Emmitt Smith says we are fine at RB

[gimmesix]

Just curious, do you disagree with Emmitt's statement about Peterson?

That they would win the Super Bowl? I wouldn't go that far since it's not easy to do and since we don't know what we would get out of Peterson. He's 30 and we haven't seen him play since 2013, so it's possible he's not the same back he's been throughout his career. That would be the risk Dallas would have taken if a trade had happened. However, I believe it's a less risky proposition than what we've got.

He certainly was a phenomenal player in 2012 and was still very good in 2013, which is something we can't say about any of our current backs ... but he's also older than any of our current backs. That's one reason I never was for paying the ransom Minnesota was said to have been seeking for him. But for the right price, I would have wanted Dallas to go after him because there's a greater chance that he could help us reach the Super Bowl than what we've got.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't get why people are so concerned that he's either going to take a step back or that he won't be able to handle a bigger load.

With Randle, my concern is OTF and short yardage. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[gimmesix]

Not worried about RB position either, but not because Emmitt Smith is not worried about it.

Still have concerns about McFadden and the ZBS. Though having him run on turf and not the grass in OAK might be to the plus side for us. Randle, we know, though, can run behind this OL. I don't get why people are so concerned that he's either going to take a step back or that he won't be able to handle a bigger load.

Maybe because backups often take a step back when handed a bigger load and he hasn't proven that he can handle 100-plus carries per game in the NFL?

 

[gimmesix]

Wasn't Rashard Jennings more of a power runner? Some of those guys are able to get yardage on their own. McFadden's style is about taking advantage of the holes not overpowering people.

That could have had something to do with it. In the footage I've watched, it isn't that McFadden doesn't have power, but rather it looks like he doesn't have real good balance and gets taken down easily if defenders can get to his legs (which is easier with his upright running style).

 

[gimmesix]

Why we are at it Emmitt Smith said this as well

Nobody knows how much of Murray’s success was because of the stout offensive line, and nobody knows how Murray will rebound from the heavy workload of 2014.
Smith chuckled at the initial notion that the Cowboys could plug anyone in and have success running the ball behind an offensive line that that features three Pro Bowlers in left tackle Tyron Smith, center Travis Frederick and right guard Zack Martin.
“Who’s thought process is that? That’s the media’s thought process?” Smith said. “That’s the arm chair quarterback, that’s the couch coach and everybody else.
“Just because you have a great offensive line, you’ve got to have a special kind of person behind it.”
Smith also didn’t put too much into the workload. Murray carried it an NFL-high 392 times during the regular-season, and there has been a recent trend of running backs that have seen their production dip significantly after that many carries.
But Smith never had that issue during his career. Smith, like Murray, took on a heavy workload in his age 26 season, carrying it 377 times in 1995. He posted six consecutive 1,000-yard seasons after that, averaging almost 300 carries a season.
“Too much is made of too many things,” Smith said. “There are some stats out there that would showcase the facts as the facts, but I think every player has a big number in them. The question becomes what’s your big number?
“And there are a handful of guys who can produce more than one big number. Are you that guy? That remains to be seen.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports...orner-blog/article10536176.html#storylink=cpy

Thanks for posting that. I was looking for that one earlier.

 

[JoeKing]

That they would win the Super Bowl? I wouldn't go that far since it's not easy to do and since we don't know what we would get out of Peterson. He's 30 and we haven't seen him play since 2013, so it's possible he's not the same back he's been throughout his career. That would be the risk Dallas would have taken if a trade had happened. However, I believe it's a less risky proposition than what we've got.

He certainly was a phenomenal player in 2012 and was still very good in 2013, which is something we can't say about any of our current backs ... but he's also older than any of our current backs. That's one reason I never was for paying the ransom Minnesota was said to have been seeking for him. But for the right price, I would have wanted Dallas to go after him because there's a greater chance that he could help us reach the Super Bowl than what we've got.

I suspected you felt that way about Peterson. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. It seems your speculation of what we have now at RB, has really got you frustrated.

