Dropoff after 400 Touch Season (It's a Big One)

[Nation]

Seems to me several of the running backs had over 1500 yards, which is enough.

As long as you're paying for a 1,500 yard back (Justin Forsett dollars) that's a fine approach to take

 

[Risen Star]

In considering whether or not to sign DeMarco Murray The Cowboys will be faced with a ton of production to replace should they move on from the running back. Murray's 2014 campaign was a 449 touch season with 2,261 yards from scrimmage, 4.7 Yards Per Carry, and 13 Total TDs. However, Dallas must make that Yes/No value decision based on what Murray is likely to bring the team in 2015, not based on what he did in 2014.

I took a look at all 400+ touch seasons for running backs since 2003 and the dropoff in the following season is pretty dramatic as the chart below details. Murray has earned the right for his name to be mentioned among the great backs on this list, but even these great backs had their issues after that kind of workload. And while it is easy to throw out a "Yeah, But" when it comes to the capability of the Cowboys offensive line keep in mind that no great running back sees 400 touches without a great offensive line of their own, and the dropoffs after a major workload were universal.

Projecting Murray's numbers using these past results would mean the following:

If we project Murray's 2015 based on the average dropoff, we would expect his 2015 to consist of 346 touches, for 1,441 scrimmage yards, a 3.9 yards per carry, and 5.5 total touchdowns.

If we project Murray's 2015 based on the median dropoff, we would expect his 2015 to consist of 343 touches, for 1,406 scrimmage yards, a 3.9 yards per carry, and 5 total touchdowns.

These results have made me think the same thing I've always thought on the matter. Murray's 2014 numbers cannot be easily replaced in 2015, but they are also highly unlikely to be replaced by Murray himself. We are better off spending our money on the defensive line, retaining Dez, and making sure we have ourselves a RT. Williams, Randle, Dunbar, and a 3rd/4th round pick from a deep running back class can cover Murray's expected 2015 numbers.

That's good work by you. I would argue you are more likely to replace that production with fresh legs in the draft. Or an elite talent like Peterson.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Funny how Adrian Peterson is not on this beautifully put together chart...rushing yards alone in 2008 was 1760, "only" 1383 in 2009...
2097 in 2012 and a "drastic" drop to 1266 in 2013........ stats are just numbers that can be used to manipulate either side of an argument.

And you couldn't even put Emmitt on this chart because he would blow it up!.... I love the term "exception to the rule"...
since everyone is clairvoyant in the anti-Murray camp... I'm guessing this is pre-determined...what happens if he puts up 2 or 3 Pro Bowl
years together? Does that make him an exception to the rule as well? Yes, it does.... but nobody knows that ahead of time.

But lets look ahead to the anti-Murray future...... when its 3rd or 4th and goal in a tight game... we have our big stud rookie 1st rd pick
who hasn't yet hit the rookie wall with an injury, or the great Ryan Williams or (gasp!) Joseph Randle.... and they get stuffed a yard behind the LOS.

All of the sudden we are back to 50 passes a game because we can't trust our RBs when it counts.... then Romo gets crushed on a blitz that
wasn't picked up by (insert your RB choice here) and is out for a few games... That's 3+ games with you-know-who at QB... all the while our
defense is on the field for 35-40 minutes a game because we are going 3 and out half the time, or worse.

Then suddenly our 2014 season looks like a flash in the pan and we fade back to mediocrity.

This.

 

[Doomsday101]

In considering whether or not to sign DeMarco Murray The Cowboys will be faced with a ton of production to replace should they move on from the running back. Murray's 2014 campaign was a 449 touch season with 2,261 yards from scrimmage, 4.7 Yards Per Carry, and 13 Total TDs. However, Dallas must make that Yes/No value decision based on what Murray is likely to bring the team in 2015, not based on what he did in 2014.

