How badly did we mess up the RB situation?

[lostar2009]

Murray was the best back we had since Emitt. JJ played this whole deal bad and undervalued Murray skills. If we was going to replace him we should look into a legit candidate and not a retread. I have 0 clue why they thought Randle could start.

 

[Idgit]

We are now on our 5th RB trying to replace Murray

Don't see how anybody can look at that and think it wasn't a mistake

And for those that say RB is not the problem, then why is the organization going through RBs like they are hotcakes?

Seems somebody pretty high up in the organization thinks the RB position is a problem

We're not trying to replace Murray. Randle was cut because of his off-field issues, and we're replacing him, just like any team would do when a starter goes down. Same with Dunbar. Michael/Smith/Turbin are guys to backfill Randle, or to push he and DMC for reps if they can. Williams is the replacement for Dunbar who's now gone for the season. If we'd lost two of our three starters last year, we'd have been doing the same thing we're doing now.

And yet, we've still been relatively effective at the position, despite the turnovers and despite the injuries and despite the limitations at QB. Why? Because we have a good line, and RBs just aren't that important.

What I think did happen is that we expected to let Murray walk because he wanted way more money than he was worth. We thought we'd be able to move everybody up a spot and add a rookie from a deep draft class at the bottom of the position group to develop. Then Gregory fell and we had to make a decision re: DE and backup RB. We (wisely) went DE, and then weren't able to get a good value at RB the rest of that draft. Since then, that's the position we've been trying unsuccessfully to fill. And I actually like the guys we're trying to fill it with so far. To lose both Dunbar and Randle and still have a viable backup option in Turbin at this point in the season is a fairly good outcome in my book.

It'll be fun to see whether or not Turbin can outperform PHI's number two back head:head from here on out. Not including the $12M fully guaranteed, of course.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The whole Murray thing and the Oline last year was like a situation in a movie where all of the planets line up perfectly at one time and something good happens since it is so rare.

I doubt that Murray would have came close to doing what he did last year. I also doubt Murray would have stayed as healthy as he did last year. It was one of the few times in his college and pro career where he was healthy the majority of the time (majority not all).

But I think what happened was they got too cute in the draft room.

They have done this before where they needed a specific position and instead of reaching for it, they do a 180 and completely ignore it if it does not fall the way they like it.

I understand not drafting for position, I understand not reaching...but I think they did indeed draft for position and went into the draft with the general idea to value Defense more than offense and when there was some decent backs there that they graded similar to some decent defensive players, they went D instead.

It makes no difference now crying over spilt milk. It is what it is but I think the proof is in the pudding by the number of players they have had come in and out of here at RB that it did not work out the way THEY thought it would.

 

[Joe_Fan]

Should have drafted one in the middle rounds. Never like signing free agent running backs.

Agreed, or even Rawls in the 7th round instead of trading up for that stupid TE.

 

[Nightman]

We're not trying to replace Murray. Randle was cut because of his off-field issues, and we're replacing him, just like any team would do when a starter goes down. Same with Dunbar. Michael/Smith/Turbin are guys to backfill Randle, or to push he and DMC for reps if they can. Williams is the replacement for Dunbar who's now gone for the season. If we'd lost two of our three starters last year, we'd have been doing the same thing we're doing now.

And yet, we've still been relatively effective at the position, despite the turnovers and despite the injuries and despite the limitations at QB. Why? Because we have a good line, and RBs just aren't that important.

What I think did happen is that we expected to let Murray walk because he wanted way more money than he was worth. We thought we'd be able to move everybody up a spot and add a rookie from a deep draft class at the bottom of the position group to develop. Then Gregory fell and we had to make a decision re: DE and backup RB. We (wisely) went DE, and then weren't able to get a good value at RB the rest of that draft. Since then, that's the position we've been trying unsuccessfully to fill. And I actually like the guys we're trying to fill it with so far. To lose both Dunbar and Randle and still have a viable backup option in Turbin at this point in the season is a fairly good outcome in my book.

It'll be fun to see whether or not Turbin can outperform PHI's number two back head:head from here on out. Not including the $12M fully guaranteed, of course.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Murray asked for less than market value. Top RBs are getting 10-12m a year.

The league leader was not out of line expecting 7-8m.

