
He averaged 5.73 ypc. Since it is such a very small sample size, removing his best carry (38) reduces his ypc to 4.44.

He had 27 carries when the score differential was 14 points or more.
He averaged 7.69 ypc.

So more than half of his carries last year came in mop up duty where he had a high ypc.

The team only trusted him with 26 carries when the game was still a game. You take out the 1 carry he had that was over 13 yards, and his ypc drops to 4.44.

I have concerns with his average measurables, lack of size, durability, pass blocking and his head.

I agree, I don't put much in YPC when talking so few carries. As for Randle at 6'00" 210 I think his size is adequate. His blocking concerns me and while he showed the stamina to handle a good load at OSU (302) touches, he has yet to do so at this level which in my view is a question mark.

 

[BlindFaith]

I agree, I don't put much in YPC when talking so few carries. As for Randle at 6'00" 210 I think his size is adequate. His blocking concerns me and while he showed the stamina to handle a good load at OSU (302) touches, he has yet to do so at this level which in my view is a question mark.

Yeah, I don't think he's 210. I know that's what he's listed at, but he looks more like 200 to me. Just like I don't think Gregory is 255 right now either. Maybe 245.

 

[Doomsday101]

Yeah, I don't think he's 210. I know that's what he's listed at, but he looks more like 200 to me. Just like I don't think Gregory is 255 right now either. Maybe 245.

at this stage just hoping he can go out and prove himself. I have stated my concerns many times but I do think he has some talent and now he has a chance to show it.

 

[BlindFaith]

at this stage just hoping he can go out and prove himself. I have stated my concerns many times but I do think he has some talent and now he has a chance to show it.

Once the season starts, I'll pull for whoever is out there playing. But right now, I still hope we see a major change at RB.

 

[HellCrowe]

With the way backs don't last pass the age of 30 I understand why teams turn to running by committee. You can get different types of backs to infuse into your system just like Cincinnati does. However, I feel like their go to backs are more potent than ours. A combination of Quickness speed and smash mouth power. Too bad they have Dalton back there.

Our 3 backs can work and I understand the uncertainty kills me because this is the best we have. Our hard nose run game was the epitome of what we were about last season. I hope we don't lose that type of agression and look to be cute. I will have no love lost if we do trade or sign someone to churn the bottom of our tandem.

 

[Doomsday101]

Once the season starts, I'll pull for whoever is out there playing. But right now, I still hope we see a major change at RB.

I think it is still possible after cut downs are made that Cowboys very well could pick up a RB. Some who feel as if McFadden will be cut? I don't see that happening.

 

[BlindFaith]

I think it is still possible after cut downs are made that Cowboys very well could pick up a RB. Some who feel as if McFadden will be cut? I don't see that happening.

I personally have no faith in McFadden. Limited faith in Randle. And Dunbar will be Dunbar.

I'd look to upgrade both McFadden and Dunbar. Ideally you would find a guy that would replace McFadden and be the lead dog. That keeps Randle as the two and a special teams guy.

I'd look to find someone that could be a returner, third down, special teams guy that could actually show up during the year to replace Dunbar. Dunbar has done nothing since being here.

 

[HellCrowe]

With the way backs don't last pass the age of 30 I understand why teams turn to running by committee. You can get different types of backs to infuse into your system just like Cincinnati does. However, I feel like their go to backs are more potent than ours. A combination of Quickness speed and smash mouth power. Too bad they have Dalton back there.

Our 3 backs can work and I understand the uncertainty kills me because this is the best we have. Our hard nose run game was the epitome of what we were about last season. I hope we don't lose that type of agression and look to be cute. I will have no love lost if we do trade or sign someone to churn the bottom of our tandem.

In addition ---

I know that there was a thread for who we'd like to run behind our line. But speaking of Cincinatti that's one name, Jeremy Hill. Give me a young up and coming back like him.

 

[Doomsday101]

I personally have no faith in McFadden. Limited faith in Randle. And Dunbar will be Dunbar.

I'd look to upgrade both McFadden and Dunbar. Ideally you would find a guy that would replace McFadden and be the lead dog. That keeps Randle as the two and a special teams guy.

I'd look to find someone that could be a returner, third down, special teams guy that could actually show up during the year to replace Dunbar. Dunbar has done nothing since being here.

I don't think Dallas would have brought him here if they had no intentions of keeping him. I do think the holding him out early on in camp had more to do with trainers being overly cautious with him given his past history but I expect Dallas will give him a legit chance to show what he is capable of. As for Randle as I said this is his chance we will see what he can do. Dunbar I agree is Dunbar, more of a situational back. What Dallas may or may not do I think a lot of it will come down to who is out there once the cuts are made. I think there will be some vets who can still do the job but get caught up in the numbers game as teams try to upgrade the position with younger guys

 

[HellCrowe]

The approach to our 3 headed gazelle is that they all can do something different and are servicable. I don't think we'll be talking about any one of them as the next up and coming or be heart broken if one left or got traded but as a team they could very well make up for each others difficiencies.

As much as it looks like we could use their strengths at certain times, I don't consider each one to be that great at their own strengths. It might even bite us in the *** because we may think we are playing mind games with the other team when it is us who are totally delusional. Let's not be cute. 3 more weeks till we find out. I hope our run game is still a strength.

 

[BlindFaith]

I don't think Dallas would have brought him here if they had no intentions of keeping him. I do think the holding him out early on in camp had more to do with trainers being overly cautious with him given his past history but I expect Dallas will give him a legit chance to show what he is capable of. As for Randle as I said this is his chance we will see what he can do. Dunbar I agree is Dunbar, more of a situational back. What Dallas may or may not do I think a lot of it will come down to who is out there once the cuts are made. I think there will be some vets who can still do the job but get caught up in the numbers game as teams try to upgrade the position with younger guys

I think Dallas picked up the only potentially viable, big name running back that was available for cheap when they lost out on Murray. The plan had to have been to draft a guy.

The first two rounds fell in the Cowboys favor, just not for running back. I think after that they felt they could get an equivalent type back once cuts happen in training camp. Its a big risk. But I do think we will add someone.

 

[Jarv]

I was looking for an upgrade, who was better than Murray, we still haven't found him yet.