You can't pay everyone

[tyke1doe]

C'mon, Dallas had the least rushing attempts the last 3 years. Does not matter if you plug in Jim Brown, if you don't hand him the ball, he can't do squat.

And why did they have the least rushing attempts?
Could it be they didn't trust Murray until this year? Why? Because maybe he wasn't ready to handle the load?
Or could it be Jason Garrett didn't think he had the line to feed Murray the rock?
Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of Murray as the back he is now compared to last year and the previous years.

 

[tyke1doe]

This speaks to something I've really been thinking of lately.

Strength in the lines can make or break a team, more than perceived "glamour" positions like wide receiver, running back, or cornerback.

And I hope the current success has shown this Cowboys organization that truth going forward.

I hope that their is a philosophical change in the thinking and that the team continues to invest heavily in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

It all truly does start up front.

It always has. The Giants had Joe Morris, Dave Meggett, O.J. Anderson, Rodney Hampton, Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs attest to this. None of them are Hall of Fame worthy.

 

[Stash]

It always has. The Giants had Joe Morris, Dave Meggett, O.J. Anderson, Rodney Hampton, Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs attest to this. None of them are Hall of Fame worthy.

Oh, I know it, but it seems like this team's decision-makers didn't.

Every year it seemed like we were drafting players further and further away from the ball.

Cornerbacks, wide receivers, and running back.

That changed with the drafting of Tyron Smith and hopefully it stays that way.

No more multiple picks for Roy Williams at WR! No more 1st and 2nds for cornerbacks like Claiborne!

Linemen, linemen, linemen!

 

[perrykemp]

You can't pay everyone.

But I sure as bleep will pay DeMarcus Ware over Brandon friggin Carr.

Keep your impact players.

oops!

 

[BAT]

And why did they have the least rushing attempts?
Could it be they didn't trust Murray until this year? Why? Because maybe he wasn't ready to handle the load?
Or could it be Jason Garrett didn't think he had the line to feed Murray the rock?
Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of Murray as the back he is now compared to last year and the previous years.

Did Murray grow another leg between last year and this year?? Averaging 5 yards a carry for his CAREER tells you that he was not ready to handle the load? The line last season helped Murray average over 5 yards a carry and has been recognized by opposing teams as having the best zone blocking system in the entire league LAST SEASON. That you have a bias towards Murray is obvious. Just say you don't like the player and be done with it, why fabricate excuses??

 

[tyke1doe]

Did Murray grow another leg between last year and this year?? Averaging 5 yards a carry for his CAREER tells you that he was not ready to handle the load? The line last season helped Murray average over 5 yards a carry and has been recognized by opposing teams as having the best zone blocking system in the entire league LAST SEASON. That you have a bias towards Murray is obvious. Just say you don't like the player and be done with it, why fabricate excuses??

Yes, in your simplistic mind, a person who has a different opinion amounts to being a hater. I thought I graduated from elementary school years ago.

Second, you do understand what a question mark means? I was asking a question as to why the Cowboys didn't run him more and offering possible solutions. My solutions aren't necessarily correct.

You immature, Kool-Aid slurping, polyannic Cowboys fans need to get a hold of yourselves. No one has a bias towards Murray, at least not I. In your binary Cowboys worldview, you can't differentiate between a discussion as to why the Cowboys may not and should not resign him and why Murray isn't a good running back. If you can't understand the difference and the context of the thread, stop wasting my time and yours by responding to my post. Usually, I get paid educating children on the finer points of language, context and word usage. Don't make me PayPal you, son.

 

[BAT]

Yes, in your simplistic mind, a person who has a different opinion amounts to being a hater. I thought I graduated from elementary school years ago.

Second, you do understand what a question mark means? I was asking a question as to why the Cowboys didn't run him more and offering possible solutions. My solutions aren't necessarily correct.

