Won't Miss Murray

[Idgit]

Murray had the benefit of the OL last season, but he's tough as nails and better by a fair margin than any back we have right now. Primarily because he was pretty good at everything.

And that Peppers play was a huge play in that game. But it was also a whale of a play on Peppers part. Murray really wasn't swinging the ball around all that much. It just popped out on a direct punch.

I think we can both not be worried about the effectiveness of the running game--because it's not really all that important, anyway--and still recognize that we lost a really good player in Demarco Murray. We got a couple of better ones back on defense, which is a lot more important.

 

[Nightman]

Murray is head and shoulders better than anyone on the team

He will be missed

It was a tough call at 8m a year, but I think it was a mistake

If we could have gotten Gurley or maybe Gordon/Coleman it would be a wash, but they went too early

We will see if DMC, Randle or RWilliams can step up

 

[mattjames2010]

If I knew we were going to go into the season with this group of nobodies, paying Murray would have been the right call.

 

[Idgit]

If I knew we were going to go into the season with this group of nobodies, paying Murray would have been the right call.

Paying a back that had just logged almost 450 carries at his age $8M was a bad call no matter what. We might have taken a step or two back with the loss of Murray, but that's still better than overpaying a bad bet on the actuarial table.

 

[AzorAhai]

Let's not go overboard here. Murray was a well above average(top 5-8 at least) RB. We may not miss him as much as people may want to believe because we're better on the defensive side. There is more than likely going to be a dropoff in RB skill this season.

What it comes down to is did you replace him with a better player? No. Would you rather have him than the RBs we have now in addition to the rest of our acquisitions? Yes. Would you subtract what we've added this offseason to have Murray instead? No.

 

[mattjames2010]

Paying a back that had just logged almost 450 carries at his age $8M was a bad call no matter what. We might have taken a step or two back with the loss of Murray, but that's still better than overpaying a bad bet on the actuarial table.

Seeing as how our offense rushed the ball over 400 times last year, a big time back is needed. Counting on three nobodies, two draft busts, to come in and replicate what Murray did collectively is the worst possible thing we can do at this point.

Is paying Murray what I originally wanted? No. Because I thought our staff was smart enough to go with a younger, cheaper prospect in the draft. Never did I even consider McFadden as our workhorse, that we thought a second round bust would make the team, or that a change of pace back was thought of so highly.

I'll take a cap hit over rolling into the season with a gigantic hole at the RB position, a position we relied on to get to 12-4 last year. And it's funny to me that everyone loves to repeat what Stephen Jones said about the cap, but then it becomes a big deal when we bring up Murray (Even to Stephen Jones himself).

Our staff just has very little respect for the RB position. It has been apparent since Smith left. Our failed "Three headed monster" is what we're right back to. What we have now is equal to the Tashard Choice, Felix Jones, Marion Barber days; and that didn't work out for long.

 

[Nightman]

Paying a back that had just logged almost 450 carries at his age $8M was a bad call no matter what. We might have taken a step or two back with the loss of Murray, but that's still better than overpaying a bad bet on the actuarial table.

Why is it better? I would rather pay Murray than Carr. The money part is overrated. We could still get to 20m under the cap after Hardy, McClain and the Draft.

 

[Idgit]

Seeing as how our offense rushed the ball over 400 times last year, a big time back is needed. Counting on three nobodies, two draft busts, to come in and replicate what Murray did collectively is the worst possible thing we can do at this point.

Is paying Murray what I originally wanted? No. Because I thought our staff was smart enough to go with a younger, cheaper prospect in the draft. Never did I even consider McFadden as our workhorse, that we thought a second round bust would make the team, or that a change of pace back was thought of so highly.

I'll take a cap hit over rolling into the season with a gigantic hole at the RB position, a position we relied on to get to 12-4 last year. And it's funny to me that everyone loves to repeat what Stephen Jones said about the cap, but then it becomes a big deal when we bring up Murray (Even to Stephen Jones himself).

