- Messages
- 101,922
- Reaction score
- 112,971
I'm shocked.This basically doesn't change my opinion of the position at all.
I'm shocked.This basically doesn't change my opinion of the position at all.
Other way around. Rushing TD accounted for a bigger percentage of our total TD in 2015 than they did in 2014. The lack of a passing threat (and specifically, Weeden and Cassel combining for 1 TD pass from inside the 10-yard line in NINE games) allowed defenses to load up against the run, keeping our rushing TD total down.
Out away from the goal line, McFadden in short yardage was more effective than Murray the year before.
3rd or 4th and 1-2 to go, outside 5-yard line
2014 Murray 17 of 24 70.8%
2015 McFadden 13 of 16 81.3%
That's a distinct possibility considering they now have Morris and McFadden in place. Maybe they use that 4th round comp pick on a utility back like Prosise?
Give me Ervin instead and I am good.
I want to take the risk on Keith Marshall.
Because you are seduced by speed. You're sportin' Al Davis wood.
Other way around. Rushing TD accounted for a bigger percentage of our total TD in 2015 than they did in 2014. The lack of a passing threat (and specifically, Weeden and Cassel combining for 1 TD pass from inside the 10-yard line in NINE games) allowed defenses to load up against the run, keeping our rushing TD total down.
Out away from the goal line, McFadden in short yardage was more effective than Murray the year before.
3rd or 4th and 1-2 to go, outside 5-yard line
2014 Murray 17 of 24 70.8%
2015 McFadden 13 of 16 81.3%
I can only correct you so often before it starts to become obvious that you're ignoring it.Your quest to try and convince everyone our running game was better last season than in 2014 is laughable!
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
When you get close to the goal line, the defense can use the end line as an extra defender. With such a small area to defend and no passing threat to fear in 2015, defenses could focus on stopping our run. It wasn't that way early in the season, however.It seemed like (and I could be wrong about this) that McFadden got better at short yardage as the season progressed. Early on, he would hesitate, which would allow the defense to close on him. Later, he would just run hard at the hole, which allowed him to deliver more pop and get the needed yards.
I still don't see him as an optimal short-yardage option because of his build-up power. He also has never been much of a scoring back, with only one season in eight with more than 5 rushing TDs and most with 4 or less. Of course, some of that could correlate with a lack of rushing success since his 7-TD season also was his only other 1,000-yard season.
I can only correct you so often before it starts to become obvious that you're ignoring it.
I changed the quote to make it more specific. Of course the numbers speak for themselves, but more specifically there's a pattern that's developed where you make a statement like "McFadden was part of the reason we were so bad on 3rd and one," then I correct you with something like this:You corrected yourself and deleted your comment but you didn't delete it soon enough because I had already replied and quoted you. You said the numbers you posted speak for themselves because you believe and try to get others to believe that the Cowboys aren't what their record says they are they're what your stats say they are and it's become obvious you're ignoring it.
I changed the quote to make it more specific. Of course the numbers speak for themselves, but more specifically there's a pattern that's developed where you make a statement like "McFadden was part of the reason we were so bad on 3rd and one," then I correct you with something like this:
All short-yardage & goal line plays, 2015
McFadden 15 of 21 (71%)
rest of team 14 of 29 (48%)
and you ignore it completely, and go on with your narrative. Believe what you want to believe, but that's what happened on the field. What you or I say about it doesn't change anything.
I understand why one might look at the fact that Dallas ranked 31st on 3rd and 1, and conclude that it must be because of McFadden. What you need to do is go a little deeper than surface level, and realize first that the ranking applies to both run and pass plays on 3rd and 1. When you remove the pass plays on 3rd and 1, the ranking goes up to 27th. Then when you stop and think, "Why just 3rd and 1? Isn't 3rd and 2 also short yardage?" you see the ranking go up to 22nd. Then you think a little more, and you realize this completely leaves out 4th down -- an even more critical short-yardage situation than 3rd down. Now the ranking goes up to 17th.The facts are neither McFadden or the rest of our backs were efficient in short yardage and goal line situations which is why the Cowboys were the worst team in the league on 3rd and one and only scored 8 rushing TD's compared to 16 rushing TDs in 2014. Their inefficiency running the ball put pressure on our passing game which resulted in having to settle for a lot of FG attempts. This is why the Cowboys only averaged just over 17 points a game which was the second lowest in the entire league. You can post all the misleading stats you want to try and make it appear the team was more efficient than they were but their record and lack of TDs and points proves all these stats you post don't mean a damn thing in the big picture and is a waste of your time.
I understand why one might look at the fact that Dallas ranked 31st on 3rd and 1, and conclude that it must be because of McFadden. What you need to do is go a little deeper than surface level, and realize first that the ranking applies to both run and pass plays on 3rd and 1. When you remove the pass plays on 3rd and 1, the ranking goes up to 27th. Then when you stop and think, "Why just 3rd and 1? Isn't 3rd and 2 also short yardage?" you see the ranking go up to 22nd. Then you think a little more, and you realize this completely leaves out 4th down -- an even more critical short-yardage situation than 3rd down. Now the ranking goes up to 17th.
All of a sudden, you realize our short-yardage run game wasn't the league's worst after all, but instead was middle of the league. Maybe you still think, "Well that was the McFadden effect. We dropped from the 10th-best short-yardage running team in 2014 down to 17th in 2015 because McFadden replaced Murray." You can find out if that's true by comparing their conversion percentages on short-yardage runs.
2014 Murray 19 of 26 (73.1%)
2015 McFadden 13 of 17 (76.5%)
Add in runs from the 1- or 2-yard line on 1st or 2nd down (which are also short-yardage plays), and it looks like this:
2014 Murray 25 of 32 (78.1%)
2015 McFadden 15 of 21 (71.4%)
I think it's important that the only thing separating the short-yardage performances of the two backs is their 1st- and 2nd-down goal-line runs. It tells me that there must have been something different about the goal line runs, but what? Did Murray just have more of a nose for the goal line? That sounds good, but it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't also have had more of a nose for the first down marker. So it must have been something besides the RB. I think it was the QB, and the different ways that defenses approached short yardage, based on who the QB was. I think that near the goal line in 2015, defenses were able to concentrate their resources on stopping the run because they didn't have a large area of field to cover. In 2014, we had a QB and a #1 WR who were able to exploit defenses near the goal line when those defenses cheated toward the run.
I can test this theory by comparing the early part of the season with the rest of the season. How often did we run early in the season, and how successful were we, before defenses started taking away the run? Was there any difference compared to the rest of the year? Well, yes, there was a huge difference both in how often we ran, and how successful we were.
from 5-yard line or closer
% of runs resulting in TD
2014 (all 16 games) 9 of 17 (53%)
2015 (games 1-6) 5 of 7 (72%)
2015 (games 7-16) 0 of 3 (0%)
We'll find out more by thinking and talking about football, than by thinking and talking about posters' motivations or personalities. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I believe. Football is fascinating. You and I aren't, so much.