Video: Murray led the NFL in yards, then retired after only 3 more seasons. What happened?

[kskboys]

It is the same principal as to the wide range of difference in pay. 20% vs. 1% of the available resources.

CEO 20% office worker 1%
QB 20% ST's player 1%

all needs to fit within a budget.

That's more like comparing GM's/coaches to players.

 

[kskboys]

If it aint broken , dont fix it ! lol
They had a good thing going with murray and the run alot offense, which took pressure off tony, and he didnt have to pass as much.
They knew what they had in murray, and he had a rep after that year, which would make every team think stopping him
was the key, which opens up play action passing.
Defense's were not afraid of the 2 rb's they replaced murray with, and the dallas run game was not as good as it was in 14.

I watched the seattle game in seattle, from 14, and on the drive that took the lead in 4th, it was all murray, just handing off to him with I think a 14 yd td run to cap it off. And that was on the legion of boom! They couldnt stop him.

I really think , had they kept murray they would have contended for SB that year.

All that said, I think jones boys felt it was the OL and any rb would do, and that murray had too many carries that year.
and also aikman had made a big deal out of the strip on murray in GB playoff game, so that might have had an effect on
jones boys, also murray had the 5-6 fumbles during season that people made a big deal out of.
I think elliot had 6 fumbles in 19 , and no one made a big deal out of those.

Thing is that year and previous off season DM had started working out with jason witten, and drinking all the water,
and that helped him with injuries and wear and tear.

With murray the OL, romo, and crazy dez they had a good thing going, they were hard to stop, and really murray
was more important to that offense than dez was.

This "any RB will do" idea is a fan thing. Scary how many have actually bought into it.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Thank you that rudimentary explanation. I, for one, couldn't possibly have figured that out.

I've got news for you. Every business has a cap - it's called a budget. I know because I prepared the annual budget of a 200 employee company for 25 years. Every dollar that goes to one person is a dollar less for everyone else. I'll tell you something that never happened. I'll go so far as to guess you've never done this, either:

"Jake, I'll take 20% less so Schmidlap can have more money. He and I work so well together. I'd hate to see him leave."

And yet, some fans expect athletes - with short careers that could end at any moment - to do that. That's just letting your fanboy emotions get in front of your adult brain, as no adult (including yourself) would do such a thing with their own compensation.

The explanation was rudimentary because it was meant to be. To make things easily understandable, one simplifies. Maybe that went over your head. I do engineering work and do some budget work. I assure you that all engineers are excellent at math and understand budgets to whatever degree they need.

The NFL cap is a budget in the basic sense and is not rocket science. For the most part, 53(or 51 or more if one has to add the PS) players have to share up to $182M. More money in one player's pocket is less money in other players' pockets. It is that simple. No need to complicate it.

By the way, I have never gone to my company and said, "Jake, take 20% of Schmidlan's salary and add it to mine because I am more valuable and deserving and do more than him."

 

[blueblood70]

This "any RB will do" idea is a fan thing. Scary how many have actually bought into it.

yup like WR by committee..its not true any great rb at cheaper price or on rookie deal would do but not just any RB..so stupid, if that were the case why has 4 rbs since zeke got big money on matching zeke the other exceeding zeke and Chubb to come?? because they are still important ..

 

[DandyDon52]

Not when your career can end on a moments notice

for most people 1 check for 10 mil could last a lifetime, and if they have any brains at all they can get good job
after football.
And most of them could coach in nfl, college, HS.

All it might mean is no $300,000 cars, limit yourself to a big house, instead of a palatial mansion / estate, and no yacht's !
Have to settle for a motor boat lol.

 

[Section446]

He's what Zeke wishes he was.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

That's more like comparing GM's/coaches to players.

Exactly.

 

[Ranching]

for most people 1 check for 10 mil could last a lifetime, and if they have any brains at all they can get good job
after football.
And most of them could coach in nfl, college, HS.

All it might mean is no $300,000 cars, limit yourself to a big house, instead of a palatial mansion / estate, and no yacht's !
Have to settle for a motor boat lol.

It's all relative....and in these kid's cases I mean it literally. They pay half to taxes and agents and then have to support many relatives....

 

[kskboys]

Not when your career can end on a moments notice

If you have a high guarantee(as most do), then it definitely is.

I guess I'll never really understand living your life based solely on greed.

 

[MarcusRock]

You are missing the point about money and salaries in the NFL. Jerry even said it. Signing Dak and Elliott and Lawrence to huge contracts is not coming out of Jerry’s pocket. It is not a battle of Jerry’s money vs Dak’s money. It is about a set pool of money to be divided among the players. Paying Dak an extra $10M is taking money away from other players on the team.

Then don't pay it if you don't think it's worth it. How is that the player's fault and not the team management's? They're the ones that pay it out, don't they? The only logical conclusion I can come up with is fans who remember players' salaries being comparable to theirs have now seen those salaries skyrocket and dwarf theirs and now they're butthurt. This is where the "moral failure of greed" narratives get formed out of bitterness because pikers need something to have over them. Cant look down on a "dumb athlete" these days, can you?

One has to spread the money around wisely to build a balanced team capable of competing for a championship.

Take Romo and Aikman for example. They could have taken less money to add more and better players to increase chances of winning a championship. Both had likely careers after football to make even more money. Romo is making $18M/yr announcing games. Aikman probably made more money from announcing than as a player. Win championships and more doors and opportunities open.

You cite championships opening more opportunities after football by mentioning Romo in the process. I'll chalk that up to a brain fart because otherwise ... Lol.

 

[kskboys]

It's all relative....and in these kid's cases I mean it literally. They pay half to taxes and agents and then have to support many relatives....

Agents get like 3-6%.

Spending all your money on relative is your own personal choice, and is not a reason players should get more.

Paying players is all about building a team that can compete for a super bowl. Any player who plays 4-5 years can retire on that money, unless he's dumb enough to spend it all.

 

[Ranching]

If you have a high guarantee(as most do), then it definitely is.

I guess I'll never really understand living your life based solely on greed.

Good for you....I was poor as a kid, great life but I wanted more for my family. I left a job that I loved for a 40% pay increase and spent every penny of that for the next 8 years on real estate and annuities. That afforded me the opportunity to take a 35% paycut to coach 3 miles from my house. I put the well being, stability and future of my family first. Call it greed if you want....I call it being a provider.

 

[Bigdog]

Went to the Eagles. That is what happened.

 

[Ranching]

Agents get like 3-6%.

Spending all your money on relative is your own personal choice, and is not a reason players should get more.

Paying players is all about building a team that can compete for a super bowl. Any player who plays 4-5 years can retire on that money, unless he's dumb enough to spend it all.

We obviously disagree, I see it from a players perspective and you see it from a fan's. Salud!

 

[Corso]

The explanation was rudimentary because it was meant to be. To make things easily understandable, one simplifies. Maybe that went over your head. I do engineering work and do some budget work. I assure you that all engineers are excellent at math and understand budgets to whatever degree they need.

The NFL cap is a budget in the basic sense and is not rocket science. For the most part, 53(or 51 or more if one has to add the PS) players have to share up to $182M. More money in one player's pocket is less money in other players' pockets. It is that simple. No need to complicate it.

By the way, I have never gone to my company and said, "Jake, take 20% of Schmidlan's salary and add it to mine because I am more valuable and deserving and do more than him."

Schmidlan's a good guy.

 

[MarcusRock]

You don't seem to understand how the cap and money works.

Put simply. Say a company can pay its 5 employees no more than100 per year total for all 5. One employee demands 40 dollars. That leaves 60 dollars for the other 4 (15 dollars each). Now the one employee says I want 60 dollars. That means the other 4 employees have to share 40 dollars.

Every dollar that goes to Dak does not go to any other player. It is that simple. The money is not a battle between Jerry and the player.

Would you be happy going to work when one employee gets 20% of the total allowable payroll and does not perform while you get 1% of the total allowable payroll?

In this workplace, there are 31 other entities to go knocking on doors if you're that scary talented as a player. Not sure YOU understand the business model of the NFL here. Talent costs. Don't think it's worth it, don't pay it.

 

[MarcusRock]

We obviously disagree, I see it from a players perspective and you see it from a fan's. Salud!

And fans always want to see a player get less. Especially if they're old enough to remember when players were regular joes financially just like them. Those days are over and thus all the lamenting and finger-pointing about "greed." Defense mechanisms. Freud would be proud.

 

[gimmesix]

The Jones boys had a limit they were going to give him. He wanted more, so he was allowed to go get it elsewhere. How is that such a mystery? The Jones boys should have conducted the negotiations with Zeke the same way. Good RBs can be had so much cheaper.

Different situations. Elliott has been a healthy bell-cow back each of his seasons here. Other than his suspension, which the team didn't agree with, he doesn't miss games and he's been productive.

Murray missed games in every year but his last one with the team. Until that season, he'd never carried the ball more than 217 times. Elliott did not have fewer than 242 carries in his first four seasons, and three of them were over 300.

Dallas did not know how much it could rely on Murray healthwise, so the team made him what it felt was a reasonable offer. Elliott was a lot more proven. Last year was a down year for him (relatively) for a lot of reasons, but the front office had no reason to believe it couldn't rely on him for three or four more years to play at a high level when it re-signed him.

 

[DandyDon52]

Thank you that rudimentary explanation. I, for one, couldn't possibly have figured that out.

I've got news for you. Every business has a cap - it's called a budget. I know because I prepared the annual budget of a 200 employee company for 25 years. Every dollar that goes to one person is a dollar less for everyone else. I'll tell you something that never happened. I'll go so far as to guess you've never done this, either:

"Jake, I'll take 20% less so Schmidlap can have more money. He and I work so well together. I'd hate to see him leave."

And yet, some fans expect athletes - with short careers that could end at any moment - to do that. That's just letting your fanboy emotions get in front of your adult brain, as no adult (including yourself) would do such a thing with their own compensation.



Yeah, because that's exactly what was said.

I'll also refer you to the above example, because I'll go out on another limb and suggest you wouldn't do it, either. So does that mean money is more important to you than family, life, friends, and success? Or does that rule only apply to "greedy" athletes?

ok in most occupations what you say is true.
But playing in nfl is different.
If you win a SB and even better more than one, your career pay after football is much higher.
Guys with SB wins are going to get jobs easier and be paid more. Romo is the exception to that. Romo even though
no rings, he was famous as the dallas qb for many years. people liked him.
But playing for less in an effort to get a ring is actually the smart thing to do.

Most of the top paid ex player announcers etc and coaches , they all have SB rings.
If Jimmy and Bradshaw never won those SB's, they would not be on that fox show.
Shannon Sharp would not be on that show he does, get a ring , and you have a lifetime job at good pay.

So while it is a gamble it could pay off big time. But I will say again, that if a player takes less money, he should decide how it is spent, or at least have a big say in it.
This is what watson should have done, if he wanted a say in things, take 25 mil and then he gets a say in how it is spent
and who the next HC is.
But he wanted the big pay and alot of say lol

 

[Bigdog]

Well done.

Contrary to popular belief on this site, greed is not good.

Some how the scene from movie Wall St where Michael Douglas says greed is good, comes to my mind.