Bales: Why you shouldn’t want the Cowboys to run more

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
Jonathan Bales is a special contributor to SportsDayDFW.com. He’s the founder of The DC Times and writes for DallasCowboys.com and the New York Times. He’s also the author of Fantasy Football for Smart People. He can be reached at jonathan@thedctimes.com.
You can follow him @BalesFootball.

I’ve been surfing through STATSPass quite a bit lately to uncover ways the Cowboys could potentially improve their offensive attack in 2013. Like I’ve mentioned before, I collect all kinds of data on Dallas, but it’s essential to understand league averages so that I can make accurate comparisons between the Cowboys and other teams.

One of the simple-but-interesting stats I found today is offensive efficiency by down. Below, I charted the Cowboys’ average yards per play on each down as compared to the rest of the league.



It’s interesting that the ‘Boys had so much success on second down. Part of the reason is probably that they performed only moderately well on first down—right around the league average—forcing them to pass the ball more on second and third. You never want to be in a position in which you’re forced to throw the ball—having the ability to run is always nice—but passing obviously leads to bigger average gains than running.

To get a better sense of what the numbers are telling us, I also recorded the Cowboys’ pass rates by down versus the rest of the NFL.​


You can see the Cowboys passed the ball more often than average on every down, which isn’t really a surprise because 1) they’re a passing team and 2) they were losing so frequently.Your initial reaction might be to conclude that the Cowboys should run more often on first down; they ran it just 41.3 percent of the time on first down in 2012, compared to 52.2 percent for the entire league. However, don’t forget that many of those first downs came in the second half of games that the Cowboys were losing. Dallas was leading after three quarters in just four contests all year, so they were really forced to pass in low-upside situations on all downs, hence the lowered efficiency.

On a league-wide basis, passing is way more efficient than running on first down. Last year, quarterbacks completed 61.7 percent of their first down passes and averaged 7.3 YPA (above the overall mark of 7.1 YPA), while offenses averaged just 4.3 YPC on the ground (right around the league average on all downs). Most defenses still play to stop the run on first down, allowing for the opportunity to exploit them through the air. The Cowboys don’t need to pass less frequently on first down, just more efficiently.​
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,134
Of course they need to be more efficient passing the ball, and that efficiency is gained by forcing defenses to respect the run so when you do throw it's against a defense that's less stacked to stop the pass.

If this teams runs more efficiently everything else will be fine. It takes a credible running game to keep defenses honest.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
I think this idiot fails to recognize the importance of clock management and time of possession.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
I think this idiot fails to recognize the importance of clock management and time of possession.
No, he's just another idiot who is buying into this "it's a passing league!" mantra that everyone uses to validate an unbalanced and inefficient offense.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,582
No, he's just another idiot who is buying into this "it's a passing league!" mantra that everyone uses to validate an unbalanced and inefficient offense.
Yeah, that shit is getting old fast. And, it's been used to defend our offense and defense both.

Oh, we don't need better DL. It's a passing league n stuff.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
Yeah, that shit is getting old fast. And, it's been used to defend our offense and defense both.

Oh, we don't need better DL. It's a passing league n stuff.
Teams that are at the top of the league now run more than the league average. Okay, it's a "passing league". That means the bad teams are passing a lot more than the good teams are running it. I think the whole passing league thing now is based on the fact it is a lot easier to throw a short route and move the ball than to build a good enough OL where you can run with regular success. And to be honest, there are more crappy OLs in this league than good ones. The first round of this past draft pretty much sells that point.
 

gator

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
137
Your initial reaction might be to conclude that the Cowboys should run more often on first down; they ran it just 41.3 percent of the time on first down in 2012, compared to 52.2 percent for the entire league. However, don’t forget that many of those first downs came in the second half of games that the Cowboys were losing. Dallas was leading after three quarters in just four contests all year, so they were really forced to pass in low-upside situations on all downs, hence the lowered efficiency.
Losing in the second half doesn't mean you should scrap the running game. With this nonsense mantra, we ended up with a lot of short possessions and tired defense.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
We only need to run more if we block better. I'd bet we lost yards or gained less than 3 yards on probably 35% of our handoffs last year, or some other ridiculously high number. The line could not run block.

In that situation, handing the ball off for a loss of 2 isn't keeping the defense honest, it doesn't extend time of possession because it just results in 3-and-outs. All it does is put you in unmanageable down and distance.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
We only need to run more if we block better. I'd bet we lost yards or gained less than 3 yards on probably 35% of our handoffs last year, or some other ridiculously high number. The line could not run block.

In that situation, handing the ball off for a loss of 2 isn't keeping the defense honest, it doesn't extend time of possession because it just results in 3-and-outs. All it does is put you in unmanageable down and distance.
Running the ball is a mindset. If you don't practice it, you won't execute it.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
We only need to run more if we block better. I'd bet we lost yards or gained less than 3 yards on probably 35% of our handoffs last year, or some other ridiculously high number. The line could not run block.

In that situation, handing the ball off for a loss of 2 isn't keeping the defense honest, it doesn't extend time of possession because it just results in 3-and-outs. All it does is put you in unmanageable down and distance.
We need to be more effective when we do run the ball. If you run the ball more effectively, you will run the ball more. I can't blame Garrett for not running the ball that much last year when we were so ineffective at running it. If my team averaged 3.6 yards per carry and my star RB was hurt, I'd probably run the ball less too.

