Mark this one down, because I'll be referring back to it for the next couple of years

[Doomsday101]

I agree Dooms. We have a rich history of RBs catching the ball, blocking and running.

It is about having top players regardless of the position. I keep hearing that RB are a dime a dozen? I think an avg WR is a dime a dozen same with a QB or any other position. What makes the differance is when the player is beyond the avg an elite player be it WR,TE or RB then you have the better chance of winning.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If we wanted to take Ingram, I would favor trading back rather then taking him at 9 but at the end of the day, I do agree with you Dooms. You gotta have good players. You can have a decent player but that's not what you strive for and you certainly must have good players at key positions. I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Doomsday101]

If we wanted to take Ingram, I would favor trading back rather then taking him at 9 but at the end of the day, I do agree with you Dooms. You gotta have good players. You can have a decent player but that's not what you strive for and you certainly must have good players at key positions. I agree with what you are saying.

I feel the same. I like Ingram but he would not be my pick at 9

 

[realtick]

Previous poster is correct, I did say touches and you are nobody to decide what is muddled or not. You are entitled to your own opinion but that's it. You don't agree? It's OK if you don't but it won't change anything. RBs run the ball, catch the ball, block. That's what RBs do in the modern NFL. Sorry you don't agree. I guess you can just move along.

Um, yeah, I am one to declare if something is muddled or not, especially if it's coming from you. You're well known for butchering numbers, fact, and simply making up nonsense, such as Julius Peterson playing safety for the 49ers.

I knew the second DFWJC mentioned the fact you said "touches," you would use it as an out.

Here's what you said originally: "...it's true that you don't see 25 to 30 carry backs much anymore but, you do see backs with 20 touches or more, per game."

So what's your point? You bring up the fact there aren't many "25 to 30 carry backs" and then transition into "touches?"

Here's news: Emmitt and other backs must have been considered 30-35 "touch" backs then, because not only were they getting 25+ carries a game, but they were also catching 5-8 passes a game.

Emmitt averaged 28 "touches" a game in '94 and '95. Priest Holmes 27.3 in 2002. Larry Johnson 28.6 in '06.

The point is, being a "20 touch" guy is not a big deal at all and the overall general point is far less teams are utilizing a sole feature back attack. The vast majority of teams utilize a tandem or even a trio like Dallas has the past few years.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Um, yeah, I am one to declare if something is muddled or not, especially if it's coming from you. You're well known for butchering numbers, fact, and simply making up nonsense, such as Julius Peterson playing safety for the 49ers.

I knew the second DFWJC mentioned the fact you said "touches," you would use it as an out.

Here's what you said originally: "...it's true that you don't see 25 to 30 carry backs much anymore but, you do see backs with 20 touches or more, per game."

So what's your point? You bring up the fact there aren't many "25 to 30 carry backs" and then transition into "touches?"

Here's news: Emmitt and other backs must have been considered 30-35 "touch" backs then, because not only were they getting 25+ carries a game, but they were also catching 5-8 passes a game.

Emmitt averaged 28 "touches" a game in '94 and '95. Priest Holmes 27.3 in 2002. Larry Johnson 28.6 in '06.

The point is, being a "20 touch" guy is not a big deal at all and the overall general point is far less teams are utilizing a sole feature back attack. The vast majority of teams utilize a tandem or even a trio like Dallas has the past few years.

Well, this is how it usually works. You don't understand what it is that has been said and you post something that is in conflict with what was actually said. When you are proven wrong, you claim that people are making stuff up. Well, I said at the outset that 20 + touches does happen. I said that about 40% of NFL teams have backs that average 20 touches or more a game. Now you claim that I'm making stuff up or whatever.

Your wrong on this and what I said earlier is exactly accurate. You are nobody to try and accuse any poster of muddling anything.

Say good night realtrick.

 

[JPM]

Is this a preemptive rue thread ?

 

[Randy White]

If you look at the carries for the entire season and then look back to 1993 there is not much of a differance. I think the notion that some how running means less is non sense.

In 1993 you had 2 RB that carried the ball over 300 times in the season.
Jump ahead to 2010 you 7 RB who had 300 more more carries.

I keep hearing some of the same people say RB are a dime a dozen now days and all I would say is any avg player is a dime a dozen no matter what position you play but elite players are not a dime a dozen including RB

 

[Randy White]

Bills suck, Panthers suck, and the Colts are totally regretting those picks. Peyton Hillis is terrible and a good O-line made him look good for a chunk of the season.

Colts regret drafting Brown and Addai ? Really ? You don't believe that. Panthers suck, but certainly it's NOT because of their RBs, or Bills for that matter.

Making a point that the Cowboys don't need to draft a RB in the 1st round, which is a valid one, doesn't need to turn into hyperbole central.

And by the way, in 1990, the Cowboys didn't need to draft a RB in the 1st round either and only ended up drafting one because the Bengals took the LB they wanted.

How did that turned out ?

 

[realtick]

Well, this is how it usually works. You don't understand what it is that has been said and you post something that is in conflict with what was actually said. When you are proven wrong, you claim that people are making stuff up. Well, I said at the outset that 20 + touches does happen. I said that about 40% of NFL teams have backs that average 20 touches or more a game. Now you claim that I'm making stuff up or whatever.

