The Myth of the Bell Cow

[Bleu Star]

"What do voluntary mean?"

That was a quote by LB Darren Hambrick, not RB Troy Hambrick.

True. Still timeless nevertheless.

 

[jobberone]

True. Still timeless nevertheless.

Right up there with 'trade Coakley' and 'if he's so good'

 

[Broges74]

The above is the league wide ypc since 1970. You see the trend upwards? This is due to the defense being so worried about the pass. This is the perfect time for a 90s style team to pop up with a dominant running game and a great wr and a good qb. Teams have been drafting pass rushers and teaching a philosophy of stopping the pass.

We exploited the inability of teams to stop the run. We need to stick to that plan.

 

[DandyDon52]

The problem is that McFadden has had over 1000 yards once in his entire career...................it apparently is not as easy as you are suggesting if 6 out of 7 times he never reached it.....................or he just flat out sucks.

Randle has looked good in limited carries, but Troy Hambrick averaged over 5 yards per carry as the backup also.............when he was made the starter in 2003, his averaged dropped to 3.5...........that is why backups don't automatically make good starters. Interestingly enough, when Hambrick went back to being a backup in 2004 his averaged shot back up to 4.5 and the one season he was a starter in 2003 ended up being the only season of his career with a YPC below 4.0.

That is why people need to tap the breaks with Randle, just because he has a good YPC as a backup does not mean he can maintain that as the starter. When teams start game planning specifically for you, it makes a difference...........ask Hambrick.

I agree, with all the dallas back it is a wait and see deal , we dont know one way or the other.
McFadden is healthy now , and will be playing behind a better line, and better team,. so he should do better than in oakland, the question is how much better? But he will do better.
Randle and the others, will find out what it is like to get 15-20 carries a game week after week, and they may shine , but they may not.

Dallas needs to try for 30 carries a game whether it is by several or just 1 or 2. and they need to avg about 110 a game.

 

[jobberone]

The above is the league wide ypc since 1970. You see the trend upwards? This is due to the defense being so worried about the pass. This is the perfect time for a 90s style team to pop up with a dominant running game and a great wr and a good qb. Teams have been drafting pass rushers and teaching a philosophy of stopping the pass.

We exploited the inability of teams to stop the run. We need to stick to that plan.

From 2001 to present how much did the YPC go up? How about from 1982?

You're talking tenths here.

 

[Bleu Star]

Dallas needs to try for 30 carries a game whether it is by several or just 1 or 2. and they need to avg about 110 a game.

No doubt.

 

[DandyDon52]

I'm not sure whether or not any one of them will get as many as 17. I think the split will be closer to 15-10-5.

could be the way they do it, but I think they should pick a back each game and let him be the main one with 20-25 carries, and spell him when he is winded, and then next week he rests, while another steps into main role. That way they could see how they do as the main guy.
A RB needs more than 15 carries to get in a groove, and needs to play most of the game, not just here and there.

 

[Bleu Star]

A RB needs more than 15 carries to get in a groove, and needs to play most of the game, not just here and there.

Get out of my head sir.

 

[Galian Beast]

could be the way they do it, but I think they should pick a back each game and let him be the main one with 20-25 carries, and spell him when he is winded, and then next week he rests, while another steps into main role. That way they could see how they do as the main guy.
A RB needs more than 15 carries to get in a groove, and needs to play most of the game, not just here and there.

I think that has been said often, but I don't know that there is any evidence to support that.

As for adopting a sort of pitching rotation that is a novel idea, but I'm not sure how well that translates either.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

could be the way they do it, but I think they should pick a back each game and let him be the main one with 20-25 carries, and spell him when he is winded, and then next week he rests, while another steps into main role. That way they could see how they do as the main guy.
A RB needs more than 15 carries to get in a groove, and needs to play most of the game, not just here and there.

Boy, I don't see that working, i.e. let a back get 20-25 carries and then rest him next week. I've never seen that happen in the NFL. First off it's unusual anymore for any back to get 20 carries or more per gam.

And when I read some sort of statement about how many carries a back needs to "get into a groove" I would love to see some sorta factual information to back up that often-posted point of view.

How many carries does it take to get "into a groove"?

10?
23?
15?
7?

I doubt anyone actually knows.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think that has been said often, but I don't know that there is any evidence to support that.

I just posted the same.

I don't think there's a lick of evidence to support that premise, i.e. that a back needs no less than 18 carries in order to get into the groove of the game.

 

[Broges74]

From 2001 to present how much did the YPC go up? How about from 1982?

