- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 22
Interesting post, Statman.
Although the list includes several HOF RBs, there are also some RBs who were very good, but not great. Barry Foster, for example.
DeMarco Murray is much closer to a Barry Foster than Murray is to the HOFers on that list. No one who saw Eric Dickerson, (a young) Emmitt Smith, (a young) Walter Payton, and/or (a healthy) Earl Campbell confuses Murray with the true great RBs.
I think you are partially correct when you say: "The real question with DeMarco Murray was whether he was going to be worth the value of his next contract ...." The cost of that contract is a huge consideration, to be sure.
Another part of the equation, though, is the cost of an adequate replacement for Murray. If the cost of retaining Murray exceeds the cost of an adequate replacement, then it was perfectly o.k. to let Murray go.
Unfortunately, the absolute worst case scenario may be unfolding: The Cowboys release Murray and fail to acquire an adequate replacement.
I don't see an adequate replacement on the Cowboys current roster. There were RBs in the draft who might have been adequate, but the Cowboys didn't get one. Maybe the team trades for a guy like Lamar Miller. Who knows?
Assuming the Cowboys don't get an adequate replacement for Murray, as the Cowboys' running game falters during the regular season, some will argue that the Cowboys never should have let Murray go. I think the correct answer will be that it was perfectly o.k. to let Murray go; the critical mistake was in not finding an adequate replacement for Murray.
Although the list includes several HOF RBs, there are also some RBs who were very good, but not great. Barry Foster, for example.
DeMarco Murray is much closer to a Barry Foster than Murray is to the HOFers on that list. No one who saw Eric Dickerson, (a young) Emmitt Smith, (a young) Walter Payton, and/or (a healthy) Earl Campbell confuses Murray with the true great RBs.
I think you are partially correct when you say: "The real question with DeMarco Murray was whether he was going to be worth the value of his next contract ...." The cost of that contract is a huge consideration, to be sure.
Another part of the equation, though, is the cost of an adequate replacement for Murray. If the cost of retaining Murray exceeds the cost of an adequate replacement, then it was perfectly o.k. to let Murray go.
Unfortunately, the absolute worst case scenario may be unfolding: The Cowboys release Murray and fail to acquire an adequate replacement.
I don't see an adequate replacement on the Cowboys current roster. There were RBs in the draft who might have been adequate, but the Cowboys didn't get one. Maybe the team trades for a guy like Lamar Miller. Who knows?
Assuming the Cowboys don't get an adequate replacement for Murray, as the Cowboys' running game falters during the regular season, some will argue that the Cowboys never should have let Murray go. I think the correct answer will be that it was perfectly o.k. to let Murray go; the critical mistake was in not finding an adequate replacement for Murray.