D.Murray's days in Dallas appear to be numbered

[sirensong 111]

 

I mean, we are literally, and for the first time realistically, talking about a shot at the Super Bowl for the Dallas Cowboys. What price do you put on that? How many years of salary cap hell would you be willing to endure for a trophy? You figure Jerry Jones would give up his left nut for a super bowl win. But is he smart enough to make the right move when it's right in front of him?

 

 

good post, but here's the crux of it--the "one player away" attitude is what doomed the team for so many years. "one player away" brought in joey galloway and roy williams, in exchange for 6 picks (3 x 1st rounders). Those lost picks created the void of talent that resulted in the dismal performance of the early 21st century. "one player away" is why the team was still paying for guys like miles austin and jay ratliff in 2014, when they were playing for other teams--DAL will still be paying for the austin deal next season. and "one player away" brought in brandon carr--a guy making master money for journeyman performance.

 

as i wrote earlier, the question is not "a couple of million". it's re-signing murray for approximately his market value, or keeping/bringing in 3 quality starters. for most of the post-millenial era, DAL has been a shallow, top-heavy roster with a few superstars and zero depth (and people somehow wonder why the team had a habit of fading down the stretch). keeping murray at anything near his market rate will be more of the same.

 

finally, we need to consider the implications of spending heavily at the RB position. look at the top 10 teams in RB spending--2 of them made the playoffs.

 

 

once again, keeping murray means a degraded offensive line or a degraded defense. which of those two sounds like it would benefit the cowboys' SB chances?

[Flyfreak 84]

The Dallas Morning News' Jon Machota believes Joseph Randle will be the Cowboys' starting running back in 2015.

The obvious implication of Machota's comments is he believes impending free agent DeMarco Murray will not be back with the team next season. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said it would be a "challenge" to re-sign both Murray and Dez Bryant on Thursday, and given the choice Dallas will almost certainly pick Bryant. An aging running back with a long list of injuries, Murray should be after as much guaranteed money as possible this offseason.

[Cruzer 1,992]

No way Randle is the man next year. He is a more prone fumbler than Murray and isn't worth a shiat as pass blocking.

[R8RMick 242]

 

The Dallas Morning News' Jon Machota believes Joseph Randle will be the Cowboys' starting running back in 2015.

The obvious implication of Machota's comments is he believes impending free agent DeMarco Murray will not be back with the team next season. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said it would be a "challenge" to re-sign both Murray and Dez Bryant on Thursday, and given the choice Dallas will almost certainly pick Bryant. An aging running back with a long list of injuries, Murray should be after as much guaranteed money as possible this offseason.

 

 

'Aging...?' He's pretty much the same age as Dez Bryant.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

'Aging...?' He's pretty much the same age as Dez Bryant.

aren't rb's running off of dog years?

[Vikings4ever 496]

 

'Aging...?' He's pretty much the same age as Dez Bryant.

RBs have a much shorter career than WRs. A 30 year old RB playing at a high level is rare. 33 year old Fred Jackson is ancient in RB years.

[R8RMick 242]

RBs have a much shorter career than WRs. A 30 year old RB playing at a high level is rare. 33 year old Fred Jackson is ancient in RB years.

 

Break down Flyfreak's post- The first sentence was a direct report from the Dallas Morning News. The rest was analysis from Rotoworld, putting their personal spin/bias on the situation. That's basically just a bunch of fluff, the clowns at Rotoworld don't know everything and often put homerism spin on takes.

 

Murray doesn't even turn 27 until next month. I'd put his situation to something akin to what Michael Turner had going when he signed with Atlanta. Of course, Murray has a few more carries than the Burner had. My point is that he has plenty left in the tank. Even if it's only 2-3 years I ask again, what price do you put on a championship?

 

The first Dallas offer was 4 years $16 million which is a joke. Too bad a team like Indy doesn't have cap space to sign him.

[Cruzer 1,992]

R8RMick, on 18 Jan 2015 - 2:07 PM, said:

The first Dallas offer was 4 years $16 million which is a joke. Too bad a team like Indy doesn't have cap space to sign him.

