The Murky Backfield

[Beast_from_East]

And yet they did not feel a need to draft a single one of them. Ever think there is a reason for that? Not one single trade from the most well known owner willing to make a deal.

No free agent RB's other than DMC signed.

They are more satisified with their current RB's than most on here want to admit.

And yet Murray was offered $6 million a season after the team looked at what was behind him.............I don't think the team would have offered Murray top 5 RB money if they thought the guys behind him were just as good..........that's not logical.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I think we are good to go. If not we will either trade or pick up a castoff or two. I think Joe Randle may be the answer with RunDMC the compliment back. Williams is still here for a reason as well. Dunbar may be the odd man out. This is a tired worn out subject of the offseason I know. Anyone still care to debate, add or even surprise to this?

I really tired of discussing this topic as well, but for all the folks saying that we will be just fine and it was mainly the offensive line opening up the holes for Murray.........just keep this in mind...................

With the exception of McFadden (who signed for $0 guaranteed money) all the current RBs were on the team last year and the decision was made to offer Murray $6 million a season (top 5 RB money in the league).

Why would the team do this? Why offer Murray top 5 RB money if the guys behind him on the depth chart could do just as good a job? The team wasn't offering top 5 money for the hell of it, they obviously viewed something about Murray that they thought was worth top 5 money, even if all the other RBs already on the roster.


And if Murray would have signed for $6 million a season, does anybody really think Murray would be splitting first team snaps with anybody?...................Hell no, Murray would still be the bellcow and you would hear no talk of RBBC.

 

[Idgit]

I really tired of discussing this topic as well, but for all the folks saying that we will be just fine and it was mainly the offensive line opening up the holes for Murray.........just keep this in mind...................

With the exception of McFadden (who signed for $0 guaranteed money) all the current RBs were on the team last year and the decision was made to offer Murray $6 million a season (top 5 RB money in the league).

Why would the team do this? Why offer Murray top 5 RB money if the guys behind him on the depth chart could do just as good a job? The team wasn't offering top 5 money for the hell of it, they obviously viewed something about Murray that they thought was worth top 5 money, even if all the other RBs already on the roster.


And if Murray would have signed for $6 million a season, does anybody really think Murray would be splitting first team snaps with anybody?...................Hell no, Murray would still be the bellcow and you would hear no talk of RBBC.

That's pretty obviously, undeniably, true. We lost a heck of a RB when Murray left. Whether he'd be the same back this coming year or not, we lost the guy we had. The only real question is how much did we end up backsliding at RB. It could be a lot, or it could be that it's not as much as we fear on paper. Personally, I think we take a fair step back. But I also think we had a lot of other options on the offense that we didn't use last season that are going to be available to us now that we're not handing it to Murray so much. That includes more looks for Beasley like we saw late in the season last season as well as things like more screens to the backs and more variety in the carries that we do hand off to the RBs. We'll find something effective that compensates for the loss of the impact RB eventually.

 

[AzorAhai]

I really tired of discussing this topic as well, but for all the folks saying that we will be just fine and it was mainly the offensive line opening up the holes for Murray.........just keep this in mind...................

With the exception of McFadden (who signed for $0 guaranteed money) all the current RBs were on the team last year and the decision was made to offer Murray $6 million a season (top 5 RB money in the league).

Why would the team do this? Why offer Murray top 5 RB money if the guys behind him on the depth chart could do just as good a job? The team wasn't offering top 5 money for the hell of it, they obviously viewed something about Murray that they thought was worth top 5 money, even if all the other RBs already on the roster.


And if Murray would have signed for $6 million a season, does anybody really think Murray would be splitting first team snaps with anybody?...................Hell no, Murray would still be the bellcow and you would hear no talk of RBBC.

McFadden has 200k in guaranteed money in his contract.

http://overthecap.com/player/darren-mcfadden/1261/

Murray at $6m/yr would place him at 8th highest paid as well. Also, the league average for a good, starting RB not on a rookie deal is around $4m/yr, which is what was initially offered. They valued him a lot closer to a league average RB as opposed to the elite tier, especially the top 5. Only time will tell who's right on this argument everyone is having, but fortunately that time shouldn't be an extended period.

http://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

As for the splitting carries thing, I find it funny you mention that since he's signed for $8m/yr and is going to be splitting carries in Philly. Any who, carry on.

 

[erod]

If this is the crew, Romo will throw a lot more than last year.

 

[Knotamus]

I've posted this several times already in the other umpteen threads about our state of runningbacks. Last year was an anomaly. The only reason Demarco did what he did...

1) The FO's commitment to the run game.. finally
2)Murray stayed healthy..finally! (Sounds awfully familiar)
3) The #1 rated OL. this is the big difference that Murray lovers overlook when trying to prove their points. (every RB wants truck size lanes to run through)
4) The #1 rated QB (and fifth alltime! so please don't convince yourself that's bc of Murray too)
5) The top three WR that draws consistent double teams, that allows LESS defenders in the box to stop the run
6) last and the least talked about by fans but not forgotten by coaches.. the whole offense including WR & TE's that greatly improved their overall blocking. (I distinctly remember Witten and Dez giving huge blocks to allow Murray to score)

I liked Murray and I'm not taking anything from his superb year, but folks around here seem to think it was all Murray.. thus taking away from what the rest of the team did to help Murray get there. Murrays production was a product of Garrett's vision of a team, improved blocking, and the overall commitment to run the ball. If the Dallas Cowboys do all these things again, McFadden, Randle, Williams & Dunbar WILL take advantage...Just like Murray did.

And let me add.. The real question fans should be asking themselves:

Is the offense still potent enough to score 25-30 points a game? With Romo, Dez, Beasley, Witten, TWill, Street, Escabor, McFadden, Randle, Williams, and who ever else gets added... I'd say YES!!

Is the defense improved enough to stop a one-legged Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs? Well, we'll see. I love what we're building on paper so far.

 

[Macnalty]

Everyone seems to have selective memory about Murray, he had that type of running acumen two years ago(Rams with costa at center) and we chose not to commit to running the ball. I cringed last year in the fourth quarter as we tried to squeeze that last bit of run out of him, to his credit he stayed mostly healthy and elusive which is exactly what this very average defense of the cowboys needed to pull out some games. He played all pro on both defense and offense and was king of the momentum builders. Not so sure I see those traits on these four we currently have in our stable. I see more home runs but less singles and doubles to use a baseball analogy and I think the defense still needs lots of singles and doubles to draw out the game.

 

[jazzcat22]

And yet Murray was offered $6 million a season after the team looked at what was behind him.............I don't think the team would have offered Murray top 5 RB money if they thought the guys behind him were just as good..........that's not logical.

They wanted to keep thing status quo if they could at their price. It has nothing to do with what they felt were behind them in Randle, Williams and Dunbar. $6 million was their value, not $8 million.
McFadden was an option at that time. Now it remains to be seen if he can replace Murray, or as what he was brought in for, to just help the offense in any capacity.

Then they had the draft as an option too, yet to come. But it didn't fall their way to get a RB, but also they felt the players they drafted as it fell to them, were a better option than just drafting a RB over who they currently have. If they drafted a RB we would have threads of why they didn't draft Gregory to fix the pass rush. Then what if that RB wasn't any better than who we already have.

So by offering him $6 million is not a sign of them not thinking the other RB's could not be productive. It's purely business.

 

[mattjames2010]

I've posted this several times already in the other umpteen threads about our state of runningbacks. Last year was an anomaly. The only reason Demarco did what he did...

1) The FO's commitment to the run game.. finally
2)Murray stayed healthy..finally! (Sounds awfully familiar)
3) The #1 rated OL. this is the big difference that Murray lovers overlook when trying to prove their points. (every RB wants truck size lanes to run through)
4) The #1 rated QB (and fifth alltime! so please don't convince yourself that's bc of Murray too)
5) The top three WR that draws consistent double teams, that allows LESS defenders in the box to stop the run
6) last and the least talked about by fans but not forgotten by coaches.. the whole offense including WR & TE's that greatly improved their overall blocking. (I distinctly remember Witten and Dez giving huge blocks to allow Murray to score)

I liked Murray and I'm not taking anything from his superb year, but folks around here seem to think it was all Murray.. thus taking away from what the rest of the team did to help Murray get there. Murrays production was a product of Garrett's vision of a team, improved blocking, and the overall commitment to run the ball. If the Dallas Cowboys do all these things again, McFadden, Randle, Williams & Dunbar WILL take advantage...Just like Murray did.

