The Myth of the Bell Cow

[Doomsday101]

No they don't. They needed that to protect the defense and allowed it to rank just below average. If the D takes the step it should based on resources given to it this off season, all we need is a balanced attack with an explosive running game to match our play making passing game. Remember the 90's teams did not win based on offense alone, the defenses were among the best in the league. A repeat of last year won't win a championship but a balanced mix of explosive offense, above average defense and solid special teams sure as hell will.

All this ruing over Murray is stupid, the loss we need to replace to win it all is Harris on special teams.

Defense of the 90's team was great and yet Dallas still had a very high time of possession. Running and controlling helps bad defenses no doubt but it helps very good defense be even better

 

[jnday]

No they don't. They needed that to protect the defense and allowed it to rank just below average. If the D takes the step it should based on resources given to it this off season, all we need is a balanced attack with an explosive running game to match our play making passing game. Remember the 90's teams did not win based on offense alone, the defenses were among the best in the league. A repeat of last year won't win a championship but a balanced mix of explosive offense, above average defense and solid special teams sure as hell will.

All this ruing over Murray is stupid, the loss we need to replace to win it all is Harris on special teams.

You assume too much. I am not and have never been a Murray fan. I am a fan of having a RB capable of carrying the lad and wearing defense's down. RBs need a few carries to get into the flow of the game. Emmitt has said as much and he was one of those RBs. Dallas should have had a better plan to replace Murray. That is a problem IMO. The defense of the 90's had the benefit of staying fresh or the would not have been as good as they were. The biggest change this last season was the combination of the line and a good RB. The defense looked better on paper, but it was the same defense with the same players. The 12-4 record is a direct result of the running game. It make every part of the team better including Romo and the defense.

 

[xwalker]

Defense of the 90's team was great and yet Dallas still had a very high time of possession. Running and controlling helps bad defenses no doubt but it helps very good defense be even better

The thing people forget about TOP is that it is a function of both your offense AND defense. If your own defense allows the opponent to have a high TOP it will limit your ability to control TOP.

There are stats somewhere that show TOP per possession which gives a good perspective on how well your defense controlled the opponents TOP.

 

[Doomsday101]

The thing people forget about TOP is that it is a function of both your offense AND defense. If your own defense allows the opponent to have a high TOP it will limit your ability to control TOP.

There are stats somewhere that show TOP per possession which gives a good perspective on how well your defense controlled the opponents TOP.

I just know that no matter if it is a top 5 defense or a bottom five defense, it is much easier to play when you are not on the field for long periods. Those 10 to 12 play drives are killers then when your offense goes 3 in and out the defense is right back out there, even good defense will feel the effects.

 

[blindzebra]

The thing people forget about TOP is that it is a function of both your offense AND defense. If your own defense allows the opponent to have a high TOP it will limit your ability to control TOP.

There are stats somewhere that show TOP per possession which gives a good perspective on how well your defense controlled the opponents TOP.

People use stat lines all the time without digging deeper. TOP puts even more pressure on the offense to score, if the defense is bad, because controlling the clock reduces possessions for both teams. Though for from great the defense did a respectable job last year of getting stops when they needed to...adding a few play makers should allow us to improve even more without needing to run it 35+ times a game again. I want an offense that pushes the other offense to score more and that comes by adding the homerun to the running game, and not grinding for first downs. I see an improved offensive efficiency with more pressure and turnovers from the defense. We may not better 12-4 but we will not play as many close games either and that is the recipe for a championship.

 

[jobberone]

The thing people forget about TOP is that it is a function of both your offense AND defense. If your own defense allows the opponent to have a high TOP it will limit your ability to control TOP.

There are stats somewhere that show TOP per possession which gives a good perspective on how well your defense controlled the opponents TOP.

Exactly. You can't be a ball control team and not score TDs, not get your opponent off the field, or let them score quickly.

Many teams thought of as ball control teams also could quick strike. You have to be a balanced team or the defense will adjust and make it hard for you.

 

[BAT]

Exactly. You can't be a ball control team and not score TDs, not get your opponent off the field, or let them score quickly.

Many teams thought of as ball control teams also could quick strike. You have to be a balanced team or the defense will adjust and make it hard for you.

Cowboys did not have a problem scoring TDs last season. They did have trouble getting opposing offenses off the field during crunch time. The GB playoff game is a good example. If the D was not creating a turnover, it was likely on the field too long.