There has never been a rb with 350 carries the previous year - produce and run anything remotely close to what he did the next year. I heard a breakdown over the weekend - numbers were staggering on it. RB's had 1000 to 700 yards less the following year following carries of 350 or more - Murray had almost 100 more than even that. The one exception cited was Tiki Barber - he returned the next year and had like 1600 yards or something - but that's it........... I love Murray - love his heart, toughness and skill. But history and numbers don't lie - I'm totally letting him walk if he wants more than $5m a year.

[The Moz 69]

Dallas RB's next year

 

A. Peterson RB1

R. Rice 3rd down/COP

[Flyfreak 84]

Dallas RB's next year

 

A. Peterson RB1

R. Rice 3rd down/COP

i'm rolling with the ingram/randle duo

[Cruzer 1,992]

i'm rolling with the ingram/randle duo

I would be a pretty happy camper if this came to pass. Assuming Ingram didn't get more than $4m.

[Flyfreak 84]

i can't see him getting more than 4m in the current market

[sirensong 111]

i can't see him getting more than 4m in the current market

 

 

disagree. someone will pay him $6M, and there's an outside shot at 7. indy is a perfect example of a team that could see itself as "a good RB away" from serious contention.

 

i would be extremely uncomfortable if he wound up with the giants, even with his durability concerns. he's not a player i want DAL to be facing.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

 

disagree. someone will pay him $6M, and there's an outside shot at 7. indy is a perfect example of a team that could see itself as "a good RB away" from serious contention.

 

i would be extremely uncomfortable if he wound up with the giants, even with his durability concerns. he's not a player i want DAL to be facing.

there's no way this dude gets 6-7m

 

5m tops

[sirensong 111]

there's no way this dude gets 6-7m

 

5m tops

 

 

we'll see how execs react to lynch and blount's performance last week, plus murray's effect on the cowboys offensive performance this season. DAL might be able to sign him for $5.5M. might. any other team is looking at 6.

 

completely agree with the earlier post that $4M was an insult of an offer. if anything, that kind of lowballing will hurt their ability to get a hometown discount.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

 

we'll see how execs react to lynch and blount's performance last week, plus murray's effect on the cowboys offensive performance this season. DAL might be able to sign him for $5.5M. might. any other team is looking at 6.

 

completely agree with the earlier post that $4M was an insult of an offer. if anything, that kind of lowballing will hurt their ability to get a hometown discount.

how would you rate the top fa rb's according to salary?

murray, spiller, mathews, ingram, forsett, gore, vereen, ridley, helu, bradshaw, dmc, moreno, rice, tate,

 

9-10m:

6-8m:

4-7m:

[worm 34]

Just read how Indy will have a lot of cap space next season. Just spitballin' here, but with Bradshaw a free agent and Ballard coming off back-to-back season ending injuries, could they be in the running for Murray?

[sirensong 111]

how would you rate the top fa rb's according to salary?

murray, spiller, mathews, ingram, forsett, gore, vereen, ridley, helu, bradshaw, dmc, moreno, rice, tate,

 

9-10m:

6-8m:

4-7m:

 

9-10M: nobody

6-8M: murray

2-6M: everyone else

 

i don't really know enough about the other backs to speculate in greater detail. i don't think murray will get 9M from anyone, but as i wrote, someone will offer him 6.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

9-10M: nobody

6-8M: murray

2-6M: everyone else

 

i don't really know enough about the other backs to speculate in greater detail. i don't think murray will get 9M from anyone, but as i wrote, someone will offer him 6.

well, for 6 he should stay in dallas

 

i think he's gonna get way more than 6

[Gepetto 979]

I wish the Cowboys could find a way to get a young up and coming back, like Christine Michael - I wonder what it would take to get him from Seattle.

[R8RMick 242]

 

 

There has never been a rb with 350 carries the previous year - produce and run anything remotely close to what he did the next year. I heard a breakdown over the weekend - numbers were staggering on it. RB's had 1000 to 700 yards less the following year following carries of 350 or more - Murray had almost 100 more than even that. The one exception cited was Tiki Barber - he returned the next year and had like 1600 yards or something - but that's it........... I love Murray - love his heart, toughness and skill. But history and numbers don't lie - I'm totally letting him walk if he wants more than $5m a year.

