Murray = Julius?

[Ender]

the same thing was said of Julius Jones after his eight games in his first year, lots of fans were annointing him as the next best thing, and in the end, how did that turn out....it is a good comparison at this point of both of their careers

No its not. Its a dumb comparison. So if murry ends up rushing for the cowboys rookie record and have similar numbers as Tony Dorsett, its safe to say Murry will be a HOFer right? This is your logic right?

 

[Future]

No its not. Its a dumb comparison. So if murry ends up rushing for the cowboys rookie record and have similar numbers as Tony Dorsett, its safe to say Murry will be a HOFer right? This is your logic right?

Nobody is saying that Murray's career is going to parallel Julius'...not by a long shot. You're looking too much into it at this point.

 

[iceberg]

Nobody is saying that Murray's career is going to parallel Julius'...not by a long shot. You're looking too much into it at this point.

so a thread that starts off "murray = julius" isn't geared to saying "just that"?

those saying that are bored and looking for idiotic conversations.

 

[Doomsday101]

so a thread that starts off "murray = julius" isn't geared to saying "just that"?

those saying that are bored and looking for idiotic conversations.

You got it.

 

[Concord]

Did Richards gain as much yardage in his career as Murray did in a couple of games?

ATT YDS AVG TD

55 181 3.3 1

That is for his entire 3 Year Career

:laugh2:

 

[casmith07]

No question. Murray = Julius. While were at it:

Garrett = Campo

Romo = Danny White

Dez Bryant = Antonio Bryant.

Doug Free = Solomon Paige.

Have I missed anything? Let's get it all out of our systems.

Terence Newman = Jacques Reeves.

Bradie James = Darren Hambrick.

 

[Future]

so a thread that starts off "murray = julius" isn't geared to saying "just that"?

those saying that are bored and looking for idiotic conversations.

You conveniently ignored the ? in the thread title.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Nobody is saying that Murray's career is going to parallel Julius'...not by a long shot. You're looking too much into it at this point.

Surely, that's the conclusion that we're being invited to reach, however.


At any rate, I'd have more time for this discussion if, among other things, the timing were different. These boards have been largely characterized by doom and gloom since last night. In the circumstances, people may be very receptive to the insinuation that Murray is little more than a flash in the pan. I'd prefer that we wait until cooler heads have prevailed before entertaining that notion.

 

[iceberg]

You got it.

i'm on board with all who are frustrated at the jeckyl / hyde of this team. but to pick out 1 player and start defining their career - esp a rookie who started late and has done remarkably well - what is it?

i can only keep going back to "emotional insurance". if you're eyore and always depressed you never have to worry about getting TOO upset cause you've already braces yourself the rising star you saw was really just a train coming at you and this "dream" will fail like all the rest.

so you set your mind up for that and perhaps it hurts less if it should happen. but you also at that point start seeing things in that manner to support your own psychosis and fear of failing. so you set it to fail and the fear is done. dont' gotta worry about it now.

i want this team to win. we all do. (well 99% of us I believe) but to compare a rookie to a "linked failure" - why? why can't he just be "demarco murray" and let's see what HE does. but i sitll find it amazing that:

1) we've revamped our line.
2) we've got a rookie starting and a 2nd year center and do the best we can from there.
3) we've found a fullback who has shown to be a difference maker now out.
4) we've got a rookie running back who didn't get much if any work in an already abreviated pre-season.

but sure. let's say he's a loser now and avoid the rush.

i'd pay reality to add the VB hack that just pushed ignored people out of the thread completely.

 

[goshan]

Surely, that's the conclusion that we're being invited to reach, however.


At any rate, I'd have more time for this discussion if, among other things, the timing were different. These boards have been largely characterized by doom and gloom since last night. In the circumstances, people may be very receptive to the insinuation that Murray is little more than a flash in the pan. I'd prefer that we wait until cooler heads have prevailed before entertaining that notion.

My intent was to discuss how we felt about Murray at this point to determine if any were more concerned than before that he was still the long-term (or even mid term) answer. I did use a provocative title, but if you read the post I clearly said there were at least three positions you could take.

