Success of backs due to line

[Galian Beast]

I agree. However, from the looks of the moves that Kelly is making in Philly, looks like he is setting up to bring in a power rushing attack. And I think he knows it, that why he went out and got two good back in Murray and Mathews. I guess he figures two injury prone backs equals one healthy back. LOL

Personally, I would take McCoy over Murray all day and every day. McCoy behind the Dallas line would be amazing.

I don't think that is going to work. I don't see their offensive line imposing. Their ability to score points was based on that quick strike-ability of their offense and the fortunate returns from their special teams. Philly with 8 or 9 in the box and no fear of that deep strike? It's going to be a long season for them and their defense.

I agree, McCoy behind this line would be pretty impressive. He is a tier ahead of Murray. I think Murray is a 2nd tier running back. Head of the pack? Yes, but still 2nd tier.
He isn't Peterson, McCoy, or Charles.

 

[DFWJC]

I think most people realize you can't put just anyone back there and expect very good results. So-so results maybe, but not very good or great.
Murray got >1000 yards last year before any real contact. That alone tells you something.

But I think most of us want to add a good back in the draft to go with what we already have in-house.

 

[Future]

From 1996 - 2004, the Broncos had a dominant rushing game every year. That included rushing leaders:

Mike Anderson - 2000 - 297/1487/5.0
Reuben Droughns - 2004 - 275/1240/4.5
Olandis Gary - 199 - 276/1159/4.2

If ever there was proof that OL trumps RB, that's it.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Murray averaged 5.5, 4.1, 5.1 and 4.7 yards in his four years here. Find all the backs who can match those numbers carrying at least 150 times a season and your list will be pretty slim.

Murray gets discredited more than he should here, while research shows what he did and replacing what he did isn't near as easy as some believe. It doesn't mean Dallas won't be able to do it, just that it isn't as simple as expecting Randle to be able to step in with little to no drop-off.

I like Murray and i think he is a very good back. But I dont think he is great. Looking at those averages, is really is sad how Garrett wasted his first 3 years here. For me, the big issue with Murray is that he is injury prone. Can give an injury prone back like him a big contract. I felt bad for Murray his first 3 years. They were essentially wasted because we didnt have a coach that understood the importance of the running game to an offense and a football team. Pretty sad when you consider that Garrett grew up in football on the Emmitt Smith championship teams.

 

[Alexander]

This argument amuses me as much as the "line made Emmitt" or "Emmitt made the line".

People just do not understand or appreciate how much chemistry takes into account the success of the running game. Murray got better in 2014 not just because of Zack Martin's addition but that they all spent time together and learned tendencies. Murray learned who was blocking whom and how, the linemen figured out how best to block for him.

And this home run hitter thing is so overplayed. Part of the running game that controls a game and establishes tempo gets the dirty yards, getting five yards out of three etc. Murray was good at that, a smaller back might dance around and instead of gaining two, loses three looking for that hole to pop a big one or avoiding contract to wait for a crease that never develops.

Getting the right kind of decisive back who has power to get that extra yards here and there is more important to me than someone who is a threat to take it to the house. If that is the case you have feast or famine. The only back that did that regularly that achieved a high level was Barry Sanders. And sorry, none of these backs are Barry Sanders.

 

[Galian Beast]

From 1996 - 2004, the Broncos had a dominant rushing game every year. That included rushing leaders:

Mike Anderson - 2000 - 297/1487/5.0
Reuben Droughns - 2004 - 275/1240/4.5
Olandis Gary - 199 - 276/1159/4.2

If ever there was proof that OL trumps RB, that's it.

We have a young dominant offensive line that should get better every year, we definitely shouldn't be spending a lot of resources at running back, however, until we can produce a sound defense, we still need a catalytic running back, so I still think our defense warrants getting the best running back available.

 

[CowboyRoy]

From 1996 - 2004, the Broncos had a dominant rushing game every year. That included rushing leaders:

Mike Anderson - 2000 - 297/1487/5.0
Reuben Droughns - 2004 - 275/1240/4.5
Olandis Gary - 199 - 276/1159/4.2

If ever there was proof that OL trumps RB, that's it.

I couldnt agree more. Pay the line, not the back. If you have a great line, and you commit to the run game and have a quality scheme, you can plug a good back in there and he will have success.

 

[Alexander]

From 1996 - 2004, the Broncos had a dominant rushing game every year. That included rushing leaders:

Mike Anderson - 2000 - 297/1487/5.0
Reuben Droughns - 2004 - 275/1240/4.5
Olandis Gary - 199 - 276/1159/4.2

If ever there was proof that OL trumps RB, that's it.

Is Alex Gibbs coaching this OL like he did Denver's? I like Pollack but losing Callahan might have taken some of this OL's mojo. I just know I am not plugging in "average" talent and assuming it is all the OL or the scheme. I am getting a good zone runner who understands the concepts.

 

[Teague31]

Is the argument that this line can make a bad back good or a good back great. To me that is a huge difference

 

[Alexander]

If he's not stealing underwear at Macy's. LOL

Well, it was Dillard's actually.

 

[erod]

I disagree with that statement. They maybe easier to find than QB, DE but we seen what happened in the past when we keep drafting Emmitt's backup even with 2nd and 3rd round picks who did nothing. This club also had similar thought about OL for the longest time and kept only using 3-5 rounders and an occasional 2nd rounder to plug the OL. Didn't fare well for us until recent change in philosophy (or luck).

If a RB that's rated high by our scouts drops to us we shouldn't pass just because we think we can pick another RB later....take the best player and keep piling on the talent. Great RB+ great OL > decent RB and great OL every Sunday.

Almost every team in the NFL has a good back or two. Or three.

