Am I Being Realistic

hstour said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is 100% correct.
 
Iamtdg said:
This is 100% correct.
Click to expand...

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.
 
His track record was as a pass happy coach though, so this is out of character.
 
NoDak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Iamtdg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NoDak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're right. We are all idiots and were wrong. Hopefully, this gets you through your day.
 
ravidubey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ravidubey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ravidubey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simpleton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Short of a meltdown, Murray shouldn't even play in the 4th quarter vs. Jacksonville for example.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Randle can't make a defender miss. That's all.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom