Word of Muth: Cowboys' Growing Pains

[Rockport]

Former All Pac-12 offensive tackle at Stanford who has been doing this column on different O-Lines for the past few years for FO.com






YR

So he's a journalist and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[CF74]

So he's a journalist and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.

He's not just a regular journalist, he actually played the game and had some success...

 

[Brooksey]

He claims that Randle should have immediately cut back behind Fred in Gif 1 below because too much of the defender is showing on Fred's front side; however, he then says that in the 2nd Gif below that Randle should have stayed front side.

That is an odd conclusion because Fred's block is very similar on both plays.

He claims that Randle should have immediately cut back behind Fred in Gif 1 below because too much of the defender is showing on Fred's front side; however, he then says that in the 2nd Gif below that Randle should have stayed front side.

That is an odd conclusion because Fred's block is very similar on both plays.

That's not what he's saying. Both plays had a cutback available, Randle missed the cutback on gif 1. As soon as the nose starts to cross Frederick's face and Randle see's the red shirt, he needs to plant and cut it off the left side off Frederick's rear, the one hole. He hesitated and lost yards.

On the second gif Randle kicked it too far outside. Frederick has better leverage here and his man is (covered up, ie. squared up) , meaning there were two options available between the two guards (a two way go). He kicked the play outside the tackle.
Randle needs to plant off Frederick's rear and hit the one or two hole hard and fast.

These two inside zone runs are designed for one cut and run between the guards.

 

[Rockport]

He's not just a regular journalist, he actually played the game and had some success...

All journalist have agendas. All of them.

 

[burmafrd]

just because he played does not mean he has the eye or the judgement to be credible.

 

[big dog cowboy]

just because he played does not mean he has the eye or the judgement to be credible.

ESPN is proof of that.

 

[CF74]

All journalist have agendas. All of them.

Meh, that's how I see politicians...

 

[xwalker]

That's not what he's saying. Both plays had a cutback available, Randle missed the cutback on gif 1. As soon as the nose starts to cross Frederick's face and Randle see's the red shirt, he needs to plant and cut it off the left side off Frederick's rear, the one hole. He hesitated and lost yards.

On the second gif Randle kicked it too far outside. Frederick has better leverage here and his man is (covered up, ie. squared up) , meaning there were two options available between the two guards (a two way go). He kicked the play outside the tackle.
Randle needs to plant off Frederick's rear and hit the one or two hole hard and fast.

These two inside zone runs are designed for one cut and run between the guards.

I know how the plays work or should work. I'm just not certain what he's trying to say.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So he's a journalist and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.

No.

He's not a journalist.

He's an expert on O-Line play that writes about O-Line play for a Web site.




YR

 

[Rockport]

No.

He's not a journalist.

He's an expert on O-Line play that writes about O-Line play for a Web site.




YR

National media person with an agenda. If you want to believe in someone who writes for a living by all means be my guest. It's ok to disagree.

 

[starfrombirth]

Randle lacks the power and is having an issue with that.

because he doesn't have the confidence to run thru the crease.

I think we're going to find that Randle is exactly what he was last season...

YR

I'm not sure I agree with all the criticism of Randle at this point. Is it the lead dog/bad dog mentality again or what? Randle hasn't been Adrian Peterson but who is and he never was? Randle is averaging over 5 ypc and has ripped off more long runs than Demarco did at this point last year and (I believe) all year. He doesn't seem to run with as much power but I think we have been confused about how much power Demarco has/had and Randle lacks. There were many, many, many times that Demarco would lower his shoulder and smash into the linebacker or corner back for a whopping 1 yard meanwhile this year Randle has slipped tackles for anywhere between 3-7 extra yards. So no... Randle is not smashing people but that is exactly what we fans have been clamoring for for years and I approve. I don't want him separating his shoulder for 1 yard. I want him sliding past the tackle (ala Emmitt) to bring up 3rd and 2 versus 3rd and 7.

 

[starfrombirth]

I know how the plays work or should work. I'm just not certain what he's trying to say.

I'm not sure what the big deal is about the 1st gif. Randle hesitated just a little bit but still got 7 yards????

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm not sure I agree with all the criticism of Randle at this point. Is it the lead dog/bad dog mentality again or what? Randle hasn't been Adrian Peterson but who is and he never was? Randle is averaging over 5 ypc and has ripped off more long runs than Demarco did at this point last year and (I believe) all year. He doesn't seem to run with as much power but I think we have been confused about how much power Demarco has/had and Randle lacks. There were many, many, many times that Demarco would lower his shoulder and smash into the linebacker or corner back for a whopping 1 yard meanwhile this year Randle has slipped tackles for anywhere between 3-7 extra yards. So no... Randle is not smashing people but that is exactly what we fans have been clamoring for for years and I approve. I don't want him separating his shoulder for 1 yard. I want him sliding past the tackle (ala Emmitt) to bring up 3rd and 2 versus 3rd and 7.

Randle is not averaging over 5 ypc. He's at 4.6 ypc.

I think he's far less efficient right now than Murray was (even before Murray's 2014 season). Yes, Murray would 'leave some yards out there', but more often than not he made more yards than yards he left on the field. And often times the yards Murray left on the field came after he made yards out of very little blocking. The fans would see that he could have gained more yards in the open field and would harp on that, but missed out on the play he made to gain yards. That's why I laugh when I hear fans say 'he doesn't run with speed or power' which is ridiculous. Ask players and coaches around the league if DeMarco Murray doesn't run with speed and power and they would look at you like you had 3 heads.

