Uh... Kellen Moore to Dallas?

[cmd34]

Also, very few of the "realist" or sane people as I like to call them, are saying we will suck. I've seen a few 8-8 predictions but no one really saying we will be horrible.

I think the hesitation is whether or not the RB-by-commitee will work or not. Defense is improved (specifically the pass rush), Tony Romo is actual magic, and Dez Bryant is a beast. The O Line is amazing and hopefully losing Bill Callahan won't be a factor.

I like the Christine Michael pick-up, Greg Hardy signing (although it should have been a 2-year deal to protect us), the drafting of Randy Gregory, La'el Collins signing, and have hope for Byron Jones. I also did not want to pay Murray anything close to what the Eagles gave him.

I think signing Kellen Moore was a waste of time, hated that we ignored safety again, didn't like re-signing Nick Hayden or the fact that he starts for us, and I still don't think Jason Garrett is a good game day coach. He does give really solid press conferences though.

 

[dbair1967]

Also, very few of the "realist" or sane people as I like to call them, are saying we will suck. I've seen a few 8-8 predictions but no one really saying we will be horrible.

.

After what they did last yr and addressing the obvious #1 weakness the team had (lack of pass rush) its reasonable to expect the team to have another good yr.

That said if they lose Romo or have a rash of injuries to the other really core elite players they could definitely falter.

If there arnt a rash of injuries or loss of Romo longterm, there's no excuse whatsoever to not be a playoff team.

 

[peplaw06]

Except that the number one weakness from the season before (the entire defense) regressed to a league-average defense last year because of the running game... which is now the obvious #1 weakness IMO.

 

[yimyammer]

I'm confused as to which DCU fixed response to use:

1. This guy sucks.
2. Garrett sucks.
3. Jerry sucks.
4. We're going to suck.

Can someone help me out?

All of the above but when in doubt "3" always applies

 

[yimyammer]

If we had kept Murray... do you think that he would have gotten another near-400 carries? Was not his success based upon that?

I can only guess but I would say no regardless of whether they franchised him or signed a long term deal.

Under the franchise they might ride him but I think they would show some restraint being aware of the history of RBs who had the number of touches Murray had in 14'

I think they'd limit his touches even moreso if they had signed him to a long term contract for the same reasons above in addition to trying to max out his longevity to protect their investment.

Certainly, 400 carries contributed to his production (as well as the line, his talent, Romo and Dez).

I think he was a good player for us; he was a threat to run, catch or block & the offense didn't telegraph the likely play call which helped everyone on the offense. I also think he punished the defense which made tackling him something they didn't look forward to. My concern with his replacements is that I don't think they offer the punishing style (Michael might but I don't think he'll get many carries) and I don't think they're as good/well-rounded as Murray. They each appear to me to be different types of players with specific skill sets that will enable the defense to react to the likely tendency of the play call for that player.

The RB position appears fragile but I don't have the first clue how to evaluate talent so I am hoping the guys they have can produce and stay healthy.

Should be an interesting season

 

[yimyammer]

Really? It's not reasonable to ask for a mid-round pick for one of the key components to our success last year? It's nitpicking to ask our RB to be more than Joseph Randle and a bunch of cast-offs?

Okay.

It is if the player available didn't have the talent to match the pick.

Lets say the highest rated RB when they were set to pick in the 3rd round was projected to be a 5th round selection, are you advocating that they take a RB there regardless of where his talent was ranked?

If so, you're asking them to reach and overpay for a player that may not even produce on the field in the way you want him to and your assuming that by simply selecting a RB in this years draft would have adequately replaced Murray.

I think that is an unrealistic expectation and even if they had done what you suggest, there is no guarantee it would have worked.

Maybe what you're really saying is they should have kept Murray and not signed Hardy? Or Dez? Or some other combo of players?

Hey amigo, I'm concerned about the running game as well and don't fault your concern, I just fail to see an obvious solution that they deliberately passed on.

 

[cmd34]

I think if the Cowboys had taken RB Matt Jones at pick 91 over T Chaz Green, most fans would be ecstatic over the off-season. You can throw in a few other names there, like David Cobb, Buck Allen, and Mike Davis. It doesn't mean the Front Office got it wrong and we are all right; we (most fans) certainly were wrong with Anthony Hitchens last year. It just means that the majority of (non-apologetic)fans and almost every media publication thought (thinks) this team needed to address the RB position. You can't lose DeMarco Murray and just replace him with anyone.

