This Is DeMarco's Team

[BigStar]

I agree 110% but most people here don't want to compensate this guy because "anyone can run behind this o-line". That is ridiculous.

Keep in mind that for every Super Bowl this team has won, the team has had a great RB for every one. I think Murray is special and now that we are seeing the pieces fall into place for success now is the time to keep our core players and not let them walk.

Really it's just the injury bug for me...don't want him adding another big contract with Dez and help @ DL/LB/S/RT needed. He is a talent though but can't see him as our next Emmitt ($) yet until he can stay healthy this season.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Richer than the owner of the Mars Bars Company?
Or is that Marrs Bars? Tex Marrs?

Strike the question from the record, your honor.

Do I half to wake up in a ditch (I planned it that way) to impress you??????

 

[BAT]

Murray only lacks the big play speed. He does everything else well. Still can't overpay at that position. Dez gets signed first.

Murray is much faster than Emmitt Smith.

 

[marchetta]

I think this is more than a little bit of Dez campaigning for Demarco's contract, right?

No. I think he's just emphasizing that we now have an identity. We are a power running team, that'll occasionally light you up through the air. Just like the 90's Cowboys. We'd jump out for an early lead, and then hand it to Emmitt to ice it away. That's who we are. A "poor man's" 90's Cowboys.

 

[yentl911]

Jerry almost got the beating of his life by waiting to sign Emmitt. It takes a team.

My point is that I am hearing that anyone can run behind this line. I am not buying it. If there was ever a line that anyone was supposed to be able to run behind it would have been the early 90's O-Lines and no matter who they tried - Lincoln Coleman, Blair Thomas, Curvin Richards, etc… no one did squat other than Emmitt.

Even in recent years Murray has been the only back to have any real success behind this group. I think people are greatly underestimating the value of a top five, all-around RB like Murray can have on a team. Especially a team that NEEDS to run the ball to keep the D on the bench.

This team is totally different with Murray on the field and anyone that doubts this needs to look at games in recent seasons that he has missed. He is the real deal. His all around talent and tough running style is perfect for this young and potentially dominate o-line we now have. This is the first time in 20 years that I feel we can impose our will and break teams late in games. Let's keep it rolling.

 

[yentl911]

I'm getting really tired of this straw man. Maybe there are a couple people here who think "anyone can run behind this o-line," but I really doubt it and this is not at all the sentiment expressed by the "don't sign Murray" crowd. If Murray continues the season he's had, he will get stupid money offers in free agency. He and his agent know this, which means the only way Dallas can lock him up is to pay him stupid money. And we absolutely do not want Dallas to give him such a contract, because we know that RBs tend to fall apart pretty quickly as they age, and because RB is one of the easier positions to fill with a competent player. Would there be a drop-off without Murray? Probably, unless they happen to hit on a really good back in the draft. Is the drop-off big enough to justify overpaying Murray? Almost certainly not.

He might take a bit of a discount considering that the RB pay rates have declined and he knows he has some young beasts to run behind. This is a win win.

 

[jrumann59]

The other issue looming big is the atatus of AP and Rice. If both are re-instated by the off season there will be a lot of damaged star power that could deflate the RB market further.

 

[Idgit]

My point is that I am hearing that anyone can run behind this line...

Maybe I've missed it, and, if so, quote it, and I'll apologize, but I've literally heard nobody say anything remotely close to 'anyone can run behind this line.' Why do people keep intentionally misrepresenting the argument for not signing Murray to an above-market deal?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Maybe I've missed it, and, if so, quote it, and I'll apologize, but I've literally heard nobody say anything remotely close to 'anyone can run behind this line.' Why do people keep intentionally misrepresenting the argument for not signing Murray to an above-market deal?

I could ask you the same question. There have been threads over the past month, and a percentage, and at times large percentage, have expressed they wouldn't pay him, let him walk, you can get his replacement in the draft for the fourth or worse, and Randall and Dunbar can supplant him.

If you don't believe it, then disprove it.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

I still think this is Romo's team....he is the straw that stirs the drink.

The OL is what makes the offense work right now. We can pretty much do anything on offense that we want. Run, pass, screen....you name it.

Murray is a good back and helps make the OL look good at times, he has been good at getting more than what the play is blocked for. Remember when we had Hambrick....if the play was blocked for 4 yds he'd get 4. If it was blocked for 10, he'd get you 4. Murray gets you 5 when it's blocked for 4. He gets you 12 when it's blocked for 10.

