News: Archer: What to make of DeMarco Murray?

[WoodysGirl]

Ideally, I agree with you. I just don't want the Cowboys to pass on a good prospect because he doesn't fit their immediate needs list.

I don't see the Cowboys doing that either. People may look to last year to feel differently, but I view the Frederick's pick as such a strong one that I can overlook them moving down to get him.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I disagree. i think we lack talent across the board, and if a talented player falls in your lap, you take him. For example, Alfred Morris was a 6th round pick. If that kind of talent was available late and we're only focusing on need, we could end up with a Caleb McSurdy instead of a potential starting caliber player.

Alfred Morris, the RB? I think I mentioned that I'm not opposed to them grabbing an offensive guy in the later rounds. Late round picks are always a luck of the draw. A 6th round pick is where you take chances. But if they take a RB in the 1st three rounds, I'd probably scream.

 

[egn22]

Alfred Morris, the RB? I think I mentioned that I'm not opposed to them grabbing an offensive guy in the later rounds. Late round picks are always a luck of the draw. A 6th round pick is where you take chances. But if they take a RB in the 1st three rounds, I'd probably scream.

oh ok, gotcha. now we're on the same page. i thought you were suggesting that we ignore that position altogether because we need to see what we have in Randle.

 

[bark]

Ideally, I agree with you. I just don't want the Cowboys to pass on a good prospect because he doesn't fit their immediate needs list.

Come on risen, if that good prospect is another corner your head will explode.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Come on risen, if that good prospect is another corner your head will explode.

I would so grab popcorn (which I don't like) to see that.. lol

Tho I'm not sure the Zone could handle another year of this team grabbing a high pick for the secondary.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I agree with that, but if feel it should be a value-meets-need philosophy right now.

Don't force a pick based solely on need, but if there's value where you need it, jump on it.

I think you need help all over the trenches, if there's value there, offensive or defensive lines, jump on it.

But, if the drafts best TE falls to you? No. Trade out or take someone else and deal with the criticisms.

Agree with this: if the best TE falls to you, a trade down is the best move. I tend to feel this way about 1st-round RBs too: plenty of teams still overvalue RBs, so let one of them pay you to take him. CB is about the only other position where I'd think about trading down from BPA in the 1st round.

And I'd even be fine with drafting a TE in the middle to late rounds if he's a strong blocker. That's something we don't have on the roster.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Come on risen, if that good prospect is another corner your head will explode.

According to Risen, a cornerback is never the best player available. I believe that on his draft board, there are 14 punters listed above the first CB.

 

[Risen Star]

Come on risen, if that good prospect is another corner your head will explode.

I've always been okay with taking mid round CBs. I'd probably add one every year.

But I wouldn't have guys like Carr and Claiborne on my roster either.

 

[Carolina Cowboy]

I like Murray and he's certainly showing what he can do with some blocking but no way would I extend him. Too fragile, not special. Draft your next back.

Oilman, I'm usually in line with your comments, but not once have I seen us try to ride this guy like we should. It's maddening.

 

[Risen Star]

Oilman, I'm usually in line with your comments, but not once have I seen us try to ride this guy like we should. It's maddening.

Throw me a like and I'll respond to this.

 

[Risen Star]

Oilman, I'm usually in line with your comments, but not once have I seen us try to ride this guy like we should. It's maddening.

If you're suggesting a run heavy offense, it's not happening. It's just not the way of the league anymore. The thought of "riding" an injury prone player like Murray doesn't excite me anyway. I'd like to run it more, but because we're in a position to run it more. Like not coming from behind all of the time.

 

[theogt]

He's good. But the key is to keep improving the Oline and it won't matter who is back there. We need to a spend another top 3 round pick on OL and stop drafting tight ends.

 

[Carolina Cowboy]

If you're suggesting a run heavy offense, it's not happening. It's just not the way of the league anymore. The thought of "riding" an injury prone player like Murray doesn't excite me anyway. I'd like to run it more, but because we're in a position to run it more. Like not coming from behind all of the time.

I'm not talking about the Giants game Emmitt won in 94, but speaking more of the times where actually running the ball fits the narrative you describe: being ahead, or close at halftime with the running game and Murray clicking in the first half. It's like the brain trust in the locker room at the half goes all Monty Python and says "...and now for something completely different!!!"

 

[Sasquatch]

Staying the status quo is never a good thing as far as this team is concerned. We cannot evaluate our own talent well enough to make that a smart move.

I agree with this logic in probably a more extreme form that was intended. The "we are set at that position for years logic" leads to lack of competition, complacency, poor positional depth, and aging players whose precipitous decline puts the team in a horrible position. I think a little redundancy can be good because over the long haul it breeds a culture of competition, upgrades the overall talent of the team, and accumulates valuable assets who can either provide depth or be used as trade bait. This approach has worked for Seattle even though some of their moves seemed like head-scratchers at the time.

 

[50cent]

Not really. It's misleading. It's not as simple as giving him 20 carries a game. The Cowboys are 11-0 in games that they had enough of a lead or at least weren't playing from behind, to stick with the running game late in the game. That's all that stat means.

It is as simple as that. Even when we had the lead enough to run him 20+ times a game, we didn't and still passed. There is nothing misleading about this stat, had we used him more THIS SEASON with the lead, tied or trailing that record might be eve better. This team led in the 2nd half of games the majority of games this season and still not many 20+ games. Why? Was GB an anomaly? No, it's the norm. Murray never gets 20 carries because were a passing team with the lead, tied, trailing by 1 score and even more of a passing team when down 2 scores late, which rarely happened this season.

It is what is but it ain't because we didn't have the lead enough to run him more.

 

[50cent]

If you're suggesting a run heavy offense, it's not happening. It's just not the way of the league anymore. The thought of "riding" an injury prone player like Murray doesn't excite me anyway. I'd like to run it more, but because we're in a position to run it more. Like not coming from behind all of the time.

When were we playing from behind (like 2 scores behind) this season for him to only garner 15 rushes per game? That playing from behind stuff is old and tired.

 

[Austin 3-16]

Murray is one smooth runner.

 

[Denim Chicken]

When is his contract up?

 

[50cent]

When is his contract up?

Next year

 

[Bleu Star]

Does anyone have the video where he clocked #77 of the Eagles?

It was a thing of beauty. I don't care what the naysayers continue to say, DeMarco is a talent that is underutilized in the Dallas Cowboys scheme. He will go elsewhere and flourish once his contract is up. Rinse repeat...