I think where the argument loses validity is that certain fans, some here, rubber stamp every move we make. Very few people if any, hate every move. So if you have one side saying this was a good move and this was a bad move, while the other side is screaming every move is a good one, that other side doesn't appear to be objective or have any credibility.

All that being said, I love the Christine Michael pick-up. The fact that we got him for a conditional 7th round pick AND he is under contract for this year and 2016, has me openly applauding the Front Office. Hell, if after the draft we would have sent a 3rd round pick to the Seahawks for Michael, I would have loved the move.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Speaking of reasonable... You really think it's reasonable to assume that Matt Jones and Jeremy Langford, who were picked not many picks after Chaz, were 5th rounders? Or that Cobb or Ajayi or Williams were 6th rounders? Everyone else in the NFL got it that wrong, but our draft board evaluations are that perfect?

And I've said 100 times I wouldn't have brought Murray back. Aren't we talking about the draft? A drafted RB wouldn't have affected our ability to pay Hardy any more than Chaz Green did.

 

[cmd34]

Speaking of reasonable... You really think it's reasonable to assume that Matt Jones and Jeremy Langford, who were picked not many picks after Chaz, were 5th rounders? Or that Cobb or Ajayi or Williams were 6th rounders? Everyone else in the NFL got it that wrong, but our draft board evaluations are that perfect?

And I've said 100 times I wouldn't have brought Murray back. Aren't we talking about the draft? A drafted RB wouldn't have affected our ability to pay Hardy any more than Chaz Green did.

Holy crap how did I forget Jeremy Langford, one of my favorite 2015 RB's. Yeah, that would have made this draft an A+.

 

[yimyammer]

I think if the Cowboys had taken RB Matt Jones at pick 91 over T Chaz Green, most fans would be ecstatic over the off-season. You can throw in a few other names there, like David Cobb, Buck Allen, and Mike Davis. It doesn't mean the Front Office got it wrong and we are all right; we (most fans) certainly were wrong with Anthony Hitchens last year. It just means that the majority of (non-apologetic)fans and almost every media publication thought (thinks) this team needed to address the RB position. You can't lose DeMarco Murray and just replace him with anyone.

I think where the argument loses validity is that certain fans, some here, rubber stamp every move we make. Very few people if any, hate every move. So if you have one side saying this was a good move and this was a bad move, while the other side is screaming every move is a good one, that other side doesn't appear to be objective or have any credibility.

All that being said, I love the Christine Michael pick-up. The fact that we got him for a conditional 7th round pick AND he is under contract for this year and 2016, has me openly applauding the Front Office. Hell, if after the draft we would have sent a 3rd round pick to the Seahawks for Michael, I would have loved the move.

I've got no problem with this.

BTW, if you're including me in the rubber stamp crowd, and I'm not saying you are, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Except that the number one weakness from the season before (the entire defense) regressed to a league-average defense last year because of the running game... which is now the obvious #1 weakness IMO.

I think the Cowboys ability to convert on 3rd downs is what kept the defense off the field. Sure the running game was great last year but it was given many opportunities. Williams and Beasley continue to progress in the offense plus having Dunbar on the field more on 3rd downs. Witten is healthy and doesn’t appear to have lost a step. I don’t see their 3rd down conversion getting worse, only getting better.

Will the other backs be successful on short yardage plays? I don’t know. I think Randle will do ok.

 

[yimyammer]

Speaking of reasonable... You really think it's reasonable to assume that Matt Jones and Jeremy Langford, who were picked not many picks after Chaz, were 5th rounders? Or that Cobb or Ajayi or Williams were 6th rounders? Everyone else in the NFL got it that wrong, but our draft board evaluations are that perfect?

And I've said 100 times I wouldn't have brought Murray back. Aren't we talking about the draft? A drafted RB wouldn't have affected our ability to pay Hardy any more than Chaz Green did.

Not at all, if those players should have been ranked higher than Chaz Green, then the scouting department dropped the ball (or someone went off the reservation).

It will be interesting to look back on this draft and see which, if any, RB we should have drafted instead of Chaz Green or we might be pleasantly surprised with the route they took.