You're talking tenths here.

I'm talking league wide. Around 13000 att. Do you reject there is a trend and for that amount of atts, 10ths are statistically significant ?

 

[Knotamus]

McFadden has done it once in 7 years
Randle has 105 carries in his career
RWilliams has 58 carries in 4 seasons

The same reasons fans discredit the RB's on the roster, is exactly the same reason I'm excited to see what the run game will do this year. Its too easy to look at the stats above as face value and say negative things. I guess it really depends on an individuals outlook. I'd rather see the glass "half-full" when referring to my favorite team. Not to mention, the Front Office as of late has given no reason to doubt they know better than us "living room coaches". The RB position may be a question mark, but the reason we couldn't stop Aaron Rodgers last year (the defense), thankfully has been addressed better than most could have imagined. So here we are debating whether we think FO is right ab the current runningbacks? I'll keep "trusting the Process."

That being said... let me just mention...All three of these backs were very productive in college and highly regarded.

McFadden was on a crappy team and was met frequently in the back field. Defenses running full speed virtually unblocked leads to numerous injuries.. go figure. Is he washed up? Maybe the injuries have caught up to him.. But I'd be willing to bet that he's ready to prove to everyone of you wrong, now that he has a real offense around him...
Randle was productive in college, was productive in very limited chances the last couple of years.. so Randle will be given every opportunity to produce this year.. So why do people think he wont be productive again? bc he stole underwear?! smh

And Williams.. another guy that has had bad luck with injuries, yet has the skill set to be successful in the NFL.. exp behind the #1 OL in football (and yes, that was a big factor in Murrays success last year)

Bottom line, folks are going to keep knocking the current group of backs bc they haven't shown much... sure glad we didn't give up on Murray two seasons ago when we drafted Randle bc Murray couldn't stay healthy. Opportunity is the name of the game in the NFL. Football stars aren't stars until they're given a chance. I'm not one of those who say "anybody can run behind this OL", but I'm confident the current group of RB's are talented enough to be very good behind the kitchen size holes that our OL will create. They will surprise people and there is a chance we are just as good (if not better) on offense, and the defense is ten times better. So if the RB position is the main focus at this point...This makes me very optimistic for the 2015 season. GO COWBOYS!!

 

[jobberone]

I'm talking league wide. Around 13000 att. Do you reject there is a trend and for that amount of atts, 10ths are statistically significant ?

Trend ok although not important.

Not statistically significant on grass. Didn't calculate (nor remember how) any stats suggestive of significance since it doesn't matter if it went up a few tenths. That's over decades.

 

[xwalker]

McFadden has done it once in 7 years
Randle has 105 carries in his career
RWilliams has 58 carries in 4 seasons

The same reasons fans discredit the RB's on the roster, is exactly the same reason I'm excited to see what the run game will do this year. Its too easy to look at the stats above as face value and say negative things. I guess it really depends on an individuals outlook. I'd rather see the glass "half-full" when referring to my favorite team. Not to mention, the Front Office as of late has given no reason to doubt they know better than us "living room coaches". The RB position may be a question mark, but the reason we couldn't stop Aaron Rodgers last year (the defense), thankfully has been addressed better than most could have imagined. So here we are debating whether we think FO is right ab the current runningbacks? I'll keep "trusting the Process."

That being said... let me just mention...All three of these backs were very productive in college and highly regarded.

McFadden was on a crappy team and was met frequently in the back field. Defenses running full speed virtually unblocked leads to numerous injuries.. go figure. Is he washed up? Maybe the injuries have caught up to him.. But I'd be willing to bet that he's ready to prove to everyone of you wrong, now that he has a real offense around him...
Randle was productive in college, was productive in very limited chances the last couple of years.. so Randle will be given every opportunity to produce this year.. So why do people think he wont be productive again? bc he stole underwear?! smh

And Williams.. another guy that has had bad luck with injuries, yet has the skill set to be successful in the NFL.. exp behind the #1 OL in football (and yes, that was a big factor in Murrays success last year)

Bottom line, folks are going to keep knocking the current group of backs bc they haven't shown much... sure glad we didn't give up on Murray two seasons ago when we drafted Randle bc Murray couldn't stay healthy. Opportunity is the name of the game in the NFL. Football stars aren't stars until they're given a chance. I'm not one of those who say "anybody can run behind this OL", but I'm confident the current group of RB's are talented enough to be very good behind the kitchen size holes that our OL will create. They will surprise people and there is a chance we are just as good (if not better) on offense, and the defense is ten times better. So if the RB position is the main focus at this point...This makes me very optimistic for the 2015 season. GO COWBOYS!!

