Emmitt Smith says we are fine at RB

[DFWJC]

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

You're 100% wrong...guarantee it
hey...jmo

 

[Idgit]

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.

They'll prepare for what we're doing with the blocking scheme more than they will for what Randle does in particular. With the exception of stuff like checking his ball security and how he recognizes blitz pickups and stuff. We might not be willing to use him on short yardage as much as we did Murray. Those are the things I worry about, honestly. Pass protection and short yardage. Both are more important to winning and losing games anyway, and, while McFadden is good at the former (which is why I believe he's here) and Randle is adequate at it, we really only have Williams who I think it s a decent short-yardage back, and he might not even make the roster. That means going back to throwing more on 3rd-and-2s, which is going to tick everybody off. But I think it could realistically happen.

In terms of overall rushing yardage, though, I believe more of our big plays will be longer than they were with Murray, and I think with the improved defense we'll be protecting leads more. So the overall numbers will be very similar to what we've seen previously. It'll just be that the important conversion downs could be more on Tony's shoulders. I'm ok with that, though, because we're also going to have options for him in the passing game that I really like, so it's not like we're replacing the tough Murray dirty-yards with low probability plays. We might even be able to get McFadden around the end to pickup some of those short yardage plays if he's still able to get there before the DBs can.

We're going to be all right.

 

[Alexander]

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.

Garrett specifically talked about the "dirty yards" setting up the easier conversion third and short downs.
http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...rs-a-simple-concise-188-word-definition.html/

 

[Thefeelofcotton]

I agree with him too. I think we need to give DMC a chance

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Garrett specifically talked about the "dirty yards" setting up the easier conversion third and short downs.
http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...rs-a-simple-concise-188-word-definition.html/

I know. Why do you keep saying this?

It has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

 

[JoeKing]

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.

What the Cowboys did to Demarco Murray last season by handing him the ball 392 times, did no favors to the longevity of his career. You should never ride a horse that hard unless you have no other choice. The Cowboys seem to have learned a lesson by being in that situation and decided to divide that load among a group. So you can go ahead and expect a "slip" in the load they put on the lead RB and an increase in the load they but on the other RBs. It's addition by subtraction. They are trying to avoid doing to another back what they did to Murray last year. The affects of that punishment will still be felt by Murray this coming season. Murray is now only about 100 career carries behind Darren McFadden whom has never been ridden that hard.

 

[Doomsday101]

What the Cowboys did to Demarco Murray last season by handing him the ball 392 times, did no favors to the longevity of his career. You should never ride a horse that hard unless you have no other choice. The Cowboys seem to have learned a lesson by being in that situation and decided to divide that load among a group. So you can go ahead and expect a "slip" in the load they put on the lead RB and an increase in the load they but on the other RBs. It's addition by subtraction. They are trying to avoid doing to another back what they did to Murray last year. The affects of that punishment will still be felt by Murray this coming season. Murray is now only about 100 career carries behind Darren McFadden whom has never been ridden that hard.

It did him one big favor

DeMarco Murray signed a 5 year, $40,000,000 contract with the Philadelphia Eagles, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $21,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $8,000,000. In 2015, Murray will earn a base salary of $1,000,000, a signing bonus of $5,000,000 and a roster bonus of $3,000,000. Murray has a cap hit of $5,000,000 while his dead money value is $18,000,000.

and as Smith said "
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?

 

[erod]

Garrett specifically talked about the "dirty yards" setting up the easier conversion third and short downs.
http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...rs-a-simple-concise-188-word-definition.html/

Murray absolutely did this. He was a big part of a successful season.

But he also left a ton of yards on the field, and he fumbled at the most inopportune times. I thought he had a big part of the loss to the 49ers, Commanders, and Packers, and he almost gave away the Rams game. I hate the way he carries the ball.

I appreciate everything he did, but I'm also relieved he's gone.

 

[DR.WARE]

I have no problems with dmac

 

[Zekeats]

I am the biggest Emmitt Smith fan but he is wrong.

 

[gimmesix]

What the Cowboys did to Demarco Murray last season by handing him the ball 392 times, did no favors to the longevity of his career. You should never ride a horse that hard unless you have no other choice. The Cowboys seem to have learned a lesson by being in that situation and decided to divide that load among a group. So you can go ahead and expect a "slip" in the load they put on the lead RB and an increase in the load they but on the other RBs. It's addition by subtraction. They are trying to avoid doing to another back what they did to Murray last year. The affects of that punishment will still be felt by Murray this coming season. Murray is now only about 100 career carries behind Darren McFadden whom has never been ridden that hard.

I agree that they ran Murray too much and should have handed the ball to Randle more, especially with the success Randle was having. It also would have shown the team that Randle could handle a heavier load.

I don't expect Dallas to give any running back the amount of carries Murray got last year. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree that it's addition by subtraction since we don't know how these backs will handle the carries they receive. If Randle's carries increase to 100-plus and he and whoever else makes up Murray's workload are consistently gaining 4 yards per carry, then it's at least close to equal to what we were getting last year.

 

[JoeKing]

It did him one big favor

DeMarco Murray signed a 5 year, $40,000,000 contract with the Philadelphia Eagles, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $21,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $8,000,000. In 2015, Murray will earn a base salary of $1,000,000, a signing bonus of $5,000,000 and a roster bonus of $3,000,000. Murray has a cap hit of $5,000,000 while his dead money value is $18,000,000.

and as Smith said "
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?

