Bad luck w Michael, Rawls, B Brown

[NorthwestDallas40]

Was hoping for cuts or trade of Christine Michael, Thomas Rawls, Bryce Brown. But SEA backup RB Robert Turbin has a high ankle sprain, but SEA not signing Fred Jackson, likely means they'll keep both Michael and Rawls at least to start the season. And BUF cutting Jackson, and fact that their GM traded for Brown last year, suggests BUF will keep Brown too. Bad luck

 

[pugilist]

still another round to go to get to 53, we'll sign someone

i actually have faith in our talent evaluation now

 

[FaSho]

I don't want Bryce Brown, he fumbles too much.

 

[ufcrules1]

lol @ Bryce Brown.

 

[JBS]

Big whoop. None of those guys are proven either...we'd be adding more guys like the ones we already have

 

[Aven8]

Wake me up when they cut Beast Mode. Then we can talk!

 

[Stash]

Was hoping for cuts or trade of Christine Michael, Thomas Rawls, Bryce Brown. But SEA backup RB Robert Turbin has a high ankle sprain, but SEA not signing Fred Jackson, likely means they'll keep both Michael and Rawls at least to start the season. And BUF cutting Jackson, and fact that their GM traded for Brown last year, suggests BUF will keep Brown too. Bad luck

I consider it a pretty lousy 'plan' to be relying on who another team cuts to solve your issues at running back anyway.

If the Cowboys actually planned on any of them, it's their own fault and they deserve to have it blow up in their faces.

 

[viman96]

Teams choosing to keep players is not "bad luck".

 

[Silver N Blue]

I think it is good for us.

 

[iceberg]

I consider it a pretty lousy 'plan' to be relying on who another team cuts to solve your issues at running back anyway.

If the Cowboys actually planned on any of them, it's their own fault and they deserve to have it blow up in their faces.

except i don't think the cowboys counted on much of anything outside the 3 they already had in play. the fans, the media and so forth have harped the NEED MOAR BACKS mantra but not really the front office. if a solid player does come up i'm sure they'll look at him but outside that, we have our set of backs at least for now. the wanting and so on were the fans, not the cowboys front office

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Say it with me guys.....

....the Cowboys like who they have at RB.

Randle/Mcfadden/Dunbar doesn't on paper look worse to me than pre 2014-2015 Murray/Randle/Dunbar.

Anyone saying they thought Murray was in line for an all-pro season before the year started is lying.

We know our line is likely to be better due to added familiarity and natural career progression of young players. Relax everyone.

 

[mickswag]

Just because he didn't sign yesterday doesn't mean he won't.

 

[Stash]

except i don't think the cowboys counted on much of anything outside the 3 they already had in play. the fans, the media and so forth have harped the NEED MOAR BACKS mantra but not really the front office. if a solid player does come up i'm sure they'll look at him but outside that, we have our set of backs at least for now. the wanting and so on were the fans, not the cowboys front office

Totally true. I think it's been a huge difference of opinion from those outside the organization, the media and the fans, and those inside the organization, believing in who they have.

For better or worse, the team seems steadfast in their belief and I remain steadfast in disagreeing with them. Until the season gets underway, we won't know who's right or wrong. But unfortunately, by then it's too late to do much to change things, so I hope they're right.

 

[Stash]

Say it with me guys.....

....the Cowboys like who they have at RB.

And say it with me. In no way does that mean the Cowboys are right.

Randle/Mcfadden/Dunbar doesn't on paper look worse to me than pre 2014-2015 Murray/Randle/Dunbar.

Is that on 'rolling paper'?

Anyone saying they thought Murray was in line for an all-pro season before the year started is lying.

Call me a liar, but I was all in on Murray last year as a breakout fantasy football player. Did I envision 1,800 yards? No, but based on 1,100 in 2013 and another 1st round pick invested on the offensive line, his arrow was certainly pointing up. The question was more about pass-happy coaches than it was in Murray's ability. But feel free to call me a liar.

We know our line is likely to be better due to added familiarity and natural career progression of young players. Relax everyone.

The line can be all-world, but it doesn't mean any bum can run behind it successfully.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Relax everyone.

Been saying that for 6 months. Look where that got me.

 

[iceberg]

Totally true. I think it's been a huge difference of opinion from those outside the organization, the media and the fans, and those inside the organization, believing in who they have.

For better or worse, the team seems steadfast in their belief and I remain steadfast in disagreeing with them. Until the season gets underway, we won't know who's right or wrong. But unfortunately, by then it's too late to do much to change things, so I hope they're right.

well every season things happen that were nothing you could really count on. if bad performance then yes, front office - bad job. if injury or the like, just bad luck many will blame on poor planning.

i'd feel a lot better with a more familiar name in the backfield to replace dunbar, but the other 2, randal has had time to sit and learn and mcfadden is the aged vet that whether you picked him or not (i didn't) he's the one the cowboys did pick so the jacksons, (both of them) johnsons and the rest are just fan-food until something happens to shift things into another direction of conversation.

 

[xvendettax914]

lol @ Bryce Brown.

Isn't he the back that Lee made cry? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[Stash]

well every season things happen that were nothing you could really count on. if bad performance then yes, front office - bad job. if injury or the like, just bad luck many will blame on poor planning.

Yeah, but if you're counting on people with poor injury histories, that is bad planning. If you insist on employing one based on potential upside? Fine. But take the necessary steps to insure yourself against that injury history. Failure to do so is poor planning in my opinion.

i'd feel a lot better with a more familiar name in the backfield to replace dunbar, but the other 2, randal has had time to sit and learn and mcfadden is the aged vet that whether you picked him or not (i didn't) he's the one the cowboys did pick so the jacksons, (both of them) johnsons and the rest are just fan-food until something happens to shift things into another direction of conversation.

I agree. I can deal with the risk/reward in McFadden, but I would like to have an established insurance policy if I'm doing it. Dunbar is not that.

 

[iceberg]

Yeah, but if you're counting on people with poor injury histories, that is bad planning. If you insist on employing one based on potential upside? Fine. But take the necessary steps to insure yourself against that injury history. Failure to do so is poor planning in my opinion.

I agree. I can deal with the risk/reward in McFadden, but I would like to have an established insurance policy if I'm doing it. Dunbar is not that.

hey, dunbar is the one i keep cutting for a name that makes me feel better also. murray had some injury history also, blown out of proportion or not. in any event, i'd feel better with another back in the mix but if we passed on the vets, no one cut now would likely yank their chain.

 

[Stash]

hey, dunbar is the one i keep cutting for a name that makes me feel better also. murray had some injury history also, blown out of proportion or not.

He did. And I think it was. For some people to minimize his loss, and also to make McFadden's own poor injury history look more acceptable. Folks can tell themselves whatever they want to believe.

in any event, i'd feel better with another back in the mix but if we passed on the vets, no one cut now would likely yank their chain.

Not so far. But as crazy as it sounds, I've been doing some personal homework on Trent Richardson. Call it morbid curiosity.