For those wanting Dallas to run the ball more

[ANTHONYSCOTT]

I agree, if we're running the ball well it creates another dimension for our offense and makes us that much more potent. But what if we're running the ball terribly and it's only hurting our passing at that point in the game? Do you say screw it, we're going to let our franchise QB take over, or do you stick with the ineffective running game?



If I had that information easily assesible, I would've looked it up no problem. Regardless of TFL not being added in, it still shows how inconsistent we are running the ball and I don't see how anyone could say other wise.



So again I ask, what would YOU do if we only had like 10 carries for 30 yards, but 25 of those yards came on one play. Would you stick with our innefective running game, even though it's getting stuffed and forcing long 2nd/3rd downs? When you have a QB as good as Romo, you're better off just passing and using short routes as your running game, IMO.



If we're running the ball effectively, it's a big plus to our offense, but that's not what happens every game. Half the time we're NOT running the ball effectively, and that's what I'm talking about here. And you noted our latest streak of W's ... If it's not for Romo pulling out 2 clutch GWD then we're 1-3 in these past 4 games, instead we're sitting 3-1.

... Have fun believing we're winning because of our running game.



What's being cherry picked here? All I did was add only our RB's carry/yards for each game, and then I took away the longest run of each game. What this shows is how inconsistent we are and it's part of the reason why we struggle moving the chains.



We definitely are running the ball better recently, but that's not what I'm asking people. Should we abandon our running game when it's NOT being effective? Because half the time our running isn't being effective as it should be, and that much is obvious. I believe we should come out trying to ground and pound, but if we're being ineffective at it then we should just put the ball in Romo hands. Like I said before though, if we're running effectively then there's no reason to abandon it.

I hear ya man. But you can't give up on the run. Just as you can't give up on the pass. If they are putting 8 to 9 men in the box then they are asking for you to pass the ball!! We have the players (at least we think we do) with the ability to make them pay if the 8 or 9 man in the box. And on the other aspect, if the double up most pour WR's and TE's then we can force the run. This new age NFL with passing the ball all the time is fine. But whats to say or who's to say that you can't win like within the old school NFC East. Running the ball is a game of time, its not gonna happen on every play. Your right 2-3-4 yards a pop and then bam, you break one for 30 - 40 - or 50.

 

[dstovall5]

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?!

Where did I say I have no faith in Romo throwing in that situation? And now you're starting to attempt to twist words ... Yah, we'll just agree to disagree. I'm fine with a discussion, but not with someone who's going to attempt to twist words when I obviously haven't said that.

 

[dstovall5]

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

Our running game as a whole is averaging 4.1 YPC, and that's what I mainly care about. It's not terrible, but it's not good either, it's average. I've already said I think we should continue running the ball when we're executing it properly, but when we're having one of those 2YPC days I think we're better off putting it in our QB hands. I don't think we should abandon it 100% where we don't even run the ball, but instead of having a 60/40 ratio, if it's being ineffective I'd rather have it around a 75/25 and just use it to catch the defense off guard.

 

[tm1119]

Our running game as a whole is averaging 4.1 YPC, and that's what I mainly care about. It's not terrible, but it's not good either, it's average. I've already said I think we should continue running the ball when we're executing it properly, but when we're having one of those 2YPC days I think we're better off putting it in our QB hands. I don't think we should abandon it 100% where we don't even run the ball, but instead of having a 60/40 ratio, if it's being ineffective I'd rather have it around a 75/25 and just use it to catch the defense off guard.

And again you're ignoring the fact that our top 2 backs were hurt and we relied on a 4th round rookie for 2+ games where he managed 2.5 yards per carry. That drags the team average down a ton. If Murray is healthy and on the field he is averaging 4.9 yards per carry. There's no reason not to give him 18-25 carries a game.

 

[Wizarus]

Nope the key to winning games is to run the ball 15 times at 2 yards a carry. That means we win, right?

This. I like seeing the Cowboys run the ball "successfully". Running the ball just to waste a down is pointless.

 

[Teren_Kanan]

Why would you remove the longest run from the stats?
If you run a lot, you tend to get a long run off occasionally.. I just don't understand why it would be taken away. 1 long run can change a game...

 

[50cent]

This. I like seeing the Cowboys run the ball "successfully". Running the ball just to waste a down is pointless.