I do wonder about Murray as a leader. I swear I remember one of the beat writers saying that Murray was about as big an awesome person as there was in the locker room a year or two ago. Just an unlikeable guy. I personally have never seen that and couldn't find the quotes about him that I remember. Maybe I am off....could very well be. I do think it's hard to be a leader when you are turning the ball over at the rate he currently is.

While searching for the quotes, I did come across this gem....pretty interesting isn't it? http://cowboyszone.com/threads/demarco-murray.210285/

 

[gdogg24]

I could ask you the same question. There have been threads over the past month, and a percentage, and at times large percentage, have expressed they wouldn't pay him, let him walk, you can get his replacement in the draft for the fourth or worse, and Randall and Dunbar can supplant him.

If you don't believe it, then disprove it.

Yup sure have seen that a lot, it surprised me given that Murray has been good since he got the starting job.

 

[Idgit]

I could ask you the same question. There have been threads over the past month, and a percentage, and at times large percentage, have expressed they wouldn't pay him, let him walk, you can get his replacement in the draft for the fourth or worse, and Randall and Dunbar can supplant him.

If you don't believe it, then disprove it.

Your mixing a ton of different things up here. 'Wouldn't pay him' is entirely a function of what he'd accept, but the team's already on record that they very definitely would pay him at the right price.

'Let him walk' again is a function of what he'd accept, so it doesn't have a meaningful measure in a discussion unless you want to put a number to it first. Ie, he doesn't walk if he wants what the team offers. The question is 'will he?' The problem is getting a number that works for both parties.

'Replace him in the draft for the fourth of worse,' I haven't seen that anywhere, but again, if you're going to cite it as if it exists than it's on you to support it. I'll support my own arguments. It's not on me to support yours. I know I've said a number of times that starting running backs are drafted in the second and third rounds in today's NFL. I can support that, if you'd like me to.

But to buy your argument here, you'd not only have to convince me that it's on me to unmake a case you've never made properly in the first place, but you're actually asking me to prove a negative. Obviously, I can disprove a lot of the made up criticisms you guys gin up, but I can't disprove a reference to an argument that was never made.

 

[Idgit]

...I do wonder about Murray as a leader. I swear I remember one of the beat writers saying that Murray was about as big an awesome person as there was in the locker room a year or two ago. Just an unlikeable guy. I personally have never seen that and couldn't find the quotes about him that I remember. Maybe I am off....could very well be. I do think it's hard to be a leader when you are turning the ball over at the rate he currently is.

While searching for the quotes, I did come across this gem....pretty interesting isn't it? http://cowboyszone.com/threads/demarco-murray.210285/

If a beat writer said anything negative about Murray's personality, this is the first I've heard of it. Everything I've always heard is that he's a perfectionist and that he's a smart, hard working team-first player across the board. It's Scandrick I've heard is an actual jerk to the press and to some (but not all) of the other players. Which, of course, just makes me like Scandrick more.

 

[gdogg24]

Your mixing a ton of different things up here. 'Wouldn't pay him' is entirely a function of what he'd accept, but the team's already on record that they very definitely would pay him at the right price.

'Let him walk' again is a function of what he'd accept, so it doesn't have a meaningful measure in a discussion unless you want to put a number to it first. Ie, he doesn't walk if he wants what the team offers. The question is 'will he?' The problem is getting a number that works for both parties.

'Replace him in the draft for the fourth of worse,' I haven't seen that anywhere, but again, if you're going to cite it as if it exists than it's on you to support it. I'll support my own arguments. It's not on me to support yours. I know I've said a number of times that starting running backs are drafted in the second and third rounds in today's NFL. I can support that, if you'd like me to.

But to buy your argument here, you'd not only have to convince me that it's on me to unmake a case you've never made properly in the first place, but you're actually asking me to prove a negative. Obviously, I can disprove a lot of the made up criticisms you guys gin up, but I can't disprove a reference to an argument that was never made.

All I've seen around is a bunch of posts saying how expendable Murray is, "Replace him in the draft" and "Let him walk" are statements to that effect and I've seen a bunch of similar posts around saying how the success of the run game in these games have been a function of the success of the O-line and not Murray's individual skill. Claims that Randle or Williams could be just as successful behind this O-line.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Your mixing a ton of different things up here. 'Wouldn't pay him' is entirely a function of what he'd accept, but the team's already on record that they very definitely would pay him at the right price.

