Tevin Coleman's 40

[xwalker]

I kinda saw the same things that you mentioned. The line was not consistent from play to play, but they opened those wide running lanes quite often and to Colemsn's credit, he took full advantage. His vision seemed good to recognize the holes that produced so many long runs. Coleman doesn't seem like the the type of RB that will be physical in the NFL though.

Yes, his primary attributes are speed and good vision. He is average in terms of making defenders miss and probably below average in running though contact with power.

 

[VACowboy]

Watch them against Michigan. They were overpowered. I agree that they did well with what they had to work with but against more talented front 7 teams, they were just overmatched.

Watch Indiana against Michigan and then watch Minnesota against Michigan. The difference between Coleman and Cobb is night and day.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I did.

The defense made some dramatic hits behind the line at times but the OL gave him many chances to succeed.

Just look at the 1st five carries:
First hit 2 yards past the line.
First hit 2 yards past the line (fumble).
First hit 5 yards past the line (3 man DLine).
Coleman stumbles behind the line before being hit (fumble).
First hit 10 yards past the line.

The first five carries are not where the story is told thou X. I would expect the first series to be where the Indiana OL is best. As that game wares on, the Michigan DL takes it's toll.

Here is what it looks like quarter to quarter.

1st Quarter:
6 run plays of 3 yards or less.
1 run play for no gain.
3 runs for loss of yardage.

2nd Qtr:
6 runs for 3 yards or less.
2 runs for no gain.
2 runs for loss of yardage.

3rd Qtr:
7 Runs for 3 yards or less.
3 runs for loss of yardage.

4th Qtr:
8 runs for 3 yards or less.
1 run for no gain
2 runs for loss of yardage.

Total:
27 runs for 3 yards or less
4 runs for no gain
10 runs for loss of yardage.

Those are not numbers that indicate solid OL play. I think that the Indiana OL is pretty good when they are playing against average talent. I think they are good at influence blocking and quick hit blocks but I think they got their noses pushed in against Michigan.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Watch Indiana against Michigan and then watch Minnesota against Michigan. The difference between Coleman and Cobb is night and day.

I think that part of that is the QB play. Minnesota, while not great in the passing game, was able to complete 63% of their passes and while they only threw for 167 yards, I think Michigan had to account for the possibility of the pass.

Against Indiana, little different story. The good news is that Indiana was able to complete 62% of their passes. The bad news is that there were only 8 passes the entire game and those accounted for 24 yards of Offense.

 

[xwalker]

The first five carries are not where the story is told thou X. I would expect the first series to be where the Indiana OL is best. As that game wares on, the Michigan DL takes it's toll.

Here is what it looks like quarter to quarter.

1st Quarter:
6 run plays of 3 yards or less.
1 run play for no gain.
3 runs for loss of yardage.

2nd Qtr:
6 runs for 3 yards or less.
2 runs for no gain.
2 runs for loss of yardage.

3rd Qtr:
7 Runs for 3 yards or less.
3 runs for loss of yardage.

4th Qtr:
8 runs for 3 yards or less.
1 run for no gain
2 runs for loss of yardage.

Total:
27 runs for 3 yards or less
4 runs for no gain
10 runs for loss of yardage.

Those are not numbers that indicate solid OL play. I think that the Indiana OL is pretty good when they are playing against average talent. I think they are good at influence blocking and quick hit blocks but I think they got their noses pushed in against Michigan.

Yes, it was one of his worst games, but he still had 108 yards.

The Ohio State game was more typical. A lot of times the defense would break into the backfield for a loss or no gain, but then they would have other times where they took advantage of the over-aggressiveness of the defense and Coleman popped for some big plays.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, it was one of his worst games, but he still had 108 yards.

A credit to him IMO. The plays they hit on were plays that he was able to hit a crease and gain some yards. If you look at the other backs in that game, they really struggled in comparison. I think it illustrates the ability of Coleman to make yards out of not much. That was a very physical game. There wasn't much in the way of clean holes by the Indiana OL. I'm not taking anything away from Indiana's OL. I think for what they have to work with, they did well. I just think that the absence of any passing threat, together with the talent differentials between the two schools put them at a real disadvantage. Believe me, I have way more respect for a team like Indiana who struggles through a season like that then I do for a team like Michigan who has talent everywhere and goes 5-7 with teams like Miami of Ohio, Northwestern and Appalachian state as three gimmies on the schedule.