I've never especially bought into this line of thinking, that there is a special threshold of carries that sends a running back off a cliff if they surpass it. Obviously there's been some examples, and you don't want to overwork your 'workhorse,' so to speak. But all in all, it's a myth. And for certain it's a ludicrous reason to run off the best running back in the NFL.

Firstly, your numbers are off. In the history of the NFL, running backs have rushed for over 350 carries a total of fifty-seven times. What's more, thirteen different players have done so more than once. I've often compared DeMarco Murray to Eric Dickerson, both in physical talent and running style. Dickerson surpassed 350 carries 4 times, including 404 carries in 1988. His LA Rams teams had extremely talented offensive lines, just like Dallas did this year. In a seven year span, Eric Dickerson's numbers were as follows:

1983- 390 carries 1800 yds
1984- 379 carries 2105 yds
1985- 292 carries 1234 yds (Rams brought in CFL QB star Dieter Brock)
1986- 404 carries 1821 yds
1987- 283 carries 1288 yds (traded to Colts mid-season)
1988- 388 carries 1659 yds
1989- 314 carries 1311 yds

Emmit Smith also surpassed 350 carries four different times in his career. In 1991, his second year, he carried the ball 365 times for 1563 yds, and then 373 times for 1713 yds in 1992 as Dallas won their first super bowl. This hardly broke him as he exceeded 300 carries seven more times before he retired, including 377 times for 1773 yds in 1995.

Curtis Martin also hit the mark four times, and averaged over 300 carries a season for his first seven years. In 2004 he carried the ball a career high 371 times, his second to last season in the league.

Eddie George broke 350 carries three times. From 1996 to 1999 he averaged 340 carries and 1341 yds, then broke loose for 403 carries and 1509 yds in 2000. Though his play dropped off some, he still averaged 323 carries and 1045 yds the following three seasons.

Earl Campbell averaged 360 carries for 1600 yds for three seasons between 1979 and 1981. Then still had enough gas in the tank to hit 322 carries and 1300 yds in 1983.

Edgerrin James hit 369 carries for 1553 yds as a rookie in 1999, then came back the next year with 387 carries for 1709 yds. All told he averaged 300 carries a season over his 11 year career.

Other backs who rushed over 350 times in two different seasons:

James Wilder
Gerald Riggs
Terrell Davis
Ricky Williams
Walter Payton (averaged over 300 carries for 10 seasons)
Jerome Bettis
Shaun Alexander (his career did fall off a cliff after his 370 carries in 2005, yet he did have some wear by averaging 320 carries in each of the previous years)


The magic cliff number you were thinking of was probably closer to the 390 carries that Murray had this season. Only ten players have ever exceeded 390 carries in an NFL season, with their careers meeting mixed results thenceforth.

The Leaders-

1. Larry Johnson 416 carries with KC in 2006- Started his next season as a holdout, then suffered a year ending injury. LJ was hardly the model team mate that Murray is, dealing with suspensions and attitude problems.

2. Jamal Anderson 410 carries with ATL in 1998- Anderson was no special talent, a 7th round pick who carried the mail in the Falcons Super Bowl run. Injured the next season and never the same.

3. James Wilder 407 carries with Tampa Bay in 1984- Wilder was a decent back who played for a 2-14 Bucs team. He did manage to rush for 365 carries for 1300 yds and 10 TDs, with 53 receptions for 300+ yds the following season. Career tailed off from there.

4. Dickerson

5. Eddie George

6. Gerald Riggs 397 carries 1719 yds with ATL in 1985- Riggs rushed for 353 carries for 1486 yds in 1984, then 343 carries for 1327 yds in 1986 to sandwich his monster season.

7. Terrell Davis 392 carries for 2008 yds with DEN in 1998- TD's three year numbers preceding his record setting year was 237-1117 (95), 345-1538 (96), and 369-1750 (97), so he also had some wear. He tore his ACL and MCL while making a tackle after an interception in 1999.

