Randle's potential

[cowboys2233]

Randle had some decent runs in the Eagles game. I'm certainly not proclaiming him the next Emmitt Smith, but he showed some promise. Do you think there's any chance he becomes the next guy or are we looking for running backs in the offseason?

Love Murray, but I think it's clear at this point that he's not the guy.

It is? Murray has shown a lot more from a talent perspective than Randle ever will. I have no idea how some of you can watch these two run and draw the conclusion that Randle is the better long term solution for this team. But hey, Randle has played in all of two games, he's durable!

 

[Jenky]

My gosh our fans devalue DeMarco Murray so much. Blows me away.

Didn't mean to devalue him by comparing him to Moreno, but I value RBs who can catch big time, hence the comparison. Especially in an offense that spreads the field. I like Murray a lot. He just can't stay healthy.

 

[cowboys2233]

Never really watched Randle in college, so I can't say if he was being timid with his runs or if he doesn't have the burst.

I agree with this. When players get into the league, you can tell pretty quickly if they've got the athletic ability to hang in this league. You just had to see Skyler Green return one punt to realize he had no business in the NFL. And Randle does look slow hitting the hole, very slow. He doesn't look NFL caliber to me.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

It is? Murray has shown a lot more from a talent perspective than Randle ever will. I have no idea how some of you can watch these two run and draw the conclusion that Randle is the better long term solution for this team. But hey, Randle has played in all of two games, he's durable!

What part of "he showed some promise" do you not understand? That statement does not conclude Randle's better than Murray or even that he'll work out for us at all. We're talking about a running back who showed us some good things in the brief period of time he's played. It's not a dis on Murray, but we've had a big problem keeping him healthy. Murray has proven he's got some talent, but what good does that do us if he misses large amounts of the season? It only make sense for the team to look at other options. Right now that's the running back we drafted. We might draft another one or sign a free agent in the offseason. Unless Murray can get healthy quick and start most of the games this season, he's not looking like our workhorse. I love the way the guy plays and I don't blame him for getting hurt. That's not his fault, but the team needs production. We really have never filled the hole left by Emmitt Smith. We've had a number of guys show flashes and do some good things for a while -- Julius Jones, Marion Barber, and now Murray -- but we haven't found a way to have a consistent running threat.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I think Murray is still far and away the better back.

First and foremost we don't have to put a different guy in on third down, obvious passing situations, with Murray because he can actually pass block and pick up blitzes.

 

[cowboys2233]

What part of "he showed some promise" do you not understand?

You made two statements. First, you said Randle showed some promise. I disagree. He has shown nothing. Secondly, you claimed that it was clear Murray was not the guy. I disagree. I think Murray is a Pro Bowl level talent that should not be so casually dismissed. What about my stance did you not understand?

 

[AbeBeta]

I think Murray is still far and away the better back.

First and foremost we don't have to put a different guy in on third down, obvious passing situations, with Murray because he can actually pass block and pick up blitzes.

There is no doubt that Murray is a better back. But we seem cursed to have every RB follow in the path of Julius Jones/Felix Jones. Honestly, I think we need to draft one every year.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Randle was pretty solid vs Philly. Hopefully he will learn and be someone we can rely on going forward. Is he as good as Murray? Probably not. But if we can count on him he is more valuable to us than Murray.

 

[cowboys2233]

Randle was pretty solid vs Philly. Hopefully he will learn and be someone we can rely on going forward. Is he as good as Murray? Probably not. But if we can count on him he is more valuable to us than Murray.

There is so much wrong with this stance, it's not even funny...

Some of you folks seem to believe that Randle has proven his durability and that we can "count on him." Since when? The guy has played in all of two games! And sparingly, at that. This is your reason for being perfectly willing to trade Murray?

If the guy sucks, what difference does it make if we can count on him? If he is not NFL material, he is worth nothing, he has zero value. You would rather have a RB who can stay healthy for 16 games and give you 30 or 40 yards a game? Or a guy who has had injury issues but was a top-three RB in the league before his most recent injury? Thanks, I'll take Murray's very real, very apparent talent over a guy's unsubstantiated durability any day. I swear, it's almost like some of you are saying that because Murray has been injury prone, it somehow means the next guy in line won't be. What kind of logic is that?

 

[Vinnie2u]

Since I been in the zone I've seen Hambrick trashed by the Fans in favor of J. Jones.. Then J. Jones Trashed by the fans in favor M. Barber.. Then M. Barber Trashed by the fans in favor F. Jones... Then Felix Jones Trashed by the fans in favor D. Murray... Now D. Murray Trashed by the fans in favor of J. Randle..

 

[Blue Eyed Devil]

I saw more out of Tashard Choice than the guy who is under 3 yards per carry this season. Not sure why you guys liked his 2-yard carries to set up 2nd and 8 so much.

 

[Screw The Hall]

If it were me I'd draft a RB late every year and never give one a second contract unless I stumble upon the second coming of Adrian Peterson. Keep them young and cheap.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

You made two statements. First, you said Randle showed some promise. I disagree. He has shown nothing. Secondly, you claimed that it was clear Murray was not the guy. I disagree. I think Murray is a Pro Bowl level talent that should not be so casually dismissed. What about my stance did you not understand?