There is a coaching element involved as well though. Certain coaches just know how to put together a dominant running game, even without building a dominant O-line. Look no further then a team like the Redskins who where one of the best running teams in the NFL. I don't think most look at that O-line and think dominant.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
We need to be more effective when we do run the ball. If you run the ball more effectively, you will run the ball more. I can't blame Garrett for not running the ball that much last year when we were so ineffective at running it. If my team averaged 3.6 yards per carry and my star RB was hurt, I'd probably run the ball less too.
It is a mindset. See my previous post. If there was one thing I liked about Murray's comments this past week is that there will be an emphasis on it. Could be lip service, we shall see. But the reality is that Garrett's offensive efficiency is only evident when there is not the idea we are going to pass every down. It was like that in his interim season and it was like that in 2011. We were just as mediocre with Kitna at QB as we have been with Romo. Having Kitna forced the idea of being balanced simply to protect the QB.

A healthy Romo does not make Garrett feel he has to do that. So you get the idiocy of slinging the ball everywhere. Garrett does not help Romo. He makes him worse by making it imperative that we don't win unless he plays well. Making Romo the focal point like he is not without flaws only creates the yip situations when it comes down to winning or going home and that is the biggest problem.

There is a coaching element involved as well though. Certain coaches just know how to put together a dominant running game, even without building a dominant O-line. Look no further then a team like the Redskins who where one of the best running teams in the NFL. I don't think most look at that O-line and think dominant.
The coaching element is huge. Would you call New England a "passing team"? Of course you would. That didn't stop them from having a running game that could play off the passing game and actually make inferior opponents look stupid. Dante Scarnecchia is a great OL coach who has proven time and time again he can mold a unit. Callahan isn't and never has been at his level.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
Running the ball is a mindset. If you don't practice it, you won't execute it.
Has there been some report that we don't practice it that I missed?

Because from what I recall we started hitting with pads to the max extent allowed from the moment Garrett took over.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
We need to be more effective when we do run the ball. If you run the ball more effectively, you will run the ball more. I can't blame Garrett for not running the ball that much last year when we were so ineffective at running it. If my team averaged 3.6 yards per carry and my star RB was hurt, I'd probably run the ball less too.

There is a coaching element involved as well though. Certain coaches just know how to put together a dominant running game, even without building a dominant O-line. Look no further then a team like the Redskins who where one of the best running teams in the NFL. I don't think most look at that O-line and think dominant.
Well, sure, but the coaches who can put together dominant running games like that year after year you can probably count on 1 hand.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
Well, sure, but the coaches who can put together dominant running games like that year after year you can probably count on 1 hand.
Probably, but I'd like to have a head coach that can at least hang his hat on being elite at one thing. I don't think Garrett has that one thing you can point to as elite.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,350
In some situations you need to keep running the ball even if you gaining nothing. You have to make the defense respect that you may still run no matter what. You have to make them respect play action. You can't let them make you one dimensional, even to the detriment of a few yards in the short term.

Also, there are some cases where maybe if your running game is getting stuffed you need to reevaluate your approach to running in that game - maybe run more to the edges or more misdirections and delays and draws.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,354
Has there been some report that we don't practice it that I missed?
Because from what I recall we started hitting with pads to the max extent allowed from the moment Garrett took over.

And when the new CBA kicked in he was like everyone else. And we still passed like we did. My whole thing is that has been used as an excuse...and I even think Garrett has bemoaned the lack of additional practices.


Fact is, he believes in it...when it is convenient. Just like it was when he took over for Wade Phillips who was running the same MFing offense.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
And when the new CBA kicked in he was like everyone else. And we still passed like we did. My whole thing is that has been used as an excuse...and I even think Garrett has bemoaned the lack of additional practices.


Fact is, he believes in it...when it is convenient. Just like it was when he took over for Wade Phillips who was running the same MFing offense.
I'm confused... so we do or do not hit with pads to the max allowed?
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,134
Just like the 2000 yard thread, the conclusion is you pass a lot when you run effectively. 5000 yards passing and 2000 yards rushing should be the goals for this offense. To do that you have to be top ten in rushing and passing.

This takes a top flight OL, like in NE or NO. Regardless, those numbers should be our goal.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,350
It is a mindset. See my previous post. If there was one thing I liked about Murray's comments this past week is that there will be an emphasis on it. Could be lip service, we shall see. But the reality is that Garrett's offensive efficiency is only evident when there is not the idea we are going to pass every down. It was like that in his interim season and it was like that in 2011. We were just as mediocre with Kitna at QB as we have been with Romo. Having Kitna forced the idea of being balanced simply to protect the QB.

A healthy Romo does not make Garrett feel he has to do that. So you get the idiocy of slinging the ball everywhere. Garrett does not help Romo. He makes him worse by making it imperative that we don't win unless he plays well. Making Romo the focal point like he is not without flaws only creates the yip situations when it comes down to winning or going home and that is the biggest problem.



The coaching element is huge. Would you call New England a "passing team"? Of course you would. That didn't stop them from having a running game that could play off the passing game and actually make inferior opponents look stupid. Dante Scarnecchia is a great OL coach who has proven time and time again he can mold a unit. Callahan isn't and never has been at his level.

Very well said. Particularly the part about Garrett putting the team in a position where the team can't win if Romo doesn't play well. It's been maybe this team's biggest problem since Garrett became OC. Hopefully Callahan can bring a different approach.
 
Top Bottom