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

[realtick]

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.

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

It's funny, in '09 we didn't hear not a one complaint when Felix was averaging 5.9 ypc (685 yards), Choice at 5.5 ypc (349 yards) and MBIII at 4.4 ypc (932 yards).

There was no cry for the need of a sole "feature...staple" back.

There was no lament regarding our three-pronged rushing attack.

So what happened?

What's more likely?

That a running back trio ages 22, 25 and 26 (going into the '10 season) all of a sudden sucked?

Or, that an offensive line that added a first-time starter at LT to a bunch of guys aged 31, 32, 32, and 32, started showing wear-and-tear and their age?

I think the most likely answer is the latter.

Adding another RB like Mark Ingram is like putting perfume on body funk; it doesn't address the real issue.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

Yes. I believe a team needs at least one back, which I will designate as "Staple" that can provide quality touches, can pick up the blitz and that has the ability to force defenses to respect his pass catching abilities.

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

I don't know if recent history supports your position or not. I think that this is more of an opinion then a fact but I am willing to discuss it.

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)?

I would say Jackson was there primary back but I would not call him a staple back. I would say that Ryan Grant is the Packers Staple Back. Unfortunately for the Packers, Grant was hurt in their first game but if you look at the Packers offense in recent years, you will see that they believe in using a staple back. for Example:

2009: Grant had 307 touches over 16 games which averages just over 19 touches a contest.

2008: Grant had 330 touches over 16 games which averages Just over 20 touches a contest.

The Packers used several backs throughout the year and were succesful but I do believe that the Packers believe in using a staple back if given the chance.

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)?

I actually think that the Saints used Chris Ivory more this year then any other back but I don't know for certain. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Mike Bell as he was traded to Philly and ended up in Cleveland if I'm not mistaken so he wasn't even with the Saints in 2010.

I'm also pretty sure it wasn't Thomas. Pierre Thomas only started 3 games for the Saints in 2010 and was only active for 3 others. He played fairly sparingly in 2010.

To me, the Saints are a team that has adopted a multiple back system and I think it's in part, due to the fact that they did take Bush high (which I did not agree with). Bush can't be a staple back but they use him in the passing game a lot and in their return game so they have to use another back or two. That is there way but I don't really agree with it.

Your answer: All of them

I don't know what you are saying here.

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

In 08, it was Willie Parker for the Steelers who averaged just over 19 touches a game but he only played in 11 games before getting injured so the Steelers used Moore and in Moore's 4 starts, he averaged 24 touches a contests.

However, in recent history, the Steelers have demonstrated that they do believe in using a staple back approach. For Example:

2010 - Rashard Mendenhall 347 touches or just over 21 touches a contest.
2009 - Rashard Mendenhall 267 touches in 12 starts but if you look at just the starts, he averaged 19.83 touches in his rookie season.
2008 we've covered.
2007 - Willie Parker 344 touches in 15 starts for 22.93 touches per contest.
2006 - Willie Parker 368 touches in 16 starts for 23 touches per contest.

I mean, going back to the Jerome Bettis days and further, I think the Steelers have demonstrated that they are a team that believes in having a staple back in their offense. 2008, IMO, was a transition year from Willie Parker to Rashard Mendenhall.

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

I don't know about the Giants. I'm not certain if they believe in a primary back philosophy or not to be honest. I mean, in 2007, that was the first season after Tiki Barber but prior to that, they certainly believed in a staple back approach. After that, in 07, 08 and 09, they used a multiple back approach but they were trying to get to a primary back situation with Jacobs but he was hurt often. In 09, they have settled on Ahmad Bradshaw as there primary back. Bradshaw had over 20 touches per game in 2010. Will be interesting to see how that works out next season.

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...

It's fine that you don't agree. However, I would like to see proof of what offensive coordinators across the league are thinking that might lead you towards a conclusion that they either agree or disagree.

Lets not move on just yet on that.

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.

First, I will say that one has nothing to do with the other. I don't believe that you should pass on a talented back just because it might take a 1st round pick to get him but I didn't say that the Cowboys should or shouldn't take Ingram this year (I assume this is who you are suggesting).

