Was it just me? Or did Julius Jones play very well?

[Bob Sacamano]

You would be in the minority. Too many, on this board at least, want those 200-yd game explosions. I was happy with the game last night and want more of them. But if he doesn't break a long one, then you're gonna get some Julius didn't play well type comments. Nature of being game-breaker type back.

Personally, I didn't think we were conservative enuff last week. Sometimes you gotta take ball out of Bledsoe's hands in order re-establish some rhythm.

Even last night, I thought they threw too much. Bledsoe threw 38 passes. I'd rather he was closer to 30 than 40.

last night kinda bunked the theory that JJ needs to bust off a huge run in order to have a good game didn't it?

and you have to take the ball out of any QBs hands sometimes so that opposing Ds don't overcommit to the pass, you wanna keep them on their heels

 

[Kilyin]

I knew Jones was something special ever since that Seattle MNF game in his rookie year.

"And America has just been introduced to Julius Jones!"

Classic.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

let the guy have two decent games in a row then maybe he will have proven something. he was actually running through tackles. he wasnt running into linemen, even when he did run into one he didn't keep pushing on them like he ussually does, he actually moved around them. unless he can learn to string good games along he is still over rated.

I think he did good in the Jacksonville game too

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah that was nice and yes it was called back on the Colombo trip.

Re Jones, very solid game. In my view, his best run was on the screen pass that was called back.

What I liked is that he seemed to drag tacklers last night and not go down on the first hit as he is wont to do at times.

oddly enough, I actually thought the best run of the night for Jones was when he fumbled the football

 

[TheEnigma]

I didn't get to watch the game, listened to it on the radio, but by the looks of what others posted, Julius did more than his usual put his head down and run straight into a linemans back routine. Instead, he showed vision by finding places to run and running hard between the tackles. I'm wondering if something was said to him, he saw what he was doing on film, or if Parcells just let loose some of his reigns. If so, I just hope that there WAS a change, and this is the Julius we see consistently from now on.

 

[dbair1967]

I didn't get to watch the game, listened to it on the radio, but by the looks of what others posted, Julius did more than his usual put his head down and run straight into a linemans back routine. Instead, he showed vision by finding places to run and running hard between the tackles. I'm wondering if something was said to him, he saw what he was doing on film, or if Parcells just let loose some of his reigns. If so, I just hope that there WAS a change, and this is the Julius we see consistently from now on.

or maybe had you seen the game you'd have noticed that there werent multiple defenders in the backfield every play

amazing how much better a run game can be when that doesnt happen

David

 

[YN1SCOTT]

Jones had a great game, he was running hard and not giving defenders a big target to hit. No doubt the line play helped him out but it was nice to see Jones break some tackles.

i agree, was very good to see him run like that.

 

[adbutcher]

You have to remember though, Thompson is MUCH bigger than Bush. A couple of inches taller and 20+ pounds heavier.

He has a rare combination of size and speed. I hope he really develops into a nice player.

TB your sig is too FUNNY!!!!!!!

 

[adbutcher]

or maybe had you seen the game you'd have noticed that there werent multiple defenders in the backfield every play

amazing how much better a run game can be when that doesnt happen

David

 

[joseephuss]

let the guy have two decent games in a row then maybe he will have proven something. he was actually running through tackles. he wasnt running into linemen, even when he did run into one he didn't keep pushing on them like he ussually does, he actually moved around them. unless he can learn to string good games along he is still over rated.

He did have a decent game in Jacksonville and now against the Commanders. That is two in a row.

I am not surprised in Julius' performance. He has produced like this for Dallas the last two years. The problem has been that he has been injured and missed way too many games. When he plays he does well and is productive.

 

[FLcowboy]

He was on my opponents Fantasy Football team. Man I wanted Barber in the game.

I suppose you had Washington and took the points too.

 

[Stautner]

He did have a decent game in Jacksonville and now against the Commanders. That is two in a row.

I am not surprised in Julius' performance. He has produced like this for Dallas the last two years. The problem has been that he has been injured and missed way too many games. When he plays he does well and is productive.

I think this is an overly optimistic view.

First, he really didn't play well against Jacksnoville - we never established much of a running game. That's not all JJ's fault - the run blocking sucked, but nevertheless the running game did too and the RB's have to at least share the blame.

Also, JJ hasn't been a consistent impact player even when healthy. The overall numbers look decent, but they are built more on having ocassional huge games that offset the average to poor games. Again, the O-line has to bear a fair amount of the blame, but that's just the way it has been with JJ.

I do think JJ's vision was better this week. We didn't see him just run up the back of his O-linemen the way he has in the past. I think the short 2-3 yard runs were really more telling than the longer ones - rather than just hit the pile and stop he found some small seam to get through to pick up a couple of yards instead of getting stopped for no gain or losing a yard.

 

[kTXe]

I think this is an overly optimistic view.

First, he really didn't play well against Jacksnoville - we never established much of a running game. That's not all JJ's fault - the run blocking sucked, but nevertheless the running game did too and the RB's have to at least share the blame.

:fact:

We averaged 4 YPC against the Jags. Julius averaged 4.2. Before you say that isn't good enough, note that Emmitt averaged 4.2 YPC for his career.

Last night, those same Jags held the vaunted Steelers running game to 26 yards and 1.9 YPC.

I'd say we performed quite well in the running game against a pretty darn good defense.

 

[Stautner]

:fact:

We averaged 4 YPC against the Jags. Julius averaged 4.2. Before you say that isn't good enough, note that Emmitt averaged 4.2 YPC for his career.

