Anyone else see a possible 2-3 or even a 1-4 start to the 2015 season?

[dbair1967]

Emmitts career long run was 75 yards.

Murrays was 90.


Emmitt was head and shoulders a better back than Murray, but one thing Emmitt wasn't was a home run threat.

I believe the only RB with more runs over 40 yds from 1990-1995 was Barry Sanders. Emmitt also has a few long plays on pass receptions, one was 85 or so yards

 

[yimyammer]

Training camp hasn’t started and you guys are worried already. Dooms already thinks the team is going 8-8 this season so a 2-3 prediction isn’t surprising. Let me see how training camp and preseason plays out before i make any predictions.

No doubt plus its a virtual certainty that a number of players will get hurt in camp and possibly be lost for the season. It seems to happen to every team every year.

I'm hoping for good health this season so we can see what this team can really do but we're likely to lose someone and I'm dreading seeing that post hit the forums.

Like someone else said, a slower start doesn't seem that bad if it keeps them hungry and focused and they finish strong. I'm still scarred from all the past seasons they've started well and faded big time at the end of the year. Its a long season and its not how they start but how they finish that matters.

 

[Statman]

He DID produce better numbers, with comparable amount of carries in a season.

Both times Emmitt had over 370 carries, his average was better than Murray's and his TD output was much better, and with far less fumbling. Emmitt also had breakaway TD runs each time of 60 yards or better. Murray doesn't touch Emmitt's single season record without all the extra carries he needed to do that (392). Emmitt's 1992 season was only 14 games but that one was his best average per carry at 5.3. He broke a 60+ yard TD that year too. Murray doesn't come anywhere close to any of this. Because he was leaving "meat on the bone?"

This hall of famer Smith's playing record is stellar:

• NFL record: career rushing yards (18,355)
• NFL record: career rushing touchdowns (164)
• NFL record: career 100-yard rushing games (78)
• Dallas Cowboys all-time leading rusher (17,162)

He has much more room to talk than most. If he says Murray left "meat on the bone," we can disagree with him but really can't fairly assert he's being petty, or that he is saying something about offensive line comparisons. Emmitt walked the walk and can talk the talk whereas Murray is more of a bull-type, more of a Campbell type and isn't nifty. He would go out of his way to seek out contact. It's a style that does leave "meat on the bone" and some of it is intentional, with that style.

No sir.

Not once has Emmitt ever carried the ball more than 300 times and exceeded Murray's 4.71 last season. Emmitt had an average of 5.25 yards per carry in 1993 when he carried the ball 283 times....pretty close to Murray's average of 5.17 in 2013.

Emmitt has never exceeded Murray's average yards per carry in his rookie season of 5.47. in fact, no RB in Dallas Cowboy history with 150+ carries had a better average yards per carry. I guess DeMarco must have forgotten to leave some meat on the bone.

I'm not comparing Emmitt to DeMarco, God forbid! I'm just repeating what Emmitt said and pointing out facts:

Emmitt was an elite back who ran behind an elite line.

DeMarco is regarded as an average back who ran behind a line that was considered to have been elite and will be so for several years. (We'll forget for the time being that last year actually lowered his career average.)

Not only did Demarco run for more yards every time he carries the ball, on average, but there were more yards he should have had.....according to Emmitt.

Therefore, according to Emmitt:

An average back produced more and should have produced even more behind his line than Emmitt produced behind his line.

The only possible conclusion, based on Emmitt's statement is than the present line is far better then the line in the 90's that helped Emmitt to the Hall of Fame, three Super Bowls and the all time rushing title.

Unless Emmitt left some meat on the bone......impossible, right?

It's one thing for Randle, who is clearly an idiot, to conclude that DeMarco left meat on the bone. He sits there in the post game meeting as the coordinator reviews video with the players and points out additional opportunities. He doesn't realize that there is no such thing as a perfect game for a RB. In the history of the game and coaching, no coordinator has told a player there was no room for improvement. Randle, intellectual giant that he is, figured Murray squandered so many opportunities.