Jones has to prove that he can be a staple back. He was not injured this year, which is a positive thing but he's got to learn to pick up blocking assignments and get better at picking up tough yards between the tackles if he wants to fill that role. TC, IMO, is just a guy. He's got some skills but he's not who I would view as a guy who could lead the team and be a primary starting back.

I don't know what Red is thinking but I don't know if he's convinced that he has what he wants at RB. To me, that's not something I'm convinced of.

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

Again, I didn't say we should draft him but if we do, I understand what Red might be thinking.

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.

You seem to be stuck on this whole idea of me wanting to draft a RB. Another example of you not really reading and understanding what I've been saying. Never said we should do this. Not once. Just said that if we did, I would be in favor of moving down and then taking him if that is what the Cowboys wanted to do.

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.

I don't really agree with this. Personally, I think the strength of this draft is in the late 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds of this draft for OLs. However, if you disagree, that's OK with me. I mean, I don't really see an OL that fits our needs and is worth taking at 9 but that is just my opinion.

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....

I take it that these are all your opinions? To my knowledge, I've said nothing like this in this thread. However, good to know where you stand.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

It's funny, in '09 we didn't hear not a one complaint when Felix was averaging 5.9 ypc (685 yards), Choice at 5.5 ypc (349 yards) and MBIII at 4.4 ypc (932 yards).

There was no cry for the need of a sole "feature...staple" back.

There was no lament regarding our three-pronged rushing attack.

So what happened?

What's more likely?

That a running back trio ages 22, 25 and 26 (going into the '10 season) all of a sudden sucked?

Or, that an offensive line that added a first-time starter at LT to a bunch of guys aged 31, 32, 32, and 32, started showing wear-and-tear and their age?

I think the most likely answer is the latter.

Adding another RB like Mark Ingram is like putting perfume on body funk; it doesn't address the real issue.

This isn't true. There were lots of people crying for Felix to be the starter and MBIII to be moved. That's all about wanting a primary back. There were also those who felt like Felix wasn't the guy because he was always hurt.

As for me, well, I've wanted to draft OLs for 5 years now but we haven't done it. Maybe this year, who knows but I do know this, I wouldn't take one at number 9 overall if it were my choice.

 

[realtick]

Yes. I believe a team needs at least one back, which I will designate as "Staple" that can provide quality touches, can pick up the blitz and that has the ability to force defenses to respect his pass catching abilities.

I would say Jackson was there primary back but I would not call him a staple back. I would say that Ryan Grant is the Packers Staple Back. Unfortunately for the Packers, Grant was hurt in their first game but if you look at the Packers offense in recent years, you will see that they believe in using a staple back. for Example:

2009: Grant had 307 touches over 16 games which averages just over 19 touches a contest.

2008: Grant had 330 touches over 16 games which averages Just over 20 touches a contest.

The Packers used several backs throughout the year and were succesful but I do believe that the Packers believe in using a staple back if given the chance.

I actually think that the Saints used Chris Ivory more this year then any other back but I don't know for certain. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Mike Bell as he was traded to Philly and ended up in Cleveland if I'm not mistaken so he wasn't even with the Saints in 2010.

I'm also pretty sure it wasn't Thomas. Pierre Thomas only started 3 games for the Saints in 2010 and was only active for 3 others. He played fairly sparingly in 2010.

To me, the Saints are a team that has adopted a multiple back system and I think it's in part, due to the fact that they did take Bush high (which I did not agree with). Bush can't be a staple back but they use him in the passing game a lot and in their return game so they have to use another back or two. That is there way but I don't really agree with it.

In 08, it was Willie Parker for the Steelers who averaged just over 19 touches a game but he only played in 11 games before getting injured so the Steelers used Moore and in Moore's 4 starts, he averaged 24 touches a contests.

However, in recent history, the Steelers have demonstrated that they do believe in using a staple back approach. For Example:

2010 - Rashard Mendenhall 347 touches or just over 21 touches a contest.
2009 - Rashard Mendenhall 267 touches in 12 starts but if you look at just the starts, he averaged 19.83 touches in his rookie season.
2008 we've covered.
2007 - Willie Parker 344 touches in 15 starts for 22.93 touches per contest.
2006 - Willie Parker 368 touches in 16 starts for 23 touches per contest.

I mean, going back to the Jerome Bettis days and further, I think the Steelers have demonstrated that they are a team that believes in having a staple back in their offense. 2008, IMO, was a transition year from Willie Parker to Rashard Mendenhall.

