NFL: NFL Offseason Thread

[jbindm]

If he is coming back, I would think they seriously have to consider giving him a few weeks out throughout the regular season. Let him play 12 games, keep him as healthy as possible for the postseasonl

That would be an unprecedented move, wouldn't it? Giving your QB off a week off here and there to keep him fresh, like a baseball catcher getting an occasional day off. But the Broncos are in a unique spot and some outside the box thinking like that might make sense given the circumstances.

 

[jbindm]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-cut-laron-landry-andrew-jackson-xavier-nixon

Anyone want an oft injured safety who is a liability in coverage and an iffy tackler in run support? Anyone? Good riddance. Hold the door open for Trent Richardson on your way out.

 

[Gonzo]

He's a top three receiver in the game right now with lots of good football in him. If the Cowboys end up having to take one and leave the other, it would make more sense to pay Bryant than Murray. But the catch is how soft the market is for running backs in the NFL now. Dallas could put a fair offer on the table and gamble that he doesn't get a better offer elsewhere. Or they could franchise tag him. Considering that no running backs outside of AP and Lesean McCoy are getting big money these days, the tag number would only be around ten million next season.

Much tougher to find and field a proven, stud, every down RB than a stud WR. Even more important for a team that prefers rushing the ball. I'd definitely keep Murray over Dez.

 

[Mr Janny]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-cut-laron-landry-andrew-jackson-xavier-nixon

Anyone want an oft injured safety who is a liability in coverage and an iffy tackler in run support? Anyone? Good riddance. Hold the door open for Trent Richardson on your way out.

I remember when that Richardson trade went down. So many people ridiculed the Browns for giving up on the #3 pick in the draft so soon. But they got a first round pick out of it, which seen through today's eyes is just laughable. Now the fact that Cleveland turned that pick into the seemingly terrible picks of Justin Gilbert and Johhny Football, is another point altogether.

 

[Mr Janny]

Much tougher to find and field a proven, stud, every down RB than a stud WR. Even more important for a team that prefers rushing the ball. I'd definitely keep Murray over Dez.

what's the shelf life of a 400 carry per year running back, though? compared to a WR?

 

[jbindm]

Much tougher to find and field a proven, stud, every down RB than a stud WR. Even more important for a team that prefers rushing the ball. I'd definitely keep Murray over Dez.

what's the shelf life of a 400 carry per year running back, though? compared to a WR?

There's that, and if running backs were that hard to find then guys like Jeremy Hill wouldn't fall to the third round. Almost nobody is giving big money to running backs now because of how short their shelf life is and the fact that good ones can be found in the middle of the draft. Murray's a very good player but I wonder how much of it is him and how much is that offensive line that Dallas has so heavily invested in recently.

 

[CoKane]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-cut-laron-landry-andrew-jackson-xavier-nixon

Anyone want an oft injured safety who is a liability in coverage and an iffy tackler in run support? Anyone? Good riddance. Hold the door open for Trent Richardson on your way out.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm still waiting for the Packers to announce that they cut AJ Hawk and Brad Jones. Jones is better when he's on the bench(which is almost all the time since he's always hurt) and Hawk has became a complete non factor in the last couple of years.

 

[CyJack13]

Much tougher to find and field a proven, stud, every down RB than a stud WR. Even more important for a team that prefers rushing the ball. I'd definitely keep Murray over Dez.

Is this a post from 1992?

 

[Mr Janny]

Is this a post from 1992?

This. And the real question is do you even need a proven, stud, every down RB anymore? Plenty of examples of successful teams who don't seem to need one. Look no further than the current champ. They got lots of production out of the running back position, and it didn't seem to matter who they had back there.

 

[CyJack13]

This. And the real question is do you even need a proven, stud, every down RB anymore? Plenty of examples of successful teams who don't seem to need one. Look no further than the current champ. They got lots of production out of the running back position, and it didn't seem to matter who they had back there.

Yep, and I think Murray is good but with the offensive line Dallas has now, I think you could stick quite a few guys in his place and still have success running the ball.

 

[Gonzo]

This. And the real question is do you even need a proven, stud, every down RB anymore? Plenty of examples of successful teams who don't seem to need one. Look no further than the current champ. They got lots of production out of the running back position, and it didn't seem to matter who they had back there.

Patriots finished in the bottom half of the league for the regular season, and 10th out of 12 teams in the postseason for rushing offense. Wouldn't call that lots of production, would call that winning in spite of a running game. So if you've got Belichek and Brady, sure, you can win it all regardless of your backfield. 31 other teams don't have that luxury. I'd rather have a mostly every down guy like Murray, Marshawn, Lacy, etc. than a duo of Bush/Bell any day. Pretty sure most teams would too but can't because guys like that are far and few between.