I took a look at all 400+ touch seasons for running backs since 2003 and the dropoff in the following season is pretty dramatic as the chart below details. Murray has earned the right for his name to be mentioned among the great backs on this list, but even these great backs had their issues after that kind of workload. And while it is easy to throw out a "Yeah, But" when it comes to the capability of the Cowboys offensive line keep in mind that no great running back sees 400 touches without a great offensive line of their own, and the dropoffs after a major workload were universal.

Projecting Murray's numbers using these past results would mean the following:

If we project Murray's 2015 based on the average dropoff, we would expect his 2015 to consist of 346 touches, for 1,441 scrimmage yards, a 3.9 yards per carry, and 5.5 total touchdowns.

If we project Murray's 2015 based on the median dropoff, we would expect his 2015 to consist of 343 touches, for 1,406 scrimmage yards, a 3.9 yards per carry, and 5 total touchdowns.

These results have made me think the same thing I've always thought on the matter. Murray's 2014 numbers cannot be easily replaced in 2015, but they are also highly unlikely to be replaced by Murray himself. We are better off spending our money on the defensive line, retaining Dez, and making sure we have ourselves a RT. Williams, Randle, Dunbar, and a 3rd/4th round pick from a deep running back class can cover Murray's expected 2015 numbers.

I don't expect Murray to hit 1,800 plus yards next season that is not realistic for any RB but the posting of the 400 carries those are raw numbers there are reasons outside of the carries themselves that played a part in some of these backs not performing afterwards. Guys like Larry Johnson was having a lot of issues off the field some had major injuries that played a part and has nothing to do at all with 400 carries.

 

[Nation]

I don't expect Murray to hit 1,800 plus yards next season that is not realistic for any RB but the posting of the 400 carries those are raw numbers there are reasons outside of the carries themselves that played a part in some of these backs not performing afterwards. Guys like Larry Johnson was having a lot of issues off the field some had major injuries that played a part and has nothing to do at all with 400 carries.

This is total yards from scrimmage (both receiving and rushing yards) which is realistic for a RB commanding the kind of contract Murray is asking for

 

[Nation]

Funny how Adrian Peterson is not on this beautifully put together chart...rushing yards alone in 2008 was 1760, "only" 1383 in 2009...
2097 in 2012 and a "drastic" drop to 1266 in 2013........ stats are just numbers that can be used to manipulate either side of an argument.

And you couldn't even put Emmitt on this chart because he would blow it up!.... I love the term "exception to the rule"...
since everyone is clairvoyant in the anti-Murray camp... I'm guessing this is pre-determined...what happens if he puts up 2 or 3 Pro Bowl
years together? Does that make him an exception to the rule as well? Yes, it does.... but nobody knows that ahead of time.

But lets look ahead to the anti-Murray future...... when its 3rd or 4th and goal in a tight game... we have our big stud rookie 1st rd pick
who hasn't yet hit the rookie wall with an injury, or the great Ryan Williams or (gasp!) Joseph Randle.... and they get stuffed a yard behind the LOS.

All of the sudden we are back to 50 passes a game because we can't trust our RBs when it counts.... then Romo gets crushed on a blitz that
wasn't picked up by (insert your RB choice here) and is out for a few games... That's 3+ games with you-know-who at QB... all the while our
defense is on the field for 35-40 minutes a game because we are going 3 and out half the time, or worse.

Then suddenly our 2014 season looks like a flash in the pan and we fade back to mediocrity.

Peterson is not on the chart because he accumulated his yardage numbers with an elite skillset that did not require a mammoth workload to hit those numbers. That's why he commands top dollars, because he can put up workhorse numbers without a destructive amount of carries. The same couldn't be said for most of the very good backs on the list.

Last year Murray had 449 total touches. Emmitt never hit that number, but after his career high in 1995 of 439 catches he followed that up with the lowest Yards Per Carry of his Cowboys career.

