The defense will be better with Zeke

[bsheeern]

How well you run it when you choose to run has almost no impact on whether you win or lose, nor does how well you stop the run when the opponent runs. It doesn't matter whether you want to

I just can't get past this statement. By saying how WELL you keep equating that with yards gained.

One team can have 180 yards rushing for the game but be 0/6 on 3rd down conversions running the ball.
Another team can have 90 yards rushing for the game but be 5/6 on converting 3rd downs when running the ball.

Now which team was Better at rushing?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

None of it destroys my argument, the Seattle game alone refutes your conclusion the game was contested and the running game was epic and assisted the passing game.

Further, this is a matter of public record:

In 2014 total pass attempts were 435 with 34 TD's, 2013 pass attempts 535 with 31 TD's, 2012 were 648 with 28 TD's, 2011 pass attempts were 522 with 31 TD's.

Never mind the 2,354 rushing yards, I guess they only play a little role in the second half...

Jason Garrett believes were winning games in 2014 due the synergy between both the passing game and running game and how the running game had an impact on both sides of the ball.

If that is the case, we were passing better because of the running game in the first half because of the more favorable defenses due to the running game, per his words.

Go figure the one winning season in recent memory 12-4 for Dallas, also happens to feature a dominant running attack with 2,354 rushing yards and less overall passing yards of 435.


We were winning because of the synergy between the passing game and the running game, the effect was better QB play and scoring more points.

Jason parsed it as such:

Jason Garrett articulates clearly why they drafted Zeke and how the 2014 style of running game allows for a positive impact on both the offense and defense :

1) Helps QB by taking pressure off.
2) Helps WR's with favorable looks outside because of run defenses.
3) Possess the ball more.
4) More plays on offense.
5) Fewer plays on defense.
6) Allows defense to play at a higher level.
7) Pervasive impact on entire team.

He states "Similar to how we played a couple years ago when we ran the ball so effectively and I thought it had a positive impact on everyone throughout our team and we believe Zeke gives us a chance to do that".

This was from the presser, start time 4:42 and 5:20 specifically.

Zeke also helps the passing game because he is a natural pass catcher.


http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/04/28/press-conference-after-picking-ezekiel-Elliott

What part of the Cowboys threw the ball more often earlier in games in 2014 than 2013 but less late in games because we were winning don't you understand?

What part of Murray got a much larger share of his yards in garbage time than McFadden did don't you understand?

Maybe when you answer these questions we can progress to more nuanced conversations.

 

[jday]

What is funny, is I am usually very critical of Garrett but he is balls to the wall right on the 2014 formula and the impact on this team including the QB play.

Garrett has earned criticism in some areas and is deserving of praise in others. He is human and by default victim to the human condition. But honestly in the acquisition of Zeke, I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone would describe passing on such a complete talent like him as smart. I am truly at a loss. Which is why I stopped debating. For every response I made trying to drag these horses to water and make them drink, they have fought me all the way. They read or heard or came to their own conclusion on the secret formula of drafting which first rules states, "never take a rb in the 1st round" and they refuse to see the absolute pure stupidity of that blanket statement. Every draft is an entity unto itself and should be treated thusly. If you follow any rule in drafting, that one should always be the first.

 

[jnday]

I love Zeke, but I dont think you needed to draft him to get 1800 yards rushing out of your run game. Henry would have been just fine in the 2nd round. This kid will have to be unstoppable and 2000 combined yards and do it for 8 years for him to be worth the price we paid for him. But I look forward to watching him try. I just know that we arent winning diddly until we get a top 5 defense. And with Romo winding down, he will be toast in 2 or 3 years if not sooner. So in 3 years we have what exactly? A lame defense, no Romo replacement and a great run game for another couple of years? I wanted more out of the draft, but I guess I will have to settle for average. This was a good draft for someone picking from 10th to 15th. Not someone picking 4th.

You have to look at the options available when they picked Zeke. Everybody wanted Ramsey, but there was a thread in the draft zone that said Dallas made some calls to some trusted advisors and was told that Ramsey was not that great of a CB prospect. Dallas wanted him at CB, but that phone conversation put doubts on Rsmsey's ability at the position. They drafted Jones last year and he is looking like a FS., Bosa was gone , so the top pass rusher was gone. There wasn't a trade option available that would allow them to trade down and get Zeke for sure, so they made the pick. Many fans don't see the value at RB at 4, but they are not considering the type of offense that Dallas is building. You can't have dominant rushing teams without a dominant RB and dominant oline. I value RB more than most, but I honestly don't think any RB can live up to the expectations that some of these posters have.

