Argument for drafting a RB in RD1

[Galian Beast]

I dont get the hate for Murray around here, and so many of you are guilty of it too! I guess back in the 90's we should ran off Emmitt cause he was too slow, no big homerun TD's, he is going to want too much money... yada yada. Murray was the MVP of this team last year by far, his 25-30 carries a game, took us to a division winning season and a playoff win. not too mention ball control and not over exposing our defense, if anybody should get the big bucks its him!

I don't hate Murray, but Romo and Dez were much more valuable.

Murray's fumbles played a part in pretty much every loss we had.

We need the money on defense, rather than giving it to a running back who may or may not stay healthy and compared to another back isn't worth the extra money.

We won't have to worry about exposing the defense if the defense is legit. In fact then we can open up the passing game more and be more aggressive early.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

We need defense. RB does not play defense.

 

[coult44]

question: is a RB going to get us to the superbowl? or investing on defense, specially the DL? I would rather get a RB in mid rounds, as we have proven we can find them, including murray and save the 1st round draft picks for DL or CBs and address our defense. without a defense, chances of getting to the superbowl are less. we have to address our pass rush and ability to get off the field on 3rd downs and not allow teams to extend drives.

as for RBs, I don't devalue having a good RB, but with the running game, its not necessarily about the total yards, but about # of carries in a game, controlling the clock. Minn. had AP, who had 2000 yard season, and they couldn't sniff the superbowl.

lets invest high picks on defense.

Most people forget how important protecting The QB is. Romo is one good hit away from a wheelchair. How much does a rookie running back protect our #1 guy?

 

[itsaboat]

Here's an argument why it would be a bad idea to draft an RB in the 1st round

 

[xwalker]

I would love for someone who has the all 22 video to tell us more about Murray and what he created versus what he left on the field.

I have spent a lot of time watching the All-22, but it's hard to give a simple answer that that question.

He got a lot of yards before any contact for certain but he did get some difficult yards at times. He rarely loses yards.

In terms of leaving yards on the field due to making the wrong cut or taking the wrong hole, that did happen often; however, some amount of that is expected with the Zone Blocking Scheme. The idea with the ZBS is to error on making a quick decision and getting up-field immediately. There were definitely times where if he had taken 1 step differently that it likely would have been a much bigger gain. Those plays are not to difficult to see on review.

As everybody knows, he was not really a significant home run threat. I don't if that is significant, but there were times that the OL, play call and Murray himself got Murray into position to break off a home run and he just didn't have the speed to do it. This is likely what limited his average.

He had 2261 combined yards (rushing/receiving) so he obviously did a lot of things really well. His rushing average was 4.7 behind what some considered to be the best OL so it's not too hard to believe that there are other RBs that could get that kind of average behind this line in more limited carries. The 2261 is a really impressive stat for 1 RB, but I think it is realistic to believe that 2 RBs could combine for those numbers without having to be superstar type players.

He is good in pass protection but not perfect. I have not looked but they mentioned on the radio that there are stats for pressures allowed that show his pass pro was middle of the pack for starting RBs in the NFL. There are times that it's difficult to know if the RB should have blocked instead of going out for a pass but that did appear to happen on occasion.

Overall the biggest part of his success was just his endurance to keep going with a really heavy workload. If they don't re-sign him I don't foresee another single RB replacing him. It will most likely be 2 RBs sharing the load.

 

[DFWJC]

Here's an argument why it would be a bad idea to draft an RB in the 1st round

And there you have it

Unless it's an Adrian Peterson, once in a 15 year thing, it's very,very hard to justify taking a RB in Rd1.
You could also list the top 10-12 rushers in the league this year and it'd show just how few went in Rd 1.
This draft had as many as 10 backs that will go after Rd1 that could end up being very good .

 

[DandyDon1722]

And there you have it

Unless it's an Adrian Peterson, once in a 15 year thing, it's very,very hard to justify taking a RB in Rd1.
You could also list the top 10-12 rushers in the league this year and it'd show just how few went in Rd 1.
This draft had as many as 10 backs that will go after Rd1 that could end up being very good .

I agree. I also believe our next running back is already on the roster in Ryan Williams with Dunbar. It's all about price, with Murray, Peterson or anybody else. If they fit - great. If not, go with what we've got.

The point is well taken that we need defense and yet it might take too long to develop them, that's why FA is the way to go and where the money should be spent, especially in the QB window we're in.

Taking a chance drafting a running back scares me. Safety is a position where somebody could step in and be effective immediately.

 

[kevm3]

I would like Murray back, but not at the price we are likely to pay him. If you're going to drop premium money, I'd prefer to do it at another position than RB. Would you hand out an 8 million per year contract to a RB or on defense? My concern with Murray is that he's had a history of injury, and although he had an utterly fantastic year, he did it in a contract year and under one of the best, if not THE best O-line in football. Typically RBs have significant drop-offs after historic years, and I especially believe this to be the case after a contract year. I'd love Murray if he got paid like a 1,000 yard runningback, but he's likely to receive an offer as a record smashing runningback.

 

[Galian Beast]

Here's an argument why it would be a bad idea to draft an RB in the 1st round

I think that is a bit misleading.

In Trent Richardson's rookie year he had 950 yards rushing and 11 touchdowns on a very bad Cleveland team. He then went to a Colts team that didn't have an offensive line.

Doug Martin had 1,454 yards rushing his rookie year, also with 11 touchdowns.

David Wilson found himself on a Giants team that was falling apart offensively.

Ingram has had some success on one of the most pass happy teams in the NFL.

Spiller and Matthews have as well. Almost all of these running backs have had success to some degree, but a lot of this falls on how they fit on their teams in the first place. Many of these teams are drafting running backs because they can't run the ball in the first place, and that's because they don't have the offensive lines or because they are pass happy offenses that don't have running games.

 

[TwoDeep3]

For the most part I would say that I'm not into putting heavy resources into running backs, given how for the most part you can plug and play running backs in this league, especially if you have the offensive lines to do it.

This is where I stopped reading. The bolded part is why.

Julius Jones,Troy Hambrick.

Two responses that make your point moot.

 

[Galian Beast]

This is where I stopped reading. The bolded part is why.

Julius Jones,Troy Hambrick.

Two responses that make your point moot.

That's because you are confusing context. Can you put any running back behind a line that can't block? Probably not. The better the line, the worse you can do at running back and vice versa.

 

[btcutter]

Here's an argument why it would be a bad idea to draft an RB in the 1st round

What this list shows us is that NFL scouts aren't great at evaluating RB talents in these years (2009-2012). Would you not have taken Emmitt at 17th?
We can develop a even longer list for DE, DT busts. For that matter QBs in the 1st round.
Would that translate to avoiding drafting QB, DL? No, just mean you need to trust your personnel department to make good calls.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That's because you are confusing context. Can you put any running back behind a line that can't block? Probably not. The better the line, the worse you can do at running back and vice versa.

Sorry, not any running back does what he does.

And the argument he is slow is the same mixed up confused argument that you know the play the offense will run before they run it.

But what I find the most intriguing about this argument is the fact both Jerry and Stephen suggested they can have both Dez and Murray and make it work. Someone pointed out the fact Murray went to a ball game with Garrett and Romo means something. His agent would be having a full blown fit if his client was seen paling around with the QB and HC if there wasn't a clear chance he would return.

If you think the little Randall plays means anything, then why did the head coach not play him more? Ya think they know something all you Murray haters don't? I bet they do.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

All I know is if we don't have another great RB on the roster next year (whoever it is), then our defense better be MUCH improved. Imagine our team with no running game and a bad defense. We'd be, well, what we were every year of Romo's career aside from last.

 

[Galian Beast]

Sorry, not any running back does what he does.

And the argument he is slow is the same mixed up confused argument that you know the play the offense will run before they run it.

But what I find the most intriguing about this argument is the fact both Jerry and Stephen suggested they can have both Dez and Murray and make it work. Someone pointed out the fact Murray went to a ball game with Garrett and Romo means something. His agent would be having a full blown fit if his client was seen paling around with the QB and HC if there wasn't a clear chance he would return.

If you think the little Randall plays means anything, then why did the head coach not play him more? Ya think they know something all you Murray haters don't? I bet they do.

Your arguments are all pretty weak.

First Murray is a slow running back. He has no second level speed, and we've all seen that.

