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

[Stash]

The draft picks I would be fine with but no way would I offer a 3 year $25 million dollar contract. That is more per year than we offered Murray.

Murray's good, Peterson's great. You pay more for great than good.

Many on the team were good friends with Murray, what kind of message is that sending? We know you were a great RB here. We know you ran for the most yards in Cowboys history last year. We know you were a leader on the team. But, sorry, we can't pay you that much per year. But we CAN pay more to this other RB who happens to be coming off a suspension and is four years older than you.

And is better than you. And I'm not worry about hurt feelings. I'd just ask them if they want to give back some of their money for their 'friend' and that would shut them up pretty quickly.

That just makes no sense to me at all. Chemistry is a real and important thing in locker rooms. I fear that might just screw up the chemistry here majorly.

They gave 'Murray's money' to Greg Hardy. Will that ruin team chemistry too or will the players realize he makes them a better team?

If it did, whoever let it affect them professionally doesn't get it and needs to go. Where's the discount Dez is giving to keep Murray around? Why didn't he agree to take $10 million instead of $13 million to do his part to keep his good friend around?

Players looking for the team to 'somehow' make it work with a salary cap while they go after every penny simply don't get it.

Murray didn't take less to stay, he went out and got as much as he could, even if it meant playing for a division rival. Why wasn't 'chemistry' most important to him?

 

[pansophy]

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

Murray's yardage increased as we added pieces to the OL. We aren't giving up on the running game. We have invested in it for the last several years by adding 1st round OL. Having the best running game in the league isn't always about having the best running back.

We already had to restructure Romo's contract in order to pay for Hardy and some other moves - something a lot of people think already mortgages our future somewhat.

We don't have 15 million dollars of unused cap space just waiting to be used. We would have to further restructure or cut guys to create room for Peterson. Some have argued cutting Carr, which is fine in theory, but you also have to replace him. Who do you replace him with? There is no one to sign. If you are going to trust a rookie, the odds of success are so much better for RB than CB.

 

[ufcrules1]

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.

If we went that route, then yes we would be counting on the rookie because we sure as hell can't count on DMC, Randle, and Williams. Williams didn't even play last year, Randle can't stop stealing and getting into trouble, and DMC is a proven failure and can't be relied upon. So that leaves the mystery rookie. Our team dominated last year BECAUSE of the running game. Do we really want to chance the running game this year by having some rookie back there? That would be crazy.

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.

We have no idea what the contract could look like. It could be a 1 or 2 year contract for all we know. We could be going all in during Romo's last years trying to win a super bowl. If something bad happens, we can cut Peterson.

 

[dallasdave]

The goal is to win the Super Bowl now, I don't care if it's Peterson, Gurley, Gordon, we need one more RB and a good one to win the big one. GO COWBOYS !!!!!!

 

[iceberg]

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.

except up until this last year, i simply can't recall ANYONE saying murray was indispensable to this offense. a vast majority of what i heard was that he stays injured, has this fault and that one...and suddenly we must replace him via THE BEST RB OF ALL TIME OR AT LEAST THIS DECADE OR AT LEAST FOR NOW or a #1 draft pick.

all this to replace a guy we got in the 3rd who took "x" number of years to "break out".

i respected murray and loved watching him run as much as the next guy. but i don't think it was all him suddenly figuring out how to run. it was him, our OL, our coaching, and a combined group to create this award winning season. i'm happy for murray but to say we must suddenly replace him as if no one really can (except peterson, of course) seems convenient to me, not reality.

we've got FA, the draft and players will start getting cut. we may not have an RB to win the rushing title this year, but that's ok. that shouldn't be our aim.

nothing still changes nothing new is said on this topic and even if/when peterson becomes available, it will just be the same old rehashed arguments spouted out again as if THIS TIME the other side will "get it".

 

[Stash]

Yeah. You go ahead and think that. That is why Dez and Tony are both on record that they wanted Murray back.

Just not enough to offer to take less money to keep him I guess... East to talk about how badly they want to keep him around, quite another thing to actually do something about it.

That is why they consistently stated how important he was to the franchise. Yep, they were lying. They secretly wanted AP all along. I mean, screw Murray, he only had the best season in franchise history. What Dez and Romo really wanted is a 30 year old RB, who hasn't played for a year. Yep. You got it.

