Fact: We win over 75% of our games when DeMarco touch the ball at least 15 times.

[50cent]

In our three touchdown scoring drives (not counting the touchdown after the turnover) we threw the ball on about 50% more plays than we ran the ball.

Again not true:
1st TD drive: 7 pass - 1 run
2nd TD drive: 6 pass - 4 runs (5 CALLED run plays, Dez TD play was a CALLED run)
3rd TD drive: 3 passed - 6 runs

That's 16 passes thrown vs 11 runs and it was actually 15 CALLED passes vs 12 CALLED runs. That doesn't equate to 50% more passes boss!

 

[kramskoi]

Dallas really does look like different team when Murray & Cowboys are running. They slow tempo down, look more confident and you can almost see other defense loose their will when dallas starts to control line.

I don't understand why some Cowboy fans cannot see that this team must run the ball effectively if it wants to go places. Romo is about as good as he's going to get. The offense was imposing its will in the second half, mostly staying out of third and long, where they have been beat pretty good of late. It reminded me of the pick-your-poison days of the nineties. You stop Emmitt and then you get hit with Novacek, Harper and Irvin. Stop neither and you get rolled up pretty good. 5 possessions, 3 TD's and a FG...Now that's some potent offense! Easily the best they have looked since the Denver game.

 

[kramskoi]

We have led in every game this season, every last one of them. And not one of those games outside of NO were we trailing by so much that we were FORCED to abandon the run. We even led vs NO with the run producing and it was given up on. If teams tend to run more when leading and we have led in every single game, why is the pass being called twice as much as the run?

It is the philosophy of the offense, instilled by Garrett, just like the 2 TE fantasy offense that has yet to take flight. I really think that some fans would not have liked the run oriented approach of the nineties Superbowl teams. Man, when those teams got Emmitt going, it just became an avalanche for opposing defenses. You could see them deflate once the big boys up front started grinding...everything worked after that!

 

[50cent]

W week 1 21ATT / 88YDS = 4.19YPC - *W/O LongRun 20ATT / 75YDS = 3.75YPC
L week 2 13ATT / 37YDS = 2.84YPC - *W/O LongRun 12ATT / 25YDS = 2.08YPC
W week 3 34ATT / 193YDS = 5.70YPC - *W/O LongRun 33ATT / 152YDS = 4.60YPC
L week 4 15ATT / 77YDS = 5.13YPC - *W/O LongRun 14ATT / 56YDS = 4.00YPC
L week 5 12ATT / 43YDS = 3.58YPC - *W/O LongRun 11ATT / 30YDS = 2.72YPC
W week 6 19ATT / 48YDS = 2.52YPC - *W/O LongRun 18ATT / 34YDS = 1.88YPC
W week 7 21ATT / 66YDS = 3.14YPC - *W/O LongRun 20ATT / 54YDS = 2.70YPC
L week 8 21ATT / 50YDS = 2.38YPC - *W/O LongRun 20ATT / 41YDS = 2.05YPC
W week 9 8ATT / 32YDS = 3.50YPC - *W/O LongRun 7ATT / 5YDS = 0.71YPC
L week 10 16ATT / 89YDS = 5.56YPC - *W/O LongRun 15ATT / 54YDS = 3.60YPC
W week 11 20ATT / 107YDS = 5.35YPC - *W/O LongRun 19ATT / 77YDS = 4.05YPC
W week 12 29ATT / 145YDS = 5.00YPC - *W/O LongRun 28ATT / 100YDS = 3.57YPC

This is WHY we don't run the ball more, it's because we're terribly inconsistent running the ball. We have such a PATHETIC running attack. So what's you're lame excuse now?

Not sure if this was meant for me, but I would say, why do you excluded the long runs from the production? Can I excluded all of Romo's long throws from his stats to justify more runs? I also see 6 games with a decent 3.50 or above average YPC without the long runs that you would like to omit. I also see a lack of commitment (14 or less) in 3 games without long runs to draw any conclusion on consistency and 2 that a 4th string rookie contributed to your cause.

So of the 12 games, I see 6 games with a great YPC without long runs, 3 inconclusive from lack of commitment, 2 with a rookie I don't hold against him and 1 (Detroit) that prove your point I gues.

I would lastly say thats cute how you want to eliminate good run plays to justify more passes and not vice versa.

 

[50cent]

It is the philosophy of the offense, instilled by Garrett, just like the 2 TE fantasy offense that has yet to take flight. I really think that some fans would not have liked the run oriented approach of the nineties Superbowl teams. Man, when those teams got Emmitt going, it just became an avalanche for opposing defenses. You could see them deflate once the big boys up front started grinding...everything worked after that!

This has been my point boss. Production has nothing to do with abandoning the run because our braintrust is hell bent on proving were a passing team. You're exactly right when you say philosophy is the problem and not Murray or the line. They just don't believe in it, then spew in PCs that it has to get better, but when it is better its still neglected. Balance is an after thought with the organization.

 

[Sarge]

We also fare pretty well when we play a team with a losing record.

 

[Bleu Star]

That's right man. That type of balanced attack can easily get us deep into the playoffs. Instead of an enormous load of responsibility being shouldered by one or two people (primarily Romo), it is evenly distributed. It just works!

I don't understand why some Cowboy fans cannot see that this team must run the ball effectively if it wants to go places. Romo is about as good as he's going to get. The offense was imposing its will in the second half, mostly staying out of third and long, where they have been beat pretty good of late. It reminded me of the pick-your-poison days of the nineties. You stop Emmitt and then you get hit with Novacek, Harper and Irvin. Stop neither and you get rolled up pretty good. 5 possessions, 3 TD's and a FG...Now that's some potent offense! Easily the best they have looked since the Denver game.

