Adrian Peterson Sweepstakes ***Officially reinstated (again) and merged***

[gimmesix]

4th and a paycut.

I'm on board with the 4th, although I could go as high as a 3rd because of the hit/miss percentages for that round.

I don't care whether he gets a paycut because I believe there are plenty of ways to work around salary and Dallas will set up a structure where he gets his money but the team is able to balance it against other contracts. We worry too much on here about money that doesn't really matter.

If Greg Hardy gets his full $13 million this year, are we doomed or upset because of that? If Dez plays on the franchise tag and gets $13 million (and possibly tagged again next year), does that destroy the team?

Now, I'd love to get AP for a seventh and for Dallas to pay the vet minimum, but I'm more concerned about the cost to get him not the cost to keep him.

 

[pansophy]

I don't think it's a good comparison to take a back who had an abnormal monster year YPC-wise and use that as evidence he is slipping.

Which of these numbers is not like the other? 5.6, 4.8, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 6.0, 4.5.

Anyone who was expecting Peterson to follow up his 6.0 year with another isn't grounded in reality. He is a consistent 4.5-plus back (other than the 4.4 year) and with 5.6 and 6.0 years being anomalies. To use the fact that he returned to normal as evidence that he's slipping is a reach.

Now, losing playing time to injuries is a different story. Fortunately, he's started at least 14 games in 5 of 7 seasons (not counting last year).

But this is the point isn't it? Only Peterson's 2000+ yard season was better than what Murray ran for last year. So all this talk about how Peterson is better than Murray doesn't make any difference, because 'regression to the mean' would suggest that we aren't having another 1800 yard runner next year no matter who is back there.

When people say that they want a dominating running game, how much more dominating can it be than 1800 yards? This tells me that a dominating running game isn't enough to push us over the top. It did help Romo become the top rated passer and Dez catch the most TDs, but it didn't help us win the super bowl because our defense didn't have enough bullets to stop anyone.

So if we have unlimited resources we probably would have just signed Murray, which is what Jones said he would have done btw. But say we had unlimited resources and still didn't sign Murray, then I could be convinced that going after Peterson would be a good option for 2 years.

However, in a world where going after Peterson means that we will have less resources to devote to defense, I can't be convinced that it is a good idea. Even a record breaking year at 31 years isn't going to be that much better that what we had last year. Give me a pass rush, which was the biggest weakness on the team.

Regardless of what people think the Cowboys are going to do, their actions corroborate this line of thinking. They didn't sign Murray to a big time deal and they signed Hardy despite the off-the-field issues. With a one year deal, Hardy is just a bridge to the next guy. Hopefully Lawrence continues to develop and we can draft some more DL this year and next.

That's the plan whether people like it or not.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The best way to improve the Defense, within Romos time frame to make a push at the Super Bowl, is to ensure that the Offense continues to have the capability of dominating Time of Possession.

Because that plan worked so well last year? The best way to improve the defense is add better players.

 

[superonyx]

I can't speak for everyone who wants Peterson (party because I am on the fence still), but my reason for wanting him has a lot to do with not trusting the rookie RB's and watching our Super Bowl chances the next 2 seasons take a hit from the annual NFL Crapshoot aka the draft.

I dont trust Gordon because every back from his school looks awesome and then becomes another committee back in the pros. I don't trust that Gurley will be there at 27 and I don't trust him to stay healthy since he hasn't had a healthy season since high school. He runs with a reckless style that concerns me. After Gordon and Gurley the rest of the backs all look like committee running backs. None look like game breakers and all have question marks.

So the desire to get Peterson is about knowing that the next 2 years could be special years when you have the most physically complete back the game has seen in the last decade running behind the best offensive line in football.

I have learned a lesson over the years about the draft. I have seen too many Trent Richardsons and Darren McFaddens come out and let teams down to trust anything I see in a college highlight reel or game tape. I am nervous about relying on that when our offense last year was awesome as a run first offense. I can see us having to go back to a pass first offense if McFadden and the committee are putting up 3 ypc.

