James Arryn Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But NFL players have done far worse off-camera. As visceral as our response was to the Ray Rice video, it wasn't worse than what Greg Hardy did. And though it's a little hazier because of the lack of a video that woman has the physical and emotional scars to prove it. Dante just reminded me of Terrell Suggs, who to my point, I'd completely forgotten this: There's no video to prove it. But it's not the only domestic violence allegation against him. Plus he was on trial a few years earlier for him and his brother assaulting a guy in a parking lot hitting him repeatedly with a reinforced rod and a baseball bat. How much smoke before we believe there's fire with this guy? But I get it. That niggling bit of doubt that comes from not having a video means a world of difference in how we think of the guy, or more likely how much we don't think about the guy. I'm as guilty of anyone with it. Something about how we need things to be 100% black and white or we stop thinking about them. I'm sure there's another 20 NFLers that we've forgotten the truly terrible stuff they've done. So you're point is well taken, but I think it's just all the more reason to make sure the punishments we're calling for is proportional to what the guy actually did. Sure it's worse if there's a video as there's no reasonable doubt at that point. But there are limits. I mean Leonard Little and Donte Stallworth each killed a person by driving drunk. There's no video in either case but it's pretty unequivocal what happened. It certainly doesn't seem right that Ray Rice is 1,000x more famous for his heinous actions than those two.Yeah, I understand what you're saying, and I wish I could say you're totally right or totally wrong, but as i said I always feel damned indefinite about this. I have a real problem with smoke/fire reasoning when it comes to people's lives, I guess. I mean, among other things it puts everyone one previous accusation away from being guilty by accusation. I'm uncomfortable talking about previous acquitals/dismissals as though they were partial convictions, which is what it amounts to when we start adding them up. It's never a choice of ideals, but lesser evils, and in that case I'd rather err on letting guilty people go free in pursuit of the presumption of innocence than convicting the odd innocent in pursuit of a better batting average, if you get me. I realize I've expanded the conversation, but this priorization is at the heart of hiw I think, hence why actual visual evidence is such a relief to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The court of official punishment should err on the side of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The court of public opinion should not be so lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The court of official punishment should err on the side of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The court of public opinion should not be so lenient. Tbf the court of public opinion also sways whichever way the wind blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The court of official punishment should err on the side of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The court of public opinion should not be so lenient.That's the usual response, but I'm increasingly iffy about it. Seen too many studies about public perception; for example, the more despicable the crime, the (much) more likely people are to assume guilt. To the point where someone wrongly accused of something like molesting children might as well be put away; they almost always lose their careers, family, friends, and are subject to extreme harassment/abuse for the rest of their lives. Suicide rates are (ironically) much higher than either guilty molesters or victims. Seeing as how there's no correspondence to likelihood of guilt based on grossness of crime, the fact that the court of public opinion is so swayed by same indicates it's not premised on anything too rational. And fair's fair; I'd not be likely to leave my children around someone who was just 'accused', but that's a really shitty truth to confront. The system stresses the desire for a lot of protection and/or punishment from those who can destroy other lives through violence or abuse...but there's absolutely no mechanism in place to try and protect those whose lives are destroyed by accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Cowboys slap franchise tag on Dez Bryant. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12400843/dez-bryant-dallas-cowboys-franchised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Cowboys slap franchise tag on Dez Bryant. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12400843/dez-bryant-dallas-cowboys-franchised Totally unsurprising. Demaryius Thomas is also getting franchised though has a better chance of getting a multiyear contract. Meanwhile Browns are in crisis mode but at least they're more orange than ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Cowboys slap franchise tag on Dez Bryant. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12400843/dez-bryant-dallas-cowboys-franchised More interesting to me is that they look to be poised to let the best running back in the league go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 More interesting to me is that they look to be poised to let the best running back in the league go. After they ran him into the ground. Rode him hard and put him away wet. The Rule of 370 predicts his production will drop next year. Smart business for the Cowboys, but pity Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 More interesting to me is that they look to be poised to let the best running back in the league go. After they ran him into the ground. Rode him hard and put him away wet. The Rule of 370 predicts his production will drop next year. Smart business for the Cowboys, but pity Murray. Murray's a helluva RB but they ran him into the ground last year. 392 carries and 450 total touches. Count the playoffs and it's almost 500 touches. 