If you commit to running the football, it opens up the passing game tremendously

[dstovall5]

I'm comfortable being the minority here in my opinion that we already have a premier back in DeMarco Murray that we don't utilize properly.

I think DeMarco is a good back, but I don't think he's a back that this offense needs/wants. We need a Sproles/Bush/Jamaal/Forte/LeSean type of back, and yes I know those guys don't grow off trees. They're very hard to come by, but if we can come across one then we'd be set.

This offense loves to abandon their run game early, which basically makes DeMarco Murray useless when we decide to do that. But if we had a very explosive pass catching back, then it doesn't matter if we abandon our running game or not. They'd still be very productive for us and help contribute tremendously to our passing game. At least that's what I think we need.

 

[Bleu Star]

DeMarco has been very successful catching passes out of the backfield. I think part of this is the coaching staff being non committal on utilizing the run in any fashion. Whether that's due to inexperience or ineptitude... That piece is up for debate.

I think DeMarco is a good back, but I don't think he's a back that this offense needs/wants. We need a Sproles/Bush/Jamaal/Forte/LeSean type of back, and yes I know those guys don't grow off trees. They're very hard to come by, but if we can come across one then we'd be set.

This offense loves to abandon their run game early, which basically makes DeMarco Murray useless when we decide to do that. But if we had a very explosive pass catching back, then it doesn't matter if we abandon our running game or not. They'd still be very productive for us and help contribute tremendously to our passing game. At least that's what I think we need.

 

[Picksix]

This has been proven time and time again through history. The skillful utilization of the run game is the perfect manager's tool for controlling multiple aspects of the game. Yes. I get the fact that the majority of today's teams are pass first organizations. I get it..

However, 8 of the top 10 rushing leaders are all on teams that utilize the run in a skillful fashion to achieve their weekly goals. These are teams that are successful in utilizing an equitable mix. Need I also say that all 8 are also on track for 1000 yard rushing seasons? The rushing milestone is not normally achieved in your usual pass happy run avoiding offense. I won't make you look up the 8 I am referencing. They are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 below.

1. Lesean McCoy
2. Marshawn Lynch
3. Jamaal Charles
4. Adrian Peterson
5. Alfred Morris
6. Matt Forte
7. Frank Gore
8. Eddie Lacey
9. Arian Foster (injured.. I know)
10. Deangelo Williams

I have been harping on it all season. We have to become comfortable with utilizing a fair mix of the run to be successful against the solid teams out there in the league. Here's to hoping something encouraging happens on Sunday night in New Orleans.

I hear you, but the thing is, our passing game was wide open all day. We had more blatant drops than I can count, and if we'd caught half of them, we'd have killed them.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

The elephant in the room is that this team isn't any good at running the ball. If you cannot consistently get yourself to 3rd and manageable and sustain drives then running for the sake of running is detrimental. I'm a strong proponent of establishing an effective running game, but if your team can't do it then why kill your drives on purpose?

I'm open to the possibility that Garrett's Xs and Os may be the problem, but either way their running ge sucks.

 

[Idgit]

The running game has benefits beyond offense. It increases TOP which allows your defense to stay off the field and remain fresh into the 4th quarter which translates into wins.

Not necessarily. TOP is a measure of game time that elapses while your offense has the ball, but if you're using that time to stand around in the huddle while the clock ticks down, your not necessarily wearing down the defenses any faster.

It's more about the number of plays your defense has to defend. It stands to reason that more successful offenses are going to run more plays, so, if you can be more successful throwing it--and most data overwhelming suggests you can--you're more likely to either 1. keep moving the chains, or, 2. put up points. Either outcome is bad for the defense.

If your own defense gets tired out because the offense is scoring so much, so fast, well, so what? Be thankful you've got an active DL rotation.

 

[50cent]

I'm comfortable being the minority here in my opinion that we already have a premier back in DeMarco Murray that we don't utilize properly.

That's 2 of us in the minority boss!! It's sickening how under utilized he is this year. The things that were said about him the first five games were remarkable to me. He can't make people miss, he's not a threat to bust a long one, when he gets it he doesn't hit the hole fat enough, etc! And like I said, the only thing wrong with DM is run plays aren't being called enough PERIOD!
He RUNS the ball 20+ timesa game, were 7-2 RIGHT NOW! We don't lose vs KC or SD if had the rock.

 

[50cent]

The elephant in the room is that this team isn't any good at running the ball. If you cannot consistently get yourself to 3rd and manageable and sustain drives then running for the sake of running is detrimental. I'm a strong proponent of establishing an effective running game, but if your team can't do it then why kill your drives on purpose?