8. Murray

9. Ricky Williams 392 carries 1372 yds with MIA in 2003- his 392 carries actually followed a year in which Williams went 383-1852 in 2002. Williams dropped off but did manage to hang around the league and posted 240-1100 numbers in 2009

10. Barry Foster 390 carries for 1690 yds with PITT in 1992- a 5th round pick who played fullback at Arkansas in a wishbone offense. Injuries and Bam Morris led to a trade to Carolina, where he failed a physical and washed out.


So you've had situations where a back with average talent accumulated a large total of carries in a given year as an anomaly, or where injuries have indeed cut promising careers short. But there have also been cases of running backs who've reached high carry totals consistently, and have experienced significant success in the years following these high volume seasons. You mentioned a drop off in numbers, but in actuality, the important number here in Murray's case is carries.

While 390 carries is an unrealistic and unsustainable level of work, 320-340 carries is not. That averages out to a little over 20 carries a game. Since the onset of his career in 2011, the Dallas Cowboys are 21-2 in games which DeMarco Murray receives 20 carries. The testament to this stat is the fact that Murray's career average has basically flat lined at 5 yards per carry. This is a critical and valuable stat for the Cowboys, who's passing game enhances the effect of Murray's consistent running. Matt Asiata can rush 30 times for 62 yds in Minnesota, and it's a crushing stat for a probable Viking loss. If Murray runs 30 times for 62 yds for the Cowboys, it's a guaranteed victory. Their ability to convert third downs and move the chains is the difference.

This past season carry total should be of little concern when it comes to the future health and viability of Murray in Dallas' running game. However, the health and viability of the Dallas running game without Murray is terminal. Furthermore, I contend that DeMarco Murray's running prowess preserved Tony Romo, who was a shell of himself physically. Without Murray pounding the ball, and forced to pass 35-40 times per game, Romo probably doesn't make it through the season. With a full off season of rest, I'd wonder to see the year Romo and Murray could produce in 2015?

This team, as is, remains a super bowl contender next year. Without Murray, no way. What price do you place on that?

[Vikings4ever 496]

Matt Asiata can rush 30 times for 62 yds in Minnesota, and it's a crushing stat for a probable Viking loss. If Murray runs 30 times for 62 yds for the Cowboys, it's a guaranteed victory. Their ability to convert third downs and move the chains is the difference.

I know this is just an example you pulled out of your ass, but I just have to chime in that Asiata's heaviest workloads (30 carries for 51 yards, 20 for 78, 19 for 91, and 19 for 54) have all been Viking wins.

[sirensong 111]

 

This team, as is, remains a super bowl contender next year. Without Murray, no way. What price do you place on that?

 

 

no.

 

the team as it is might win a divisional playoff game, but can't hope to compete with the NFL's elite teams. you just can't hide substantial team weaknesses deep in the playoffs unless you can score at will. the GB game is case in point--DAL shut them down for most of the game, but they adjusted, and came up big when it counted. even had dez scored, odds were very good that rodgers could have put together a winning drive.

 

per PFF grades, DAL had 4 players in the top 20% of their respective positions league-wide: scandrick, mcclain, melton, and crawford. 2 of those guys are now UFAs. by comparison, DAL also had 4 defensive starters in the lowest 20% of their respective positions. that means DAL's starters were worse than most teams' rotation players. carter, hitchens, carr, wilcox, church, and hayden all graded out substantially below average.

 

and yet those were the guys who took the field against rodgers, lacy, nelson, and cobb.

 

this team cannot hope to compete seriously until it improves the defense's talent pool. it just can't.

 

any decision about murray has to take that reality into account.

[R8RMick 242]

 

 

no.

 

the team as it is might win a divisional playoff game, but can't hope to compete with the NFL's elite teams. you just can't hide substantial team weaknesses deep in the playoffs unless you can score at will. the GB game is case in point--DAL shut them down for most of the game, but they adjusted, and came up big when it counted. even had dez scored, odds were very good that rodgers could have put together a winning drive.

 

per PFF grades, DAL had 4 players in the top 20% of their respective positions league-wide: scandrick, mcclain, melton, and crawford. 2 of those guys are now UFAs. by comparison, DAL also had 4 defensive starters in the lowest 20% of their respective positions. that means DAL's starters were worse than most teams' rotation players. carter, hitchens, carr, wilcox, church, and hayden all graded out substantially below average.

