Watkins: DeMarco Murray will see box stacked

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
DeMarco Murray will see box stacked
November, 3, 2014

By Calvin Watkins | ESPNDallas.com

The future of Dallas Cowboys RB DeMarco Murray will have six- and seven-man fronts.

It comes with the territory when you're the NFL's leading rusher. Murray finished with 79 yards on 19 carries in Sunday's 28-17 loss to the Arizona Cardinals.

Murray had to grind for his 4.2 yards per carry and failed to get one yard on a key fourth-down play in the fourth quarter.

Yet, if the Cowboys are going to rely on him in the big picture of things, they must find a way to get running lanes open for him. Sunday against the Cardinals, Murray didn't have quarterback Tony Romo (back) and two starters, left guard Ronald Leary (groin) and tackle Doug Free (foot).

If defenses try to stop Murray, they have to contend with Romo. But Arizona didn't care for his replacement, Brandon Weeden.

"It's probably the first time we [have] seen it and it probably won't be the last," Murray said of seeing seven- and eight-man defensive fronts.

Murray had just nine carries in the first half but the Cowboys went back toward him in the third quarter with eight touches, and with the game out of reach late in the fourth quarter the Cowboys had to throw the ball.

"Receivers get more catches they get into a rhythm and a quarterback throws more he gets into a rhythm and it goes on," Murray said. "As for myself and the offense line, it was hard to run the ball against those guys with 10 guys in the box. We need to make more plays."

It will get harder as the season progresses.

"We play great defense against the run and because we do have corners who can play man-to-man, we can put eight guys up there or seven up there," Arizona coach Bruce Arians said. "And our defensive line is penetrating, not sitting back and catching."
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,759
Our offensive designs have sunk us the past two weeks.

The Cardinals sold out to stop the run and left their CBs on islands just like the Redskins. Press coverage has worked mainly because we aren't reacting appropriately with bunch formations and the like.

I still do not understand how we can be that clueless, but we clearly are.

Even if Murray is held in check, like he was yesterday, it is still an acceptable run game.

What is failing badly is our passing game right now. It is awful how it leaves opportunities unfulfilled.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Maybe we just don't have any WRs that can beat decent press coverage. It is amazing that a WR as big and as supposedly explosive as Dez has problems with it.

And no one seems to like throwing to the little quick white guy who is open a lot underneath.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Our offensive designs have sunk us the past two weeks.

The Cardinals sold out to stop the run and left their CBs on islands just like the Redskins. Press coverage has worked mainly because we aren't reacting appropriately with bunch formations and the like.

I still do not understand how we can be that clueless, but we clearly are.

Even if Murray is held in check, like he was yesterday, it is still an acceptable run game.

What is failing badly is our passing game right now. It is awful how it leaves opportunities unfulfilled.
Nope, wrong.

According to Geng.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
The Cardinals got big gains to Fitzgerald by running some rub/pick routes. I don't think I've seen us try that.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
It boils down to coaching, and your boy hasn't reigned in his OC the last couple of weeks, so...
It's up to the offensive coaching staff to figure out how to beat a blitz and get the defense to back off.

I'm not sure I'd call that "reigning in" but it's their responsibility, yes.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
It's up to the offensive coaching staff to figure out how to beat a blitz and get the defense to back off.

I'm not sure I'd call that "reigning in" but it's their responsibility, yes.
I'd be curious why the shift from the committed running game to.. well not. Was it Jerry? Was it Garrett? Was it Jerry pushing Garrett away from it because it wasn't entertaining enough?

I would guess it's a little of all of it... which lays right at Garrett's feet for being a pushover weak head coach that has no friggin idea what he is doing as a HC and literally no career move if he doesn't do what Jerry tells him to.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
Our offensive designs have sunk us the past two weeks.

The Cardinals sold out to stop the run and left their CBs on islands just like the Redskins. Press coverage has worked mainly because we aren't reacting appropriately with bunch formations and the like.

I still do not understand how we can be that clueless, but we clearly are.

