DNA of our SB Teams

[Sydla]

What helped those defenses was having a real good efficient offense that could maintain the ball due to the running game. Keeping a defense off the field and fresh is going to make any defense perform better. If you're not moving the ball offensively or suffering turnovers that puts your defense back on the field. If the D is on the field too long they'll get worn down.

LOL. You don't finish in the Top 5 of scoring defenses without having some very talented defenses. Any notion that it was Smith and the run game that made that defense what it was and that should be replicated with Elliott is strange.

 

[KJJ]

LOL. You don't finish in the Top 5 of scoring defenses without having some very talented defenses. Any notion that it was Smith and the run game that made that defense what it was and that should be replicated with Elliott is strange.

Didn't say we didn't have talent our SB teams had great talent defensively but we also had great talent offensively that helped make those defenses even better by keeping them off the field and fresh. Being a fresh, alert defense contributes to being a top 5 scoring defense. Don't know who you're referring to but I never said Emmitt and the running game made that defense. The running game certainly helped our defense by controlling the ball but we had a lot of very talented defensive players. If you leave any defense on the field too long they'll wear down. We wore down the Legion of Boom in 2014 up in Seattle by continually banging the run at them.

 

[dcjules]

Our DNA has always been, a strong running game, time of possession, mistake free, keep away football....we should go back to featuring the run, with some play action passes down the field....we need to get back to what has worked for this team, and quit trying to copy cat other teams. we have most of the pieces in place....except for our Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith....It's time to get the stud RB this franchise needs. Draft Elliott and lets get this thing rolling. It's not rocket science.

I have been preaching that for awhile....yeah I get those teams also had a great Defense, but a core strength of our DNA Super Bowl teams was a great RB

 

[CowboyRoy]

90's is long gone. You cannot beat a top qb with no pass rush and a good running game. Zeke is a good back, but no running back is worth fourth overall, especially when you consider most "might" give you four prime years.

Im not saying we should draft zeke at all. Im just telling you what kind of team I prefer. Tell the Seahawks that D and running the football doesnt work. Tell the panthers that as well. Tell Denver that D doesnt win championships. Denver didnt even need any offense with that D.

 

[jobberone]

Elite defenses come along only so often. Year in and out it is offense that wins with enough defense to put you over the top. There is no one sided formula. It takes game in all three phases along with a strong organization.

But the simple formula with today's rules are pass better and defend the pass better than the other team. You don't throw out TO Diff,, Big Play Diff, running the ball and stopping the run any more than losing on STs. They are less important not unimportant.

 

[reddyuta]

We won't be running when we down by 20.

 

[KJJ]

We won't be running when we down by 20.

One good way to avoid getting down by 20 is having a ball control offense that can limit the time your defense has to spend on the field. When you face an elite QB you want to play keep away and control the ball.

 

[Sydla]

Didn't say we didn't have talent our SB teams had great talent defensively but we also had great talent offensively that helped make those defenses even better by keeping them off the field and fresh. Being a fresh, alert defense contributes to being a top 5 scoring defense. Don't know who you're referring to but I never said Emmitt and the running game made that defense. The running game certainly helped our defense by controlling the ball but we had a lot of very talented defensive players. If you leave any defense on the field too long they'll wear down. We wore down the Legion of Boom in 2014 up in Seattle by continually banging the run at them.

I am speaking more to the general Elliott crowd that anyone specifically.

The SB teams of the 90s were COMPLETE teams. They were talented and good on offense and defense. Any discussion that it was Emmitt Smith that made the defense what it was is bizarre and frankly ignorant. But that's what people have been trying to float here in their ever increasing desire to bring Elliott to Dallas. That this teams best seasons were built on the backs of a strong running game as if that was the magic, secret sauce to winning SBs, ignoring the fact that our SB teams also had elite QBs and loaded defenses. Maybe our DNA isn't a strong TB but rather an elite defense? I mean that's as logical as the Elliott lovers claiming it's all the running game.