 

and yet those were the guys who took the field against rodgers, lacy, nelson, and cobb.

 

this team cannot hope to compete seriously until it improves the defense's talent pool. it just can't.

 

any decision about murray has to take that reality into account.

 

My point, in most recent post, was only to dispel the 'heavy carry' myth. But I'll stand behind a previous point I made that any success Dallas defensive players enjoyed came at the hands of the Cowboys running game. On the field fewer plays, fewer minutes etc. I can't see how you can place ANY of those players just mentioned in the same discussion as DeMarco Murray.

 

Raised eyebrows at your statement they are not a super bowl contender right now. So, you wouldn't have liked your chances going into Seattle last week? Or New England for that matter?

 

I would have. Definitely.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Let's face it.

It doesn't matter who you put back there behind that mauling offensive line. Murray is not an elite talent.

[R8RMick 242]

Let's face it.

It doesn't matter who you put back there behind that mauling offensive line. Murray is not an elite talent.

It's too bad all I have is numbers to back up my take lol... Murray broke the Cowboy single game rushing record as a rookie, before most of this mauling Cowboy line was in place. If that alone doesn't make him an elite talent I don't know what does.

 

Let's just revisit. Should be pretty cut and dried about this time next year.

[Cruzer 1,992]

I've never especially bought into this line of thinking, that there is a special threshold of carries that sends a running back off a cliff if they surpass it. Obviously there's been some examples, and you don't want to overwork your 'workhorse,' so to speak. But all in all, it's a myth. And for certain it's a ludicrous reason to run off the best running back in the NFL.

 

Firstly, your numbers are off. In the history of the NFL, running backs have rushed for over 350 carries a total of fifty-seven times. What's more, thirteen different players have done so more than once. I've often compared DeMarco Murray to Eric Dickerson, both in physical talent and running style. Dickerson surpassed 350 carries 4 times, including 404 carries in 1988. His LA Rams teams had extremely talented offensive lines, just like Dallas did this year. In a seven year span, Eric Dickerson's numbers were as follows:

 

1983- 390 carries 1800 yds

1984- 379 carries 2105 yds

1985- 292 carries 1234 yds (Rams brought in CFL QB star Dieter Brock)

1986- 404 carries 1821 yds

1987- 283 carries 1288 yds (traded to Colts mid-season)

1988- 388 carries 1659 yds

1989- 314 carries 1311 yds

 

Emmit Smith also surpassed 350 carries four different times in his career. In 1991, his second year, he carried the ball 365 times for 1563 yds, and then 373 times for 1713 yds in 1992 as Dallas won their first super bowl. This hardly broke him as he exceeded 300 carries seven more times before he retired, including 377 times for 1773 yds in 1995.

 

Curtis Martin also hit the mark four times, and averaged over 300 carries a season for his first seven years. In 2004 he carried the ball a career high 371 times, his second to last season in the league.

 

Eddie George broke 350 carries three times. From 1996 to 1999 he averaged 340 carries and 1341 yds, then broke loose for 403 carries and 1509 yds in 2000. Though his play dropped off some, he still averaged 323 carries and 1045 yds the following three seasons.

 

Earl Campbell averaged 360 carries for 1600 yds for three seasons between 1979 and 1981. Then still had enough gas in the tank to hit 322 carries and 1300 yds in 1983.

 

Edgerrin James hit 369 carries for 1553 yds as a rookie in 1999, then came back the next year with 387 carries for 1709 yds. All told he averaged 300 carries a season over his 11 year career.

 

Other backs who rushed over 350 times in two different seasons:

 

James Wilder

Gerald Riggs

Terrell Davis

Ricky Williams

Walter Payton (averaged over 300 carries for 10 seasons)

Jerome Bettis

Shaun Alexander (his career did fall off a cliff after his 370 carries in 2005, yet he did have some wear by averaging 320 carries in each of the previous years)

 

 

The magic cliff number you were thinking of was probably closer to the 390 carries that Murray had this season. Only ten players have ever exceeded 390 carries in an NFL season, with their careers meeting mixed results thenceforth.

 

The Leaders-

 

1. Larry Johnson 416 carries with KC in 2006- Started his next season as a holdout, then suffered a year ending injury. LJ was hardly the model team mate that Murray is, dealing with suspensions and attitude problems.