You immature, Kool-Aid slurping, polyannic Cowboys fans need to get a hold of yourselves. No one has a bias towards Murray, at least not I. In your binary Cowboys worldview, you can't differentiate between a discussion as to why the Cowboys may not and should not resign him and why Murray isn't a good running back. If you can't understand the difference and the context of the thread, stop wasting my time and yours by responding to my post. Usually, I get paid educating children on the finer points of language, context and word usage. Don't make me PayPal you, son.

LOL. You can pretty it up all you like but your bias against this player speaks volumes. If anyone has taken the discussion beyond ability vs. financial viability, it is you. Your question marks that end in the conclusion below only compounds and exposes that bias.

Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of Murray as the back he is now compared to last year and the previous years.

Just come out and say it, you don't like Murray. All the sleight of hand/pseudo analysis, fake tough guy, talking out of both sides of your ace and laughing emoticons will not mask your passive aggressive stance towards Murray.

 

[mattjames2010]

Is it normal? Says who? Do you have a link or an expert who says it's normal for a back to miss two games in a season? Who established this benchmark?



It's interesting that you start at 2012 instead of taking his entire career into play. That's shading the stats in your favor. In his first year, Murray missed three games. He missed six in his second year. He missed two last year. To make your argument stronger you omit the years with the greater missed games. You're being disingenuous.

Second, I don't care what some other fan said about Spiller. If you get injured and it keeps you out of a game, and it does so every year, you're injury prone. There's nothing wrong with that. But the comparison is being made to players who don't miss games because of injury.



Uh, breaking the bank would be paying more than the Cowboys are able to pay. All banks are different. All banks don't store the same amount of cash. What Minnesota can afford is different than what Dallas can afford. Murray is on pace for a record-setting year. You don't think he's going to want top dollars?



Well, the Cowboys found him in the third round? Are the Cowboys the only team that can find good players in low draft rounds? Furthermore, doesn't a third-round pick on Murray suggest that the Cowboys can find the same type of talent in the lower rounds?

Unlike you, I actually do my research and don't need an "expert" telling me this. Look at all the top RBs in the league and their injury history and tell me Murray's injury history and games missed isn't the norm.

Frank Gore from 2005-2011 had ONE full season. Jamaal Charles from 2009 to 2014 has had ONE full season (With injuries hampering production). Adrian Peterson from 2007 to 2014 has only had 3 full seasons. LeSean McCoy from 2009 to 2013 has had ONE full season. Arian Foster has missed 12 games since becoming a starter in 2010. So, with the workload that Murray has got since he has become a starter, the only RBs that seem to have stayed relatively healthy (Though, not fully) are Lynch and Forte. If every RB with an "injury history" were let go, no team would have a top-level RB right now.

You don't know what "top dollar" is for an RB, do you? What Adrian Peterson got is what we consider being "overpaid", he's going to want what McCoy got because that is the market right now. If you think he's going to get Adrian Peterson money, you're out of your mind. If he thinks he's going to get that money with us or any other team, again, he's out of his mind. Us giving him what McCoy gets is not "breaking the bank".

It's not hard to find a decent runner in the draft, it's finding COMPLETE backs in the draft that is tough. Murray is far more than just a runner. The worst thing you can do is go by history in the draft to think you're going to have the same results. If we were to do that, all cornerbacks would be going in the 4th and every QB would be going in the 6th because Sherman and Brady were picking in those rounds. You don't find Murray's and Charles' in every draft, you just don't.

So, are you going to start making some better arguments here or are you just going to be ripping pages from your anti-Murray agenda the entire day?

 

[tyke1doe]

LOL. You can pretty it up all you like but your bias against this player speaks volumes. If anyone has taken the discussion beyond ability vs. financial viability, it is you. Your question marks that end in the conclusion below only compounds and exposes that bias.

