Am I Being Realistic

[Carp]

In a year, by necessity it will still be Romo. It costs too much to cut him. After next year, it costs $1.5M to cut him and after 2016 you actually gain $11M in cap space. So Romo for the next two, but it must be addressed in that time span. I'd spend a mid to late round on a QB next year and move to a higher pick in 2016 up to a first rounder in 2017 if you don't hit on anything.

I think Simpleton is right with next year's draft, you have to attack the front 7 on defense next year with your first 3 picks at the very least.

You definitely have to, but I also take a QB early if the opportunity presents itself. If we are sitting there in the 2nd and Hogan slips I take him...someone along those lines.

 

[Cotton]

The only reason we are running the ball more is because of Linehan. Garrett showed multiple seasons he had no interest in it and Callahan was the same last year. These guys weren't going to just pull a 180 on their playcall styles. Thankfully someone else has that duty now.

This is 100% correct.

 

[NoDak]

This is 100% correct.

Maybe.

But it is quite comical to think back to how people were laughing about the idea of Linehan running more, saying he was just another pass happy coordinator.

 

[Carp]

His track record was as a pass happy coach though, so this is out of character.

 

[Cotton]

Maybe.

But it is quite comical to think back to how people were laughing about the idea of Linehan running more, saying he was just another pass happy coordinator.

He did have a history of throwing a lot, so expecting that to continue wasn't unreasonable. I, for one, am very happy to eat crow and admit that I was wrong.

 

[Carp]

One thing I did like was how they used Bell last year in Det...definitely want to see us compliment Murray like that. Although, Murray is an actual feature back, Bush not so much.

 

[NoDak]

He did have a history of throwing a lot, so expecting that to continue wasn't unreasonable. I, for one, am very happy to eat crow and admit that I was wrong.

Yeah, he did. He also had a history of running more when he had the weapons to do so with the Vikings. Like he does here.

But that was dismissed.

 

[ravidubey]

One thing I did like was how they used Bell last year in Det...definitely want to see us compliment Murray like that. Although, Murray is an actual feature back, Bush not so much.

Regardless, every back needs a break in today's NFL and I don't think anyone thinks Randle can consistently spell Murray. Fortunately the OL can cover for Randle in most games, but vs the toughest opponents you need fresh legs that can break out of a pile.

 

[Cotton]

Yeah, he did. He also had a history of running more when he had the weapons to do so with the Vikings. Like he does here.

But that was dismissed.

Okay, you're right. We are all idiots and were wrong. Hopefully, this gets you through your day.

 

[Carp]

Regardless, every back needs a break in today's NFL and I don't think anyone thinks Randle can consistently spell Murray. Fortunately the OL can cover for Randle in most games, but vs the toughest opponents you need fresh legs that can break out of a pile.

I know booze does not like Randle, but I have not seen a glaring reason why he can't spell Murray. In his short stints this year he has been excellent.

 

[Simpleton]

Yea I'd be fine with giving Randle 3-5 of Murray's carries just to keep Murray fresh. Randle is very average but he's been able to flash a few times behind this OL. Extrapolate those relatively inconsequential carries over a season and you're shaving about 50-75 carries off Murray's workload.

 

[ravidubey]

I know booze does not like Randle, but I have not seen a glaring reason why he can't spell Murray. In his short stints this year he has been excellent.

It's not just booze, Randle is all but incapable of making something out of nothing. He takes exactly what the OL will block and nothing more. Good when he gets great blocking and nothing when there's no blocking.

Against a tough team bent on stopping the run late in the 4th when Murray is beat and the game is on the line I don't trust Randle to do anything more than eat 35 seconds and gain nothing/lose a yard.

Dunbar can only carry from a spread formation and Clutts never carries.

Murray is outstanding but it is a long season and much longer for him without help.

 

[NoDak]

Okay, you're right. We are all idiots and were wrong. Hopefully, this gets you through your day.

Actually, it will. Thanks.

 

[Simpleton]

It's not just booze, Randle is all but incapable of making something out of nothing. He takes exactly what the OL will block and nothing more. Good when he gets great blocking and nothing when there's no blocking.

Against a tough team bent on stopping the run late in the 4th when Murray is beat and the game is on the line I don't trust Randle to do anything more than eat 35 seconds and gain nothing/lose a yard.

Dunbar can only carry from a spread formation and Clutts never carries.

Murray is outstanding but it is a long season and much longer for him without help.

This is all true, that's why we need to pick our spots to get Randle a few carries. Obviously if we're down and trying to come back or if it's late in the game and we want to kill a game off we want Murray on the field, but if we're up by a TD in the 2nd quarter it is probably a good time to give Randle a series or two.

 

[Carp]

It's not just booze, Randle is all but incapable of making something out of nothing. He takes exactly what the OL will block and nothing more. Good when he gets great blocking and nothing when there's no blocking.

Against a tough team bent on stopping the run late in the 4th when Murray is beat and the game is on the line I don't trust Randle to do anything more than eat 35 seconds and gain nothing/lose a yard.

Dunbar can only carry from a spread formation and Clutts never carries.

Murray is outstanding but it is a long season and much longer for him without help.

I don't think you can make that analysis right now. Most RBs need good blocking to be effective, so using that as some kind of slight is silly.

 

[ravidubey]

This is all true, that's why we need to pick our spots to get Randle a few carries. Obviously if we're down and trying to come back or if it's late in the game and we want to kill a game off we want Murray on the field, but if we're up by a TD in the 2nd quarter it is probably a good time to give Randle a series or two.

Definitely. Short of a meltdown, Murray shouldn't even play in the 4th quarter vs. Jacksonville for example.

 

[skidadl]

I don't think you can make that analysis right now. Most RBs need good blocking to be effective, so using that as some kind of slight is silly.

I don't think its silly. There are plenty of backs out there who can do a little something on their own. Randle can't.

 

[ravidubey]

I don't think you can make that analysis right now. Most RBs need good blocking to be effective, so using that as some kind of slight is silly.

Randle can't make a defender miss. That's all.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

I know booze does not like Randle, but I have not seen a glaring reason why he can't spell Murray. In his short stints this year he has been excellent.

Agreed that he is OK to spell Murray. I don't like him as a feature back if Murray misses a game(s), but for someone to come in and get a couple series/7–8 carries a game he's fine.

 

[Carp]

Randle can't make a defender miss. That's all.

He did on Sunday.