The Myth of the Bell Cow

[Howboutdemcowboys31]

 

[Bleu Star]

We have four cow bells right now. We need a bell cow.

 

[Stash]

That may be the appearance but the formula for winning in this league is to pass better than your opponent and defend it better. You need an effective running game to make the defense play you honestly, set up more successful rates for 2nd and 3rd down conversions and hence higher Sc%, better RZ% and short yardage situations.

But defending the pass has nothing to do with what you do offensively. You can either pass well or you can't. You cane defend the pass well or you can't. One isn't dependant on the other.

Last year the difference in the years previously was the ability of the running game to do the above. This took the load off the passing game and Tony. It allowed the run to set up the pass and vice versa. It was this balance that led to our success and an improved passing game as well as running game. You cannot be successful in this league with a one sided offense nor a poor passing offense. Throw in a poor pass defense and you have a losing record.

Again, the defensive part has nothing to do with the offensive part. If you can't defend the pass, you can't defend the pass. And if your defense is weak, as ours was, the best idea is to play keep away with better time of possession like we did.

You only get so many offensive possessions a game on average. The more quickly you score and the higher the Sc% the more likely you are to outscore your opponent and change the balance of possessions in your favor. This is done via a good or better passing offense complemented by an effective running attack.

Scoring percentage? Sure. That's pretty obvious isn't it? But "quickly"? No, that doesn't matter. Score more effectively than your opponent and you win.

You can go back a pretty long way and see this. Look at the SB winners.

I'll go back and look at how this team functioned when they won. And they didn't do it by being pass happy. They did it with good defense and a balanced offensive attack.

I think that if this team did exactly what it did last year and was simply better against the pass, they very well could have won it all. Given what they have added, I feel even more strongly about it and I am very optimistic about their chances to contend this year.

 

[5Stars]

I'm pretty sure no one was realistically expecting 1800+ again but 1500+ from Demarco was very likely behind this line.

Do you see what you just typed? Murray was not all that, although he was good. However, bringing in another big, mean, pissed knucklehead like Martin to go with the Bearded Tyron group made a huge difference in speed from the young uglies upfront so Murray could have some success. And, they just picked another li'l hungry dude ready to open up some holes.

Good luck this year.

 

[blindzebra]

I'm pretty sure no one was realistically expecting 1800+ again but 1500+ from Demarco was very likely behind this line.

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.

 

[Galian Beast]

Sorry, 6 out of 10, my bad. And two more who were right at or easily approaching 1,000 yards.



One which you mentioned. And bell cow now means 'elite'? I think you need to post your disclaimers, because the terms are getting more and more ambiguous.



One of those 4 had a guy who missed time that was less than 50 yards shy of 1,000 and the other a guy who was late to the party as an injury replacement who would have easily reached that goal given enough time. Your examples do more to damage your position than to support it here.

Yeah, a couple are close to 1000, and again what does 1000 necessarily mean? I mentioned this on the first page. You might be a bell cow, but does that necessarily make you elite? Would being a franchise quarterback necessarily make you an elite qb?

The goal of 1000 is arbitrary as it is, that the idea of trying to add people who don't even make it to that is a bit ridiculous.

We could raise the goal to 1200, and what happens to though with 999? Does being a yard shy of 1000 mean that they're able to carry an offense? I don't think so.

 

[Galian Beast]

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.

Our RBC didn't work before? We were 7th in rushing yards in 2009. I think our inability to accrue yards on the ground has always been more about an inability to stick with the run, rather than the horses in the stable.

I think there was a period in time in which our offensive line deteriorated and we weren't able to get much push in the man power blocking scheme we had before and that also contributed.

I don't think Brady is any better than Romo, and the numbers certainly don't lie here. He certainly isn't a another level above Romo.

People too often give Brady credit for winning games with good defenses, and too often give Romo the blame for losing games with bad defenses.

 

[Stash]

Yeah, a couple are close to 1000, and again what does 1000 necessarily mean? I mentioned this on the first page. You might be a bell cow, but does that necessarily make you elite? Would being a franchise quarterback necessarily make you an elite qb?

The goal of 1000 is arbitrary as it is, that the idea of trying to add people who don't even make it to that is a bit ridiculous.

Actually, what's "ridiculous" is trying to make a case on numbers and then trying to refute those very numbers when they fail yi support your case. And then to try to make a case against guys based on an injury situation. Ingram was 30 yards shy of 1,000 yards while missing several games. Should that be thrown out because it blows up your attempted case?