Why is one of our replacement running backs going to get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage? Randle and Dunbar both had a higher YPC this year than Murray. We have a dominant offensive line. A big bruiser should be able to hit the holes and barrel through them. We all saw Murray's legs fail over the course of the last season as evidenced by a complete inability to break through big holes for long runs that he'd have taken to the house in 2011.

And lets not pretend he was Ahmad Bradshaw when it comes to pick up the blitz. Murray at best was a sub-par pass protector, so we aren't going to be missing much from him there.

 

[Brooksey]

Yes. Let's compare Murray to one of the greatest RBs of all time. That's the kind of production we should count on.

The comparison is more with the offensive lines. They are both pretty darn good.

 

[Hoofbite]

As long as you're paying for a 1,500 yard back (Justin Forsett dollars) that's a fine approach to take

Justin Forsett dollars? Is he even making an amount that would lead any reasonable person to expect 1,500 yards?

 

[jrumann59]

Justin Forsett dollars? Is he even making an amount that would lead any reasonable person to expect 1,500 yards?

I think he was making vet min or close to that. Forsett is a guy I would also stay away from, banking on him to hit close to his numbers from this year is a fool's errand.

 

[jrumann59]

I would not call him anything. A made up term by the press does not make it real. Your suggesting it is beside the fact then negates your comments in your first response to me as attested to the quote below.

Can we look at the dictionary here, Murray tends to get injured every year playing football,

Prone: adjective;
1.
likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome.
"years of logging had left the mountains prone to mudslides"
synonyms:susceptible, vulnerable, subject, open, liable, given, predisposed, likely, disposed, inclined, apt;
at risk of
"untreated wood is prone to rotting"

Following the actual meaning of the term prone Murray and Lee are injury prone, whether the term is made is irrelevant because by definition both players are the term as it is defined in dictionary. you may want to call them unlucky or whatever but both players are prone to be injured every season.

 

[Hoofbite]

Peterson is not on the chart because he accumulated his yardage numbers with an elite skillset that did not require a mammoth workload to hit those numbers. That's why he commands top dollars, because he can put up workhorse numbers without a destructive amount of carries. The same couldn't be said for most of the very good backs on the list.

Last year Murray had 449 total touches. Emmitt never hit that number, but after his career high in 1995 of 439 catches he followed that up with the lowest Yards Per Carry of his Cowboys career.

Why is one of our replacement running backs going to get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage? Randle and Dunbar both had a higher YPC this year than Murray. We have a dominant offensive line. A big bruiser should be able to hit the holes and barrel through them. We all saw Murray's legs fail over the course of the last season as evidenced by a complete inability to break through big holes for long runs that he'd have taken to the house in 2011.

And lets not pretend he was Ahmad Bradshaw when it comes to pick up the blitz. Murray at best was a sub-par pass protector, so we aren't going to be missing much from him there.

But his 1995 season came at the end of a string of 5 seasons where he averaged over 400 touches per season, and it probably has more to do with the cumulative touches in that span that it does the 439 touches in the single 1995 season. He had 432 touches in 1992. Is the difference between being able to continue tearing it up and drop off really a matter of 7 touches over the course of a season? Of course not.

 

[Nation]

But his 1995 season came at the end of a string of 5 seasons where he averaged over 400 touches per season, and it probably has more to do with the cumulative touches in that span that it does the 439 touches in the single 1995 season. He had 432 touches in 1992. Is the difference between being able to continue tearing it up and drop off really a matter of 7 touches over the course of a season? Of course not.

I think we can both agree that Emmitt Smith had historical durability, and that Murray has shown one season (a contract year) of durability.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think we can both agree that Emmitt Smith had historical durability, and that Murray has shown one season (a contract year) of durability.

Sure. No doubt he did.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I think we can both agree that Emmitt Smith had historical durability, and that Murray has shown one season (a contract year) of durability.

First year Murray had any thing blocking for him was 2014.

