Anyone still thinks this leads to an Adrian Peterson signing?

dwreck27

dwreck27

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,428
Reaction score
6,323
2389133-4949054815-micha.gif
 
burmafrd

burmafrd

Well-Known Member
Messages
43,820
Reaction score
3,379
REDVOLUTION said:
It's obvious now that that ship NEVER even docked... NEVER passed us by.....

In other words.... There was NEVER chance. Lol
Click to expand...

oh there was for a while when AP was really making noise about wanting out. But that is all in the end it was- noise.
 

mperfection

Active Member
Messages
980
Reaction score
229
It's ok to poke fun at this thread but let's get serious. Here are some things to consider:
1. I can understand the Cowboys not wanting to sign Murray to a long-term deal, but why not franchise him instead of Dez?? This is the not-so-popular question that the Cowboys hope would just go away. In my estimation, the Cowboys ALREADY had the parameters of Dez's deal several months ago and could have signed him much earlier than July 15. They allowed all the hand-wringing that went on leading up to the signing to go on unnecessarily. If they really wanted to shore up their backfield--at least for another year--they should have franchised Murray and worked to sign Dez longterm. That way we could have kept both. The fact that they let Murray walk AND didn't pick up a RB in the draft leads to my 2nd point:

2. It only makes since to let Murray walk AND not pick up a serviceable RB in the draft (and this draft was deep in RB's) IF you think there is a MUCH better RB than these alternatives - ala, Adrian Peterson. Let's face it: we could have gotten a VERY good RB in the 3rd round instead of Chaz Green, whom we could have picked up in any draft.

3. If we offer a 1st, 2nd, 4th-round picks and, say, Randle for Peterson, then I think that is a reasonable deal.

Regardless of whether you think we can get Peterson or not, by not at least franchising Murray we have left a VERY big question mark in our backfield during a year where all the preseason signs are pointing toward a SB appearance.
 
Doomsday101

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
mperfection said:
It's ok to poke fun at this thread but let's get serious. Here are some things to consider:
1. I can understand the Cowboys not wanting to sign Murray to a long-term deal, but why not franchise him instead of Dez?? This is the not-so-popular question that the Cowboys hope would just go away. In my estimation, the Cowboys ALREADY had the parameters of Dez's deal several months ago and could have signed him much earlier than July 15. They allowed all the hand-wringing that went on leading up to the signing to go on unnecessarily. If they really wanted to shore up their backfield--at least for another year--they should have franchised Murray and worked to sign Dez longterm. That way we could have kept both. The fact that they let Murray walk AND didn't pick up a RB in the draft leads to my 2nd point:

2. It only makes since to let Murray walk AND not pick up a serviceable RB in the draft (and this draft was deep in RB's) IF you think there is a MUCH better RB than these alternatives - ala, Adrian Peterson. Let's face it: we could have gotten a VERY good RB in the 3rd round instead of Chaz Green, whom we could have picked up in any draft.

3. If we offer a 1st, 2nd, 4th-round picks and, say, Randle for Peterson, then I think that is a reasonable deal.

Regardless of whether you think we can get Peterson or not, by not at least franchising Murray we have left a VERY big question mark in our backfield during a year where all the preseason signs are pointing toward a SB appearance.
Click to expand...


I agree had they franchised Murray but given the fact they knew the Dez deal was not going to be easy they had to reserve the franchise tag for Dez. I think had Dez still been under contract that Murray would have been franchised this year but that was not the case.
As for Minn they have maintained from day 1 they were not looking to get rid of Peterson, people keep saying they can't keep him they can and they have. As for AP much of that noise he was making had more to do with him wanting Minn Guaranteeing him the remainder of the contract which they will not do

Lastly all I can tell you is Dallas is not going after AP, keeping picks right now are very important
 
casmith07

casmith07

Attorney-at-Zone
Messages
31,538
Reaction score
9,312
mperfection said:
It's ok to poke fun at this thread but let's get serious. Here are some things to consider:
1. I can understand the Cowboys not wanting to sign Murray to a long-term deal, but why not franchise him instead of Dez?? This is the not-so-popular question that the Cowboys hope would just go away. In my estimation, the Cowboys ALREADY had the parameters of Dez's deal several months ago and could have signed him much earlier than July 15. They allowed all the hand-wringing that went on leading up to the signing to go on unnecessarily. If they really wanted to shore up their backfield--at least for another year--they should have franchised Murray and worked to sign Dez longterm. That way we could have kept both. The fact that they let Murray walk AND didn't pick up a RB in the draft leads to my 2nd point:

2. It only makes since to let Murray walk AND not pick up a serviceable RB in the draft (and this draft was deep in RB's) IF you think there is a MUCH better RB than these alternatives - ala, Adrian Peterson. Let's face it: we could have gotten a VERY good RB in the 3rd round instead of Chaz Green, whom we could have picked up in any draft.

