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

[Diehardblues]

Well maybe you should pay attention to comments on stories of baseball players getting paid. Because it's some of the same piker gripes shared here and there's no cap to look at over there. I don't think baseball fans are vastly different than football fans, are they? Why do you think attitudes like that prevail even over there? Because they're the same society-wide, that's why. You got people in here telling players what they "should" be content with for retirement. Really? It's none of anyone's damn business what players want more money for.

Again, it's the team's responsibility to manage the cap. If the product is too expensive for you to pay other players, then don't contract for the product. How is it fans get on the players when the team pays them knowing full well there's a cap to pay other players? Logically, where should the ire be directed in such a situation and where does it actually go overwhelmingly? You don't think someone should attempt to explain that curious behavior? Or are you the type to pretend controversial things don't happen and divert blame where personally convenient?

True but the fact we aren’t able to retain some players is due to them pursuing or holding out for more. Not in all cases. Some is mismanagement by the team and it can also be purely the reality of the Cap.

I would contend though with contracts and Cap all being so publicly available it’s within reason fans would hold some players in contempt. But I agree with your overall thought.

 

[ItzKelz]

Marco was a better back than Zeke but for some reason we didnt want to pay him but over paid for Zeke. SMH

 

[tyke1doe]

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?

 

[Diehardblues]

So players get accused of being greedy, non-team players and then you want to advocate a system that makes them prioritize personal achievements rather than the team's? Managing the cap is the team's responsibility, not the player's. If you think Dak would take up too much cap, don't pay it. It's not rocket science. How is it the players' fault for wanting to get as much as other teams have given? No one holds a gun to the front office folks' heads and say, "pay market rate." If that's too expensive when you shop, you put it back on the shelf, right?

There’s probably some exceptions to this rule. But generally , yes, I’d agree.

 

[MarcusRock]

True but the fact we aren’t able to retain some players is due to them pursuing or holding out for more. Not in all cases. Some is mismanagement by the team and it can also be purely the reality of the Cap.

I would contend though with contracts and Cap all being so publicly available it’s within reason fans would hold some players in contempt. But I agree with your overall thought.

When players ask for more or hold out, the team has a decision to make. Give in or declare it too rich a path to go down. You'd think that with this climate, they'd try to have fallback plans at different positions. Harder to do with QB since they're premium players. Still, the team holds the purse strings. It's just hilarious to me to watch fans hope-posting here during negotiations talking about how the team has all the leverage because they don't have to pay and then turn on the player when the team does pay.

If contracts and caps are publicly available for fans to see and it makes them upset when players get paid, what logical conclusion can we draw from that given the team decided to pay them? This isn't hard. Admitting it is, when the cap is used as a convenient cover.

 

[tyke1doe]

So players get accused of being greedy, non-team players and then you want to advocate a system that makes them prioritize personal achievements rather than the team's? Managing the cap is the team's responsibility, not the player's. If you think Dak would take up too much cap, don't pay it. It's not rocket science. How is it the players' fault for wanting to get as much as other teams have given? No one holds a gun to the front office folks' heads and say, "pay market rate." If that's too expensive when you shop, you put it back on the shelf, right?

Seems like many want to accuse the players of greed and not the owners. That's the problem I have with this argument. Some want to exempt owners from greed because, well, they own the team but want to apply it to the players only. If greed is bad, it's bad for everyone.

And that's why standards are falling. It's not just the rank-and-file rebelling. It's that the rank-and-file is tired of people excusing the greed and abuse of owners and want their fair share just like owners want theirs.

This type of attitude can be seen throughout society.

You do the same crime I do, but you get off and I go to jail for 30 years.

You have to accept a decrease in your pay for the good of the company, yet the boss gets $40 million for cutting staff by 10 percent.

You get a severance package that sustains you but a few months, despite your loyal service over the years, but the CEO who wrecks the company gets a $100 million golden parachute.

People are tired of it.

 

[Redball Express]

Not everybody! I'm still a huge Zeke guy. He's in great shape the OL is ready to open gaps again.

I am a Zeke fan for sure. Just wish he controls his doggies better.

 

[Diehardblues]

When players ask for more or hold out, the team has a decision to make. Give in or declare it too rich a path to go down. You'd think that with this climate, they'd try to have fallback plans at different positions. Harder to do with QB since they're premium players. Still, the team holds the purse strings. It's just hilarious to me to watch fans hope-posting here during negotiations talking about how the team has all the leverage because they don't have to pay and then turn on the player when the team does pay.

If contracts and caps are publicly available for fans to see and it makes them upset when players get paid, what logical conclusion can we draw from that given the team decided to pay them? This isn't hard. Admitting it is, when the cap is used as a convenient cover.

Emotions and attachments are part of the package. While we realize ultimately it’s a business. We have seen some players more flexible in their negotiations and demands.

And we want what’s best for the team. So it’s only natural to want to retain as many as possible.

 

[tyke1doe]

I love what Deion Sanders said at his Hall of Fame ceremony (I think it was his ceremony), and I paraphrase: "I love this game. I'd play it for free, if you played it for free."

That was a funny yet profound statement about the NFL and greed on both sides.

 

[MarcusRock]

Emotions and attachments are part of the package. While we realize ultimately it’s a business. We have seen some players more flexible in their negotiations and demands.

And we want what’s best for the team. So it’s only natural to want to retain as many as possible.

Oh it's emotional, alright. No doubt about it.

And we can retain most of our players every time out. Just don't pay the high dollar ones and you can keep the vast majority if not all of the others. I wonder how fans would like those results on the field. This is why you don't listen to fans whether you're management or a player.

