The Myth of the Bell Cow

[Nightman]

How can anyone talk about the renaissance of the running game when it's national news when a running back goes in the first round?

Or when a team that very much rode a successful 'bell cow' into the playoffs scoffed at paying him 5.6% of the cap.

Everything is cyclical. A lot of these "rules" about RBs are being broken.

You mentioned 2 RBs going in the first round. Also 2 in the 2nd and 4 in the 3rd. Most higher than expected.
We chose not top pay for a RB, but it didn't stop SEA, BUF, PHI, NO and IND
The Vikings are fighting for the chance to pay Peterson 12.75m

 

[xwalker]

Yes, if you have a historically great defense....a lot of normal trends don't apply to you. @xwalker should know better.

Seattle's running probably made the defense even better. Seattle was 7th in TOP and only a few seconds from being 4th.

My point was that I'm not a fan of the "Passing Effectively" is the primary factor in winning and that the running game is only important for short yardage situations. You've heard the term "Junk Science", well that concept is "Junk Statistics". Passing and Rushing are dependent variables, not independent. The 8 man in the box concept that opens up the passing game is the simple example of the dependence between passing and rushing. The stats that are used in the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric treat Passing and Rushing as independent variables. The bottom line is that rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the value of the running game. Defenses adjust to contain rushing with tactics like 8 men in the box. Any accurate conclusions on the importance of passing relative to rushing would have to include more than just yards gained. Some stats would be needed to somehow determine when defenses are focusing on the run and giving up more passing yards because of it.

Having said that, I'm not saying that passing is not more important in the modern NFL than rushing, but the simple stats can't determine if it is 51-49 in terms of Pass-Rush importance or 90-10. The people that push the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric make it seem as if it is 99-1.

 

[Nightman]

They might have to abandon the run. It all depends on unproven backs. Oline or not. Guys still have to stay healthy and hit the right holes with authority.

Your 2nd point I have no problem with. I'm saying a 90s style offense can succeed in this league if you run the ball well. We did that last season and we took one heck if a chance not signing Murray nor drafting a rb nor trading for one.

If we brought back the counter trey with this OL it could be devastating. I've seen a lot of pulling with our guys but not quite the way WAS used to run it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Simply not true. Our offense has been consistently very good for years.

Not when Flo and Gurode left and in the rebuilding era. 2nd half of 2013 things started to come together but we have been pretty bad in red zone and 3rd down until recently.

 

[Broges74]

Seattle's running probably made the defense even better. Seattle was 7th in TOP and only a few seconds from being 4th.

My point was that I'm not a fan of the "Passing Effectively" is the primary factor in winning and that the running game is only important for short yardage situations. You've heard the term "Junk Science", well that concept is "Junk Statistics". Passing and Rushing are dependent variables, not independent. The 8 man in the box concept that opens up the passing game is the simple example of the dependence between passing and rushing. The stats that are used in the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric treat Passing and Rushing as independent variables. The bottom line is that rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the value of the running game. Defenses adjust to contain rushing with tactics like 8 men in the box. Any accurate conclusions on the importance of passing relative to rushing would have to include more than just yards gained. Some stats would be needed to somehow determine when defenses are focusing on the run and giving up more passing yards because of it.

Having said that, I'm not saying that passing is not more important in the modern NFL than rushing, but the simple stats can't determine if it is 51-49 in terms of Pass-Rush importance or 90-10. The people that push the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric make it seem as if it is 99-1.

We may argue about the need for a bellcow but this is the best post in this thread.

 

[Nightman]

Not when Flo and Gurode left and in the rebuilding era. 2nd half of 2013 things started to come together but we have been pretty bad in red zone and 3rd down until recently.

We had a lot of the "stats" but we were coming from behind a lot and Romo's numbers were forced and a little misleading.

The offense last year was blowing people away at the end of the year and playing with the lead. We were still running effectively when they knew it was coming.

 

[xwalker]

They might have to abandon the run. It all depends on unproven backs. Oline or not. Guys still have to stay healthy and hit the right holes with authority.

Your 2nd point I have no problem with. I'm saying a 90s style offense can succeed in this league if you run the ball well. We did that last season and we took one heck if a chance not signing Murray nor drafting a rb nor trading for one.

If the RBs on the roster fail in the 1st couple of games, then the Cowboy will trade for a veteran. They'll have to over-pay, but for a high enough draft pick they can get a quality veteran RB.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Seattle's running probably made the defense even better. Seattle was 7th in TOP and only a few seconds from being 4th.