We just paid TCrawford 9m for 5 sacks.

Turbin is not the answer anymore than Michael was.

 

[JoeKing]

We should have drafted a RB rather than Randy Gregory.

 

[Idgit]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Murray asked for less than market value. Top RBs are getting 10-12m a year.

The league leader was not out of line expecting 7-8m.

We just paid TCrawford 9m for 5 sacks.

Turbin is not the answer anymore than Michael was.

$10-12M on a position you can find in the 3rd round in most drafts is insane. But that's academic, because that's not what Murray got. He got ~$9M AAV, with $12M guaranteed. And he was, as I said, overpaid at that rate to be the second (maybe even 3rd) best RB on that team behind a guy who got $2M for this year and $5M guaranteed.

Crawford doesn't enter into it, but you pay DTs more than you pay RBs, and you pay them for more than sacks.

 

[Beast_from_East]

We're not trying to replace Murray. Randle was cut because of his off-field issues, and we're replacing him, just like any team would do when a starter goes down. Same with Dunbar. Michael/Smith/Turbin are guys to backfill Randle, or to push he and DMC for reps if they can. Williams is the replacement for Dunbar who's now gone for the season. If we'd lost two of our three starters last year, we'd have been doing the same thing we're doing now.

And yet, we've still been relatively effective at the position, despite the turnovers and despite the injuries and despite the limitations at QB. Why? Because we have a good line, and RBs just aren't that important.

What I think did happen is that we expected to let Murray walk because he wanted way more money than he was worth. We thought we'd be able to move everybody up a spot and add a rookie from a deep draft class at the bottom of the position group to develop. Then Gregory fell and we had to make a decision re: DE and backup RB. We (wisely) went DE, and then weren't able to get a good value at RB the rest of that draft. Since then, that's the position we've been trying unsuccessfully to fill. And I actually like the guys we're trying to fill it with so far. To lose both Dunbar and Randle and still have a viable backup option in Turbin at this point in the season is a fairly good outcome in my book.

It'll be fun to see whether or not Turbin can outperform PHI's number two back head:head from here on out. Not including the $12M fully guaranteed, of course.

I think if Garrett could pick, he would want Murray over any of the backs we have had this year. Garrett even hinted that there might be problems replacing Murray when he said repeatedly that this was not a plug and play offense and that you can't just put anybody in at RB

Garrett basically told us that it was not the line, but Murray himself that brought an added dimension to this offense and just plugging in the next guy is not going to keep that going

 

[Idgit]

I think if Garrett could pick, he would want Murray over any of the backs we have had this year. Garrett even hinted that there might be problems replacing Murray when he said repeatedly that this was not a plug and play offense and that you can't just put anybody in at RB

Garrett basically told us that it was not the line, but Murray himself that brought an added dimension to this offense and just plugging in the next guy is not going to keep that going

I have no doubt you're right. Garrett really wanted Demarco back here. I suspect he'd say it's a combination of both the back and the OL, but your point is basically the same.

I just don't agree with that. I believe Dunbar would be one of the stories of the season at this point if he'd managed to stay healthy. Our offense was managing ball control and points and ToP just fine prior to Tony going down, and I think we'll see the same thing with him back in the lineup. But even with him out, we're still managing top-10 production.

And not winning any games. Because it's passing efficiency that matters and not the productivity of the running game.

 

[ConstantReboot]

First off, I'll admit, I wanted to let Murray go after the Eagles gave him that 8 million dollars a year offer. I would have signed him to a 6 million dollar per year contract. I think the previous low ball offer really affected Murray and offended him. It caused him to hold out in free agency, look for the best deal, and make an attempt to engage division rivals into a bidding war for his services.

I think the front office's arrogance completely botched that situation up. They wanted to emulate what the Patriots do, RBBC, and even though it's sound in theory, how often does it work in practice? It works for the Patriots cause they have Tom Brady. Their success always points back to Tom. The other deciding factor was probably based off the success of the o-line last year. "Anyone" can run behind that line. Say what you will, but Murray was the perfect back for this system. The only glaring deficiencies he had was the fumbling issue and his vision.

