NFL Insiders Mort mentions Cassel

[superonyx]

I, for one, am not buying that.

Our running game is in the bottom half of the league.
We like to convince ourselves that our running game has been bad because of Weeden and his lack of ability to back people off the line ect.......well the running game was actually worse in both Yards and Yards per carry with Romo than Weeden.

I hope you are right...

 

[superonyx]

Still pushing that tired narrative without providing proof, huh? Why won't you provide your evidence from the last three games? That's the data we need, not something that occurred 3 years ago league wide.

I am flattered by you remembering my previous post. It's still in your mind. I see you are worried that I am right.
You see I simply said teams are not selling out to stop our run as much as some may think. Funny how you make your own assumptions as to how often I think people are assuming this.
I've said before...you can operate under any false assumptions you want to. You want to prove I am wrong then feel free. Do your worst. I'm satisfied.

 

[jjktkk]

Seriously????? Fair weather fans????

Or maybe we see this for what this really is.....Just another pathetic sell job to keep people interested in the season. I've seen this crap now for 20+ years since Jerry fired Jimmy.....This trade was a classic Jerry move that's gonna blow up in everyones face. I'm not buying it....and neither should you.

How pathetic of a sell job is it, you're still here? Floaty you crack me up. Everything is fine and dandy, as long as the Cowboys are winning, but as soon as Dallas is struggling, you just have throw out the "Jerry fired Jimmy". LOL, so comical., but so typical, like that's the reason Dallas can't find a decent backup QB. Please.

 

[jjktkk]

Our running game is in the bottom half of the league.
We like to convince ourselves that our running game has been bad because of Weeden and his lack of ability to back people off the line ect.......well the running game was actually worse in both Yards and Yards per carry with Romo than Weeden.

I hope you are right...

How can you fully evaluate the running game when Romo only played two games this year? I personally would think it takes more than just two games with a healthy Romo and Dez in the lineup to fully see how effective the running game could be.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Thanks for the info. That is interesting.

The Cowboys were in both the Falcons and Saints games and could have won with just a little better QB. The Giants seem like a similar level of team to those. If Cassel can just be decent the Cowboys can definitely win the Giants game and anything is possible after that.

not doubt had we had cassel in preseason that we win both of those.

 

[Aven8]

In the immortal words of Al Davis, Just win baby!

 

[Rockport]

I said they don't need to sell out to shut down the run and risk getting beat through the air. Especially with a QB who has been given orders to push the ball and Dez coming back. Our running backs are not capable of beating anyone on the ground. Teams are not playing to stop the run as much as some believe. They don't need to when you have Joseph Randle and McFadden getting the majority of the carries each week.

The days of teams worrying about our running game running over them are over.

That's totally wrong. Teams are stacking the line to stop our running game be cause they know if the can they will win the game. So yes they are selling out. Just watch the games.

 

[Alexander]

That's totally wrong. Teams are stacking the line to stop our running game be cause they know if the can they will win the game. So yes they are selling out. Just watch the games.

No, they are really not. They just are playing us honest because we have no weapons.

It is more a tendency thing than them committing more personnel consistently.

 

[Rockport]

No, they are really not. They just are playing us honest because we have no weapons.

It is more a tendency thing than them committing more personnel consistently.

Yes they are.

 

[Alexander]

Yes they are.

No, they are not.

 

[Kevinicus]

I said they don't need to sell out to shut down the run and risk getting beat through the air. Especially with a QB who has been given orders to push the ball and Dez coming back. Our running backs are not capable of beating anyone on the ground. Teams are not playing to stop the run as much as some believe. They don't need to when you have Joseph Randle and McFadden getting the majority of the carries each week.

The days of teams worrying about our running game running over them are over.

Yes teams are selling out against the run and that is a huge factor in the struggles. If teams stop focusing on it, their is a very good chance it becomes succesful.

 

[superonyx]

Yes teams are selling out against the run and that is a huge factor in the struggles. If teams stop focusing on it, their is a very good chance it becomes succesful.

