Archer: Cowboys' offensive line is a running back's wish come true

[Cotton]

Cowboys' offensive line is a running back's wish come true
11:10 AM ET
Todd Archer
ESPN Staff Writer

IRVING, Texas -- Back in February, Ezekiel Elliott said he wanted to play for the Dallas Cowboys. In a conference call with ESPN NFL Nation reporters two weeks before the draft, Elliott said the same thing.

The Cowboys made his wish come true at the end of April, but the wish was not because he grew up a Cowboys fan.

The wish was because of Tyron Smith, La'el Collins, Travis Frederick, Zack Martin and Doug Free. You can add Jason Witten, Tony Romo and Dez Bryant, too, but really it’s the offensive line.

What running back wouldn’t want to play behind an offensive line like that?

In the last two years, only the Seattle Seahawks (5,030) and Carolina Panthers (4,318) have run for more yards than the Cowboys, who have 4,244 yards.

However, there is a striking difference between Seattle's and Carolina's running games and the Cowboys'. Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson has 1,402 rushing yards the last two seasons. The Panthers’ Cam Newton has 1,175. Cowboys quarterbacks Tony Romo, Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel and Kellen Moore have combined for 180 yards on the ground.

The Cowboys have made no secret that their team is built around the offensive line. You can debate the worthiness of selecting the best running back available in the draft when you have what many consider the best offensive line in football. The Cowboys ran for nearly 1,900 yards last season with Darren McFadden as their lead back and Romo playing just four games.

But the Cowboys believe a special running back and a special offensive line can lead to a special season.

This has been six seasons in the making, and it came together quite well in 2014 when DeMarco Murray ran for 1,845 yards to lead the league.

The Cowboys drafted Smith in the first round in 2011 and had him and Free switch tackle spots in 2012. In 2013, the Cowboys drafted Frederick, their center, in the first round. A year later they added Martin in the first round. Last year the Cowboys added a first-round talent in Collins as an undrafted free agent with a fully guaranteed contract.

And now they have added Elliott.

Grandiose predictions for Elliott are already being made: rookie of the year, rushing champion, rookie rushing record.

Without this offensive line, Elliott wouldn’t have those same considerations.

"For us, there's no pressure because everything that we do has to live up to our standard in our room,” said Frederick, who has been named to the Pro Bowl the last two seasons. “So everything that we do is geared to making sure that we're the best individually that we possibly can be and then collectively as a group the best that we can be.”

What is that standard? The linemen don’t really give a definition other than being the hardest-working group on the team, according to Smith, and doing things the right way.

“When you see it, you know,” Martin said. “The older guys coming in have done an awesome job of showing that each and every day. That's the best thing, the consistency of it."

Jason Garrett saw Emmitt Smith run behind some combination of Erik Williams, Mark Tuinei, Nate Newton, Mark Stepnoski and Larry Allen in the 1990s. The Cowboys won Super Bowls with the combination. They hope to win a Super Bowl with the combination of the line and Elliott.

"It's one of the best units that I have ever been around in football in terms of how close they are to each other and how hard they work,” Garrett said. “From the time they spend together in the weight room, to doing their drill work on the field, time they spend after practice together working on their fundamentals, time they spend together, it's a really close-knit group that pride themselves on being the hardest-working unit on the team, the hardest-working unit in the league.

“So they are very much grounded in trying to get better each and every day. They have a lot of great character guys, great personal character guys, great football character guys. So when you bring younger players in, they kind of understand what the culture is at that position group right away. So we're fortunate to have them. They can be the heartbeat of our football team.”

 

[Simpleton]

All this team needs is health, I honestly think if we are generally healthy and the coaching staff basically rolls out the 2014 strategy we will be a strong Super Bowl contender.

I think back to the Seahawks of 2005 and how their running game (and HFA presumably) carried them to a Super Bowl where they were more or less screwed out of a real chance of winning by the refs. Hasselbeck was a fine QB but they had no WR's and an average defense with no real stars.

What they did have was a workhorse in Alexander running behind an amazing OL and an efficient QB. With that said, I think Elliott is a better talent than Alexander and our OL is better than theirs, not to mention that Romo is a better QB and Dez/Witten are far better than anything they had in the passing game.

Whether or not Elliott as a rookie will be better than Alexander after 5+ years in the league remains to be seen, but I think that Romo, Dez, Witten and our OL are undoubtedly better than Hasselbeck, whatever WR's/TE's they had and their OL. Plus, having veterans who could honestly start in McFadden and Morris will likely easily make up for whatever rookie growing pains Elliott may have.

Of course the wild cards are coaching (Garrett obviously is inferior to Holmgren) and then general luck/health within a given NFL season, but by and large I think we have what it takes if our key players can stay on the field.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Holmgren was a master play caller and game planner.

If we had that I would take everything else about this team hands down.

