Joseph Randle released

[mickswag]

 

[RunDMC]

Lmao good! I don't care about this bum either.

 

[mrmojo]

LOL

 

[Stash]

Dallas is running the ball extremely well the past two weeks.

Hint, that ain't the issue, bud.

64 yards for your top guy? That's not "extremely well" bud.

And why is it only "the past two weeks" we're talking about bud?

Johnson has been good all year.

And now they're down to a hope and a prayer that McFadden stays healthy (good luck!) because they don't trust what they've got behind him.

 

[Stash]

That's monumental when your QB only throws for 97 yards.

You stay under that limbo bar!

 

[Stash]

They were pretty average last week. McFadden had 20 carries and 64 yds. Cassel got 45 lucky yards on scrambles. Michael had a nice run called back, but otherwise was meh.

Don't ruin his case with your facts!

 

[YosemiteSam]

Guys, he is gone. Get over it and move on!

 

[Sasquatch]

"Hi Joe, this is Tom .... Tom McGuin, the maintenance guy .... yeah, the one with the red hair and mustache ... Jerry just stopped by and asked me to call you to let you know that you've been released by the team .... yes, you're no longer employed by the Dallas Cowboys, that's right .... I don't know why he asked me to call you instead of calling you himself ...."

 

[xwalker]

You win in the NFL with passing. Your pass offense and pass defense beats theirs. It's not the running game that wins although as I've always argued you must have an effective running game. We do.

You won't run as well if you can't pass well and vice versa.

There is no way to measure how much the threat of the run helps the passing game. Rushing yards is not a good measurement of the rushing threat, especially when just looking at the total rushing yards in a game and comparing it to the rushing yards by the opponent in that game. Defenses adjust to limit rushing at the expense of pass defense. Two teams can have the same amount of total rushing yards but the defense played max run contain against 1 and max pass coverage against the other. It looks the same in the stats but if the defense played max run contain then that offense had and advantage when passing.

Passing Effectively equals winning 80% of the time is not much different than saying the team that scores more points wins. Obviously by the end of a game, the winning team likely was more effective passing than the losing team. There are many reasons for this to happen. The team that is ahead on the scoreboard can run their offense as planned in a nice orderly manner and likely pass effectively while the team that is behind will take risks and just throw the ball around. This is unlikely to result in passing effectively. It is the opposite with rushing. The winning team often runs to eat clock but those runs are not really "try hard" runs and will likely have below average yards per carry.

Basically just the act of winning is likely to improve passing effectiveness (i.e. Passing Effectively can be caused by winning). Like most statistical arguments, it's difficult to prove cause vs effect. It appears that some amount of passing effectively is an effect of winning instead of the PE theory that says that passing effectively is the cause of winning. I'm sure that it's some of both but how much of which is undetermined. Regardless, there's no way to infer anything about running in regards to winning because the relationship of running and passing is undetermined. How much does a strong rushing threat help the passing game? Even defining a strong rushing threat statistically would be next to impossible. What really causes a defensive coordinator to do certain things? How does he perceive a strong rushing threat? He obviously does not wait until the game is over and then look at the total rushing yards in that game to determine how much of a rushing threat that team is to him; however, that is what the supporters of the PE theory are tying to do when they claim rushing is not important to winning because the statistics that are available don't easily show it to correlate.

 

[erod]

64 yards for your top guy? That's not "extremely well" bud.

And why is it only "the past two weeks" we're talking about bud?

Johnson has been good all year.

And now they're down to a hope and a prayer that McFadden stays healthy (good luck!) because they don't trust what they've got behind him.

97 yards passing from Cassel.

What's Johnson getting from his QB?

 

[Idgit]

That's a pretty crappy tweet from Clarence. Jeez.

He has no idea what Randle's issues might be. Where he might be right now, what the circumstances might be under which he was cut. The HC himself gave the guy a call because Randle wasn't onsite because of whatever personal issue he's dealing with. What did he expect? Jason to drive to Randle's house mid-week to have a talk?

The team's also offering their player support program for Randle despite the fact that he's no long a Cowboy. I think that shows some care for this troubles. Don't you? Man, our local reporters just suck out loud. I can't stand muckraking crap like this.

 

[RunDMC]

97 yards passing from Cassel.

What's Johnson getting from his QB?

He's been hating on McFadden all year. Can't even give him credit when he's earned it. I highly doubt Chris Johnson does anymore against Seattle's front if he has Matt Cassel at quarterback.

Look at his lack of productivity in NY.

Yeah DMC will likely get hurt, but it won't be his fault. It'll be our moron owner who let Murray walk and refused to get a more reliable backup than Joseph Randle and Michael. Two bums who will be out of the league by next year.

 

[jobberone]

There's nothing "irrational" or "mythical" about it at all. Other than the fact that some SuperFans can't bear it and like to pretend it never happened. Their you can use the word "irrational".