 

[VACowboy]

I think that part of that is the QB play. Minnesota, while not great in the passing game, was able to complete 63% of their passes and while they only threw for 167 yards, I think Michigan had to account for the possibility of the pass.

Against Indiana, little different story. The good news is that Indiana was able to complete 62% of their passes. The bad news is that there were only 8 passes the entire game and those accounted for 24 yards of Offense.

Maybe, but the venerable eye test tells me Cobb is a much more physical player than Coleman. MUCH. And I like Colemen, just not for the kind of tough running Garrett and Co. are looking for. I think it's worth noting the differences in what the respective offenses asked their RB to do, too. Coleman ran a lot of sweeps and edge stuff. Cobb ran almost exclusively between the tackles. Cobb's not a burner, but he can nail a big hole and accelerate into space too. The difference to me is how the backs perform running through a crowd.

I'm an ACC guy. Cobb isn't my pet cat and I like Coleman. I just think that if the team is really looking to generate the kind of demoralizing ground attack it featured last year, Cobb is far and away the best prospect not named Gurley. Coleman has great attributes, but he's just not a bruising back.

Edit: I haven't seen a lot of either player, though, and the numbers don't lie. 2000 yards by any RB, and even more so by a RB on a bad team, is impressive.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Maybe, but the venerable eye test tells me Cobb is a much more physical player than Coleman. MUCH. And I like Colemen, just not for the kind of tough running Garrett and Co. are looking for. I think it's worth noting the differences in what the respective offenses asked their RB to do, too. Coleman ran a lot of sweeps and edge stuff. Cobb ran almost exclusively between the tackles. Cobb's not a burner, but he can nail a big hole and accelerate into space too. The difference to me is how the backs perform running through a crowd.

I'm an ACC guy. Cobb isn't my pet cat and I like Coleman. I just think that if the team is really looking to generate the kind of demoralizing ground attack it featured last year, Cobb is far and away the best prospect not named Gurley. Coleman has great attributes, but he's just not a bruising back.

Something to ask or consider...Did they bring in Cobb for a visit or look? No.

If not...why?

Maybe they just do not see him the way you do...or maybe they are not looking for what you think they are looking for in a RB.

Again...just something to consider when we are talking about RBs and us drafting one.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe, but the venerable eye test tells me Cobb is a much more physical player than Coleman. MUCH. And I like Colemen, just not for the kind of tough running Garrett and Co. are looking for. I think it's worth noting the differences in what the respective offenses asked their RB to do, too. Coleman ran a lot of sweeps and edge stuff. Cobb ran almost exclusively between the tackles. Cobb's not a burner, but he can nail a big hole and accelerate into space too. The difference to me is how the backs perform running through a crowd.

I'm an ACC guy. Cobb isn't my pet cat and I like Coleman. I just think that if the team is really looking to generate the kind of demoralizing ground attack it featured last year, Cobb is far and away the best prospect not named Gurley. Coleman has great attributes, but he's just not a bruising back.

I think Cobb probably is but so is Davis. So are a lot of other RBs. However, I don't think that it means he can not be successful in our offense or that he is not what the coaching staff might want. I don't agree with those who say Coleman is not a physical runner. I don't think he is a guy who is going to run over LBs consistently but then again, I don't believe that those guys last long either. I think he is a guy who will get you the first down and I think he's a guy can take it to the house. If all you want is a guy who is a really physical runner, then we should't be thinking about taking any of these top backs. We should be thinking about taking a guy like Malcolm Brown from Texas. That's a guy who can run tough, will move the chains, does not fumble (better in this regard then any back in this draft, by far), can catch the ball, does pass block and will be available later in the draft. If that's all that's required, then this is our guy.

However, if it is not and you want a RB who can be a guy who threatens defenses on every play, then Coleman isn't a bad option. BTW, I do like Cobb. I just don't like him better then I do Coleman.

 

[xwalker]

A credit to him IMO. The plays they hit on were plays that he was able to hit a crease and gain some yards. If you look at the other backs in that game, they really struggled in comparison. I think it illustrates the ability of Coleman to make yards out of not much. That was a very physical game. There wasn't much in the way of clean holes by the Indiana OL. I'm not taking anything away from Indiana's OL. I think for what they have to work with, they did well. I just think that the absence of any passing threat, together with the talent differentials between the two schools put them at a real disadvantage. Believe me, I have way more respect for a team like Indiana who struggles through a season like that then I do for a team like Michigan who has talent everywhere and goes 5-7 with teams like Miami of Ohio, Northwestern and Appalachian state as three gimmies on the schedule.