Your wrong on this and what I said earlier is exactly accurate. You are nobody to try and accuse any poster of muddling anything.

Say good night realtrick.

Lol, let me help you.

You said, "I think this running back by committee idea is a bit of a misnomer."

Please, indulge us.

Do you believe few teams are utilizing a running back by committee approach nowadays?

The fact is more teams are utilizing a multi-back approach and only a handful of teams have a predominantly single-back attack.

The data also demonstrates that point. There were only six running backs in the entire league that averaged 20+ carries per game. The leader in fact averaged only 21.4 per game.

You want to look at combined "touches?"

Fine.

The numbers also bare out that individual running back "touches" have also trended downward.

Why?

Because those touches or being spread out to other running backs on the same team.

Thanks for playing.

I anticipate your next nonsensical response that addresses none of the points I just gave you.

 

[Randy White]

Previous poster is correct, I did say touches and you are nobody to decide what is muddled or not. You are entitled to your own opinion but that's it. You don't agree? It's OK if you don't but it won't change anything. RBs run the ball, catch the ball, block. That's what RBs do in the modern NFL. Sorry you don't agree. I guess you can just move along.

And the " ancient " NFL too..

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lol, let me help you.

You said, "I think this running back by committee idea is a bit of a misnomer."

Please, indulge us.

Do you believe few teams are utilizing a running back by committee approach nowadays?

The fact is more teams are utilizing a multi-back approach and only a handful of teams have a predominantly single-back attack.

The data also demonstrates that point. There were only six running backs in the entire league that averaged 20+ carries per game. The leader in fact averaged only 21.4 per game.

You want to look at combined "touches?"

Fine.

The numbers also bare out that individual running back "touches" have also trended downward.

Why?

Because those touches or being spread out to other running backs on the same team.

Thanks for playing.

I anticipate your next nonsensical response that addresses none of the points I just gave you.

I think you should focus on helping yourself here. You seem to be having a tough time just managing that.

Here is actually what I said:

I think this running back by committee idea is a bit of a misnomer. I mean, it's true that you don't see 25 to 30 carry backs much anymore but, you do see backs with 20 touches or more, per game. in fact, there are at least 13 starting backs that averaged 20 touches or more, per game. Would have been more had some of those backs not sustained injuries.

That's about 40% of all starting backs in the NFL. Anybody who thinks that it's not important to have a staple back in your backfield is not paying attention IMO. A back that can stay in the backfield regardless of situation is VERY valuable. It's not just the number of carries but what each back can do. If you know that one back is short yardage, or one is a pass catching specialist or one is strictly a blocking back, then you tip your hand offensively and you limit yourself. It's very important to have the kind of back that can give you 20 or more good touches, can pick up the blitz, can get out into the pattern and make the defense respect his ability to catch the football. If you don't have this, then your creating problems for yourself.

I fail to see how you can't understand what I'm saying here. So yeah, you can bring in 3 backs and rotate them but that doesn't mean anything really. I understand saving a back and substituting but I believe that you need a staple back who can run, catch and block in your offense for the majority of snaps. A carry the load type back that can give you 20 quality touches.

I mean, we all understand that teams are splitting carries and why. I just don't think that you pass up a guy who can be a three down back back for your offense just because you might need to take him in the 1st round. I can understand the position some might take that says you don't take him at number 5 if his value is not better then the 15th best player but I don't agree that you should not take a back high because you can find backs in the 4th round or whatever. You can find backs in the lower rounds but that doesn't mean you shouldn't draft a back high IMO. It's a relative thing IMO. A back who can give you 20 quality touches and stay in to pick up the blitz is a rare thing in the NFL these days. They are worth a higher pick IMO.

Carries are not the only thing that backs do. It's a given that the number of offensive plays are increasing, especially if your a good team. You pass the ball more. That means that Backs are going to catch more passes and they are going to have to be more involved in pass protection. It's not just about carries.

I'm sorry if you don't feel I've addressed your points. This was never about you. It was a post about what I thought about the position. If it falls short of addressing your points, sorry about that.

 

[AsthmaField]

I fail to see how you can't understand what I'm saying here. So yeah, you can bring in 3 backs and rotate them but that doesn't mean anything really. I understand saving a back and substituting but I believe that you need a staple back who can run, catch and block in your offense for the majority of snaps. A carry the load type back that can give you 20 quality touches.

I mean, we all understand that teams are splitting carries and why. I just don't think that you pass up a guy who can be a three down back back for your offense just because you might need to take him in the 1st round. I can understand the position some might take that says you don't take him at number 5 if his value is not better then the 15th best player but I don't agree that you should not take a back high because you can find backs in the 4th round or whatever. You can find backs in the lower rounds but that doesn't mean you shouldn't draft a back high IMO. It's a relative thing IMO. A back who can give you 20 quality touches and stay in to pick up the blitz is a rare thing in the NFL these days. They are worth a higher pick IMO.

