Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why? I'm quite serious. Why would you use two people at the same position when you could use one? Ask like pretty much every other team in the N.F.L. that runs RB by commitee? I get your point, but I think your point proves that he is their best back. As sperry posited, this is a team that was in contention all season long. Why would a coaching staff that is in contention use a less effective back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 As sperry posited, this is a team that was in contention all season long. Why would a coaching staff that is in contention use a less effective back? I never said that Murray was less effective - though Randle ran for a higher YPC than Murray did. (no idea on his DVOA value, and Murray would obviously have a higher DYAR due to use). Other teams run RBBC because they have several backs that are good at different things. If you have two good backs that are good at the same (or similar) things, it doesn't make sense to do RBBC; it makes sense to run one into the ground. In fact it makes more sense; you don't want to run your best back into the dirt if you are hurting your future unless you have a good backup behind him. Or, alternately, if you don't have any choices. The Cowboys clearly believe that they have some choices given that Murray doesn't have a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry 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. Why? I'm quite serious. Why would you use two people at the same position when you could use one? 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. Why wouldn't you want to utilize both running backs, keep wear and tear on both minimal, and then use your leverage to keep both of them at a discount. If Murray had just run for 800 yards on 175 carries in a platoon system, he's not in a position to command a large pay day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Salary cap announced: 143.28 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Cold Fingers Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Salary cap announced: 143.28 mil. That'll help...still can't believe Miles Austin is affecting the cap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I never said that Murray was less effective - though Randle ran for a higher YPC than Murray did. (no idea on his DVOA value, and Murray would obviously have a higher DYAR due to use). Other teams run RBBC because they have several backs that are good at different things. If you have two good backs that are good at the same (or similar) things, it doesn't make sense to do RBBC; it makes sense to run one into the ground. In fact it makes more sense; you don't want to run your best back into the dirt if you are hurting your future unless you have a good backup behind him. Or, alternately, if you don't have any choices. The Cowboys clearly believe that they have some choices given that Murray doesn't have a contract. You said he might not be their best RB, which was really the only thing you wrote that I disagreed with. Agree with the second bit. It made sense for the Cowboys to run Murray into the ground, regardless as to whether or not they have a comparable backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why wouldn't you want to utilize both running backs, keep wear and tear on both minimal, and then use your leverage to keep both of them at a discount. If Murray had just run for 800 yards on 175 carries in a platoon system, he's not in a position to command a large pay day.Maybe. Depends a lot on how well he does on those carries. He's more likely to leave to join another team who will give him more carries, which is problematic. If you're going to have him leave, you want him to leave with basically nothing left. Man, football is fucking brutal as hell . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Maybe. Depends a lot on how well he does on those carries. He's more likely to leave to join another team who will give him more carries, which is problematic. If you're going to have him leave, you want him to leave with basically nothing left. Man, football is fucking brutal as hell . Maybe. I think if people figured out that you intentionally ran a player into the ground for the sole purpose of losing, you'd have major issues with both internal chemistry and recruiting coveted free agents. As is, they can make the legitimate argument that Murray was their best back and they were just trying to win by giving him the ball as much as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 Where did "sole purpose of losing" come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Where did "sole purpose of losing" come from? I'm not sure... I think I meant to write destroying their value after losing them in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independent George Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 It's not a question of purposely destroying his value - it's that if he's at the tail end of the contract, they have no incentive to preserve it instead of going for broke as long as they've got him.That said, I believe Brian Burke debunked most of FO's 'curse of 390' theory - I can't google while at work, but he basically concluded that most of the trend they spotted came down to regression to the mean (both in productivity and injury luck) and age, rather than overuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 That said, I believe Brian Burke debunked most of FO's 'curse of 390' theory - I can't google while at work, but he basically concluded that most of the trend they spotted came down to regression to the mean (both in productivity and injury luck) and age, rather than overuse. Here's Brian Burke's post on the curse of 370. I think he's mostly right about regression to the mean. After all the combination of factors required for a RB to reach 370 carries are very difficult to repeat in the next year. But 370 is still a useful rough gauge of a) this RB had a historically high number of carries in a year and B) is just about guaranteed to be far worse the following year. Further RBs have limited shelf lives and it stands to reason you're also accelerating ones demise with an extremely heavy workload. I imagine those concerns double with a RB who has been injured every single year as a pro. For all these reasons he will not get paid like an 1,800 yard workhorse back. Every recent trend is working against Murray's ability to get paid including the boondoggle of AP and CJ2K's contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The Texans gave Andre Johnson permission to seek a trade. I don't see anyone trading for him given that they'd have to pay 11 million for a 34 year old receiver and that their essentially saying they'll cut him if he doesn't get traded. It's exciting to possibly see what he could accomplish with a decent quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 OMG ANDREW LUCK WENT WITH A MOLESTACHEAND IT'S STILL BETTER THAN THE NECKBEARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The Philadelphia Eagles have a trade in place to send running back LeSean McCoy to the Buffalo Bills, a source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. In return, the Bills will send linebacker Kiko Alonso to the Eagles, the source said. The trade can not be made official until the new league year begins next Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l2 0 5 5 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Shady McCoy traded to Bills for Kiko Alonso. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Report-Eagles-to-Trade-LeSean-McCoy-294918741.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_PHBrand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That is just INSANE. I guess that tells you the what running backs are worth these days. Maybe Dallas get Murray back way cheaper than even they imagined. Or Chip Kelly ate a bad cheesesteak today. eta: and according to ppl on Twitter, the trade is straight up, no picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 That is...not a great choice, Chip. Sorry. I love Kiko and think he's awesome, but he has been injured and an LB - no matter how good - isn't as good as a RB in value. Even one declining in productivity. Also, not doing yourself any favors with that Oregon East thing going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Steal for the Eagles. Got younger at a position with a longer football lifespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l2 0 5 5 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I think the Eagles system doesn't require a guy like Shady. Much like the Tampa 2 doesn't need a Revis. Philly does, however, need to re-sign Maclin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.