You claimed I said Randle was the long-term solution. I did not say that. And I would like Murray to overcome his constant injuries. If that could happen, I can see him being the long-term guy. I just don't think it will. I think he's a good guy with a lot of ability, but injuries are tripping up his career.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

Since I been in the zone I've seen Hambrick trashed by the Fans in favor of J. Jones.. Then J. Jones Trashed by the fans in favor M. Barber.. Then M. Barber Trashed by the fans in favor F. Jones... Then Felix Jones Trashed by the fans in favor D. Murray... Now D. Murray Trashed by the fans in favor of J. Randle..

Yep, exactly. And it's obvious to me that without a doubt, Murray is the best of the bunch. He's the best all around back we've had since Emmitt.

 

[jobberone]

[quote="cowboys2233, post: 5251848, member: 1591understandere is so much wrong with this stance, it's not even funny...

Some of you folks seem to believe that Randle has proven his durability and that we can "count on him." Since when? The guy has played in all of two games! And sparingly, at that. This is your reason for being perfectly willing to trade Murray?

If the guy sucks, what difference does it make if we can count on him? If he is not NFL material, he is worth nothing, he has zero value. You would rather have a RB who can stay healthy for 16 games and give you 30 or 40 yards a game? Or a guy who has had injury issues but was a top-three RB in the league before his most recent injury? Thanks, I'll take Murray's very real, very apparent talent over a guy's unsubstantiated durability any day. I swear, it's almost like some of you are saying that because Murray has been injury prone, it somehow means the next guy in line won't be. What kind of logic is that?[/quote]

What part of IF we can count on him did you not understand?

 

[honyock]

There is so much wrong with this stance, it's not even funny...

Some of you folks seem to believe that Randle has proven his durability and that we can "count on him." Since when? The guy has played in all of two games! And sparingly, at that. This is your reason for being perfectly willing to trade Murray?

If the guy sucks, what difference does it make if we can count on him? If he is not NFL material, he is worth nothing, he has zero value. You would rather have a RB who can stay healthy for 16 games and give you 30 or 40 yards a game? Or a guy who has had injury issues but was a top-three RB in the league before his most recent injury? Thanks, I'll take Murray's very real, very apparent talent over a guy's unsubstantiated durability any day. I swear, it's almost like some of you are saying that because Murray has been injury prone, it somehow means the next guy in line won't be. What kind of logic is that?

You saw something in bigdogcowboys post that I didn't see. I haven't seen anyone say that Randle has proven his durability. I've seen people say that Murray has shown a problem since he's been here with HIS durability, and that is a valid concern. From the little we've seen of Randle, I'd agree that Murray is the better back, when he's on the field. His issue is staying on the field. Maybe he turns that around, maybe he doesn't.

I also thought Randle had a solid game on Sunday. I thought he made good decisions, kept the ball moving forward, made some contributions as a receiver, and yes, he had no problems in pass protection in the limited number of snaps he was asked to do so. He looked a little slow to hit the hole at times, and so early on, I don't know if it was first-start tentativeness or just a limitation of his. It made me want to see some more from him. It was an all-around solid game from him, especially for a late round rookie in his first start on the road in a hostile environment. If you disagree, and you're already rock-solid dead certain after two games that he has nothing, so be it. But it sounds like you're reading things into posts that don't seem to be there.

 

[cowboys2233]

What part of IF we can count on him did you not understand?

What I've understood is that the "Trade Murray!" crowd seems to be growing and I'm just not sure what they're seeing. Picture this, we've won the division and we're facing the Seattle Seahawks or San Fran 49ers in the first round of the playoffs. Who do you want to see standing in the backfield behind Romo facing either of those stout defenses? If it is Randle back there, I think we're doomed because we will have virtually no threat of a running game. With Murray? Game on. So yes, I'm willing to hold onto Murray, knowing that there is a chance he won't be available, because he offers us hope if and when we reach the playoffs. Without hope, there is nothing. And with Randle, there is no hope. JMHO.

 

[cowboys2233]

You saw something in bigdogcowboys post that I didn't see. I haven't seen anyone say that Randle has proven his durability. I've seen people say that Murray has shown a problem since he's been here with HIS durability, and that is a valid concern. From the little we've seen of Randle, I'd agree that Murray is the better back, when he's on the field. His issue is staying on the field. Maybe he turns that around, maybe he doesn't.

Well, first off, I've always had an issue with this notion of "durability issues," especially with regard to the types of injuries Murray has suffered. Broken ankle, sprained MCL. These are just freak things that happen, they are not chronic, recurring issues (like Austin's stupid hamhocks). Again, what would you rather have, the hope of having a very good back when the games really count (i.e. playoffs) or the assurance of having a mediocre one?

 

[kruddy]

Randle sets up his blocks, is patient and did not fumble, he had some good runs on first downs early in the game, he seems to have good vision. I thought he did well for his first start and was solid for a rookie.

 

[cowboys2233]

Randle sets up his blocks, is patient and did not fumble, he had some good runs on first downs early in the game, he seems to have good vision. I thought he did well for his first start and was solid for a rookie.

And that's probably the real issue. Some of you believe you saw real potential in Randle. I did not. While I agree that he seemed to have good vision and saw the running lanes, it took him so freakin' long to GET to those lanes, that they were not nearly as open as they would have been if he had more burst. That's what I see in Murray, a guy who seems to be moving a little bit faster than most of the players on the field, someone who takes full advantage when the lanes do open up. And he is a real physical presence on the field, he can make defenders pay.