 

[Fletch]

After Lee went down last year, and Ro Mac was signed, people hated it....McFadden will be this years McClain.
And if Emmitt endorses him, people should listen. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Still have their reservations, but also give him a chance.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with either of Smith's opinions. Nothing about either opinion says he's not being reasonable. He likes Peterson a lot but knows he's not responsible for acquiring Peterson. Dallas would be. He like McFadden and Randle. He knows both backs aren't world beaters but they do not need to be. Now if Smith said something along the lines of "Dallas doesn't have a chance in hell of winning a Super Bowl with Peterson" or "Dallas is (expletive) with McFadden and Randle", then he would be speaking unreasonably. That's not the case though.

I don't think he is either. And the possibility certain exists that we could be fine with what we have, as it does that the warts on these backs will show up.

My view is I don't like the uncertainty, but I admit that it still would exist even if we had drafted Buck Allen or Mike Davis or Jay Ajayi, etc. I guess my main response to uncertainty is to do everything you reasonably can to make sure you're prepared for the worst.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's fair. Certainly the quality of the defense can affect the performance.

McFadden's starts that year came in the first part of the season against Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Denver, Washington, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Jennings' starts were against San Diego, the New York Giants, Houston, Tennessee, Dallas, Kansas City, San Diego and Denver.

Since there were some similar opponents, here are their numbers against them:

Jennings vs. Kansas City (23 for 91 and 4.0)

Jennings vs. Denver (4 for 9 and 2.3)

McFadden vs. Kansas City (16 for 52 and 3.3)

McFadden vs. Denver (12 for 9 and 0.8)

None of those defense were in the top 10 that year in either rushing yards per game or average rushing yards per carry.

Thanks for the additional info.

 

[Idgit]

With Randle, my concern is OTF and short yardage. Not necessarily in that order.

Mine, too. Both of those areas are a significant step back from what we had in Murray.

 

[gimmesix]

I suspected you felt that way about Peterson. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. It seems your speculation of what we have now at RB, has really got you frustrated.

I don't know what we have at RB. I just know what they've done, which is all I can go by and what I try to present.

I hope it turns out much better than the past shows for the backs that we do have. (The only one with any success over the past few years is Randle, and it came last year in a backup role with no starts. Doesn't mean it won't translate if he's elevated to starter, but it certainly doesn't guarantee that it will.)

It is what it is, but I'm not going to blow sunshine on the situation. A different set of circumstances can lead to different set of results, and that's what we have to hope ... or that the team quickly recognizes it's a problem (if it becomes one) and does something about it, like bringing in another back.

I just don't want the running game to slip from what it was last year because of the role it played in our success.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't know what we have at RB. I just know what they've done, which is all I can go by and what I try to present.

I hope it turns out much better than the past shows for the backs that we do have. (The only one with any success over the past few years is Randle, and it came last year in a backup role with no starts. Doesn't mean it won't translate if he's elevated to starter, but it certainly doesn't guarantee that it will.)

It is what it is, but I'm not going to blow sunshine on the situation. A different set of circumstances can lead to different set of results, and that's what we have to hope ... or that the team quickly recognizes it's a problem (if it becomes one) and does something about it, like bringing in another back.

I just don't want the running game to slip from what it was last year because of the role it played in our success.

I agree. I will say even had Dallas resigned Murray I think it is unlikely his workload would remain the same as he had last season. I think Dallas will continue to be balanced in their attack.

 

[Idgit]

Maybe because backups often take a step back when handed a bigger load and he hasn't proven that he can handle 100-plus carries per game in the NFL?

100 carries per season? 100-plus yards/game? Not sure which one you're getting at. Either way, we don't need him to take Murray's load. He just needs to continue to contribute in an expanded role. 60 yards/15 carries/game is not exactly a backbreaking workload. Spread the other 15-20 carries across the other backs, use more screens and maybe a few more short passes to Beasley or the TEs on third downs. I'm not sure what the big deal is. If we lose a back to injury or wear and tear, we'll bring in Williams one one of the guys that's going to be available off the street. If your'e only relying on a guy for 4 ypc and ~10 carries a game, you can plug them in pretty effectively. And our OL had better make it fairly easy to average a modest YPC.

The bigger issue is going to be committing to the higher percentage of running plays, but there's no reason to think we're not going to do that. We've made it pretty clear that we built the resource-expensive OL so that we'd be able to do just that. We're going to continue to use it.