We can agree to disagree. The problem is how to define selling out against the run. While I agree teams are shutting down our run I don't believe teams are deviating from their normal play calls and formations as much as people want to believe. I've posted before that over the course of 500+ NFL games the entire league only played 8 or more in the box 12% of the time when facing sets with more than 1 guy split out.
While teams may be playing us with more of a run stopping focus the difference can't be enough to dismiss our lack of a running game. Even if you double the average you are still less than 25% of running plays that are facing a stacked box.

People here have convinced themselves with no proof that teams are stacking against the run like 75 or 80% of the time and that is just not realistic at all. When the patriots had double coverage on Witten and Beasley all day they just didn't have enough men to stack the box like people want to think.

 

[Kevinicus]

We can agree to disagree. The problem is how to define selling out against the run. While I agree teams are shutting down our run I don't believe teams are deviating from their normal play calls and formations as much as people want to believe. I've posted before that over the course of 500+ NFL games the entire league only played 8 or more in the box 12% of the time when facing sets with more than 1 guy split out.
While teams may be playing us with more of a run stopping focus the difference can't be enough to dismiss our lack of a running game. Even if you double the average you are still less than 25% of running plays that are facing a stacked box.

People here have convinced themselves with no proof that teams are stacking against the run like 75 or 80% of the time and that is just not realistic at all. When the patriots had double coverage on Witten and Beasley all day they just didn't have enough men to stack the box like people want to think.

And it's amazing you don't realize that info from 3 years ago is completely irrelevant. Just go watch the tape instead of looking up useless data. It would help you make points from a knowledgeable position.

 

[superonyx]

And it's amazing you don't realize that info from 3 years ago is completely irrelevant. Just go watch the tape instead of looking up useless data. It would help you make points from a knowledgeable position.

Not as amazing as you holding on to false assumptions and ignoring real data with absolutely nothing supporting your position. My facts are actual facts. You have none whatsoever.
So give me the numbers from this season that supports your assumptions. Or do you just make assumptions based on nothing. I think I already know the answer.

So how often are we facing stacked boxes this year? You watched the "tape". Please enlighten me.

 

[Kevinicus]

Not as amazing as you holding on to false assumptions and ignoring real data with absolutely nothing supporting your position. My facts are actual facts. You have none whatsoever.
So give me the numbers from this season that supports your assumptions. Or do you just make assumptions based on nothing. I think I already know the answer.

So how often are we facing stacked boxes this year? You watched the "tape". Please enlighten me.

You are making false assumptions. I am makimg statements based on observations. You should try it.

 

[superonyx]

You are making false assumptions. I am makimg statements based on observations. You should try it.

So you have nothing then?

This may seem crazy to someone who just blindly assumes what they heard is true but the reason I even started to look into this theory of a stacked box was because my observations were that it wasn't happening any more than any other year. I watched the games and I just didn't see teams loading the box to stop our run.

So the difference between you and I is that I took the time to look into and challenge my observations and you have not. Your point is not based on any more facts than mine are. But you respond to a post I make and start accusing me of false assumptions when you have zero proof that your assumptions are accurate.

When I see stats that show me that teams don't even stack the box that often when facing Adrian Peterson with no real passing game you expect me to believe Joseph Randle is causing defensive coordinators to completely change the way they call the game....

 

[VThokie7]

Taylor is awful too. Be is basically Weeden with wheels

How many Bills games have you been watching? Even in his worst game of the year with all his weapons out he took over the game to win. Call me when Weeden does that.

Not to mention the fact one of the things he has received the most praise for is his deep ball. Because he isn't afraid to go down the field.

 

[sacase]

We can agree to disagree. The problem is how to define selling out against the run. While I agree teams are shutting down our run I don't believe teams are deviating from their normal play calls and formations as much as people want to believe. I've posted before that over the course of 500+ NFL games the entire league only played 8 or more in the box 12% of the time when facing sets with more than 1 guy split out.
While teams may be playing us with more of a run stopping focus the difference can't be enough to dismiss our lack of a running game. Even if you double the average you are still less than 25% of running plays that are facing a stacked box.

