For those wanting Dallas to run the ball more

[50cent]

We're effective with our passing game on 3rd and short, so I don't see why that's a problem. 3rd and long is another story though ...

You are literally making up stuff again. The cowboys are literally 1-2 on 3rd & 1 which ranks 24th, 6-12 on 3rd and 2 which ranks 4th, 5-8 on 3rd and 3 which ranks 14th, 3-5 on 3rd & 4 which ranks 21st and 4-10 on 3rd and 5 which ranks 18th with the pass. That's 19-37 (51%) on 3rd and short. Not good, average!

Now we are 6-8 on 3rd & 1, 0-1 on 3rd & 2, 0-0 on 3rd & 3, 0-2 on 3rd & 4 and 1-1 on 3rd & 5 with the run. That's 7-12 (58%) on 3rd and short with the run.

This is how you provide context and facts to support the truth and not an opinion.

 

[dstovall5]

Taking away the longest run is a terrible way to try to get at this. All run games are inconsistent to some extent. If you look at the stats generated by people who actually try to take a sophisticated look at this (see Football Outsiders' running stats for example), our run game is pretty much middle of the pack in all their numbers. In other words, when we run, we're roughly average in our effectiveness. That may overstate the case a bit (defenses play differently against a team that runs so rarely, so if we started running more, our effectiveness may slip), but probably not much. We're not unusually inconsistent: our success rates are, just like everything else, around middle of the pack.

Do you have the link to their running game rankings so I can take a look at them?

I've always thought just from watching the games that we were very inconsistent running it, it just seems to be that we don't consistently get positive gains. Like I said, I just combined our RBs ATT/YDS/YPC to see what we had each game, and to me it seemed like we are very inconsistent. Like one game we're running the ball well, then the next game we can't run it to save our lives. I understand the RB isn't the only variable to a successful running game, our o-line is part of that equation as well. And yes, I'm sure those guys are much more sophisticated in their rankings/comparisons, after all those guys do that stuff for a living.

 

[RS12]

For those wanting Dallas to run the ball more

Its about keeping opposing D coordinators guessing.

 

[dstovall5]

You are literally making up stuff again. The cowboys are literally 1-2 on 3rd & 1 which ranks 24th, 6-12 on 3rd and 2 which ranks 4th, 5-8 on 3rd and 3 which ranks 14th, 3-5 on 3rd & 4 which ranks 21st and 4-10 on 3rd and 5 which ranks 18th with the pass. That's 19-37 (51%) on 3rd and short. Not good, average!

Now we are 6-8 on 3rd & 1, 0-1 on 3rd & 2, 0-0 on 3rd & 3, 0-2 on 3rd & 4 and 1-1 on 3rd & 5 with the run. That's 7-12 (58%) on 3rd and short with the run.

This is how you provide context and facts to support the truth and not an opinion.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6624/situational/

Look at 3rd and 3, that's constitutes as "3rd and short", correct? So how am I "making up stuff again"? Romo has been very effective on 3rd and short downs, throwing 3 TDs on 8 completions. He takes a very noticeable drop off at 3+. Is that enough "truth" for yah?

This is how you provide context and facts to support the truth and not an opinion.

Everything I've posted so far has been from a statistical stand point, meaning it's not just some made up stuff, but keep believing that, 50.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Do you have the link to their running game rankings so I can take a look at them?

I've always thought just from watching the games that we were very inconsistent running it, it just seems to be that we don't consistently get positive gains. Like I said, I just combined our RBs ATT/YDS/YPC to see what we had each game, and to me it seemed like we are very inconsistent. Like one game we're running the ball well, then the next game we can't run it to save our lives. I understand the RB isn't the only variable to a successful running game, our o-line is part of that equation as well. And yes, I'm sure those guys are much more sophisticated in their rankings/comparisons, after all those guys do that stuff for a living.

Here are FO's OL rankings: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
And here are the RB rankings. Look particularly at "success rate": http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb. Note also that Murray is 1st in the league in their rate stat (DVOA) and third in their counting stat (DYAR) despite having many fewer rushes than the other leaders. Again, some of this is almost certainly because of how defenses play us: they don't respect our run game the way KC defenders respect theirs, for example.

 

[50cent]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6624/situational/

Look at 3rd and 3, that's constitutes as "3rd and short", correct? So how am I "making up stuff again"? Romo has been very effective on 3rd and short downs, throwing 3 TDs on 8 completions. He takes a very noticeable drop off at 3+. Is that enough "truth" for yah?



Everything I've posted so far has been from a statistical stand point, meaning it's not just some made up stuff, but keep believing that, 50.

it does constitute 3rd and short but so do the others, especially with the receiving threat we have. Why are you excluding stats again on 3rd and 1, 3rd and 2, 3rd and 4 and 3rd and 5? These are also short yardage situation regardless of just YOUR 3rd and 3 FACT and where Romo begins to drop off.

You have yet to provide info on your assumption that the run game (RBs) put Dallas in 3rd and Long situations on a frequent basis. It's better but you still only paint a partial picture to justify your opinions and neglect the totality of the overall TRUTH.