CJ Anderson didn't start running for the Broncos until week 10, should that be disregarded because it ruins your case?

[/quote]We could raise the goal to 1200, and what happens to though with 999? Does being a yard shy of 1000 mean that they're able to carry an offense? I don't think so.[/quote]

You're all over the place trying to prove a point that you're struggling with, and now you want to move the bar yet again. The list you presented does a poor job of attempting to illustrate your point. The vast majority of the teams on that lead had good running backs who did well. And all but one of them who didn't have one, went out a made a significant investment to try to fix that.

The only exception to the rule from that list is New England.

 

[Stash]

Our RBC didn't work before? We were 7th in rushing yards in 2009. I think our inability to accrue yards on the ground has always been more about an inability to stick with the run, rather than the horses in the stable.

I think there was a period in time in which our offensive line deteriorated and we weren't able to get much push in the man power blocking scheme we had before and that also contributed.

I don't think Brady is any better than Romo, and the numbers certainly don't lie here. He certainly isn't a another level above Romo.

People too often give Brady credit for winning games with good defenses, and too often give Romo the blame for losing games with bad defenses.

Which is an entirely separate subject from bell cow or running back by committee.

 

[Galian Beast]

Actually, what's "ridiculous" is trying to make a case on numbers and then trying to refute those very numbers when they fail yi support your case. And then to try to make a case against guys based on an injury situation. Ingram was 30 yards shy of 1,000 yards while missing several games. Should that be thrown out because it blows up your attempted case?

CJ Anderson didn't start running for the Broncos until week 10, should that be disregarded because it ruins your case?

We could raise the goal to 1200, and what happens to though with 999? Does being a yard shy of 1000 mean that they're able to carry an offense? I don't think so.[/quote]

You're all over the place trying to prove a point that you're struggling with, and now you want to move the bar yet again. The list you presented does a poor job of attempting to illustrate your point. The vast majority of the teams on that lead had good running backs who did well. And all but one of them who didn't have one, went out a made a significant investment to try to fix that.

The only exception to the rule from that list is New England.[/quote]

I think you've assumed too much and again it's because of your binary thinking.

Yes or no is 1000 yards an arbitrary number?

If you create an arbitrary line, it doesn't matter why someone doesn't reach it, because all those variables are present across the board. If a running back has injury concerns and can't stay healthy, that's a part of their value or lack there of.

But I don't think you can ignore the fact that 1000 yards was arbitrary in the first place, and I mention that early in this thread. You begin to discuss ranges, because clearly 1000 yards is not equal to 1200 yards or 1400 yards or 1800 yards. It's not as if you make it to 1000 or 999 and all of a sudden you've crossed this threshold where you've helped your offense.

The point people have against investing in a top running back is the idea that you don't have a player on the team who can make it to 1000 yards. I'd suggest first of all both McFadden and Randle are probably capable of doing that, and things that would keep them short of that are probably injuries rather than ability. The other thing that could keep them from that is simply the number of carries they receive, which is why it is important to look at teams who were successful on offense despite not having a lead back (i.e. a player who ran for over 1000 yards, as arbitrary a standard as that is).

 

[Galian Beast]

Which is an entirely separate subject from bell cow or running back by committee.

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.

 

[jobberone]

But defending the pass has nothing to do with what you do offensively. You can either pass well or you can't. You cane defend the pass well or you can't. One isn't dependant on the other.

That's not true. If you get the other team off the field then you increase your number of possessions. If you have a Sc% near 40 then you are going to make it hard on the other team.

Again, the defensive part has nothing to do with the offensive part. If you can't defend the pass, you can't defend the pass. And if your defense is weak, as ours was, the best idea is to play keep away with better time of possession like we did.

Our defense had been weak and was near average last year. Once again if you get the other team off the field you are accomplishing the same thing as keeping the ball away from them via ball control. And don't forget ball control can be via the pass and/or run. Once again if you give the ball back to the offense and it does something with those possessions, ie Sc%, then you will eventually pull away from the other team.

Scoring percentage? Sure. That's pretty obvious isn't it? But "quickly"? No, that doesn't matter. Score more effectively than your opponent and you win.

If the other team takes most of a quarter to score and you strike quickly then you will outscore them. So ball control only works for your offense if you get the other team off the field enough.

I'll go back and look at how this team functioned when they won. And they didn't do it by being pass happy. They did it with good defense and a balanced offensive attack.

