The defense will be better with Zeke

[percyhoward]

Romo is better with a dominant running attack, limits pass attempts and interceptions.

When you're already winning, you don't throw as much later in the game, so that gives you fewer attempts for the game. Romo actually had more 1st-half attempts in 2014 than he had averaged over his career.

Romo's pass attempts per half
1st half
2014 only: 18
2006-2013: 17

2nd half
2014 only: 11
2006-2013: 17

Having leads meant we didn't have to pass to catch up, which meant fewer total attempts for our QB. But we didn't get our leads by throwing less.

 

[percyhoward]

Linehan and Garrett have a great opportunity to repair their reputation with the fan base. If they take the Dunbar packages and expand on them then they are likely to be hailed as geniuses.

The beauty of this is that it isn't so Romo-dependent.

 

[Sydla]

In 2014, the Cowboys faced 950 regular season offensive plays.

In 2015, the Cowboys faced 967 regular season offensive plays.

That works out to essentially playing only one more play a game. That's it.

 

[percyhoward]

In 2014, the Cowboys faced 950 regular season offensive plays.

In 2015, the Cowboys faced 967 regular season offensive plays.

That works out to essentially playing only one more play a game. That's it.

And it wasn't because the offense had fewer plays. The offense couldn't score, but it controlled the ball just as successfully as the 2014 offense.

Plays per Drive
Defense
2014 5.7
2015 6.0

Offense
2014 6.0
2015 6.0

 

[Idgit]

To be Fair, I'm pretty certain we won at around 75-85% of the time if Murray rushed for 100 yards.....I might be wrong

That correlation is pretty consistent across the league. You run more when you're ahead, rather than necessarily being ahead because you run. But you're still also winning the passing efficiency differential.

 

[bsheeern]

That correlation is pretty consistent across the league. You run more when you're ahead, rather than necessarily being ahead because you run. But you're still also winning the passing efficiency differential.

Sure you do. You still have to be good at it. Regardless of when you run if you aren't efficient and effective at it when it counts you will lose. That's what's missing here.

 

[Idgit]

Sure you do. You still have to be good at it. Regardless of when you run if you aren't efficient and effective at it when it counts you will lose. That's what's missing here.

You really don't. Run it into a wall three times and you drain the timeouts. That doesn't require special skill. Otherwise, whether you run at a 3.5/carry clip or a 5.0/carry clip, rushing effectiveness (outside goalline/short yardage) just doesn't matter. The 100 yard barrier is a function of carries and not effectiveness.

 

[Sydla]

Sure you do. You still have to be good at it. Regardless of when you run if you aren't efficient and effective at it when it counts you will lose. That's what's missing here.

But see that's not true. Being able to efficiently pass the ball has a greater impact on wins and losses than running the ball efficiently.

That doesn't mean running isn't important but I think people are overestimating the effect running the ball has on a team because they are trying to justify why Elliott at 4 was the smartest pick anyone could ever make.

 

[percyhoward]

Sure you do. You still have to be good at it. Regardless of when you run if you aren't efficient and effective at it when it counts you will lose. That's what's missing here.

In 2014, Murray wasn't especially effective when the team was trying to protect a late lead.

4th qtr YPC, leading by 1-16 pts
(1st down %)
1 Forsett 6.8 (28.3%)
2 Hill 6.0 (18.8%)
3 Ingram 5.4 (25.8%)
4 Bell 5.2 (25.0%)
5 Lynch 4.9 (22.4%)

13 Murray 3.6 (20.4%)

 

[bsheeern]

But see that's not true. Being able to efficiently pass the ball has a greater impact on wins and losses than running the ball efficiently.

That doesn't mean running isn't important but I think people are overestimating the effect running the ball has on a team because they are trying to justify why Elliott at 4 was the smartest pick anyone could ever make.

You really don't. Run it into a wall three times and you drain the timeouts. That doesn't require special skill. Otherwise, whether you run at a 3.5/carry clip or a 5.0/carry clip, rushing effectiveness (outside goalline/short yardage) just doesn't matter. The 100 yard barrier is a function of carries and not effectiveness.

You can't measure how much effect one has on the other with a stat especially across the league as a whole. Different players, different schemes & tons of variables. Ask That guy in New England. Efficiency comes from execution. Execution comes from places that stats can never show.

Bottom line on this whole thread is that Elliott gives this team options that we lack. Those options SHOULD make this ENTIRE team better. Offense, Defense and Special teams. Same can be said for any player drafted so the premise of the OP is pretty much saying there is no cause-effect relationship between either side of the ball.


Urban Meyer said that Elliott is "The Greatest player I Have EVER coached without the ball in his hands". No coach just says that.

 

[Sydla]

You can't measure how much effect one has on the other with a stat especially across the league as a whole. Different players, different schemes & tons of variables. Ask That guy in New England. Efficiency comes from execution. Execution comes from places that stats can never show.

Bottom line on this whole thread is that Elliott gives this team options that we lack. Those options SHOULD make this ENTIRE team better. Offense, Defense and Special teams. Same can be said for any player drafted so the premise of the OP is pretty much saying there is no cause-effect relationship between either side of the ball.


Urban Meyer said that Elliott is "The Greatest player I Have EVER coached without the ball in his hands". No coach just says that.

Sorry but the stats don't bear that out.

Elliott should help out the offense if he really is a Peterson-esque, or close to it, type TB that can kill teams both running and receiving.

But in terms of helping the defense, in the sense that we have to get back to 2014 as opposed to 2015, the stats don't bear out the correlation between Elliott and helping the defense. They just don't no matter how many times you try to say he will. There was very little difference between how long the defense was on the field in 2014 versus 2015. So any talk about how Elliott allows us to back to 2014 when we kept the defense "fresh" isn't borne out when you actually analyze the numbers.