 

[Doomsday101]

i'm on board with all who are frustrated at the jeckyl / hyde of this team. but to pick out 1 player and start defining their career - esp a rookie who started late and has done remarkably well - what is it?

i can only keep going back to "emotional insurance". if you're eyore and always depressed you never have to worry about getting TOO upset cause you've already braces yourself the rising star you saw was really just a train coming at you and this "dream" will fail like all the rest.

so you set your mind up for that and perhaps it hurts less if it should happen. but you also at that point start seeing things in that manner to support your own psychosis and fear of failing. so you set it to fail and the fear is done. dont' gotta worry about it now.

i want this team to win. we all do. (well 99% of us I believe) but to compare a rookie to a "linked failure" - why? why can't he just be "demarco murray" and let's see what HE does. but i sitll find it amazing that:

1) we've revamped our line.
2) we've got a rookie starting and a 2nd year center and do the best we can from there.
3) we've found a fullback who has shown to be a difference maker now out.
4) we've got a rookie running back who didn't get much if any work in an already abreviated pre-season.

but sure. let's say he's a loser now and avoid the rush.

i'd pay reality to add the VB hack that just pushed ignored people out of the thread completely.

I agree and fully expected a day like today after yesterdays loss.

 

[iceberg]

You conveniently ignored the ? in the thread title.

you said no one is comparing murray to jones - not by a longshot.

the thread title says "murray = jones".

i don't care if there's a ? there or not, the comparison is there and stupid.

 

[iceberg]

I agree and fully expected a day like today after yesterdays loss.

yep. peeps gotta vent. i just wish some would at least pretend to think but then it wouldn't be venting i suppose.

 

[Ender]

Nobody is saying that Murray's career is goin

g to parallel Julius'...not by a long shot. You're looking too much into it at this point.

No your looking to much into it, by comparing the two in any form. Its idiotic regardless of the comparisons. Player A had simular numbers to player B through 7 games, therefore player A career = player B.career. Thats completely illogical.

 

[Stautner]

Surely, that's the conclusion that we're being invited to reach, however.


At any rate, I'd have more time for this discussion if, among other things, the timing were different. These boards have been largely characterized by doom and gloom since last night. In the circumstances, people may be very receptive to the insinuation that Murray is little more than a flash in the pan. I'd prefer that we wait until cooler heads have prevailed before entertaining that notion.

I don't see that we were invited to reach any particular conclusion. What I saw was that the OP presented a topic for discussion.

 

[goshan]

you said no one is comparing murray to jones - not by a longshot.

the thread title says "murray = jones".

i don't care if there's a ? there or not, the comparison is there and stupid.

If you think the comparison of the two Cowboy rookie RB careers is stupid you have a logic problem - meaning you can't apply logic and see potential patterns. Both RB, during their rookie seasons, had a burst of very good to great performances that made fans describe the RB as the best since Esmith. In JJones case, he fizilled out and never returned to form. In Murray's case, his stats have fallen off the past three games and it is unknown how we will turn out long-term. I made the post to see where people stood on the matter. If you are unable to logically discuss it because either (1) you see no pattern and can't handle this complex of analysis mentally or (2) you love Murray and are the type that can never question something you love this much, then fine. Hopefully others can think a little deeper.

 

[Seven]

Judas Priest.

My immediate thought as well. Uneffinbelieveable................

 

[JBond]

Fiametta!

Any updates on that guy? He was a difference maker.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I did use a provocative title, but if you read the post I clearly said there were at least three positions you could take.

That's true. Maybe my reaction was tainted by the pervasive sense of doom and gloom that hangs over this forum like the darkest of clouds today.

 

[Ender]

If you think the comparison of the two Cowboy rookie RB careers is stupid you have a logic problem - meaning you can't apply logic and see potential patterns. Both RB, during their rookie seasons, had a burst of very good to great performances that made fans describe the RB as the best since Esmith. In JJones case, he fizilled out and never returned to form. In Murray's case, his stats have fallen off the past three games and it is unknown how we will turn out long-term. I made the post to see where people stood on the matter. If you are unable to logically discuss it because either (1) you see no pattern and can't handle this complex ofanalysis mentally or (2) you love Murray and are the type that can never question something you love this much, then fine. Hopefully others can think a little deeper.

Um actually your wrong, you obviously dont understand logic. what you did in this thread is a Post Hoc Ergo logical fallacy.