 

[boozeman]

Holmgren was a master play caller and game planner.

If we had that I would take everything else about this team hands down.

Key word, was.

 

[BipolarFuk]

I think if Zeke doesn't average somewhere north of 4.5 ypc over his career, he'll probably be a disappointment.

 

[ravidubey]

I think if Zeke doesn't average somewhere north of 4.5 ypc over his career, he'll probably be a disappointment.

A lot goes into that number, like if the passing game poses a viable threat or if you're in a lot of short yardage situations.

But yeah, you're pretty much dead on -- while he has Romo and this OL.


[EDITED]

 

[NoDak]

Emmitt Smith's career avg was 4.2 ypc. Only had three years above 4.5 ypc.

What a disappointment.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Emmitt Smith's career avg was 4.2 ypc. Only had three years above 4.5 ypc.

What a disappointment.

Well AP averages 4.9...

A career average is difficult though because you know most RBs will have some crappy seasons, especially towards the end of their career. If Elliott doesn't average over 4.5 for the next few seasons he would be a huge disappointment though.

 

[NoDak]

Well AP averages 4.9...

A career average is difficult though because you know most RBs will have some crappy seasons, especially towards the end of their career. If Elliott doesn't average over 4.5 for the next few seasons he would be a huge disappointment though.

I disagree. Again, an all timer in Emmitt Smith only reached 4.5 ypc three times TOTAL, and you say Elliott has to reach it over the first three years or he's a huge disappointment. Look no further than Emmitt's ypc his first few seasons. They were below this arbitrary mark that's stupidly been set for Elliott. Should we have been disappointed in Emmitt? Were you?

 

[Angrymesscan]

I think ypc has gone steadily up for RB's since Emmitt. It probably has to do with the passing frenzy.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

They were below this arbitrary mark that's stupidly been set for Elliott. Should we have been disappointed in Emmitt? Were you?

It was a different era and using Emmitt as a comparison is pretty arbitrary. I mean if Elliott has a rookie year like Emmitt had, would you not be disappointed? Not sure why Emmitt should be brought up as some sort of measuring stick. Lets use backs from this era and possibly guys who even ran behind this offensive line in this system.

McFadden averaged 4.6 last year. If Elliott comes in with a better passing game and averages less then 4.5 how can that be anything but a disappointment?

 

[Jiggyfly]

It was a different era and using Emmitt as a comparison is pretty arbitrary. I mean if Elliott has a rookie year like Emmitt had, would you not be disappointed? Not sure why Emmitt should be brought up as some sort of measuring stick. Lets use backs from this era and possibly guys who even ran behind this offensive line in this system.

McFadden averaged 4.6 last year. If Elliott comes in with a better passing game and averages less then 4.5 how can that be anything but a disappointment?

Well he is the team and NFL all time leading rusher?

How about Tomlinson, he averaged 4.3 over his 1st 4 years and averaged 4.5 or over 3 times in his entire career.

 

[Genghis Khan]

There's more that goes into evaluating a running back than raw ypc.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I think I've said this before but iit bears repeating.

Imagine a scenario where two running backs get carries in a game.

Running back A, we'll call him "Joseph", gets 100 yards on 10 carries, for a 10ypc average.

Running back B, let's call him " DeMarco", gets 100 yards on 25 carries, for a 4 ypc average.

So who did better? Who was the more valuable RB?

Naturally it's Joseph and his 10 ypc, right?

But what if I told you, Joseph had 1 long run of 91 yards, and every other carry went for 1 yard. DeMarco, on the other hand, had exactly 4 yards on every single carry.

Now with that knowledge in mind, who was the better, more valuable RB?

YPC doesn't always tell the whole story. Personally, I value consistency much more. But there needs to be a balance.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Well he is the team and NFL all time leading rusher?

How about Tomlinson, he averaged 4.3 over his 1st 4 years and averaged 4.5 or over 3 times in his entire career.

You sure do love spinning shit don't you. LT averaged 4.5 ypc over his first 3 seasons. Which is exactly what we are talking about Elliott doing.

Never mind the fact that you totally ignored my statement about using current RBs or RBs that ran behind our great offensive line and instead pull out another guy who is retired and whose stats are over a decade ago. Of the top 4 RBs last year the average per carry was 4.5, 4.9, 4.8 and 4.6. The last two starting RBs in Dallas? Both averaged 4.7 and 4.6 yards per carry.

So yeah if I'm dumping Murray and McFadden as a starter and replacing him with Elliott who is making the money of Murray and cost me a top 5 draft pick, he sure as shit should be able to replicate those guys numbers.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I think I've said this before but iit bears repeating.

Imagine a scenario where two running backs get carries in a game.

Running back A, we'll call him "Joseph", gets 100 yards on 10 carries, for a 10ypc average.

Running back B, let's call him " DeMarco", gets 100 yards on 25 carries, for a 4 ypc average.

