Free Christine

[Nightman]

The opposite of that is true also.

No matter how many times the same members attack these guys so vigorously there will always be some who don't believe it.

No it isn't. Their records are their records.

You can't argue Randle and McFadden into Leveon Bell and Adrian Peterson.

 

[Spectre]

I do think teams take too long often to get new players on the field. This is especially true when it's a RB, he's not a rookie, and you no longer need him to be excellent at pass protecting because your elite QB is already out... put him in there, get him going. If he's got it, it'll work enough to build on. If he doesn't, it'll show pretty quickly. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Bleu Star]

Personally, I think people are way overestimating his potential because they are Aggie fans.

Gamecocks all day every day.

 

[Bleu Star]

I don't think the OL got full of themselves. They are not getting the same coaching.

Yes. The Callahan loss has been pretty huge thus far.

 

[Bleu Star]

I do think teams take too long often to get new players on the field. This is especially true when it's a RB, he's not a rookie, and you no longer need him to be excellent at pass protecting because your elite QB is already out... put him in there, get him going. If he's got it, it'll work enough to build on. If he doesn't, it'll show pretty quickly. It isn't rocket science.

What do you think of my assertion that Garrett may be purposely operating at a snail's pace to humble the A type personality in CM? In other words, Garrett is using this as a teaching opportunity, from a management perspective, to mold CM into the type of team first player mentally that Garrett fully endorses.

 

[Bleu Star]

I'll also say this.. Having played offensive guard and tackle for several years of my life (semi pro lvl), I always enjoyed firing out vs pass pro. Run blocking was always more fun because, as olinemen, we had the opportunity to be the aggressors.

That said, I also remember having a certain vigor and excitement around a RB that had the ability to find the creases we created and exploit the cutback lanes. Looking up and seeing him run by while engaged pumped me up and made me want to keep running it down the throats of opposing defenses. On the contrary, whenever we had a rb that would somehow find a way to run it up our backs (short yardage style/3 yards & a cloud of dust/no vision) vs finding the opportunities we created, it was a bit of a buzzkill.

The reason I say all of this is to ask the simple question. Do you believe that perhaps the underwhelming play thus far of our oline may in some ways be directly attributed to the underwhelming rbbc ground game? If so, then that's even more reason to give CM a shot.

Some say the lackluster oline play is the reason for the underwhelming rbbc play. On behalf of all olinemen, I respectfully disagree. I tend to think the opposite may actually be in play. Jmho

 

[AsthmaField]

Yes. The Callahan loss has been pretty huge thus far.

I'm not so sure.

Randle and McFadden rushed for 81 yards against the NY Giants.

Morris and Jones rushed for 57 yards against that same defense minus DRC. (Thompson had 29 yards rushing but 26 of that came on the last play of the game against a defense waiting for a hail mary instead of a run).

The Commanders only had high rushing totals against the Rams and in that game, I don't know what the hell the Rams defensive line was doing... but it wasn't trying to stop the run, that's for sure. They were teeing off on the QB and let the RB's just run right by them. Horrific run defense.

So, yeah, Callahan is a good coach, but IMO it is too early to say the Commanders are lighting it up in the run game because they only have in that Rams game.

 

[Spectre]

What do you think of my assertion that Garrett may be purposely operating at a snail's pace to humble the A type personality in CM? In other words, Garrett is using this as a teaching opportunity, from a management perspective, to mold CM into the type of team first player mentally that Garrett fully endorses.

I think there could be some of that, but I think these coaches have their hands full too and can only focus so much on any one single player. They have to keep an eye on the big picture mostly- which is part of the problem and reason new guys can take a while to get a chance to play..

 

[Bleu Star]

I think there could be some of that, but I think these coaches have their hands full too and can only focus so much on any one single player. They have to keep an eye on the big picture mostly- which is part of the problem and reason new guys can take a while to get a chance to play..

Conventional wisdom would say this is a larger area of focus than most others on the practice field. That is figuring out how to be more successful at running the ball.

Irvin had me (and Marshall Faulk) cracking up on GameDay Morning a few minutes ago.

He said (& I loosely paraphrase)..

