Free Christine

[superonyx]

What back has had sustained success in Oakland? Yeah you've had guys who had good stretches of play, but what back has been consistent there? There's a reason for that. It's a terrible football situation. Just like Cleveland. Just like Washington. It's not like Dallas gave McFadden a lucrative contract. Again who else was available that would've been better at that price?

As for Michael what he has he done to warrant pushing off McFadden? He obviously hasn't been impressive enough to warrant Dallas pushing off one of the three backs. You're also neglecting another key fact Darren is also our best pass protector of the backs. What happens if Michael is in on a passing play and gets Weeden drilled because of a missed blocking assignment?

If McFadden was the most productive back on a bad team with a bad system then I could see your point...but he wasn't. He was outplayed by poor backs in Oakland.
What has Michael done to warrant pushing McFadden off the active roster? Nothing...and nothing is better than 2.9 YPC. McFadden has done enough to have pushed himself into a week off.

What are you so afraid off? Michael will do well and your pet cat won't get back in? Because no way you can be afraid of a drop in production......not much off a drop possible when 2.9 is the number to beat.
People talk about Trent Richardson being bad...I believe McFadden has been the worst performing back in the league over the last 3+ years. Show me another back who has been worse...

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

If McFadden was the most productive back on a bad team with a bad system then I could see your point...but he wasn't. He was outplayed by poor backs in Oakland.
What has Michael done to warrant pushing McFadden off the active roster? Nothing...and nothing is better than 2.9 YPC. McFadden has done enough to have pushed himself into a week off.

What are you so afraid off? Michael will do well and your pet cat won't get back in? Because no way you can be afraid of a drop in production......not much off a drop possible when 2.9 is the number to beat.
People talk about Trent Richardson being bad...I believe McFadden has been the worst performing back in the league over the last 3+ years. Show me another back who has been worse...

Our OL is also a reason why Randle and McFadden haven't had much success running the ball. (Randle has been ok, McFadden terrible) With Leary injured in the 1st game (he was abused), and him missing the 2nd game (the backups were ok, but Bernadeau was terrible). They just haven't gotten the pust up front to give the rb's any room. Maybe CMike can use his power to get some yardage the other rb's can't. We will see.

 

[RunDMC]

If McFadden was the most productive back on a bad team with a bad system then I could see your point...but he wasn't. He was outplayed by poor backs in Oakland.
What has Michael done to warrant pushing McFadden off the active roster? Nothing...and nothing is better than 2.9 YPC. McFadden has done enough to have pushed himself into a week off.

What are you so afraid off? Michael will do well and your pet cat won't get back in? Because no way you can be afraid of a drop in production......not much off a drop possible when 2.9 is the number to beat.
People talk about Trent Richardson being bad...I believe McFadden has been the worst performing back in the league over the last 3+ years. Show me another back who has been worse...

I'm not afraid of anything. Wouldn't say McFadden was outplayed by poor backs in Oakland. Having a good four or five game strength doesn't equate to being better consistently better than McFadden. I realize he had his struggles, but again you can't just ignore the situation he was in. How is anyone gonna be able to be consistent when the offensive line is constantly allowing backfield penetration? We've seen what's happened to DeMarco in a similar situation in Philadelphia. Along with a quarterback who can't throw more than 10 yards down the field. Again McFadden same thing with the exception of his last year when the Raiders finally got a semblance of a quarterback in Carr.

I don't have anything against Michael and I do think he could help us, but at the expense of McFadden or the two other backs I don't see it happening. We need McFadden's pass protection as well as his elusiveness, Randle is probably the better pure runner of the two, and Dunbar creates major mismatches.

 

[Bleu Star]

McFadden's 3 yards per carry is easily replaceable. If he keeps up that pace, the hammy won't matter. JG will just rotate Michael in to see if he can get a spark from another RB. At that point, McFadden's chances of getting back on the field may be in serious jeopardy.

 

[ghst187]

I think we need to give Christine a game here soon over McFadden just to get a look at what we have. I think in the long term we are going to want Christine on the field come December grinding out first downs in the fourth quarter, something I'm not sure our current rotation can do. I'd say the pats game would be the smartest one to try him out since we're not likely to win that one anyway.

 

[Common Sense]

I'm assuming Michael supporters have all spoken to him recently and have a pretty good idea of how well he knows the playbook and pass protection assignments so far.

 

[dallasdave]

Dunbar can be a wide-out and then Christine can be the #3 RB .

 

[Bleu Star]

I'm assuming Michael supporters have all spoken to him recently and have a pretty good idea of how well he knows the playbook and pass protection assignments so far.

Yes. We meet with him via video teleconference every weekday morning at 6am sharp cst.

 

[Bleu Star]

Dunbar can be a wide-out and then Christine can be the #3 RB .

That actually might work.

 

[RunDMC]

Dunbar can be a wide-out and then Christine can be the #3 RB .

Dunbar is too small. Keeping him in the backfield causes mismatches.

 

[Bleu Star]

Dunbar is too small. Keeping him in the backfield causes mismatches.

Speed cures all. T.Y. Hilton, DeSean Jackson, Steve Smith, & Antonio Brown all agree.

 

[RunDMC]

Speed cures all. T.Y. Hilton, DeSean Jackson, Steve Smith, & Antonio Brown all agree.