I can discount Randle's observations. However, Emmitt is not a sports analyst. He's not being paid to make unbiased observations. Why would he make that statement? What purpose did it serve other than to portray Murray's results in a negative way?

Emmitt Smith fumbled far more often per carry than DeMarco Murray, an almost 2 to 1 ratio.

One more thing, Murray's career is only five years. Comparing him to a guy that played three times longer is a little unfair. It's quite possible that we haven't heard the last of Demarco Murray.

 

[Doomsday]

Not once has Emmitt ever carried the ball more than 300 times and exceeded Murray's 4.71 last season.

If you're taking it out to that many decimals, yeah. But the actual difference is nil.

Murray 2014: 4.706
Smith 1995: 4.702

C'mon now. Murray never breaks Emmitt's record without the 20 additional carries he needed to do it.

Emmitt was an elite back who ran behind an elite line.

"Elite" line with NO 1st round picks anywhere in it. They were just a bunch of really nasty, mean streak guys who jelled. They weren't "elite" blue chippers, which Murray enjoyed.

Emmitt is not comparing the o-lines at all. The bottom line is, if he said Murray left "meat on the bone" that carries some weight. He should know.

It's quite possible that we haven't heard the last of Demarco Murray.

You've heard the last of him as a league leading back. He beasted it in his contract year, now it's all business decisions like we saw with Barber.

Murray isn't a elite back anyway. He's a ham and egger.

 

[Statman]

As you pointed out, it Murray and Emmitt had about the same average yards per carry in their big seasons, Murray just a tad higher.

Therefore it did not take more than the same number if carries for Murray to reach him and technically pass him.

I know Emmitt is not discussing the offensive line but he is implying that Murray could have made much more. Why? Because of the blocking he recieved.

By the way, who here believes this offensive line is better right now than the one in the 90's?

 

[Dodger12]

"Elite" line with NO 1st round picks anywhere in it. They were just a bunch of really nasty, mean streak guys who jelled. They weren't "elite" blue chippers, which Murray enjoyed.

Emmitt is not comparing the o-lines at all. The bottom line is, if he said Murray left "meat on the bone" that carries some weight. He should know.

I think we can all admit that Murray left yards on the field. When he got in open space he'd sometimes run out of gas or run out of bounds. More than once he left me hoping he had more speed. BUT, having the benefit of knowing how his contributions helped the team last year, I'd gladly take Demarco's balance, vision and toughness to grind out consistent yards. People can rag on Murray all they want. I won't. He's going to missed and we're going to be left rooting for a bunch of scrubs behind a good OL.

 

[Statman]

I agree. Let's remember that Murray also had 57 receptions for over 400 yards, his total yards from scrimmage was 2261 yards on 449 touches.

I don't care how great your line is, an average back can't do that. Murray was special, at least on this team.

 

[Doomsday]

I know Emmitt is not discussing the offensive line but he is implying that Murray could have made much more. Why? Because of the blocking he recieved.

No, not because of the blocking at all. Emmitt is talking about exactly what I pointed out - Murray's STYLE and limited breakaway abilities in open space are where the meat was left on the bone. He SEEKS OUT contact and even goes out of his way to do that.

Therefore it did not take more than the same number if carries for Murray to reach him and technically pass him.

Except, yes it did. And I noted you're trying to move the goalposts away from what I actually said. Murray DID need more carries to break Emmitt's record. It's a documented fact.

I don't care how great your line is, an average back can't do that. Murray was special, at least on this team.

Nobody has said Murray is average. He is above average, a good running back but not anything special. Special is Hershel Walker, Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith territory.

You have ONE season where Murray not only beasts it due to it being a contract year, you also have the FLUKE happenstance of Dallas needing to feed him the ball nearly 400 times, to reduce Tony's dropbacks limiting his injury risk. You'll never see this again out of Murray. If he gets 300 carries in Philly it would be a mild surprise. AND, he won't be beasting it, unless of course the opponent is Dallas. And that that I fully expect him to cough up the ball for us a time or two.