 

[gimmesix]

100 carries per season? 100-plus yards/game? Not sure which one you're getting at. Either way, we don't need him to take Murray's load. He just needs to continue to contribute in an expanded role. 60 yards/15 carries/game is not exactly a backbreaking workload. Spread the other 15-20 carries across the other backs, use more screens and maybe a few more short passes to Beasley or the TEs on third downs. I'm not sure what the big deal is. If we lose a back to injury or wear and tear, we'll bring in Williams one one of the guys that's going to be available off the street. If your'e only relying on a guy for 4 ypc and ~10 carries a game, you can plug them in pretty effectively. And our OL had better make it fairly easy to average a modest YPC.

The bigger issue is going to be committing to the higher percentage of running plays, but there's no reason to think we're not going to do that. We've made it pretty clear that we built the resource-expensive OL so that we'd be able to do just that. We're going to continue to use it.

I'm not concerned about wear and tear. What I'm concerned about is the difference in being the guy who comes in when a defense is focused on the primary back and takes advantage with a few carries strewn throughout the game and being the guy defenses are focused on.

If he receives 15 carries a game, that means he's the main guy. Defenses will scheme for him, study him more extensively and he won't get to take advantage of defenses beaten down by the starter.

An expanded role might lead to his success being whittled down to what it was in the two games he started (when he had 3.0 and 1.9 averages). However, he was a better backup in 2014 than he was in 2013, so he might be a better starter now than he was the last time he started.

However, I'm prepared that it's at least as likely that his numbers if he does get 15 carries would be 45 yards per game and a 3.0 average as it is that they would be 15/60 and 4.0. For all we know, he could average 80 yards on 15 carries per game ... but I'm trying to be realistic about my expectations.

 

[Alexander]

I hate that phrase dirty yards.

When it was 3rd and 3 and you need a first down...how many "dirty yards" did you create when you didn't get contacted for 2.8 yards?

It's just a silly phrase we started using randomly last year in describing Murray's increasingly plodding style.

No, it is a phrase straight from Garrett's mouth.

Still hate it?

 

[gimmesix]

100 carries per season? 100-plus yards/game? Not sure which one you're getting at. Either way, we don't need him to take Murray's load. He just needs to continue to contribute in an expanded role. 60 yards/15 carries/game is not exactly a backbreaking workload. Spread the other 15-20 carries across the other backs, use more screens and maybe a few more short passes to Beasley or the TEs on third downs. I'm not sure what the big deal is. If we lose a back to injury or wear and tear, we'll bring in Williams one one of the guys that's going to be available off the street. If your'e only relying on a guy for 4 ypc and ~10 carries a game, you can plug them in pretty effectively. And our OL had better make it fairly easy to average a modest YPC.

The bigger issue is going to be committing to the higher percentage of running plays, but there's no reason to think we're not going to do that. We've made it pretty clear that we built the resource-expensive OL so that we'd be able to do just that. We're going to continue to use it.

Sorry, that should have been 100-plus carries per season.

 

[DTown214]

Jerry paid him to say that to attempt to calm down the fanbase... guarantee it

 

[Toruk_Makto]

No, it is a phrase straight from Garrett's mouth.

Still hate it?

Yeah it's a phrase without any real meaning.

You need to be able to run effectively in short yardage situations.

News at 11.

Murray wasn't good at getting those dirty yards until our line became the best in football.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Idgit]

Sorry, that should have been 100-plus carries per season.

Ah, ok. That's only 6.25 carries/game, though. That's not a workload I'd be worried about, though it is double what he did last season.

I can see concern about him going up to 12-15 carries/game. And especially concern about the carries where we've got to have the 2 yards no matter what. He hasn't proven that yet. Philosophically, though, in the role he's in, if he can't run the ball 15 times a week, then we've made a big mistake in even developing him at all. That's a solid workload, but it's not back-breaking. That's what NFL backs are supposed to be there for. And the kid seems to be a tough runner. He's tall and a bight slight, but he's not a guy that's got a rep for turning ankles or nursing injuries or anything.

 

[DenCWBY]

Meh. I expect at a minimum for our lead back to be able to fall forward.

But we started praising Murray for doing his job as a bare minimum.

Again the dude averaged 2.8 yards before contact. Over 392 carries.

On top of that Murray was not Mr. Automatic to get those dirty yards for the 1st down. I recall him getting stuffed on several occasions and actually had approx. 13 run attempts for negative yards against Phili (the 2nd game). Just sayin.