 

[khiladi]

I find it hard to believe fans still think this. Did you not learn anything from Ratliff and Orton? The player holds all the cards if he is willing to go all in to get what he wants. Ratliff showed up and claimed he hurt himself in the first 15 minutes of conditioning drills. He then refused to be seen by the team doctors and left the team to seek his own medical treatment. His agent began claiming it could be a serious injury, maybe even season ending. The Cowboys waited it out for a few weeks but finally had enough as roster decisions had to made and cut him. Two weeks later he was starting for the Chicago Bears. AD can do something similar if he wants out. What if he shows up and fumbles 50% of the time he touches the ball in practice? What if he just obviously isn't giving 100%. The team cannot force a player to give his all. AD has a multiple of avenues to force Minny to trade or release him. He just has to be willing to take one of them. The player holds all the cards because ultimately, the team will be forced to move on if they aren't getting value on the field from a player.

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...far-from-over-as-cowboys-file-complaint.html/

The two situations aren't comparable and Dallas did file a complaint...

And again, when you got plenty of baby-mammas and demands for money keep coming in, it doesn't matter whether you choose to sit out for a while or not. The team doesn't have to budge.

 

[superonyx]

But this is the point isn't it? Only Peterson's 2000+ yard season was better than what Murray ran for last year. So all this talk about how Peterson is better than Murray doesn't make any difference, because 'regression to the mean' would suggest that we aren't having another 1800 yard runner next year no matter who is back there.

When people say that they want a dominating running game, how much more dominating can it be than 1800 yards? This tells me that a dominating running game isn't enough to push us over the top. It did help Romo become the top rated passer and Dez catch the most TDs, but it didn't help us win the super bowl because our defense didn't have enough bullets to stop anyone.

So if we have unlimited resources we probably would have just signed Murray, which is what Jones said he would have done btw. But say we had unlimited resources and still didn't sign Murray, then I could be convinced that going after Peterson would be a good option for 2 years.

However, in a world where going after Peterson means that we will have less resources to devote to defense, I can't be convinced that it is a good idea. Even a record breaking year at 31 years isn't going to be that much better that what we had last year. Give me a pass rush, which was the biggest weakness on the team.

Regardless of what people think the Cowboys are going to do, their actions corroborate this line of thinking. They didn't sign Murray to a big time deal and they signed Hardy despite the off-the-field issues. With a one year deal, Hardy is just a bridge to the next guy. Hopefully Lawrence continues to develop and we can draft some more DL this year and next.

That's the plan whether people like it or not.

I guess everyone can just stop speculating then since you just told everyone the plan. Close the thread....

The reality is that we good enough last year. Many people thought we could have won the Super Bowl. Some could say Murray fumbled it away in a hole that Peterson would have taken it all the way.

Jones didn't want to guarantee big money to a player that has Murray's injury history. Let's not forget that was also mentioned by jones. Don't just use the words to suit your argument.

So now with the money you want to allocate to the defense......since I keep hearing this....who do you want to go after that will use this money and improve the defense? Free agency is pretty much over my man AMD rookies are on a set pay scale. Maybe there is something I don't know. Did JJ Watt become a free agent this weekend?

 

[superonyx]

Because that plan worked so well last year? The best way to improve the defense is add better players.

Ok who are these better players you speak of?

No one and nothing guarantees us a super bowl. But let's not act like we didn't have the offense to handle Seattle last year. They were thrilled that the Dez catch wasn't ruled a catch and that Murray fumbled the ball. They wanted nothing to do with us.

I am all for improving the defense....let's do it....now who do you have in mind that we can go get this year to do this.....

 

[big dog cowboy]

I am all for improving the defense....let's do it....now who do you have in mind that we can go get this year to do this.....

The draft is next week. 5 months of offseason after that. It's not like the chances of getting better players is over on April 20th.

