Archive - Random Cowboys Related Stuff Thread...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why give away the farm on Petersen when the very reason for releasing Murray was the cost was too high. It would be a nonsense move
 
Jiggyfly said:
Because Peterson is a much better back?
Click to expand...

Debatable. They're both officially past their primes and could be straight up finished after last year. Peterson may not have carried the ball 400 times last year, but age can suck it out of you nearly as certainly as carries will.
 
townsend said:
Debatable. They're both officially past their primes and could be straight up finished after last year. Peterson may not have carried the ball 400 times last year, but age can suck it out of you nearly as certainly as carries will.
Click to expand...

Peterson has better vision more speed and more wiggle he can lose a step and still be on Murray's level.

There is nothing to show me Peterson is in decline while I did see Murray slow down at the end of last year.
 
Jiggyfly said:
Peterson has better vision more speed and more wiggle he can lose a step and still be on Murray's level.

There is nothing to show me Peterson is in decline while I did see Murray slow down at the end of last year.
Click to expand...
You saw Peterson do nothing last year. Murray rushed for 1800 yards while Peterson stayed home and turned 30. No question career wise AP is on a different level from Murray. He's a once in a generation kind of talent. But even talent that rare tends to evaporate around this time in a Rb's life. IMO you take exactly as much of a risk with Peterson as Murray. Either of them could break out and lead the league in rushing again. But history says it's unlikely.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Says you but it isnt conclusive.
Click to expand...

All things being considered, Peterson is clearly the better back. Faster, stronger, more agile, etc...

Now, if you think the year layoff hurt him, that's understandable. Just as understandable to think that the heavy workload hurt Murray.
 
 
NoDak said:
All things being considered, Peterson is clearly the better back. Faster, stronger, more agile, etc...

Now, if you think the year layoff hurt him, that's understandable. Just as understandable to think that the heavy workload hurt Murray.
Click to expand...

I don't know who is the better back as of today. My position is both are good backs but the reason for not keeping Murray is essentially the same reason for not rolling the dice on Petersen. Petersen has a lot of cumulitive wear that could surface at any time. Murray has one year of heavy duty but that may or may not be a factor for his future. Either way there is no clear cut dael breaker for either but both will cost you to see the outcome so what is the point in shucking one and taking on another. If there is heavy risk with Murray there is probable equal risk with Petersen. Bet the house on either is a factor but the declared reasons to reject one probably needs to be applied to both. It isn't an automatic deal either way.
 
Newt said:
Damn straight, but I would still be excited. And you know damn well we have wasted more and got back less in return. See Roy William, WR.
Click to expand...

Just because we have jacked up trades in the past doesn't justify doing it now.
 
If we had to gamble on either I would have preferred Murray. Younger, and much much higher character. We live in a "what have you done for me lately league." Murray's not worth the contract the Eagles handed him. But a least he's not a piece of shit under contract begging to get away from a team he already fucked over last year.
 
NoDak said:
So a stupid mistake made in the past would excuse another stupid mistake?

No thanks.

I'd like to see Peterson on this team behind that line, too. But not at that price. Not even close to that price. The highest I'd go is a 4th. MAYBE a conditional third.
Click to expand...

Damn, I seem to have been timestamped.
 
Jiggyfly said:
Peterson has better vision more speed and more wiggle he can lose a step and still be on Murray's level.

There is nothing to show me Peterson is in decline while I did see Murray slow down at the end of last year.
Click to expand...

He has also been hurt off and on his entire pro career minus maybe the first year or so.
 
L.T. Fan said:
If there is heavy risk with Murray there is probable equal risk with Petersen.
Click to expand...

People are willing to take more of a risk for a HOF talent. Only one of these backs match that description.
 
NoDak said:
People are willing to take more of a risk for a HOF talent. Only one of these backs match that description.
Click to expand...

It's still a risk. So why take it if you have already committed to a different program. It can take a big chunk out of an otherwise bright future.
 


Going from Collins to this has GOT to sting.
 


:towel
 
L.T. Fan said:
It's still a risk. So why take it if you have already committed to a different program. It can take a big chunk out of an otherwise bright future.
Click to expand...

What different program do you think has been committed to?

The only program I see is not to pay Murray as premium back.

And how could adding Murray take a big chunk out of anything?

It's already been proven that Dallas is not willing to mortage their future to bring him in.
 
Jiggyfly said:
What different program do you think has been committed to?

The only program I see is not to pay Murray as premium back.

And how could adding Murray take a big chunk out of anything?

It's already been proven that Dallas is not willing to mortage their future to bring him in.
Click to expand...
I think the chunk he's talking about is the salary cap damage from signing a high dollar back.

Either Murray or Peterson could bust big, and frankly Peterson is a bigger risk. At this stage of his career LaDainian Tomlinson was averaging less than 4 YPC. If there's a back if equivalent talent level in this generation it's LT. Father Time took away his talent at about age 30.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom