What Kind of Sense Does This Make?

[iceman117]

Shutdown Corner's preseason Power Rankings...
4. Green Bay Packers - The concerns about the offensive line are getting very serious.

18. Dallas Cowboys - Get ready to enjoy Jason Garrett's lame duck season.

Seriously, what sense does this make? At what position are the Packers not inferior to the Cowboys, other than a slight advantage at QB? Think about it, top to bottom, all the way down to the place kicker, I give the Cowboys the advantage over the Packers this year. But look at the discrepancy in rankings, ridiculous.

It's all coming together this year -- there were a number of things that held us back last year, injuries in the middle of the defense and the inept offensive line being the two primary issues (to put it mildly). But those issues no longer exist and when it comes right down to it, is there ANY team that you'd be worried about this year, provided we can bring a relatively healthy team to the party? Not me, I think we're SB bound.

I hope your right

 

[iceman117]

It's a fair ranking for now but Dallas is better than GB.... That ranking will change fairly quickly

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Why couldn't two rookie backs out perform the often injured DeMarco Murray, a late round rookie and couple of undrafted free agents?

Oh, that's right. Because they're Cowboys.

And he could say the exact same thing in return about your response. Why can't Murray and a late round rookie out perform two rookies from the Packers?

Oh, that's right. Because they're Cowboys and not the guys you wanted necassarily.

Neither team has, on paper, what I'd call a real strong stable of backs. Both teams need to prove it on the field, running game wise, before either can thump their chest and act like they've got anything in the ground game.

 

[Nova]

It's just a safe pick. I wouldn't look too much into it or be outraged by it.

The Cowboys have under achieved and missed the playoffs 3 straight years and the Packers won the super bowl just two years ago and made the playoffs the following two years, so at quick glance it looks correct to casual fans and that's all that matters.

No one will remember these rankings at the end of the season and they do, the writer will hide behind "That's what's so great about this game-- you can't predict it!"

 

[cowboys2233]

And he could say the exact same thing in return about your response. Why can't Murray and a late round rookie out perform two rookies from the Packers?

Oh, that's right. Because they're Cowboys and not the guys you wanted necassarily.

Neither team has, on paper, what I'd call a real strong stable of backs. Both teams need to prove it on the field, running game wise, before either can thump their chest and act like they've got anything in the ground game.

Oh, Murray has proven it on the field. When that dude is healthy, he is a man among boys. Not hard to see that. Without seeing a guy like that fat 'Bama boy in real game situations, Murray is clearly the best RB among both teams. If Murray is able to stay healthy, you can pencil him in for the Pro Bowl right now. He's that good. And anyone who disputes that just doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[cowboys2233]

It's just a safe pick. I wouldn't look too much into it or be outraged by it.

The Cowboys have under achieved and missed the playoffs 3 straight years and the Packers won the super bowl just two years ago and made the playoffs the following two years, so at quick glance it looks correct to casual fans and that's all that matters.

No one will remember these rankings at the end of the season and they do, the writer will hide behind "That's what's so great about this game-- you can't predict it!"

Not too upset over it, just making an observation. And I know it's one that has been pointed out repeatedly but this is just another blatant example...

...these idiots put absolutely no effort into anything they write, it's pure garbage. The casual football fan might not see that but when you have more than an ounce of knowledge about the game and specifically, about the team they're "evaluating," it is just so painfully obvious. And frankly, I think they should have a bit more professionalism than that -- if you're going to write for a living, particularly about things that so many are interested in, why not put some thought and effort into it?

 

[Nova]

Not too upset over it, just making an observation. And I know it's one that has been pointed out repeatedly but this is just another blatant example...

...these idiots put absolutely no effort into anything they write, it's pure garbage. The casual football fan might not see that but when you have more than an ounce of knowledge about the game and specifically, about the team they're "evaluating," it is just so painfully obvious. And frankly, I think they should have a bit more professionalism than that -- if you're going to write for a living, particularly about things that so many are interested in, why not put some thought and effort into it?

Couldn't agree with you more, but for numerous reasons, they will never get it right.

 

[Risen Star]

What? This has nothing to do with the players being on the Cowboys. If you can help it please try and be less obtuse.

This has everything to do with the fact that the player Demarco has performed at a pro-bowl level when healthy.

Lacy and Franklin have yet to play an NFL down. They weren't even heavily regarded prospects hence both sliding in the draft.

Well you could say that Demarco is injury prone. Fair. But how are you projecting Lacy and Franklin to be less injury prone? How do we know their bodies are better suited to the NFL pounding a RB takes? Oh wait. That's right you can't because they have yet to play an NFL down.

It would appear to me to be the height of stupidity to declare two unheralded rbs better than a guy who when healthy performs at a pro-bowl level and dismiss any criticism of such stance as blind homerism.

Who says they're unheralded? You? Eddie Lacy and Johnathan Franklin are two quality RB prospects. Lance Dunbar is unheralded. Phillip Tanner is unheralded. Not Lacy and Franklin. They both carried a grade as good or better than Murray did when he was drafted. Lacy went higher in the draft than Murray. RBs slide. It's not news worthy nor an indication of their ability.

The fact that they are rookies doesn't mean anything to me because it's the easiest position to play and produce as a rookie. I would take that combo over Murray, a late round Randle and two undrafted free agents.

I must have missed the pro bowl level of play from Murray when he's been healthy. I'd say that's a tad overstated.

 

[cowboys2233]

I must have missed the pro bowl level of play from Murray when he's been healthy. I'd say that's a tad overstated.

Please tell me you're joking. Even the most fervent Cowboys haters think the guy is a beast when he's healthy. Just watch him run, for Pete's sakes. And if you spit out some low YPCs for a few of his games last year, it only tells me you're watching the stats section way more than the game itself. An ugly consequence of fantasy football. Watch him and know that you're watching one dynamic runner.

From the ESPN Fantasy Projection...

"Sixteen games of starting work for Murray would likely result in a superstar season. Maybe his third year will be the charm."

Not pro-bowl level, superstar level. This is from ESPN.

 

[5Stars]

Who says they're unheralded? You? Eddie Lacy and Johnathan Franklin are two quality RB prospects. Lance Dunbar is unheralded. Phillip Tanner is unheralded. Not Lacy and Franklin. They both carried a grade as good or better than Murray did when he was drafted. Lacy went higher in the draft than Murray. RBs slide. It's not news worthy nor an indication of their ability.

The fact that they are rookies doesn't mean anything to me because it's the easiest position to play and produce as a rookie. I would take that combo over Murray, a late round Randle and two undrafted free agents.

I must have missed the pro bowl level of play from Murray when he's been healthy. I'd say that's a tad overstated.

I find it funny that you base running backs from each team when you know as well as I do that the oline, which you gripe about constantly, have something to do with how a runner succeeds or not.

 

[Nova]

Who says they're unheralded? You? Eddie Lacy and Johnathan Franklin are two quality RB prospects. Lance Dunbar is unheralded. Phillip Tanner is unheralded. Not Lacy and Franklin. They both carried a grade as good or better than Murray did when he was drafted. Lacy went higher in the draft than Murray. RBs slide. It's not news worthy nor an indication of their ability.

The fact that they are rookies doesn't mean anything to me because it's the easiest position to play and produce as a rookie. I would take that combo over Murray, a late round Randle and two undrafted free agents.

I must have missed the pro bowl level of play from Murray when he's been healthy. I'd say that's a tad overstated.

Wait what? We can call Franklin and Randall a push (although Randle was viewed as the better prospect), and we're giving Lacie the nod over Murray already? That's without mentioning Dunbar and Tanner, who I agree have little weight, but the extra bodies are worth something if you ask me.

 

[Risen Star]

Please tell me you're joking. Even the most fervent Cowboys haters think the guy is a beast when he's healthy. Just watch him run, for Pete's sakes. And if you spit out some low YPCs for a few of his games last year, it only tells me you're watching the stats section way more than the game itself. An ugly consequence of fantasy football. Watch him and know that you're watching one dynamic runner.

From the ESPN Fantasy Projection...

"Sixteen games of starting work for Murray would likely result in a superstar season. Maybe his third year will be the charm."

Not pro-bowl level, superstar level. This is from ESPN.

He's had some games that were very good, but he hasn't been a top 3 RB in the conference like you would have to be to be a Pro Bowl player at his position.

Then you add in the injuries and I would take the Packers' RBs over ours. I could change my mind in a year, but right now I'd go with them.

 

[Risen Star]

Wait what? We can call Franklin and Randall a push (although Randle was viewed as the better prospect), and we're giving Lacie the nod over Murray already? That's without mentioning Dunbar and Tanner, who I agree have little weight, but the extra bodies are worth something if you ask me.

Who viewed Randle the better prospect?

The Packers have extra bodies too. They're not worth mentioning either.

 

[cowboys2233]

He's had some games that were very good, but he hasn't been a top 3 RB in the conference like you would have to be to be a Pro Bowl player at his position.

Then you add in the injuries and I would take the Packers' RBs over ours. I could change my mind in a year, but right now I'd go with them.

Once again, someone who needs to feel the drops before they're willing to predict that it's going to rain. Me? I prefer to trust my eyes. My eyes tell me that man is one of the very elite running backs in the NFL, top five, if not top three.

 

[Risen Star]

Once again, someone who needs to feel the drops before they're willing to predict that it's going to rain. Me? I prefer to trust my eyes. My eyes tell me that man is one of the very elite running backs in the NFL, top five, if not top three.

I don't believe Murray has ever been a top 3 NFC RB. Let alone the entire NFL.

 

[Risen Star]

Who viewed Randle the better prospect?

The Packers have extra bodies too. They're not worth mentioning either.

Kiper had Franklin rated over Randle. So did Frank Coyle. So did NFL Draft Scout. And PFW. And Scouts Inc.

So...again, who viewed Randle the better prospect?

 

[cowboys2233]

I don't believe Murray has ever been a top 3 NFC RB. Let alone the entire NFL.

That is your right. I have changed my signature to reflect exactly what I think he'll do this year, provided he stays healthy. And at the end of the year, you will be awestruck by my prediction. And awestruck at what an amazing running back we really have.

 

[Nova]

Who viewed Randle the better prospect?

The Packers have extra bodies too. They're not worth mentioning either.

It depends on where you look, but just for quick glance sake...
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2011/profiles/johnathan-franklin?id=2539326
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/joseph-randle?id=2540171

All in all, I'd call them a push.

 

[Risen Star]

That is your right. I have changed my signature to reflect exactly what I think he'll do this year, provided he stays healthy. And at the end of the year, you will be awestruck by my prediction. And awestruck at what an amazing running back we really have.

I'll make sure I put that up on my refrigerator.

 

[Risen Star]

It depends on where you look, but just for quick glance sake...
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2011/profiles/johnathan-franklin?id=2539326
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/joseph-randle?id=2540171

All in all, I'd call them a push.

I wouldn't. That is one. A push would be a mixed opinion. The resources I've mentioned all had Franklin ahead of Randle. Some way ahead.