 

[dstovall5]

Here are FO's OL rankings: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
And here are the RB rankings. Look particularly at "success rate": http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb. Note also that Murray is 1st in the league in their rate stat (DVOA) and third in their counting stat (DYAR) despite having many fewer rushes than the other leaders. Again, some of this is almost certainly because of how defenses play us: they don't respect our run game the way KC defenders respect theirs, for example.

Thanks for posting! Will definitely take a look at it, it's always interesting looking at numbers from different view points and seeing where we are among our peers.

 

[Bleu Star]

Wow. Did we just agree on something? I'm in shock.

Yes, you're missing the reason for an effective running game and therefore a balanced offensive attack. Running the ball effectively means you're winning the battle in the trenches. You're being more physical than the opponent. When you do that, the mental aspect affects the opponent negatively. All downhill for them fyom that point forward.

 

[dstovall5]

it does constitute 3rd and short but so do the others, especially with the receiving threat we have. Why are you excluding stats again on 3rd and 1, 3rd and 2, 3rd and 4 and 3rd and 5? These are also short yardage situation regardless of just YOUR 3rd and 3 FACT and where Romo begins to drop off.

You have yet to provide info on your assumption that the run game (RBs) put Dallas in 3rd and Long situations on a frequent basis. It's better but you still only paint a partial picture to justify your opinions and neglect the totality of the overall TRUTH.

Anything above 3rd and 3+ doesn't constitute as "short", that's why I didn't include the others. And what do you mean I'm excluding 3rd and 1/2 ? 3rd and <3 means anything less then 3 is acknowledged, so 3rd and 1/2 are recognized as well. How am I only a painting a "partial picture"? I gave you the source to look at all the data, I'm obviously not trying to hide anything here ....

 

[TheCount]

It shows how we can be very inconsistent running the ball, and I believe it's part of the reason we struggle moving the chains. For example, if a RB has 16 carries for 90 yards, that sounds great right? Well not if 60 of that came on one play, that means on the other 15 carries he's struggling to move the ball and only has 30 yards. That means he's being inefficient and he's most likely causing his team into 3rd and long situations. This offense has a MAJOR problem with moving the ball, that much is obvious..

You say "he" like it's the responsibility of one guy, which is part of the problem with the running game in general. Heck, the fact that now the RB's seem to at least be able to make it to the line of scrimmage without having to make a defender miss in the backfield is an improvement, because we've seen tons of that over the years.

Obviously not, but there's a difference between a consistent 5.0YPC and an inconsistent 5.0YPC. One puts there team into more 3rd and long situations, while the other has more 3rd and short. I just think this team's running game is far too inconsistent in games, and it hurts us just as much as they're helping. And no I'm not saying that was the case yesterday.

Every stat needs context, but at the end of the year when people are talking about how well or poorly you ran the ball 5.0 is 5.0. That the beauty/ugliness of stats.

As for inconsistency, the ENTIRE TEAM is inconsistent. Why would the running game be any different and why does it mean more than the passing game that likes to flop around like a dead fish for long stretches.

There isn't a single part of this team you can hang your hat on and say, "When all else fails, we can bank on _____".

 

[dstovall5]

You say "he" like it's the responsibility of one guy, which is part of the problem with the running game in general.

I've never said it's the responsibility of one guy, nor have I ever blamed one specific person for our woes. As for the "he" part ... you're just reading to deep into my post. It was just a hypothetical situation showing how a RB could actually be having a very inconsistent day, yet if you look at his numbers it looks like he's doing great. I understand there's a lot of components that factor into the success of our running game.

Heck, the fact that now the RB's seem to at least be able to make it to the line of scrimmage without having to make a defender miss in the backfield is an improvement, because we've seen tons of that over the years.

We are definitely starting to run the ball better and hopefully it's a trend that keeps continuing.

Every stat needs context, but at the end of the year when people are talking about how well or poorly you ran the ball 5.0 is 5.0. That the beauty/ugliness of stats.

As for inconsistency, the ENTIRE TEAM is inconsistent. Why would the running game be any different and why does it mean more than the passing game that likes to flop around like a dead fish for long stretches.

And that's the frustrating part, for whatever reason our offense is very inconsistent at times. You're right, it's not just our running game either that has inconsistency problems. Truth be told though, even when our passing game is struggling, I'm sure most fans would still rather have the ball in Romo's hands. That is unless Murray is running like Smith that day, then by all means Murray can have the ball lol.

There isn't a single part of this team you can hang your hat on and say, "When all else fails, we can bank on _____".

Ole' Dan Bailey says hi.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Then why are we so good at play action, yet we don't run that much compared to the rest of the league. I mean, you did say "Play action also works if you actually run the ball some."

That's kinda of contradicting, right? We rarely run the ball, yet we're very good at play action ...

Really? Dallas is good at play action? They very nearly stopped play action all together when they started passing all the time. Not sure what you are seeing, but running the ball is essential. Always has been.

 

[dstovall5]

Really? Dallas is good at play action? They very nearly stopped play action all together when they started passing all the time. Not sure what you are seeing, but running the ball is essential. Always has been.