 

[bsheeern]

Garrett has earned criticism in some areas and is deserving of praise in others. He is human and by default victim to the human condition. But honestly in the acquisition of Zeke, I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone would describe passing on such a complete talent like him as smart. I am truly at a loss. Which is why I stopped debating. For every response I made trying to drag these horses to water and make them drink, they have fought me all the way. They read or heard or came to their own conclusion on the secret formula of drafting which first rules states, "never take a rb in the 1st round" and they refuse to see the absolute pure stupidity of that blanket statement. Every draft is an entity unto itself and should be treated thusly. If you follow any rule in drafting, that one should always be the first.

Man I couldn't agree more.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You have to look at the options available when they picked Zeke. Everybody wanted Ramsey, but there was a thread in the draft zone that said Dallas made some calls to some trusted advisors and was told that Ramsey was not that great of a CB prospect. Dallas wanted him at CB, but that phone conversation put doubts on Rsmsey's ability at the position. They drafted Jones last year and he is looking like a FS., Bosa was gone , so the top pass rusher was gone. There wasn't a trade option available that would allow them to trade down and get Zeke for sure, so they made the pick. Many fans don't see the value at RB at 4, but they are not considering the type of offense that Dallas is building. You can't have dominant rushing teams without a dominant RB and dominant oline. I value RB more than most, but I honestly don't think any RB can live up to the expectations that some of these posters have.

I am all about the run game. I have been lobbying for a great back to team with the Oline. But we used the best asset we have had in 20 years to get him. We could have done better. Maybe that is being too picky, but Jones seems to overpay and get poor value. And his goals never jive. He is impatient and falls in love with players. These are not good qualities for a GM. Great backs could have been had next year, last year, and two years from now. Using the 4th pick on one was overkill. As was using the 34th pick on a LB that wont even play this year.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Man I couldn't agree more.

People have laid out the reasons why over and over again, but those that are desperate for short term goals dont want to hear it. Fact of the matter is that Henry may have done just as well as Zeke. Miller could have run for 1800 yards with Morris in this offense. WE didnt need to blow a 4th pick to get great running back play in this offense. Value/long term/longevity of the position/lack of need....ect.....ect......

 

[KJJ]

Another illiterate poster…

How can you fellas not understand this? It doesn't say "if you pass better than you run the ball…", or "Passing trumps running the ball"…, or " The running game is not important to the passing game". It doesn't say any of that. For criminy's sake, it's not about YOUR passing game versus YOUR running game. It's about your passing game versus your opponent's passing game.

One last time – this thread has to eventually end – for those who are challenged by reading comprehension… Fax have shown that a strong running game helps the team's passing game. I am not disputing that. Adam and even made that comment in the earlier post of his period yet so you folks are carrying on as if we were saying that the running game has no effect on the passing game.

The numbers don't lie… Teams that pass the ball better than their opponents win 80% of the time. Teams that run the ball better than the opponents win a shade more than 50% of the time. Therefore, it only goes to reason that passing the ball better than the opposition is a more dependable indicator of winning.

You've been brainwashed by a FAN on a fan board who claimed the running game has little effect on winning and losing in the NFL and he's DEAD WRONG! Adam isn't looking at the Cowboys situation he's taking in the entire NFL as a whole. For the "Cowboys" to be successful under their current situation with an aging QB who's been suffering injuries the past 3 seasons and with a defense that continues to struggle especially making critical 4th quarter stops they need a strong, consistent running game that can control the ball. The Cowboys went 8-8 three consecutive seasons including one season where Romo had a 102.5 passer rating. Murray and Felix Jones only combined for 3 rushing TD's that season putting it on Romo to have throw TD's to win games. The pressure of having to carry the team all year would catch up to him at the end of the season leading to a number of turnovers due to having to win games.

Romo has the second highest career passer rating in the history of the NFL but has only won 2 playoff games and has never gotten the Cowboys past the second round of the playoffs. Despite Romo owning most of the Cowboys passing records he's only been able to lead the team to the playoffs 4 times in his 10 seasons as the starter. The best season of his career was in 2014 due to having the leagues leading rusher which limited his attempts and INT's to a career low and raised his passer rating to a career high of 113.2.

In the playoffs that season he attempted only 50 passes in 2 playoff games, didn't have a single turnover and had a passer rating of 125.8 primarily due to a running game that produced over 200 yards and over 5.0 a carry. The running game is what kept us in the game vs Green Bay Romo only attempted 19 passes against the Packers. Every team is different and the Cowboys were done last season without Romo because with a running game averaging under 4.0 a carry the first 2 weeks he was back having to carry the team. The Cowboys understand he's aging and coming off an injury that kept him out of 12 games in 2015. They know they have to take pressure off him and get back to what made them successful in 2014. The team knows they can't have Romo passing the ball 40+ times a game carrying the offense like he did on opening day last season.

They can't afford to have a running game that's averaging under 4.0 a carry the first 2 weeks or it will be on Romo's aging shoulders to win games for them which could lead to another injury. The team drafted a dynamic RB to pair behind what many regard as the best OL in football and you have some on this board disappointed with the decision. I'm arguing with one FAN who believes all we need to compete is a mid round back when we had a couple of mid round backs do little to nothing last year and are no longer with the team. Some FANS on this board still believe that all the Cowboys need is an average back and that McFadden's 1000 yard season and 3 rushing TDs last year was a great year. LOL

The Cowboys know that the defense will continue to be challenged next season especially the first 4 weeks with DLaw and Gregory suspended. Hardy is GONE like I predicted months ago so our best defense will be a strong offense that can control the ball limiting our D's exposure. We're going to have to keep the defense as fresh as possible until we can add more parts to strengthen it. Adam can preach all he wants that the running game has little effect on winning or losing and that the success we had in 2014 was due to passing the ball better than our opponents. Romo had little chance in 2014 of staying on the field 15 games after coming off back surgery and passing with the efficiency he did without having one of the strongest running games the team has had since the mid 90s with Emmitt.

The success of our great 90s teams revolved around the running game and a HOF RB who became the all-time leading rusher. What was winning games then was winning games for the Cowboys in 2014. Aikman's efficient career was due to having a great back and running game to lean on. He wasn't forced to have carry the offense like Romo has almost his entire career. He wasn't forced to have to throw for over 4000 yards 30+ TD's because he had a great back that took pressure off him. The Cowboys want to get back to what they did in 2014 because that's the formula for "THIS TEAM" to win games with an aging QB who's having trouble staying healthy and whose clock is ticking.

 

[KJJ]

No. He's saying the benefit you get from running better than your opponent does not significantly help you win games. That's not the same thing as saying the running game has no effect on winning.

You don't know what he's saying because he never said the running game has no effect on winning or losing he said the running game has "little" effect on winning or losing. It doesn't make much of a difference but at least get what is being said correct.

 

[Idgit]

You don't know what he's saying because he never said the running game has no effect on winning or losing he said the running game has "little" effect on winning or losing. It doesn't make much of a difference but at least get what is being said correct.

In your world, how much of a difference is there between the qualifiers 'little' and 'not significant'? Big? Or would you say the difference is little, or not very significant at all?

 

[bsheeern]

Yeah, short yardage and goal line situations are a big part of the game, no doubt.

I tried to address my position re: rushing effectiveness in the post above this one. Hopefully it clears up what I was trying to say better than my earlier post.

I'll pose a similar question to you as I did to @AdamJT13.

Team A had 175 yards rushing for the game. They were 0/5 on converting 3rd downs by running the ball. 3 of which were in the redzone. But they averaged 5.0 yards per carry for the game. Ended the game with 0 rushing TD's

Team B had 125 yards rushing for the game. They were 5/6 on converting 3rd downs by running the ball. 2 of there conversions were in the redzone and resulted in rushing touchdowns. They averaged 4.5 yards per carry for the game. They ended the game with 2 rushing TD's.

Now Which team was better at running the ball?

Adam has consistently stated that How WELL you run the ball has little to no impact on whether you win or lose. But the stats he keeps referring to are based on which teams accumulated the most rushing yards. It's Quality or Quantity

 

[KJJ]

In your world, how much of a difference is there between the qualifiers 'little' and 'not significant'? Big? Or would you say the difference is little, or not very significant at all?

In my world I'm about being accurate and there's a difference between "little" and "none" not much of a difference but there's a difference especially when it comes to comments posters make on this board. It doesn't take much to twist a comment to fit ones agenda. I reported what Adam said and you tried spinning it a slightly different way because you're on the side of an argument that no one who played or coached in the NFL would agree with. Seeing that you want to defend Adam and give your own take on what he's saying go ahead and let's hear your explanation of this comment he made and let's see if you can make some sense of it.

The "inefficient" running game didn't cause us to lose either of those games, did it? Obviously not, because the running game has little effect on winning or losing in the NFL.

 

[bsheeern]

Yeah I think Adam is under the assumption that Rushing Totals equate to How Good or Effective you are at running the ball. He seems to use it as the basis of his analysis a lot

 

[Idgit]

I'll pose a similar question to you as I did to @AdamJT13.

