The Myth of the Bell Cow

[Galian Beast]

OK, give me what "running effectively" actually means?

Quantify that for me.

Give me something measurable.

I'll go out on a limb and say if a back averages 4.5 yards per carry... they're going to be an asset.

I've spoken about this before. YPC is a misleading statistic. To me what is running the ball effectively is YPC on first down and 3rd down conversion rate, it running the ball well in the red zone.

You look at Peyton Hillis in his big year in Cleveland, and I would say that was an effective running back.

 

[Stash]

which was my point...

You can't come to a conclusion that rbc failed because you have no evidence that a lead back in the same situation would succeed.

You're requiring that I try to prove a hypothetical? Good luck with that.

 

[Galian Beast]

You're requiring that I try to prove a hypothetical? Good luck with that.

Wrong, I'm not requiring you to prove a hypothetical, I'm suggested that you don't attempt to come to a conclusion that has no validity.

 

[jrumann59]

Like I said earlier, last year there were only 2 teams in the top 10 in rushing with running back over 300 carries, Dallas and Philly, everyone else was closer to 265 carries for their lead back, I think Beastmode was the next highest with about 280 carries. If you look most of the top 10 rushing teams had their 2nd and 3rd runners combine for 500+ yards.

 

[Bleu Star]

No it wasn't he showed signs late in the year of breaking down and is just as likely to revert to missing games and getting less than a 1000 than putting up 1500+. All the hand wringing is blown so out of proportion and by the same posters that were wrong about the direction the team was heading under Garrett...what a shock.

I'm always going to stand up when I'm wrong and I was wrong about Garrett. I have been right about quite a few things as well but we don't need to get petty here. I'm sure you've nailed every single thing you've ever speculated on. Kudos to you for being perfect.

DeMarco would have nailed 1500 plus this year behind this line. Easily.

 

[jrumann59]

I'm always going to stand up when I'm wrong and I was wrong about Garrett. I have been right about quite a few things as well but we don't need to get petty here. I'm sure you've nailed every single thing you've ever speculated on. Kudos to you for being perfect.

DeMarco would have nailed 1500 plus this year behind this line. Easily.

Your right if healthy. Personally I think if last year happened in 2013 Murray would have missed games because of the hand.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Hope? Great plan going into a SB year. Let's "hope" one of these cast offs can be a lead back.

I agree 100% my friend.....................one of my favorite sayings

 

[Beast_from_East]

This has been my point of contention since parting with DeMarco and alleging to the public that this three headed cow bell would be a worthy substitute. What an enormous chance to take when you are so close to tasting a Super Bowl appearance. What an incredibly risky strategic change when we got closer last year than we ever have by controlling the ball and not forcing Romo to go win games...

I agree, it just seems like a risky move that didn't need to be made.....................I understand that $6 million was our ceiling for Murray and once the Eagles went above that, we bowed out. I am totally fine with that, but I was under the impression that we would get a legit RB to replace Murray. And I am not saying that McFadden, Randle, and Williams cannot get the job done, they very well might if this oline is as good as everybody seems to think it is. However, it is an unknown and unknowns are full of risk.

If our running game struggles, especially early on in the season, the team has opened itself wide open for a cascade of criticism.................it is a big gamble on the team's part, they are making the decision that the RB really doesn't matter if your line is good enough. A lot of teams are going to be watching to see if our running game picks up where it left off. If we do run the ball effectively, I think you could see an even further devaluation of the RB position going forward. However, if we do struggle, it might swing the league back the other way to valuing the RB position more proving that the RB actually does matter, you just cant plug some jags into the lineup and be good to go.

I mean, this is the ultimate test........can you replace the NFL rushing champion with 3 relatively inexpensive replacements and still muster up an effective running game if your oline is dominant?.......That's the million dollar question.

 

[Stash]

Wrong, I'm not requiring you to prove a hypothetical, I'm suggested that you don't attempt to come to a conclusion that has no validity.

As soon as you practice what you're preaching? I sure will.

 

[Galian Beast]

As soon as you practice what you're preaching? I sure will.

False equivalence.

You can't make an unprovable claim. You can theorize, and you can back it up by facts, and I'll be more then happy to hear those stats. You show me any theory or claim that I haven't backed up, and I'll concede its conclusion doesn't have validity.

 

[jobberone]

Dr Jen Welter was added to the training camp roster of the Dallas Cowboys after fans demonstrated outside Valley Ranch for the need of a special RB. Welter is expected to offer hardy competition to what has been described as a 'bunch of scrub RBs'.

Dr Jen Welter will be making the transition from OLB to RB.

 

[DandyDon52]

1000 / 16 = 62.5

to me that is not a bell cow. I need at least 90 yds a game to even be in the conversation of being a bell cow. That is well over 1400 yds. But it isn't just about yds or even carries.......it is about tough yds, or what I call conversion yds. We need a 1st down on 3rd or 4th and short, can you get the yardage needed to keep the drive alive? We are inside the redzone, especially inside the 5. Can you find your way into the end zone? When it is obvious we are running the ball, can you still get those dirty yds?

yes that is a bell cow, ...... I dont like that term, I always saw murray as a bull, bell cows dont run and are not really tough.

the funny thng is people complain about he got caught from behind, or could not run it 80 yards for a td.
That wasnt the type of back he is, and guys that can go all the way are not going to get those dirty yards you refer to.

