If the Running Back Issue Isn't a Problem

[Hardline]

Uhmmmmmm....

I thought any RB taken not named Gurley or Gordon would do nothing for this team this year? I heard it echoed several times on this very board during draft prognostications. Several... & they know who they are so I am not wasting my time pulling up info. No RB taken outside of the top two AKA 1st round would contribute anything worthy to us this year.

So, with that said, your post holds no water. A+ for creativity though.

I was one of the biggest proponents of Gurley and Gordon on this forum. They were the only two blue chippers in this draft. You have nothing on me stating otherwise. You cannot pull up anything on me with a different opinion.
My post was to simply point out all the YouTube football scouts saying we needed a RB other than the top two and expecting elite results just because the offensive line is so dominate.

Don't read into something that is not there.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think people are overestimating what we have at HB. I think any player we would have drafted up into the 5th would have at least pushed Randle for the starting job, and probably would have beaten. In fact I think had we landed Rawls as a UDFA he would have been serious competition for Randle

And I dont understand where people are getting that guys like Lamar Miller and Tre Mason arent any better then Randle. They are both significantly better then Randle

I don't get where you are getting Langford and those day 3 RB are better than Randle.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Then why are there so many comments in the press about the Jones boys looking to trade? And why are there so many threads about this issue?

If this RBBC is the answer, then why has the organization stated they are looking?

Why has this site blown up with RB threads and speculation?

I guess it could be the never ending quest to improve.

Or...

It could be the team made a mistake and misjudged their options.

I have asked a question in several threads that nobody seems to be able to answer, so I will try asking it again here...............serious question.................

If Randle, McFadden, Dunbar, and Williams can be just as effective as a group as Murray was individually, then why did they offer Murray double what all 4 of these guys make combined? I will ask it another way so everybody can understand the question.

Option A.............Have 4 RBs that have a combined salary of $3 million a year to get 1900 yards of production from

Option B.............Pay 1 RB $6 million a year to get 1900 yards of production from.


Why would any team in the NFL go with option B, and yet that is what we apparently were going to do. Our last offer to Murray was $6 million a season, so why did we offer Murray twice the money that all the other RBs on the roster combined make if those other RBs can effectively replace the production of Murray? It doesn't make any logical sense that they would pay Murray $6 million a year if they thought McFadden, Randle, Dunbar, and Williams could be just as effective for half the price. The only reasonable conclusion that can be made is that they do not think these 4 guys combined are equal to what Murray was individually.

Bottom Line...........money talks, like Spags always says, "follow the money" so why were the Cowboys willing to pay Murray double what all the other RBs on the roster make combined if those other RBs could be just as effective behind our offensive line? Why did they view Murray as being worth $6 million a season when all the other RBs on the roster make just half that combined if our running game is indeed "better this year"?

 

[dfan32]

Bro, both Stephen and Jerry have said so. Jerry went as far as to say that he would be interested in trading a first round pick next year. That is from Jerry Jones himself pal.

Did he say that would be trade would be considered only for a RB ?

 

[Arkyvarminter]

I have a question for the guru's. Has a RB ever led the league in rushing and then let go the next year? Just wondering....

 

[dfan32]

What is Herschel Walker up to these days. If we signed him to an affordable one year deal, I think the Vikings just might give us AP for Herschel!

 

[darthseinfeld]

I don't get where you are getting Langford and those day 3 RB are better than Randle.

Because I don't see Randle as much more then a change of pace back. He is shifty, has decent but not great vision and runs with little power. Not a huge fan of Langford, as I feel is similar, but Davis and Allen are much better featured backs then Randle

 

[skinsscalper]

I have a question for the guru's. Has a RB ever led the league in rushing and then let go the next year? Just wondering....

No.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

The problem is the way you are looking at these numbers misses the point. The question is not "does a team need a top running back to win the SB." The question is does THIS team need a top RB and rushing attack to win the SB. The defense is still suspect and if last year proved anything its that Romo needs a quality running game to take the pressure off him. If that falters and teams can go back to blitzing the heck out of him without have to respect the run, and we can't control time of possession and keep a defense that still has holes off the field, THIS team is not winning the SB, (unless the defense completely surprises).

First let me say you gave a very good response.

But no I didn't miss the point. Running Back is the question here by the OP. I supplied fact that you don't need a top RB to win the Super Bowl. But I do agree with you that with our current team we need a very effective rushing attack to be successful. And I believe that this offensive line will provide a very good rushing attack through a RBBC approach. As it stands, the Cowboys must feel that way also.

Instead of selecting a RB in the draft, the Cowboys think they have upgraded our defense. If Gregory and Jones plays better that their prospective positions then who played there last year, I believe we will be better then choosing one of the RB's. Just my opinion.