Carries are not the only thing that backs do. It's a given that the number of offensive plays are increasing, especially if your a good team. You pass the ball more. That means that Backs are going to catch more passes and they are going to have to be more involved in pass protection. It's not just about carries.

I'm sorry if you don't feel I've addressed your points. This was never about you. It was a post about what I thought about the position. If it falls short of addressing your points, sorry about that.

Bingo.

 

[realtick]

I fail to see how you can't understand what I'm saying here. So yeah, you can bring in 3 backs and rotate them but that doesn't mean anything really. I understand saving a back and substituting but I believe that you need a staple back who can run, catch and block in your offense for the majority of snaps. A carry the load type back that can give you 20 quality touches.

I mean, we all understand that teams are splitting carries and why. I just don't think that you pass up a guy who can be a three down back back for your offense just because you might need to take him in the 1st round. I can understand the position some might take that says you don't take him at number 5 if his value is not better then the 15th best player but I don't agree that you should not take a back high because you can find backs in the 4th round or whatever. You can find backs in the lower rounds but that doesn't mean you shouldn't draft a back high IMO. It's a relative thing IMO. A back who can give you 20 quality touches and stay in to pick up the blitz is a rare thing in the NFL these days. They are worth a higher pick IMO.

Carries are not the only thing that backs do. It's a given that the number of offensive plays are increasing, especially if your a good team. You pass the ball more. That means that Backs are going to catch more passes and they are going to have to be more involved in pass protection. It's not just about carries.

I'm sorry if you don't feel I've addressed your points. This was never about you. It was a post about what I thought about the position. If it falls short of addressing your points, sorry about that.

Now we're gettin somewhere. So you believe a team needs a "staple" back.

Yet, recent history flys in the face of that theory. So why exactly do you need a "staple" back for?

Who was the "staple" back for the Green Bay Packer this season?

Was it Brandon Jackson (2nd round pick) or James Starks (6th round pick)?

Matter a fact, who is the Saints "staple" back when they won the Super Bowl?

Was it Mike Bell (undrafted)?

Was it Pierre Thomas (undrafted)?

Or, was it Reggie Bush (1st round, 2nd overall)?

Your answer: All of them

Who was for the Steelers in '08....Mewelde Moore (588 yards) or Willie Parker (791 yards).

How about the NY Giants in '07...Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward or Reubhen Droughns?

You also posit the notion that multi-pronged running attacks are too predictable because defenses key in on RB's being used in specific roles.

First, I don't agree with that notion one bit. Second, and most importantly, the predominant thinking by offensive coordinators across the league clearly disagree with your notion.

Moving on...

You bring up the idea of why you shouldn't pass on a talented running back et cetera.

Here's the specific problem as it relates to the Cowboys:

1) Running back is clearly not a position of need. Garrett has clearly bought into Felix Jones as the primary back. Tashard Choice, who is still under contract is likely the main backup.

2) Drafting a player like Ingram in the 1st round does nothing to address the real issue: the offensive line.

3) Folks take the concept of drafting BPA in a rigid sense. Teams should be drafting the BPA out of a position of need. In the Cowboys case...OL, DL, and secondary. Running back doesn't come anywhere close to a position of need.

4) If you say "hey, we can draft an OL in the 2nd round or beyond..." then you're being glib. The reality is the talent pool of available prospects goes dramatically down with each subsequent round.


What's funny is this whole "let's draft Mark Ingram!" silliness is based around a bunch of assumptions:

I. Mark Ingram is the next Emmitt Smith...
II. Mark Ingram is a can't miss running back prospect...
III. The Cowboys can address their offensive line woes in later rounds....

 

[Avery]

Ingram would get three yards per carry behind our line.

 

[SDogo]

What's funny is this whole "let's draft Mark Ingram!" silliness is based around a bunch of assumptions:

I. Mark Ingram is the next Emmitt Smith...
II. Mark Ingram is a can't miss running back prospect...
III. The Cowboys can address their offensive line woes in later rounds....

Quoted for truth

 

[Randy White]

Quoted for truth

" truth ? " .. Ain't that a little egotistical ? :laugh2:

 

[UnoDallas]

Why Selecting Best Player Available in NFL Draft a Myth

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2011/03/why-selecting-best-player-available-in-nfl-draft-a-myth/

No general manager always selects the BPA. Many, however, select the BPA at a position of need.

 

[realtick]

Why Selecting Best Player Available in NFL Draft a Myth

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2011/03/why-selecting-best-player-available-in-nfl-draft-a-myth/

No general manager always selects the BPA. Many, however, select the BPA at a position of need.

Egggzactly....

 

[Sarge]

Taking Ingram would be par for the course. This is what has gotten us in the hole we are in. RB is not a position of need and we have MANY needs. Kinda like drafting another TE - stupid.

Ingram will be a great RB, make no mistake, but how's about we give FJ a bit of a chance behind a REAL OL before taking another RB in the first round only to play him, perhaps half the time.

Nope, makes no sense to me.

.02.

Really doesn't matter b/c we are taking Prince anyways.

 

[SDogo]

" truth ? " .. Ain't that a little egotistical ? :laugh2:

I see what you did there!
: