Demarco Murray.....LOL

[JD_KaPow]

You're using the word "strength" here incorrectly. If it's not a strength, you're saying it's a weakness. It brings positives to his game, so it's a strength.

No one is arguing his receiving is on the level of Forte or Sproles.

Uh, no. "Playing to his strengths" means using him most effectively. Putting Murray (rather than Sproles) on the field and then throwing passes to Murray, but not rushing with him, is not playing to Murray's strength, nor is it playing to the Eagles' strengths. Also, if you're okay at something, it's something you can do well enough that it's not a weakness, but that doesn't make it a strength, either.

 

[Rockport]

I have not seen any other threads about this today so I will get the ball rolling....

Im not sure what I enjoyed more, watching the Eagles lose or watching Demarco Muddy get stuffed all night long.
2 gimmie goal line TD's is all that saved what was one of the most pathetic showings I have ever seen.

9 million or 8 million per year for 5 years for a bloated goal line back. Too funny.

Its not quite there yet, but its pretty hilarious that we can almost put this line vs the back thing to bed after one week.

Cowboys RB's by committee is out to a huge lead. Heck we might want to track Randle vs Murray at this point.

During crunch time, Murray was riding the pine. I still maintain that when healthy, Ryan Mathews is a better back than Demarco Muddy.

Without monster holes Muddy is JAG.

It's quite foolish to make judgements based on one game.

 

[mattjames2010]

Uh, no. "Playing to his strengths" means using him most effectively. Putting Murray (rather than Sproles) on the field and then throwing passes to Murray, but not rushing with him, is not playing to Murray's strength, nor is it playing to the Eagles' strengths. Also, if you're okay at something, it's something you can do well enough that it's not a weakness, but that doesn't make it a strength, either.

Using him most effectively, meaning in the running and passing game? And it is still a strength. It's a strength for Charles, McCoy, Foster even if they don't put up gaudy numbers like Bell and Forte.

You have a RB who can run and catch. And once again, They had Murray in on enough passing downs yesterday to use him AND Sproles in the passing game. I have no idea why you continue to think me saying use Murray as a receiver equates to removing Sproles from the passing game.

Murray has been known to be a good receiver since college. It has always been a strength.

 

[Bcrav4]

He's an Eagle now.

I don't care until we play them.

Which is this week so you care right now, correct?

Lol.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Murray is better than just an "okay" receiver. It IS a strength. He had over 100 receptions in 2013 and 2014. And I never said he is better than Sproles, I'm saying to completely ignore him in the passing game is dumb, when he can make plays happen when receiving.

You can still get Murray involved in the passing game while keeping Sproles receptions high. Murray was in on many of the passing plays, a lot that failed, while Bradford forced the ball to blanketed WRs. A dump off to Murray on a few of those plays were an easy first down.

And Mathews stat line is to counter using Murray's stat line against him. To laugh at Murray for his performance last night and then tout Mathew's, they both had similar nights.

I dont see anything as a strength for Murray. He is good because he is an all around good back in most categories. Most of Murrays catches are in the flat or over the middle 5 yards down field. And he doesnt make many people miss. I dont see it as a strength. For Dunbar its a strength. For Sproles, its a strength.

 

[mattjames2010]

I dont see anything as a strength for Murray. He is good because he is an all around good back in most categories. Most of Murrays catches are in the flat or over the middle 5 yards down field. And he doesnt make many people miss. I dont see it as a strength. For Dunbar its a strength. For Sproles, its a strength.

To say this is to say players like Forte doesn't have a strength as a receiver. It's absolutely ridiculous thing to say. An RB doesn't have to work the slot or go to the outside to be a good receiver.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Using him most effectively, meaning in the running and passing game? And it is still a strength. It's a strength for Charles, McCoy, Foster even if they don't put up gaudy numbers like Bell and Forte.

If, by strength, you mean "he can do it," then sure, it's a strength.

You have a RB who can run and catch. And once again, They had Murray in on enough passing downs yesterday to use him AND Sproles in the passing game. I have no idea why you continue to think me saying use Murray as a receiver equates to removing Sproles from the passing game.

If you're not going to run the ball, there's no reason to have Murray in there over Sproles.

Murray has been known to be a good receiver since college. It has always been a strength.

He hasn't demonstrated it in the pros. Again: he can do it. He's perfectly adequate at it. Maybe he was held back by our system, which hasn't featured it very much. But man, we sure did feature it Sunday night, in our first Linehan game without Murray.

 

[CowboyRoy]

To say this is to say players like Forte doesn't have a strength as a receiver. It's absolutely ridiculous thing to say. An RB doesn't have to work the slot or go to the outside to be a good receiver.

Forte is a stud in the passing game and catches passes on go routes and everything. No comparison at all to Muddy in the passing game.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Uh, no. "Playing to his strengths" means using him most effectively. Putting Murray (rather than Sproles) on the field and then throwing passes to Murray, but not rushing with him, is not playing to Murray's strength, nor is it playing to the Eagles' strengths. Also, if you're okay at something, it's something you can do well enough that it's not a weakness, but that doesn't make it a strength, either.

Im starting to get the feeling that all the Murray cry babies are going to be using the out excuse on Murray all year that "they arent using him correctly" or that "its the wrong offense for him".

Already the excuses are piling up.

Let me know when they get to....................He doesnt get the ball enough and the philly line isnt as good as the Cowboys line.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Im starting to get the feeling that all the Murray cry babies are going to be using the out excuse on Murray all year that "they arent using him correctly" or that "its the wrong offense for him".

Already the excuses are piling up.

Let me know when they get to....................He doesnt get the ball enough and the philly line isnt as good as the Cowboys line.

