Randle play by play analysis (Giants)

[gimmesix]

Then why do his defenders get so upset when we call him average, which is what he is. He is part of the bargain basement RBBC.

I didn't want to go from record breaking to just average. If the OL is so good the running game should be a strength not just passable.

I'm not ready to state that Randle is average. We don't have a big enough sample size to say he won't be as good for us as Murray was. However, I do agree with the part in bold. If it's going to be sold that the line makes the back, then we should be able to run over teams no matter who is back there.

I understand that we had to abandon the run in the second half against the Giants, but we weren't exactly leaning on it before then. I didn't mind that because the short passing game to the backs was very effective, but I'm in wait-and-see mode on how this running game develops.

 

[CATCH17]

Actually, 9 of his 16 carries were for 3 yards or fewer. I'd like to see that number improve, but I'm not disappointed with his play in this game. I thought there were some plays where he could have gotten more yards if he had a little more strength, but overall his performance was satisfactory.

I'm hoping that our lead back ends up in the 4.5 per carry range at the lowest (or higher if he breaks several big runs). We need the consistency of getting 4 to 5 yards on first down to make defenses not just play coverage, especially if they are going to try to stop the run with seven men.

I'll take what Randle did in that first game and hope he builds on it.

There is a thread with the end to end view of all of his runs.

If you watch those then I think you have to like the production.



"But I want Randle to do better."


As do I but clearly it's a combination of things and not just Randle.

It's clear to me that Randle has quality vision so we just need to block better for him.

 

[Nightman]

I'm not ready to state that Randle is average. We don't have a big enough sample size to say he won't be as good for us as Murray was. However, I do agree with the part in bold. If it's going to be sold that the line makes the back, then we should be able to run over teams no matter who is back there.

I understand that we had to abandon the run in the second half against the Giants, but we weren't exactly leaning on it before then. I didn't mind that because the short passing game to the backs was very effective, but I'm in wait-and-see mode on how this running game develops.

I don't need to see the 'results' to decide that downgrading the running game was not a smart move. The FO says we didn't have the money but that is a line. They didn't want to commit the money.

Personally I am not a fan of taking a strength and turning it into a question mark. This is one area where I think SJones is trying to get too cute. They have drafted a great OL and they want to prove anyone can run behind it. It may work out with the RBBC we have put together and I am a lot less nervous since we traded for CMike.

 

[windjc]

I don't need to see the 'results' to decide that downgrading the running game was not a smart move. The FO says we didn't have the money but that is a line. They didn't want to commit the money.

Personally I am not a fan of taking a strength and turning it into a question mark. This is one area where I think SJones is trying to get too cute. They have drafted a great OL and they want to prove anyone can run behind it. It may work out with the RBBC we have put together and I am a lot less nervous since we traded for CMike.

You have an opinion and are going to do everything you can to make it seem like a reality. Even if it means not giving credit to current backs.

 

[Nightman]

You have an opinion and are going to do everything you can to make it seem like a reality. Even if it means not giving credit to current backs.

There is nothing I can do about it. It is what it is. I won't pretend it was the best strategy for the team though, relying on Randle and DMC.

 

[gimmesix]

I don't need to see the 'results' to decide that downgrading the running game was not a smart move. The FO says we didn't have the money but that is a line. They didn't want to commit the money.

Personally I am not a fan of taking a strength and turning it into a question mark. This is one area where I think SJones is trying to get too cute. They have drafted a great OL and they want to prove anyone can run behind it. It may work out with the RBBC we have put together and I am a lot less nervous since we traded for CMike.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I don't think Dallas necessarily felt it was downgrading the running attack. It's apparent they believe that they can get it done with what they've got, and that's possible.

Now, I don't like their plan of attack on this, either, because there are too many unknowns, but I can't say that means the results won't prove that it was a smart move.

 

[windjc]

There is nothing I can do about it. It is what it is. I won't pretend it was the best strategy for the team though, relying on Randle and DMC.

But the truth is no one knows if we really down graded. That's your chosen narrative. And you want to sell it to everyone.

 

[gimmesix]

There is a thread with the end to end view of all of his runs.

If you watch those then I think you have to like the production.



"But I want Randle to do better."


As do I but clearly it's a combination of things and not just Randle.

It's clear to me that Randle has quality vision so we just need to block better for him.

I agree that Randle has quality vision. I disagree with blaming "a combination of things" if he doesn't do as well as Murray did last year (although I think you're talking more about falling behind last week and having to abandon the run).

I am willing to judge this decision by Dallas on the results, but I don't want us to excuse failure to perform by the backs by blaming it on other things. I already see some plays being blamed on poor blocks, but it isn't like we didn't have any poor blocks last year. We just had a back who did a pretty good job overall of overcoming those moments.

 

[Nightman]

I don't necessarily agree with this. I don't think Dallas necessarily felt it was downgrading the running attack. It's apparent they believe that they can get it done with what they've got, and that's possible.

Now, I don't like their plan of attack on this, either, because there are too many unknowns, but I can't say that means the results won't prove that it was a smart move.

This is SJones' Barry Switzer moment. He is hell bent on proving anyone can run behind the OL they built.

SJones knows more than anyone else how much salary cap money he left on the shelf. For a team that went 12-4, has an aging star QB and hasn't won squat in 20 years, it is being awfully ambitious trying to win now AND trying to plan for 5 years down the road.