There can be no doubt that the heavy workload on Murray netted him the large contract he received from the Eagles. For that he can thank the Cowboys.

While Smith's opinion about workload may be true for some it is overwhelmingly not true for most. The statistics bare out the fact that large carry seasons are followed by significantly less carries in progressing years by a preponderance of RBs. While I respect Emmitt over any other RB in history, his opinion does seem to fly in the face of the undeniable stats. Emmitt himself was the exception and not the rule when it comes to baring the burden of rushing load for a sustained period of time.

 

[gimmesix]

They'll prepare for what we're doing with the blocking scheme more than they will for what Randle does in particular. With the exception of stuff like checking his ball security and how he recognizes blitz pickups and stuff. We might not be willing to use him on short yardage as much as we did Murray. Those are the things I worry about, honestly. Pass protection and short yardage. Both are more important to winning and losing games anyway, and, while McFadden is good at the former (which is why I believe he's here) and Randle is adequate at it, we really only have Williams who I think it s a decent short-yardage back, and he might not even make the roster. That means going back to throwing more on 3rd-and-2s, which is going to tick everybody off. But I think it could realistically happen.

In terms of overall rushing yardage, though, I believe more of our big plays will be longer than they were with Murray, and I think with the improved defense we'll be protecting leads more. So the overall numbers will be very similar to what we've seen previously. It'll just be that the important conversion downs could be more on Tony's shoulders. I'm ok with that, though, because we're also going to have options for him in the passing game that I really like, so it's not like we're replacing the tough Murray dirty-yards with low probability plays. We might even be able to get McFadden around the end to pickup some of those short yardage plays if he's still able to get there before the DBs can.

We're going to be all right.

I agree with you on the short-yardage. We have a tendency to pass on those downs anyway and if we don't establish a back who can consistently pick up the third-and-2s, I believe we'll revert to that.

I do agree that the big plays have a good chance of being longer overall than Murray's, but I think there's a good chance that the short plays will be shorter than Murray's, because he had the ability to fall forward for a couple of extra yards after contact. I think we will see more no gain and lost-yardage plays, which will put us in more passing situations.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

Yeah, probably 100 is not a good number. If he's the main back, it will probably be in the range of 12 to 15 carries per game.

 

[DanTanna]

CZ naysayers that's gotta HURT!!!

 

[JoeKing]

I agree that they ran Murray too much and should have handed the ball to Randle more, especially with the success Randle was having. It also would have shown the team that Randle could handle a heavier load.

I don't expect Dallas to give any running back the amount of carries Murray got last year. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree that it's addition by subtraction since we don't know how these backs will handle the carries they receive. If Randle's carries increase to 100-plus and he and whoever else makes up Murray's workload are consistently gaining 4 yards per carry, then it's at least close to equal to what we were getting last year.

I'm sorry, I apologize for saying "it is addition by subtraction". I meant to say they hope it is addition by subtraction. I'm an electronics engineer by trade so I equate what they are trying to do with "3-phase power". Rotating the load between multiple mediums increases the current the overall circuit can produce. Always having a RB on the positive cycle will allow all the RBs to perform better for a longer period of time.

 

[Doomsday101]

There can be no doubt that the heavy workload on Murray netted him the large contract he received from the Eagles. For that he can thank the Cowboys.

While Smith's opinion about workload may be true for some it is overwhelmingly not true for most. The statistics bare out the fact that large carry seasons are followed by significantly less carries in progressing years by a preponderance of RBs. While I respect Emmitt over any other RB in history, his opinion does seem to fly in the face of the undeniable stats. Emmitt himself was the exception and not the rule when it comes to baring the burden of rushing load for a sustained period of time.

much has to do with age and condition, Murray is in great condition how long will he play quality ball? that is anyone guess. Some of the guys on the 400 yard list like T. Davis blew out a knee but carries in the past had nothing to do with that same with Jamal Anderson. There are guys who have a lot fewer carries who suffer a major injury never to return to form. Could that happen to Murray? of course then again he could continue to be very productive over the course of his contract there is no sure way of knowing it.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

You might recall that, but I'm pretty sure Murray had fewer runs for no gain or a loss per carry than any starting back last year.

I'd have to look into that to prove it, though, and I don't have time to do that right now.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm sorry, I apologize for saying "it is addition by subtraction". I meant to say they hope it is addition by subtraction. I'm an electronics engineer by trade so I equate what they are trying to do with "3-phase power". Rotating the load between multiple mediums increases the current the overall circuit can produce. Always having a RB on the positive cycle will allow all the RBs to perform better for a longer period of time.

I agree that that should be the thought process, and Dallas should have used it to a greater extent last year.

 

[JoeKing]

much has to do with age and condition, Murray is in great condition how long will he play quality ball? that is anyone guess. Some of the guys on the 400 yard list like T. Davis blew out a knee but carries in the past had nothing to do with that same with Jamal Anderson. There are guys who have a lot fewer carries who suffer a major injury never to return to form. Could that happen to Murray? of course then again he could continue to be very productive over the course of his contract there is no sure way of knowing it.

Look, this isn't merely a guessing game. The Cowboys utilized hard numbers to analytically predict what Murray's future would hold. If you aren't a believer in analytics then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.