JJT: Cowboys don't have running back to match their philosophy

NEODOG

44cowboys22
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,735
When you're already winning, you don't throw as much later in the game, so that gives you fewer attempts for the game. Romo actually had more 1st-half attempts in 2014 than he had averaged over his career.

Romo's pass attempts per quarter
1st
2014 only: 8
2006-2013: 7

2nd
2014 only: 10
2006-2013: 10

3rd
2014 only: 5
2006-2013: 8

4th
2014 only: 6
2006-2013: 9

JJT doesn't realize it, but his advice isn't "throw less," it's "have the lead more often." Even if you get that lead by throwing more, apparently.

Exactly, we got the lead, then ran it to control TOP and wear down their D.

Simple really: Get up early then run to control game
 

TonyS

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
1,898
Exactly, we got the lead, then ran it to control TOP and wear down their D.

Simple really: Get up early then run to control game

Its the getting up early that's the hardest part. I find that more as I get older as well! ;)
 

Jarv

Loud pipes saves lives.
Messages
13,804
Reaction score
8,670
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Staubach/Thomas-1971
Staubach/Tony D-1977
Aikman/Smith-1992
Aikman/Smith-1993
Aikman/Smith-1995

History tells us we have never won a super bowl without a dominate QB/RB combination. Tony is still a top 10 QB when healthy. Morris and Dmac are good running backs, but not in the same league as Duane, Tony and Emmitt.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Exactly, we got the lead, then ran it to control TOP and wear down their D.

Simple really: Get up early then run to control game
When we were passing more, that not only got us the lead, but also controlled the clock. We weren't anything special running the ball with Murray when defenses were expecting run.

In the 1st half of games in 2014, we ran 46% of the time, and our average TOP was 3:18, which led the NFL. So we were slightly pass-heavy, and we controlled the clock better than any other team.

In the 2nd half, when we were running 53% of the time, our TOP dropped to 2:44 (14th)

When protecting a one-score lead in the 4th quarter, we ran nearly 70% of the time, and our average TOP was 2:30 (24th).
 

dfense

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,109
Reaction score
6,542
Cowboys don't have running back to match their philosophy

11:08 PM ET
  • i

    Jean-Jacques TaylorESPN Staff Writer
Philosophically, the Dallas Cowboys want to win games with the running game as the epicenter of their offense, which means quarterback Tony Romo doesn’t have to be their savior every week.

They're going to attempt to do it in 2016 with a running back with a history of breaking down, another coming off the worst season of his career and a third who suffered a torn ACL last October and who might not be ready to play when the season begins in September.

This approach makes little sense.

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas-cowb...t-have-running-back-to-match-their-philosophy

Or, you could look at it like McFadden was healthy all year despite having the most carries of his career in a season despite not starting several games, second most yards he's ever had or the best YPC since 2011.

And with Alfred Morris you get an extremely level headed dependable RB. He can block, catch, a complete back. He's a one cut downhill runner, how does that not fit the Cowboys scheme??? Shanahan's zone scheme seemed to fit him just fine.

He had six games last year with single digit carries. New coach, new line, new scheme. The guy they drafted to replace him had less yards per carry. And the best part is, Morris will be fired up playing against his old team twice a year. When Washington falls back to reality and Dallas takes the division again, Skins fans will be grinding their teeth for letting their best back help Dallas get over on them again.

Sometimes I wonder if JJT's glass is every half full.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
This article doesn't make any sense. They want to win in the running game and they have three backs that all have proven that can be effective at one point or another. They could still end up with Elliot from the draft too.
 

sbark

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,214
Reaction score
4,408
Food for thought....saw stats where the ndsu bison on their run to 5 straight championships wrote the ncaa record books on time of possession several times....and that includes both fcs and fbs teams.(Bama etc) Wentz come from a system that is exactly what garret wants to run...did run with Murray.
 

NEODOG

44cowboys22
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,735
Food for thought....saw stats where the ndsu bison on their run to 5 straight championships wrote the ncaa record books on time of possession several times....and that includes both fcs and fbs teams.(Bama etc) Wentz come from a system that is exactly what garret wants to run...did run with Murray.

That is a telling sign......
 

lkelly

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
6,417
Staubach/Thomas-1971
Staubach/Tony D-1977
Aikman/Smith-1992
Aikman/Smith-1993
Aikman/Smith-1995

History tells us we have never won a super bowl without a dominate QB/RB combination. Tony is still a top 10 QB when healthy. Morris and Dmac are good running backs, but not in the same league as Duane, Tony and Emmitt.

The game has changed a lot since 1995.

Since the Rams won with Warner/Faulk, there have been very few winning teams with dominant QBs and RBs. Why you would selectively pick Dallas teams for your trend analysis (is there something specific to the climate in Dallas or perhaps the water that makes them different from every other franchise?) is beyond me. I would think that you would want to look at teams who HAVE won Super Bowls in the last few decades to establish success criteria. I guess history tells us that Miami can't win Super Bowls with big name stars on defense or the Jets can't win a Super Bowl without a playboy QB from Alabama. Philadelphia, Minnesota, and Buffalo will never win Super Bowls. Well, I guess there's some good to come out of History.
 

