Arizona a potential suitor for Peterson and Murray

[Brian]

Ingram.

 

[Shaggy]

Ingram.

I concur!

 

[BACH]

Ingram.

I agree. Perfect Big back to compliment Duke for 25% of the cost.

 

[Iceman]

I concur!

You want Ingram because you have had him in fantasy so many years and he racks up the points for you!

 

[Iceman]

https://twitter.com/SI_Wire/status/573145107328851968

 

[Chopper0080]

Nice post.

Sure, sign a guy who has had issues over his career staying healthy the year after he has 350+ carries. And at a position that has a flush market. I would be ok with a 1 or 2 year deal, but that isn't what Murray wants.

 

[Austin Zonie]

I understand this thinking, I just think EVERYBODY (and when I say that I mean all over the media) is using this as the rationale, when it really doesn't make sense for Murray. It's like everyone is making the same mistake by assuming the same faulty rationale. A rationale that may or may not be true for older running backs... it depends on the running back, but also remember Murray is NOT an old running back. He may be 27, which is still three years away (already had his b-day this year) from the dreaded 30, but he ALSO entered the league at 24, and not 21-22.

On one hand ESPN and others have him as one of the top ranked guys, but everyone and the mother is saying...well let someone else pay for all those carries. Except where are those carries? It just isn't true with Murray.

I get the guys over 30 who have toted it 250-300 times a season for 8 years or so, but this guy toted it heavily for ONE season.

2014 392 1,845 4.7 13
2013 217 1,121 5.2 9
2012 161 663 4.1 4
2011 164 897 5.5 2

Another way to look is at his attempts per game
2014 24.5
2013 15.5
2012 16.1
2011 12.6

So in REALITY, as opposed to the talking head media, he really only carried the ball heavily for one season. Does everyone think he's used up from one season of that? ONE? Also here, since we have AE, I doubt he averages even 20 totes a game.

Also if you want to consider Emmitt Smith, by the end of year four he had toted the ball 1262 times to Murray's 934. Also from that point on Emmitt Smith averaged over 20 carries a game in four more seasons and had eight more 1,000 yard plus rushing seasons.

Some more perspective, when Emmit Smith had four years experience, it was after the 1993 season. Since Murray was older when he entered the league, age wise it would be like when Smith was about to enter the 1996 season.

So Murray doesn't have a lot of tread on the tires, at least in the NFL.

Now that we cleared this up, now let's juxtapose that faulty rationale and go by WHY the talking heads, in the past, would use this as a rationale...

Because running backs were some of the highest paid players. Ok. So don't sign a guy with a lot of tread to a huge contract. Not just a huge contract $$$ per yer, but with tons of years.

Well, these days 4-6-8 million a season for a stud running back is not breaking the bank. I think he signs somewhere in the 5-7 range per. So the faulty rationale does not apply here....

But guess what, the days of 6 and 7 year contracts for RB's is pretty much over. We know what Jerrah offered, and that was 4 years and 16.X million.

So a 4 year contract is most likely imo, with an outside chance at a 5 year.

Well a 4 year contract only puts him at 30 and a 5 year at 31. Couple that with the small money per, and it seriously is a completely different ball game. This isn't 12 per year for 7 years when the cap was at 90-110. This would be 5-7 for 4-5 when the cap is at 143. Completely different scenario.

Now AP is 30 (or will be very soon), and he's going to want more then Murray. There are also other guys hitting the market, Spiller just did. There are also some pretty good ones in the draft. So I'm fine with different approaches.

But what I do think, is that everyone is listening to bad advice, and someone is going to get a helluva talent at one helluva good price, and is going to make everyone else look like morons. Maybe it's better for us to go another route, so we can get some more help elsewhere, I understand that. But someone is going to get a helluva tough runner, who is still young, has tons of tread left, and at an unbelievably cheap price. I seriously wouldn't mind it being us.

Plus then we can always rub it in that Jerrah chose to pay a scrub 3rd-4th midget WR who had 500 something yards last year only a couple million less then he offered Murray.

Great analysis. The one part that I'd throw into the conversation on Murray is his career at OU. He played the full four years and had 759 carries. Something that has to be part of the consideration. Not sure it changes the outcome, but a piece of the puzzle.

 

[TheCardFan]

https://twitter.com/SI_Wire/status/573145107328851968

I really think Peterson restructures his contract and gets traded to the Cowboys.

 

[Garthshort]

Both players are great, but we'd be crazy to trade for one (AP) or over pay for the other. It's a passing not a running league. We need two (FA and the Draft), but pay much less than we would for either of these guys. Chip Kelly, imo, has it right.

 

[TJ]

No thanks... He's finished and will be hurt by week 4.

I really hope not.

I'm not saying it would be a blockbuster move, but more realistic given the circumstances. I don't think the team is going to invest big long--term bucks in Murray or a 30-year-old AP. I think DMC is a decent to good running back with a nagging history of injuries, but would only be asked to split carries with Ellington. It would be a very low risk move at $1.5 mil, IMO.

Plus, the team is 2 for 2 in making Oakland cast offs productive players, and has done well with one-year "prove it" contract guys.

 

[DVontel]

I'm not saying it would be a blockbuster move, but more realistic given the circumstances. I don't think the team is going to invest big long--term bucks in Murray or a 30-year-old AP. I think DMC is a decent to good running back with a nagging history of injuries, but would only be asked to split carries with Ellington. It would be a very low risk move at $1.5 mil, IMO.

Plus, the team is 2 for 2 in making Oakland cast offs productive players, and has done well with one-year "prove it" contract guys.

"Decent to good running back" No way you've actually seen him play the past 2 years & say something like that.
He's really no better than Trent Richardson. No vision at all anymore. He literally just runs straight & fall downs on first contact.
Would be a waste of a signing.

 

[TJ]

"Decent to good running back" No way you've actually seen him play the past 2 years & say something like that.

He's really no better than Trent Richardson. No vision at all anymore. He literally just runs straight & fall downs on first contact.

Would be a waste of a signing.

Living in California, I have the "privilege" of watching Oakland games. Richardson is a bad comparison. DMC actually gives some effort behind a crummy run blocking line and is a much better receiver. Injuries, unfortunately, have defined his career.

I'm intrigued by the prospect of signing him to see what he can provide as i think he could spell Ellington. I also don't believe in Kulabafi, as much as I want to. I think you misconstrued my post as saying I'm sold or am desperate to get him. I'd rather have Murray or AP, but knowing what I know about this franchise, McFadden to AZ seems like the most plausible outcome in finding a new running back.

 

[NoelPHX]

I hope AP comes to SD, we haven't had an iconic RB like him since prime LT.

Really thought that said idiotic not iconic.