 

[DandyDon52]

You were in favor of paying Murray elite RB money when he isn't an elite RB?

Romo and garrett also thought he was elite, not just me.
Plus he was part of a proven formula for success, the only success they have had in many years.
murray was worth more than carr and 7-8 mil isnt that much compared to what some others are getting.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Romo and garrett also thought he was elite, not just me.
Plus he was part of a proven formula for success, the only success they have had in many years.
murray was worth more than carr and 7-8 mil isnt that much compared to what some others are getting.

Romo and Garrett are saying the company line. Which basically means nothing. That doesn't change the fact Murray wanted elite RB money and he isn't an elite RB. Is/was Murray worth more than Carr? That doesn't matter because we don't do business that way any more and haven't for a long time. This subject has been beaten to death in here for 4 months now and the bottom line hasn't changed.

 

[Bleu Star]

Romo and Garrett are saying the company line. Which basically means nothing.

I disagree. The various pictures taken together away from "work" and a Joe Dimaggio tweet from Romo bolster my thoughts. He meant plenty and that was not just the "company line". I know many of you that never really embraced Demarco for his talents wish to believe so though so keep believing.

That doesn't change the fact Murray wanted elite RB money and he isn't an elite RB.

7-8 mil was and is not elite RB money. But I see both sides of this argument so I will just leave it at that.

Is/was Murray worth more than Carr?

I had to do a double take to make sure I read that right before answering. Uhmmmmm Yes. Carr is beginning to thieve money.

This subject has been beaten to death in here for 4 months now and the bottom line hasn't changed.

Well... The way I see it, people like to continue to recycle their stances over and over again which results in this. Stances won't change and the topic is important enough to continue fostering responses to this and the RB speculation thread. We are taking a major risk here.. Until the end of camp and the announcement of the final 53, those of us that don't "feel" the RBBC warm & fuzzy will continue to speculate and those on the other side will continue to gloss over it.

 

[jobberone]

Cowboys did not have a problem scoring TDs last season. They did have trouble getting opposing offenses off the field during crunch time. The GB playoff game is a good example. If the D was not creating a turnover, it was likely on the field too long.

I didn't say they had a problem scoring TDs. I said you can't be a ball control team and not score TDs. You have to have a high Sc% and you must get the other team off the field. You can't spend 1/2 or more of a quarter moving the ball and not score and worst of all then allow the other team to strike quickly.

 

[Galian Beast]

My point exactly. The potential for returning back to a pass happy 8-8 team has increased exponentially with the exit of Demarco and the current absence of a clock grinding replacement. Call it bell cow or whatever suits your agenda. The offense with DeMarco as an often featured centerpiece grounded defenses into submission last year. 1st year we've done that in what seems like an eternity and it's no surprise to me it allowed us to enjoy our most successful year in quite some time.

We were a pass happy team, but that isn't why we were 8 and 8. It's because we had poor defense for years.

 

[Bleu Star]

We were a pass happy team, but that isn't why we were 8 and 8. It's because we had poor defense for years.

& we had arguably poor defense last year but we somehow managed to end up 12-4. Strange how that happens..

19th last year

32nd in 2013

19th in 2012

14th in 2011

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense/year/2011

So I'm not buying that "poor defense for years" argument.

 

[jobberone]

***large snip***


Well... The way I see it, people like to continue to recycle their stances over and over again which results in this. Stances won't change and the topic is important enough to continue fostering responses to this and the RB speculation thread. We are taking a major risk here.. Until the end of camp and the announcement of the final 53, those of us that don't "feel" the RBBC warm & fuzzy will continue to speculate and those on the other side will continue to gloss over it.

I know you're not addressing me in particular but I'm on the other side so I'll respond. I and many others aren't 'glossing over it'. Your's is all or nothing thinking that puts people in one camp or the other. It allows no gray area.

To say I or others have no concerns is unfair. Speaking just for myself, I didn't like Murray gone but he never had a season like last year. And we had other cap concerns. We set a price for him and Philly bid enough to take him away. We'll move on.

If you don't feel warm and fuzzy then get in line with most of us. If you are rueing the day then my boat is full. Dallas has had RBBC in the past. Think Calvin Hill et all and Duane Thomas et al. Preston Pearson et al. Dorsett was platooned. Smith wasn't. Murray wasn't last year for the most part. He was before that. We aren't breaking new ground for Dallas or the rest of the league.

