The reason we did not draft a RB,

[percyhoward]

One year of running first does not a running team make..

Let's say Murray's contract had expired after the 2013 season, and the 2014 draft has just ended. We don't expect to be running it that much, but we've just lost a Pro Bowl back who was a major contributor to the offense in 2013.

We'd still have some work to do at the RB position.

 

[BrassCowboy]

If we get away from running the ball we got to have the dumbest coaches on the planet..........And I disagree with your entire post..sorry

I have to second this opinion entirely. enough said

 

[rpntex]

I think Murray made Romo's game so much easier it isn't even funny. I don't care how much the NFL has changed, if you have a great ground game, your going places with or without a great Defense. I also think Murray is going to be missed. These other backs don't have what he had. Don't get me wrong, I think Murray can be replaced but not with his backups. McFadden might but i'll have to see it first...We never should have let Murray go but that just my opinion...

I don't think anyone is expecting any of those back to replicate Murray's success from 2014. What people are hoping to see is for the tandem of running backs to replicate the team's success in the running game from 2014. Rather than one man having 1800+ yards, and the other to come binding for 500 or so, perhaps McFadden runs for 900, Randle for 900, and Dunbar for 200. It's less than less he is 2300 yards plus, but 2000 yards for the team would still be very effective. That's what I think people are hoping for. Expecting anyone of those backs to hit 1800 yards is unrealistic. But like I said, if the team can run the ball effectively, it won't matter what kind of individual total each back puts up.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I am not arguing or debating this with anyone but rather looking at history. Both Garret and Linehan are pass first guys typically. I do not think this can be argued too much???? I think they were dictacted to run first to protect the defense last year. We lose our #1 rusher while improving the defense(on paper at least) and do not make serious attempts to replace the top rusher??? Look at the logic. Again, I am not saying I agree with this philosophy but our action are dictating this is what the team is thinking.

Like another poster wrote, the coaches are more balanced in style but for years had to rely on Romo and the passing game because of having a poor Oline and there is no argument there that we had a very poor oline before last year (in 2013 T Smith was only real quality player and Fredricks was a rookie but getting better, last year it was great as Martin was great from beginning and Free had one of his best years).

Starting with last year and now, the coaches can play the style they really want to play.

That being said, if we do not run the ball, good defense or not, then we might as well look forward to more of what we have been used to for the last 18 years before last year.

 

[Novacek84]

McFadden never had a chance to win anything in OAK. Now he comes to Dallas and sees a potential winning situation, hopefully it motivates him and he breaks out. That's part of what we need to have happen if this is the RB brigade we are going with. Not sure it will but would be a huge boost.

 

[Galian Beast]

This may be merged but I think it deserves it's own thread. The reason we were a run first team last year was to burn clock to protect the defense. It was never about protecting Romo but rather the defense. I think they are believing we have upgraded the defense to a point where they can take care of themselves rather relying on the offense to keep them off of the field. Linehan has never been a run first OC until last year when our poor defense demanded it so why does everyone think he will keep on doing the same thing as our defense improves?


You have to look at the big picture. One year of running first does not a running team make when the OC and the HC have a history of being pass first guys.

Note: For the sake of argument, I do not completely agree with this philosophy completely but I think it is the plan.

I was going to create a similar topic with a similar theory. I think that the team ran to protect the defense, and I believe that the offense was constrained from taking more risks, namely in the passing game. I think with this more aggressive and more talented defense they can compensate for that without relying as heavily on the running game.

With that said, it is still a long way until the regular season, and I think this was a mistake.

 

[big dog cowboy]

But like I said, if the team can run the ball effectively, it won't matter what kind of individual total each back puts up.

This guy gets it.

 

[Cebrin]

Well I'm glad our new probable starter averaged 2 yards per carry MORE than Demarco behind the exact same line. And no game ending fumbles either.

Considering Randle carried the ball 55 times vs Murrays 392 times, I'd argue it makes sense that his yards per carry average would be better. In those 55 attempts he indeed fumbled twice. Do the math and I'd argue that he'd likely have as many fumbles as Murray with equal carries and workload. Randle is not anywhere near the level of talent that Murray is. I'm much more excited to see what McFadden can do with actual running lanes.