 

[jbindm]

Patriots finished in the bottom half of the league for the regular season, and 10th out of 12 teams in the postseason for rushing offense. Wouldn't call that lots of production, would call that winning in spite of a running game. So if you've got Belichek and Brady, sure, you can win it all regardless of your backfield. 31 other teams don't have that luxury. I'd rather have a mostly every down guy like Murray, Marshawn, Lacy, etc. than a duo of Bush/Bell any day. Pretty sure most teams would too but can't because guys like that are far and few between.

Maybe the Pats aren't a great example. Which category in total rushing offense are you looking at...YPC? If we're looking at the same thing, you're right about NE but nine or ten teams in the top half all operated with something less than a reliable every down running back. If they only had to deal with Murray, then yeah, I'd say pay the man his money. But good production can be had at the RB position without overspending, and in a passing league if it comes down to Murray or Bryant then I'll take the guy who commands a double team on every play.

 

[cyhiphopp]

Cowboys will probably let Murray walk for the money he's going to want. They will probably have a drop off without him, but not as much as the passing game would suffer without Dez.

 

[Mr Janny]

Patriots finished in the bottom half of the league for the regular season, and 10th out of 12 teams in the postseason for rushing offense. Wouldn't call that lots of production, would call that winning in spite of a running game. So if you've got Belichek and Brady, sure, you can win it all regardless of your backfield. 31 other teams don't have that luxury. I'd rather have a mostly every down guy like Murray, Marshawn, Lacy, etc. than a duo of Bush/Bell any day. Pretty sure most teams would too but can't because guys like that are far and few between.

I disagree. We saw it multiple times throughout the year. The Pats were very capable at the running back position. They just used it when it was necessary. Blount, Gray, and Ridley all had 100 yard plus rushing performances during the season, and Vereen became a force, receiving out of the backfield late, especially in the playoffs. And it's not like we're talking a bottom of the barrel ground game, here. They're pretty solidly in the middle of the pack. Denver, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and New England are all within about 60 total yards of each other, which is negligible over the course of 16 games. And my point isn't that they were the best in the league only that they got good production out of the RB position. Anyone who watched the Pats, especially down the stretch would not tell you that the running back position was a weakness.

 

[Gonzo]

I disagree. We saw it multiple times throughout the year. The Pats were very capable at the running back position. They just used it when it was necessary. Blount, Gray, and Ridley all had 100 yard plus rushing performances during the season, and Vereen became a force, receiving out of the backfield late, especially in the playoffs. And it's not like we're talking a bottom of the barrel ground game, here. They're pretty solidly in the middle of the pack. Denver, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and New England are all within about 60 total yards of each other, which is negligible over the course of 16 games. And my point isn't that they were the best in the league only that they got good production out of the RB position. Anyone who watched the Pats, especially down the stretch would not tell you that the running back position was a weakness.

I wouldn't call it a weakness. It served its purpose for them. But having Belichek, Brady, and Gronk makes it easier to get away with having a serviceable ground game. As long as Romo is the man in Dallas they're going to lean on the run game to keep him out of the ER. I think people are kidding themselves if they think you can insert Murray's backups into the RB role full time and get anything but a dramatic drop in production. If it doesn't completely break the bank, which it might, to keep Murray I think that's the smarter play. Dez is a great WR but the league is full of great WRs and between TW and Beasley I think the dropoff in production there would be much less than at RB.

 

[Mr Janny]

I wouldn't call it a weakness. It served its purpose for them. But having Belichek, Brady, and Gronk makes it easier to get away with having a serviceable ground game. As long as Romo is the man in Dallas they're going to lean on the run game to keep him out of the ER. I think people are kidding themselves if they think you can insert Murray's backups into the RB role full time and get anything but a dramatic drop in production. If it doesn't completely break the bank, which it might, to keep Murray I think that's the smarter play. Dez is a great WR but the league is full of great WRs and between TW and Beasley I think the dropoff in production there would be much less than at RB.

??? You did call it a weakness.

would call that winning in spite of a running game.

At any rate, I agree that in this particular instance, with Dallas, it's not cut and dried. Murray appears to be pretty special, both as a runner and receiver. And the Cowboys are built for that strong run game. Not to mention Bryant can be an absolute diva and a headache.

 

[ISUFan22]

Bryant is a headache? Since when.

 

[Rabbuk]

Samkon Gado is a case study in how easy it is to find an nfl rb.

 

[Cy$]

Bucs cut McCown, looks like they are going QB, guessing Winston.

 

[ketchupnmustard]

Bucs cut McCown, looks like they are going QB, guessing Winston.

Lovie is probably planning on trading the #1 pick to Chicago for Jay Cutler and 3 magic beans.