And of course, the most important thing for this franchise is doing exactly what Dez and Romo want. If that's the case, why doesn't Dez have a ridiculous overpriced deal already?

After all, the team just needs to give the players whatever they want...

 

[pansophy]

If we went that route, then yes we would be counting on the rookie because we sure as hell can't count on DMC, Randle, and Williams. Williams didn't even play last year, Randle can't stop stealing and getting into trouble, and DMC is a proven failure and can't be relied upon. So that leaves the mystery rookie. Our team dominated last year BECAUSE of the running game. Do we really want to chance the running game this year by having some rookie back there? That would be crazy.

We have no idea what the contract could look like. It could be a 1 or 2 year contract for all we know. We could be going all in during Romo's last years trying to win a super bowl. If something bad happens, we can cut Peterson.

If the Vikings cut Peterson and he is willing to play for about what McFadden is getting then I'd of course be all for that. If we trade a 5th or 6th rounder and he plays for what McFadden is getting then great.

Other than that it's not a good plan.

 

[Stash]

Worse case scenario is, RBs decline at 30 because of wear and tear, not because they hit 30 years old... AP had a year off..

And this is the factor they'll run from. Time off can only do a player harm in their opinion, it couldn't possibly do him good or actually be beneficial. To possibly concede that would destroy their case.

 

[ufcrules1]

If the Vikings cut Peterson and he is willing to play for about what McFadden is getting then I'd of course be all for that. If we trade a 5th or 6th rounder and he plays for what McFadden is getting then great.

Other than that it's not a good plan.

Right, because a rookie RB is going to help lead our team to a super bowl while the vets window is almost closed.

 

[dallasdave]

And this is the factor they'll run from. Time off can only do a player harm in their opinion, it couldn't possibly do him good or actually be beneficial. To possibly concede that would destroy their case.

 

[erod]

It will be interesting to see if Minnesota drafts Gurley in the first round. That's the only back that looks capable of being truly elite from this class (though you never know).

If they do, that's when you start watching for a Peterson trade.

That is, if he's not traded in the days leading up to the draft.

 

[erod]

And this is the factor they'll run from. Time off can only do a player harm in their opinion, it couldn't possibly do him good or actually be beneficial. To possibly concede that would destroy their case.

Again, I would apply this to every back, EXCEPT Peterson.

The dude doesn't have an ounce of fat on him. Never has. He doesn't let himself go. He is a workout freak.

 

[dallasdave]

Again, I would apply this to every back, EXCEPT Peterson.

The dude doesn't have an ounce of fat on him. Never has. He doesn't let himself go. He is a workout freak.

Yeah, he primed and ready to go.

 

[erod]

Yeah, he primed and ready to go.

I think he'll be a man possessed this year. He's a caged animal right now.

 

[Stash]

Again, I would apply this to every back, EXCEPT Peterson.

The dude doesn't have an ounce of fat on him. Never has. He doesn't let himself go. He is a workout freak.

And I've seen yet another report about his workouts and the shape he's in. This one from Alfred Blue, the Texans' #2 running back.

He talked about how driven and motivated he was and how he expected him to tear up the league when he gets back on the field.

Give me somebody motivated like that!

 

[Stash]

It will be interesting to see if Minnesota drafts Gurley in the first round. That's the only back that looks capable of being truly elite from this class (though you never know).

If they do, that's when you start watching for a Peterson trade.

That is, if he's not traded in the days leading up to the draft.

I think that's when the trade quite possibly could happen, with the Vikings on the clock with the running back they covet on the board.

If Gurley is there, they could send Peterson to Dallas and get his replacement within a 10-minute time frame.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Janis? I take your name based on your photo...so you may call me the triplets....Jim...because when Murray ran you feared he would fumble or get hurt...

Deep psychedelic thoughts there. Trip away.