Our staff just has very little respect for the RB position. It has been apparent since Smith left. Our failed "Three headed monster" is what we're right back to. What we have now is equal to the Tashard Choice, Felix Jones, Marion Barber days; and that didn't work out for long.

Choosing one of two bad options is not they way to build a team. We didn't have the option of 2014 Murray available to us. The guy we did have is not likely to be the same player and had a high likelihood of injury. Which would put us in a worse position than we're in right now.

I don't like McFadden much, either. But I think our backups are a lot better than some people apparently do. I think they're both solid, with a chance to be better than solid. With our OL, that's good enough for me since I put little stock in running the football, anyway.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Again, for like the millionth time, all statistics prove that Murray did just as much as the offensive line. Calling him a "bum" is extreme bias.

Did the line allow him over 50 receptions for over 400 yards? Did the offensive line break the tackles for him? The did line give him nearly 1,000 yards AFTER contact?

There's not liking a player, then there is completely ignoring all telling statistics because of an agenda. Murray will be missed with this RB group of knuckleheads and glass.

Just because Murray is no longer on the team they have to berate and belittle him as though he really didn't do a thing. Some people here are in denial. Yes I think Murray will be missed. I don't think he could have repeated last years productivity. However, defenses lined up and put and extra man in the box when Murray was in the game. The scrubs we have now are not game changers and won't drive fear into our opponents. Murray provided a game changer not only through his production running the ball. But because defenses lined up to stop him.

 

[Idgit]

Why is it better? I would rather pay Murray than Carr. The money part is overrated. We could still get to 20m under the cap after Hardy, McClain and the Draft.

It's better not to be saddled with big contracts on players who are passed their probable usefulness. That's why it's better. It's academic whether you'd rather overpay Murray than Carr. I wouldn't, but we'd obviously both prefer not to overpay either.

If we wanted to spend resources on a back, it should have been cap dollars on a young, talented FA--which wasn't really an option--or it needed to be a top pick, which would have cost us way too much in terms of opportunity cost in adding defensive players. It was better not to overpay Murray and to fix the defense. If you have to go thin at a position on offense, RB is a good place to do it.

 

[mattjames2010]

Choosing one of two bad options is not they way to build a team. We didn't have the option of 2014 Murray available to us. The guy we did have is not likely to be the same player and had a high likelihood of injury. Which would put us in a worse position than we're in right now.

I don't like McFadden much, either. But I think our backups are a lot better than some people apparently do. I think they're both solid, with a chance to be better than solid. With our OL, that's good enough for me since I put little stock in running the football, anyway.

We put ourselves in a position to debate over the bad option. As I've said, I didn't want to pay Murray the money he wanted, I didn't want to give him that contract length, but rolling with what we have now is far more risky than giving Murray the contract he wanted. Could Murray get injured? Sure. Will he get 1,8000 yards again? No, and no one is expecting him to. No one wanted Murray to carry the ball nearly 400 times. We would have given more carries to Randle. What we do know is; Murray has always been a good runner, he's a great receiver; there is some knowns there. While we can talk about Murray's injury history, he played in 30 games the past two years, so he has been relatively healthy since the 2012 season.

 

[Nightman]

We put ourselves in a position to debate over the bad option. As I've said, I didn't want to pay Murray the money he wanted, I didn't want to give him that contract length, but rolling with what we have now is far more risky than giving Murray the contract he wanted. Could Murray get injured? Sure. Will he get 1,8000 yards again? No, and no one is expecting him to. No one wanted Murray to carry the ball nearly 400 times. We would have given more carries to Randle. What we do know is; Murray has always been a good runner, he's a great receiver; there is some knowns there. While we can talk about Murray's injury history, he played in 30 games the past two years, so he has been relatively healthy since the 2012 season.

Exactly. Now it's money that won't get spent. That doesn't do us any good this year and in no way improves our situation significantly down the road.

Murray was easily one of our best players and there is no reason to believe he couldn't come close to repeating last years numbers. He is another workout warrior and only 27 years old.

 

[Idgit]

We put ourselves in a position to debate over the bad option. As I've said, I didn't want to pay Murray the money he wanted, I didn't want to give him that contract length, but rolling with what we have now is far more risky than giving Murray the contract he wanted. Could Murray get injured? Sure. Will he get 1,8000 yards again? No, and no one is expecting him to. No one wanted Murray to carry the ball nearly 400 times. We would have given more carries to Randle. What we do know is; Murray has always been a good runner, he's a great receiver; there is some knowns there. While we can talk about Murray's injury history, he played in 30 games the past two years, so he has been relatively healthy since the 2012 season.

What's the point of giving $8M to a RB at all, much less one who's statistically likely to hit the wall and one whose workload you intend to decrease after giving him the huge pay raise? No thanks. And the point is that the possibility of injury this coming season is too high to justify the contract. You overcommit to an older RB, give him all the work in camp, and then he gets hurt, and you're back in the position we're in now, minus McFadden. Or he doesn't get hurt, but he hits the wall most backs hit the season after that many carries and you're effectively in the same boat.

It's just dumb to pay age at that position. What it comes down to is finding young guys you think can replace what you had. The only disconnect is that right now, the team seems to think we've got that already, and the fans disagree. But I've got zero doubt that, if they thought they needed a RB for the coming season, they'd have traded into position to get one between the second and third rounds.

 

[mattjames2010]

It's better not to be saddled with big contracts on players who are passed their probable usefulness. That's why it's better. It's academic whether you'd rather overpay Murray than Carr. I wouldn't, but we'd obviously both prefer not to overpay either.

If we wanted to spend resources on a back, it should have been cap dollars on a young, talented FA--which wasn't really an option--or it needed to be a top pick, which would have cost us way too much in terms of opportunity cost in adding defensive players. It was better not to overpay Murray and to fix the defense. If you have to go thin at a position on offense, RB is a good place to do it.

We are thin at DE and LB? That's basically what we chose over RB. We can discuss Hardy's suspension, but in all likelihood it will be reduced to around 2-4 games. I can at least somewhat understand the Gregory pick, I still don't agree with it, but I get it; he's super talented. I do not in any way agree with the LB pick, not after signing 4 LBs in FA and drafting one last year. Both Buck Allen and Ajayi were good prospects and worth moving up slightly for or grabbing in the 4th with our original spot.

If we had a similar scheme to the Patriots or Saints, I agree, go in thin at RB. But we don't. Linehan has stated he wants a solid ground game, we have made the RB position important on our offense. So, I don't agree with what I bolded. I can't think of a single team in this league that rushes the ball nearly 400 times not having a clear cut starting RB on their roster.

I have no problem addressing defensive needs in the draft, my problem is both the defense and RB position could have been addressed.

 

[Nightman]

What's the point of giving $8M to a RB at all, much less one who's statistically likely to hit the wall and one whose workload you intend to decrease after giving him the huge pay raise? No thanks. And the point is that the possibility of injury this coming season is too high to justify the contract. You overcommit to an older RB, give him all the work in camp, and then he gets hurt, and you're back in the position we're in now, minus McFadden. m.r he doesn't get hurt, but he hits the wall most backs hit the season after that many carries and you're effectively in the same boat.

It's just dumb to pay age at that position. What it comes down to is finding young guys you think can replace what you had. The only disconnect is that right now, the team seems to think we've got that already, and the fans disagree. But I've got zero doubt that, if they thought they needed a RB for the coming season, they'd have traded into position to get one between the second and third rounds.

There are a lot of teams that are paying that to RBs. We should be one of them.

His cap hit is only 5m this year. Less than Claibornes

 

[mattjames2010]

What's the point of giving $8M to a RB at all, much less one who's statistically likely to hit the wall and one whose workload you intend to decrease after giving him the huge pay raise? No thanks. And the point is that the possibility of injury this coming season is too high to justify the contract. You overcommit to an older RB, give him all the work in camp, and then he gets hurt, and you're back in the position we're in now, minus McFadden. Or he doesn't get hurt, but he hits the wall most backs hit the season after that many carries and you're effectively in the same boat.