 

2. Jamal Anderson 410 carries with ATL in 1998- Anderson was no special talent, a 7th round pick who carried the mail in the Falcons Super Bowl run. Injured the next season and never the same.

 

3. James Wilder 407 carries with Tampa Bay in 1984- Wilder was a decent back who played for a 2-14 Bucs team. He did manage to rush for 365 carries for 1300 yds and 10 TDs, with 53 receptions for 300+ yds the following season. Career tailed off from there.

 

4. Dickerson

 

5. Eddie George

 

6. Gerald Riggs 397 carries 1719 yds with ATL in 1985- Riggs rushed for 353 carries for 1486 yds in 1984, then 343 carries for 1327 yds in 1986 to sandwich his monster season.

 

7. Terrell Davis 392 carries for 2008 yds with DEN in 1998- TD's three year numbers preceding his record setting year was 237-1117 (95), 345-1538 (96), and 369-1750 (97), so he also had some wear. He tore his ACL and MCL while making a tackle after an interception in 1999.

 

8. Murray

 

9. Ricky Williams 392 carries 1372 yds with MIA in 2003- his 392 carries actually followed a year in which Williams went 383-1852 in 2002. Williams dropped off but did manage to hang around the league and posted 240-1100 numbers in 2009

 

10. Barry Foster 390 carries for 1690 yds with PITT in 1992- a 5th round pick who played fullback at Arkansas in a wishbone offense. Injuries and Bam Morris led to a trade to Carolina, where he failed a physical and washed out.

 

 

So you've had situations where a back with average talent accumulated a large total of carries in a given year as an anomaly, or where injuries have indeed cut promising careers short. But there have also been cases of running backs who've reached high carry totals consistently, and have experienced significant success in the years following these high volume seasons. You mentioned a drop off in numbers, but in actuality, the important number here in Murray's case is carries.

 

While 390 carries is an unrealistic and unsustainable level of work, 320-340 carries is not. That averages out to a little over 20 carries a game. Since the onset of his career in 2011, the Dallas Cowboys are 21-2 in games which DeMarco Murray receives 20 carries. The testament to this stat is the fact that Murray's career average has basically flat lined at 5 yards per carry. This is a critical and valuable stat for the Cowboys, who's passing game enhances the effect of Murray's consistent running. Matt Asiata can rush 30 times for 62 yds in Minnesota, and it's a crushing stat for a probable Viking loss. If Murray runs 30 times for 62 yds for the Cowboys, it's a guaranteed victory. Their ability to convert third downs and move the chains is the difference.

 

This past season carry total should be of little concern when it comes to the future health and viability of Murray in Dallas' running game. However, the health and viability of the Dallas running game without Murray is terminal. Furthermore, I contend that DeMarco Murray's running prowess preserved Tony Romo, who was a shell of himself physically. Without Murray pounding the ball, and forced to pass 35-40 times per game, Romo probably doesn't make it through the season. With a full off season of rest, I'd wonder to see the year Romo and Murray could produce in 2015?

 

This team, as is, remains a super bowl contender next year. Without Murray, no way. What price do you place on that?

You're making my argument for me. On one hand you are comparing Murray to Dickerson and Emmitt - he's clearly not them. Nor should he be paid as such... The other part of it is that rb's who have previously had large workloads of 350+ carries have returned to have "average" type seasons the next. Franchising Murray for $9m or giving him upwards of $8m a year is ridiculous if you're talking 280 carries and 1100 yards. With this line you can find that all day long for $3m.

[R8RMick 242]

You're making my argument for me. On one hand you are comparing Murray to Dickerson and Emmitt - he's clearly not them. Nor should he be paid as such... The other part of it is that rb's who have previously had large workloads of 350+ carries have returned to have "average" type seasons the next. Franchising Murray for $9m or giving him upwards of $8m a year is ridiculous if you're talking 280 carries and 1100 yards. With this line you can find that all day long for $3m.