Last year Murray, Randle and Dunbar were all on the active roster. This year all 3 are gone (Dunbar to the IR). It's been a RB carousel this year with guys like Randle, McFadden, Michael, Rod Smith and probably Trey Williams soon. There's no consistency at all. It looks ugly, stagnate, and with hardly any upside.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I hate to say it, but I think things would have been tremendously different had we kept #29.

My theory is you don't fix what isn't broken. Our run game was the reason why we got to the playoffs. Why in the world would you want to let Murray go and totally go with an RBBC system?

My thoughts are if we have kept Murray and kept most of what got us into the playoff last year including the playbook, Romo would not have been injured.

Murray was our best blocking back and was in there most of the time on 1st down. I believe that if had kept Murray and stuck with a one back offense, Murray would have taken on the blitzing blocker and Romo would not have been injured on that play.

So in hindsight I don't think we would be in this predicament if Murray was here. We would probably won't have a losing record and everything would have been fine in dandy with the locker room because were winning.

Like I said don't fix what isn't broken. 8 million per. year would have been a bargain if it gave us that almost similar production we had last year with Murray.

 

[jjktkk]

We are now on our 5th RB trying to replace Murray

Don't see how anybody can look at that and think it wasn't a mistake

And for those that say RB is not the problem, then why is the organization going through RBs like they are hotcakes?

Seems somebody pretty high up in the organization thinks the RB position is a problem

You're not gonna overpay for a rb who is fumble prone and injury prone, and had a great year only in his contract year. To do so in the salary cap era is ludicrous imo. Ask Philly what they think about their 8 million dollar rb, who, arguably, is not even the best rb on the Eagles roster. I, for one, cannot properly evaluate this Cowboy's offense without Romo running it. There is plenty of blame to go around for this team's 2-7 record. No Romo, none of the receivers stepping up in Bryant's absence, the defense not forcing turnovers, and fading away in the 4th quarter.

 

[Beast_from_East]

You're not gonna overpay for a rb who is fumble prone and injury prone, and had a great year only in his contract year. To do so in the salary cap era is ludicrous imo. Ask Philly what they think about their 8 million dollar rb, who, arguably, is not even the best rb on the Eagles roster. I, for one, cannot properly evaluate this Cowboy's offense without Romo running it. There is plenty of blame to go around for this team's 2-7 record. No Romo, none of the receivers stepping up in Bryant's absence, the defense not forcing turnovers, and fading away in the 4th quarter.

That is a valid point my friend, but I think the issue might be one of our effort to replace Murray. Its one thing to not pay a RB $8 million, totally understandable position to take, however the backup plan cannot be to just gather up a bunch of scrubs and cast offs and call it a day.

I think Stephen Jones even hinted at this when he said in an interview that if there was one thing they should have done differently, it was to get a RB out of a very deep draft class.

So I think the issue is not necessarily one of keeping Murray or not, but on how to go about replacing Murray and it seems like the organization may be having second thoughts about not drafting one, at least that is what I take away from Stephen's comment.

 

[plasticman]

Comparing the circumstances Murray has now compared to last season ignores the familiarity between him and this line, a very underrated element. He knew this system.

He was far more involved in the passing game.

Then there is the fact that he was excellent as a pass blocker. In fact, one of the major changes is that we would most likely have had Romo the entire season.

How many of you actually think it's a coincidence that Romo was ranked #1 last season for the first time.

One hit wonder? He was a pro bowler and a 1000 yard rusher the previous season And two seasons prior he rushed for 700 yards in his first 7 games.

The O-line isn't playing as well this season? How is it possible? I mean, how do 5 guys just coincidentally happen to decrease their effectiveness simultaneously? If anything, they replaces one of them with a guy possessing more upside so they should be improved. What's missing?

Burning out after that kind of season is a myth generated by an awful use of statistical analysis.

You cannrot take Murray's carries last season and compare only to carries greater than that, it tells you nothing because I can easily say thay , in all cases those were MORE carries than Murray.

You must take his numbers and imbed them in data for which his number of carries are the median or middle point value because saying that his carries are "within" a certain range doesn't mean only the plus side.
P
For example if the greatest number of carries in one season is 416 which is 24 carries away from Murray's 392.

However, 368 is also 24 carries away from 392. This mean, that any relevent comparison of Murray's carries said to be with 24 carries would be a number that is +/- 24 to 392.

