Impact of losing top RB

[gimmesix]

Life went on after Calvin Hill, after Duane Thomas, after Don Perkins, after TD, after Herschel Walker, after MB3, after Emmitt and life will go on after Murray. We have a great young OL and they are going to continue to get better. The Cowboys will be able to run the ball, regardless of who we determine as our starter.

Yes, but we immediately followed Calvin Hill with Doug Dennison, who averaged 3.5 YPC that year (1975) and the next year, leading to Dallas drafting Tony Dorsett. (Landry like Dennison as a short-yardage back, but the undrafted FA wasn't much beyond that; Preston Pearson shared the tailback load and averaged 3.8 per carry that year.)

When we traded Thomas, we had Hill in place to pick up the slack and he had already showed he could carry the load. Hill also was brought in as a first-round pick the year we lost Perkins. We actually drafted Thomas in the first round because Hill was injured at the end of his rookie season.

So two of the guys you mentioned here were replaced by Dallas spending a first-rounder on the position and the other was replaced in a couple of years by a first-round pick.

When Dorsett left after the 1987, he was averaging 3.5 YPC and was splitting time with Walker, who had already proven himself, so it was easy for life to go on after Dorsett.

When Walker was traded in 1989, Paul Palmer was left to carry the load and did a decent job at 4.0 YPC on an awful team, but (theme here) Dallas replaced him and Walker in the 1990 draft with Emmitt Smith.

Then when Smith left, Dallas elevated his backup who had averaged 5.1 and 4.0 his previous two years in that position, and Troy Hambrick promptly laid an egg, averaging 3.5 per carry as the starter. So Dallas again turned to the draft, unwisely passing on Stephen Jackson in the first to take Julius Jones with the 43rd pick.

So, life has gone on but with some rough patches at the position when Dallas hasn't spent a first- or early second-round pick (or had a Herschel Walker on hand) to replace the back it lost.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I believe many of the backs you listed were very good backs yet guys like Julius Jones, or Hambrick were not mentioned and I think that is where some of us are concerned, going from a back who was productive to 4 players with major question marks. I think Dallas will run the ball I think some big concerns comes when you are in games with a 1 score lead and 4 to 5 min on the clock of having a back you can count on to pick up those tough yards when teams are selling out vs the run. Those are some tough yards but it is also the difference if chewing up the clock or giving the opponent another chance to tie or win if you fail

Guys like Julius Jones and Hambrick were not listed because they were not good/great backs for us. We moved on after them as well. That's really the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Doomsday101]

Guys like Julius Jones and Hambrick were not listed because they were not good/great backs for us. We moved on after them as well. That's really the point I'm trying to make.

Of course we move on, one Day Romo just like Meredith, Staubach, White and Aikman will retire and we will move on as well. I think the concern is knowing how close we are to achieving the goal and now looking at a season with a question mark at a position that was a strength instead of a weakness.

 

[Alexander]

This was a great article to digest if you are into that sort of thing.
http://www.footballperspective.com/running-back-heat-maps/

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, but we immediately followed Calvin Hill with Doug Dennison, who averaged 3.5 YPC that year (1975) and the next year, leading to Dallas drafting Tony Dorsett. (Landry like Dennison as a short-yardage back, but the undrafted FA wasn't much beyond that; Preston Pearson shared the tailback load and averaged 3.8 per carry that year.)

When we traded Thomas, we had Hill in place to pick up the slack and he had already showed he could carry the load. Hill also was brought in as a first-round pick the year we lost Perkins. We actually drafted Thomas in the first round because Hill was injured at the end of his rookie season.

So two of the guys you mentioned here were replaced by Dallas spending a first-rounder on the position and the other was replaced in a couple of years by a first-round pick.

When Dorsett left after the 1987, he was averaging 3.5 YPC and was splitting time with Walker, who had already proven himself, so it was easy for life to go on after Dorsett.

When Walker was traded in 1989, Paul Palmer was left to carry the load and did a decent job at 4.0 YPC on an awful team, but (theme here) Dallas replaced him and Walker in the 1990 draft with Emmitt Smith.

Then when Smith left, Dallas elevated his backup who had averaged 5.1 and 4.0 his previous two years in that position, and Troy Hambrick promptly laid an egg, averaging 3.5 per carry as the starter. So Dallas again turned to the draft, unwisely passing on Stephen Jackson in the first to take Julius Jones with the 43rd pick.

So, life has gone on but with some rough patches at the position when Dallas hasn't spent a first- or early second-round pick (or had a Herschel Walker on hand) to replace the back it lost.

