Impact of losing top RB

[Doomsday101]

If we had a back like Emmitt, then I think it's a different discussion. We don't and IMO, there is no back like Emmitt in the league. He's a once in a life time player. I don't think you can really have that discussion because that is not an option for anybody. JMO

I'm not saying Murray is Emmitt I am saying both were quality RB. To me Emmitt showed the consistency year in and year out that is what made him a HOF. What Murray was able to accomplish was a franchise record performance playing for a franchise who has had some great RB in its history which is no small feat. When people try to say well Murray played behind a great line? well so did Dorsett and so did Emmitt Smith but when a lesser back was asked to step in and do the job we found out it is not the OL alone that makes a running attack work

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not saying Murray is Emmitt I am saying both were quality RB. To me Emmitt showed the consistency year in and year out that is what made him a HOF. What Murray was able to accomplish was a franchise record performance playing for a franchise who has had some great RB in its history which is no small feat. When people try to say well Murray played behind a great line? well so did Dorsett and so did Emmitt Smith but when a lesser back was asked to step in and do the job we found out it is not the OL alone that makes a running attack work

Fair enough but if the discussion is about Murray, then the question becomes, is he that much better then what we have? Again, if you believe in the talent of the RB, then you won't be happy. If you believe it's the OL, then you feel better about it. I liked Murray and I think he's a pretty good football player, an even better person, but I don't think he was much better then what we have on the roster now talent wise.

 

[jnday]

It's not hard to find a rb who can do his job. Great rbs don't gro on trees.

It's why laughed when people related Ajayi like he was Asian Foster.

It must be harder than you think. There is not a physical RB on the roster that is capable of carrying the workload that Murray did. I am not a Murray fan , but I will give him credit for what he did last season.

 

[dallasdave]

That goes against what so many of the posts I have read on this thread expressed. I recall many posters saying that the RB position is not hard to fill. There are RBs everywhere that can be great behind this line, at least that is what has been posted. Another fallacy is the addition of a couple rookies are going to make the defense improve to the point that the running game will not be needed as much.

 

[Doomsday101]

Fair enough but if the discussion is about Murray, then the question becomes, is he that much better then what we have? Again, if you believe in the talent of the RB, then you won't be happy. If you believe it's the OL, then you feel better about it. I liked Murray and I think he's a pretty good football player, an even better person, but I don't think he was much better then what we have on the roster now talent wise.

I think he is way better than what we have right now. Again I believe in both RB and OL it is not a one of the other for me. I have seen poor backs behind great lines and they do not perform.
McFadden coming in as a rookie I would say had the potential to be a great back but that has yet to happen. Could it now happen in Dallas maybe so, I certainly hope so. I don't know how else to stress it is the RB and OL working in unison not one carrying the other.

 

[ConstantReboot]

You think its as easy as "dangling a 3rd round pick?" Even if it is, how do you know Dallas hasn't done that? Or spoken to CJs agent?

Because it would have been all over the news. When Dallas sneezes, everyone catches a cold.

I think the FO is playing it safe for now and weighing their options. They have that PR spin going that " they good with runningbacks." I don't buy it. I know they want better than what they have now. They just don't want to play their hand too quickly for the world to see IMO.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It must be harder than you think. There is not a physical RB on the roster that is capable of carrying the workload that Murray did. I am not a Murray fan , but I will give him credit for what he did last season.

We don't need one back to carry Murray's load by himself.

Also Murray was never considered a physical back until this year. Suddenly when the line turned the corner. Murray was looked at as a 4.3 finesse guy out of college. Revisionist history is fun.

Also Murray and Mcfadden are virtually the same size. Just one is more naturally talented.

 

[jnday]

I don't think I'm missing it. I just think the cap limits us in that regard. Obviously that would be the best possible situation to be in but the cap comes into play.

The cap does limit things, but I don't think that the line itself can make the same quality of running game without a good RB. Murray and his physical style of running will be missed and the results are not going to be the same with the current talent on the roster. We no longer have a punishing RB that can wear a defense down. I really think that Dallas knows this and another RB will be added. Garrett saw firsthand how a great running game is built and I think that the starting RB is not on the roster at this time.