I'm open to the possibility that Garrett's Xs and Os may be the problem, but either way their running ge sucks.

How many times have we run it CONSECUTIVELY this year on 1st AND 2nd down to know if the running game can get it to a manageable 3rd down and distance?

 

[Kristen82]

Fun modern response but only one of those three teams has sniffed any hint of a championship lately in your modern world.

Some may consider it a tired cliché. I consider it a requirement for success.

How many yards did BAL run for when they beat SF in the Super Bowl? A whopping 93. How many did NYG run for when they beat NE in the previous Super Bowl? A decent but hardly overwhelming 114. How many did GB run for when the beat PIT in the one before that? A whopping 50. How many did NO run for when they beat IND in the Super Bowl before that? A whopping 50. Should I keep going? PIT ran for a whopping 58 yards when they beat ARI in the SB before that one. NYG ran for a whopping 91 yards when they beat NE in the SB before that etc. The last time a team used a strong running game to win in the SB was XLI when IND ran for 191 yards. That was 7 SB's ago, so in only 2 out of the 7 previous SB's the winner ran for over 100 yards or more. That's statistically significant, but I'm guessing you're one of those kinds of people who when he thinks he makes a good point he'll defend it in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence because he's insecure and doesn't want to look bad. It shows in how you reply to every response to your posts that you like to have the last word in arguments. You want to play that game? Fine. I'm up for it.

 

[Zman5]

How many yards did BAL run for when they beat SF in the Super Bowl? A whopping 93. How many did NYG run for when they beat NE in the previous Super Bowl? A decent but hardly overwhelming 114. How many did GB run for when the beat PIT in the one before that? A whopping 50. How many did NO run for when they beat IND in the Super Bowl before that? A whopping 50. Should I keep going? PIT ran for a whopping 58 yards when they beat ARI in the SB before that one. NYG ran for a whopping 91 yards when they beat NE in the SB before that etc. The last time a team used a strong running game to win in the SB was XLI when IND ran for 191 yards. That was 7 SB's ago, so in only 2 out of the 7 previous SB's the winner ran for over 100 yards or more. That's statistically significant, but I'm guessing you're one of those kinds of people who when he thinks he makes a good point he'll defend it in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence because he's insecure and doesn't want to look bad. It shows in how you reply to every response to your posts that you like to have the last word in arguments. You want to play that game? Fine. I'm up for it.

Can you post the run attempts as well?

That may be more important than the actual yards. Play action passing works even if you don't run well and stats back this up for most of the teams. Even if you don't get good yards , there has to be commitment(attempt) to the run so that the defenses bite on the play action.

 

[kramskoi]

Can you post the run attempts as well?

That may be more important than the actual yards. Play action passing works even if you don't run well and stats back this up for most of the teams. Even if you don't get good yards , there has to be commitment(attempt) to the run so that the defenses bite on the play action.

They were all averaging 3.5 to 4.5 yds per attempt iirc. It does not really matter what other teams do...Romo has one win throwing over 50 attempts and his record is not much better once breaching 40 attempts. You can't make a living with an 88 - 12% pass - run ratio. The rushing totals per year just continue to fall and Dallas is currently on pace for less than the 1265 yds they put up in 2012. Garrett seems bent on reaching the pathetically anemic 1049 yds put up by the Cowboys in their winless (with one tie) inaugural season (1960).

That is unmitigated failure for a line that has been lauded as improved over last years edition.

Sunday night will feature two teams that are two sides of the same coin, always willing to ride the arm of the quarterback behind poor line play when spooked. Sometimes you get away with it and sometimes you don't.

 

[Gridiron Man]

With the passing game being as dominant as it is and should be, to say that we don't need a running game is ridiculous.

I would agree that we don't need a workhorse like Adrian Peterson although it would be awesome, we would do just fine with two above average backs that can stay healthy. One needs to be a goal line back who can lead block with enough versatility that they aren't limited to short yardage situations.

Our backfield is undersized and fragile.

 

[03EBZ06]

I don't think anyone is advocating no running game, most of fans would like to see an effective run game, the problem is, the team hasn't been effective very often, which puts offense in a 2nd and long or 3rd and long attempts. Murray is a good back but he gets hurt often and Dunbar hasn't done anything this season, Randle is a rookie learning the ropes and has been below average, and run blocking is less than desirable.

I would love to see something like 60/40 or close to it but based on above reasons, I just don't it happening, certainly not this season, so I could only hope that Romo continue to play well to carry the team rest of the season and be successful which will be a difficult task with ineffective run game.

 

[cowboys2233]

Play action can do wonders for any team. I'm still lamenting the Cowboys not drafting Lacy instead of Escobar -- Lacy brings play action without the need for a good run blocking OL -- he is able to smash his way for 4-5 consistently -- often after 1st contact.

Lacy has 4.4 YPC. Murray has 4.9 YPC.

 

[perrykemp]

Lacy has 4.4 YPC. Murray has 4.9 YPC.

I think your point here is quite simply the Cowboys need to be more committed to getting Murray (or whoever) more carries. I agree with that sentiment.

 

[cowboys2233]

I think your point here is quite simply the Cowboys need to be more committed to getting Murray (or whoever) more carries. I agree with that sentiment.

Well, not whoever, just Murray. Murray has one of the highest YPC in the league. The rest of our RBs are sad and pitiful.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I have no issues with a pass heavy offense, but Sunday was just flat out ridiculous. I haven't counted, but I'm pretty sure Dallas had more play action than actual run plays. That might have been acceptable without Murray, but he is back in the line-up now. The only reason why this isn't getting more pub is because Dallas played a really bad Vikings team with a pathetic defensive backfield, so it worked in spite of it's own built-in failings.

Since we are throwing out stats, here are the five teams that throw it the most this season: Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cleveland, New York Giants, Dallas. Dallas is the only team with a winning record. They have thrown it more than 40 times against two teams with winning records (Detroit and KC) this season and lost both times. It may be the recipe for Dallas this season, but it isn't a winning recipe. If they make the playoffs it will be one and done.

 

[Bleu Star]

How many yards did BAL run for when they beat SF in the Super Bowl? A whopping 93. How many did NYG run for when they beat NE in the previous Super Bowl? A decent but hardly overwhelming 114. How many did GB run for when the beat PIT in the one before that? A whopping 50. How many did NO run for when they beat IND in the Super Bowl before that? A whopping 50. Should I keep going? PIT ran for a whopping 58 yards when they beat ARI in the SB before that one. NYG ran for a whopping 91 yards when they beat NE in the SB before that etc. The last time a team used a strong running game to win in the SB was XLI when IND ran for 191 yards. That was 7 SB's ago, so in only 2 out of the 7 previous SB's the winner ran for over 100 yards or more. That's statistically significant, but I'm guessing you're one of those kinds of people who when he thinks he makes a good point he'll defend it in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence because he's insecure and doesn't want to look bad. It shows in how you reply to every response to your posts that you like to have the last word in arguments. You want to play that game? Fine. I'm up for it.

I don't necessarily care to have the last word but I do love a good argument.

So, based upon your research, in the last 7 years, average rushing yards for Super Bowl winners is 92.4. As someone else noted, it would be interesting to know the total carries from scrimmage for each of those 7 teams. Care to provide that?

So how does our average rushing yards this year compare to the average established by the last 7 Super Bowl winners? Understanding that this is just a peak at a one time and not indicative of the overall effort for those last 7 Super Bowl winners, our average through 9 games is 75 yards. Of course, we're just having fun here but I would venture to say that we have no chance of sniffing a Super Bowl until our average rushing yards per game is consistently above 92.4. Thats not a difficult number to achieve and it surely doesn't mean you are abandoning any portion of the passing game. What it means to me is that we are gaining enough on the ground to keep opposing defenses off balance. Play action is a valuable weapon that means nothing to our offense right now. I don't want to see Romo get killed and our current offensive scheme is a dangerous game of Russian roulette.

I do appreciate your research and counter points. It makes all of us think a little harder about the state of affairs.

 

[morasp]

DET's only 21st in rushing yards yet somehow 2nd in passing yards and oh by the way 6th in scoring, NO is only 26th in rushing but 3rd in passing yards and 7th in scoring, we're 27th in rushing yet 9th in passing and 4th in scoring. Looks like they neither need "the run to setup the pass" nor to score. "Balanced O" is becoming a tired cliche.

Where do they rank in rushing attempts. That's more important.

The running game has benefits beyond offense. It increases TOP which allows your defense to stay off the field and remain fresh into the 4th quarter which translates into wins.

Also when you have a lead in the fourth quarter it improves your ability to take time off of the clock instead of going three and out and putting it on the defense to get another stop. We used to go to the running game all the time in the nineties to protect a lead.

 

[dropdeadfred5]

just amazes me how some so called self appointed football experts think a running game is unnecessary.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

How many times have we run it CONSECUTIVELY this year on 1st AND 2nd down to know if the running game can get it to a manageable 3rd down and distance?

Enough to know that 3rd and 7 or worse is the likely outcome, unless we're playing St Louis of course. They simply have too much penetration into the backfield when up against a strong DL.