Therefore, a proper analysis would be a comparison to RB's that carries the ball between 368 to 416 in a single season, for which Murray's numbers are right amaxk in the middle.

The results of this statistical search yield what I would consider to be a who's who collection of the greatest runningbacka in NFL.

Thus list includes Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, Marcus Allen, Jerome Betti's, Ladamian Tomlinson, and John Riggins, to name a few.

Here are some statistical facts about these seasons:

Over 50% of them were accomplished by Hall of Famers.

Almost 20% of these seasons were achieved by someone who did this more than once.

The average career of these guys was 10.5 seasons.

So much for the falsehood of decline after such a season. Murray may need a year to aclimate, as Eric Dickerson required after his trade from the Rams to the Colts, but he has many more seasons remaining.

Of all these RB who also led the league I'm rushing that season, only one belonged on a team whose management allowed them to leave and play elsewhere. Brilliant!

So Murray may have left some meat on the bone but, thanks to typical management decision making, this season, the only thing fans are getting is the bone.

 

[jjktkk]

That is a valid point my friend, but I think the issue might be one of our effort to replace Murray. Its one thing to not pay a RB $8 million, totally understandable position to take, however the backup plan cannot be to just gather up a bunch of scrubs and cast offs and call it a day.

I think Stephen Jones even hinted at this when he said in an interview that if there was one thing they should have done differently, it was to get a RB out of a very deep draft class.

So I think the issue is not necessarily one of keeping Murray or not, but on how to go about replacing Murray and it seems like the organization may be having second thoughts about not drafting one, at least that is what I take away from Stephen's comment.

I totally agree, but I also understood the FO's thinking and was okay with giving Randle and Dunbar expanded roles in the offense this year and seeing If McFadden had anything left. Given the talent on the Oline, I figured the combination of the above mentioned trio would be effective enough to keep the offense humming. We now will now see how this ground game performs with Romo at the helm.

 

[Nightman]

Comparing the circumstances Murray has now compared to last season ignores the familiarity between him and this line, a very underrated element. He knew this system.

He was far more involved in the passing game.

Then there is the fact that he was excellent as a pass blocker. In fact, one of the major changes is that we would most likely have had Romo the entire season.

How many of you actually think it's a coincidence that Romo was ranked #1 last season for the first time.

One hit wonder? He was a pro bowler and a 1000 yard rusher the previous season And two seasons prior he rushed for 700 yards in his first 7 games.

The O-line isn't playing as well this season? How is it possible? I mean, how do 5 guys just coincidentally happen to decrease their effectiveness simultaneously? If anything, they replaces one of them with a guy possessing more upside so they should be improved. What's missing?

Burning out after that kind of season is a myth generated by an awful use of statistical analysis.

You cannrot take Murray's carries last season and compare only to carries greater than that, it tells you nothing because I can easily say thay , in all cases those were MORE carries than Murray.

You must take his numbers and imbed them in data for which his number of carries are the median or middle point value because saying that his carries are "within" a certain range doesn't mean only the plus side.
P
For example if the greatest number of carries in one season is 416 which is 24 carries away from Murray's 392.

However, 368 is also 24 carries away from 392. This mean, that any relevent comparison of Murray's carries said to be with 24 carries would be a number that is +/- 24 to 392.

Therefore, a proper analysis would be a comparison to RB's that carries the ball between 368 to 416 in a single season, for which Murray's numbers are right amaxk in the middle.

The results of this statistical search yield what I would consider to be a who's who collection of the greatest runningbacka in NFL.

Thus list includes Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, Marcus Allen, Jerome Betti's, Ladamian Tomlinson, and John Riggins, to name a few.

Here are some statistical facts about these seasons:

Over 50% of them were accomplished by Hall of Famers.

Almost 20% of these seasons were achieved by someone who did this more than once.

The average career of these guys was 10.5 seasons.

So much for the falsehood of decline after such a season. Murray may need a year to aclimate, as Eric Dickerson required after his trade from the Rams to the Colts, but he has many more seasons remaining.

Of all these RB who also led the league I'm rushing that season, only one belonged on a team whose management allowed them to leave and play elsewhere. Brilliant!

So Murray may have left some meat on the bone but, thanks to typical management decision making, this season, the only thing fans are getting is the bone.

Bingo.