Just come out and say it, you don't like Murray. All the sleight of hand/pseudo analysis, fake tough guy, talking out of both sides of your ace and laughing emoticons will not mask your passive aggressive stance towards Murray.[/quote]

Elementary school was sure good to you. Taught you to view life from a simplistic, binary perspective.
Typical of the low-level intelligence possessed by some on this board.
What? You say something wrong about Cowboy. You must be a hater.

It never gets old.

 

[Galian Beast]

Good observation. Mincey and McClain have played much better at a fraction of the cost.

I also looked some stuff up and cutting Carr only saves $600k on the cap while generating a lot of 2016 dead money, so I think he'll stick around. He's only had one bad game this year against the Giants, but this is about the same time last year he started to struggle as well. Wonder about fatigue/health a little.

He seems like a great teammate, though, so I'm rooting for him to keep playing well.

Again, the cap doesn't exist in one year increments.

First if you cut Carr outright in 2015, all the dead money falls into 2015, unless you cut him in June. So first if you cut him in 2015 outright, that really opens up 2016, and you can move money around much easier after that. Opens up 14 million in 2016, but if you spread the hit by cutting him in June, you save 8 million in 2015, and 6 million in 2016. You also save 13 million in 2017. This matters a lot when you have guys like Dez and Murray to pay.

 

[tyke1doe]

Unlike you, I actually do my research and don't need an "expert" telling me this. Look at all the top RBs in the league and their injury history and tell me Murray's injury history and games missed isn't the norm.

I simply asked you what makes you an expert. All you give me is your opinion.

Frank Gore from 2005-2011 had ONE full season. Jamaal Charles from 2009 to 2014 has had ONE full season (With injuries hampering production). Adrian Peterson from 2007 to 2014 has only had 3 full seasons. LeSean McCoy from 2009 to 2013 has had ONE full season. Arian Foster has missed 12 games since becoming a starter in 2010. So, with the workload that Murray has got since he has become a starter, the only RBs that seem to have stayed relatively healthy (Though, not fully) are Lynch and Forte. If every RB with an "injury history" were let go, no team would have a top-level RB right now.

Ah, apple and orange comparisons, you gotta love em.

First, Murray has played four years. In each of his three full years, he has been injured and has not played a full season. It remains to be seen what occurs this year. But the majority years he's been playing, he has been injured more years than he has not. Now let's analyze some of the other backs you've mentioned:

In the 10 full years he has played, Frank Gore has played a full season 16 games in four of those years. 15 in another. 14 in three other years. Oh, and guess what? Frank Gore was considered injury prone too.

Jamaal Charles has played 6 full years. He has played 3 full seasons of 16 games (half excluding this year which is not finished) and 2 seasons playing 15 games. Oh, and guess what? Jamaal Charles was considered injury prone too.

Furthermore, Gore didn't nearly get a contract as one of the top backs. Charles did, but who other than Charles commands that type cheddar on the Chiefs? My point is that if you have top players on your team - i.e., Dez and Murray - you can't always pay them all. You have to pick and choose, and I would say - as many would - that you don't keep the running back over a top playmaker at another position.

You don't know what "top dollar" is for an RB, do you? What Adrian Peterson got is what we consider being "overpaid", he's going to want what McCoy got because that is the market right now. If you think he's going to get Adrian Peterson money, you're out of your mind. If he thinks he's going to get that money with us or any other team, again, he's out of his mind. Us giving him what McCoy gets is not "breaking the bank".

Who do the Vikings have other than Peterson? Who do the Eagles have other than McCoy? You're devoid of context, son. My argument was made with respect to context based on other players. If Murray were the ONLY threat on the Cowboys, then we're talking a different issue. But he's not. Please try to keep up with context.

It's not hard to find a decent runner in the draft, it's finding COMPLETE backs in the draft that is tough. Murray is far more than just a runner. The worst thing you can do is go by history in the draft to think you're going to have the same results. If we were to do that, all cornerbacks would be going in the 4th and every QB would be going in the 6th because Sherman and Brady were picking in those rounds. You don't find Murray's and Charles' in every draft, you just don't.