 

[superonyx]

except up until this last year, i simply can't recall ANYONE saying murray was indispensable to this offense. a vast majority of what i heard was that he stays injured, has this fault and that one...and suddenly we must replace him via THE BEST RB OF ALL TIME OR AT LEAST THIS DECADE OR AT LEAST FOR NOW or a #1 draft pick.

all this to replace a guy we got in the 3rd who took "x" number of years to "break out".

i respected murray and loved watching him run as much as the next guy. but i don't think it was all him suddenly figuring out how to run. it was him, our OL, our coaching, and a combined group to create this award winning season. i'm happy for murray but to say we must suddenly replace him as if no one really can (except peterson, of course) seems convenient to me, not reality.

we've got FA, the draft and players will start getting cut. we may not have an RB to win the rushing title this year, but that's ok. that shouldn't be our aim.

nothing still changes nothing new is said on this topic and even if/when peterson becomes available, it will just be the same old rehashed arguments spouted out again as if THIS TIME the other side will "get it".

I agree with some of your points. You seem very annoyed about this thread. I know as most do that one side will never convince the other....in fact I am not even on a side. I am sitting on the fence and hoping our front office makes all the right moves. I surely can see both sides of this debate. There isn't exactly a wrong or right side. You have to understand why this thread even exist. Its not too often that you let the AP Offensive Player of the Year leave. Also you have Romo trying to sell the FO on why we need to win now. You also have the guy most consider the most dangerous back in the last 10 years who calls your owner and says he wants to play for his favorite team.

Sure Murray didn't suddenly figure out how to run. Sure the OL played a part in his success. I think fans liked watching Romo lead the league in QB rating while Murray had the ball 450 times. Are you really surprised when you let a back with 450 touches and 1845 yards leave the fans want a reliable replacement for these carries and receptions?
At the same time the fans want to replicate the formula that finally got us out of the 8-8 streak.

There isn't much going on to talk about and many fans are actually enjoying this debate. You must be also since you keep reading and chiming in.

 

[erod]

And I've seen yet another report about his workouts and the shape he's in. This one from Alfred Blue, the Texans' #2 running back.

He talked about how driven and motivated he was and how he expected him to tear up the league when he gets back on the field.

Give me somebody motivated like that!

Peterson loves to play as much as anybody I've ever seen. That can't be underestimated.

 

[gimmesix]

Murray's yardage increased as we added pieces to the OL. We aren't giving up on the running game. We have invested in it for the last several years by adding 1st round OL. Having the best running game in the league isn't always about having the best running back.

We already had to restructure Romo's contract in order to pay for Hardy and some other moves - something a lot of people think already mortgages our future somewhat.

We don't have 15 million dollars of unused cap space just waiting to be used. We would have to further restructure or cut guys to create room for Peterson. Some have argued cutting Carr, which is fine in theory, but you also have to replace him. Who do you replace him with? There is no one to sign. If you are going to trust a rookie, the odds of success are so much better for RB than CB.

Murray's YPC didn't increase (actually, it decreased from the previous year and his best YPC was in 2011 when we had Phil Costa at center), so he was the same runner but we focused more on the run because of the line, his health and his ability. It isn't like we took a guy who was averaging 3.5 YPC and suddenly expected him to average 4.5-plus and rush for 1,800 yards. That would be insane.

There are a variety of moves that we can make to fit Peterson in without "mortgaging our future," which is some mythical beast that doesn't really exist with the way contracts are structured, restructured, etc.

The only way I'm OK with the Carr cut is if we trade for Peterson and draft a first-round corner. My preference is that we see if we draft a first-round corner then offer Carr in a trade to Minnesota for Peterson. (If we don't, we offer a third, or a fourth and Claiborne.) The Carr move frees up $4 million, which would then be used to pay most of what it would cost for Peterson this year if we convert his salary for the season into bonus. (A June 1st cut frees up even more.) Minnesota could do the same with Carr but would have the cap space to absorb his salary as is without any other moves.

As far as the odds of success go, there is a better chance of drafting a starting corner in the first two rounds than there is of drafting a starting running back, according to historical rates. Again, there's risk with any position, but the historical rates for defensive backs are 64 percent in the first round and 46 in the second. The historical rates for RB are 58 in the first and 25 in the second, according to http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round.

Obviously, that changes from year to year. I do not know if the odds of rookie success is better for RB starters or DB starters, but the odds of finding a starter appear to be better for the defensive back group.