 

[ConstantReboot]

In response to the bolded. A special back does not leave as many yards on field as Demarco did. If we had the Demarco of 2013 he would broken the Rushing record by at least 100 yards. Demarco of 2014 decided that he wanted to be seen as a tough hard running RB so he would seek out contact after he gained yards for first down. He left probably 400 yards on the field last season looking to "punish" opposing defenses.

Murray gained around 800 yards before contact. That means he gained around 1000 yards after contact - breaking tackles and gaining more yardage than what is expected.

He may have left some yardage off the field. But he also gained a whole lot of yardage breaking tackles that would have otherwise gone for minimal gain. Take it for what its worth. Demarco was a punishing runner and teams accounted for it.

 

[jrumann59]

Murray gained around 800 yards before contact. That means he gained around 1000 yards after contact - breaking tackles and gaining more yardage than what is expected.

He may have left some yardage off the field. But he also gained a whole lot of yardage breaking tackles that would have otherwise gone for minimal gain. Take it for what its worth. Demarco was a punishing runner and teams accounted for it.

Which is great except for when he was to the 2nd level he constantly looked for a DB or LB to deal a blow. Instead of taking a seam to get 3-4 yards more he would turn inside to seek out someone to hit, call it MB3 syndrome.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So dumb he lead the league, SMH.

He broke down down the stretch too. He proved very clearly he should not have over 300 carries and should be rotated for all that he did early. He stank down the stretch. He had difficulty holding onto the ball, playing with power in the open field, and executing pass protection. It is what it is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Murray gained around 800 yards before contact. That means he gained around 1000 yards after contact - breaking tackles and gaining more yardage than what is expected.

He may have left some yardage off the field. But he also gained a whole lot of yardage breaking tackles that would have otherwise gone for minimal gain. Take it for what its worth. Demarco was a punishing runner and teams accounted for it.

You have those number reversed. He had more yards before contact as opposed to after. His YaftC also went into the toilet after he got hurt down the stretch. He went from leading the league with over 2.7 and ended up close to 2.0. He tanked pretty hard last year.

 

[jnday]

We don't need one back to carry Murray's load by himself.

Also Murray was never considered a physical back until this year. Suddenly when the line turned the corner. Murray was looked at as a 4.3 finesse guy out of college. Revisionist history is fun.

Also Murray and Mcfadden are virtually the same size. Just one is more naturally talented.

Revisionist history is fun, but there is no changing the fact that Murray's physical style helped the team get out of the 8-8 slump. Another point to consider is that Murray's college running style has nothing to do with how he has ran the ball at the pro level. If I had to say, Murray has shown more talent than McFadden. I can tell you are hyped by DMC, but his career has not come close to comparing to Murray. He has been a bust and has very little impact in this league.

 

[Doomsday101]

He broke down down the stretch too. He proved very clearly he should not have over 300 carries and should be rotated for all that he did early. He stank down the stretch. He had difficulty holding onto the ball, playing with power in the open field, and executing pass protection. It is what it is.

Murray had 1 fumble over the last 9 games and his highest rushing day of the season in the 2nd half of the season. He was 2nd behind Lynch in post season rushing who played in 2 more games than Murray did. I also think it as the season wore on teams were looking to stack the lines once Dallas showed they would run it as they did.

 

[ConstantReboot]

You have those number reversed. He had more yards before contact as opposed to after. His YaftC also went into the toilet after he got hurt down the stretch. He went from leading the league with over 2.7 and ended up close to 2.0. He tanked pretty hard last year.

Of coursed his average went down. He was playing with an injury. Thus I mentioned that they should have ran Randle more during the last part of the year while Murray was injured.

Murray sure didn't look like he was slowing down against Green Bay. He was averaging almost 5 yards a carry. Aside from his fumble which would have brought up his stats even more, it didn't seem like he tanked.

 

[gimmesix]

Actually, it was not Dennison. It was Newhouse. He ran for over 900 yards in 75 with a 4.4 AYPC. He was really the workhorse back after HIll.

We did draft Hill but we also had Garrison who was a 17th round pick and he was just as productive as Hill. Hill ran for 946 yards in 69 and Garrison ran for 818 but they both had a 4.6 AYPC. To me, that says two things. 1. The Cowboys used a RB by committee approach and 2. It was probably more about the OL, rather then the RBs.