 

[Nightman]

But the truth is no one knows if we really down graded. That's your chosen narrative. And you want to sell it to everyone.

Please.

DMurray-Randle-Dunbar

Randle-Dunbar-DMC

 

[CATCH17]

I agree that Randle has quality vision. I disagree with blaming "a combination of things" if he doesn't do as well as Murray did last year (although I think you're talking more about falling behind last week and having to abandon the run).

I am willing to judge this decision by Dallas on the results, but I don't want us to excuse failure to perform by the backs by blaming it on other things. I already see some plays being blamed on poor blocks, but it isn't like we didn't have any poor blocks last year.

We had a lot of gaping holes too.

Even Murray is useless if you don't give him a path.

 

[gimmesix]

Even Murray is useless if you don't give him a path.

I'll disagree with you on that. I went back before this season and watched all of our victories from last year. There were plenty of times when Murray made something out of nothing. That's what I hope to see from these backs.

No back is going to be able to do it every time, but we need them to do it enough to make the running game go and establish the threat.

Randle was able to do that slightly against the Giants. McFadden only got what was blocked for him.

 

[windjc]

Please.

DMurray-Randle-Dunbar

Randle-Dunbar-DMC

Exactly.

But it's Dmurray circa 2015 (not the 2014!)

And the jury is still out on if Murray is the same runner (he wasn't at the end of 2014) or if Randle and Dunbar have improved and how much DMC and CMike can bring.

So YES, no one knows.

Again, you are trying to sell a narrative.

 

[gimmesix]

This is SJones' Barry Switzer moment. He is hell bent on proving anyone can run behind the OL they built.

SJones knows more than anyone else how much salary cap money he left on the shelf. For a team that went 12-4, has an aging star QB and hasn't won squat in 20 years, it is being awfully ambitious trying to win now AND trying to plan for 5 years down the road.

I think it's clear the team wanted to keep Murray if the price was right, even upping its offer some. However, I do believe there also was some faith in Randle, that his 6.7 average wasn't a fluke. He won't have that kind of average for the season, but Dallas probably feels he can average similar to Murray if the team doesn't overwork him.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I just still think only acquiring McFadden as a fallback plan wasn't a good move, which is why I do like the Michaels move. The more options, the better.

 

[waving monkey]

There is nothing I can do about it. It is what it is. I won't pretend it was the best strategy for the team though, relying on Randle and DMC.

The over arching decision was about the money vs. RBBC
plus [and we'll see soon] can Murray beat the odds and continue
to have the great production he had last year. That bet against his likely
not beating the odds was a wise decision.

 

[Nightman]

The over arching decision was about the money vs. RBBC
plus [and we'll see soon] can Murray beat the odds and continue
to have the great production he had last year. That bet against his likely
not beating the odds was a wise decision.

Then it was a self fulfilling prophecy. DAL stacked the deck intentionally.

If Randle is so good we should have used him a lot more last year and saved some DMurray mileage.

If he couldn't take another 100 touches last year, what makes him MORE capable this year?

He wasn't good enough compared to the guy we desperately tried to use up and get rid of. But now he is the man!!!!!!

 

[gimmesix]

The over arching decision was about the money vs. RBBC
plus [and we'll see soon] can Murray beat the odds and continue
to have the great production he had last year. That bet against his likely
not beating the odds was a wise decision.

Murray's lowest average in his four years with Dallas was 4.1. He averaged 5.5, 5.2 and 4.7 his other years.

I think it's a silly to think he was going to fall off the cliff if he stayed in Dallas. Now, he wasn't likely to repeat what he did last year, but I don't think it would have been realistic to expect it.

If anyone is expecting any of our backs to produce what Murray did last year, that's also unrealistic. I'm just looking for our running game to prove it can do what we saw last season ... run effectively on first down despite loaded fronts, make yardage when there doesn't seem to be there, continually pick up positive yardage. If we get more bigger runs out of this group than we did last year, that's a bonus to me.

 

[TrailBlazer]

I think McFadden is the better player.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Murray's lowest average in his four years with Dallas was 4.1. He averaged 5.5, 5.2 and 4.7 his other years.

I think it's a silly to think he was going to fall off the cliff if he stayed in Dallas. Now, he wasn't likely to repeat what he did last year, but I don't think it would have been realistic to expect it.

If anyone is expecting any of our backs to produce what Murray did last year, that's also unrealistic. I'm just looking for our running game to prove it can do what we saw last season ... run effectively on first down despite loaded fronts, make yardage when there doesn't seem to be there, continually pick up positive yardage. If we get more bigger runs out of this group than we did last year, that's a bonus to me.

 

[xwalker]

Murray's lowest average in his four years with Dallas was 4.1. He averaged 5.5, 5.2 and 4.7 his other years.

I think it's a silly to think he was going to fall off the cliff if he stayed in Dallas. Now, he wasn't likely to repeat what he did last year, but I don't think it would have been realistic to expect it.

If anyone is expecting any of our backs to produce what Murray did last year, that's also unrealistic. I'm just looking for our running game to prove it can do what we saw last season ... run effectively on first down despite loaded fronts, make yardage when there doesn't seem to be there, continually pick up positive yardage. If we get more bigger runs out of this group than we did last year, that's a bonus to me.

The history of RBs with over 370 carries in a season is not good. Almost all of them fell off the map afterwards.

History also shows as significant decline in RBa when they pass age 27.

Murray was not a good bet based on history.