Let's see, there's Forte and McCoy and Charles and Peterson and Alfred Morris and Eddie Lacy and Gore and Marshall Lynch and Levon Bell and on and on. All of these backs are good backs. You can find more of them than you can a stud like Dez. Again, that's the comparison. If it's between Dez and Murray, the Cowboys will likely sign Dez.

So, are you going to start making some better arguments here or are you just going to be ripping pages from your anti-Murray agenda the entire day?

You guys are so limited in your critical-thinking skills that all you can do is resort to grammar school "haterade" logic.
It's simply hilarious to witness, and all the while, you're oblivious to how silly it makes you sound.

 

[mattjames2010]

I simply asked you what makes you an expert. All you give me is your opinion.



Ah, apple and orange comparisons, you gotta love em.

First, Murray has played four years. In each of his three full years, he has been injured and has not played a full season. It remains to be seen what occurs this year. But the majority years he's been playing, he has been injured more years than he has not. Now let's analyze some of the other backs you've mentioned:

In the 10 full years he has played, Frank Gore has played a full season 16 games in four of those years. 15 in another. 14 in three other years. Oh, and guess what? Frank Gore was considered injury prone too.

Jamaal Charles has played 6 full years. He has played 3 full seasons of 16 games (half excluding this year which is not finished) and 2 seasons playing 15 games. Oh, and guess what? Jamaal Charles was considered injury prone too.

Furthermore, Gore didn't nearly get a contract as one of the top backs. Charles did, but who other than Charles commands that type cheddar on the Chiefs? My point is that if you have top players on your team - i.e., Dez and Murray - you can't always pay them all. You have to pick and choose, and I would say - as many would - that you don't keep the running back over a top playmaker at another position.



Who do the Vikings have other than Peterson? Who do the Eagles have other than McCoy? You're devoid of context, son. My argument was made with respect to context based on other players. If Murray were the ONLY threat on the Cowboys, then we're talking a different issue. But he's not. Please try to keep up with context.



Let's see, there's Forte and McCoy and Charles and Peterson and Alfred Morris and Eddie Lacy and Gore and Marshall Lynch and Levon Bell and on and on. All of these backs are good backs. You can find more of them than you can a stud like Dez. Again, that's the comparison. If it's between Dez and Murray, the Cowboys will likely sign Dez.





You guys are so limited in your critical-thinking skills that all you can do is resort to grammar school "haterade" logic.
It's simply hilarious to witness, and all the while, you're oblivious to how silly it makes you sound.

"Apple and oranges comparison" - Wow, really? That was the most apt comparisons anyone could make. And thank you for proving my point, nearly every productive RB in the league is considered "injury prone". And you asked if it was the norm if an RB missing 2 games a season, I just showed you that it is. Forget what we were discussing or are you cherry picking at this point?

McCoy signed his extension back in 2012, you know, when Jackson was still there and getting big money? The Eagles have never JUST had McCoy, they signed a big-time FA CB (Was a mistake on their part, and we lucked out not getting him), they've had talent on their defensive line for a good while, a top 5 LT. They are very similar to us, actually, they have had more top-level players than us.

The only RBs you just mentioned on the level of Murray are McCoy and Charles (Peterson is a once in a generation RB, and is more of a reason why he got big money from the Vikings). The fact that you are throwing in Eddie Lacy and Morris is a joke and you're grasping to make arguments at this point.

And I agree that Dallas would choose Dez over Murray, I never said otherwise. I would always keep a young top 5 WR over a young top 5 RB.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

i say you sit all 53 down in a room together.

you put those that are up for resigning at the front of the room.

You give everyone the speech of "do you want to play together, have fun, win and be champions or do you want to chase money and your personal pocket book?"