And let me add.. The real question fans should be asking themselves:

Is the offense still potent enough to score 25-30 points a game? With Romo, Dez, Beasley, Witten, TWill, Street, Escabor, McFadden, Randle, Williams, and who ever else gets added... I'd say YES!!

Is the defense improved enough to stop a one-legged Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs? Well, we'll see. I love what we're building on paper so far.

Not a single poster here has made it seem it was ALL Murray. Everyone acknowledges the offensive line run blocking ability, and it has been brought up how well our tight ends blocked last year.

There has been far more posters here making it seem as though our offensive line is some historic run blocking line. I'm not talking about potential, I'm talking about posters making it seem as though the 2014 line did something the NFL has never seen before. To toot your own horn, for some reason, you overlooked the multiple posts here that stated ANY RB can have success behind our line. I'd think that should be addressed before talking about posters supposedly making it seem it was Demarco Murray.

 

[Knotamus]

Not a single poster here has made it seem it was ALL Murray. Everyone acknowledges the offensive line run blocking ability, and it has been brought up how well our tight ends blocked last year.

There has been far more posters here making it seem as though our offensive line is some historic run blocking line. I'm not talking about potential, I'm talking about posters making it seem as though the 2014 line did something the NFL has never seen before. To toot your own horn, for some reason, you overlooked the multiple posts here that stated ANY RB can have success behind our line. I'd think that should be addressed before talking about posters supposedly making it seem it was Demarco Murray.

-Uh, ok then."Not a single poster here has made it seem it was ALL Murray" really?. I was referring to the hundreds of threads about this subject.. not just this one. So please show me one post where Murray is mentioned how great he is and in the same breathe gives credit to the rest of the team for helping Murray with his accomplishments. The point you missed...Murray had a lot of help becoming the NFL's leading rusher. Is Murray good? sure. Is he great? nope. Hence why so many people were dreaming of a great RB (A.P.) to run behind this OL.
-There has been far more posters here making it seem as though our offensive line is some historic run blocking line- well, that's prob true.. I'm not real sure about the historic part, but I would bet it would be hard to find another OL rated #1 in the league at an average age under 25yo. My opinion, that's a pretty remarkable feat and the "potential" to be even better is worth mentioning anytime the RB conversation comes up..
- you overlooked the multiple posts here that stated ANY RB can have success behind our line. I have seen others state this. I didn't overlook this, I just don't think its worth mentioning such a ridiculous statement. The RB that will run behind this line has to have potential and be a good scheme fit. ALL the current RB's on the roster have the pedigree to be successful, exp behind our young, talented, and hungry OL. But when fans make crazy comments like this..

My opinion of the RB group in Dallas this year is it's a collection of crap. If they produce with these guys then it forever puts to bed the RB/OL debate.

McFadden- injury prone just like Murray is. Has the Skill set and speed to be successful running behind our zone blocking scheme.(the same scheme he ran in college..btw) Should be a perfect fit for a one-cut downhill runner.
Randle- has been successful at every stop of his football career, yet people doubt him. Is shiftier, faster, and younger than Murray. Should be successful if he keeps his nose clean. (similar things were said ab Dez before he proved doubters wrong)
Williams- another injury guy with a ton of talent that can easily find success if healthy (I.e-Murray). There's some scouts that actually think he has the best chance to be the starter based on pure talent alone.
Dunbar- shifty, quick, and fast. Although I don't see him taking a lot of snaps, but I can see a Darren Sproles like role carved out for him. Change of pace back/ swing back at best.

I just don't see the sky falling like many here do. First, give these guys a chance. Williams was showing off in preseason last year, McFadden will finally have help on offense, and Randle needs to shut-up and continue to be successful on & off the field.

question: tell me, How successful would Murray have been if he was the RB in Oakland instead of McFadden... Guarantee he wouldn't have lead the league. let that sink in before calling McFadden crap.

oh yeah, thanks for tooting my horn

 

[JoeKing]

The only reason the backfield may be perceived as "murky" is because of a lack of patience to let training camp sort out the good from the bad and then re-evaluate. As Jason Garrett is constantly reminding us... it's a process.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And yet Murray was offered $6 million a season after the team looked at what was behind him.............I don't think the team would have offered Murray top 5 RB money if they thought the guys behind him were just as good..........that's not logical.