As you listed it seems that every Super Bowl winner wins for many deferent reason. From great QB play to great defenses. From getting hot at the right time to just having good old luck.

By the way, your wrong about the Saints defense. The year they won their defense was 25th in total (yards) and 20th in points. That is pretty pedestrian.

 

[mattjames2010]

All would be mute, if Joseph Randle had been taken this year in the 3rd round--vrs 2 yrs ago. Everyone would be thinking all is good, except we'd have to wait for the 2nd year to see the jump in improvement he showed on the field...........

I wouldn't have been happy. Randle didn't look impressive in college and looked like a late round/undrafted RB, in my eyes.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because I don't see Randle as much more then a change of pace back. He is shifty, has decent but not great vision and runs with little power. Not a huge fan of Langford, as I feel is similar, but Davis and Allen are much better featured backs then Randle

You think he is too small to hold up to the punishment? I don't disagree with that but I don't like backs getting much more than 200 carries in a season. Our 'featured back' last year broke down last year right around the 300 carry mark.

That is the rub, if you find a featured back they are not likely to last for long. I prefer 3 'change of pace' guys each getting ~166 carries.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't have been happy. Randle didn't look impressive in college and looked like a late round/undrafted RB, in my eyes.

Well he has played better than that in the pros in his first two years and we did pick him in the 5th round.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I'm sure there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[5Stars]

I'm sure there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

That is true...but there sure is a lot to cry about!

 

[jobberone]

The big difference between the OL situation and this one is that with the Oline you're looking to improve 5 positions... and with each team in the NFL needing 5 quality starters... the well gets dry pretty quickly.

You need one good back. And it's a position that not all teams value equally so you end up with guys always being available either as free agents or as low cost trade options.

Completely agree. Acquisition of talent is complicated by multiple variables. Some teams are better at it over time with less ups and downs.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

The question is not "does a team need a top running back to win the SB." The question is does THIS team need a top RB and rushing attack to win the SB.

...and let me add this.

The Jets was the 3rd best running team last year. Right behind the Cowboys with a 4.5 rushing average and a total of 2280. The Boys averaged 4.6 with a total of 2354. Just 74 more yards. And who is running the ball in New York? They run a RBBC approach and the results are very comparable if not identical.

All this stat research got me to thinking.

Joseph Randle had a 6.7 average on only 51 carries. That is not a large enough sample rate to get excited about. So I went back and watched the video that "itsaboat" posted of Randle's runs last year. That video blow me away of what was happening. And what I seen is exactly what the Cowboys must be thinking.

Teams are scared of our rushing attack. Just go watch the video again everyone. In that video, Joseph "freaking" Randle was facing 8 man fronts on approximately 80% of the plays. Not just one team, but every team in that video. Washington, Philly, Houston, Jacksonville, the "Big Bad Bully" Seattle and so on. Eighty percent!

 

[darthseinfeld]

You think he is too small to hold up to the punishment? I don't disagree with that but I don't like backs getting much more than 200 carries in a season. Our 'featured back' last year broke down last year right around the 300 carry mark.

That is the rub, if you find a featured back they are not likely to last for long. I prefer 3 'change of pace' guys each getting ~166 carries.

Not so much the size as it is the style and overall ability. He is a quicker back that thrives when the defense has been battered. I dont think he runs with enough power and isnt elusive enough with a defense keying on him. I think he is good auxiliary HB, but I think if you ask him to be the main guy you are going to get Troy Hambrick like results

I dont see the other backs on the roster as worthy of carries. McFadden has value as a 3rd down back, but his days if being effective with significant carries are over. Dunbar is a niche player who is too deficient at too many things to be counted on. Ryan Williams is intriguing but he is still a flier who hasnt had any success in the NFL, is injury prone and wasn't good enough for the 53 last year. Like Dunbar there are deficiencies that are going to limit his usage, and as a runner he is somewhat redundant with Randle. Like Randle, he isnt that "dirty yards" guy the organization has been talking about.

I would be very surprised if they dont add a guy between now and TC. Do they need to be better then Randle. Not really, but if they want to do a commitee, you are missing key parts to what the offense will need to function. However I think their lack of trust in Randle off the field could have them looking at players clearly better then him like Miller and Mason.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That is true...but there sure is a lot to cry about!

Should I get you a tissue and your binkie?

 

[5Stars]

Should I get you a tissue and your binkie?

I'm fine...thanks. You use them.

 

[jobberone]

The one big disappointment I had with the Parcells era was the failure to evaluate offensive linemen. Which helped lead to that eventual debacle.

Yeah, there was some suckage there and elsewhere with that regime and another. Bad trades. Etc.