My point was that I'm not a fan of the "Passing Effectively" is the primary factor in winning and that the running game is only important for short yardage situations. You've heard the term "Junk Science", well that concept is "Junk Statistics". Passing and Rushing are dependent variables, not independent. The 8 man in the box concept that opens up the passing game is the simple example of the dependence between passing and rushing. The stats that are used in the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric treat Passing and Rushing as independent variables. The bottom line is that rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the value of the running game. Defenses adjust to contain rushing with tactics like 8 men in the box. Any accurate conclusions on the importance of passing relative to rushing would have to include more than just yards gained. Some stats would be needed to somehow determine when defenses are focusing on the run and giving up more passing yards because of it.

Having said that, I'm not saying that passing is not more important in the modern NFL than rushing, but the simple stats can't determine if it is 51-49 in terms of Pass-Rush importance or 90-10. The people that push the "Passing Effectively" rhetoric make it seem as if it is 99-1.

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.

 

[DFWJC]

They might have to abandon the run. It all depends on unproven backs. Oline or not. Guys still have to stay healthy and hit the right holes with authority.

Your 2nd point I have no problem with. I'm saying a 90s style offense can succeed in this league if you run the ball well. We did that last season and we took one heck if a chance not signing Murray nor drafting a rb nor trading for one.

I'd say it depends more on a strong Oline.
But yes, if all 4 RBs are absolutely clueless on what do when the ball is handed to them, then well need to find help.
1000 yards last year before contact for Murray tells us the line is pretty good.

 

[Broges74]

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.

This is a league where an average QB surrounded by talent can win. Not every team has a good enough QB to take advantage of the rule changes.Unless you're Manning, Rogers, Brady or Brees, you're not winning big without a good running game or/and a good defense. You need to break down that ratio by team and not use a blanket statement and call it something that cannot be argued.

 

[Nightman]

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.

And of the Top 5 passing offenses only DEN was in the Top 5 for scoring.

 

[Bleu Star]

Everything is cyclical. A lot of these "rules" about RBs are being broken.


The Vikings are fighting for the chance to pay Peterson 12.75m

Right! They're practically begging him to let them pay him 12.75.

 

[Redball Express]

Top 10 offenses in the NFL (PPG)
Green Bay
Denver
Philadelphia
New England
Dallas
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
New Orleans
Seattle

Teams in bold had a running back with over 1000 yards rushing

I don't think anyone will say that having a bell cow doesn't help your offense, but I think it should be pointed out that you can do things without having one (which isn't even to say that a runner on our team can't be that guy).

Denver had one of the best offenses in the league and their top running back had 849 yards.

The Patriots didn't have a single player break 500 yards.

I think the real question isn't whether or not the team can replicate last year's successful formula, but what the team can do with this years roster to be just as successful if not more so.

I definitely think the Cowboys are looking at the Patriots formula from last year, but thinking they can be more successful running the ball with the offensive line and running backs we have.

I think you look at our offensive weapons and the compare pretty well compared to the Patriots.

Is Gronkowski a better target than Witten? Absolutely he is, but I think Bryant cancels him out.

I think Witten is as good if not better than Edelman as a target.

The question is can Williams be as effective and as consistent as LaFell became. Comparing their career trajectory you would think Williams has the potential to become a better player.

I think Beasley gives us a lot of what Edelman gives us. I expect/hope to see him play a larger role in the offense this year, and I think part of that may have been why we didn't want to pay Murray. Cowboys made a hefty investment in him not to use him more.

I think Dunbar can be every bit as good as Vereen in the passing game.

Escobar is better than Tim Wright as well.

The biggest question is can this offensive line pass protect well enough to allow us to take our passing game to another level? And can our defense become the force it needs to be to change the tone of our games. I think it can.

Good question to pose.

I say yes we can succeed with what we have.

Problem is..we have tried the running by committe approach before and it just never worked.

We tried it with Julius Jones and then Felix Jones.

We tried it with MBIII and that didn't settle at all.

Certainly our OL is better and the guy calling the plays is better.

And truly what happened with Murray was that they ran him gingerly initially because of his injury history.

Then more and more as he succeeded and the whole formula of OL play calling and improved QBing occurred together.

So what happens is..it's not so much running by committee, it's auditioning for the job.