 

[Tabascocat]

The draft is next week. 5 months of offseason after that. It's not like the chances of getting better players is over on April 20th.

more like 2.5 months, we are getting closer

 

[Silver N Blue]

Because that plan worked so well last year? The best way to improve the defense is add better players.

And that process started with Hardy, Brink, and Gatch. Not to mention the possibility Lee plays an entire year.

 

[pansophy]

I can't speak for everyone who wants Peterson (party because I am on the fence still), but my reason for wanting him has a lot to do with not trusting the rookie RB's and watching our Super Bowl chances the next 2 seasons take a hit from the annual NFL Crapshoot aka the draft.

I dont trust Gordon because every back from his school looks awesome and then becomes another committee back in the pros. I don't trust that Gurley will be there at 27 and I don't trust him to stay healthy since he hasn't had a healthy season since high school. He runs with a reckless style that concerns me. After Gordon and Gurley the rest of the backs all look like committee running backs. None look like game breakers and all have question marks.

So the desire to get Peterson is about knowing that the next 2 years could be special years when you have the most physically complete back the game has seen in the last decade running behind the best offensive line in football.

I have learned a lesson over the years about the draft. I have seen too many Trent Richardsons and Darren McFaddens come out and let teams down to trust anything I see in a college highlight reel or game tape. I am nervous about relying on that when our offense last year was awesome as a run first offense. I can see us having to go back to a pass first offense if McFadden and the committee are putting up 3 ypc.

I don't disagree with these points. We might miss on a rookie RB and my guess is that we don't take one until the 3rd or 4th round. I think the belief is that behind this OL there are a lot of guys that can be effective, and a lot of guys think that Ryan Williams can be more than effective. So it's not like we are counting on one rookie to make or break the team. We have Williams, Randle, McFadden, and possibly a rookie.

The thing is that if Peterson doesn't return to form and it is a big contract for 3 to 4 years we are screwed. It's much less risky to have a lot of low salary options at RB and spend that money on defense, which frankly needs the most help.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And that process started with Hardy, Brink, and Gatch. Not to mention the possibility Lee plays an entire year.

I'd call that a good start.

 

[superonyx]

The draft is next week. 5 months of offseason after that. It's not like the chances of getting better players is over on April 20th.

Rookie salaries are set. Free agency is over for all practical purposes. So are we counting on a salary cap casualty to push us over the top and make us a championship defense? I hope not.

The reality is the best hope to improve the defense will come from the first round of the draft. Now without Peteson that pick or the 2nd pick will need to go to RB.
Keeping our offense on the field is the best way left to help our defense.

 

[Silver N Blue]

I'd call that a good start.

Exactly right now imo this team has four areas of strength. OL, QB, LB, WR.....it's pretty clear imo the direction the draft should take.

 

[superonyx]

I don't disagree with these points. We might miss on a rookie RB and my guess is that we don't take one until the 3rd or 4th round. I think the belief is that behind this OL there are a lot of guys that can be effective, and a lot of guys think that Ryan Williams can be more than effective. So it's not like we are counting on one rookie to make or break the team. We have Williams, Randle, McFadden, and possibly a rookie.

The thing is that if Peterson doesn't return to form and it is a big contract for 3 to 4 years we are screwed. It's much less risky to have a lot of low salary options at RB and spend that money on defense, which frankly needs the most help.

Ok so who are we going to spend that money on thats going to improve our defense?

 

[gimmesix]

When people say that they want a dominating running game, how much more dominating can it be than 1800 yards? This tells me that a dominating running game isn't enough to push us over the top. It did help Romo become the top rated passer and Dez catch the most TDs, but it didn't help us win the super bowl because our defense didn't have enough bullets to stop anyone.

So if we have unlimited resources we probably would have just signed Murray, which is what Jones said he would have done btw. But say we had unlimited resources and still didn't sign Murray, then I could be convinced that going after Peterson would be a good option for 2 years.

However, in a world where going after Peterson means that we will have less resources to devote to defense, I can't be convinced that it is a good idea. Even a record breaking year at 31 years isn't going to be that much better that what we had last year. Give me a pass rush, which was the biggest weakness on the team.

