Did seem rather flippant about Murray as if a Murray could be found anywhere. Other than his injury history (which I realize is a big deal) a complete RB like Murray is hard to find. Physical runner? Check. Speed? Check (4.41/40 made him the fastest player on the offense last year), pass protection? Check. Yards after contact? 2.6. Check. Receiving? 57 receptions last year. Check.
Seems to be more expensive, time consuming or costly whether draft picks or trying to sift the Murray part of the offense into Dunbar, Randle and whomever.
So far this year, Murray's rushing yards are about the same as Randles and Murray's receiving yards would make him tied for 3rd receptions on the team (which is Dunbar's production) and there is no need to replace Murray in short yardage or goal line with a beefier or more physical player.
Just doesn't make sense that the Dallas FO would be that disingenuous about keeping Murray considering that it may be much more work and maybe even cost trying to assemble a running game and committee without him. Seems specious.
If we are operating under the presumption that there was an intelligent plan for this year AND the FO knows what they are doing then there is a good chance that the running game and style from Murray's big year was just not in the plans for this year. Seems just like the LaGarrette Blount comment that Stephen Jones made points to a "well, if we want to find a running game, we will just sign a runner like the Patriots did" mentality. Still, why would you let your third best receiver go too, except that maybe Murray represented a WCO type pass receiving RB with 57 receptions for only 7.3 yards per reception and they were looking for a Marshall Faulk type?
The Murray decision just doesn't make sense. Big blunder or just planning an offense without a Murray? Either one is regrettable.