 

[jobberone]

yes that is a bell cow, ...... I dont like that term, I always saw murray as a bull, bell cows dont run and are not really tough.

the funny thng is people complain about he got caught from behind, or could not run it 80 yards for a td.
That wasnt the type of back he is, and guys that can go all the way are not going to get those dirty yards you refer to.

Murray is a tough back. He's lost a couple of steps from college and that 4.35 speed. But a pretty good RB....when healthy.

 

[Stash]

False equivalence.

You can't make an unprovable claim. You can theorize, and you can back it up by facts, and I'll be more then happy to hear those stats. You show me any theory or claim that I haven't backed up, and I'll concede its conclusion doesn't have validity.

Your very first one and the start of this thread. You've done a poor job of substantiating your claim against the bell cow running back with the information you've provided. You have not made a good case for your argument.

Others who have contributed to this thread have done a much better job of it.

 

[Stash]

Murray is a tough back. He's lost a couple of steps from college and that 4.35 speed. But a pretty good RB....when healthy.

I was just going to comment on that. It looks like he's lost a noticeable amount of speed from the guy who burst onto the scene with that big run against the Rams a few years ago.

 

[Galian Beast]

Your very first one and the start of this thread. You've done a poor job of substantiating your claim against the bell cow running back with the information you've provided. You have not made a good case for your argument.

Others who have contributed to this thread have done a much better job of it.

And the people who you think have done a better job have agreed completely with me...

What are they seeing that you aren't?

4 teams in the top 10 offenses didn't have a running back that even hit 1000 yards.
If 1000 yards is all you need from a rb, that isn't extremely difficult to get.

When teams don't tend to get a single player with 1000 yards, it's more to do a split in carries or injuries rather than an inability to run the ball.

 

[DandyDon52]

Bleu Star said: ↑

"Our offense sputtered along providing us with false hope and 8-8 year after year while attempting to place the game on the shoulders of one Tony Romo.
It wasn't until last year, when our focus finally shifted to a more balanced mindset with a greater emphasis on the run and the retirement of the "Tony's shoulders" philosophy, that our offense began to churn and destroy defenses with a clock killing mentality.
We need that 25 plus carries per game from a bell cow to be successful.
Going back to thinking Romo can go win more games than not is going to place us back closer to 8-8 and false hopes yet again... I don't hope I'm wrong because in my heart of hearts I know I'm right."

I have to agree with this, and also both Romo and Garrett wanted to keep murray, but the Jones did not think he was worth keeping.
For just one more mil a year and a few mil more guaranteed Murray would still be here.

to me this is the year to make a run for SB, and it would have been better to have kept murray than try to replace him right now.
but he is gone , and they could not get AP or anther FA, and they didnt draft one, so now they have to make the roster they have work.
I think Jerry thinks McF can step right in and do what Murray did.

Also if the cowboys had gone to the run 25 or more a game in 2nd half of 2013 they would have made the playoffs.
And In 2014 the heavy run offense led them to a 6-1 start, best start ever? and to the playoffs, Had they started 4-3 they might not have made the playoffs.

 

[DandyDon52]

I got your "simple" in a special place.

The offensive strategy last year was air tight. Improve the defense (which we did) and maintain the same offensive strategy that worked wonders with a bell cow RB (remains to be seen). That, Mr Simple, is the return road to the elusive Super Bowl.

That is all they had to do was improve defense, and keep murray. Do the same thing again only with better defense, and improved OL.

 

[DandyDon52]

The Jets Texans and 49ers were tops in rushing yards last year. 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively. They finished 32nd, 24th and 30th in passing yards respectively.

This is a passing league. More specifically it is a qb league. When you have a qb who threatens through the air more times than not you'll be able to move it on the ground because of the threat of throwing the ball.

The threat of running as I've evidenced is not as powerful a link.

Yes passing and running are dependent variables. But the coefficient on passing efficiency variable is much larger than it is on rushing efficiency variable. That is not something that can be argued. As you tried to do by bringing up Seattle.

LOL those 3 teams had bad qb's last year, colin was trying to be a pocket passer, and he isnt that, he is a running qb.
The other 2 had no passing game due to qb not very good and other issues.
For one to help the other they have to both be efficient, a great run game is not going to help a bad pass game.
Same thing if you have a good pass game it isnt going to help a bad run game.
Colts had a great pass game, but their run game is no good.
It takes more than a good RB, you need OL, and good blocking (not just OL) and schemes, run a certain amount and at right times.

 

[Stash]

And the people who you think have done a better job have agreed completely with me...

What are they seeing that you aren't?

4 teams in the top 10 offenses didn't have a running back that even hit 1000 yards.
If 1000 yards is all you need from a rb, that isn't extremely difficult to get.

When teams don't tend to get a single player with 1000 yards, it's more to do a split in carries or injuries rather than an inability to run the ball.

Exactly! And you continue to try to pretend the situations with Ingram and Anderson somehow support your point, when in fact they directly refute it.