Good points.

I do think Coleman is right there with Gordon talentwise.

 

[Sasquatch]

Maybe, but the venerable eye test tells me Cobb is a much more physical player than Coleman. MUCH. And I like Colemen, just not for the kind of tough running Garrett and Co. are looking for. I think it's worth noting the differences in what the respective offenses asked their RB to do, too. Coleman ran a lot of sweeps and edge stuff. Cobb ran almost exclusively between the tackles. Cobb's not a burner, but he can nail a big hole and accelerate into space too. The difference to me is how the backs perform running through a crowd.

I'm an ACC guy. Cobb isn't my pet cat and I like Coleman. I just think that if the team is really looking to generate the kind of demoralizing ground attack it featured last year, Cobb is far and away the best prospect not named Gurley. Coleman has great attributes, but he's just not a bruising back.

Edit: I haven't seen a lot of either player, though, and the numbers don't lie. 2000 yards by any RB, and even more so by a RB on a bad team, is impressive.

I agree with what you say but did Murray or Randle fit the "bruising back" profile presented here?

 

[VACowboy]

Something to ask or consider...Did they bring in Cobb for a visit or look? No.

If not...why?

Maybe they just do not see him the way you do...or maybe they are not looking for what you think they are looking for in a RB.

Again...just something to consider when we are talking about RBs and us drafting one.

Hey, I agree 100% with both you and ABC. I was the guy advocating more explosion in the backfield, that the team acquire the best RB it can and tailor the offense to the talent instead of just shooting for a certain type of runner. I never put a definition on what the team wanted until everybody started telling me that certain guys wouldn't work because the team doesn't want to split carries. That they want a bell cow to carry the load, to run physically and get the dirty yards. Like Murray. I think a lot of RBs, including Coleman, Duke Johnson, Mike Davis, Ryan Williams, DMC and others can be successful in the Dallas offense. They may have to share the ball and get their yards more by using speed and quickness instead of strength, but they can be successful. I never suggested Cobb was a guy the Cowboys were even looking at, just that if they want a hammer, Cobb looks like the best option in my opinion. In fact, in light of who the team has brought in and shown the most interest in, I'm questioning my view of what the team is looking for. I wrote an entire post on just that subject this morning. It's not a bad thing if Garrett isn't looking to replicate Murray, either, at least not to me. As I've posted on multiple occasions, I'd really like to see a guy who may not have Murray's strength but who has better vision and more speed, who can rip off chunks of yards and is a threat to take it to the house every time he touches the ball. A guy like, say, Tevin Coleman. Put the short way: I'd like to see the team fix the defense so it can stop using the offense to cover for it and be more aggressive. I'm not wed to any player or any type of rushing attack, either. Cobb, Coleman, Ajayi, Davis, either Johnson... I want whatever means more wins. And that's the bottom line.

 

[VACowboy]

I agree with what you say but did Murray or Randle fit the "bruising back" profile presented here?

Murray isn't Jerome Bettis, but last year he carried the ball 24.5 times a game and ran over and through a ton of players in the process. Peter King wrote a column about the Seattle game and how by the fourth quarter, you could tell Richard Sherman and his big bad buddies were really tired of seeing Demarco Murray coming their way. Randle? No. But he wasn't the guy running the ball for the Cowboys in 2014 and in all probability won't be the guy in 2015 either.

 

[Sasquatch]

Murray isn't Jerome Bettis, but last year he carried the ball 24.5 times a game and ran over and through a ton of players in the process. Peter King wrote a column about the Seattle game and how by the fourth quarter, you could tell Richard Sherman and his big bad buddies were really tired of seeing Demarco Murray coming their way. Randle? No. But he wasn't the guy running the ball for the Cowboys in 2014 and in all probability won't be the guy in 2015 either.

All good points. I was thinking the perception of him coming out of college (i.e. the type of runner the team drafts out of college).

 

[VACowboy]

All good points. I was thinking the perception of him coming out of college (i.e. the type of runner the team drafts out of college).