Pass rush was the biggest weakness last year. However, one of our strengths was the running game. I don't think anyone believes we have to have 1,800 yards rushing to succeed, but a lot of us also don't believe that we can do away with one of our strengths and be a better team.

We need to keep building up our defense but not at the forfeit of the running game. Some believe we can just get by with what we have because of the line, but there's just no evidence the backs we have are good enough for that. We need to devote resources to both the running game and the defense and I have no doubt we can do both whether we get Peterson or not.

IMO, we can actually devote more resources to defense if we get Peterson because then we don't have to spend a first- or second-round pick on a running back. And IMO if we don't get Peterson we will spend a first- or second-round pick on a back, so we'll actually lose resources we can spend on defense.

As an example, would you rather us take Gurley or Gordon when Kevin Johnson or Bud Dupree is available or would you rather us take Johnson or Dupree and spend a third-round pick on Peterson? I could live with either scenario, but the one with Peterson would allow us to also add a first-round defender.

Also, from everything I've read, Dallas was willing to spend a similar amount that Philly did on Murray, but was not willing to go any higher on the guaranteed money than $12 million, because the guarantee is all that matters. Dallas technically wouldn't have to guarantee any money to Peterson, but in order to make his contract work would likely need to convert base into bonus.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/163974/cowboys-guarantee-couldnt-keep-demarco-murray

 

[iceberg]

Ok who are these better players you speak of?

No one and nothing guarantees us a super bowl. But let's not act like we didn't have the offense to handle Seattle last year. They were thrilled that the Dez catch wasn't ruled a catch and that Murray fumbled the ball. They wanted nothing to do with us.

I am all for improving the defense....let's do it....now who do you have in mind that we can go get this year to do this.....

if we have "this year" to get there, isn't it odd you're wanting someone RIGHT NOW who will take us there? this also ignores what we've already done in getting hardy and some solid LB's to make subtle yet yes, improvements.

some people who want it all done "today" just get old. then again, there's NOTHING new that can be said about this topic, yet it rages on.

 

[superonyx]

I don't disagree with these points. We might miss on a rookie RB and my guess is that we don't take one until the 3rd or 4th round. I think the belief is that behind this OL there are a lot of guys that can be effective, and a lot of guys think that Ryan Williams can be more than effective. So it's not like we are counting on one rookie to make or break the team. We have Williams, Randle, McFadden, and possibly a rookie.

The thing is that if Peterson doesn't return to form and it is a big contract for 3 to 4 years we are screwed. It's much less risky to have a lot of low salary options at RB and spend that money on defense, which frankly needs the most help.

Btw. I agree with some of your points and I a still on the fence over Peterson. I see both sides of the debate.
I do find it strange though that a team that gave Demarco the ball so so much is now ok with a committee of underachievers running the ball and still maintaining a run first approach.

 

[ufcrules1]

He'd be a fool giving up a 1st and other draft picks plus a starting corner.

Yeah, he would. But who on earth said he was going to do all of that? The Vikings made mention of wanting at least a 1st and a CB. They started high.... nothing wrong with that. Do you think they are dumb enough to say, "We would do the deal for just a 3rd rounder and nothing more"? Cowboys probably come in and start low offering a 4th and then both sides meet somewhere in the middle. Then bam... we have a shiny new toy and a great outlook for the 2015 season.

 

[superonyx]

if we have "this year" to get there, isn't it odd you're wanting someone RIGHT NOW who will take us there? this also ignores what we've already done in getting hardy and some solid LB's to make subtle yet yes, improvements.

some people who want it all done "today" just get old. then again, there's NOTHING new that can be said about this topic, yet it rages on.

Not really odd that we have a huge hole in our offense that defined us as a team last year and instead of filling this hole with a player that upgrades the position we have people saying to use these funds on defense yet can't name anyone who we can use the money on that will improved the defense.

I agree that we have made improvements to our defense already.