Funny how it's a "crapshoot" when we draft crap, isn't it? And the hits go into the win column for the Cult of Garrett. If it's a crap shoot, they wouldn't be investing millions in salary for scouting and research. "Crapshoot" is an excuse made by losers who do a poor job of it.



No, what we have is a bust. A tissue soft, complete non-factor. Take your hands off from covering your eyes and come to terms with the fact this this guy and that pick used are a waste. This team has needed anyone and everyone to step up and this guy has pulled a complete disappearing act.

At least the other second round picks were wasted on backup TE's who could actually play in Fasano and Bennett. This guy is invisible, making this mistake the most egregious of them all.

What a nonsensical post. First of all don't call anyone here a name clearly meant to be derisive. Personally, I find it amusing you resort to name calling rather than vigorous, fair and civil debate. Others become more annoyed or angry so I'll ask you not to do that.

Generally demonizing others is more often due to lack of critical response. Thinking you failed a draft round in hindsight by drafting a player who has yet, and maybe never, become the player one picked afterwards is irrational.

I have little idea what Escobar will become and I don't know why they drafted him either. I'm a fan but not a huge fan so Superfan etc is not attributable to me and frankly a lot of others here who don't agree with some. They don't give him enough snaps even though he seems to play well enough when the opportunity arises. Perhaps he runs bad routes and Romo and the staff don't trust him. He's physical enough. His hands are good enough. Perhaps he's just stuck behind Witten. He's not a blocking TE although he's gotten better at it. I'm surprised they even pushed him in that direction. I wouldn't but I don't see the guy everyday. I don't know who he is inside. And neither do you.

Not sure why you brought Bell up. There are plenty of other examples of players drafted lower than others and outperform them. And the guy is out for the year. Clearly that has nothing to do with his talent but you can't help the team when you can't get onto the field. Yes, injuries lower value.

Funny how we are drafting very well according to many including fans here. Surely you aren't saying we are drafting poorly are you? If you want to bean pick over single round picks then go for it. It seems like a poor way to judge a draft. So I wouldn't call our draft crap despite your clever use of the words. I suggest you look at the failure rates from each round if you think draft success is better than the roll of a dice most rounds. You've been around long enough to have seen mine and others posts and graphs concerning this. If not search for the answers.

 

[mickswag]

That's a pretty crappy tweet from Clarence. Jeez.

He has no idea what Randle's issues might be. Where he might be right now, what the circumstances might be under which he was cut. The HC himself gave the guy a call because Randle wasn't onsite because of whatever personal issue he's dealing with. What did he expect? Jason to drive to Randle's house mid-week to have a talk?

The team's also offering their player support program for Randle despite the fact that he's no long a Cowboy. I think that shows some care for this troubles. Don't you? Man, our local reporters just suck out loud. I can't stand muckraking crap like this.

Yup, typical Clarence.

 

[Alexander]

LOL

My first reaction, then I see how the organization bent over backwards and rolled out the red carpet for a far less talented player in Josh Brent.

And I loathe Randle. But sends a bad message. I don't care how stupid he is, he deserves a face to face.

 

[Alexander]

That's a pretty crappy tweet from Clarence. Jeez.

He has no idea what Randle's issues might be. Where he might be right now, what the circumstances might be under which he was cut. The HC himself gave the guy a call because Randle wasn't onsite because of whatever personal issue he's dealing with. What did he expect? Jason to drive to Randle's house mid-week to have a talk?

The team's also offering their player support program for Randle despite the fact that he's no long a Cowboy. I think that shows some care for this troubles. Don't you? Man, our local reporters just suck out loud. I can't stand muckraking crap like this.

Yes, how dare he paint the Cowboys as being inconsistent.

Therefore, crappy tweet.

I would hope you are smart enough by now to figure out that the media people pick and choose their favorites.

But the facts are facts unless he is a total and complete liar.

 

[Stash]

97 yards passing from Cassel.

What's Johnson getting from his QB?

Better. Like one of the league's top offenses overall better. And he's a key part of the reason why.

If you want to give everything else a pass because "Romo's hurt", you go right ahead and do that.

Just don't expect anyone else to go there with you.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, how dare he paint the Cowboys as being inconsistent.

Therefore, crappy tweet.

I would hope you are smart enough by now to figure out that the media people pick and choose their favorites.

But the facts are facts unless he is a total and complete liar.

It's not a crappy tweet because it's inconsistent, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's a crappy tweet because it's negative and just plain wrong. The reason they called Randle is overwhelmingly likely to be because he's unable to be onsite the way a player is in a normal situation. In which case, to paint it as a lack of caring for the guy is completely unfair to the team. Secondly the team's HC did give the guy a call when the face to face was apparently not possible. Thirdly, as I said, the team said in the very same press conference that they were extending assistance to Randle. Assistance that's normally only given to players on the roster.

So, here we have a tweet that's out of context, missing relevant information for no other reason than to paint the team in a negative light, and you defending it for God-knows-what reason. Yeah, like I said, this sucks out loud. It's garbage.