 

[cowboyblue22]

he got paid and was already done when he went to the eagles

 

[Aviano90]

What happened to Murray?

He played in a pass happy offense his first 3 years, was the best RB in the league in 2014 and it was time to get paid. Dallas low balled him despite his willingness to give a home team discount.

Oakland and Philly offered much more and he was recruited by his former college roommate to go join him in Philly. It was a bad scheme fit and Murray was traded to Tennessee and performed well playing behind a terrible QB while mentoring the current best RB in the league.

He retired with his long term health.

Meanwhile, Dallas had the #4 rusher in the league and were a top 10 rushing team despite having a low number of total carries and a terrible passing offense in 2015. Then we used a premium draft pick on a RB and overpaid on a contract extension.

 

[john van brocklin]

He played a very physical style of football.

Loved it when he ran over people
But that style does not lend itself to long careers.
Just ask MB3

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Right, and if those players think they cant get their worth on that team, there are 31 others. Guarantee there are a few who aren't in cap hell and they can carve out their value there. There are cap casualties all over. So your argument about other players being squeezed out by higher paid ones doesn't hold water if you're saying they can't get theirs. You're right, this isn't complicated.

Let me try it this way. You have 4 kids and $100 for Christmas presents. You give one kid $40 and the other 3 kids are left with splitting $60 (say $20 each). To give one kid more you have to give some other kid less. You are only allowed to give $100 and you have to split it among the 4 kids. That is the NFL salary cap.

Your kids are free to go to another family the following year but will still be under the same rules.

Boils down to this: to give more to one, you must give less to another. That is the NFL salary cap. It is not a battle about Dak or any other player battling Jerry for Jerry's money. Jerry is paying the money no matter what. The proportion of the cap to each player is ultimately what the negotiations are about.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Let me try it this way. You have 4 kids and $100 for Christmas presents. You give one kid $40 and the other 3 kids are left with splitting $60 (say $20 each). To give one kid more you have to give some other kid less. You are only allowed to give $100 and you have to split it among the 4 kids. That is the NFL salary cap.

Your kids are free to go to another family the following year but will still be under the same rules.

Boils down to this: to give more to one, you must give less to another. That is the NFL salary cap. It is not a battle about Dak or any other player battling Jerry for Jerry's money. Jerry is paying the money no matter what. The proportion of the cap to each player is ultimately what the negotiations are about.

Wouldn't it be more like you have $100 to pay your 4 kids allowence for the work they do.....somewhere over the years the kids banned together and make a kids association, so you ban together with other parents and come up with a way to keep the allowances in check because its getting out of control (you still have to pay the allowence its just a set amount each year of the CBA) the parents pitch a no compete clause and want everyone paid the same because some kids start going to other family's to get paid more. In response the kids association gets mad and says "Hell no" we want a competitive market so you need to put in a FA system to allow for it. The parents then say fine if you agree to an allowence cap agreed upan during the CBA we will make a FA market so kids can test their worth with other parents. The kids association says great but you have to pay newer kids less money from the start until they have paid in more money to our Association....Parents say No problem. In reallity the kids association created the imbalance because if they didn't, pay would move at the pace the parents want it to and that would be bad for the kids.

 

[Established1971]

Can't blame anyone wanting and getting more money. I don't get the crybabies that keep griping about Zeke, Dak and others....if you wouldn't do the same, I wouldn't want to be associated with you. Any man or woman wants to maximize their earnings.
And, spare me the Tom Brady crap......he's a multi millionaire!

wow youre a pleasant person

 

[MaineBoy]

Weren’t they on their way to a Super Bowl in the Green Bay game when Murray fumbled after Peppers hit his arm ? He had a hole in front of him you could drive a Mack truck through I remember. I think it was in FG range too or close to it. maybe it was Murray who threw the SB chance out the window by fumbling and losing points when they were driving in such a close game.

I watched this and some good HL, but the commentary is kinda lame and timid.
I always liked murray and he was great in 2014, and they should have signed him .
He wasnt burnt out , we had the OL, but when they let murray go, that led to changing the Off , and Tony getting
the broke collarbone.

Had they kept murray it would have been a continuation of 2014 and they might have made it to the SB.
If they had won a SB it would have been worth paying murray.
I am positive that if they had signed murray tony doesnt get hurt.

Murray broke OJ's record,and jim browns record, for 100 yd games in a row, and emmit's single season total yds record.
Also he still holds the single game record for the cowboys.

Mr. party boy has not come close to any of these records, but jones pays him 15 mil a year while in a pass first offense!
They could have had murray for 8 mil a year. But they got cheap and also as they say in this video chose dez over
murray lol and look how that turned out! Dez gets hurt in game one and was never the same. later tony gets hurt
trying to pass instead of handing off to murray.

when they let murray go they threw a SB chance out the window.

 

[Diehardblues]

Oh it's emotional, alright. No doubt about it.

And we can retain most of our players every time out. Just don't pay the high dollar ones and you can keep the vast majority if not all of the others. I wonder how fans would like those results on the field. This is why you don't listen to fans whether you're management or a player.

In most cases the resentment from fans is towards the players not the Mgmt. As they feel the player is unreasonable in their demands or inflexibility.

 

[Ranching]

wow youre a pleasant person

Actually, I'm pretty cool.

 

[terra]

Marco was a better back than Zeke but for some reason we didnt want to pay him but over paid for Zeke. SMH

He had one year where he was as good as Zeke was for several years. So to be blunt your opinion is worthless.