500 times he got hit. Even when Herm Edwards was running Larry Johnson into the ground he didn't touch the ball as much as Murray did last year. I'm gonna make an educated guess that no RB in history has ever had that many touches in a season. Teams know this. The RB market is increasingly skeptical in general let alone for guys coming off enormous workloads. There's a good chance he's forced to return to Dallas on a team-friendly contract. I guess there's room for debate of how Machiavellian Dallas has been in this but at least partially through their own actions they're now in great position to re-sign their two stars at a big discount. ETA: Wait, no Terrell Davis once had 499 touches in a season. He immediately tore his ACL the next year and his career was over. Murray had 2 less touches than that in 1 less game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Also, much of Murray's success was because the Cowboys had one of the best offensive lines in the nation, if not the best. There's a lot of reason to believe that Murray needs that team a lot more than they need Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Also, much of Murray's success was because the Cowboys had one of the best offensive lines in the nation, if not the best. There's a lot of reason to believe that Murray needs that team a lot more than they need Murray. When Murray has been healthy he's consistently one of the best RB's in the game. There was also a lot of concern about what would happen if he did get hurt toward the end of the season. I'm not even sure who his backup is, but it didn't seem like there was a ton of confidence in him from a guy who didn't follow them too closely. I understand where the cowboys are coming from, but I have serious doubts that their line is so good that they can just plug in any running back and have the same success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Murray is a great pass blocker, great receiver, and has elite speed. He's produced at a top 5 level for running backs whenever he's been healthy in the league, and early in his career he was certainly not running behind a great offensive line. Health concerns were the only reason he wasn't a high end first round draft pick after he set rushing records at Oklahoma and dominated the combine. The 392 carries are definitely a long term concern, but I don't think there's any reason to expect a significant dropoff next year. He finished the season healthy and is still in his prime years. I think you can expect at least 3 more years of high level production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Cold Fingers Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Cowboys slap franchise tag on Dez Bryant. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12400843/dez-bryant-dallas-cowboys-franchised I hope they work on a long term contract. Right now would be the best time to sign him long term. His stock price is only going to rise...excluding injuries. More interesting to me is that they look to be poised to let the best running back in the league go. Cowboys rode him hard this year and it is easier to replace a running back than it is a top WR. Don't get me wrong...I want Murray here for his career...but I also want Dez. But if I had to choose...I choose Dez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Murray is a great pass blocker, great receiver, and has elite speed. He's produced at a top 5 level for running backs whenever he's been healthy in the league, and early in his career he was certainly not running behind a great offensive line. Health concerns were the only reason he wasn't a high end first round draft pick after he set rushing records at Oklahoma and dominated the combine. Right, the homeristic Oklahoma thing. Gotcha. That sucked - post ate everything else. Long story short: Murray may not be the best RB on the cowboys, Murray has been constantly injured through his career, and Murray had two great years along with two okay ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Right, the homeristic Oklahoma thing. Gotcha. That sucked - post ate everything else. Long story short: Murray may not be the best RB on the cowboys, Murray has been constantly injured through his career, and Murray had two great years along with two okay ones. He's the best RB on the Cowboys, I don't think that's a realistic criticism. No way they are using him as their bellcow if they have a better (or even comparable) option. That being said, spending a ton of money on him would be foolish. With the talent on their line, they could likely plug in a much cheaper option and expect to run the ball succesfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 He's the best RB on the Cowboys, I don't think that's a realistic criticism. No way they are using him as their bellcow if they have a better (or even comparable) option.Why wouldn't they? They can use him up while he's cheap and then let him go, not wasting the tread on their comparable player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The 392 carries are definitely a long term concern, but I don't think there's any reason to expect a significant dropoff next year. He finished the season healthy and is still in his prime years. I think you can expect at least 3 more years of high level production. The only RB who hasn't gotten injured or seen a big time drop off in productivity or injury after this kind of workload is Eric Dickerson. And Dickerson was a freak. Murray's been the opposite. This was the first time he's even played in all 16 games of a season. His other three seasons were all cut short due to injury and this one arguably should have. He showed a ton of heart playing through that hand injury but instead of being rewarded for it the Cowboys will use both the evidence of it and the additional wear and tear he generated in those games to pay him less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why wouldn't they? They can use him up while he's cheap and then let him go, not wasting the tread on their comparable player. Because they want to win. If they thought option #2 was in the same tier, they'd use him more often. ETA: These two things aren't mutually exclusive, obviously. You are right in that they might as well use up their soon to be free agent RB, but I believe that lends creedence to the idea that he is their best RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why wouldn't they? They can use him up while he's cheap and then let him go, not wasting the tread on their comparable player. This is fantastic logic. In the midst of a playoff run, with a team that tied for the best record in the NFL, they decided to give their inferior running back 85% of the carries in order to preserve their other runnign back for the future. Note, that this better running back that they were preserving is a guy who was a worse college player and had a significantly worse combine than the guy they were playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The argument was 'why wouldn't you use the comparable running back'. There's an easy answer. If you have two running backs that are comparable, the cost-effective system is to not keep both - it's to use one until they're done, then use the other. Because they want to win. If they thought option #2 was in the same tier, they'd use him more often.Why? I'm quite serious. Why would you use two people at the same position when you could use one? Note, that this better running back that they were preserving is a guy who was a worse college player and had a significantly worse combine than the guy they were playing.Sort of like Arian Foster? The other thing that he's got going for him is that unlike Murray, he hasn't been constantly injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.