 

[Stash]

What a nonsensical post. First of all don't call anyone here a name clearly meant to be derisive. Personally, I find it amusing you resort to name calling rather than vigorous, fair and civil debate. Others become more annoyed or angry so I'll ask you not to do that.

Where was the "name calling"?

Thinking you failed a draft round in hindsight by drafting a player who has yet, and maybe never, become the player one picked afterwards is irrational.

No, what is "irrational" is in trying to pretend the mistake never happened.

I have little idea what Escobar will become and I don't know why they drafted him either. I'm a fan but not a huge fan so Superfan etc is not attributable to me and frankly a lot of others here who don't agree with some. They don't give him enough snaps even though he seems to play well enough when the opportunity arises. Perhaps he runs bad routes and Romo and the staff don't trust him. He's physical enough. His hands are good enough. Perhaps he's just stuck behind Witten. He's not a blocking TE although he's gotten better at it. I'm surprised they even pushed him in that direction. I wouldn't but I don't see the guy everyday. I don't know who he is inside. And neither do you.

When does he "play well"? One game a year?

I see tons of attempts at excuses for a guy who has contributed next to nothing since he's been here. And yet, ultimately, no matter the reason, he just doesn't produce anything.

Not sure why you brought Bell up. There are plenty of other examples of players drafted lower than others and outperform them. And the guy is out for the year. Clearly that has nothing to do with his talent but you can't help the team when you can't get onto the field. Yes, injuries lower value.

I brought him up because he's tied to Escobar, drafted one pick afterwards, and there for the Cowboys's taking, and he was in the same draft where we drafted Randle, so nobody making an excuse can say we didn't need a running back since we obviously did. And we followed up drafting a lemon at TE with drafting a lemon at RB.

Funny how we are drafting very well according to many including fans here. Surely you aren't saying we are drafting poorly are you? If you want to bean pick over single round picks then go for it. It seems like a poor way to judge a draft. So I wouldn't call our draft crap despite your clever use of the words. I suggest you look at the failure rates from each round if you think draft success is better than the roll of a dice most rounds. You've been around long enough to have seen mine and others posts and graphs concerning this. If not search for the answers.

No, don't get it twisted, overall they have done well. But it's not an all or nothing proposition. I can both praise their successes and criticize their failures. It's part of the same overall package, not mutually exclusive.

Whenever someone gets defensive about bad draft picks, it always takes me back to David Arkin. A funny double standard with him. People were scolded for criticizing him when he wasn't contributing, saying "you have to wait 3 years to judge the success or failure of a player and draft". And then, three years later, when Arkin was proven a bust, fans used the "don't dwell in the past" excuse.

A nice way for some to blind themselves to any failings their favorite team has.

 

[jobberone]

There is no way to measure how much the threat of the run helps the passing game. Rushing yards is not a good measurement of the rushing threat, especially when just looking at the total rushing yards in a game and comparing it to the rushing yards by the opponent in that game. Defenses adjust to limit rushing at the expense of pass defense. Two teams can have the same amount of total rushing yards but the defense played max run contain against 1 and max pass coverage against the other. It looks the same in the stats but if the defense played max run contain then that offense had and advantage when passing.

Passing Effectively equals winning 80% of the time is not much different than saying the team that scores more points wins. Obviously by the end of a game, the winning team likely was more effective passing than the losing team. There are many reasons for this to happen. The team that is ahead on the scoreboard can run their offense as planned in a nice orderly manner and likely pass effectively while the team that is behind will take risks and just throw the ball around. This is unlikely to result in passing effectively. It is the opposite with rushing. The winning team often runs to eat clock but those runs are not really "try hard" runs and will likely have below average yards per carry.

Basically just the act of winning is likely to improve passing effectiveness (i.e. Passing Effectively can be caused by winning). Like most statistical arguments, it's difficult to prove cause vs effect. It appears that some amount of passing effectively is an effect of winning instead of the PE theory that says that passing effectively is the cause of winning. I'm sure that it's some of both but how much of which is undetermined. Regardless, there's no way to infer anything about running in regards to winning because the relationship of running and passing is undetermined. How much does a strong rushing threat help the passing game? Even defining a strong rushing threat statistically would be next to impossible. What really causes a defensive coordinator to do certain things? How does he perceive a strong rushing threat? He obviously does not wait until the game is over and then look at the total rushing yards in that game to determine how much of a rushing threat that team is to him; however, that is what the supporters of the PE theory are tying to do when they claim rushing is not important to winning because the statistics that are available don't easily show it to correlate.

Not sure where you're going with all that but nothing has changed. Passing is king. Pass defense is queen.

Rushing stats are generally of no use. Some SB champions are last or near the bottom of the league in rushing efficiency. A look at team success is all over the place but negative and positive re: rushing efficiency. Not even talking rushing yards or A/YA nor was I so not sure why you brought that up other to generally discourse about the subject.

Never going to say rushing doesn't matter or pressure either. Blocking and tackling are cornerstones if we're talking football. One must rush effectively to keep defenses honest etc. That's it. No playoff success correlates with rushing, BTW.