You're 100% wrong about play action. I can't find the numbers for this year play action rating, but last year we were 31st in rushing attempts, yet Romo had the 6th highest QBRating during play action passes. All that "running the ball is essential" for play action stuff is simply not true, at least in Dallas's case, which is all I care about.

 

[Rack]

Trying to understand why the long run wouldn't be included. Was it not one of the runs in the game? And if you're gonna remove the long run, remove the short run too.

 

[tm1119]

I can easily look at that and say that in our 7 wins we ran the ball 17+ times in 6 of them. That means in the 7 games we ran the ball 16+ times we are 6-1.

Conversely, in 4 of our 5 losses we ran the ball 16 or fewer times. So in 5 games we ran the ball less than 16 times we are 1-4.

And not to beat a dead horse, but LOL at you trying to take out the longest run to skew the stats to your liking.

 

[dstovall5]

I can easily look at that and say that in our 7 wins we ran the ball 17+ times in 6 of them. That means in the 7 games we ran the ball 16+ times we are 6-1.

Conversely, in 4 of our 5 losses we ran the ball 16 or fewer times. So in 5 games we ran the ball less than 16 times we are 1-4.

And not to beat a dead horse, but LOL at you trying to take out the longest run to skew the stats to your liking.

The point was to show how we can be very inconsistent at running the ball at times. You're running game isn't helping your offense much if they're not moving the chains consistently. It does no good if you're running game is 100 yards for 20 carries, but 70 of it came from 1 run. That means you're having an inconsistent running game that's not moving the chains effectively, that was the point I was making. You can disagree/agree and add your reasoning ... Or not.

Trying to understand why the long run wouldn't be included. Was it not one of the runs in the game? And if you're gonna remove the long run, remove the short run too.

I've already explained my reasoning behind it, if you don't agree that's fine.

 

[tm1119]

The point was to show how we can be very inconsistent at running the ball at times. You're running game isn't helping your offense much if they're not moving the chains consistently. It does no good if you're running game is 100 yards for 20 carries, but 70 of it came from 1 run. That means you're having an inconsistent running game that's not moving the chains effectively, that was the point I was making. You can disagree/agree and add your reasoning ... Or not..

You're not looking at the whole picture though. What about time of possession and tiring the defense? And not to mention keeping the defense honest and not allowing them to sit back on the pass the whole time.

But really what seems to be the point is that running the ball 16+ times = wins. Its not that difficult of a concept.

 

[dstovall5]

You're not looking at the whole picture though. What about time of possession and tiring the defense? And not to mention keeping the defense honest and not allowing them to sit back on the pass the whole time.

TOP and tiring the defense is a fair point, that is if you're able to sustain long drives. It doesn't do you much good if you're running the ball ineffectively and going 3 and out. Because all you're doing then is punting and putting our defense back on the field with short rest, which then defeats the whole point of running the ball. Those are really good points if we're running the ball well, but sadly not every game are we running the ball effectively.

But really what seems to be the point is that running the ball 16+ times = wins. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Well if it's that simple, then I guess we should just throw the ball every chance we get, because we're 3-0 when Romo throws the ball 45 times or more. Throwing the ball 45+ times = wins, right?

 

[tm1119]

TOP and tiring the defense is a fair point, that is if you're able to sustain long drives. It doesn't do you much good if you're running the ball ineffectively and going 3 and out. Because all you're doing then is punting and putting our defense back on the field with short rest, which then defeats the whole point of running the ball. Those are really good points if we're running the ball well, but sadly not every game are we running the ball effectively.



Well if it's that simple, then I guess we should just throw the ball every chance we get, because we're 3-0 when Romo throws the ball 45 times or more. Throwing the ball 45+ times = wins, right?

But our starting RB is averaging 4.9 yards per carry. Why would you not give him the ball on a consistent basis?

 

[50cent]

Anything above 3rd and 3+ doesn't constitute as "short", that's why I didn't include the others. And what do you mean I'm excluding 3rd and 1/2 ? 3rd and <3 means anything less then 3 is acknowledged, so 3rd and 1/2 are recognized as well. How am I only a painting a "partial picture"? I gave you the source to look at all the data, I'm obviously not trying to hide anything here ....

3rd and 4 and 3rd and 5 don't constitute "long" either. You're painting a partial picture because you keep saying stuff like it SEEMS like the run game forces 3rd and long with no proof that the run game does. your YAC stat tries to depict our RBs as the cause for THOSE long situations, when it also includes runs by other positions than the RBs.

Now you say we're effective in 3rd and short but somehow figure anything above 3 yards is "long" or doesn't constitute as "short"!

Now I'm confused because if the run game is forcing us into 3rd and 4, it constitutes long. You're the guy that wants our elite QB to have more throwing opportunities but don't have faith that can make 3rd and 4 or longer?! SMH. I'll take our RBs putting us in 3rd and 4 or 5 all day with the weapons we have.

This vaunted passing attack must avoid 4 and 5 yard situations but you want more throws?!