3. If we offer a 1st, 2nd, 4th-round picks and, say, Randle for Peterson, then I think that is a reasonable deal.

Regardless of whether you think we can get Peterson or not, by not at least franchising Murray we have left a VERY big question mark in our backfield during a year where all the preseason signs are pointing toward a SB appearance.
Click to expand...

1. Because you absolutely cannot risk Dez hitting the open market. A team like the Jaguars would offer $120M and price us out of our other long-term plans.

2. I trust the staff. I think they've done a good job with scouting and evaluating talent. I'll stick with them here.

3. No.
 
Stash

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,835
Reaction score
103,565
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
mperfection said:
1. I can understand the Cowboys not wanting to sign Murray to a long-term deal, but why not franchise him instead of Dez?? This is the not-so-popular question that the Cowboys hope would just go away. In my estimation, the Cowboys ALREADY had the parameters of Dez's deal several months ago and could have signed him much earlier than July 15. They allowed all the hand-wringing that went on leading up to the signing to go on unnecessarily. If they really wanted to shore up their backfield--at least for another year--they should have franchised Murray and worked to sign Dez longterm. That way we could have kept both. The fact that they let Murray walk AND didn't pick up a RB in the draft leads to my 2nd point:

2. It only makes since to let Murray walk AND not pick up a serviceable RB in the draft (and this draft was deep in RB's) IF you think there is a MUCH better RB than these alternatives - ala, Adrian Peterson. Let's face it: we could have gotten a VERY good RB in the 3rd round instead of Chaz Green, whom we could have picked up in any draft.

3. If we offer a 1st, 2nd, 4th-round picks and, say, Randle for Peterson, then I think that is a reasonable deal.

Regardless of whether you think we can get Peterson or not, by not at least franchising Murray we have left a VERY big question mark in our backfield during a year where all the preseason signs are pointing toward a SB appearance.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "reasonable" differs greatly from mine.

I don't see near $10 million for one season of Murray as "reasonable", far from it in fact.

And I sure don't see giving up 1st, 2nd, and 4th round draft picks for Adrian Peterson as remotely close to anything called "reasonable".

And this is coming from someone who was a big proponent of making a deal to acquire him.
 
LittleBoyBlue

LittleBoyBlue

Redvolution
Messages
35,766
Reaction score
8,411
stasheroo said:
Your definition of "reasonable" differs greatly from mine.

I don't see near $10 million for one season of Murray as "reasonable", far from it in fact.

And I sure don't see giving up 1st, 2nd, and 4th round draft picks for Adrian Peterson as remotely close to anything called "reasonable".

And this is coming from someone who was a big proponent of making a deal to acquire him.
Click to expand...

A 1, 2 and 4 is too much for him in his prime. It's lootiqwis! (Mike Tyson)
 
snapper

snapper

Well-Known Member
Messages
741
Reaction score
914
casmith07 said:
1. Because you absolutely cannot risk Dez hitting the open market. A team like the Jaguars would offer $120M and price us out of our other long-term plans.

2. I trust the staff. I think they've done a good job with scouting and evaluating talent. I'll stick with them here.

3. No.
Click to expand...


Not just no to point #3. HELL NO!!!
 
Kaiser

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
mperfection said:
Regardless of whether you think we can get Peterson or not, by not at least franchising Murray we have left a VERY big question mark in our backfield during a year where all the preseason signs are pointing toward a SB appearance.
Click to expand...

I'll climb out on this limb with you. I would never give up more than a #3 pick but this Front Office has turned over every leaf possible in this offseason, except at RB. They didn't overpay for DeMarco, they didn't overdraft a RB in the draft and didn't go after any FAs except McFadden. If you look at the forest rather than the trees, it really seems like the team was saving up ammunition to get a RB late in the offseason.

The Cowboys will have 10MM or so free when they restructure Brandon Carr and I just don't buy they will go into a potential Super Bowl season content with a RB corp of McFadden, a 3rd down back in Randle and two guys that are essentially Practice Squad guys in Williams and Dunbar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top