Time will tell.......

 

[yimyammer]

Speaking of reasonable... You really think it's reasonable to assume that Matt Jones and Jeremy Langford, who were picked not many picks after Chaz, were 5th rounders? Or that Cobb or Ajayi or Williams were 6th rounders? Everyone else in the NFL got it that wrong, but our draft board evaluations are that perfect?

And I've said 100 times I wouldn't have brought Murray back. Aren't we talking about the draft? A drafted RB wouldn't have affected our ability to pay Hardy any more than Chaz Green did.

By the way, I'm not suggesting our boards are perfect, I just think it doesn't make any sense to put all that time and money into them and then ignore them.

 

[ZeroClub]

Again, I don't think anyone -- including Omega, as he made clear -- has any problem with letting Murray go for the money it was going to cost. It was the lack of urgency in replacing him that bothers people.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am. I didn't want the Cowboys to overpay for Murray, but I expected the Cowboys to be fully committed to securing an adequate replacement.

The current RB situation reminds me a bit of what happened on the OL after the team moved on from Gurode, Kosier, Adams, but before competent replacements were drafted. The team's initial replacement plan was to collect a group of unproven misfit OL, put them into "a competition," and assume that the results would be adequate. As it turned out, the results weren't adequate. As a result, a nontrivial portion of Romo's prime was squandered.

I hate to break it to everyone, but Romo doesn't have much time left. ... certainly not enough time for the front office to gamble on long shot bets at the RB position.

Some people say that Christy is a good acquisition. The reasoning: If Christy washes out, the Cowboys don't lose much because Christy didn't cost much to obtain. I disagree. The cost associated with the Cowboys not securing a quality RB is far higher than a 6th or 7th round draft choice. The real cost of not having a quality RB this year is that yet another year of Romo's dwindling career is wasted. Instead of taking a cheap flyer on a long shot head case, I think the team should acquire players who have better odds of success.

Who knows? Maybe the Cowboys will pick up Ray Rice in Week 2.

 

[cmd34]

The real cost of not having a quality RB this year is that yet another year of Romo's dwindling career is wasted.

Agreed, but the FO made that decision this off-season. Acquiring Michael is a small step towards rectifying that decision.

I've said all along that you shouldn't be gambling with Romo like this. You found something that worked, don't try to reinvent the wheel now with this RB-by-committee crap.

A great run game kept a below-average defense off the field.

Keeping that defense off the field kept opposing teams from scoring late, multiple times.

That kept Romo from having to lead comeback-drive-after-comeback-drive and throwing those crucial interceptions.

 

[ZeroClub]

cmd - I couldn't agree with you more on the big picture.

 

[Midswat]

Guys relax about the run game. I'm about 85% sure we end up with AP.

 

[peplaw06]

I think the Cowboys ability to convert on 3rd downs is what kept the defense off the field. Sure the running game was great last year but it was given many opportunities. Williams and Beasley continue to progress in the offense plus having Dunbar on the field more on 3rd downs. Witten is healthy and doesn’t appear to have lost a step. I don’t see their 3rd down conversion getting worse, only getting better.

Will the other backs be successful on short yardage plays? I don’t know. I think Randle will do ok.

Counterpoint to the 3rd down conversion rate getting better is that if the running game isn't as good, the average distance to gain on 3rd down is presumably going to be longer than it was last season. It's not just a matter of whether the passing game is still intact and has progressed. Converting a 3rd and 7 to Beasley is going to be harder than converting a 3rd and 3.

 

[peplaw06]

By the way, I'm not suggesting our boards are perfect, I just think it doesn't make any sense to put all that time and money into them and then ignore them.

Are you assuming we follow our boards to a tee? I think it's pretty clear we don't based on passing on Floyd in 2013. When we follow our boards, then you hear about it. But when we don't, you hear excuses like "doesn't fit the system" or "has character issues."

 

[peplaw06]

Who knows? Maybe the Cowboys will pick up Ray Rice in Week 2.

I think the ship has sailed on another vet RB coming in here. Makes sense that they wouldn't have to guarantee his salary, but it means they're going to have to cut one of the current stable based on what they *hope* the incoming vet still has left in the tank. I could see them thinking that bringing in Rice for instance could end up in disaster if he doesn't have anything, and they have cut Dunbar to bring him in.