Newhouse definitely received more touches, but Dennison was Hill's replacement. The fact that the fullback was used more back then cloud's the picture. Newhouse had already been receiving some of the load when Hill was on the team (averaging 4.0 per carry the previous year) and picked up more of the load when split the extra load with Dennison (Newhouse went up by 85 carries, Dennison by 95). Preston Pearson was the addition brought in when Hill left, and averaged 3.8 on 133 carries.

Needless to say didn't exactly match the production that year they were receiving when Hill was on the team.

Walt Garrison had done very little when Hill was drafted. but he did averaged 6.0 and 6.1 YPC in limited carries the previous two seasons.

I do agree that an RB by committee approach was used (and I'm not against that). I disagree that it was probably more about OL than the RBs, otherwise Dennison and other backs would have averaged similar to the players you mentioned. I believe it always has been a combination of having the right backs along with the line and a competent passing game.

Too many are trying to sell the "any ol' backs" line of thinking and it has never held true. The closest I think you can get to that is what Denver was able to accomplish in their should-have-been-illegal cut-blocking scheme.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Murray had 1 fumble over the last 9 games and his highest rushing day of the season in the 2nd half of the season. He was 2nd behind Lynch in post season rushing who played in 2 more games than Murray did. I also think it as the season wore on teams were looking to stack the lines once Dallas showed they would run it as they did.

And for all that his play declined significantly after he got hurt. Considering in December he went down rather than play with the reckless abandon he did earlier in the year him not fumbling in the second half loses it's luster.

Teams started stacking the line from the beginning. SF, STL and TN all presented heavy boxes on first and second down. SF didn't sell out but everyone after did.

 

[Doomsday101]

And for all that his play declined significantly after he got hurt. Considering in December he went down rather than play with the reckless abandon he did earlier in the year him not fumbling in the second half loses it's luster.

Teams started stacking the line from the beginning. SF, STL and TN all presented heavy boxes on first and second down. SF didn't sell out but everyone after did.

SF was not stacking the line they had a good lead in the game. Murray highest rushing total was in the 2nd half of the season he had 8 TD over the last part of the year and posted 129 vs GB.

Murray injury? he broke it vs Philly and put up a 100 or better in the next 3 games

only game after the injury he did not have a 100 was vs Det who was the #1 ranked defense vs the run giving up an avg of 69 yards

 

[Eskimo]

Here's the problem with that assessment. Jason Garrett has been attempting since he got here to rebuild the Cowboys of the 90's dynasty; that is the blueprint he is trying to implement and that team had a bell cow running back. You may be correct about Murray falling off towards the end, but that is not the only reason Murray's effectiveness diminished over the course of the season. Once team's figured out that the Cowboys were more than content with running the ball all day if the opposition would let them, they committed resources to ensuring they above-all slowed down the running game, which meant 8 and even 9 in the box looks.

The only issue is that the league rules changed since those 90s teams and it would be foolish not to take advantage of those rule changes that favor throwing the football.

As for why they were so committed to running against stacked boxes I can only assume it was to protect the defense by eating up clock and limiting the amount of plays they had to defend against. It surely was not done to improve offensive output. The only reason we got away with it is because of how well Romo and the passing offense performed on 2nd and 3rd down. Much of the time in the second half of the season we were facing long 2nd and 3rd downs because of diminished production from running on 1st down.

I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't do so more last year. Aside from preserving Murray, we would at least know a little more about JoRan and Dunbar, who should still be considered unknown quantities as little as they were used. McFadden and Williams have had career's similiar to Sean Lee in that they have not been able to stay healthy, so it is beyond me how people can have any confidence in the current stable's abilities combined or otherwise.

I am not sure why they didn't run the other RBs more last year. I think Dunbar was the change of pace back but maybe they didn't trust him to protect Romo. As far as Randle, he was very productive but had the underwear incident and also fumbled twice. I think it was a big mistake not to take some of the burden off of Murray and perhaps they have learned their lesson here. Emmitt was a rare breed in that he could take all that punishment all-year and still be going strong late into the playoffs. Murray obviously can't do it. I think Jason learned his lesson - there will only be one Emmitt Smith and you can't design your team waiting for the second coming.