If you pass better than the other team and defend the pass better than they do then you will win roughly 70% of the time. I've been a vocal proponent of the running game for years even when it wasn't popular here. But only inasmuch as they can run effectively enough.

I think that if this team did exactly what it did last year and was simply better against the pass, they very well could have won it all. Given what they have added, I feel even more strongly about it and I am very optimistic about their chances to contend this year.

I couldn't agree more with defending the pass better. They had a better offense because of the balance between run and pass.

I'll let you guys have the last word.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Our RBC didn't work before? We were 7th in rushing yards in 2009. I think our inability to accrue yards on the ground has always been more about an inability to stick with the run, rather than the horses in the stable.

Agreed.

It's not generally been the case that the team hasn't run the ball because it had a guy averaging 3.0 YPC toting it.

It's been the play caller and lack of discipline to stick with the run. The team would shotgun, shotgun, shotgun.

Justin Forsett doubled his season high in yards gained last season simply because Baltimore gave him the ball 235 times.

 

[Galian Beast]

Agreed.

It's not generally been the case that the team hasn't run the ball because it had a guy averaging 3.0 YPC toting it.

It's been the play caller and lack of discipline to stick with the run. The team would shotgun, shotgun, shotgun.

Justin Forsett doubled his season high in yards gained last season simply because Baltimore gave him the ball 235 times.

It would be one thing if these running backs are incapable of running the ball effectively, but the pure argument on yard total is really misleading.

If a player averages 3.125 yards per carry, but has 20 carries per game and stays healthy for 16 games... they've got 1000 yards...

I'm not certain that is high barometer of success.

I have no doubt that Randle or McFadden could run for 1000 yards here if given the opportunity. The question is how capable are they in running effectively.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I have no doubt that Randle or McFadden could run for 1000 yards here if given the opportunity. The question is how capable are they in running effectively.

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.

 

[rpntex]

The problem is that not every player can even attain that level................they either get hurt or they cant average 4.0 so they need many more carries than you are suggesting..............McFadden has broke 1000 yards just once in 7 seasons.

In his case it is a combination of the two............he has shown that he cant stay healthy from week to week so there is a durability issue, and he has averaged just 3.3 YPC over the past 3 seasons.

There is a reason Dallas gave him $0 guaranteed money.........I am not busting his balls for no reason here, he has statistically shown that he cannot even be a 1000 yard back (with 7 yrs of data), despite how easy you are saying it is.

I'm not sure what your point is, at least relative to my post. I wasn't touting McFadden (or anyone else, for that matter) as a "bell cow" type of back.

And nowhere did I say that gaining 1000 yards is easy. What I'm saying is that yardage is not a valid measuring stick, since 1000 yards is reasonably attainable without even averaging 20 carries per game. My point is more along the lines that a "bell cow" is a back who averages somewhere around 20-25 carries (320+ carries per season). If you're going to use yardage to designate "bell cow" status, theh I trhink the minimum yardage total should be more like 1300.

 

[Arkyvarminter]

We don't know which back will get the majority of the carries but I believe we'll have a good running game with that O line. I just can't see our running game going downhill with that bunch up front. All we need is for the offense to play similar to last year and the D to get better and we are set IMO.......

 

[jobberone]

Agreed.

It's not generally been the case that the team hasn't run the ball because it had a guy averaging 3.0 YPC toting it.

It's been the play caller and lack of discipline to stick with the run. The team would shotgun, shotgun, shotgun.

Justin Forsett doubled his season high in yards gained last season simply because Baltimore gave him the ball 235 times.

I don't know how much was an ineffective running game vs getting away from it. We ran the ball in 2007 roughly the same as every year except for one year until 2014. But YPC was about the same last year as some other years. And we've averaged roughly 400 carries a year until last year's 500. Our RZ rushing was horrible resulting in all kinds of gyrations trying to score via the pass. Our OL went downhill after that 13-3 year. Murray ran the ball almost 400 times last year. Most RBs deteriorate after that kind of abuse.

What was the difference between 2007 and 2014 besides the number of carries?

 

[jobberone]

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.

Running effectively is getting into manageable first down situations with a balanced attack, making short yardage a reasonable amount of the time esp around the GL, average or better numbers of rushing TDs, and keeping a defense honest to name a few. 4.5 or better is good.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

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.

Luv the Offseason enthusiasm keep it up.