Spoke to my insider yesterday

[Verdict]

I think McFadden IS good enough, but we have to have another RB on the roster capable of being the lead back if McFadden goes down. I think Chris Ivory is a prime candidate to fill that position if he hits free agency. If McFadden goes down he can carry the ball 20 times per game at an acceptable level game after game. That eliminates the "need" to draft a RB if we resign Dunbar and fixes the position relatively cheaply. It also frees up the pick you would use on a rb to fill other positions.

 

[Alexander]

I think McFadden IS good enough, but we have to have another RB on the roster capable of being the lead back if McFadden goes down.

His career history says, that outside of last year, he will absolutely go down or miss games at some point. At his position, there is no bigger disqualifier for me in terms of thinking the player is "good" than not being available and reliable. His unreliability to start the season with yet another hamstring through the chance to get in sync with the OL off and we had to sit around and wait. That is just not my definition of a player I would ever consider a "solution" worthy of depending on again.

I think Chris Ivory is a prime candidate to fill that position if he hits free agency. If McFadden goes down he can carry the ball 20 times per game at an acceptable level game after game. That eliminates the "need" to draft a RB if we resign Dunbar and fixes the position relatively cheaply. It also frees up the pick you would use on a rb to fill other positions.

I would not waste time and real money in FA on a back like Ivory. Get me a bell cow or not at all. And if you have to spend good money on a backup back, why not just invent in the cheaper, younger and probably better alternative in April?[/quote]

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You can't really say that, because we went the majority of the season without Romo or Dez. I think they all worked well together. When Romo went out, albeit for a short time, Murray didn't really do anything. I'm not saying McFadden would have been this year what Murray was last year, but you can't really compare the two, because other factors were significantly different between the two seasons.

Murray wasn't going to have another '14 season in '15.

It's been seen in the NFL time and time again. You give a guy over 400 carries and he's a mess the next season. And we certainly saw that with Murray at Philly this season. If Murray was in Dallas he sure as heck wasn't going to get another 1,800 yards... nor was he going to get 1,500. Everyone saw what he did in Philly and they can whine about Chips offensive philosophy but the fact was by the end of the season Murray 3rd on the depth chart and an argument could be made that he was 4th. He was sluggish and looked to avoid contact. It wasn't pretty. He had the juice sucked out of him in '14 and was reduced to a has-been in '15.

Wishing for a back to duplicate what Murray did in '14 is a death wish for that back... because even if they could have duplicated it in '15, they'd probably be worth crap this season. McFadden had a manageable work load in '15 and should be able to duplicate that in '16.

 

[Alexander]

Wishing for a back to duplicate what Murray did in '14 is a death wish for that back... because even if they could have duplicated it in '15, they'd probably be worth crap this season. McFadden had a manageable work load in '15 and should be able to duplicate that in '16.

If I knew nothing about McFadden I might believe you.

 

[RW31]

 

[MichaelWinicki]

His career history says, that outside of last year, he will absolutely go down or miss games at some point. At his position, there is no bigger disqualifier for me in terms of thinking the player is "good" than not being available and reliable. His unreliability to start the season with yet another hamstring through the chance to get in sync with the OL off and we had to sit around and wait. That is just not my definition of a player I would ever consider a "solution" worthy of depending on again.



I would not waste time and real money in FA on a back like Ivory. Get me a bell cow or not at all. And if you have to spend good money on a backup back, why not just invent in the cheaper, younger and probably better alternative in April?

This season proved the fallacy of the "bell cow" back.

Other than AP, the "bell cows" around the NFL dropped like flies or were just flat-out inefficient

-Lynch
-Forte
-Bell
-Anderson
-Hill
-Forsett
-Lacy
-Murray
-Charles
-Miller
-Gore
-McCoy
-Ingram
-Hyde
-Ellington
-Foster

You just can't give a guy 350 carries a year and expect to no only survive the season but be just as effective next season.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

If I knew nothing about McFadden I might believe you.

I would think another back will be brought in to split carries with McFadden.

But you aren't going to see anyone get 300+ carries as the lead back.

 

[Alexander]

I would think another back will be brought in to split carries with McFadden.

But you aren't going to see anyone get 300+ carries as the lead back.

The story that was painted by the OP's story and that philosophy bothers me. If that is believed, he is "the guy" (read: bell cow) and then draft a RB in 2017.

McFadden has never carried the ball more in his career than last year. Yet he is ready to do it again?

If you firmly believe what you say about running backs, and how Murray was used up, how you can support giving McFadden the bigger share of the workload?

We have seen, specifically, with our own eyes, that the only measured success Garrett has had in his seven years was with a back getting the overwhelming majority of the carries to help establish the identity, which in turn only maximizes Romo's effectiveness.

As much as people around here throw up 2014 as a true measuring stick and what the "real Cowboys" are minus the injuries etc., it is funny how they twist that around and ignore how that was produced. I get McFadden a stud running mate and sooner than later, he is getting the lion's share of the workload.

If the idea is to maximize every Romo year we have left, he needs the support of a quality, effective running game to be at the level where he does not feel the need to do everything.

In the few games he played in last year, it was still his game to win or lose. And that is not that fair.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Way to make yourself seem to have difficulty reading. It wasn't a wall of text; perhaps a comic or coloring book will appeal more to you.

 

[Nightman]

His career history says, that outside of last year, he will absolutely go down or miss games at some point. At his position, there is no bigger disqualifier for me in terms of thinking the player is "good" than not being available and reliable. His unreliability to start the season with yet another hamstring through the chance to get in sync with the OL off and we had to sit around and wait. That is just not my definition of a player I would ever consider a "solution" worthy of depending on again.