I honestly hope that turn's out to be the case, but I still have my doubts. As for the front offices lack of moves in Free Agency, I understood that; few to no viable scheme fit's for the Cowboys were available. The draft, on the other hand, held plenty of potential upgrades. But here is where my argument falls apart a bit. I understood not drafting a RB in the 1st and/or 2nd given who they were able to get and what RB's were available at that time, with Gurley and Gordon already off the board. By the time the Cowboys were picking in the 3rd round, all of the potential upgrades were gone. So, I understand the argument, that outside of reaching / using valuable picks to move up, the Cowboys were somewhat handcuffed to their draft board. Having said that, if Byron Jones turns out to be a bust / workout warrior only and/or Randy Gregory cannot seem to rise above his knucklheadedness and Tevin Coleman turns out to be a monster, the second-guessing of the front office will return and return with a vengeance.

I am quite skeptical about Ryan Williams ability to stay healthy and about DMac being able to run the ball effectively in the NFL. I think Randle is good but worry about the fumbles. You have to remember despite where he was drafted the Cowboys put a 3rd round grade on him in the 2013 draft and it unlikely any of the RBs we could draft in the 3rd round this year were rated higher. Randle has also shown the ability to run in the NFL so he is de-risked from that POV. As for earlier draft choices Jones was clearly way ahead any of the RBs left when we were on the clock and fills a huge need. Gregory is a smart kid who we had as #4 on the whole draft board when we were picking at #60. We have had success in the past supporting players with off the field issues and it sounds like we are implementing a program for Gregory to be successful. You can only judge picks by the information that was available on the day of the draft and I think it is hard to argue a RB should have been taken in those slots. As for the 3rd round choice, OT was a big hole at the time and arguably bigger than the one at RB given Free's health. They picked a guy who they think had early 2nd round type ability who has had some injury issues. My guess is the RBs left on the board were not deemed to be better than Randle, Williams or DMac.

This is the argument that really leaves me scratching my head. There is certainly more than one way to win in this league; but no one team is built to win multiple ways. Therein is the issue. The Cowboys were built to win the way they did last year. From the moment Jason Garrett took over he and Will McClay started bringing in talent that would help the team win the way they did last year. That is why the Cowboys built an offensive line, so they could pound the rock and then make team's pay when they tried to stop it. It's a winning formula that work's in any iteration of the NFL. The pass-happy approach, on the other hand, has proven to be a terrible idea, at least for the Cowboys. When you put it all on Romo's shoulders, he has a tendency to make game-losing mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I like Romo. But he is not Peyton Manning. Romo flourishes, however, when he can depend on the guy lining up behind up. Right now, I don't see that guy on the roster. But I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.

The argument is actually quite simple. We won last year mostly because of Romo's performance. We saw how the team performed with Romo out and we also saw Romo put up big performances with Murray hobbled with the hand injury. This team goes as Romo goes and we were actually putting Romo in many disadvantageous situations last year by trying to run into a brick wall to limit the snaps the defense would have to play. Now this year with an improved defense we can run the offense to maximize offensive production instead of for limiting defensive snaps. This means probably passing 52-55% of the snaps as is the case with most balanced offenses in the league. When teams overplay the run on 1st and 2nd down we will probably throw more and attempt to build early leads in the process. Once the lead is secured we have the pass rushers that can terrorize QBs leading to strips sacks and INTs. Once you make the opposition 1-dimensional they are easier to defend.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Its going to be interesting to see how Murray does in Philly. And how we do if things stay as they are right now.

The numbers are great, but what value do you put on continuity and trust. And numbers can be misleading.

There is a reason why randle didn't carry the rock more then he did. The coaches thought the best chance for my team to win is to have DM playing.....

I like breaking down the numbers too. YPC, YAC, etc etc. Its interesting. But how much weight does it actually hold when determining who to start. Who to sign. Those numbers can be skewed. Joe Randle has a great YPC because he rattles off some long runs late in the game against the Bears and Jags....

Were going to find out how much DM brought to the table. But dont worry, Philly could win the NFCE next year, but there will be a number in some metric that will say it wasn't Murray who made that happen.