Murray turns down 4 year 16 million dollar offer?

Clay_Allison said:
That was pretty much my point. Randle could get 1000 and change behind this line, but if you want to replace Murray's production, we're not getting it in the later rounds short of a miracle.
Click to expand...

2nd-3rd round is about where we can get a solid RB. Day 3 starts with the 4th round and the best of the rest go early on that day. With us drafting at the back of each round this year we probably would have to nab a RB in the 2nd or 3rd, and the 3rd may require a trade up.
 
The tone is Jerry is putting out is that Murray walks. It's interesting in that we know that letting Murray go is contrary to everything Jerry would do in prior years.
 
p1_ said:
The tone is Jerry is putting out is that Murray walks. It's interesting in that we know that letting Murray go is contrary to everything Jerry would do in prior years.
Click to expand...

If he does let him walk, it's encouraging to say the least.
 
Iamtdg said:
If he does let him walk, it's encouraging to say the least.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, in a strange way. I don't want to lose Murray, but the record for worn wheels on 400 carries is really clear.
The decline ain't far behind, and you don't wanna go Marion Barber again. No sir....
 
p1_ said:
The tone is Jerry is putting out is that Murray walks. It's interesting in that we know that letting Murray go is contrary to everything Jerry would do in prior years.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Goof Son is being allowed to hold the purse strings.
 
The logic Ido not understand by some is the aobjection to the wear and tear on Murray but want to acquire Pdterson who is a poster boy for wear and tear.
 
L.T. Fan said:
The logic Ido not understand by some is the aobjection to the wear and tear on Murray but want to acquire Pdterson who is a poster boy for wear and tear.
Click to expand...

Peterson just sat out a year, so he is fresh. Murray is probably going to want 4-5 years, while I would assume you could get Peterson for 2 years at a cheaper price.
 
Carp said:
Peterson just sat out a year, so he is fresh. Murray is probably going to want 4-5 years, while I would assume you could get Peterson for 2 years at a cheaper price.
Click to expand...
Well if sitting out for a while can make one fresh the off season should do the same for Murray
 
L.T. Fan said:
Well if sitting out for a while can make one fresh the off season should do the same for Murray
Click to expand...
Great point. So then you prefer Murray over Peterson or are you just trolling?
 
Peterson's gonna probably be better. Because he's a better athlete. I kind of hate him because he's a monster though, I might root for him to get injured.
 
townsend said:
Peterson's gonna probably be better. Because he's a better athlete. I kind of hate him because he's a monster though, I might root for him to get injured.
Click to expand...

Peterson is just a physical freak...one of those rare athletes where I think he will be able to play later than most RBs. Having one full season off helps too.
 
Carp said:
Peterson is just a physical freak...one of those rare athletes where I think he will be able to play later than most RBs. Having one full season off helps too.
Click to expand...
I think addition of Peterson would probably put us heavily in the championship conversation. Brett Favre had an amazing year in 2009 thanks to Peterson. Then Romo can officially be part of a 3rd fake triplets.
 
Clay_Allison said:
That was pretty much my point. Randle could get 1000 and change behind this line, but if you want to replace Murray's production, we're not getting it in the later rounds short of a miracle.
Click to expand...

You don't replace Murray's production with 1 RB. I don't think anyone should want our new RB going for 400 carries again next year. Well I guess unless it is AP and we are just turning and burning with him.

By the way if you gave Randle 400 carries he would get a lot more then 1000 and change. I'd just rather not give him 400 carries, just like I wouldn't want to give a rookie RB that type of carry load either. What you do is draft someone and split the carries. The RB is far less important then the guys blocking for him. We have built the O-line, now take advantage of it.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
You don't replace Murray's production with 1 RB. I don't think anyone should want our new RB going for 400 carries again next year. Well I guess unless it is AP and we are just turning and burning with him.

By the way if you gave Randle 400 carries he would get a lot more then 1000 and change. I'd just rather not give him 400 carries, just like I wouldn't want to give a rookie RB that type of carry load either. What you do is draft someone and split the carries. The RB is far less important then the guys blocking for him. We have built the O-line, now take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

I'd rather capitalize on it with a talented back like the ones listed above, not waste the line by fielding a bunch of JAGs who leave yards on the field and call it a "committee".

I don't want to give anyone 400 carries, but I'd like a back who is worth giving 300 carries to.
 
Clay_Allison said:
I'd rather capitalize on it with a talented back like the ones listed above, not waste the line by fielding a bunch of JAGs who leave yards on the field
Click to expand...

Every RB leaves yards on the field. The O-line is the reason a jag like Joseph Randle averaged 6.7 yards per carry. What I'm talking about is referred to as diminishing returns. You get to a certain point where the more resources you pour into something the less and less you actually get in additional returns. Behind this stud O-line I don't think there is going to be a massive difference on a carry per carry basis between a "stud" RB and a "JAG."
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Every RB leaves yards on the field. The O-line is the reason a jag like Joseph Randle averaged 6.7 yards per carry. What I'm talking about is referred to as diminishing returns. You get to a certain point where the more resources you pour into something the less and less you actually get in additional returns. Behind this stud O-line I don't think there is going to be a massive difference on a carry per carry basis between a "stud" RB and a "JAG."
Click to expand...

Where i might take issue with this approach is that there have been some pretty good OL s in the NFL that i think were at least as good or better and the current one with Dallas and those RBs didnt deliver this kind of production. To me the RB has a lot to do with obtaining the yardage.
 
Murray has had 934 carries in his 4 years in the league. 392 came this past year. That's over 40% of his career attempts in one season. Throw in 57 receptions and he had 449 touches. The key to him is if he stays healthy and he's missed several games his first couple of seasons and with his current workload he'll be hard pressed to stay healthy a 16 game season plus playoff again.

Looking back, the Cowboys had a very balanced attack during the '90's and Emmitt's career season high for carries was 377. And we never really had a 2nd quality back in those days.

This is a tough call. At the right price I'd love to have DM back. I just don't know if we can get 2-3 more injury free seasons out of him while at the same time having him get 350+ attempts/yr and maintain his productivity. At the same time we don't want to take a step backwards by letting him go and not having a viable replacement.
 
VA Cowboy said:
Murray has had 934 carries in his 4 years in the league. 392 came this past year. That's over 40% of his career attempts in one season. Throw in 57 receptions and he had 449 touches. The key to him is if he stays healthy and he's missed several games his first couple of seasons and with his current workload he'll be hard pressed to stay healthy a 16 game season plus playoff again.

Looking back, the Cowboys had a very balanced attack during the '90's and Emmitt's career season high for carries was 377. And we never really had a 2nd quality back in those days.

This is a tough call. At the right price I'd love to have DM back. I just don't know if we can get 2-3 more injury free seasons out of him while at the same time having him get 350+ attempts/yr and maintain his productivity. At the same time we don't want to take a step backwards by letting him go and not having a viable replacement.
Click to expand...

Yep. As easy as it is to say just replace him, doing so will not be easy.
 
AP, soon to turn 30, will probably want at least $10M and more than a one-year deal. Then there's the matter of compensating Minny if they don't release him. The whole point of letting Murray go is to spend the money elsewhere (defense), but I don't see how that's accomplished if you pay AP what he wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom