Archer: Are signs pointing toward cornerback for Cowboys?

L.T. Fan said:
That's true. If the OL was in such high esteen he would have put another back in and proceeded with the status quo. Fact is he didn't do that and one can only speculate about the reason but my guess is that he knew even a fatigued Murray wouldbe more effective than any other back in the lineup.
Click to expand...
I think it's a lack of trust, and an unfortunate one. With the best line in the league we should be able to use our backups effectively. This feels more like a blind spot/safety blanket for Linehan. Comparable to Parcells starting known veterans over superior/younger players. A good play caller should know when to take 3.9 yards.
 
townsend said:
Linehan only uses workhorses. Without that he's as pass happy as Garrett. Hell at the end of the season, when Murray was fading, he would rather go empty backfield than put a different back out there.
Click to expand...

That's not true, we used the empty back set all year long and it was one of our most successful formations which is why we continued to use it all year. I didn't like it personally in the situations we used it sometimes but it had nothing to do with Murray.

By the way, it's entirely possible that Linehan likes elite run blocking O-lines too. I'm actually a bit surprised that LT is jumping on the bandwagon of this nonsense. It's purely an imagined assumption here in Dallas. That's not usually LT's style.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
I'm actually a bit surprised that LT is jumping on the bandwagon of this nonsense. It's purely an imagined assumption here in Dallas. That's not usually LT's style.
Click to expand...
It involves Murray.

Sometimes the correct answer is the easiest and most obvious one.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Tell that to Jiggy. He doesn't think anyone takes that position.
Click to expand...

What position are you seeing?

Where in there did he say ANY back can come in and produce at a high level, boy you really are clutching at straws to back up your mancrush on Murray.

It's quite simple L.T. NOBODY in here has ever said ANY back can be brought in and replace the production of Murray, just claim hyperbole and move on.
 
L.T. Fan said:
That's true. If the OL was in such high esteen he would have put another back in and proceeded with the status quo. Fact is he didn't do that and one can only speculate about the reason but my guess is that he knew even a fatigued Murray wouldbe more effective than any other back in the lineup.
Click to expand...

So are you now saying the coaches do not hold this OL in high esteem.?

WOW.
 
It's more like nobody thinks Murray can have the same season he had last year and many backs can have the season one expects Murray will have...
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Because Murray was the best back on the roster and they didn't see the need to use a less talented back? Still has nothing to do with the amount of times we ran the ball.
Click to expand...

Didn't need to? So what was all the public moaning about running Murray's wheels off?
 
Clay_Allison said:
Didn't need to? So what was all the public moaning about running Murray's wheels off?
Click to expand...

It was the public moaning for the sake of moaning. Unless you think the Cowboys are wishing they would have left more tread on those tires for the Eagles next year.
 
There was no guarantee that Murray would have stayed healthy all season. We should have balanced the work load better, he may have had more tread for the playoffs then.
 
townsend said:
No he fumbled mostly because fuck Julius Peppers, but Murray definitely showed wear towards the end of the season and into the post season.
Click to expand...

That or teams just adjusted and realized that we had become a running team. Week 14 he still ran for 170+. Week 17 he went over 100. I don't know if you can really count the Colts games because it was such a freak blow out. In the loss to the Packers the dude ran for 123, and if he hadn't fumbled would have ran for a bunch more.

I don't know if I'd say he slowed down all that much.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
So that's why he fumbled? That's what cost us the playoffs.
Click to expand...

That is hilarious. One play cost the playoffs and it had nothing to do with the defense allowing a one legged QB to have his way on the field.
 
Jiggyfly said:
So are you now saying the coaches do not hold this OL in high esteem.?

WOW.
Click to expand...

You are the king of hyperbole. The OL is good but don't act like they are solely responsible for the offensive production. Romo s ability to read , react and execute keeps the opponents honest and Murrays ability to make yards after contact are formitable weapons. The line is apart of the process but not the alpha and omega.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
:art

Murray really pulls at your heart strings.
Click to expand...

Its no secret I like Murray but I also give him credit for his contribution to the team. I just don't agree with those that short sell his contribution and think he can be easily replaced. He is the exceptional RB and I don't think some give him his due.
 
BOOMER SOONERS! BOOMER SOONERS!
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
That or teams just adjusted and realized that we had become a running team. Week 14 he still ran for 170+. Week 17 he went over 100. I don't know if you can really count the Colts games because it was such a freak blow out. In the loss to the Packers the dude ran for 123, and if he hadn't fumbled would have ran for a bunch more.

I don't know if I'd say he slowed down all that much.
Click to expand...

He had very visably slowed down, he was tackled much easier and he lost that top gear.

He was still effective but he did not have that same burst, many people commented on that at the time.
 
L.T. Fan said:
You are the king of hyperbole. The OL is good but don't act like they are solely responsible for the offensive production. Romo s ability to read , react and execute keeps the opponents honest and Murrays ability to make yards after contact are formitable weapons. The line is apart of the process but not the alpha and omega.
Click to expand...

Once again you are saying things that nobody has said, I have never made the claim that the OL is completely
responsible for anything so why do keep saying this?

You have created a complete strawman argument claiming people were saying Murray could be replaced by anybody which is completely false and now you claim that I said the the OL is responsible for everything.

And this from the guy who was bellyaching about me making false claims about what he said........Oh the irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom