Did the Cowboys make the right choice not signing Murray?

[Beast_from_East]

Did the Cowboys make the right decision to not re-sign DeMarco Murray for 8 million a year?

Yes or No?

Better question is if McFadden and Randle are adequate replacements.

I am not confident they are, time will tell

 

[Fmart322]

Player wise - No. We need him, he was a huge part of keeping Romo from having to do it all.
Financially - Yes. He wanted, and got, way more money then the Cowboys could give him.

The Cowboys really should have handled trying to sign him better during last season. (hindsight 20/20)
The real problem is they didn't address the RB position after losing Murray. McFadden and Randall aren't solid solutions.

 

[DandyDon52]

/\/ ()

 

[cds99]

I didn't think he was worth what he was asking. I however wished we would has brought in someone that has a better track record than mcfadden.

 

[ghst187]

I think he only stayed healthy last year because it was a contract year, honestly. I think he will miss significant time this year like usual now that he got his big payday.

 

[cowboyuptx]

Did the Cowboys make the right decision to not re-sign DeMarco Murray for 8 million a year?

Yes or No?

Yes, but I still wish we had Adrian Peterson to replace him... Murray is good, but certainly not great... He played his role pretty good at times last season, but to me, it was really about Romo and the receivers being able to consistently convert 3rd downs that really made the season for us and Murray... There was a lot of times where Murray would not be going good at all, but we kept giving it to him, which helped with TOP, but also put us into a lot of 3rd and longs... If Romo doesn't complete those 3rd and longs, then Murray doesn't get that carry later in the drive that goes for 20 yards and ups his ypc... Murray has had some real boneheaded plays and/or fumbles during his time in Dallas, but Romo would usually bail him out once again on 3rd and long... Let us see how DeMarco fares now that HE is supposed to be the man, let us see what happens when Sam Bradford can not pull his butt out of the fire, and the media blames him too and not just the QB for their failures... Romo, Dez, Witten, and the OL of course, that's what obviously makes this thing go...

 

[Bullflop]

We're about to find out fairly soon whether or not allowing Murray to get away was in our best interest or not. Allowing him to leave was strictly a financially-based consideration that came as a result of too many years of unfortunate, overly generous player negotiations and salary cap mismanagement. If we had been in some form ot satisfactory financial positioning under the cap, Murray's departure could and would most likely have been avoided. As it turned out, the acquisition of defensive talent trumped the financial consideration of granting his contract.

We are now due to discover whether or not our reasoning about Randle and McFadden being fully qualified to handle the running game's workload was a prudent decision or not. I'll have to admit, my fear is that McFadden will be hurt at some point in the regular season, perhaps even before. If that unfortunate event occurs, let's hope a satisfactory replacement for him would be found before the ground game were to suffer to excess. Anyhow, it's a calculated risk that was assumed well before DeMarco departed for that despicable division rival known as Philly.

 

[DandyDon52]

We're about to find out fairly soon whether or not allowing Murray to get away was in our best interest or not. 1.Allowing him to leave was strictly a financially-based consideration that came as a result of too many years of unfortunate, overly generous player negotiations and salary cap mismanagement. If we had been in some form ot satisfactory financial positioning under the cap, Murray's departure could and would most likely have been avoided. As it turned out,2. the acquisition of defensive talent trumped the financial consideration of granting his contract.

We are now due to discover whether or not our reasoning about Randle and McFadden being fully qualified to handle the running game's workload was a prudent decision or not. I'll have to admit, my fear is that McFadden will be hurt at some point in the regular season, perhaps even before. If that unfortunate event occurs, let's hope a satisfactory replacement for him would be found before the ground game were to suffer to excess. Anyhow, it's a calculated risk that was assumed well before DeMarco departed for that despicable division rival known as Philly.

OK you said some things I want to use, and some I agree with.
1. I think this was a factor
2.I have heard this a lot, but the problem with this is what if murray had signed the 6 mil a year offer ??????
would that mean they couldnt now sign hardy, or had hardy already been signed at that point??
If they gave him 7-8 mil a year, would that have been a big deal ?? lol it is only 1-2 mil more.
I think another issue was cowboys offered 4 year deal with 12 mil G , so if they had made it 5 with18-20 G he probably would
have signed here. Even for less $ like 6-7 mil a year.
The standard market value for the top 10 backs was 8 mil a year.

But back to what if he signed, could that have meant no hardy or they cant pay dez, I dont think so , they would juggle contracts till
they could do it.

3.people say with our improved defense ( which is speculation at this point) that will offset the loss of Murray, but just imagine
having kept Murray, and the improved defense !