Murray is clearly not Dickerson or Emmitt in the fact he hasn't had the career numbers of those runners. I get that. I thought my post proved that plenty of RBs have put up multiple good years while reaching that carry total. I think a good target for Murray would be 320-335 carries a year. That's about 21 a game. It's not unreasonable to expect three more years with those numbers, even accounting for time missed due to minor injuries.

 

I suppose more than anything I'm amazed true Cowboy fans like yourself are just willing to let this guy walk. I actually feel a little foolish even entering debate with you, with your knowledge of the team.

 

Really though, I haven't seen a player so responsible for a team's turn around and good fortune in years.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Murray is clearly not Dickerson or Emmitt in the fact he hasn't had the career numbers of those runners. I get that. I thought my post proved that plenty of RBs have put up multiple good years while reaching that carry total. I think a good target for Murray would be 320-335 carries a year. That's about 21 a game. It's not unreasonable to expect three more years with those numbers, even accounting for time missed due to minor injuries.

I guess bottom line is I'm not sold on Murray. Not in his heart, ability or character - I'm not sold on his body. I've seen what happens when you back the truck up and reward players coming off one single career year. Does thee name Miles Austin ring any bells? Been there and done that with those kind of deals - they are crippling. And no, I've no faith in Murray being able to back up a 437 carry season with productive, powerful 320-335 carry seasons. Maybe he can - I'm gun shy, hesitant to bank on it.

 

I suppose more than anything I'm amazed true Cowboy fans like yourself are just willing to let this guy walk. I actually feel a little foolish even entering debate with you, with your knowledge of the team.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Murray fan - I love him. But unfortunately football has a business side to it - and the game today comes with a salary cap. And for the overall betterment of the team and all the needs we have, I just can't justify paying a rb $9m a year - especially with the line that we have now.

[sirensong 111]

My point, in most recent post, was only to dispel the 'heavy carry' myth. But I'll stand behind a previous point I made that any success Dallas defensive players enjoyed came at the hands of the Cowboys running game. On the field fewer plays, fewer minutes etc. I can't see how you can place ANY of those players just mentioned in the same discussion as DeMarco Murray.

 

Raised eyebrows at your statement they are not a super bowl contender right now. So, you wouldn't have liked your chances going into Seattle last week? Or New England for that matter?

 

I would have. Definitely.

 

 

exactly--you're saying that the current defense is so weak that it absolutely requires help from the offensive scheme. this means that if the running game has a bad day against a good team, a loss is almost assured. that's a very significant problem, which echoes DAL team structure over the last decade--top-loading the team with superstars instead of building quality depth.

 

again, we're not talking about a 1 to 1 comparison of murray's talent vice an individual defensive player's. we're talking about return on investment, similar to the draft. can i get 3 quality starters for the price of one flashy first rounder? if so, then there is a very strong incentive to "trade down", so to speak.

 

the bottom line is that keeping murray at anywhere near his market value will result in a defensive downgrade. since the defense already can't pull its own weight, that means even more pressure will be placed on the offense in general, and murray in particular. so if murray gets hurt, the season is over.

 

that's not the way to build a playoff football team.

[Flyfreak 84]

reports have ingram looking for 3-5m base salary, unfortunately for the cowboys he wants to resign with the saints

[Cruzer 1,992]

Flyfreak, on 23 Jan 2015 - 1:31 PM, said:

reports have ingram looking for 3-5m base salary, unfortunately for the cowboys he wants to resign with the saints

Very reasonable dollar amounts..... But I wouldn't say Dallas is out of the pix. NO declined to pick up the option on Ingram - meaning they aren't all that sold on him or would of never let him test the market. He may want to go back, but it doesn't look like the Saints are so in love with him that they aren't weighing other options.

[Flyfreak 84]

here's the actual roto write-up

 

Impending free agent Mark Ingram said the Saints have informed him they'd like to re-sign him.

"They want me back, for sure," Ingram said. "I definitely want to stay with the Saints." The Saints may want Ingram back, but they're a poor bet to give him what he wants money-wise. With Khiry Robinson already in the fold at the minimum along with the Saints' poor cap situation, Ingram is a good bet to be playing in a different uniform. He'll likely seek $3-5 million per year. Jan 23 - 9:00 AM

he'd be a perfect fit for the cowboys and ease their moving on from murray

[sirensong 111]

Very reasonable dollar amounts..... But I wouldn't say Dallas is out of the pix. NO declined to pick up the option on Ingram - meaning they aren't all that sold on him or would of never let him test the market. He may want to go back, but it doesn't look like the Saints are so in love with him that they aren't weighing other options.