Team A had 175 yards rushing for the game. They were 0/5 on converting 3rd downs by running the ball. 3 of which were in the redzone. But they averaged 5.0 yards per carry for the game. Ended the game with 0 rushing TD's

Team B had 125 yards rushing for the game. They were 5/6 on converting 3rd downs by running the ball. 2 of there conversions were in the redzone and resulted in rushing touchdowns. They averaged 4.5 yards per carry for the game. They ended the game with 2 rushing TD's.

Now Which team was better at running the ball?

Adam has consistently stated that How WELL you run the ball has little to no impact on whether you win or lose. But the stats he keeps referring to are based on which teams accumulated the most rushing yards. It's Quality or Quantity

From my experience, Adam generally uses blended rushing statistics (like DYAR, for example), though he may also be using the direct yardage comparisons for some of his explanations, too. But the argument is about rushing effectiveness, and not just who has the most yards or on YPC averages.

But in your own example there, short yardage and redzone feature fairly prominently in your description of an effective game. We know success with those factors does correlate with winning.

 

[Idgit]

In my world I'm about being accurate and there's a difference between "little" and "none" not much of a difference but there's a difference especially when it comes to comments posters make on this board. It doesn't take much to twist a comment to fit ones agenda. I reported what Adam said and you tried spinning it a slightly different way because you're on the side of an argument that no one who played or coached in the NFL would agree with. Seeing that you want to defend Adam and give your own take on what he's saying go ahead and let's hear your explanation of this comment he made and let's see if you can make some sense of it.

I don't know what you're getting hat here, or why you're using the popcorn icon, but there's nothing wrong with what Adam said there, if that's what you were asking. It's self-evident, though. I can't really make it any more sensible if it wasn't clear to you when he posted it.

 

[jnday]

Let's assume this is true. Romo's efficiency raises when he has a good running game.

Can you explain to me why we needed to spend the 4th overall pick to do this when we proved last year we can run the ball with much fewer resources at the position and in 2014 we only needed a 3rd round rb investment?

Because the lead RB last year had only three TDs and he was had the least impact of any RB that I have ever seen. His stats looked good , but he was not an impact player or playmaker.

 

[jnday]

No. He's saying the benefit you get from running better than your opponent does not significantly help you win games. That's not the same thing as saying the running game has no effect on winning.

Both teams will obviously still have running situations. It's a big part of the game.

If it is a big part of the game, why is this board arguing about the effectiveness of having a great , physical running game. I believe that this team is better and Romo is better when the offense is balanced. Dallas has tried to be s pass happy team and it failed miserably every time they tried it. A strong running game and fewer passes resulted in a 12-4 season. I like 12-4 seasons better than the 8-8 seasons myself.

 

[jnday]

I am out fellas, I have spent way too much time on this subject, the wife is not happy with me!

I will no longer be engaging in this discussion, I have posted enough.

I agree with Garrett on this subject!

Numbers are always interpreted through categories and are contextualized, people interpret the same data differently many times and that is acceptable.

Most people have already made up their minds and that is fine.

Opinions vary, that is just part of life!

It will be fun to watch Zeke and this offense go this season regardless!

I fully expect the offense to be explosive and Zeke will be a huge part of it!

Tell your wife that you really killed it in this thread and you deserve special treatment for educating the uninformed masses. You lists were appreciated and your opinions were noted. Good job.

 

[jnday]

What part of the Cowboys threw the ball more often earlier in games in 2014 than 2013 but less late in games because we were winning don't you understand?

What part of Murray got a much larger share of his yards in garbage time than McFadden did don't you understand?

Maybe when you answer these questions we can progress to more nuanced conversations.

Murray's garbage yards came when Dallas was leading and the defense's was wore down. He was used to seal the victory. DMac , on the other hand, got his garbage time yardage after the defenses knew the game was over and they was just letting the time tick off the clock. There is a big difference.

 

[KJJ]

I don't know what you're getting hat here, or why you're using the popcorn icon, but there's nothing wrong with what Adam said there, if that's what you were asking. It's self-evident, though. I can't really make it any more sensible if it wasn't clear to you when he posted it.

You know what I'm getting at but you have no answer for what he said because there isn't anything sensible that can be made of it. He made a ridiculous comment that not even he can explain. Anyone who would say the running game has little effect on winning or losing in the NFL doesn't know what they're talking about. According to Adam that comment is true now and was true 30 years ago.

Tell Jimmy Johnson and the 90s Cowboys the running game has little effect on winning or losing and they'll laugh in your face. lol What's self-evident is neither you or Adam knows what you're talking about. According to you all we need is a mid round back to compete when we had a couple of mid round backs last season that ended up being released.