People here have convinced themselves with no proof that teams are stacking against the run like 75 or 80% of the time and that is just not realistic at all. When the patriots had double coverage on Witten and Beasley all day they just didn't have enough men to stack the box like people want to think.

OK first, you are the one making an statement, it is up to you to provide evidence to back up that statement. It is not up to us, to prove you wrong. That is not how things work. Only a weak argument tries to make that point. Second, there are numerous flaws. First you have to define what is 8 in the box. What is the definition used by whomever compiled your stats? Can you provide that? There are several things that you need to look at. First you have a hypothesis based on 3 year old data. You are attempting to use that data to prove your hypothesis. However, to prove it, you have to collect additional data. One portion of that data is to collect all the defensive formations of the previous games from this season. This will help you establish how often these teams commit 8 players to the box. This is where the definition of 8 in the box is important. Next you need to analyze all of the plays those teams played against Dallas and determine the ratio of 8 in the box to not. Then finally you must compare the two results to give you the answer that you seek. Quite frankly you haven't' done that and won't do that. You are relying on irrelevant data from three years ago to prove your point. Just an example of how the NFL has changed in those three years. The read option used to actually work and RGIII was preparing his bust for Canton. Honestly at this point, I would take you just defining what is 8 in the box and then seeing how many times those plays occur against the cowboys.

 

[superonyx]

OK first, you are the one making an statement, it is up to you to provide evidence to back up that statement. It is not up to us, to prove you wrong. That is not how things work. Only a weak argument tries to make that point. Second, there are numerous flaws. First you have to define what is 8 in the box. What is the definition used by whomever compiled your stats? Can you provide that? There are several things that you need to look at. First you have a hypothesis based on 3 year old data. You are attempting to use that data to prove your hypothesis. However, to prove it, you have to collect additional data. One portion of that data is to collect all the defensive formations of the previous games from this season. This will help you establish how often these teams commit 8 players to the box. This is where the definition of 8 in the box is important. Next you need to analyze all of the plays those teams played against Dallas and determine the ratio of 8 in the box to not. Then finally you must compare the two results to give you the answer that you seek. Quite frankly you haven't' done that and won't do that. You are relying on irrelevant data from three years ago to prove your point. Just an example of how the NFL has changed in those three years. The read option used to actually work and RGIII was preparing his bust for Canton. Honestly at this point, I would take you just defining what is 8 in the box and then seeing how many times those plays occur against the cowboys.

Oh I'm the only one making a statement? Really?
Every single time anyone says our run game isn't working because defenses are selling out to stop the run or stacking the box they are making the same statement I am making just the opposite.
I've provided links to the data in the past. Look it up if you need a discription of 8 in the box. It's not that complicated.

Please explain how I am making a statement that requires a different level of proof than anyone who states the opposite without providing any proof. This is a message board. According to your theory anytime anyone makes any statements they need to be attached to audited research work. You can't be serious.

You state I am relying on irrelevant data to make a point...well per your elementary logic you now made a statement and you need to prove it. Since you are making this statement you are now obligated to research all games since to prove my data is irrelevant. See how goofy you sound. Of course you don't.

 

[Beast_from_East]

You are making false assumptions. I am makimg statements based on observations. You should try it.

I am not going to get involved in yalls pissing contest, but I will say this.

Broaddus said on Talking Cowboys this week that he rewatched the Patriot game and the Pats never one time had 8 guys in the box, the most they ever had was 7. Mickey said Broaddus was wrong and pulled up a video of a play and Broaddus said "that guy is not a box player" and looked at Mickey like he was a stupid mofo for not being able to diagnose a play correctly. Mickey shut up the rest of the show about this "stacked box" myth.


This has been the entire problem, teams are not stacking the box to stop the run, they are leaving their safeties deep to take away the deep pass. That is why Weeden kept checking the ball down, he was scared to throw down the field with both safeties deep.

As long as teams can keep both safeties back and stop the run with just 7 guys, our offense is going to continue to struggle. We either have to be able to run against 7 man fronts or we will have to have a QB that is not scared to throw into tight windows downfield. This is why Jerry said that Cassell "will take chances" that Weeden would not.