So who did better? Who was the more valuable RB?

Naturally it's Joseph and his 10 ypc, right?

But what if I told you, Joseph had 1 long run of 91 yards, and every other carry went for 1 yard. DeMarco, on the other hand, had exactly 4 yards on every single carry.

Now with that knowledge in mind, who was the better, more valuable RB?

YPC doesn't always tell the whole story. Personally, I value consistency much more. But there needs to be a balance.

This is always the favorite argument as to why Emmitt was better then Barry Sanders but the RB who never runs for more then 4 ypc is going to have all of his drives ending in incomplete passes or a penalty. The back who breaks some long runs will at least score some TDs. Which is how you win games.

All RBs have negative runs though. It's just a fact of life. So they better get more than 4 yards on the next carry to make up for it.

 

[Genghis Khan]

This is always the favorite argument as to why Emmitt was better then Barry Sanders but the RB who never runs for more then 4 ypc is going to have all of his drives ending in incomplete passes or a penalty. The back who breaks some long runs will at least score some TDs. Which is how you win games.

All RBs have negative runs though. It's just a fact of life. So they better get more than 4 yards on the next carry to make up for it.

First of all, like I said there has to be a balance. I don't think anyone advocates for RBs under 4 ypc.

Secondly, some RBs have more negative runs than others, which is a big part of the point.

Third, you don't win games with long runs alone. That's patently false. If you disagree, rewatch last year's Atlanta game. A couple long runs followed by a dozen really bad ones is a recipe for a loss.

Fourth, long runs are not the only way to score touchdowns. In fact it's rarely the case. Which is why it's much more valuable to be consistently good.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

First of all, like I said there has to be a balance. I don't think anyone advocates for RBs under 4 ypc.

Secondly, some RBs have more negative runs than others, which is a big part of the point.

Third, you don't win games with long runs alone. That's patently false. If you disagree, rewatch last year's Atlanta game. A couple long runs followed by a dozen really bad ones is a recipe for a loss.

Fourth, long runs are not the only way to score touchdowns. In fact it's rarely the case. Which is why it's much more valuable to be consistently good.

I think you would be surprised by the numbers if you actually saw a breakdown of negative runs by RBs. Meaning RBs you think are tough runners get stopped for no gain more then you realize and that it isn't necessarily significantly less then the runners who you think are only "big play threats." Of course all RBs have different numbers of negative plays but it probably has more to do with poor blocking or a busted play then the RB himself.

I'll mention the Falcons game since you brought it up but any time your RB goes for 3 TDs it's not really the RB's fault you lost. Defense and no passing game certainly. But if your RB is scoring 3 TDs you're probably pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I think you would be surprised by the numbers if you actually saw a breakdown of negative runs by RBs. Meaning RBs you think are tough runners get stopped for no gain more then you realize and that it isn't necessarily significantly less then the runners who you think are only "big play threats." Of course all RBs have different numbers of negative plays but it probably has more to do with poor blocking or a busted play then the RB himself.

I'll mention the Falcons game since you brought it up but any time your RB goes for 3 TDs it's not really the RB's fault you lost. Defense and no passing game certainly. But if your RB is scoring 3 TDs you're probably pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Randle had something like15 carries that game. He had 3 good runs and about12 bad runs. That means your RB is a problem. 12 >>>>>>>>> 3.

As to your other point, I think you're missing what I'm saying. Yea, all running backs have bad runs. Some more than others. When you have more bad than good, you are a bad running back. That's the point about Randle. He's worse in this regard than most other starting RBs.

The larger point in this thread that ties in with Randle's poor performance is that YPC doesn't tell you the whole story. Emmitt's ypc wasn't historic or anything but it was more than adequate because he gave you consistency and durability. Elliott's YPC doesn't have to be through the roof, as long as it's in the range of good or better, and he's consistent and durable.

I think Elliott is that type of consistently good back, which is why I'm excited about him. He's football smart, he has good vision and makes good decisions. To bring the discussion full circle, he's the anti Randle.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Randle had something like15 carries that game. He had 3 good runs and about12 bad runs. That means your RB is a problem. 12 >>>>>>>>> 3.

So running for TDs are bad runs now? Because he scored 3 in that game. Or are you trying to say those were his only 3 good carries and not the ones that went for big chunks of yards. I don't want to talk about Randle any more though. People get so emotional over him. It's like people can't separate their feelings about him from their ability to judge what he was doing on the field.

YPC might not tell the whole story but it tells most of it. Maybe less so that a high YPC signals a great RB but more so that a low YPC signals a bad performance. No one is talking about Elliot's YPC being through the rough, only that it is competitive with other top RBs. Look at all the top RBs over the last couple of years. Almost all of them posted a 4.5 YPC or higher. Which is why if he can't maintain stats like that behind the best run blocking line in football, he will be a disappointment.