I don't know about the Giants. I'm not certain if they believe in a primary back philosophy or not to be honest. I mean, in 2007, that was the first season after Tiki Barber but prior to that, they certainly believed in a staple back approach. After that, in 07, 08 and 09, they used a multiple back approach but they were trying to get to a primary back situation with Jacobs but he was hurt often. In 09, they have settled on Ahmad Bradshaw as there primary back. Bradshaw had over 20 touches per game in 2010. Will be interesting to see how that works out next season.

ABQ, you've missed the entire point. Every one of those teams I mentioned ('10 Packers, '09 Saints, '08 Steelers, '07 Giants) were Super Bowl winners in that particular year. What the Packers did with Ryan Grant two or three seasons ago is irrelevant to what they did this season, which is win the Super Bowl with Brandon Jackson and James Starks at RB.

The point being, the greatest indicator of success is winning it all i.e. the Super Bowl. Each one of those teams I mentioned of recent history (ie. the current trend) have won the Super Bowl without a "staple" back.

You're saying you need evidence or proof, and I just gave four prime examples of teams that utilized a multi-back running attack and won the Super Bowl.

Beyond that, this whole discussion revolves around this ambigious notion of a "staple" back. You're insinuating Felix Jones is not a "staple" back, at least he hasn't proven it yet in your mind. Yet, you're inferring that soon-to-be rookie in Mark Ingram, who hasn't even touched an NFL field yet, is that bonified "staple" back.

That's ludicrous. Ingram hasn't proven he can tote an NFL workload; handle a complex offensive scheme; or even be a reliable pass-blocker.

It's fine that you don't agree. However, I would like to see proof of what offensive coordinators across the league are thinking that might lead you towards a conclusion that they either agree or disagree.

The proof is the numbers I gave you in previously in the thread regarding the decrease in the number of "touches" running backs are receiving of recent history.

Again...

Only six running backs in the entire league averaged 20+ carries last season. The #1 being Maurice Jones-Drew with just 21.4 carries per game.

For comparison, let's look back 5-6 years (2005 season): You have 11 RBs averaging 20+ carries. The top RB (Ed James) averaged 24 carries per game

Going back 10 season (year 2000) and you have eight RBs averaging 20+ carries, but the top 3 averaged 25.2, 24.8, and 24.2.

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.

I could list all the teams that utilize what most would agree is a "feature/staple" back. Off the top, I wanna say about only six or seven teams in the entire league.

 

[realtick]

This isn't true. There were lots of people crying for Felix to be the starter and MBIII to be moved. That's all about wanting a primary back. There were also those who felt like Felix wasn't the guy because he was always hurt.

As for me, well, I've wanted to draft OLs for 5 years now but we haven't done it. Maybe this year, who knows but I do know this, I wouldn't take one at number 9 overall if it were my choice.

I believe most at the time wanted Felix to get more carries, but mostly everyone was happy with the net production that all three running backs yielded.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ, you've missed the entire point. Every one of those teams I mentioned ('10 Packers, '09 Saints, '08 Steelers, '07 Giants) were Super Bowl winners in that particular year. What the Packers did with Ryan Grant two or three seasons ago is irrelevant to what they did this season, which is win the Super Bowl with Brandon Jackson and James Starks at RB.

The point being, the greatest indicator of success is winning it all i.e. the Super Bowl. Each one of those teams I mentioned of recent history (ie. the current trend) have won the Super Bowl without a "staple" back.

You're saying you need evidence or proof, and I just gave four prime examples of teams that utilized a multi-back running attack and won the Super Bowl.

Beyond that, this whole discussion revolves around this ambigious notion of a "staple" back. You're insinuating Felix Jones is not a "staple" back, at least he hasn't proven it yet in your mind. Yet, you're inferring that soon-to-be rookie in Mark Ingram, who hasn't even touched an NFL field yet, is that bonified "staple" back.

That's ludicrous. Ingram hasn't proven he can tote an NFL workload; handle a complex offensive scheme; or even be a reliable pass-blocker.



The proof is the numbers I gave you in previously in the thread regarding the decrease in the number of "touches" running backs are receiving of recent history.

Again...

