Top 3 you would keep...

[Smitty]

Who has ever tried to justify ignoring the run against the Packers or Lions?

But the reality is there were many games in the last few years in which running the ball equaled no gain or loss of yards and impossible third and longs far too often. And running in the red zone? Forget it. That happened, unless I suddenly arrived from an alternate universe without realizing it.

Murray has always been a good back. He hasn't suddenly acquired skills that turned him into superman. What did change is that this season (or last season for sake of argument) we finally put together a line with 3-4 Pro Bowl caliber players on it, and trusted it accordingly.

That's why he's breaking records, so that's why I say it's more the OL than Murray. We couldn't have done this in 2011; you can't sell that stuff here.

You can't possibly believe we were just as effective run blocking with Holland, Costa and Kosier. It's proof that stats don't tell the whole story. If we tried to run then like we do now, with defenses keying in on Murray, there is no way we get the same results as today.... Or even that we have a winning record. It could not have been done with that pitiful personnel.

 

[Cotton]

2011 164 897 5.5
2014 187 913 4.9

This is the only thing you need to see to know that Murray ran well even behind an inferior line, yet Smitty still argues. Good lord, man.

 

[Smitty]

This is the only thing you need to see to know that Murray ran well even behind an inferior line, yet Smitty still argues. Good lord, man.

Isn't that my point? Murray ran well before, he's running well now. Previously, though, as you just said, we had an inferior line, and Murray did not set records. Now Murray (who is still running well) has a superior line and is setting records.

So isn't it fair to say that the difference is that superior line?

 

[Cotton]

Isn't that my point? Murray ran well before, he's running well now. Previously, though, as you just said, we had an inferior line, and Murray did not set records. Now Murray (who is still running well) has a superior line and is setting records.

So isn't it fair to say that the difference is that superior line?

It's fair to say we run the ball more now is the only reason he is breaking records now as opposed to then.

 

[Carp]

This thread seemed like a good idea.

 

[DontCryWolfe]

It's fair to say we run the ball more now is the only reason he is breaking records now as opposed to then.

I'm sorry man, but I gotta side with schmitty on this one. Murray was a great runner before this season, but without the upgrades and improvements to the OL, he isn't 300 yards ahead of the next guy through seven weeks, on the pace that he is. Now, I'm not going to say that in years past he wouldn't have led the league or had a somewhat similiar impact had they demonstrated the same level of committment, but we wouldn't have been able to continuously run into fronts that we're seeing now, with the same production and results that we've had so far. The players on that line simply weren't good enough.

 

[Cotton]

This thread seemed like a good idea.

It seemed like it when I started it. Should have known no thread is Smitty-proof.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The bottom line is this: we are dominating teams up front now, on a weekly basis. If you're trying to argue we did the same in 2011, well, then there's no point in continuing the conversation.

WHY we are dominating might be up for debate (talent vs commitment/play calling) but nonetheless we are.

Murray as well as all the skill position players are a huge beneficary of that. And we've seen him when the OL isn't so dominating. Still good... But not like this.

Account for the fact that over the entire history of the NFL there has been many great OLs coupled with with great RBs but none of them ever accomplished what the current combination of this group has. So either the OL is in the upper tier of all that have ever played the game or both are. If that is the case how can it be stated that the current OL is chiefly responsible for the results? In doing so you are automatically placing them in the category of superiority for players.for all time.

 

[Cotton]

I'm sorry man, but I gotta side with schmitty on this one. Murray was a great runner before this season, but without the upgrades and improvements to the OL, he isn't 300 yards ahead of the next guy through seven weeks, on the pace that he is. Now, I'm not going to say that in years past he wouldn't have led the league or had a somewhat similiar impact had they demonstrated the same level of committment, but we wouldn't have been able to continuously run into fronts that we're seeing now, with the same production and results that we've had so far. The players on that line simply weren't good enough.

I don't see how anyone can argue the YPC stats.

 

[DontCryWolfe]

I don't see how anyone can argue the YPC stats.

I'm not. But it's hard to extrapolate the seasonal numbers he posted then into a similiar workload that he's experienced so far and not expect even a minor drop off. We're having success now despite the fact that everybody and their brother knows what's coming. That wasn't the situation in the past. Like I said, if we ran it as often then as we do now, Murray very well could have led the league in yardage, if not top five. He is a talented, great back. But this OL is why he can continue to line up against those run heavy fronts drive after drive and continue to gain chunks of yards. This line doesn't make Murray by any stretch, but it is the difference between maybe being neck and neck with Foster and Bell, versus the ridiculous lead he has on them currently.

 

[Smitty]

It's fair to say we run the ball more now is the only reason he is breaking records now as opposed to then.

So he'd have been able to keep up this pace running behind Kosier, Costa and Holland?

Hilarious.

 

[Smitty]

I don't see how anyone can argue the YPC stats.

Murray is an all timer! He could have been rushing for 2000 yards a season behind Costa and Holland if not for history's greatest Villain, Jason Garrett!!!

~flush~

 

[Cotton]

So, anyway, yeah I keep Murray in my top 3.

 

[Smitty]

Account for the fact that over the entire history of the NFL there has been many great OLs coupled with with great RBs but none of them ever accomplished what the current combination of this group has.

Why don't you account for it? Emmitt Smith and the 90s OL was clearly a superior combination yet never duplicated this feat... why not?

It's a perfect storm of circumstance, that's why. There are a million factors that go into it.

In the ranking of those circumstances, OL improvement ranks ahead of Murrays play, however.

 

[Smitty]

I love the revisionist history that our OL didn't suck fucking ass back in 2011 though.

Now the new story is that they were secretly great because Murray averaged 5.5 ypc. Well shit, we wasted all those first rounders on the OL then, since I've just been told that the only difference in OL performance is commitment and not all these first rounders we've drafted. We could have been doing the exact same thing with Costa!

 

[Cotton]

God, STFU already. We have had this debate ad fucking nauseum around 4 million times. We know your side and you know ours. Jesus Christ, let it rest.

You hijack every single thread with this argument. It's getting really old.

 

[Smitty]

Your side is delusional. There is no way in hell, not even the smallest fucking chance, that we could be doing on offense what we are doing now with Phil Costa, Montrae Holland, and Kyle Kosier on the interior.

I don't give a shit if Murray averaged 5 ypc on his low carry total. We did not ever -- and could not ever have -- accomplished this domination behind those schlubs.

I don't need to "explain" 5.5 ypc, other than to say it clearly doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Cotton]

Okay, cool, we have heard your argument .... again. Now, let it rest. This thread has jack shit to do with your BF, so stop trying to make it about him like you do every single other thread you ever post in.

 

[Smitty]

I didn't make this thread about "my bf" -- you guys did.

What I said is that Murray's success right now has more to do with the OL improving as opposed to Murray improving; therefore it is more about the OL than Murray. It was a Murray vs OL debate, not a Garrett one.

Others started chirping about commitment to the running game back in 2011, not me.

 

[Cotton]

I didn't make this thread about "my bf" -- you guys did.

What I said is that Murray's success right now has more to do with the OL improving as opposed to Murray improving; therefore it is more about the OL than Murray. It was a Murray vs OL debate, not a Garrett one.

Others started chirping about commitment to the running game back in 2011, not me.

Nobody even said Garrett's name until you did a few posts up. So, yeah...