Just Franchise Murray

[Doomsday101]

Geez. There are a lot of guys who really overrate our players. Peterson is on a different stratosphere than Murray. Murray is a good back, with good hands, tough runner. He also has a lot of durability concerns.

Peterson is elite at all aspects of the game, minus catching were he is merely good. He is the most physically imposing RB in the league. Behind our OL, he would be a 1500-2000 yard runner for the next ~3 years. He would truly turn Romo into a bus driver and allow the transition to a new QB a lot more feasible.

That said, If Murray refuses a team friendly contract (<$4m/yr) I say you franchise him and draft his replacement.

No one is suggesting Murray get the 14 mill avg that Peterson is getting. 4 mill a year is well below what top 10 RB are making that is a joke of an offer. You talk about durability hell Peterson has only played 1 season of 16 games and has missed a lot of time in between but lets get him? lol

 

[Doomsday101]

Adrian Peterson at Running Back $14,380,000
Jamaal Charles at Running Back $9,050,000
LeSean McCoy at Running Back $9,000,000
Arian Foster at Running Back $8,700,000
Matt Forte at Running Back $7,600,000
Marshawn Lynch at Running Back $7,500,000
Jonathan Stewart at Running Back $7,300,000
Frank Gore at Running Back $6,404,183
C.J. Spiller at Running Back $5,134,417
Trent Richardson at Running Back $5,122,449
Top 10 paid RB, That is the market for RB

 

[Wayne02]

Adrian Peterson at Running Back $14,380,000
Jamaal Charles at Running Back $9,050,000
LeSean McCoy at Running Back $9,000,000
Arian Foster at Running Back $8,700,000
Matt Forte at Running Back $7,600,000
Marshawn Lynch at Running Back $7,500,000
Jonathan Stewart at Running Back $7,300,000
Frank Gore at Running Back $6,404,183
C.J. Spiller at Running Back $5,134,417
Trent Richardson at Running Back $5,122,449
Top 10 paid RB, That is the market for RB

We're talking about if Peterson and Murray were to have the same salary next year, which one would you prefer?

 

[Doomsday101]

We're talking about if Peterson and Murray were to have the same salary next year, which one would you prefer?

I would lean towards Murray because of the age difference yes Peterson will likely be better than Murray next year but you don't build teams based on 1 year. Who would I be more likely to give a 4 or 5 year deal to a player hitting 30 or a guy who is 26?

 

[Wayne02]

I would lean towards Murray because of the age difference yes Peterson will likely be better than Murray next year but you don't build teams based on 1 year. Who would I be more likely to give a 4 or 5 year deal to a player hitting 30 or a guy who is 26?

There is a 3 year age difference between these two, so if we're going to call Peterson 30 right now, then we need to call Murray 27 right now. Peterson is not the average running back, there is always an exception to the rule and Peterson is that exception. They guy has shown no signs of slowing down and even at the age of 33, I'd take Peterson over a 30 year old Murray.

 

[Doomsday101]

There is a 3 year age difference between these two, so if we're going to call Peterson 30 right now, then we need to call Murray 27 right now. Peterson is not the average running back, there is always an exception to the rule and Peterson is that exception. They guy has shown no signs of slowing down and even at the age of 33, I'd take Peterson over a 30 year old Murray.

and Emmitt did not drop off until he hit 31 but he did and did so pretty quickly. I like Peterson but if I was giving a 4 or 5 year deal to a player then I would go with Murray. Murray is just now getting into his prime we really do not know what he may be able to do. I guess this season will give us a good sign.

 

[Wayne02]

and Emmitt did not drop off until he hit 31 but he did and did so pretty quickly. I like Peterson but if I was giving a 4 or 5 year deal to a player then I would go with Murray. Murray is just now getting into his prime we really do not know what he may be able to do. I guess this season will give us a good sign.

Peterson is a far superior of an athlete than Emmitt ever dreamed of being, and like you said, he didn't drop off until 31. You're right though, Murray is in his prime and we'll see what he can do.

 

[Doomsday101]

Peterson is a far superior of an athlete than Emmitt ever dreamed of being, and like you said, he didn't drop off until 31. You're right though, Murray is in his prime and we'll see what he can do.

In your opinion Smith did for a long time with 11 consecutive years over 1,000 and was not injured near what Peterson has dealt with.I respect Peterson but realistically he is not going anywhere and Minn is not letting him go for nothing they will want something in trade and Peterson is not going to come down off his 14 million by much. So all this what if is really a waste of time

 

[AsthmaField]

Murray has improved. He doesn't have Emmitt vision, but it's better than it was.

This.

The biggest thing that was missing from his game when he came into the league was vision. It has definitely improved this year and late last year... but it still isn't great, although we can get by with it now. Early on, it just killed me seeing cutbacks that a lot of RB's would have seen and been gone.

He really is much better now though. He usually makes the right decisions most of the time these days.

If Murray would have had vision his rookie season like he does now, he might have hung 400 yards on St. Louis that year. Hell, maybe 500.