Then you pass the hat around for IOU's lol

 

[ConstantReboot]

My bad, I stand corrected on the 1k last year. Thanks for the correction.
Understand, I'm not saying Murray isn't good. He is. But he has been injury prone. And this is a discussion about options, i.e., who can we keep and who do we need to let walk. If we can sign both Murray and Dez, fine. But if we have to let one go over the other, I say you let Murray go because it's easier in this day and age to find a running back than it is to find a receiver who demands double coverage. What Murray is doing for us now is more significant than what Dez is doing. But, Dez is the more valuable player because with this offensive line, many running backs could do a pretty good job running.

I don't think its as easy as people think to find another runningback like Murray. Otherwise we would be seeing the same production from Randle right now and we haven't. Thats a myth that I don't agree with and so does the FO. If for the love of God they let Murray go and he signs with a team like Detroit or Green Bay and they win a superbowl because of him, those that wanted him gone and Cowboys FO are going to look mighty foolish.

Why not let Dez go instead? He's not producing that much and receivers can be had easily also. Just look at the Patriots and Green Bay. They get more production from their receivers at half the price.

Now Im being sarcastic here and Im a big fan of Dez. But people here are being naive into thinking that we can replace any of our top players just like that including Murray. Cowboys need to find a way to sign both Murray, Bryant and the rest of the top players. If either one of them leave, then we can kiss a run for the superbowl goodbye and by then Romo will retire without a ring.

 

[ConstantReboot]

And why did they have the least rushing attempts?
Could it be they didn't trust Murray until this year? Why? Because maybe he wasn't ready to handle the load?
Or could it be Jason Garrett didn't think he had the line to feed Murray the rock?
Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of Murray as the back he is now compared to last year and the previous years.

Your argument is flawed and illogical. Maybe they just didn't feed the ball to Murray because the playcaller just didn't have it in himself to call it? See Green Bay game last year.

Murray was gashing Green Bay last year. He averaged over 5 yards a carry and went to the probowl. Yet our team centered on passing the ball with Romo. This year his breaking records and no one has yet to stop him.

Yet people here needs to find a way to criticize Murray. Unbelievable.

 

[casmith07]

Again, the cap doesn't exist in one year increments.

First if you cut Carr outright in 2015, all the dead money falls into 2015, unless you cut him in June. So first if you cut him in 2015 outright, that really opens up 2016, and you can move money around much easier after that. Opens up 14 million in 2016, but if you spread the hit by cutting him in June, you save 8 million in 2015, and 6 million in 2016. You also save 13 million in 2017. This matters a lot when you have guys like Dez and Murray to pay.

Do you think Tyler Patmon could produce at the level of Carr? That's who would be the de facto replacement IMO.

 

[Galian Beast]

Do you think Tyler Patmon could produce at the level of Carr? That's who would be the de facto replacement IMO.

No he wouldn't be, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion

1. Orlando Scandrick
2. Sterling Moore
3. Morris Claiborne
4. ~3rd round draft pick CB
5. Tyler Patmon

 

[Nightman]

Do you think Tyler Patmon could produce at the level of Carr? That's who would be the de facto replacement IMO.

And what level is that exactly. I haven't been blown away by Carr.

 

[TrailBlazer]

I assure you, Jerry will do everything he can to sign both bryant and murray. Bryant is a lock. But murray may price himself out of town. Then you probably franchise him. If AP wants to come to dallas at a cheaper price than murray. Then you have to explore that option also.

 

[TrailBlazer]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Heck yeah, if another team was willing to offer Murray $2 million more per season, of course he should take it. I'm saying that Murray's individual talent should only be part of the equation -- many have mentioned that a big factor in this current team's success is their chemistry, they genuinely like playing together. That is huge. Who's to say that if you brought in an equally talented Peterson that the culture wouldn't change? You jettisoned a guy who "grew up" with the team to a certain extent for an outsider. That stuff doesn't always jive with the other players on the team.

It's a business. If murray wants to stay with his teammates in dallas he will Accept a reasonable offer from Jerry instead of chasing the bug bucks that some other stupid team would pay him.