Philosophy changed because capability changed. It was smoke and mirrors until last year.

 

[CowboyRoy]

This argument amuses me as much as the "line made Emmitt" or "Emmitt made the line".

People just do not understand or appreciate how much chemistry takes into account the success of the running game. Murray got better in 2014 not just because of Zack Martin's addition but that they all spent time together and learned tendencies. Murray learned who was blocking whom and how, the linemen figured out how best to block for him.

And this home run hitter thing is so overplayed. Part of the running game that controls a game and establishes tempo gets the dirty yards, getting five yards out of three etc. Murray was good at that, a smaller back might dance around and instead of gaining two, loses three looking for that hole to pop a big one or avoiding contract to wait for a crease that never develops.

Getting the right kind of decisive back who has power to get that extra yards here and there is more important to me than someone who is a threat to take it to the house. If that is the case you have feast or famine. The only back that did that regularly that achieved a high level was Barry Sanders. And sorry, none of these backs are Barry Sanders.

I couldnt agree more. If I had to pick one, I would take the smash mouth guy that gets the dirty yards. All day. But there are guys in this years draft that can get the dirty yards and have that home run flare. Murray didnt have good moves, he was a just a beast running behind a great line. And he had an OC that was committed to getting him the ball.

 

[gimmesix]

I disagree with that statement. They maybe easier to find than QB, DE but we seen what happened in the past when we keep drafting Emmitt's backup even with 2nd and 3rd round picks who did nothing. This club also had similar thought about OL for the longest time and kept only using 3-5 rounders and an occasional 2nd rounder to plug the OL. Didn't fare well for us until recent change in philosophy (or luck).

If a RB that's rated high by our scouts drops to us we shouldn't pass just because we think we can pick another RB later....take the best player and keep piling on the talent. Great RB+ great OL > decent RB and great OL every Sunday.

According to research that I've seen, RB bust rates (surprisingly) are among the highest of any position. I've looked up several studies on this, including one I'm looking at now that shows over a 25-year period 46.9 percent of running backs drafted in the first round were busts (45 of 96), which is the highest of any position. The criteria used for the study to determine a bust was players starting 50 games or fewer. That's not necessarily the criteria I would use, though, because RBs generally don't last in the league as long as players at other positions.

 

[Alexander]

Is the argument that this line can make a bad back good or a good back great. To me that is a huge difference

It can turn a 1200 yard rusher into an 1800 yard rusher, not an 800 yard rusher into an 1800.

Like everything, there is no black and white answer. The grey area is the skill of the back in question. The reason you saw Denver plug a new runner into that scheme every year is because they knew what traits to look for in the runner. They did not just plug in anybody.

 

[erod]

Other posts I've made show that the success rate of finding one in the draft isn't really high. We're talking around 60 percent in the first round and 40 in the second, with a step drop-off in the third. So while there might be more good running backs in college than any other position, their success rates drops off drastically in the pros for whatever reasons.

But the sheer volume of running backs offsets that. Only one of the top ten rushers in the NFL last year was a first-round pick.

There are backs that COULD be successful, but they don't have the quarterback or offensive line to do so. That's what makes Adrian Peterson so amazing.

They could just stand pat with what's here and have an above average running game. The key is find a back that can actually accentuate the line further.

Peterson and Gurley may be the only two that can actually do that.

 

[Future]

Murray averaged 5.5, 4.1, 5.1 and 4.7 yards in his four years here. Find all the backs who can match those numbers carrying at least 150 times a season and your list will be pretty slim.

Murray gets discredited more than he should here, while research shows what he did and replacing what he did isn't near as easy as some believe. It doesn't mean Dallas won't be able to do it, just that it isn't as simple as expecting Randle to be able to step in with little to no drop-off.

Murray's YPA, other than last year, have been wildly inflated by single games against terrible run defenses.

2011 - His entire body of work basically came from a 4 game stretch. STL (10.12), PHI (9.25), SEA (6.32), BUF (6.75).
2013 - Only over 100 yards three times - STL (6.73), CHI (8.11), GB (7.44). He was wildly pedestrian all year.

Generally, I hate arguments that say "well if not for this game his numbers wouldn't be so great" but in Murray's case, you almost have to use it to get a more complete picture.

 

[Future]

Is Alex Gibbs coaching this OL like he did Denver's? I like Pollack but losing Callahan might have taken some of this OL's mojo. I just know I am not plugging in "average" talent and assuming it is all the OL or the scheme. I am getting a good zone runner who understands the concepts.

Yea, you still need the "right" back, and losing Callahan might hurt. But I think it's still pretty clear that the OL makes the RB look better than they actually are.

 

[Alexander]

If Murray were still a Cowboy, I wonder how much his production would be scrutinized.

 

[CowboyRoy]

But the sheer volume of running backs offsets that. Only one of the top ten rushers in the NFL last year was a first-round pick.

There are backs that COULD be successful, but they don't have the quarterback or offensive line to do so. That's what makes Adrian Peterson so amazing.

They could just stand pat with what's here and have an above average running game. The key is find a back that can actually accentuate the line further.

Peterson and Gurley may be the only two that can actually do that.

I think there are several back in this draft that can do that. Plenty to choose from.

 

[CowboyRoy]

But the sheer volume of running backs offsets that. Only one of the top ten rushers in the NFL last year was a first-round pick.

There are backs that COULD be successful, but they don't have the quarterback or offensive line to do so. That's what makes Adrian Peterson so amazing.

They could just stand pat with what's here and have an above average running game. The key is find a back that can actually accentuate the line further.

Peterson and Gurley may be the only two that can actually do that.

Granted, if you are talking about, elite, special backs like Peterson, then yah, Gordon may be the only guy like that in this draft.