I think Randle could do better by being more decisive in his cuts as Muth alluded to. That's part 1 of being a good zone blocking runner. Somebody like Alfred Morris probably doesn't have Randle's pure athleticism, but he's decisive and precise with his cuts. Even still, I'm concerned with Randle because I don't think he has the power. My best hope is that he starts to become more decisive with his cuts and trusts the crease better and will rip off bigger runs and we'll figure out a way with Michael or McFadden to run the ball effectively in short yardage.

McFadden has more power and makes more decisive cuts than Randle, but he's way too inconsistent. 1 run he will do exactly what you want out of a tailback. The next run he may use his explosiveness to gain yards that most RB's would not get. Then he'll look terrible on the next 2 carries. Usually his legs get jammed up and he panics. It appears that McFadden is afraid of relying on his instincts when a play breaks down a bit.

Either way, it's not only Muth who agrees with me...it appears the team is looking at Michael to possibly start as well. That doesn't happen if Randle is as good as some people think he is.

To me, Randle at this point is still a nice #2 RB that's not ready to be a full time starter.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

National media person with an agenda. If you want to believe in someone who writes for a living by all means be my guest. It's ok to disagree.

What agenda does he have?

He writes on a few different teams in particular each year.

This year he's focusing on the Cowboys, Broncos and Browns.

Last year he focused on the Ravens, Rams and Bears.

The year before that he focused on the Cowboys, Bengals, Eagles, and Saints.

And he doesn't write for a living. That's not his day job. Not that it matters. You're just butthurt that an expert who played O-Line at a high level is telling you that you're wrong.




YR

 

[Rockport]

What agenda does he have?

He writes on a few different teams in particular each year.

This year he's focusing on the Cowboys, Broncos and Browns.

Last year he focused on the Ravens, Rams and Bears.

The year before that he focused on the Cowboys, Bengals, Eagles, and Saints.

And he doesn't write for a living. That's not his day job. Not that it matters. You're just butthurt that an expert who played O-Line at a high level is telling you that you're wrong.




YR

No need to get nasty. I just disagree with you. Take it like a man.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

No need to get nasty. I just disagree with you. Take it like a man.

I would just like to know what agenda you claims he has.

It only gets nasty when you say things like "If you want to believe in someone who writes for a living by all means be my guest" because it's easily inferred that you have to be some sort of rube to believe somebody like Muth instead of believing somebody else on the forum. I not only agree with Muth because I saw this beforehand with Randle, but I take my initial thoughts with confidence because Muth showed the evidence and he is an expert in understanding this area.

For Muth to have an 'agenda', I would expect him to say outlandish things consistently (which he never does), go on constant attacks against the Cowboys or a particular player (which he never does) or do and say something specifically with the intent of gaining notoriety from the national media (which he never does). Those are media types that have an agenda. Other types may not have an agenda, but just don't understand football because they have an untrained eye. Muth has an expert eye as to what is going on and presents it as such.



YR

 

[Rockport]

I would just like to know what agenda you claims he has.

It only gets nasty when you say things like "If you want to believe in someone who writes for a living by all means be my guest" because it's easily inferred that you have to be some sort of rube to believe somebody like Muth instead of believing somebody else on the forum. I not only agree with Muth because I saw this beforehand with Randle, but I take my initial thoughts with confidence because Muth showed the evidence and he is an expert in understanding this area.

For Muth to have an 'agenda', I would expect him to say outlandish things consistently (which he never does), go on constant attacks against the Cowboys or a particular player (which he never does) or do and say something specifically with the intent of gaining notoriety from the national media (which he never does). Those are media types that have an agenda. Other types may not have an agenda, but just don't understand football because they have an untrained eye. Muth has an expert eye as to what is going on and presents it as such.



YR

Ron Jaworski played a lot longer than Muth. He's a QB who has dogged Romo for years. Do you take his word on that opinion? Listen like I said it's ok to disagree. I respect your opinion just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Randle is averaging over 5 ypc .

Randle is averaging 4.2 yards a carry

 

[CF74]

Ron Jaworski played a lot longer than Muth. He's a QB who has dogged Romo for years. Do you take his word on that opinion? Listen like I said it's ok to disagree. I respect your opinion just don't happen to agree with it.

Ron is a turd, Muth is legit. Apples and turnips here...

 

[darthseinfeld]

I would just like to know what agenda you claims he has.

It only gets nasty when you say things like "If you want to believe in someone who writes for a living by all means be my guest" because it's easily inferred that you have to be some sort of rube to believe somebody like Muth instead of believing somebody else on the forum. I not only agree with Muth because I saw this beforehand with Randle, but I take my initial thoughts with confidence because Muth showed the evidence and he is an expert in understanding this area.

For Muth to have an 'agenda', I would expect him to say outlandish things consistently (which he never does), go on constant attacks against the Cowboys or a particular player (which he never does) or do and say something specifically with the intent of gaining notoriety from the national media (which he never does). Those are media types that have an agenda. Other types may not have an agenda, but just don't understand football because they have an untrained eye. Muth has an expert eye as to what is going on and presents it as such.



YR

I dont think you understand what "agenda" means

Agenda means that when a person disagrees with your position and you dont the means to raise a proper rhetort , then you say they have an " agenda"