Of course they wanted to keep Murray but the fact they didn't add to the RB mix any other DMC is a pretty strong statement.

 

[big dog cowboy]

question: tell me, How successful would Murray have been if he was the RB in Oakland instead of McFadden... Guarantee he wouldn't have lead the league. let that sink in before calling McFadden crap.

Great perspective and great question.

 

[jnday]

Of course they wanted to keep Murray but the fact they didn't add to the RB mix any other DMC is a pretty strong statement.

It is not because they haven't tried. I mean they worked out Felix Jones. That shows they are not as happy as it seems.

 

[gmoney112]

Not a single poster here has made it seem it was ALL Murray. Everyone acknowledges the offensive line run blocking ability, and it has been brought up how well our tight ends blocked last year.

There has been far more posters here making it seem as though our offensive line is some historic run blocking line. I'm not talking about potential, I'm talking about posters making it seem as though the 2014 line did something the NFL has never seen before. To toot your own horn, for some reason, you overlooked the multiple posts here that stated ANY RB can have success behind our line. I'd think that should be addressed before talking about posters supposedly making it seem it was Demarco Murray.

Actually, there are several posters who actually think the only reason we went 12-4 was because Murray touched the ball more.

 

[xwalker]

And yet Murray was offered $6 million a season after the team looked at what was behind him.............I don't think the team would have offered Murray top 5 RB money if they thought the guys behind him were just as good..........that's not logical.

I don't think they ever expected him to take the offer. They started out lower with an original offer of 4 years, 16M. They bumped it to 6M when it was obvious that he was going to get close to 8M.

IMO, they wanted the fans to believe that they tried really hard to keep him and that it was all on Murray for leaving.

 

[mattjames2010]

Actually, there are several posters who actually think the only reason we went 12-4 was because Murray touched the ball more.

Show me some posters who think it was ALL Murray and hasn't acknowledged that we have a really good run blocking offensive line. You can show people who thought Murray wasn't a product of the system and was one of the main reasons we made the playoffs, but I have yet to see anyone say Murray is the only reason we made the playoffs and downplay what the offensive line did.

Which is what I was referring to: The poster saying there are folks around here saying it was all Murray. Which is, without a doubt, untrue. Now, I can point out several posters here who have said anyone RB can be successful behind this offensive line, saying Murray is no good, a bum, and will fail in Philly because they don't have the offensive line we do.

 

[big dog cowboy]

It is not because they haven't tried. I mean they worked out Felix Jones. That shows they are not as happy as it seems.

Doing an agent a favor by trying out Felix Jones doesn't mean anything. What some read into that was very surprising.

 

[gmoney112]

Show me some posters who think it was ALL Murray and hasn't acknowledged that we have a really good run blocking offensive line. You can show people who thought Murray wasn't a product of the system and was one of the main reasons we made the playoffs, but I have yet to see anyone say Murray is the only reason we made the playoffs and downplay what the offensive line did.

Which is what I was referring to: The poster saying there are folks around here saying it was all Murray. Which is, without a doubt, untrue. Now, I can point out several posters here who have said anyone RB can be successful behind this offensive line, saying Murray is no good, a bum, and will fail in Philly because they don't have the offensive line we do.

Sure, they acknowledge the OL, but then insinuate that without Murray we're going to go 8-8. They then write off the improvement in defense in 2014 over the disaster of 2013.

That's not "completely untrue", its right here and in every Murray thread. Insinuating we're going 8-8 because we lost Murray can only be reasoned by believing he was the sole difference maker over 2013, which is laughably incorrect.

 

[mattjames2010]

Sure, they acknowledge the OL, but then insinuate that without Murray we're going to go 8-8. They then write off the improvement in defense in 2014 over the disaster of 2013.

That's not "completely untrue", its right here and in every Murray thread. Insinuating we're going 8-8 because we lost Murray can only be reasoned by believing he was the sole difference maker over 2013, which is laughably incorrect.

Which is, again, completely different than saying it was all because of Murray. What is "laughably incorrect" is the amount of posters downplaying what Murray did and then bringing up how any RB from the street can come in here and rush for over 1,000 yards behind our offensive line.

I think some believe to have the same success we did last year while having the same offensive philosophy, we'll need a competent RB in the backfield or at least RBs that play off each other better if we go the RBBC approach.