 

[AsthmaField]

We're talking about if Peterson and Murray were to have the same salary next year, which one would you prefer?

I see what you're saying... but Murray and Peterson probably won't have the same salary next year.

Given the choice to sign either one to a 4 year deal, I would go with Murray. Age is huge for RB's, and even though you say he might be the one to defy age... it is more likely that he won't. With Murray you don't have to hope that he is an exception to the 30 old RB rule. He is just entering his prime.

And of course, all of this is completely ignoring the legal troubles AP is going through and ignoring any public outcry we'd have to worry about by signing him.

Too many reasons to just resign Murray... starting with age and ending with cheaper.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

I wouldn't franchise Murray. Going forward, teams are using a committee at RB. Also, we have to look at what will be available in the draft. GA RB Gurley would be a lot cheaper option. See what other options are out there.

I don't see putting a lot of money at that position RB.

 

[Bleu Star]

After the season Demarco Murray will be a free agent. After the last two weeks he looks great but based on his injury past and history of RBS after 27, the best thing that Dallas could do is place the Franchise tag on Murray.
The franchise tag is an average of the top 5 highest paid players salary at that position. If AP gets released and Lynch, both are very likely after the season then it drops that average RB salary way down. The RBS salaries have been going down over the last few years.
Sure it will be around a 7-8 million cap hit to franchise him for 2015 but at his age and injury history that's a better bet to place than to sign him long term to 10-15 guaranteed and then have to eat alot more in the near future.

I'm confident he will get franchised if he remains healthy and keeps up this pace... and it will be considered a strong move by the organization when it happens. (assuming a deal cannot be reached) We can't just let every player go when they reach their prime... That's not how you get to Super Bowls.

 

[DFWJC]

I think the "market" is not necessarily existing contracts, but most recent contracts....as in last year or two.

In either case, barring injury, Murray is going to get paid well by someone.

 

[conner01]

You realize that Peterson had more yards and more TDs than Murray last year, on a *much* worse offense where the entire game plan was just to stop him.. right?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PeteAd01.htm

he wont this year

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Who knows?

Maybe he'll gain 1,500 yards, average 5.0 ypc, get 50+ receptions, score 15 TD's and lead the Cowboys to the playoffs.

In that case the guy will get big bucks. And result could be the franchise tag if they can not get an agreement done.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Who knows?

Maybe he'll gain 1,500 yards, average 5.0 ypc, get 50+ receptions, score 15 TD's and lead the Cowboys to the playoffs.

In that case the guy will get big bucks. And result could be the franchise tag if they can not get an agreement done.

Maybe. My own view is that the organization should be more or less indifferent to how well he performs this season. I don't franchise him or even pay him top 10 RB money if he throws up 2,107 rushing yards and 30 TDs. There might be a drop-off in replacing the guy, but it would likely a relatively small one that would be more than justified by the dollars saved.

In a capped environment every decision to spend one place comes at the expense of spending elsewhere. The evidence is that the supply of good RBs exceeds the demand and that you don't need one of the better ones to win. In the circumstances, the RB position seems an obvious place to scrimp a bit. Teams that don't risk leaving themselves at a competitive disadvantage by having less cap space to fill positions that are harder to fill (and arguably more essential to team success).

 

[Chuck 54]

Are you insane!

I like Murray, but no way in hell I'm paying him that kind of money. A good back, not a home run hitter who can score at any moment from anywhere on the field. Sign him for moderate starter movie....or let him walk.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Maybe. My own view is that the organization should be more or less indifferent to how well he performs this season. I don't franchise him or even pay him top 10 RB money if he throws up 2,107 rushing yards and 30 TDs. There might be a drop-off in replacing the guy, but it would likely a relatively small one that would be more than justified by the dollars saved.

In a capped environment every decision to spend one place comes at the expense of spending elsewhere. The evidence is that the supply of good RBs exceeds the demand and that you don't need one of the better ones to win. In the circumstances, the RB position seems an obvious place to scrimp a bit. Teams that don't risk leaving themselves at a competitive disadvantage by having less cap space to fill positions that are harder to fill (and arguably more essential to team success).

Oh I agree with you.

I'm not big on spending huge bucks on Murray.

I think Murray has talent, but I think you could stick an average back in this offense and they've going to perform a little better than average.

Do you spend $8M per year on a guy getting 1,500 yards with a 5.0 ypc average and getting 15 TD's?

OR

Do you spend $3M per year on an guy getting say 1,200 yards with a 4.5 ypc average and getting 12 TD's?

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Do you spend $8M per year on a guy getting 1,500 yards with a 5.0 ypc average and getting 15 TD's?

OR

Do you spend $3M per year on an guy getting say 1,200 yards with a 4.5 ypc average and getting 12 TD's?

Exactly.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Exactly.

With 3 1st round draft picks on the OL, a talented receiving corp, some talent at QB and WR, you would expect that an average back could be brought in for a reasonable price who would provide better than average numbers just because of the talent around him.