 

[Doomsday101]

This is total yards from scrimmage (both receiving and rushing yards) which is realistic for a RB commanding the kind of contract Murray is asking for

Over 2000 all-purpose yards is not realistic for any RB every year. Hell AP has only did it once in his career. I expect a deal of 6 mill a year and I expect Murray to be very productive but I do not expect him to get over 2000 all-purpose yards per season that is ridicules

 

[TheFinisher]

Peterson is not on the chart because he accumulated his yardage numbers with an elite skillset that did not require a mammoth workload to hit those numbers. That's why he commands top dollars, because he can put up workhorse numbers without a destructive amount of carries. The same couldn't be said for most of the very good backs on the list.

Last year Murray had 449 total touches. Emmitt never hit that number, but after his career high in 1995 of 439 catches he followed that up with the lowest Yards Per Carry of his Cowboys career.

Why is one of our replacement running backs going to get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage? Randle and Dunbar both had a higher YPC this year than Murray. We have a dominant offensive line. A big bruiser should be able to hit the holes and barrel through them. We all saw Murray's legs fail over the course of the last season as evidenced by a complete inability to break through big holes for long runs that he'd have taken to the house in 2011.

And lets not pretend he was Ahmad Bradshaw when it comes to pick up the blitz. Murray at best was a sub-par pass protector, so we aren't going to be missing much from him there.

Randle and Dunbar also typically had the benefit of facing worn out defenses late in games. I think we all agree that played a major role in their high YPC.

 

[DanTanna]

Six million would be fine with me - a little high but no biggie. He'll want 9M based on one year's production. I expect him to miss 5-6 games next year. Take that into account when putting together the contract, and pay him 6M regardless how many games he plays.

 

[TwoDeep3]

As long as you're paying for a 1,500 yard back (Justin Forsett dollars) that's a fine approach to take

Now allow me to make this clear - again, since I have stated this over and over.

Money is not an issue for me. Being a play maker is. Murray is not Emmitt, but the closest thing since Emmitt. All the hand wringing about money ignores a fact of life which is staring all of you wannabe GM's in the face.

Romo has a small window and it's get it now or never with that player. So you put the best options around him and push all in. You don't monkey with success in hope of saving a dime, or that magically you will find a viable alternative later.

The time is now, not three years from now.

 

[Doomsday101]

Six million would be fine with me - a little high but no biggie. He'll want 9M based on one year's production. I expect him to miss 5-6 games next year. Take that into account when putting together the contract, and pay him 6M regardless how many games he plays.

I don't know how many games if any he will miss. Last 2 seasons he 30 of 32 games.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Can we look at the dictionary here, Murray tends to get injured every year playing football,

Prone: adjective;
1.
likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome.
"years of logging had left the mountains prone to mudslides"
synonyms:susceptible, vulnerable, subject, open, liable, given, predisposed, likely, disposed, inclined, apt;
at risk of
"untreated wood is prone to rotting"

Following the actual meaning of the term prone Murray and Lee are injury prone, whether the term is made is irrelevant because by definition both players are the term as it is defined in dictionary. you may want to call them unlucky or whatever but both players are prone to be injured every season.

Now unless you work for Madame Cleo, or Dionne Warwick's psychic hotline, I'd suggest you have no real idea what tomorrow brings for either Murray or Lee. None of the synonyms/adjectives you suggested from the dictionary/thesaurus are cast in stone. Prone has an arbitrary nature to its meaning. I think likely is one of the better exemplars of this. Because even using its definition, there is an outcome which is included in defining likely - the word you offered as support - indicating injury will not happen or the definition would be concrete and another word used. Likely is a bit stronger than perhaps, but has the either or component which makes the outcome questionable.

Prone -

Example 1 - Fans on an NFL football message boards are prone to exaggerate maladies to support their notions of changing success into the unknown in hopes of finding something better.

Example 2 - The grass is always greener.

Just as a side note - I write for a living. So words are tools in my tool box. I also do not believe in luck. It too possesses an arbitrary and non-quantifiable value assigned to things people cannot explain.