The final 53 doesn't matter as much to me as the middle of the year when we'll have an idea of how it is working.

If we can't run the ball behind this OL then I will be flabbergasted.

 

[Bleu Star]

I know you're not addressing me in particular but I'm on the other side so I'll respond. I and many others aren't 'glossing over it'. Your's is all or nothing thinking that puts people in one camp or the other. It allows no gray area.

To say I or others have no concerns is unfair. Speaking just for myself, I didn't like Murray gone but he never had a season like last year. And we had other cap concerns. We set a price for him and Philly bid enough to take him away. We'll move on.

If you don't feel warm and fuzzy then get in line with most of us. If you are rueing the day then my boat is full. Dallas has had RBBC in the past. Think Calvin Hill et all and Duane Thomas et al. Preston Pearson et al. Dorsett was platooned. Smith wasn't. Murray wasn't last year for the most part. He was before that. We aren't breaking new ground for Dallas or the rest of the league.

The final 53 doesn't matter as much to me as the middle of the year when we'll have an idea of how it is working.

If we can't run the ball behind this OL then I will be flabbergasted.

Fair enough but you have plenty of history of glossing over and complete dismissal of anyone that questions the RBBC strategy right here in this very thread. If many of those were as reasonable as what you just posted, this thread would only have half the pages it currently has at this time.

 

[Bleu Star]

If we can't run the ball behind this OL then I will be flabbergasted.

I think we can all agree that success can and will be had behind this line. I don't think that's debatable. It is the level of success that contributes to maintaining balance and controlling the clock that's in question. Many times last year, Demarco may have been an additional OG because he moved people that got in his way. We intimidated teams that placed 8 in the box and it changed the personality of our offense. It remains to be seen if that personality will remain or be tossed aside at the first sight of inability to move people (much like what we did during our multiple 8-8 runs). Coaches tend to get skittish when the run isn't working according to plan. Last year, Demarco created the comfort level (along with his line of course....) that allowed us to remain balanced all game long.

 

[blindzebra]

& we had arguably poor defense last year but we somehow managed to end up 12-4. Strange how that happens..

19th last year

32nd in 2013

19th in 2012

14th in 2011

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense/year/2011

So I'm not buying that "poor defense for years" argument.

Of course not because it destroys your weak argument...and fyi it isn't so much about those rankings as it is situationally bad, as in the offense scores right before the half and the D would allow a score, or we'd go ahead late only to see them give the lead right back.

 

[jobberone]

& we had arguably poor defense last year but we somehow managed to end up 12-4. Strange how that happens..

19th last year

32nd in 2013

19th in 2012

14th in 2011

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense/year/2011

So I'm not buying that "poor defense for years" argument.

We gave up 25 ppg 2013 and 432 pts. How many last year? Yards are much less important as that's just one aspect of the defense. Our pts differential was much better last year as both the defense and offense improved. And you saw a 4 game swing because of it.

We had a 114 pts diff last year and 111 in 2011. Between them we were around neutral. Some times both D and O were bad and other years one or the other. We had one year with a good defense giving up 347 pts in 2011. The rest of the time we gave up 400 or more. The last time we had great Ds was 09 and 03.

So yeah we have generally not had very good defenses for over a decade with two exceptions.

 

[Bleu Star]

Of course not because it destroys your weak argument...and fyi it isn't so much about those rankings as it is situationally bad, as in the offense scores right before the half and the D would allow a score, or we'd go ahead late only to see them give the lead right back.

Whatever makes you sound good. Have fun with that.

 

[Bleu Star]

We gave up 25 ppg 2013 and 432 pts. How many last year? Yards are much less important as that's just one aspect of the defense. Our pts differential was much better last year as both the defense and offense improved. And you saw a 4 game swing because of it.

We had a 114 pts diff last year and 111 in 2011. Between them we were around neutral. Some times both D and O were bad and other years one or the other. We had one year with a good defense giving up 347 pts in 2011. The rest of the time we gave up 400 or more. The last time we had great Ds was 09 and 03.

So yeah we have generally not had very good defenses for over a decade with two exceptions.

So once again.. My point stands. Last year's defense was not exponentially better than the previous few years and we still managed to go 12-4.