Only six running backs in the entire league averaged 20+ carries last season. The #1 being Maurice Jones-Drew with just 21.4 carries per game.

For comparison, let's look back 5-6 years (2005 season): You have 11 RBs averaging 20+ carries. The top RB (Ed James) averaged 24 carries per game

Going back 10 season (year 2000) and you have eight RBs averaging 20+ carries, but the top 3 averaged 25.2, 24.8, and 24.2.

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.

I could list all the teams that utilize what most would agree is a "feature/staple" back. Off the top, I wanna say about only six or seven teams in the entire league.

I have not missed any point in the way of what you are trying to say. I'm simply saying that each of those teams have gotten back to trying to establish a primary Staple back. If coaches or OCs do not believe in this approach, as you have eluded to earlier, the teams you mentioned wouldn't have gone back to trying to establish that sort of offense again.

As for Jones, I am insinuating nothing. He has to prove it and to this point, that hasn't happened IMO.

How many teams do utilize this approach or not is established. Roughly 40% of the NFL does this. At no point did I say anything other then this.

So to sum it up, while I do think it's interesting that Green Bay, New Orleans and the Giants used this approach (I don't agree that Pittsburgh did, they had primary staple backs, they just had two as one was injured mid season), I don't think it says that you should not try and find that back that can be a staple back. It does prove that you can win it all without that kind of back but I don't think it's proof that you should not employee that approach.

I will say this. I enjoy this kind of discussion much more then I do the back and forth with jabs etc. I thank you for having discussion based on a more logical deductions approach.

 

[Doomsday101]

There is more than one way to win it all. I hate it when people say this is how these other teams won the SB however that is not the only way to win it all. If you are lucky to have a dominate RB you can achieve a SB just as well. Fact is the rules have not changed much since the Cowboys of the 90's won SB heck back then you had ample teams running more pass oriented systems like SF,Buff and GB while the Cowboys used a dominate running game to achieve greatness. To think there is only one way to win and that is by trying to copy others in my view is a mistake.

 

[realtick]

There is more than one way to win it all. I hate it when people say this is how these other teams won the SB however that is not the only way to win it all. If you are lucky to have a dominate RB you can achieve a SB just as well. Fact is the rules have not changed much since the Cowboys of the 90's won SB heck back then you had ample teams running more pass oriented systems like SF,Buff and GB while the Cowboys used a dominate running game to achieve greatness. To think there is only one way to win and that is by trying to copy others in my view is a mistake.

Exactly how I feel, but for some reason a lot of Cowboy fans have this subconcious affinity for trying to reassemble the early 90's Cowboys.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Exactly how I feel, but for some reason a lot of Cowboy fans have this subconcious affinity for trying to reassemble the early 90's Cowboys.

I agree with this. As Cowboy fans, we do tend to lean towards this a bit. On the other hand, it's the last time that most of us can remember actually being dominant so I understand it. Speaking for me, it's more the approach that I like but at the end of the day, I think your statement on that issue holds water.

 

[Doomsday101]

Exactly how I feel, but for some reason a lot of Cowboy fans have this subconcious affinity for trying to reassemble the early 90's Cowboys.

True but then who says the only way to go to the SB is how GB did it? I think teams who are fortunate enough to have an elite RB has just as much of a chance at making it to a SB, one major key no matter if you are a predominate passing team or running team is having a very good defense.

The Cowboys of the 90's were not trying to copy what SF was doing they went out found a great back and played to our own strength to win.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Exactly how I feel, but for some reason a lot of Cowboy fans have this subconcious affinity for trying to reassemble the early 90's Cowboys.

For some reason? I'm not sure it's even subconscious with a lot of people.

 

[realtick]

True but then who says the only way to go to the SB is how GB did it? I think teams who are fortunate enough to have an elite RB has just as much of a chance at making it to a SB, one major key no matter if you are a predominate passing team or running team is having a very good defense.

The Cowboys of the 90's were not trying to copy what SF was doing they went out found a great back and played to our own strength to win.

I'm not saying Green Bay has the blueprint at all. There are so many factors that go into making a Super Bowl.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm not saying Green Bay has the blueprint at all. There are so many factors that go into making a Super Bowl.

Nor am I trying to recreate the 90's Cowboys. only stating that I do think even in today’s league that a team with a dominate running game can win it all.