 

[Everson24]

I'm all for drafting Elliott at 4. We now have the opportunity to dictate to defenses that are now more geared to stop the pass than the run. If we can force teams to put 8 or 9 in the box, watch our offense score 40 points per game ala December 2014 when opposing defenses were forced to put 8 in the box to stop Murray. Tony Romo lit them up in the passing game.

That is what this offense needs right now. A running game that forces teams to pick their poison. We also need to improve our play-action pass blocking.

 

[KJJ]

I am speaking more to the general Elliott crowd that anyone specifically.

The SB teams of the 90s were COMPLETE teams. They were talented and good on offense and defense. Any discussion that it was Emmitt Smith that made the defense what it was is bizarre and frankly ignorant. But that's what people have been trying to float here in their ever increasing desire to bring Elliott to Dallas. That this teams best seasons were built on the backs of a strong running game as if that was the magic, secret sauce to winning SBs, ignoring the fact that our SB teams also had elite QBs and loaded defenses. Maybe our DNA isn't a strong TB but rather an elite defense? I mean that's as logical as the Elliott lovers claiming it's all the running game.

The championship teams the Cowboys have had were led by an elite rusher. Four of their five championships featured a HOF back. During the 90s everything the Cowboys did on offense revolved around Emmitt and the running game which kept Aikman's numbers down. A strong running game undoubtedly helps a defense by keeping them off the field. An offense that can get opponents down helps the defense. An opponent having to play from behind opens up playmaking opportunities for your defense as in sacks and turnovers. Every great defense still needs to be complimented by a solid offense or the defense will be hung out to dry. If you can't score it puts pressure on your defense. Turnovers put pressure on your defense by forcing them to defend a short field.

 

[Sydla]

The championship teams the Cowboys have had were led by an elite rusher. Four of their five championships featured a HOF back. During the 90s everything the Cowboys did on offense revolved around Emmitt and the running game which kept Aikman's numbers down. A strong running game undoubtedly helps a defense by keeping them off the field. An offense that can get opponents down helps the defense. An opponent having to play from behind opens up playmaking opportunities for your defense as in sacks and turnovers. Every great defense still needs to be complimented by a solid offense or the defense will be hung out to dry. If you can't score it puts pressure on your defense. Turnovers put pressure on your defense by forcing them to defend a short field.

Those teams also had elite level defenses and hall of fame QBs. So you can't just sit there and say the real ingredient to winning a SB was having a strong running game. But you guys will try to argue that simply because you want Elliott in Dallas so badly.

You remove Troy Aikman from those teams, they don't win a SB. You remove some of our studs on defense like Woodson and Haley, and they probably don't win a SB.

That's the point. Some of you are far too focused on this belief that it was simply Smith and the running game that won those SBs and you do so because you are trying to craft a justification for why Elliott makes the most sense.

 

[KJJ]

Those teams also had elite level defenses and hall of fame QBs. So you can't just sit there and say the real ingredient to winning a SB was having a strong running game. But you guys will try to argue that simply because you want Elliott in Dallas so badly.

You remove Troy Aikman from those teams, they don't win a SB. You remove some of our studs on defense like Woodson and Haley, and they probably don't win a SB.

That's the point. Some of you are far too focused on this belief that it was simply Smith and the running game that won those SBs and you do so because you are trying to craft a justification for why Elliott makes the most sense.

Take Emmitt off those 90s teams and they don't win any SB's. He produced the most rushing yards of any back in the history of the league and the second most TD's of any player. Not saying we didn't have a great defense or a great QB but those teams revolved around Emmitt Smith and his ability to run the football and score TD's. There were 2 other great teams we had to contend with to win those SB's the 49ers and Buffalo. Despite all the talent the Cowboys had they wouldn't have been as great without Emmitt.

 

[CowboyChris]

Take Emmitt off those 90s teams and they don't win any SB's. He produced the most rushing yards of any back in the history of the league and the second most TD's of any player. Not saying we didn't have a great defense or a great QB but those teams revolved around Emmitt Smith and his ability to run the football and score TD's. There were 2 other great teams we had to contend with to win those SB's the 49ers and Buffalo. Despite all the talent the Cowboys had they wouldn't have been as great without Emmitt.

KJJ, I've admired your talking points on this matter, and frankly i couldn't have expressed them the way you have. there is no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't have had the success of the 90's without Emmitt. PERIOD which is why i started this thread, we can't as a team try and copy cat the league, do we have a dominant D like the broncos? hell no....do we have the type of offense the Pats run? No....but what we do have is a monster OL that should be fully utilized by awesome runner...we are sitting there at #4 with a chance to add a piece to this offense that can solidify one side of the ball....and the rest of the draft to shore up some defensive weaknesses....there shouldn't really be any debate to this. imo

 

[Oh_Canada]

Im not saying we should draft zeke at all. Im just telling you what kind of team I prefer. Tell the Seahawks that D and running the football doesnt work. Tell the panthers that as well. Tell Denver that D doesnt win championships. Denver didnt even need any offense with that D.

Defense we can agree on, a running back not so much.

 

[AdamJT13]

I definitely said that and I pointed to the "Cowboys in 2014" and the "Vikings in 2012" as to how "they" won games but I never said the running game wins games because that would be saying that every team in the league uses the running game every season to win games and that would be totally false.
You can try misrepresenting my comments all you want but I've been very clear to those who don't have an agenda. Every team is different some like the Pats and Packers win by having their QBs putting the ball up every week. It's a passing league and most teams are pass happy. Denver was winning by Manning airing it out every week putting up record numbers but it caught up with them during the playoffs and SB so they made changes heading into the 2015 season. Manning was aging and they didn't want to depend on his arm every week to win games.

They went with a different approach building a great defense and managing Manning and it helped them win a SB. How they reached the SB in 2015 was totally different than how they got there 2 years ago. If you look at Seattle they won their SB and got to another one with defense and a solid running game that allowed Wilson to manage games. Last season Wilson had to be a lot more productive due to their defense not being quite as dominant and Lynch missing a number of games. The 2014 Cowboys did what they felt they had to do to win games that season and that was to take pressure off Romo by running the ball. They didn't want the defense being exposed as much and the running game kept the defense off the field more than in 2013.

The reason teams win or lose in the NFL is the same for every team very year: Pass the ball better than your opponent, and you will usually win. It doesn't matter how strong your run game or your run defense is. It doesn't matter whether you want to run the ball a little or have to run it a lot. Pass better than the opponent and win. It was true of the 2014 Cowboys, 2012 Vikings, the Seahawks, the Broncos ... every team. Every year.

One thing that's certain the Cowboys defense spent less time on the field in 2014 than in 2013. The link below proves what I've been saying that the running game helped the defense and that the defense spent a lot less time on the field.

http://www.footballinsiders.com/dallas-defense-looks-strong-with-mcclain-in-middle/

Having McClain in the middle of the defense was a game-changer for the Cowboys and a big reason they ticked up from the last-ranked defense in 2013 to middle of the pack in 2014. The Dallas offense had a lot to do with that as well, as their run-heavy, clock-control style kept the defense off the field. Only two defenses spent less time per game on the field than the Cowboys last season: the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Seattle Seahawks.

As I mentioned earlier, the running game wasn't the main reason our offense controlled the ball. Offensive time of possession has much more to do with third-down conversions and even completion percentage than how much or how well you run the ball -- and we finished second in the league in third-down conversions and completion percentage. The Steelers had the best ball control offense in the league that season, and they were only 15th in rushing attempts and 16th in YPC. But they were in the top five in both completion percentage (third) and third-down conversions. Last year, the best ball control offense was the Falcons -- similar to the Steelers the year before, they were only 16th in rushing attempts and 25th in YPC, but they were eighth in completion percentage and second in third-down conversions.

No matter how much we wanted to run the ball in 2014 or how well we ran it, we wouldn't have been near the top in average offensive time of possession without Romo completing 69.9 percent of his passes and having an uncanny ability to convert on third-and-long. Ask the Texans, who ran the ball more than anyone else that season but still finished 19th in ball control offense because they were 22nd in both completion percentage and third-down conversions.