4. Murray worth only 6 mil but dez worth 13 mil , I dont know about that, but did irvin make twice as much as emmitt ? , I dont know what they
made to be honest, and not saying dez isnt worth what he got, that seems to be the market value, so why didnt murray get market value?

I know he is gone , so just have to wait and see how it works out this fall. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

 

[Vanilla2]

Are the people who complained about the Cowboys over paying guys in the past the ones who are complaining about Dallas not overpaying Murray?

It seems like it from what I see and it leads me to believe some of yall will complain no matter the subject.

And yes Dallas made the right choice.

 

[lostar2009]

No... Murray money went to Hardy. But at the same token if Murray never fumble in the playoffs I'm certain JJ would have paid up.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Yes, not worth that money, and I believe the Eagles will cut him after 2 seasons because he won't be worth it

 

[Cowboys22]

This year will hurt but give it time. There will be a day in the not so distant future where Dallas has a young stud RB on a rookie deal and the Eagles have an albatross RB who is past his prime, fading fast, and making $8 million a year. It may even happen this year if Randle breaks out and Murray reverts to his typical sitting out with every little ouchie.

 

[DandyDon52]

Yes, not worth that money, and I believe the Eagles will cut him after 2 seasons because he won't be worth it

The G money pretty much insures he will play 3 seasons in philly at which point they could cut him with nothing owed to him.
I could be wrong no expert on that.
Same thing if dallas had signed him, they would have "overpaid " him for 3 seasons and then could part ways with no dead money.
If they didnt restructure him.

So that would have cost Dallas a whopping 6 million over 3 years for the "overpay" so That is a joke, not much money at all over 3 years
to have murray here while Romo is.
People seem to forget Murray was "underpaid" in first 4 years, making about $500,000 a year.

The main thing for murray is he needs to have 4 or less fumbles this year, and not at bad times.
He needs to play the whole season, not missing more than 2 games.
Be a top 5 rusher in total yards.
He only gets 5 mil this first year, so unless he fumbles too much or starts missing games the eagles will be glad they have him.

It is hard to say how much he will help the eagles, because chip is crazy, and I have no idea what his offense will be like or how he
will use murray and the other 2 backs, or if he will be run heavy or not.
And with all the players leaving and new ones coming in , philly is hard to predict. They could be real bad or real good or anywhere in between.
Philly/chip was unhappy with lesean, and I think he was due 10 mil? this year so they got murray and matthews for the same money or less.

I will be looking at how lesean,murray, and the cowboy rb's do this year, it will be interesting.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes.
Even if Murray goes on to rush for 2,000 yards, and none of the Cowboys backs break the 1,000 yard mark, it will still be the right move.

Why?
1. Because running backs are simply not as valued as other positions, unless you're Adrian Peterson. And noone has confused DeMarco Murray with AP.
2. Because time and time again, it has been proven that it's all about the franchise quarterback and a dominant line. We have those two covered.
3. Because running backs are a dime a dozen. We may not have drafted a running back this year, but they'll be plenty available in the 2016 draft.
4. Because history has shown that running backs who shoulder excessive carries tend to wear down. Plus, DM does have the best health history.
5. Because the Cowboys are building for the future not for one season. Signing DeMarco Murray to an exorbitant deal is a one season move. Saving the money you would use on Murray to bolster other areas of your team and paying Dez - who is much more valuable - is a future move.

 

[big dog cowboy]

3.people say with our improved defense ( which is speculation at this point)

Anything concerning the future is speculation but come on man.

 

[Kevinicus]

They did well on HALF of the equation, because you don't want to sign a guy with an injury history to an 8 million a year contract, but where they failed is not getting anyone to replace him. The Chaz Green pick should have been an rb.

I don't get this notion that drafting a RB would have been a better replacement than what we have. Especially after the first 2 guys were off the board. It's fairly silly to me. Sure it's possible, but highly unlikely.

 

[DFWJC]

Like a lot of good folks here, I see it two ways:

Yes...I don't at all blame them for not giving Murray a 5 year , 40 million dollar deal. Wish we could have somehow kept him two more years though. Was not an option.

However, I was completely sure we would do more than we did to replace his loss. At the very least, I was certain we'd draft someone to help fortify us. (No telling if that pick would help though)
This is not saying that I'm sure what we have won't do the job. Just saying I'm surprised.

The person that keeps getting overlooked in all of this is RB Coach, Gary Brown.

Jerry, Stephen, and Garrett trust in the input of position coaches regarding their supposed area of expertise.
It's clear that Garrett (and Romo) wanted Murray badly.
I think Brown, and maybe Will Clay (who has been great) were confident that the current group could pull this off.