He is a tough running back who doesn't quit, but has limited speed and puts the ball on the ground. That's not the type of player you break the bank for. He isn't the game changer that Peterson is or LeSean McCoy for that matter. Nor is he as dominant a runner as Charles.

Jerry has said a lot of things and it is only talk. He has said that its unrealistic to think they could keep them both and he has said that they can both be kept at a great cost...

Hanging out with Romo and Garrett means literally nothing. They're a tight group.

As for the coaches not using them more. Look at a number of players that the Cowboys have historically underused who have talent. Cole Beasley, Miles Austin, Martellus Bennett, Kevin Burnett... That doesn't mean anything either.

 

[FLCowboyFan]

No...no...no......we need our 1st round pick to go to the defense!!! If we draft a RB it shouldn't be before the 3rd round. The defense needs players...now!

 

[gmoney112]

Round 1 should be BPA, period. If you hit on one player in the entire draft, it's likely it will and should be your first round pick. If you can get a good player, regardless of position, you're already ahead of the curve.

RB simply aren't valued that high anymore, and it's a deep draft at the position. I'd put our odds of drafting a RB in Round 1 at approximately slim and none, and slim just left town.

 

[Risen Star]

I'd have no problem with a 1st round RB providing it's Gordon or Gurley. But that would have to mean letting Murray go. I've seen it mentioned to do both. No way would I do that.

 

[reddyuta]

Jay Ajayi. We like Boise State players. He is a three down back. Make it happen.

i like him but we have to take him with our 2nd rd pick.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Your arguments are all pretty weak.

First Murray is a slow running back. He has no second level speed, and we've all seen that.

He is a tough running back who doesn't quit, but has limited speed and puts the ball on the ground. That's not the type of player you break the bank for. He isn't the game changer that Peterson is or LeSean McCoy for that matter. Nor is he as dominant a runner as Charles.

Jerry has said a lot of things and it is only talk. He has said that its unrealistic to think they could keep them both and he has said that they can both be kept at a great cost...

Hanging out with Romo and Garrett means literally nothing. They're a tight group.

As for the coaches not using them more. Look at a number of players that the Cowboys have historically underused who have talent. Cole Beasley, Miles Austin, Martellus Bennett, Kevin Burnett... That doesn't mean anything either.

Cole Beasley? Really? He had 420 yards at a 26.2 per game and 4 TDs. Danny Amendola had 200 yards at a 13. clip for the SB champs playing essentially the same position.

Bennett was a head case. That pretty much scuttles any argument you have if this is an example of underused players. Or have you forgotten Laurent Robinson and how he blossomed here? That happens to players and this is not a Dallas thing. This is a league thing.

Burnett isn't even in this argument. He played here, but was not the best LB for his position.

But of all the ones you mentioned Galian, Miles Austin is laughable. They paid him like a #1 receiver and he could not stay healthy. If you want this debate to be taken seriously then you should review these examples. Because using Miles Austin as an underused player is the same as you screaming - - but, but, but, I said so.

Games are not won by a long running touchdown, but grinding out yards and the clock. Especially this offense carrying this defense. Everyone loves home runs, but its the singles and doubles that win games. In this regard Dallas plays a ball control, grind it out offense that limits Romo from throwing 40 times a game. It burns clock and simply tells the opponent, stop this if you can. Kind of reminiscent of the early 90's mindset.

It obviously was successful.

That point seems to be left out of all the arguments against Murray.

Now in your mind they can repeat that success with any plug and play RB. I have to wonder how you must have cussed Emmitt because he ran through huge holes and fought for extra yards and won rushing titles.

Murray's second gear doesn't matter - if indeed he is what you say, and I highly doubt any fan on this board knows for sure about his speed. The team won because of Murray and his tenacity.

The team surrounding him says something entirely different than people here. They see the value of a guy who moves the chains, takes it to the defender, is a leader, and has chemistry.

Break away touchdowns are pretty, but they don't win games.

Dallas posted 29+ points per game. Why would anyone want to change that?

In my mind only a fan who thinks the grass is greener.

One last point. Murray's longest run from scrimmage was 91 yards and a touchdown. I guess that must have been one of those runs when the half time whistle blew and the other team ran off the field as he was making his slow-arsed way to the endzone.