People are out there figuring out the Cowboys running game like well they got 80 from the ground and 70 passing. Well that's 150 yards right? Nooooo it's nott. Nooooo it's not...

He was very animated. He then clarified his point. Running backs getting 80 on the ground and 70 in passes out of the backfield does not equate to gaining 150 on the ground.

When defenses prepare and they see that 80 they know they can play honest. When they see that 150 avg "on the ground" it forces them to make wholesale adjustments to their game plans which tends to open up other areas for the offense.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Conventional wisdom would say this is a larger area of focus than most others on the practice field. That is figuring out how to be more successful at running the ball.

Irvin had me (and Marshall Faulk) cracking up on GameDay Morning a few minutes ago.

He said (& I loosely paraphrase)..



He was very animated. He then clarified his point. Running backs getting 80 on the ground and 70 in passes out of the backfield does not equate to gaining 150 on the ground.

When defenses prepare and they see that 80 they know they can play honest. When they see that 150 avg "on the ground" it forces them to make wholesale adjustments to their game plans which tends to open up other areas for the offense.

Thanks for posting the Irvin comments. I was trying to explain to my buddy the very same thing. A running back that gets 100 yards receiving isn't as good for the team as the one that gets 100 yards rushing.

 

[xwalker]

No it isn't. Their records are their records.

You can't argue Randle and McFadden into Leveon Bell and Adrian Peterson.

Nobody is saying that they are as good as Bell/Peterson, just that they are as good or better than Demarco Murray.

 

[Bleu Star]

Nobody is saying that they are as good as Bell/Peterson, just that they are as good or better than Demarco Murray.

That is highly debatable.

In our system, I say having that one back that can so it all is much more valuable than having specialists. It allows your offense to be more deceptive.

 

[xwalker]

Thanks for posting the Irvin comments. I was trying to explain to my buddy the very same thing. A running back that gets 100 yards receiving isn't as good for the team as the one that gets 100 yards rushing.

No, not quite, but both take advantage of defenses that back off the line to play more in coverage or can hold up a pass rusher if the defense uses a 3-4 OLB to cover the RB.

The Cowboys struggled for years with RBs receiving and running after the catch. It can be a great weapon especially when it continually gets first downs.

In the Cowboys 3-4 days, they often had Spencer hold up his rush to see if the RB was going to go out for a pass.

 

[xwalker]

That is highly debatable.

In our system, I say having that one back that can so it all is much more valuable than having specialists. It allows your offense to be more deceptive.

Yes, that is my point. The debate is between the ability of Randle/McFadden vs Murray. The debate is NOT about Bell/Peterson.

 

[Nightman]

Yes, that is my point. The debate is between the ability of Randle/McFadden vs Murray. The debate is NOT about Bell/Peterson.

It's not about Murray either, he is gone for good.

It is about Randle/McFadden/CMike and anyone else available.

 

[xwalker]

He was very animated. He then clarified his point. Running backs getting 80 on the ground and 70 in passes out of the backfield does not equate to gaining 150 on the ground.

When defenses prepare and they see that 80 they know they can play honest. When they see that 150 avg "on the ground" it forces them to make wholesale adjustments to their game plans which tends to open up other areas for the offense.

It did work really well for the Niners back in the late eighties and early nineties.

In 1994 when the Niners won the Super Bowl their starting RB had 877 yards rushing and 719 yards receiving.

The Rams had success with Marshall Faulk catching a lot of passes. He has over 1000 yards receiving for the 1999 season when they went to the Super Bowl.

 

[Bleu Star]

It's not about Murray either, he is gone for good.

It is about Randle/McFadden/CMike and anyone else available.

They don't want it to be about what was and what now is because they'll lose that argument. (Not you)

 

[Nightman]

Yes Randle for a TD baby!!!!!

rather be wrong and win

 

[CATCH17]

Like I've said since the day all this Demarco stuff started.. Space to run matters.


Week 1 and 2 there was not much there..

Week 3... Explosion.

 

[xwalker]

It's not about Murray either, he is gone for good.

It is about Randle/McFadden/CMike and anyone else available.

No, the debate has been about whether or not letting Murray go was a bad idea based on how well Randle/McFadden could or couldn't replace him. That has been the focus of the RB debate from the time Murray departed until now.