 

[bayeslife]

Murray cost us a trip to the NFC Championship with his habitual fumbling so I really don't care about him.

 

[Bullflop]

OK you said some things I want to use, and some I agree with.
1. I think this was a factor
2.I have heard this a lot, but the problem with this is what if murray had signed the 6 mil a year offer ??????
would that mean they couldnt now sign hardy, or had hardy already been signed at that point??
If they gave him 7-8 mil a year, would that have been a big deal ?? lol it is only 1-2 mil more.
I think another issue was cowboys offered 4 year deal with 12 mil G , so if they had made it 5 with18-20 G he probably would
have signed here. Even for less $ like 6-7 mil a year.
The standard market value for the top 10 backs was 8 mil a year.

But back to what if he signed, could that have meant no hardy or they cant pay dez, I dont think so , they would juggle contracts till
they could do it.

3.people say with our improved defense ( which is speculation at this point) that will offset the loss of Murray, but just imagine
having kept Murray, and the improved defense !

4. Murray worth only 6 mil but dez worth 13 mil , I dont know about that, but did irvin make twice as much as emmitt ? , I dont know what they
made to be honest, and not saying dez isnt worth what he got, that seems to be the market value, so why didnt murray get market value?

I know he is gone , so just have to wait and see how it works out this fall. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

OK you said some things I want to use, and some I agree with.
1. I think this was a factor
2.I have heard this a lot, but the problem with this is what if murray had signed the 6 mil a year offer ??????
would that mean they couldnt now sign hardy, or had hardy already been signed at that point??
If they gave him 7-8 mil a year, would that have been a big deal ?? lol it is only 1-2 mil more.
I think another issue was cowboys offered 4 year deal with 12 mil G , so if they had made it 5 with18-20 G he probably would
have signed here. Even for less $ like 6-7 mil a year.
The standard market value for the top 10 backs was 8 mil a year.

But back to what if he signed, could that have meant no hardy or they cant pay dez, I dont think so , they would juggle contracts till
they could do it.

3.people say with our improved defense ( which is speculation at this point) that will offset the loss of Murray, but just imagine
having kept Murray, and the improved defense !

4. Murray worth only 6 mil but dez worth 13 mil , I dont know about that, but did irvin make twice as much as emmitt ? , I dont know what they
made to be honest, and not saying dez isnt worth what he got, that seems to be the market value, so why didnt murray get market value?

I know he is gone , so just have to wait and see how it works out this fall. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Some of the questions you've asked might best be suited for Stephen Jones to answer in the detail you'd like to see. To be totally honest, some of those same questions haunt me that you've mentioned here.
What little I do know that is that Hardy was signed after Murray left, so there was that expense in question then. What I neglected to mention is that Romo's contract and Dez's blockbuster demands at the time also must have played a role in the FO's decision to limit what they were willing to pay, in addition to their salary cap considerations. Ultimately, what they simply felt Murray was worth contractually likely played a significant role as a cost-limiting influence.

 

[KJJ]

Like someone posted we'll find out at the end of the season if the Cowboys made the right decision. If the running game isn't what it was last season effecting Romo's play and it's the primary reason the Cowboys miss the playoffs it's going to make for some interesting discussion on this and other Cowboy boards. If Philly were to go on and win the SB with Murray being named the games MVP Jerry may go into deeper hiding than the dentist who shot Cecil the Lion. Let's go back to the start of the 93 season when Emmitt held out for more money. We got to find out the first 2 games of that season what it would be like without him with the Cowboys starting that season 0-2. Just imagine had Jerry traded Emmitt there would have been no back to back SB's or anymore SB wins that decade. The Cowboys wouldn't have been the team of the 90's and the decision would have come back to haunt Jerry and the franchise especially if Emmitt had gone on to make another team great. All these years is might have been what could have been had Emmitt been resigned.

Thanks goodness Jerry got that deal done. We got to see first hand with Derrick Lassic that despite a great OL not any back could produce behind it because the back matters! Prior to last season we saw games without Murray that didn't turn out well especially the Detroit game in 2013 where Randle averaged 1.9 a carry on 14 carries. Both Randle and Tanner took back to back losses with only a 1:20 left in that game with the Cowboys leading trying to run out the clock. Not being able to run the ball in that situation led to a punt and the Lions pulling the win out in the final seconds. That game helped cost the Cowboys a playoff birth that season. If the Cowboys start off 0-2 this season due to a struggling running game and realize they miscalculated the value of Murray there's no paying him off like Jerry did with Emmitt back in 93 the Cowboys will be stuck! Jerry knew when he allowed Murray to walk and sign with Philly that it could potentially blow up in his face and end up real bad. We're going to find out very soon if Murray was worth 8M.