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,032
Reaction score
22,626
When we were passing more, that not only got us the lead, but also controlled the clock. We weren't anything special running the ball with Murray when defenses were expecting run.

In the 1st half of games in 2014, we ran 46% of the time, and our average TOP was 3:18, which led the NFL. So we were slightly pass-heavy, and we controlled the clock better than any other team.

In the 2nd half, when we were running 53% of the time, our TOP dropped to 2:44 (14th)

When protecting a one-score lead in the 4th quarter, we ran nearly 70% of the time, and our average TOP was 2:30 (24th).

Zone blocking is a little easier to blitz and attack for penetrations. Someone is usually free from the off side.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
When we were passing more, that not only got us the lead, but also controlled the clock. We weren't anything special running the ball with Murray when defenses were expecting run.

In the 1st half of games in 2014, we ran 46% of the time, and our average TOP was 3:18, which led the NFL. So we were slightly pass-heavy, and we controlled the clock better than any other team.

In the 2nd half, when we were running 53% of the time, our TOP dropped to 2:44 (14th)

When protecting a one-score lead in the 4th quarter, we ran nearly 70% of the time, and our average TOP was 2:30 (24th).

That's because time of possession actually has little to do with how much you run or how well you run. Lots of people think that simply running the ball will control the clock, because teams run the ball at the end of games to try to run out the clock. In reality, all that does is ensure that at least SOME time will run off the clock (or the opponent will have to use timeouts to stop it), rather than risking incomplete passes that automatically stop the clock. But if you want to control the clock throughout the game, the key is NOT how often or how well you run it, it's a high completion percentage and picking up first downs, especially on third downs. The correlations are very clear on that. The team that led in offensive time of possession last season was Atlanta, which was 16th in rushing attempts and 25th in YPC -- but eighth in completion percentage and second in third-down conversion rate. Meanwhile, run-heavy teams that had low completion rates and low third-down conversion rates finished near the bottom in offensive time of possession.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
If you want to control the clock throughout the game, the key is NOT how often or how well you run it, it's a high completion percentage and picking up first downs, especially on third downs.
Sure looks like it.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Zone blocking is a little easier to blitz and attack for penetrations. Someone is usually free from the off side.
Doubt that had anything to do with it. Our TOP was much, much better in the first 8 games of 2015, before we started to incorporate more man blocking.

games 1-8: 3:23 (1st)
games 9-16: 2:37 (18th)
 

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,032
Reaction score
22,626
Doubt that had anything to do with it. Our TOP was much, much better in the first 8 games of 2015, before we started to incorporate more man blocking.

games 1-8: 3:23 (1st)
games 9-16: 2:37 (18th)

Not so fast, Percy...Randle was the starter for the first four games. :)

And for the second half of the season, no one, not even their pet dogs, respected the Dallas passing game...
 

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,032
Reaction score
22,626
And your point?

reread the response now, and then apply to apps being presented...they have to be adjusted to players and then schemes used. But with a lack of complete respect for a passing game that was disrespected more as the season progressed as well.

The Viet Namese were defeatable, because they attacked systems, and not the basis of policy.

More was on the Dallas running game, albeit still pretty good, than gravity.

I initially described how the zone blocking scheme is effectively countered. That is upon principals applied, not a multi affected end result. i.e. like sending in hords to defeat a better position.

Function revolves around applications. Stats reflect the applictions, not all intervening factors.
 
Last edited:

silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,874
Reaction score
1,698
This current state of RBs is better than our current state last year.

Yes it is, but they were counting on Gurley, coming off an ACL, to drop to them at 28 last year. Randle & McFadden were plan C after they missed on Gurley and Adrian Peterson via trade.
 

Risen Star

Likes Collector
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
212,482
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Yes it is, but they were counting on Gurley, coming off an ACL, to drop to them at 28 last year. Randle & McFadden were plan C after they missed on Gurley and Adrian Peterson via trade.

My point is last year's group had them confident enough to not force a RB pick in the draft. I don't know why this year's group wouldn't do the same. Not only is it better but they are now even more invested in them.
 

Fla Cowpoke

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,025
Reaction score
12,046
reread the response now, and then apply to apps being presented...they have to be adjusted to players and then schemes used. But with a lack of complete respect for a passing game that was disrespected more as the season progressed as well.

The Viet Namese were defeatable, because they attacked systems, and not the basis of policy.

More was on the Dallas running game, albeit still pretty good, than gravity.

I initially described how the zone blocking scheme is effectively countered. That is upon principals applied, not a multi affected end result. i.e. like sending in hords to defeat a better position.

Function revolves around applications. Stats reflect the applictions, not all intervening factors.

Can you throw in a pee down the nub and maybe a couple burn barrel references? Might clear things up.
 
Top