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

Status
Not open for further replies.
mattjames2010

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,880
Reaction score
20,757
rat2k8 said:
I get a kick out of some of the fans in this forum and there doom and gloom of losing Murray. Do you think that Jerry and Stephen are so stupid they they don't have a backup plan for Murray. IMO they never had any intentions of keeping Murray at any price. If they wanted him they would have signed him before the draft period!!. Now sit back grab your popcorn and relax and wait how this unfolds as this is going to be an exciting draft. And yes AP is still in play.
Click to expand...

I certainly think they wanted Murray back, but just couldn't or didn't want to give him the contract he thought he deserved. I will criticize neither side. Dallas just doesn't believe in paying RBs big contracts; especially a 27 year old RB who had some injury issues in the past. Murray came off a 1,800 yard season and felt he deserved to be paid like he's an elite RB, and rightfully so.

It's a business, it happens. Part way and move on. The draft produces a lot of great players to replace those you let go, do your best to scout them out and choose them in the draft.
 
dallasdave

dallasdave

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,326
Reaction score
88,063
JoeBoBBY said:
Okay. Whats wrong with this scenario? What kills the entire franchise and its future in this plan.

1. Give a 2 to Minny.
2. Sign AP, 3 years 25 million. Load it up with signing bonuses etc etc... and most likely cut him year 3, if need be, he will be 33 by then. Eat some dead money, but try and minimize the amount. I'm not a contract guy but from what I understand we could get it down to a reasonable amount.
3. Draft heavy on defense.
4. draft a RB, If romo is around in 3 years, we will have someone ready to go when AP is gone.

We lose a second round draft choice, and the difference of what we would have paid Murray compared to what we pay AP. off hand, 10 - 12 million over the course of 3 years.

I dont really consider that going "All in" . And it certainly can be managed.

We have AP for 2 years, for what is really Romos last run..... And, who do we have at QB after Romo? Ohhh thats right, were going to be so good, it wont matter.

But. nope. Ii doubt it happens. The FO is going to out smart themselves and go from one extreme way of doing business to another....
Click to expand...

That's a plan Stan, I like this and think it's a blueprint for a Super Bowl win. Go Cowboys !!! :star:
 
dallasdave

dallasdave

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,326
Reaction score
88,063
stasheroo said:
What would you consider 'a ton'? If they gave him $12 - $13 million on a 3-year deal, you're looking at close to $5 million in dead money if they released him or he retired after two years. I can live with that.



I would rather give up the second rounder next year rather than this year.



I worry about Romo in 3 years too. But I'd like to load up for a run while both are still playing at a high level.



'So certain are you?' (in my best Yoda voice)
Click to expand...

I know I can live with this, and it will help our defense by ball control -keeping the other teams offense off the field.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,067
Reaction score
37,658
mattjames2010 said:
He had nearly the same amount of yards AFTER contact. What are you not understanding here? You've lost the argument, man. Just stop. 40+ yard runs in the league, whether the RB is fast or not, is rare. I gave you the link, it tells you the facts, and you are blatantly ignoring it. No one is "spinning" anything, you're just ignoring the facts.

It doesn't matter if he had 3-4 40+ yard runs with 250 carries or with 390 carries. I just provided you the link, there have been players with 350, sometimes 380 carries who have had 3-4 40+ yard runs and sometimes LESS. Having just 6 40+ yard runs is having a damn good year. You are taking a high amount of 40+ yard carries and making that the expectation for EVERY RB in the league when even HOF RBs had trouble doing that. No, it's not valid criticism, it's a bias stance.

And what are you trying to prove with Foles and Sanchez? Who here said they were great QBs? I don't care about your opinion of their play, your argument was that there was no fear of the passing game, that the passing game did nothing to help McCoy, it obviously did. If it was because of the system, like you said, it doesn't matter. The threat of the passing game was there. You're forgetting your original argument.
Click to expand...

Providing me a link with no context doesn't mean I'm ignoring the facts. It means you just look at the numbers without any context.