You know, that brings up a good question. Murray was 213 pounds at the combine. He ran a 4.41 and was known as a speed guy who could take it to the house. He had superb receiving skills and was excellent in blitz pickup too, and that's reportedly why the Cowboys loved him. I even read somewhere they thought of Murray as very similar to Felix Jones. What the experts did not describe Murray as was a strong, tough, inside runner who could push the pile. So, my question is, the Cowboys went into the season committed to running the ball, but at that time, was their idea to feature the punishing running attack we ended up seeing week in and week out or did it just turn out that way?

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/demarco-murray?id=2495207

 

[Aven8]

You know, that brings up a good question. Murray was 213 pounds at the combine. He ran a 4.41 and was known as a speed guy who could take it to the house. He had superb receiving skills and was excellent in blitz pickup too, and that's reportedly why the Cowboys loved him. I even read somewhere they thought of Murray as very similar to Felix Jones. What the experts did not describe Murray as was a strong, tough, inside runner who could push the pile. So, my question is, the Cowboys went into the season committed to running the ball, but at that time, was their idea to feature the punishing running attack we ended up seeing week in and week out or did it just turn out that way?

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/demarco-murray?id=2495207

I've heard JG say in his PC's probably half a dozen times that after studying the tape in college, they had no idea how physical of a back DM was until he stepped foot at VR.

 

[BAT]

He'll be easily replaced.

I just hope we don't draft Ajayi though and make Murray look better then he really was.

Murray will definitely be replaced, not so sure about "easily" however. If it were that easy, the best OLs would do it every season. Looking forward to seeing the competition and eventual solution nevertheless.

 

[VACowboy]

I've heard JG say in his PC's probably half a dozen times that after studying the tape in college, they had no idea how physical of a back DM was until he stepped foot at VR.

I guess that answers the question.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You know, that brings up a good question. Murray was 213 pounds at the combine. He ran a 4.41 and was known as a speed guy who could take it to the house. He had superb receiving skills and was excellent in blitz pickup too, and that's reportedly why the Cowboys loved him. I even read somewhere they thought of Murray as very similar to Felix Jones. What the experts did not describe Murray as was a strong, tough, inside runner who could push the pile. So, my question is, the Cowboys went into the season committed to running the ball, but at that time, was their idea to feature the punishing running attack we ended up seeing week in and week out or did it just turn out that way?

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/demarco-murray?id=2495207

Good observation. This was mentioned earlier on in this thread but it didn't really get it's due IMO. I think the physical running style came into focus when we got the physical personnel along the OL to make it work. I think that Murray has always been physical once he gets into the secondary but it's how he ran against the front seven. Was he more physical this year or did he just have more opportunities to run hard into the secondary?

 

[jnday]

Hey, I agree 100% with both you and ABC. I was the guy advocating more explosion in the backfield, that the team acquire the best RB it can and tailor the offense to the talent instead of just shooting for a certain type of runner. I never put a definition on what the team wanted until everybody started telling me that certain guys wouldn't work because the team doesn't want to split carries. That they want a bell cow to carry the load, to run physically and get the dirty yards. Like Murray. I think a lot of RBs, including Coleman, Duke Johnson, Mike Davis, Ryan Williams, DMC and others can be successful in the Dallas offense. They may have to share the ball and get their yards more by using speed and quickness instead of strength, but they can be successful. I never suggested Cobb was a guy the Cowboys were even looking at, just that if they want a hammer, Cobb looks like the best option in my opinion. In fact, in light of who the team has brought in and shown the most interest in, I'm questioning my view of what the team is looking for. I wrote an entire post on just that subject this morning. It's not a bad thing if Garrett isn't looking to replicate Murray, either, at least not to me. As I've posted on multiple occasions, I'd really like to see a guy who may not have Murray's strength but who has better vision and more speed, who can rip off chunks of yards and is a threat to take it to the house every time he touches the ball. A guy like, say, Tevin Coleman. Put the short way: I'd like to see the team fix the defense so it can stop using the offense to cover for it and be more aggressive. I'm not wed to any player or any type of rushing attack, either. Cobb, Coleman, Ajayi, Davis, either Johnson... I want whatever means more wins. And that's the bottom line.

I am not a fan of the RB by committee. A great running offense has one RB that carries the load with s couple backups to rest him at times. The offense does not need a change. They need to insure that the running game remains the team's biggest strength by getting the most talented RB that compliment the oline to produce a great rushing attack. This needs to remain s team strength while the defense is upgraded.