Even if Murray is held in check, like he was yesterday, it is still an acceptable run game.

What is failing badly is our passing game right now. It is awful how it leaves opportunities unfulfilled.
Mindlessly putting in spread formations doesn't help things either. The term "max-protect" is alien to Linehan and Garrett if they think there's even a chance of a deep throw.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I'd be curious why the shift from the committed running game to.. well not. Was it Jerry? Was it Garrett? Was it Jerry pushing Garrett away from it because it wasn't entertaining enough?

I would guess it's a little of all of it... which lays right at Garrett's feet for being a pushover weak head coach that has no friggin idea what he is doing as a HC and literally no career move if he doesn't do what Jerry tells him to.
I highly doubt it was a conscious choice by anyone.

IMO I think situations we've gotten into have prevented conditions we need to run the ball. Particularly, in the first half against Washington, four drives ended due to third and long sacks, or fumbles lost.

Well when you run twice and end up in third and long, and then Romo gets sacked on third down, the drive ends and you don't get the opportunity to continue to pile up rushing attempts.

Then by time you get to the 4th quarter/overtime, you are second guessing yourself because your offense is clearly sputtering and you are trying to give yourself a jolt.

That's why I think the biggest problem right now is the passing game. Get back to some success through the air, beat the blitz a few times to pick up key third downs, extend a few drives when Romo scrambles instead of Weeden getting arm tackled 6 inches short, and you will see us continue to feed Murray and he'll be back up at 25 carries instead of 19.

But you've gotta convert those third downs through the air, which we were doing earlier in the year but haven't the last 2 weeks.
 
Last edited:

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
I'd be curious why the shift from the committed running game to.. well not. Was it Jerry? Was it Garrett? Was it Jerry pushing Garrett away from it because it wasn't entertaining enough?

I would guess it's a little of all of it... which lays right at Garrett's feet for being a pushover weak head coach that has no friggin idea what he is doing as a HC and literally no career move if he doesn't do what Jerry tells him to.
You're shitting us, right?

You really believe Jerry would order Garrett away from running the ball because it wasn't entertaining enough? Seriously?

Please tell me you were out of your mind drunk when you wrote that.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
You're shitting us, right?

You really believe Jerry would order Garrett away from running the ball because it wasn't entertaining enough? Seriously?

Please tell me you were out of your mind drunk when you wrote that.
I put nothing past the man that has strippers and lingerie models in his "football" stadium.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
:lol

Jerry stopped the run game based on entertainment value. Good stuff.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
All of the classic Jerry bashes don't mesh. Above you mention stripper poles and lingerie models. Why would he do that? For money, of course. Right? In fact, that is the number one Jerry bash. That he's only interested in money. So why would he order a coach to do something that is bringing wins. Which in turn, is invigorating the fan base. Who then throw money at him like it's going out of style. Something's not matching up here.

Then, there's the second go to Jerry bash. How he wants to be seen as a football man, and win his own way. Well, the vast majority of this team has been built on his watch. And is winning. And the rest of the NFL was standing up and noticing that the Cowboys were again making noise. And you'd want us to believe he'd order his coach to go away from that because running the ball isn't entertaining enough?

Come on, man. You're better than this.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Dude, calm down, it was mostly tongue in cheek. Mostly.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
Dude, calm down, it was mostly tongue in cheek. Mostly.
Calm down? I wasn't getting worked up.

But, good to see it was mostly tongue in cheek. Mostly. Even though I had already asked you if you were serious. Twice, even.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Calm down? I wasn't getting worked up.

But, good to see it was mostly tongue in cheek. Mostly. Even though I had already asked you if you were serious. Twice, even.
And, I did not confirm or deny in any definitive manner because I figured you would find some funneh in it if you thought I was serious. Hence the vagueness of my responses.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
And, I did not confirm or deny in any definitive manner because I figured you would find some funneh in it if you thought I was serious. Hence the vagueness of my responses.
Yes. Saying you would put nothing past the man should have been a dead give away to me that you weren't serious.

Can't believe I missed that.
 
Top Bottom