Actually, it was not Dennison. It was Newhouse. He ran for over 900 yards in 75 with a 4.4 AYPC. He was really the workhorse back after HIll.

We did draft Hill but we also had Garrison who was a 17th round pick and he was just as productive as Hill. Hill ran for 946 yards in 69 and Garrison ran for 818 but they both had a 4.6 AYPC. To me, that says two things. 1. The Cowboys used a RB by committee approach and 2. It was probably more about the OL, rather then the RBs.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course we move on, one Day Romo just like Meredith, Staubach, White and Aikman will retire and we will move on as well. I think the concern is knowing how close we are to achieving the goal and now looking at a season with a question mark at a position that was a strength instead of a weakness.

Well, if you look at it in terms of these, then you would have to say that DE has been turned from a bigger weakness to a strength. One door closes, another opens.

 

[Kevinicus]

and Murray is a very good back that is how he broke Emmitt record. People can say well Murray ran behind a very good OL. SO DID EMMITT. All this vision BS is non sense. The guy lead the NFL in runs over 40 plus yards. No doubt he is not a speed RB but he did everything else asked of him.

Murray lead the league with 40+ yard runs? Is that accurate? As far as I can tell he had 3. Did that lead the NFL? Randle had 2, and another at 38 yds, in 1/7 the carries.

 

[CATCH17]

Well, if you look at it in terms of these, then you would have to say that DE has been turned from a bigger weakness to a strength. One door closes, another opens.

And that is salary cap football.

That's why you need good QB play and good Coaching because it's so hard to be consistent everywhere else.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well, if you look at it in terms of these, then you would have to say that DE has been turned from a bigger weakness to a strength. One door closes, another opens.

Yes but the back and forth deal has not been good for us either. When Ware and the defense were at their peak the offense was not getting it done, now the offense is getting it done and the defense has been struggling. I would hope putting both a quality offense and defense is the goal, not weaken one to make the other strong. Clearly the RB can't do what the DE does then again DE can't do the job of the RB.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Eh, I'm done anyway. Been through this too many times before last year. I got 1800 reasons to prove I'm right. Ya'll can try and spin it however you like.

Is the world that simple for you? I'd hate to only be able to think in black or white.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Yes but the back and forth deal has not been good for us either. When Ware and the defense were at their peak the offense was not getting it done, now the offense is getting it done and the defense has been struggling. I would hope putting both a quality offense and defense is the goal, not weaken one to make the other strong. Clearly the RB can't do what the DE does then again DE can't do the job of the RB.

Except it'd harder to get elite DE production from a committee of average ends than it is to get excellent run production from a stable of average backs.

This should be obvious.

 

[dallasdave]

Complaining about the league leading rusher leaving yards on the field is like complaining about taxes when you just hit the 400 million powerball

That's one of the best ones I have heard, love that and it's true some people would complain about taxes if they won 100 million dollars.

 

[AdamJT13]

Murray lead the league with 40+ yard runs? Is that accurate? As far as I can tell he had 3. Did that lead the NFL? Randle had 2, and another at 38 yds, in 1/7 the carries.

Yes, three carries of 40-plus led the league last year. It was not a big year for long runs.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes but the back and forth deal has not been good for us either. When Ware and the defense were at their peak the offense was not getting it done, now the offense is getting it done and the defense has been struggling. I would hope putting both a quality offense and defense is the goal, not weaken one to make the other strong. Clearly the RB can't do what the DE does then again DE can't do the job of the RB.

I think it is the goal but I think the team is now, perhaps more then ever, trying to manage the cap in a longer term and more sensible way. At least I hope that this is what we are seeing. I don't disagree that we are basically dealing with unknowns and believe me when I say that I do not want to see us revert back to a 50 pass attempt offense, but this is why I say it comes down to what you believe. If you believe our success in the ground game is more heavily based on the back, then no amount of discussion is going to lesson concerns. If you believe that the majority of success is based on the talent of the OL play, then you feel much better about our RB situation. Only time will tell which proves to be true. I believe it is the talent of the OL but I could be wrong. No question about it.

It's really two issues here and they are different. There is a discussion on the actual play on the field and there is the question of the cap. From a cap perspective, I think the team is doing what is wise. They have come down with a certain set up fundamentals they are going to manage the team with. One of those appears to be the way they pay the RB situation and how they manage it going forward. Once you decide on those fundamentals, you have to stick to them until such time as you see they are not effective or the decision is a poor one. It's a mistake, IMO, to come up with these kinds of guidelines (if you will) only to go away from them before you actually know if they are effective.

Either way, I am very optimistic about the upcoming season.

 

[jnday]

Probably not that often. Great rbs...or how this is defined as "top rb"....don't exactly grow on trees.