Last night, those same Jags held the vaunted Steelers running game to 26 yards and 1.9 YPC.

I'd say we performed quite well in the running game against a pretty darn good defense.

I think the truth is probably somewhere between what you wrote and what I did.

Realistically JJ fared well against a tough Jacksonville defense, but also realistically the running game was never established as a real offensive weapon.

Realistically we fared better than the Steelers, but we also only had 88 rushing yards, which is somewhat skewed by a single 23 yard run which accounted for over 1/4 of the yardage.

Bottom line is that the running game against Jacksonville wasn't bad, but it wasn't much of a factor either.

 

[Idgit]

....Realistically we fared better than the Steelers, but we also only had 88 rushing yards, which is somewhat skewed by a single 23 yard run which accounted for over 1/4 of the yardage...

Garrrh! This is not directly to topic, but long runs don't skew a RBs average. You expect to get the occasional long run from a running back, or you wouldn't keep giving him the ball after all of the 1 and 2 yard gains.

You're not allowed to make any points that rely on pretending his best or longest play didn't happen. It's not indicative of anything, and it drives me crazy when people do it. It's like pretending a back with a high YPC had an extra 10 runs for zero yards in order to make your point.

 

[Stautner]

Garrrh! This is not directly to topic, but long runs don't skew a RBs average. You expect to get the occasional long run from a running back, or you wouldn't keep giving him the ball after all of the 1 and 2 yard gains.

You're not allowed to make any points that rely on pretending his best or longest play didn't happen. It's not indicative of anything, and it drives me crazy when people do it. It's like pretending a back with a high YPC had an extra 10 runs for zero yards in order to make your point.

This is a somewhat fair comment - certainly when discussing average it is very fair - I've made similar comments myself.

But if you will re-read my post you will see that my main point is that we didn't establish a running game that had any real impact on the game.

My comment about the long run does fit the topic when you realize that other than the 23 yarder we were pretty void of significant runs that helped keep drives alive or put us in good position on 2nd and 3rd downs, and we only had a total of 88 yards on the ground.

Like I said, the running game wasn't bad, but it essentially failed to do enough to have any real impact on the game.

 

[joseephuss]

This is a somewhat fair comment - certainly when discussing average it is very fair - I've made similar comments myself.

But if you will re-read my post you will see that my main point is that we didn't establish a running game that had any real impact on the game.

My comment about the long run does fit the topic when you realize that other than the 23 yarder we were pretty void of any significant runs that helped keep drives alive or put us in good position on 2nd and 3rd downs, and we only had a total of 88 yards on the ground.

Like I said, the running game wasn't bad, but it essentially failed to do enough to have any real impact on the game.

Good assessment. That falls mostly on the offensive line more so than any of the backs. That is the way it has been for the last several seasons. The line has not been good enough to establish a dominant running game. I think Jones has shown to be a good back even with this inconsistent line.

 

[TNCowboy]

This is a somewhat fair comment - certainly when discussing average it is very fair - I've made similar comments myself.

But if you will re-read my post you will see that my main point is that we didn't establish a running game that had any real impact on the game.

My comment about the long run does fit the topic when you realize that other than the 23 yarder we were pretty void of significant runs that helped keep drives alive or put us in good position on 2nd and 3rd downs, and we only had a total of 88 yards on the ground.

Like I said, the running game wasn't bad, but it essentially failed to do enough to have any real impact on the game.

On the drive with the missed FG in the 3rd Q, we were really starting to establish the run. Had runs of 17, 8, -1, 8,5, 1, and 2. That's 7 for 40, against probably one of the two or 3 best run defenses in the league. I'd say that had an impact, although that impact became nullified by other mistakes.

Unfortunately, we then fell behind after the missed FG and only ran once more the rest of the game.

 

[Stautner]

On the drive with the missed FG in the 3rd Q, we were really starting to establish the run. Had runs of 17, 8, -1, 8,5, 1, and 2. That's 7 for 40, against probably one of the two or 3 best run defenses in the league. I'd say that had an impact, although that impact became nullified by other mistakes.

Unfortunately, we then fell behind after the missed FG and only ran once more the rest of the game.

What you are saying about this game is a microcosm of how I have described JJ's entire career so far. The averages looks good, but it's built on average to poor play much of the time, and big time play a small portion of the time that helps make the averages look respectable.

There has to be more consistency for the running game to have the impact we need - the offense as whole can't be consistent if the running game only shows up here and there - no matter how good it is when it does show up.

Before anyone jumps on me about this, if you will read back you will realize that I don't blame JJ for all of this - the O-line is a huge reason we have had problems running the ball the last few years.

 

[TNCowboy]

What you are saying about this game is a microcosm of how I have described JJ's entire career so far. The averages looks good, but it's built on average to poor play much of the time, and big time play a small portion of the time that helps make the averages look respectable.

There has to be more consistency for the running game to have the impact we need - the offense as whole can't be consistent if the running game only shows up here and there - no matter how good it is when it does show up.

Before anyone jumps on me about this, if you will read back you will realize that I don't blame JJ for all of this - the O-line is a huge reason we have had problems running the ball the last few years.

JJ has been a little inconsistent at times, and not always at the top of his game, and I thought he was a little tentative when he came back from his injury last year. But he hasn't had a lot of "poor play". If that accurately described his career, he wouldn't still be the starting RB of the Dallas Cowboys. Parcells has reportedly had opportunities to replace him and didn't. JJ simply hasn't had a lot of blocking. He got some Sunday night and responded with a big game.