 

[Novacek84]

Romo is 35 years old with a bad back. The team just went 12-4 by becoming a run first team. If you think Garrett is going to revert back to a pass first team, you're lost. Now, whether they have the right personnel currently at RB to make run first happen, that is a different argument. I don't expect the game planning to change. If it does without proof that they can't run it any more then that would be a fireable offense IMO

 

[DogFace]

Let me get in here to congradulate the anti fan unbiased hero.

We all oh you a debt of gratitude for remaining impartial and steering us all in the right direction.

Is there any way you can do this in other areas of our lives?

 

[CowboysLaw87]

Fan spin. There's no question it helped hide an awful defense but it also balances your offense, wears down the opposing defense and makes life easier on the aging QB.

I do not believe they intend to change offensively. Now they may have to if these backs can't produce but I don't think that's the plan.[/quot

Agree 100%. You're trying to make yourself feel better, which I completely understand. But man oh man, someone better be able to tote that rock. That is, and who we should be. Honestly if McFadden/Randle/Williams works, we're in serious business considering what we were able to invest in the D.

 

[Joe_Fan]

We're not going to stop running the ball.


We'll hammer the ball with McFadden, he'll outplay Murray, and we'll all laugh.

Then he'll get injured week 8 with another nagging hamstring or ankle injury and we'll be wondering why we didn't take the position more seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I hope he does great for our teams sake but it's dumb to consider Randle, Dunbar and Williams the backup plan.

 

[jnday]

We're going to continue to run the ball. We improved the defense because that was more important than the RB position, plain and simple.

Serious question. Exactly how is this defense improved for the opening game?

 

[big dog cowboy]

Serious question. Exactly how is this defense improved for the opening game?

I can think of several players that will contribute to that but to mention some I'll go with DLaw, Lee, Jones, Gregory.....

 

[jnday]

McFadden never had a chance to win anything in OAK. Now he comes to Dallas and sees a potential winning situation, hopefully it motivates him and he breaks out. That's part of what we need to have happen if this is the RB brigade we are going with. Not sure it will but would be a huge boost.

I don't think motivation has been his problem . Talent and injuries is his what has held him back.

 

[jnday]

I can think of several players that will contribute to that but to mention some I'll go with DLaw, Lee, Jones, Gregory.....

So Jones and Gregory are going to make a difference? I expect they may flash some talent, but it is rare that a rookie will have much impact in their first year.

 

[alicetooljam]

Everyone this is not an argument. I am either wrong or right, either one we will quickly see early in the season. I am only going on a hunch based on both the histories of our OC and HC. Their lack of drafting a RB adds some, not absolute, credence to this thought but I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Youre wrong...and thinking otherwise has nothing to do with being a homer. They plan to do more of the same, look how far it took them last year. They wont suddenly forget and become pass first until we cant run it effectively. You dont take 3 1st round lineman (another 3rd rounder this year) and not pound the ball. They could almost be too confident in our line, but after the top 2 rbs were gone they didnt feel there was an upgrade out there better than what they already have on the roster.

 

[theogt]

If we get away from running the ball we got to have the dumbest coaches on the planet..........And I disagree with your entire post..sorry

At the start of the season, the team's strength was running and the team's weakness was passing. It was clear Romo wasn't getting it done early on. So they played to their strength. It's just no brainer coaching, but it doesn't mean it's the only way to succeed.

 

[Idgit]

Serious question. Exactly how is this defense improved for the opening game?

Jones, Gregory, Lee. And whatever comes of the other draft picks. Plus Hardy, who's a top-5 pass rusher at our biggest position of need, since we're really not just talking opening weekend here.

On paper, we're much improved in terms of personnel.

 

[Idgit]

So Jones and Gregory are going to make a difference? I expect they may flash some talent, but it is rare that a rookie will have much impact in their first year.

Did Frederick? Or Martin? Not all that rare to get significant contributions from your first and second round picks.

Especially when one has legitimate top-ten ability like Gregory does.