That goes against what so many of the posts I have read on this thread expressed. I recall many posters saying that the RB position is not hard to fill. There are RBs everywhere that can be great behind this line, at least that is what has been posted. Another fallacy is the addition of a couple rookies are going to make the defense improve to the point that the running game will not be needed as much.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think it is the goal but I think the team is now, perhaps more then ever, trying to manage the cap in a longer term and more sensible way. At least I hope that this is what we are seeing. I don't disagree that we are basically dealing with unknowns and believe me when I say that I do not want to see us revert back to a 50 pass attempt offense, but this is why I say it comes down to what you believe. If you believe our success in the ground game is more heavily based on the back, then no amount of discussion is going to lesson concerns. If you believe that the majority of success is based on the talent of the OL play, then you feel much better about our RB situation. Only time will tell which proves to be true. I believe it is the talent of the OL but I could be wrong. No question about it.

It's really two issues here and they are different. There is a discussion on the actual play on the field and there is the question of the cap. From a cap perspective, I think the team is doing what is wise. They have come down with a certain set up fundamentals they are going to manage the team with. One of those appears to be the way they pay the RB situation and how they manage it going forward. Once you decide on those fundamentals, you have to stick to them until such time as you see they are not effective or the decision is a poor one. It's a mistake, IMO, to come up with these kinds of guidelines (if you will) only to go away from them before you actually know if they are effective.

Either way, I am very optimistic about the upcoming season.

Actually I think success is built on both RB and OL not one or the other. 90's OL was in my view the best in NFL history yet take Emmitt out of the lineup and they did not look like the greatest of all time. I think when you listen to the OL player and how much they credit the work of the RB and same goes for the RB giving much of the credit to the OL. I think it is the combination of the 2 working closely together that breeds success in a running game. To me it is liking having a dancing partner, does not matter how well you dance as an individual it is how you dance together as a couple

 

[jnday]

I think it is the goal but I think the team is now, perhaps more then ever, trying to manage the cap in a longer term and more sensible way. At least I hope that this is what we are seeing. I don't disagree that we are basically dealing with unknowns and believe me when I say that I do not want to see us revert back to a 50 pass attempt offense, but this is why I say it comes down to what you believe. If you believe our success in the ground game is more heavily based on the back, then no amount of discussion is going to lesson concerns. If you believe that the majority of success is based on the talent of the OL play, then you feel much better about our RB situation. Only time will tell which proves to be true. I believe it is the talent of the OL but I could be wrong. No question about it.

It's really two issues here and they are different. There is a discussion on the actual play on the field and there is the question of the cap. From a cap perspective, I think the team is doing what is wise. They have come down with a certain set up fundamentals they are going to manage the team with. One of those appears to be the way they pay the RB situation and how they manage it going forward. Once you decide on those fundamentals, you have to stick to them until such time as you see they are not effective or the decision is a poor one. It's a mistake, IMO, to come up with these kinds of guidelines (if you will) only to go away from them before you actually know if they are effective.

Either way, I am very optimistic about the upcoming season.

I think you are missing the third group that believes a top tuning game comes from a combination of a good line and a good RB. I think the combination is closer to the truth than either of the other sides. Edit, I see where Dooms 101 beat me to the point.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That goes against what so many of the posts I have read on this thread expressed. I recall many posters saying that the RB position is not hard to fill. There are RBs everywhere that can be great behind this line, at least that is what has been posted. Another fallacy is the addition of a couple rookies are going to make the defense improve to the point that the running game will not be needed as much.

It's not hard to find a rb who can do his job. Great rbs don't gro on trees.

It's why laughed when people related Ajayi like he was Asian Foster.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually I think success is built on both RB and OL not one or the other. 90's OL was in my view the best in NFL history yet take Emmitt out of the lineup and they did not look like the greatest of all time. I think when you listen to the OL player and how much they credit the work of the RB and same goes for the RB giving much of the credit to the OL. I think it is the combination of the 2 working closely together that breeds success in a running game. To me it is liking having a dancing partner, does not matter how well you dance as an individual it is how you dance together as a couple

If we had a back like Emmitt, then I think it's a different discussion. We don't and IMO, there is no back like Emmitt in the league. He's a once in a life time player. I don't think you can really have that discussion because that is not an option for anybody. JMO

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you are missing the third group that believes a top tuning game comes from a combination of a good line and a good RB. I think the combination is closer to the truth than either of the other sides. Edit, I see where Dooms 101 beat me to the point.

I don't think I'm missing it. I just think the cap limits us in that regard. Obviously that would be the best possible situation to be in but the cap comes into play.