'Let him walk' again is a function of what he'd accept, so it doesn't have a meaningful measure in a discussion unless you want to put a number to it first. Ie, he doesn't walk if he wants what the team offers. The question is 'will he?' The problem is getting a number that works for both parties.

'Replace him in the draft for the fourth of worse,' I haven't seen that anywhere, but again, if you're going to cite it as if it exists than it's on you to support it. I'll support my own arguments. It's not on me to support yours. I know I've said a number of times that starting running backs are drafted in the second and third rounds in today's NFL. I can support that, if you'd like me to.

But to buy your argument here, you'd not only have to convince me that it's on me to unmake a case you've never made properly in the first place, but you're actually asking me to prove a negative. Obviously, I can disprove a lot of the made up criticisms you guys gin up, but I can't disprove a reference to an argument that was never made.

So, if you make the claim that I have to support it, then what you are suggesting is I'm lying. Now after reading this thread and seeing multiple people express this notion, do you believe:

A. We have a grassy knoll conspiracy going?

B. We all misunderstood?

C. We are all flat out fibbing?

I don't have to convince you of anything.This is a small slice of your posting life contradicting people on this board. You argue to argue.

 

[Idgit]

So, if you make the claim that I have to support it, then what you are suggesting is I'm lying. Now after reading this thread and seeing multiple people express this notion, do you believe:

A. We have a grassy knoll conspiracy going?

B. We all misunderstood?

C. We are all flat out fibbing?

I don't have to convince you of anything.This is a small slice of your posting life contradicting people on this board. You argue to argue.

Meh. You're so far off the mark here, it's not worth seriously responding do. I wasn't suggesting anyone was lying, for the record. I do think people are exaggerating. You weren't even the poster I'd directed the remark to.

 

[Idgit]

All I've seen around is a bunch of posts saying how expendable Murray is, "Replace him in the draft" and "Let him walk" are statements to that effect and I've seen a bunch of similar posts around saying how the success of the run game in these games have been a function of the success of the O-line and not Murray's individual skill. Claims that Randle or Williams could be just as successful behind this O-line.

The point I addressed was a claim that people are saying 'anyone can run behind this line.' I made the very simple point that that's mis-stating what people have said. The idea that we can find an acceptable replacement with a high draft pick is not the same thing by any stretch.

Is it really hard to cite the arguments if they're being made so people know they're not fabricated? When did that become such a high bar for marking an point around here?

 

[gdogg24]

The point I addressed was a claim that people are saying 'anyone can run behind this line.' I made the very simple point that that's mis-stating what people have said. The idea that we can find an acceptable replacement with a high draft pick is not the same thing by any stretch.

Is it really hard to cite the arguments if they're being made so people know they're not fabricated? When did that become such a high bar for marking an point around here?

No, saying you can just draft someone and pick up right where Murray left off is tantamount to saying "anyone can run behind this O-line" we can just go out in the next draft, pick up a rookie joe shmo from anywhere university and that runner can become the league's leading rusher that's the same and saying "any back can run behind this line"

And you know what don't worry about it, if you really want I'll link you every time I see someone say something like that around here cause lord knows people aren't done making that claim.

 

[Idgit]

No, saying you can just draft someone and pick up right where Murray left off is tantamount to saying "anyone can run behind this O-line" we can just go out in the next draft, pick up a rookie joe shmo from anywhere university and that runner can become the league's leading rusher that's the same and saying "any back can run behind this line"

And you know what don't worry about it, if you really want I'll link you every time I see someone say something like that around here cause lord knows people aren't done making that claim.

If anybody said 'just draft someone' or 'pick up right where Murray left off,' you might have a point. But nobody did. But when you have backs like Eddie Lacy (61) or LeVeon Bell (48) going in the second round, well...let's just say they're not Joe Shmo's from Anywhere U and that both of them--or a young player like them--could do an adequate job in Dallas in this offense next season.

And I didn't ask you to link to anything, so there's no need to link me every time you see something referring to replacing Murray. As a general rule, though, if you're going to make an unsupported claim on a message board, it's a good rule of thumb to expect that somebody might ask you to support it at some point.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think the exact phrase that caught my attention was running backs are a dime a dozen. made by several posters in multiple threads over the last few weeks..

Draw your own conclusion, but when you use the word fabricated as in this post above:

Is it really hard to cite the arguments if they're being made so people know they're not fabricated?

Some might believe words have meaning and fabricated means manufactured, or in this instance, made up. Which is tantamount to lying.

But I guess a hater's gonna hate.