I think it's perfectly possible that all those things are true: they don't use him correctly and it's the wrong offense for him. I expect that he would be much more productive here than he would be in Philly. I ALSO think we made the right decision for our team by letting him go.

 

[Blackspider214]

Murray is still a good RB. If he was here, he'd have easily gained over 125yds against that poor Giants defense. He's just not a good fit in their scheme and gameplan. They were much better off keeping McCoy and teaming him up with Sproles.

Murray needs the ball all game long (about 25 carries). He's not some scat back you put in every now and then.

4 carries at the half was ridiculous.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I think it's perfectly possible that all those things are true: they don't use him correctly and it's the wrong offense for him. I expect that he would be much more productive here than he would be in Philly. I ALSO think we made the right decision for our team by letting him go.

I agree also. But it all goes back to what the Murray detractors have been saying all along. He had a great year last year because it was the perfect storm for him. Otherwise, he doesnt have that great year. Philly wont provide all the things he had here and he simply isnt a good enough back to be great in any system with any Oline.

I do think he may score TD's in Philly as that offense will find ways to score points.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Murray is still a good RB. If he was here, he'd have easily gained over 125yds against that poor Giants defense. He's just not a good fit in their scheme and gameplan. They were much better off keeping McCoy and teaming him up with Sproles.

Murray needs the ball all game long (about 25 carries). He's not some scat back you put in every now and then.

4 carries at the half was ridiculous.

Or you could just say that he isnt worth close to the contract he got.

 

[mattjames2010]

If, by strength, you mean "he can do it," then sure, it's a strength.

If you're not going to run the ball, there's no reason to have Murray in there over Sproles.

He hasn't demonstrated it in the pros. Again: he can do it. He's perfectly adequate at it. Maybe he was held back by our system, which hasn't featured it very much. But man, we sure did feature it Sunday night, in our first Linehan game without Murray.

No, it simply is a strength for him. There is no counter-argument against it. Every credible scout stated he is a quality receiving back, he had over 100 receptions from 2013 to 2014. He's right up there with McCoy, Charles, and Foster. He does it, and he does it better than most RBs in this league, even those who have seen the field as much as him.

And there is no reason to have him on the field if they aren't going to run it? Predictability not in your vocabulary?

And anyone who watched the game the other night knows the offense looked very different than last year.

 

[mattjames2010]

Forte is a stud in the passing game and catches passes on go routes and everything. No comparison at all to Muddy in the passing game.

It's completely comparable. I watch enough Bears games to know he is not being used in the way, at least 95% of the time, in the way you stated in your post prior.

You were stating that for it to be a strength, a back needs to do what Sproles and Dunbar do; Dunbar was being used like a slot receiver, the same as Sproles has been used in New Orleans and Philly.

Forte is not even remotely used close to that.

 

[JD_KaPow]

No, it simply is a strength for him. There is no counter-argument against it. Every credible scout stated he is a quality receiving back, he had over 100 receptions from 2013 to 2014. He's right up there with McCoy, Charles, and Foster. He does it, and he does it better than most RBs in this league, even those who have seen the field as much as him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. He's an ordinary pass-catching back. The counter-argument is the stats. He's caught a decent number of passes, sure, but for a mediocre ypc. He's consistently around 7 ypc every year, which is not very good. Heck, yesterday he caught 4 passes for a whopping 11 yards (and yes, one was a 5 yard TD) (Sproles had 7 catches for 76 yards). Football Outsiders consistently has him ranked somewhere in the 20s as a receiving back each year.

And there is no reason to have him on the field if they aren't going to run it? Predictability not in your vocabulary?

Predictability has nothing to do with it. If you're not going to run it at all, Sproles is your guy. If you're going to run sometimes and pass sometimes, Murray is your guy. You don't put him in just so that the defense thinks you might run, and then never run. That is simply not playing to his strength, or the team's strength. It's giving up way too much to gain way too little.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It's completely comparable. I watch enough Bears games to know he is not being used in the way, at least 95% of the time, in the way you stated in your post prior.

You were stating that for it to be a strength, a back needs to do what Sproles and Dunbar do; Dunbar was being used like a slot receiver, the same as Sproles has been used in New Orleans and Philly.

Forte is not even remotely used close to that.

Only to you it seems comparable.

 

[Blackspider214]

Or you could just say that he isnt worth close to the contract he got.

When you only let him carry the ball 8 times in the game and gain zero rhythm, what are you expecting?

You do realize sports is all about schemes. Murray fit great in ours and would have been worth the money. Eagles are using Murray completely wrong

And it's one single game. By that logic, from game 1, Dez isn't worth his money at all.

 

[CowboyRoy]

When you only let him carry the ball 8 times in the game and gain zero rhythm, what are you expecting?

You do realize sports is all about schemes. Murray fit great in ours and would have been worth the money. Eagles are using Murray completely wrong

And it's one single game. By that logic, from game 1, Dez isn't worth his money at all.

Nah..... you dont pay a back that kind of money that needs the ball 30 times to be effective. The RB by committe was woefully more effective. Over 200 yards of offense. Murray never could have done what Dunbar did in the passing game.

Unless Murray has the best line in football he cant get it done. This what we all told the Muddy apologists and its happening right before our eyes.

 

[CowboyRoy]

When you only let him carry the ball 8 times in the game and gain zero rhythm, what are you expecting?

You do realize sports is all about schemes. Murray fit great in ours and would have been worth the money. Eagles are using Murray completely wrong

And it's one single game. By that logic, from game 1, Dez isn't worth his money at all.

When you carry the ball 8 times for 11 yards, you dont get any more carries. I thought Murray was supposed to break tackles and make his own holes? Didnt happen.