It's just dumb to pay age at that position. What it comes down to is finding young guys you think can replace what you had. The only disconnect is that right now, the team seems to think we've got that already, and the fans disagree. But I've got zero doubt that, if they thought they needed a RB for the coming season, they'd have traded into position to get one between the second and third rounds.

What's the point of giving an RB $8 million at all? I don't know, to avoid going into the season with two far more injury prone RBs and a less talented change of pace back? Not losing an RB that is a great runner, receiver, and a decent pass blocker? I bring this up because this seemed to be our intentions all along, and it's completely and utterly flawed.

Our scheme made the RB position a priority, if we don't like it, we better find another way to be successful on offense. The last thing we need to be doing is disrespecting what Murray brought to the table and thinking any RB off the street can come in and replicate it. I fully believe we will be hit by reality when the season starts and McFadden has some nagging injury he sustained in TC, or worse, goes down for the season because we gave him too many carries that he can handle. Then we rely on who? Randle? Williams? Dunbar? I have no idea how anyone is okay with this.

Yes, I'd take the risk of throwing money at Murray than I would relying on a bust at RB. Apparently, our coaching staff chose the latter.

 

[Idgit]

There are a lot of teams that are paying that to RBs. We should be one of them.

His cap hit is only 5m this year. Less than Claibornes

Besides Murray, there are four teams who are paying an average of $8M/year. We should not be one of them. Our limitations are on defense and not with the ability to run the football.

This year's cap hit for whichever player is not particularly relevant. We can both agree that a $5M contribution to a dime back is a mistake without having to debate whether or not we should have made another one to go along with it.

 

[Nightman]

Besides Murray, there are four teams who are paying an average of $8M/year. We should not be one of them. Our limitations are on defense and not with the ability to run the football.

This year's cap hit for whichever player is not particularly relevant. We can both agree that a $5M contribution to a dime back is a mistake without having to debate whether or not we should have made another one to go along with it.

SEA, CHI, BUFF, PHI, KC, MINN, CAR and HOU are paying big bucks to RBs. That is 25% of the League.

We blew this one unless we end up with Peterson.

 

[Idgit]

What's the point of giving an RB $8 million at all? I don't know, to avoid going into the season with two far more injury prone RBs and a less talented change of pace back? Not losing an RB that is a great runner, receiver, and a decent pass blocker? I bring this up because this seemed to be our intentions all along, and it's completely and utterly flawed.

Our scheme made the RB position a priority, if we don't like it, we better find another way to be successful on offense. The last thing we need to be doing is disrespecting what Murray brought to the table and thinking any RB off the street can come in and replicate it. I fully believe we will be hit by reality when the season starts and McFadden has some nagging injury he sustained in TC, or worse, goes down for the season because we gave him too many carries that he can handle. Then we rely on who? Randle? Williams? Dunbar? I have no idea how anyone is okay with this.

Yes, I'd take the risk of throwing money at Murray than I would relying on a bust at RB. Apparently, our coaching staff chose the latter.

That's a bad reason to overpay a back. And at what point did Murray graduate from being injury prone himself? The one season where he logged all the carried and played through the broken hand was enough to do that for you?

Our scheme did not making the RB a priority. It was our play calling that made it a priority. And there's no reason to think that's going to change. That said, we've been successful on offense for years.

Nobody in this thread is disrespecting Demarco Murray by saying we should not overpay him after he logged so many carries last season. It's simple math, and there's enough good data to back it up that we shouldn't ignore just because we don't trust the team to find a set of backs capable of running behind one of the best young lines in football with the league's most effective QB from last season throwing to a really really good group of skill position players.

 

[mattjames2010]

Besides Murray, there are four teams who are paying an average of $8M/year. We should not be one of them. Our limitations are on defense and not with the ability to run the football.

This year's cap hit for whichever player is not particularly relevant. We can both agree that a $5M contribution to a dime back is a mistake without having to debate whether or not we should have made another one to go along with it.

A team that rushed the ball over 400 times last year shouldn't be the team paying quality money to an RB? There are teams in this league rushing the ball less than us who give their backs big contracts.