 

[28 Joker]

According to Football Outsiders, Felix Jones' 2010 performance remained steady or constant when compared to his 2009 performance.

Felix Jones' 2009 DVOA rated 15th, and his 2010 DVOA rated 10th. He graded out better in 2010.

Felix Jones' 2009 DYAR rated 10th, and his 2010 DYAR rated 11th.

While Jones' performance remained constant, the offensive line's run blocking deteriorated significantly across the board in run blocking. There are numbers that show this, but all you have to do is watch the games.

It is a major reason to draft Tyron Smith, the best pass blocker in the draft, and a player who is extremely athletic and excels in space. Smith could be the cornerstone of your offensive line for the next 12 years.

I don't see J.J. Watt or Cameron Jordan being the cornerstone of your front seven or front four. Smith can get Felix Jones to daylight and in space and to the second level and open up the field on the right side for Jones. Mark Colombo was rated the second worst starting offensive tackle in the NFL according to Pro Football Focus and the worst starting RT in the NFL.

Football Outsiders rates Jones' performance better than 78% of the running backs in the NFL. Pro Football Focus rates Jones better than 72% of the running backs in the NFL.

Jones grades out significantly above average by both sources and ranks among the top 1/4 in the NFL in running backs.

Last year Jones' blocking, which graded out better than Barber's in 2009 according to Pro Football Focus, graded out better than Barber again and improved. Furthermore, Jones' grade as a receiver also helped his overall 2010 grade improve slightly over his 2009 grade according to Pro Football Focus. Jones caught 92.3% of the passes thrown his way (48/52).

Blogging the Boys did a story on this and has all of the data and explains the statistical measures if you are interested.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/1/10/1925952/dallas-cowboys-position-reviews-running-backs

One.Cool.Customer broke this all down.

 

[28 Joker]

Felix Jones' snaps increased from 271 (2009) to 572 in 2010 according to Pro Football Focus. Under Jason Garrett (last 8 games), Jones averaged 17 touches per game and 14 carries per game. Also, Jones averaged 99 total yards per game during the last 8 games. It was Dallas' inability to block Garrett's designed cut back counters (runs designed to give Felix Jones space and get him to the outside) that hurt Felix's rushing total and YPC. Felix got the tough yards inside last year and was Dallas' best runner in the redzone.

Jason Garrett has significantly praised Jones' tough inside running from 2010. All three interior linemen saw their run blocking decline significantly. There are numbers that show this, too. The full back was poor at clearing out holes, too. Dallas was pretty much relegated to being a left handed team on outside runs against the better run defenses (top 15) or fast run defenses like the Colts.

Felix Jones is a player in the mold of Marshall Faulk. Look at Marshall Faulk's average rushing attempts per game during his first 3 years with the Rams.

1999- 15.8

2000- 18.0

2001- 18.5

Faulk didn't average 20 carries per game in his three glory years, and he played in a very similar offense that Garrett runs. Faulk was a great receiver, too. However, Faulk didn't have a Hall of Fame TE (Jason Witten) on his team. So, Faulk was able to catch 87, 81, and 83 pass respectively. Faulk played in 14 regular season games in 2000 and 2001.


Marshall Faulk Touches Per Game (1999-2001):

1999- 21.2

2000- 23.8

2001- 24.5

It is Faulk's receptions that are driving up his touches, not his carries. Again, Faulk didn't have Jason Witten on his team.

In 2010, Jones proved that he is a great reciever, too.

Marshall Faulk was an explosive game breaking run/receiving threat. It was Faulk's total touches that counted, not his carries. Faulk didn't need 20 carries a game to bust 1000 yards. I don't think Felix Jones will need 20 carries per game to reach that mark, either. Jones had 800 rushing yards on only 185 carries in 2010.

Improve the worst RT in the NFL, a poor blocking fullback, and a significantly deteroriating and old interior of the offensive line, and the 60, 56, 40, 46, 49, and 73 yard runs will return and bolster Jones' rush total and his YPC.

I expect Felix Jones to average 14-16 carries per game next year and average around 20 touches per game next year, because he has already proven that he is capable of doing it. Garrett had Felix Jones on a 1300 total yard pace in the second half of the season. He would have reached that total if Kitna doesn't get hurt.