People would have been content if they had drafted a RB in the top 3 rounds, but that player would come into the season with Zero NFL carries in his career.

 

[BAT]

I've seen that narrative, and I think it doesn't tell the whole story.

I think Romo has had tremendous success in the past when throwing the ball more. I think giving him more support certainly helps, but don't think he necessarily needs to have a diminished role in the offense. 2006, 2007, and 2011 are prime examples. With a better defense and more consistent running game, I think Romo can still be the focal point of our offense.

Narrative?? Myth?? These are truths. Emmitt Smith is not a myth or a narrative. Neither was Marshawn Lynch, Tony Dorsett, Jim Brown nor Walter Payton.

A dominant running game, whether by committee or by an individual, is championship proven. The Cowboys have proven that this formula works for THEM. Just because you have preference towards the passing game, you don't have to fabricate fallacies about one being "better" than the other. Neither Tom Brady nor Peyton work for the Cowboys.

As for what is best for Romo, is it a coincidence that he had his BEST season, MVP worthy, when complemented by the most dominant rushing attack in the league?

And our elite OL is more effective, only elite, when run blocking and above average in pass protection. Your argument that Cowboys should return to its pass heavy philosophy has no support, never mind merit.

 

[Nightman]

People would have been content if they had drafted a RB in the top 3 rounds, but that player would come into the season with Zero NFL carries in his career.

These guys have 11 years of NFL service time and more questions than a rookie would have.

And it wasn't just any rookie we wanted to hand the reigns to, it had to be one of the top 3-5 guys.

 

[jobberone]

Narrative?? Myth?? These are truths. Emmitt Smith is not a myth or a narrative. Neither was Marshawn Lynch, Tony Dorsett, Jim Brown nor Walter Payton.

A dominant running game, whether by committee or by an individual, is championship proven. The Cowboys have proven that this formula works for THEM. Just because you have preference towards the passing game, you don't have to fabricate fallacies about one being "better" than the other. Neither Tom Brady nor Peyton work for the Cowboys.

As for what is best for Romo, is it a coincidence that he had his BEST season, MVP worthy, when complemented by the most dominant rushing attack in the league?

And our elite OL is more effective, only elite, when run blocking and above average in pass protection. Your argument that Cowboys should return to its pass heavy philosophy has no support, never mind merit.

The Cowboys won a SB Dorsett's first year. He didn't even start until the latter part of the year and didn't hit 1000 yds either. Brown and even Payton are from a different era although the latter fit the Bears fine and was a bellcow. Lynch makes Seattle a better team but they win with a balanced offense and a very good defense.

Romo had a great year because the defense played much better and defenses had to play the run. It wasn't just because Murray ran for 1800. All you have to do is look at other teams that won a SB to see you don't need a dominant run game. Certainly doesn't hurt though.

 

[DandyDon52]

Boy, I don't see that working, i.e. let a back get 20-25 carries and then rest him next week. I've never seen that happen in the NFL. First off it's unusual anymore for any back to get 20 carries or more per gam.

And when I read some sort of statement about how many carries a back needs to "get into a groove" I would love to see some sorta factual information to back up that often-posted point of view.

How many carries does it take to get "into a groove"?

10?
23?
15?
7?

I doubt anyone actually knows.

What you say is true , but here is one fact "Oct 17, 2014 ... DeMarco Murray, averaging 26.5 carries per game, has played a big role in Dallas' surprising 5-1 start"
12 carries a game is only 3 per quarter 16 is 4 , and the more you do something the better you get at it even in a game.

About the play one week rest the next, yeah that wont happen, but as a RB I would rather do it like that than a few carries each game.

 

[Biggems]

I think a couple people missed my point.

I think most people would call a player with over 1000 yards a bell cow, but the fact is many top offenses didn't have one.

You can also get into a discussion on ranges and whether someone is an elite running back or not.

Do people really think that Randle or McFadden can't break 1000 yards with this offensive line? I think McFadden if healthy and in good shape could certainly do it. I think we need to see how he fares compared to how he was in 2011. That's a long time in running back years, but he was certainly considered one of the best running backs in the league that year. Is that player still there? Can he fit in a zone scheme? Will playing in this offense let him play even better than he did in 2011? Randle might also have turned himself into a back who can have success in this league. I also don't think Williams or even Dunbar should be counted out.

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?