 

[Bleu Star]

Yet it is a requirement for success. I believe the brain trust is finally starting to see the light. Whether they like it or not, balance is major part of the recipe for success.

This has been my point boss. Production has nothing to do with abandoning the run because our braintrust is hell bent on proving were a passing team. You're exactly right when you say philosophy is the problem and not Murray or the line. They just don't believe in it, then spew in PCs that it has to get better, but when it is better its still neglected. Balance is an after thought with the organization.

 

[Bleu Star]

I hear this so much and I just don't get it. It's not our fault those teams are 3-3, 4-5, 5-6, etc. We play what's in front of us. If we could ever figure out how to finish the close ones strong against the KCs and Saints of the world, we would be really dangerous.

We also fare pretty well when we play a team with a losing record.

 

[dbonham]

Fun fact- I had a statistics class where we were asked to explain why this is a useless stat for extra credit

 

[Sarge]

I hear this so much and I just don't get it. It's not our fault those teams are 3-3, 4-5, 5-6, etc. We play what's in front of us. If we could ever figure out how to finish the close ones strong against the KCs and Saints of the world, we would be really dangerous.

I never said it was our fault. It's factual.

 

[visionary]

Not sure if this was meant for me, but I would say, why do you excluded the long runs from the production? Can I excluded all of Romo's long throws from his stats to justify more runs? I also see 6 games with a decent 3.50 or above average YPC without the long runs that you would like to omit. I also see a lack of commitment (14 or less) in 3 games without long runs to draw any conclusion on consistency and 2 that a 4th string rookie contributed to your cause.

So of the 12 games, I see 6 games with a great YPC without long runs, 3 inconclusive from lack of commitment, 2 with a rookie I don't hold against him and 1 (Detroit) that prove your point I gues.

I would lastly say thats cute how you want to eliminate good run plays to justify more passes and not vice versa.

when you go into an analysis with a preconceived notion, you will be surprised how often your notion 'turns out to be right'

it is called bias

running the ball effectively is absolutely a very important factor in winning consistently

 

[visionary]

I don't understand why some Cowboy fans cannot see that this team must run the ball effectively if it wants to go places. Romo is about as good as he's going to get. The offense was imposing its will in the second half, mostly staying out of third and long, where they have been beat pretty good of late. It reminded me of the pick-your-poison days of the nineties. You stop Emmitt and then you get hit with Novacek, Harper and Irvin. Stop neither and you get rolled up pretty good. 5 possessions, 3 TD's and a FG...Now that's some potent offense! Easily the best they have looked since the Denver game.

great post

 

[theogt]

Outside of the drive that ended the first half (a 2-minute drive that I expect more passes 7-1), the play selection was 23 passes to 16 runs until we took the 28-21 lead.

Down 21-14, we had a 10 play (6 passes, 5 called runs with the TD pass being another improv throw on a called run, I won't complain) - 88-yard drive in which the run accounted for 61 yards. I can't stress enough that the TD was a run play that turned into a pass. This affects the play calling totals.

With the score tied, we had a 9 play (6 runs) - 60 yard scoring drive that resulted in a Rushing TD and produced half of the yards on the drive.

Thats two drives of 19 plays (11 called runs, 10 actual) for 148 yards with the run producing 91 of the total yards while trailing 21-14 coming out of the half before we took the lead and their will.

We abandoned the run only on the 2-minute drive before the first half ended which is expected as I stated. So, from my POV after trailing 21-7 we had 3 TD drives in which 2 were heavily influenced by the run and one that was supposed to be pass heavy due to time and situation.

16 passes. 5 runs.

 

[theogt]

Again not true:
1st TD drive: 7 pass - 1 run
2nd TD drive: 6 pass - 4 runs (5 CALLED run plays, Dez TD play was a CALLED run)
3rd TD drive: 3 passed - 6 runs

That's 16 passes thrown vs 11 runs and it was actually 15 CALLED passes vs 12 CALLED runs. That doesn't equate to 50% more passes boss!

I'd say that 16 passes is "about 50% more than" 11 runs. But, hey, I went to public elementary schools so maybe I done goofed. Ultimately, it's a 60/40 pass to run ratio, which is an unbalanced attack and where we should be at in terms of opitimal playcalling.

 

[50cent]

I'd say that 16 passes is "about 50% more than" 11 runs. But, hey, I went to public elementary schools so maybe I done goofed. Ultimately, it's a 60/40 pass to run ratio, which is an unbalanced attack and where we should be at in terms of opitimal playcalling.

Yea you would say that because it makes your narrative look better. And check your 16-5 numbers again boss, those are wrong too. 16-5 would mean 21 plays, when both scoring drives were 8 plays and 10 plays respectively. You've got an extra 3 plays helping your cause that didn't happen.

 

[jobberone]

I'd say that 16 passes is "about 50% more than" 11 runs. But, hey, I went to public elementary schools so maybe I done goofed. Ultimately, it's a 60/40 pass to run ratio, which is an unbalanced attack and where we should be at in terms of opitimal playcalling.

60/40 is about right in today's game. 493/841 pass/total = 59% pass (NE). 488/839 =58% Denver. 497/784 = 63% NO. That's today's game.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

60/40 is about right in today's game. 493/841 pass/total = 59% pass (NE). 488/839 =58% Denver. 497/784 = 63% NO. That's today's game.

I agree here.

60/40 is ideal balance in the modern NFL.