They're actually wide receivers. Dunbar is a running back. There's more to playing the wide receiver position. It's one thing to be able to out run linebackers and another to out run and consistently win against corners.

 

[Bleu Star]

They're actually wide receivers. Dunbar is a running back. There's more to playing the wide receiver position. It's one thing to be able to out run linebackers and another to out run and consistently win against corners.

Your point was simply that he's too small to play WR. I gave you 4 guys that would win an argument against you any day. It doesn't matter what they do. Ill even add two historically great short (in height) pass catching rbs. Ladanian Tomlinson (5'10") and Marshall Faulk (5'10") both think Lance (5'8") is fine in coverage.

Speed cures all.

FREE CHRISTINE

 

[RunDMC]

Your point was simply that he's too small to play WR. I gave you 4 guys that would win an argument against you any day. It doesn't matter what they do. Ill even add two historically great short (in height) pass catching rbs. Ladanian Tomlinson (5'10") and Marshall Faulk (5'10") both think Lance (5'8") is fine in coverage.

Speed cures all.

FREE CHRISTINE

And again they are WIDE receivers. Dunbar is a running back. You don't take a guy who has played that position for three plus years now with the Cowboys and just out him at wide out and think he's gonna be able to win consistently? It would take him a long time to be to learn how to play that position effectively at this level if ever and we don't have that kind of time. Why would Dallas make that kind of silly change when Dunbar is just fine and very effective as a running back coming out of the back field? That makes absolutely no sense. This isn't Madden.

 

[Bleu Star]

And again they are WIDE receivers. Dunbar is a running back. You don't take a guy who has played that position for three plus years now with the Cowboys and just out him at wide out and think he's gonna be able to win consistently? It would take him a long time to be to learn how to play that position effectively at this level if ever and we don't have that kind of time. Why would Dallas make that kind of silly change when Dunbar is just fine and very effective as a running back coming out of the back field? That makes absolutely no sense. This isn't Madden.

This is also not Boring Offense University.

Line Dunbar up anywhere outside and it's a mismatch. Slot, wide.. whatever. Creativity = success

 

[xwalker]

If McFadden was the most productive back on a bad team with a bad system then I could see your point...but he wasn't. He was outplayed by poor backs in Oakland.
What has Michael done to warrant pushing McFadden off the active roster? Nothing...and nothing is better than 2.9 YPC. McFadden has done enough to have pushed himself into a week off.

What are you so afraid off? Michael will do well and your pet cat won't get back in? Because no way you can be afraid of a drop in production......not much off a drop possible when 2.9 is the number to beat.
People talk about Trent Richardson being bad...I believe McFadden has been the worst performing back in the league over the last 3+ years. Show me another back who has been worse...

McFadden really was not outplayed but other RBs in Oakland. They had 1 RB (not Murray) that had a 3.7 ypc as a starter vs a 3.6 ypc for McFadden that same year. As a starter Murray was at about 4.0 ypc. As a backup McFadden had a 5.3 ypc. In 2014 Joseph Randle had a 6.7 ypc with 51 carries. Murray only had about 81 carries in Oakland in 2014.

Bottom line, only 1 RB with over 100 carries in a season had a better average than McFadden and that player averaged 3.7 ypc as a starter while McFadden averaged 3.6 ypc as a starter that same year. Looking at averages for RBs with low carries per season is worthless as shown by Randle's 6.7 ypc in 2014 which was the highest in the league for a RB, IIRC.

 

[xwalker]

And again they are WIDE receivers. Dunbar is a running back. You don't take a guy who has played that position for three plus years now with the Cowboys and just out him at wide out and think he's gonna be able to win consistently? It would take him a long time to be to learn how to play that position effectively at this level if ever and we don't have that kind of time. Why would Dallas make that kind of silly change when Dunbar is just fine and very effective as a running back coming out of the back field? That makes absolutely no sense. This isn't Madden.

They did have Dunbar and Randle together on the field for at least 1 play in the Eagles game.

 

[Nightman]

McFadden really was not outplayed but other RBs in Oakland. T Richlow carries per season is worthless as shown by Randle's 6.7 ypc in 2014 which was the highest in the league for a RB, IIRC.

OAK chose Trent Richardson over DMC.

 

[xwalker]

OAK chose Trent Richardson over DMC.

No, DMC was a free agent and signed with the Cowboys.

I'm not saying that DMC was great in Oakland, but the other RBs were not really better if you study that situation. People like to claim several RB had a better YPC but as I pointed out the YPC for RBs with small numbers of carries is meaningless as shown by Randle and his 6.7 ypc in 2014.

 

[Nightman]

No, DMC was a free agent and signed with the Cowboys.

I'm not saying that DMC was great in Oakland, but the other RBs were not really better if you study that situation. People like to claim several RB had a better YPC but as I pointed out the YPC for RBs with small numbers of carries is meaningless as shown by Randle and his 6.7 ypc in 2014.

OAK didnt offer him a contract, even at the veteran minimum. He lost his job to LMurray last year midway thru the season but LMurray suffered a bad concussion during his breakout game.

DMC was that bad in OAK that they went with TRichardson over him, no matter how you want to sell it.