 

[Rynie]

No, but a few of you need depression pills. Jesus, this place is just...sad.

 

[Doomsday]

No, but a few of you need depression pills. Jesus, this place is just...sad.

Reality can be seen as "sad" by some, but it is very liberating and happy times for those who embrace it.

 

[Omegasupreme]

I agree. Let's remember that Murray also had 57 receptions for over 400 yards, his total yards from scrimmage was 2261 yards on 449 touches.

I don't care how great your line is, an average back can't do that. Murray was special, at least on this team.

Exactly. Murray set an NFL record, set Dallas records, and by the way, of his 5 ypc carry last year, 2.6 of them happened after contact. This is really odd to point to Murray and say, "Well you were good but we are faulting you for not being a lot better." Murray technically pulled his weight and outplayed the most of the offense with 1800 rushing yards and 57 receptions. The only real meat on the bone that was left was not Murray needing to gain more yards, but Murray needed to be on the field to plausibly threaten a run during a play or to fall forward for two yards to keep the series going or to run out the clock. He didn't need 20 yard runs, he needed his coach to want to win games.

 

[Doomsday]

Schedule looks meaner having seen some of those opponents in action and looking pretty stout, especially the Iggles.

 

[yimyammer]

I'm hoping for good health this season so we can see what this team can really do but we're likely to lose someone and I'm dreading seeing that post hit the forums.

and its happened....

 

[Bluenoser]

Schedule looks meaner having seen some of those opponents in action and looking pretty stout, especially the Iggles.

Division games are always tough. This year will be know different.

 

[Doomsday]

Iggles look scary good though. Of course, it's preseason so we really can't write much into it.

First part of our schedule does loom large though.

 

[yimyammer]

Iggles look scary good though. Of course, it's preseason so we really can't write much into it.

First part of our schedule does loom large though.

I think I'm gonna load up a big bet on the Iggles in that first game, I think its a virtual lock (barring catastrophic injury to the giggles) that Dallas loses that game.

I think the Boys are in for a slow start as they acclimate to the changes in the roster plus they'll be missing Scandrick, Murray, McClain, Hardy and thats gonna cost them some games, most likely early in the season. Chippys system seems to start off strong and fade as the year progresses.

I'm ok with a slow start as long as they don't fall too far behind and can peak when it matters at the end of the year. Then again, if they want to go 19-0, I won't complain.

 

[Doomsday]

I think I'm gonna load up a big bet on the Iggles in that first game, I think its a virtual lock (barring catastrophic injury to the giggles) that Dallas loses that game.

I think the Boys are in for a slow start as they acclimate to the changes in the roster plus they'll be missing Scandrick, Murray, McClain, Hardy and thats gonna cost them some games, most likely early in the season. Chippys system seems to start off strong and fade as the year progresses.

I'm ok with a slow start as long as they don't fall too far behind and can peak when it matters at the end of the year. Then again, if they want to go 19-0, I won't complain.

I'd much rather they catch fire late too, but not after running 1-7 in the first half of the season then getting us to 8-8.

Agree about Chippy Boy.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Oh please. If we can't stand losing Scandrick we were never that good to begin with. Many teams have have worse losses already this year. This isn't like losing a Nelson, a Clady, or a Benjamin.

As far as the opener, there's a fairly good chance the Giants are a disaster this year, especially on defense.

 

[yimyammer]

I'd much rather they catch fire late too, but not after running 1-7 in the first half of the season then getting us to 8-8.

Agree about Chippy Boy.

Gawd, I hope they don't start out that bad, they'd really have to pile up some injuries and bad luck to start that badly, they should be a competitive team capable of winning any game but not so good that they can take any team for granted

I probably jinxed the shit out of them by believing in them.

 

[dbair1967]

still don't see a losing start to season