And it is disingenuous to say Murray has to match his 2014 numbers to be worth a 4m cap hit. Career years aren't duplicated because they are career years. But you won't know for a few years. Tom Brady won't throw for 50 TDs again but he is well worth 8m.

If Murray even dominated a RBBC with 250 carries and 1250 yds and 10 TDs that would be worth it.

Dunbar and Randle would have been great backups again.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

First off, I'll admit, I wanted to let Murray go after the Eagles gave him that 8 million dollars a year offer. I would have signed him to a 6 million dollar per year contract. I think the previous low ball offer really affected Murray and offended him. It caused him to hold out in free agency, look for the best deal, and make an attempt to engage division rivals into a bidding war for his services.

I think the front office's arrogance completely botched that situation up. They wanted to emulate what the Patriots do, RBBC, and even though it's sound in theory, how often does it work in practice? It works for the Patriots cause they have Tom Brady. Their success always points back to Tom. The other deciding factor was probably based off the success of the o-line last year. "Anyone" can run behind that line. Say what you will, but Murray was the perfect back for this system. The only glaring deficiencies he had was the fumbling issue and his vision.

Last year Murray, Randle and Dunbar were all on the active roster. This year all 3 are gone (Dunbar to the IR). It's been a RB carousel this year with guys like Randle, McFadden, Michael, Rod Smith and probably Trey Williams soon. There's no consistency at all. It looks ugly, stagnate, and with hardly any upside.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I hate to say it, but I think things would have been tremendously different had we kept #29.

I think DMC is more than serviceable. Inept coaching/game-planning and QBs who can't close or finish anything has been the problem. Hopefully with Romo back he'll fill most gaps

 

[Stash]

I just don't agree with that. I believe Dunbar would be one of the stories of the season at this point if he'd managed to stay healthy.

This point sticks out to me regarding Dunbar. Thus far, "healthy Dunbar" doesn't exist. Based on his career to this point, he's a bubble wrap guy. When he's used too much, something inevitably breaks.

And this is not to be an indictment of his ability, because, let's face it, he was a real force in this offense at the start of this season, but it is an indictment of the player's availability, how he can or cannot handle the rigorous physical demands of the position.

He was a quality player for us this year while he was healthy, but looking over his body of work, you have to wonder if he's not a poor injury risk and therefore a questionable investment.

 

[Stash]

I think DMC is more than serviceable. Inept coaching/game-planning and QBs who can't close or finish anything has been the problem. Hopefully with Romo back he'll fill most gaps

I've been a harsh critic, but the guy we saw for the past three weeks was doing a great job.

The guy we saw this last week looked eerily familiar to the guy I saw for the first three weeks of the season or so. I want no part of that guy and I hope this was just an off game for him like it seemed to be for several others.

 

[Nightman]

I think DMC is more than serviceable. Inept coaching/game-planning and QBs who can't close or finish anything has been the problem. Hopefully with Romo back he'll fill most gaps

Why would you settle for serviceable when you were coming off a 12-4 year with the best rushing attack the team had in a decade? Romo had his best year and we finally got over the 8-8 hump. Murray's cap hit would be 4m or only 2.2m more than what he wasted on McFadden and Michael. The draft pick we wasted could have been enough to draft TRawls, a player we wanted but lost in UDFA.

Murray-Randle-Dunbar-Rawls is a strength and a huge upgrade over what we have now.

 

[Idgit]

This point sticks out to me regarding Dunbar. Thus far, "healthy Dunbar" doesn't exist. Based on his career to this point, he's a bubble wrap guy. When he's used too much, something inevitably breaks.

And this is not to be an indictment of his ability, because, let's face it, he was a real force in this offense at the start of this season, but it is an indictment of the player's availability, how he can or cannot handle the rigorous physical demands of the position.

He was a quality player for us this year while he was healthy, but looking over his body of work, you have to wonder if he's not a poor injury risk and therefore a questionable investment.

That's fair. I go back and forth on whether guys are actually injury prone or whether injuries just happen. His ACL this season, for example, could just be bad luck, or he could be a guy with weak ligaments. If that's really a thing.

Either way, they rolled the dice that they could get passing game looks from the Arab position, and it worked when Dunbar was in there. If they erred, it was, as you said, in trusting him to stay healthy.