I like seeing successful pass plays, but we never seem to abandon it when it's giving up sacks, penalties, INTS, and/or drops. Are those wasted downs and/or do we run successful pass plays every drop back?

 

[TrailBlazer]

We should do what were good at. Which is slinging it around. Running the ball is no good if we're losing yards doing it. If we are having success running, then don't abandon it. But we don't need to run if its not working just for the sake of being balanced.

 

[50cent]

Where did I say I have no faith in Romo throwing in that situation? And now you're starting to attempt to twist words ... Yah, we'll just agree to disagree. I'm fine with a discussion, but not with someone who's going to attempt to twist words when I obviously haven't said that.

My bad, didn't mean to do that!! You have stated (I think), that it seems like the run game puts us in 3rd & long and that our downfall! You have then stated that were effective in 3rd and short, while qualifying "short" as 3 yards or less. So, I concluded that anything over 3 yards is "long", including 3rd & 4-5 by your standards.

I'll admit, I could have taken that incorrectly!

Now I ask, because I like a good debate as well, what is "long" and where's your proof that the running game is the cause of these 3rd & "long" situations? That's all I ask boss, no harm intended.

 

[dstovall5]

We should do what were good at. Which is slinging it around. Running the ball is no good if we're losing yards doing it. If we are having success running, then don't abandon it. But we don't need to run if its not working just for the sake of being balanced.

And that was the point I was trying to get across ... When it's being effective, you stick with it, when it's not working out, I'd lean on the passing game more, after all we did pay our QB 100M.

 

[dstovall5]

My bad, didn't mean to do that!! You have stated (I think), that it seems like the run game puts us in 3rd & long and that our downfall! You have then stated that were effective in 3rd and short, while qualifying "short" as 3 yards or less. So, I concluded that anything over 3 yards is "long", including 3rd & 4-5 by your standards.

I stated our passing offense is effective on 3rd and short, but past that it's terrible. And yes, for 3rd down specifically, I believe anything past 3 yards is considered "long". Gaining 3 yards on 3rd and 3 is much tougher than gaining 3 yards on 1st and 10.

I'll admit, I could have taken that incorrectly!

Now I ask, because I like a good debate as well, what is "long" and where's your proof that the running game is the cause of these 3rd & "long" situations? That's all I ask boss, no harm intended.

I love a good discussion as well.

Ok, so this is why I believe our running game is forcing us into "long" 3rd down situations, and I'll give my reasoning behind it as well.

On 2nd and long downs, our running game is being ineffective which is creating 3rd downs that are hard to convert, and it's causing us to have a lot of 3 and outs. I'm not saying it's the only reason we're having trouble moving the chains, but I think it's one of the main problems.

2nd down and 6+ - 40ATT for 118YDS = 2.95YPC
2nd down and 8-10 - 20ATT for 69YDS = 3.45YPC
2nd down and 11+ - 4ATT for 1YDS = 0.25YPC

What this shows is when we're running the ball on 2nd and long, our running game is being very ineffective thus creating 3rd downs that are hard to manage.

Source - http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys Murray/Tanner/Dunbar/Randle Splits

And, our running game is also ranked as the 31st worst in the league in rushing attempts that end with a first down. Only 22.36% of our runs end up being a first down, which is only better than ATL's running game.

Source - http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/rushing-first-down-pct

As a team, we're ranked as the 23rd worst team in the league at converting 3rd downs, which comes as no surprise as we have a ton of 3 and outs.

Source - http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/thirdDownConvPct

The thing that is most frustrating is that this team could potentially be a top 5 offense, instead of a top 10-12 offense. We just have such a problem of moving the ball between the 20's, but once we're in the RZ we're the 2nd best team in the league in TD scoring %. If we could somehow fix our 3rd down problems, we would easily be an offensive juggernaut.

Source - http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

Well, that's my reasoning as to why I believe our running game is putting our offense into tough spots on 3rd down, which is why I believe we're having so much trouble moving the ball this year. You may not agree with what I'm saying, but at least you should be able to understand where I'm coming from?

Also, I'm not one of those guys who make up random stuff just for the sake of doing it, if I'm posting strongly about something it's because I've actually researched stuff about it. I'm not trying to "cherry pick" data or whatever I've been accused of doing in this thread, that is 100% not my intention at all. This is what I truly believe, though I understand people are going to agree/disagree.

I Just like a good ole' discussion about the 'Boys.