One guy is going to get hot and they feed him the ball..no committee needed.

I see that being what they want and how it has to work out.

We have tried drafting the main horse and the complementary back and it never meshes.

Let's not fool ourselves. And I'm OK with that going forward.

We will work it out..

and if It doesn't we will go to a more passing offense..

and use more 3-4 WR sets with Devin Street and Escobar in the game and we will still run the ball and have maybe a 1000 RB.

The big comparison you left out was Brady vs. Romo.

Regardless of Brady and Deflate-gate suspensions..

Brady is another level above Romo and that still will hold us back unless Brady is injured for the season.

So it's too tough to call for me.

Let it be.

 

[Bleu Star]

If the RBs on the roster fail in the 1st couple of games, then the Cowboy will trade for a veteran. They'll have to over-pay, but for a high enough draft pick they can get a quality veteran RB.

1st couple of games? I prefer to not have to wait that long to make a decision.

On another note, this mess between AP/AD and the Vikes is not going to drag on beyond the month of June. I seriously believe some news is going to break by July 1st.

 

[Bleu Star]

I'm just blown away by how easily many of us are willing to revert back to the pass happy (actually unhappy) days where we were just waiting for the ever untimely Romo zinger to drop into the hands of some thankful defender.

I love the guy but placing the game back on his shoulders is not going to get us to the Super Bowl anytime soon... Not speculating. The history is there to prove it. Balanced clock control ball wins championships.

 

[xwalker]

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.

The Seattle reference was tongue-in-cheek.

Example. Two offenses play the same defense.
Offense A
100 yards rushing
300 yards passing
65% completion ratio
35 passing attempts
20 rushing attempts
Win 24-21
Defense plays 7 men in the box.

Offense B
100 yards rushing
300 yards passing
65% completion ratio
35 passing attempts
20 rushing attempts
Win 24-21
Defense plays 8 men in the box.

The stats are going to look exactly the same, but the running game was more important to Offense B than to Offense A.

The correlation on passing efficiency would be exactly the same for both offenses.

The correlation on rushing efficiency would be exactly the same for both offenses.

Passing and Rushing are dependent variables and the simple statistics that are available don't define the exact dependence. The 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box stat does not exist. Obviously, it is more complicated that just 7 vs 8 men in the box, but I'm just using that as an example; however, that stat would be much more informative that just rushing yardage.

It is the threat of the rush that caused the defense in the example to play 8 men in the box. If that offense gained the same yardage as the offense that played against 7 in the box, then it obviously is a better rushing offense, but the stats do not show it. The stronger rushing team probably also caused the defensive line to play run 1st more often which would limit their pass rush. There are several ways that a stronger rushing attack can help passing, but that won't show up in the simple stats.

If passing effectively was the only determining factor in winning and there was no dependence between passing and rushing, then LBs would cease to exist. All players would either be CBs or pass rushers.

 

[5Stars]

I'm just blown away by how easily many of us are willing to revert back to the pass happy (actually unhappy) days where we were just waiting for the ever untimely Romo zinger to drop into the hands of some thankful defender.

I love the guy but placing the game back on his shoulders is not going to get us to the Super Bowl anytime soon... Not speculating. The history is there to prove it. Balanced clock control ball wins championships.

Yeah, Romo throws up an INT at the wrong time trying to win a game where the defense CANNOT STOP THE OTHER TEAM OR MAKE THEM PUNT, AT LEAST ONCE!

Stupid Romo.

 

[xwalker]

1st couple of games? I prefer to not have to wait that long to make a decision.

On another note, this mess between AP/AD and the Vikes is not going to drag on beyond the month of June. I seriously believe some news is going to break by July 1st.

Or preseason. Whatever the time frame, my point it that you can trade for a decent RB if you want to give up a decent draft pick.

I don't even want to address your other sentence because that will become the entire topic of this thread.

 

[Bleu Star]

Yeah, Romo throws up an INT at the wrong time trying to win a game where the defense CANNOT STOP THE OTHER TEAM OR MAKE THEM PUNT, AT LEAST ONCE!

Stupid Romo.

So humor me here. If the defense is better (as we expect) and we are not passing regularly to keep up, who will we be giving the ball to regularly to control the clock? If we find that we can't hand the ball off reliably to someone, what do you think will happen next?

 

[Bleu Star]

I don't even what to address your other sentence because that will become the entire topic of this thread.

Fair enough.