If anything, the player that will help the defense the most if one wants to use that argument, is Romo, not Elliott.

 

[Idgit]

You can't measure how much effect one has on the other with a stat especially across the league as a whole. Different players, different schemes & tons of variables. Ask That guy in New England. Efficiency comes from execution. Execution comes from places that stats can never show.

Bottom line on this whole thread is that Elliott gives this team options that we lack. Those options SHOULD make this ENTIRE team better. Offense, Defense and Special teams. Same can be said for any player drafted so the premise of the OP is pretty much saying there is no cause-effect relationship between either side of the ball.


Urban Meyer said that Elliott is "The Greatest player I Have EVER coached without the ball in his hands". No coach just says that.

I don't think anybody's saying Elliott doesn't give us options that we currently lack, so if that's the debate, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think he's a tremendous player.

We don't have to agree on your idea that execution comes from places that stats can never show, then, I hope? The whole point of statistics is to attempt to measure the right things consistently and carefully and in such a way as you can use the information for comparison purposes. It's an imperfect science, for sure, but that doesn't mean it can be useful in measuring execution.

 

[bsheeern]

In 2014, Murray wasn't especially effective when the team was trying to protect a late lead.

4th qtr YPC, leading by 1-16 pts
(1st down %)
1 Forsett 6.8 (28.3%)
2 Hill 6.0 (18.8%)
3 Ingram 5.4 (25.8%)
4 Bell 5.2 (25.0%)
5 Lynch 4.9 (22.4%)

13 Murray 3.6 (20.4%)

Depends on what your definition of Especially effective is.
Show me what play action %'s were for Romo because of the threat of Murray and the running game.
Show me How much 1 on 1 coverage the WR's and TE's received because of the threat of run.

Effective can simply mean the Threat of the run, that came from previous run success caused the Defense to have to do a multitude of things they wouldn't normally do.
This is a league of mismatches and matchups.

 

[CowboyRoy]

When you're already winning, you don't throw as much later in the game, so that gives you fewer attempts for the game. Romo actually had more 1st-half attempts in 2014 than he had averaged over his career.

Romo's pass attempts per half
1st half
2014 only: 18
2006-2013: 17

2nd half
2014 only: 11
2006-2013: 17

Having leads meant we didn't have to pass to catch up, which meant fewer total attempts for our QB. But we didn't get our leads by throwing less.

Do not under estimate the affect of the run game. Whether Romo is throwing more or less, the run is opening up the pass with 8 and 9 in the box. And it limits the pressure on Romo in several ways. Down and distance, and it slows the pass rush. When people are thinking about the run, it helps. And by controlling the clock, they keep the opposing defense in the field longer and they get tired. It wears them down. Play action works much better as well. And romo isnt forced to do it all himself. He can lien on the run game. 3rd and 2 is better than 3rd and 8.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You can't measure how much effect one has on the other with a stat especially across the league as a whole. Different players, different schemes & tons of variables. Ask That guy in New England. Efficiency comes from execution. Execution comes from places that stats can never show.

Bottom line on this whole thread is that Elliott gives this team options that we lack. Those options SHOULD make this ENTIRE team better. Offense, Defense and Special teams. Same can be said for any player drafted so the premise of the OP is pretty much saying there is no cause-effect relationship between either side of the ball.


Urban Meyer said that Elliott is "The Greatest player I Have EVER coached without the ball in his hands". No coach just says that.

How does Elliott make special teams better? Wow, this is really going overboard.

 

[CowboyRoy]

In 2014, Murray wasn't especially effective when the team was trying to protect a late lead.

4th qtr YPC, leading by 1-16 pts
(1st down %)
1 Forsett 6.8 (28.3%)
2 Hill 6.0 (18.8%)
3 Ingram 5.4 (25.8%)
4 Bell 5.2 (25.0%)
5 Lynch 4.9 (22.4%)

13 Murray 3.6 (20.4%)

3.6 plus 3.6 plus 3.6 is more than 10 isnt it?

 

[bsheeern]

Sorry but the stats don't bear that out.

Elliott should help out the offense if he really is a Peterson-esque, or close to it, type TB that can kill teams both running and receiving.

But in terms of helping the defense, in the sense that we have to get back to 2014 as opposed to 2015, the stats don't bear out the correlation between Elliott and helping the defense. They just don't no matter how many times you try to say he will. There was very little difference between how long the defense was on the field in 2014 versus 2015. So any talk about how Elliott allows us to back to 2014 when we kept the defense "fresh" isn't borne out when you actually analyze the numbers.

If anything, the player that will help the defense the most if one wants to use that argument, is Romo, not Elliott.

You can look back and see I never made any argument about any of the bolded.

 

[Sydla]

How does Elliott make special teams better? Wow, this is really going overboard.

I heard he's a hell of a pooch punter.

 

[bsheeern]

How does Elliott make special teams better? Wow, this is really going overboard.

1. Field position.
That was easy

 

[CowboyRoy]

You're certainly entitled to believe that.

If Romo's back, and we have quality QB play, it won't matter because we'll win anyway. If you want to think it's the RB that does it, that's no skin off my back.

You really must be reeling a bit with the Zeke pick eh? Now you are going to have to watch us pound the rock all over again with Zeke for the next 5 or 6 years. Now we can get back to real football.

And FYI........before 2014 the Cowboys were 8-8 3 years in a row with Romo throwing the ball around and no run game. Facts are stubborn things.