1. It absolutely does matter that if your given more opportunities you run for less yardage. Do you honestly not understand how dumb that sounds? If I ask any RB if they think they are given 80 more opportunities to break one to the house, could they, everyone of them will say yes.At the end of the day, you can only compare yourself against yourself. He couldn't take it to the house despite getting more carries and despite getting in the backfield and having teams drop back to stop the vertical pass. That is a fact, no matter how much you try and spin out of it.

2. You telling me about history has no relevance to an argument, when your talking about eras that were geared to stop the run, i.e. your providing no context. You haven't even listed players who ran the ball that many times to give an accurate picture of the era they were running in, but just provided a link of 20 years, as if you actually did some work and said, well there were some running backs who did. Looking at the NOW, in just the last three years, with respect to other running backs, when Murray got 80 more carries, his 40+ dropped though he was getting into the backfield more. That didn't happen for others. Look at Foster for example, with such an awful QB and passing attack.

3. He ran less after contact and despite the fact he almost ran as much after the first hit, what does that have to do with anything other than proving my point? Murray was afforded the opportunity to get going, i.e. when your getting in the backfield, the spacing increases and allows you a better chance to get upfield.

4. My argument was that teams had no passing game with their respective QBs and their lines sucked. You brought up the Eagles as a general rule saying their OL was like Dallas, which was absurd. They sucked and Sanchez was sacked like 27 times in 8 starts. Saying Foles had a great year has no bearing on the fact that he was under pressure and much of his statistics which you claim as proof of his awesome year was because of Kelly's scheming. Sanchez played light years better in this Eagles offense than he did with the Jets for the last few years. And further, McCoy was a great RB even before Kelly came. You actually lost sight of the fact of what the point was..
 
mattjames2010

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,880
Reaction score
20,757
khiladi said:
Providing me a link with no context doesn't mean I'm ignoring the facts. It means you just look at the numbers without any context.

1. It absolutely does matter that if your given more opportunities you run for less yardage. Do you honestly not understand how dumb that sounds? If I ask any RB if they think they are given 80 more opportunities to break one to the house, could they, everyone of them will say yes.At the end of the day, you can only compare yourself against yourself. He couldn't take it to the house despite getting more carries and despite getting in the backfield and having teams drop back to stop the vertical pass. That is a fact, no matter how much you try and spin out of it.

2. You telling me about history has no relevance to an argument, when your talking about eras that were geared to stop the run, i.e. your providing no context. You haven't even listed players who ran the ball that many times to give an accurate picture of the era they were running in, but just provided a link of 20 years, as if you actually did some work and said, well there were some running backs who did. Looking at the NOW, in just the last three years, with respect to other running backs, when Murray got 80 more carries, his 40+ dropped though he was getting into the backfield more. That didn't happen for others. Look at Foster for example, with such an awful QB and passing attack.

3. He ran less after contact and despite the fact he almost ran as much after the first hit, what does that have to do with anything other than proving my point? Murray was afforded the opportunity to get going, i.e. when your getting in the backfield, the spacing increases and allows you a better chance to get upfield.

4. My argument was that teams had no passing game with their respective QBs and their lines sucked. You brought up the Eagles as a general rule saying their OL was like Dallas, which was absurd. They sucked and Sanchez was sacked like 27 times in 8 starts. Saying Foles had a great year has no bearing on the fact that he was under pressure and much of his statistics which you claim as proof of his awesome year was because of Kelly's scheming. Sanchez played light years better in this Eagles offense than he did with the Jets for the last few years. And further, McCoy was a great RB even before Kelly came. You actually lost sight of the fact of what the point was..
Click to expand...

Again, the link is there. Go through it, your argument is finished. You lost, move on.

The Eagles had the best run blocking line in the NFL in 2013, Nick Foles played well and there was a threat of the passing game. Again, you lose, move on.

I'm not going to sit here and hold your hand through this. I posted the link earlier, don't want to go through it? Fine. But do NOT counter me with ********, ever. It's a wasted argument, and more important, it wastes my time. Do your research before responding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top