I would not waste time and real money in FA on a back like Ivory. Get me a bell cow or not at all. And if you have to spend good money on a backup back, why not just invent in the cheaper, younger and probably better alternative in April?

People act like DMC is free. He isn't.

2.1m isn't a lot but if he has to be paired with another 2m back and 1.5m Dunbar then you are at 6m for RB.

Might as well get a LMiller and a rookie and a vet min guy like Turbin.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The story that was painted by the OP's story and that philosophy bothers me. If that is believed, he is "the guy" (read: bell cow) and then draft a RB in 2017.

McFadden has never carried the ball more in his career than last year. Yet he is ready to do it again?

If you firmly believe what you say about running backs, and how Murray was used up, how you can support giving McFadden the bigger share of the workload?

We have seen, specifically, with our own eyes, that the only measured success Garrett has had in his seven years was with a back getting the overwhelming majority of the carries to help establish the identity, which in turn only maximizes Romo's effectiveness.

As much as people around here throw up 2014 as a true measuring stick and what the "real Cowboys" are minus the injuries etc., it is funny how they twist that around and ignore how that was produced. I get McFadden a stud running mate and sooner than later, he is getting the lion's share of the workload.

If the idea is to maximize every Romo year we have left, he needs the support of a quality, effective running game to be at the level where he does not feel the need to do everything.

In the few games he played in last year, it was still his game to win or lose. And that is not that fair.

I'm not suggesting giving McFadden more of a work load... 239 carries seems about right to me anyway. 15 carries a game. Get another guy who can get 10 carries a game. If one of them gets hurt the other takes the slack for a couple games.

 

[Alexander]

I'm not suggesting giving McFadden more of a work load... 239 carries seems about right to me anyway.

That was his exact total last year (career high). I don't think that is "about right" for him at all. That is crossing your fingers and hoping he does not have a hamstring problem.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

That was his exact total last year (career high). I don't think that is "about right" for him at all. That is crossing your fingers and hoping he does not have a hamstring problem.

He's had a couple other seasons of 200+ carries... 239 wasn't a ridiculous amount.

Again, there will probably be another back (or two) on the roster.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

For his career McFadden has averaged 160 carries a season.

Would he be useful at 160 carries? Averaging 4.6 YPC like he did in '15? That would be 736 yards on the season, which would have ranked 22nd in the NFL this season.

 

[jobberone]

His career history says, that outside of last year, he will absolutely go down or miss games at some point. At his position, there is no bigger disqualifier for me in terms of thinking the player is "good" than not being available and reliable. His unreliability to start the season with yet another hamstring through the chance to get in sync with the OL off and we had to sit around and wait. That is just not my definition of a player I would ever consider a "solution" worthy of depending on again.

C'mon Alex. All RBs get injured. I do agree his past history can't be neglected. But I think you must have 2-3 RBs at all times ready to hit the field. I don't think we have kept the talent there we needed but TBF all teams have problems keeping RBs at top efficiency thru out the year.

I'd carry 3 RBs capable of running the ball effectively and one guy like Dunbar. I'd make one of the three other RBs a 'bigger' back capable of playing some FB.

But it is unrealistic to rag on DMC for a remote past history of injuries. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

[jobberone]

People act like DMC is free. He isn't.

2.1m isn't a lot but if he has to be paired with another 2m back and 1.5m Dunbar then you are at 6m for RB.

Might as well get a LMiller and a rookie and a vet min guy like Turbin.

Good idea as long as at least one RB is savvy and can block.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Just something to think about. Last year they looked at Murray's age, injuries, history and decided they were only going to pay so much for a back of his age, past injuries plus his number of carries.

Now Dmac is much much more cheaper but at the same time they need to look at those same things and if they look they will see that last year was an anomaly for him in production and injury.

Frankly after what we went through last season with back after back being brought it it would be pure lunacy to go into the season with Dmac, Dunbar and a JAG.

 

[jobberone]

For his career McFadden has averaged 160 carries a season.

Would he be useful at 160 carries? Averaging 4.6 YPC like he did in '15? That would be 736 yards on the season, which would have ranked 22nd in the NFL this season.

Maybe. You want to see 1000-1100 plays. Hopefully we'll run roughly 55/45 pass. Say we have 400 rushing attempts which is a little more than NE butt 20% lite of Car. However, if you take Cam's rushes out you have a tad more than Car, FWIW.

So that is 25 rushes per game. I believe they wish to really run by committee which I've grown to like. They did so more earlier then were forced to use DMC more. I think 12-15 per game for him is right and he'll get games with less and more. That leaves, on average, 10-13 snaps for the rest of the guys.

I don't think YPC, while important obviously, is as important as just having an effective running game.

 

[Vinnie2u]

We're picking at the top in every round. There will be no excuse to get a capable RB to team up with DMac in the 3rd or 4th round.

 

[Redball Express]

Smoke screens are when the team talks to the media and intentionally feeds them false info for consumption by other clubs.

Why would an insider talking to his friend intentionally feed his friend false info?

Doesn't make sense because the info was given anonymously, no NFL club would believe it and thus alter their plans accordingly.

I just say it's a misdirection with what is being said.

Not saying his source is doing anything on purpose.

Just saying what he thinks he is seeing or hearing are garbled.

They may be interested in Wentz..

and should be.

I just don't see this franchise signing a big name QB at 4.

They like to take projects like Romo and develop them and try to multiply their value.

It's what they did with Dez,,

Murray and numerous others like McLain, Lee and Hardy.

Dallas just has a philosopy that is different and always goes back to the Wildcat mentality of the owner.

Nothing is going to change,