 

[Sydla]

KJJ, I've admired your talking points on this matter, and frankly i couldn't have expressed them the way you have. there is no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't have had the success of the 90's without Emmitt. PERIOD which is why i started this thread, we can't as a team try and copy cat the league, do we have a dominant D like the broncos? hell no....do we have the type of offense the Pats run? No....but what we do have is a monster OL that should be fully utilized by awesome runner...we are sitting there at #4 with a chance to add a piece to this offense that can solidify one side of the ball....and the rest of the draft to shore up some defensive weaknesses....there shouldn't really be any debate to this. imo

The SBs were won because THE TEAM WAS A COMPLETE TEAM. Remove any one facet of those SB teams and we might not have 3 SBs.

The fact that people think that all it took was Emmitt Smith to be a SB team is insane. Just roll 21 random dudes out there with Emmitt and presto, we'd win the SB.

You guys are trying so damn hard to justify Elliott at 4 that it's making your brains reach crazy conclusions.

 

[Sydla]

Take Emmitt off those 90s teams and they don't win any SB's. He produced the most rushing yards of any back in the history of the league and the second most TD's of any player. Not saying we didn't have a great defense or a great QB but those teams revolved around Emmitt Smith and his ability to run the football and score TD's. There were 2 other great teams we had to contend with to win those SB's the 49ers and Buffalo. Despite all the talent the Cowboys had they wouldn't have been as great without Emmitt.

How many SBs do we win without Aikman?

How many SBs do we win if our defense those years is ranked 25th instead of Top 5?

 

[CowboyRoy]

Defense we can agree on, a running back not so much.

My reasoning is two fold. It has to do with what I like and what I think ds best for Romo and this particular team.

Romo is old and brittle. Even before he was, when he had to do everything and felt he had to do everything he was most prone to mistakes and forcing things. And our defense is bad. So all those things add up to the benefits of a dominant run game. It can help all of these issues as we saw clear as day in 2014. Then there is the future to think about. Any young QB coming in is going to do much better with a potent run game to lean on. Then there is the issue of the Oline. In order to maximize the benefits of having the best Oline in football, having a great RB to accentuate that strength would pull it all together.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The SBs were won because THE TEAM WAS A COMPLETE TEAM. Remove any one facet of those SB teams and we might not have 3 SBs.

The fact that people think that all it took was Emmitt Smith to be a SB team is insane. Just roll 21 random dudes out there with Emmitt and presto, we'd win the SB.

You guys are trying so damn hard to justify Elliott at 4 that it's making your brains reach crazy conclusions.

This is the key in my mind. I dont like Pass happy teams and I dont like Run happy teams. I like complete teams. Now that is sort of "no #$%$ sherlock" stuff, but my goal would be to stock all of it. You add a stud runner to the mix and you have your dominant run game. Now take care of the defense.

 

[KJJ]

How many SBs do we win without Aikman?

How many SBs do we win if our defense those years is ranked 25th instead of Top 5?

We might not have won any SBs without Aikman but we had a better chance of winning them without him than we did without Emmitt. Emmitt was as important to the 90s Cowboys as Roger Staubach was to the 70s Cowboys. We started the 93 season 0-2 without Emmitt. Aikman was a great QB but we won games without him. In 91 when Aikman was injured Steve Beuerlein won 5 straight starts including a playoff game on the road in Chicago. Beuerlein was playing so well Jimmy started him the following week vs Detroit even though Aikman was healthy.

We won a Thanksgiving game with Jason Garrett and Bernie Kosar came in for an injured Aikman in a conference title game and saved it. Aikman's career numbers were down because we rode Emmitt. Most of our TD's were coming from Emmitt, Irvin only had one double digit TD season because of Emmitt. Aikman never tossed more than 23 TD's in a season he only had one 20+ TD season because of Emmitt. No way would the Cowboys have been the same team without Emmitt.

As for the defense it was terrific but controlling the ball on offense and getting opponents behind helped the defense. When you have opponents playing from behind most every week that plays into the hands of your defense. We had a very potent offense that forced opponents to have to press to stay up with us which led to mistakes. Our defense was opportunistic and when we forced turnovers our offense took advantage.