 

yeah--those are nice looking numbers.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Ingram just now turned 25. I'd gladly look at offering him a 3 year deal worth $11m or so - with an option for a 4th year.

[ralphster 274]

I guess bottom line is I'm not sold on Murray. Not in his heart, ability or character - I'm not sold on his body.

 

I'm sold on his ability and heart. Don't know hsit about his character. Definitely NOT sold on the body; the guy has proven injury prone. Bad luck, upright running style, don't matter. I'd present the following offer to him: 3 years, 15 million, with 10 mil guaranteed. Give him 6 as a signing bonus, 2 for next year's salary and then break the last 2 years into 3.5 chunks however you like it. A contract like that rewards him (8 mil next year) for the truly MVP workhorse effort he gave this year, is affordable for the following two years, and makes everybody happy. Hell I'd sit down with both Demarco AND Dez and explain how I want and need em both to win the SB next year. Don't lowball these guys. It ain't their fault you've for 5.1 MILLION in dead money for 2015 on Miles Austin's last contract...

[Cruzer 1,992]

ralphster, on 25 Jan 2015 - 5:31 PM, said:

...I'd present the following offer to him: 3 years, 15 million, with 10 mil guaranteed. Give him 6 as a signing bonus, 2 for next year's salary and then break the last 2 years into 3.5 chunks however you like it. A contract like that rewards him (8 mil next year) for the truly MVP workhorse effort he gave this year, is affordable for the following two years, and makes everybody happy. Hell I'd sit down with both Demarco AND Dez and explain how I want and need em both to win the SB next year. Don't lowball these guys. It ain't their fault you've for 5.1 MILLION in dead money for 2015 on Miles Austin's last contract...

I think that offer is a very doable and something I'd be totally happy with. Now whether or not Murray would be, different story. But I certainly would not go over that amount - and I'd be firm about it........ And no it's not their fault we've dead money still haunting this team - but it is what it is. This is the business they signed up for and this is part of it. Bcoz a salary cap exists - virtue doesn't really come into play. You do what you can with what cap space you have.

[Flyfreak 84]

Bryan Broaddus of the Cowboys' official website thinks Mark Ingram could be an option to replace fellow impending free agent DeMarco Murray.

The chances of Murray re-signing with Dallas seem extremely long, as he should be following the cash. The Cowboys don't have the cash to line Murray's pockets. Ingram also won't be coming cheap, but he won't be as expensive as Murray. If Ingram lands in Dallas behind that offensive line and in OC Scott Linehan's scheme, he'd be flirting with RB1 numbers on a weekly basis. Ingram is likely to command $3-5 million per year on the open market after his breakout 2014.

[R8RMick 242]

They'd need a Plan B for Ingram, and that means someone who could step in for a couple games and carry the mail. If a Cowboy fan I wouldn't think that to be Randle.

 

Ingram has missed nine full games last two seasons and parts of others. True injuries were freakish but who keeps that score? I think they'll need a committee to replace Murray, which will upset the flow and continuity of their power running gameplan.

 

And really, what's the difference in salary? $2 mill? 3? Out of the millions that comprise the team's salary cap they're going to shed their identity for a fraction of that?

[Cruzer 1,992]

And really, what's the difference in salary? $2 mill? 3? Out of the millions that comprise the team's salary cap they're going to shed their identity for a fraction of that?

Ingram's health and plan B is a great point, and def Randle is not a full time solution.

 

That being said, an extra $2 or $3m a year is a big deal. Reason? Bcoz even if Murray was still under contract and signed - we still don't have a pass rush, a reliable secondary or any idea who will be playing LB next year. We had Murray last year and still couldnt stop Green Bay or anyone else when it really mattered. In a perfect world Murray and Carr could swap contracts - but that's not a reality.... Point is if we spend to keep Murray and give him what he deserves, we still don't improve as a team. Given his health history and coming of 437 carries - it just isn't a smart gamble imo.