quote:
quote:
So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."
Got it.
If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.
No one does a complete Best Player Available strategy early on in the draft. If they have a best player available strategy, it's best player available at a position of need. For instance, if a team with a superstar quarterback has a best player available strategy, they aren't picking a QB in the first round, even if they truly think he's the best player available. So it's completely reasonable for people to argue that it wasn't a good pick even if he was the BPA (I don't think he was but let's just say the Cowboys had him ranked as BPA) because the Cowboys have a great line and proved last year that they could run with the backs they have. Just like if the Cowobys had Tunsil ranked as their BPA, it would be a terrible pick because it's not a position of need. Many people don't think rb was a position of need, considering how well we ran the ball last year. It's not a stupid argument, even if the Cowboys have some sort of BPA strategy.
I'm sure Elliot will do fine. If he does well, all the guys in love with him will point to his yardage, etc and argue that it was a great pick. But the guys on the Ticket made a great point earlier today. Let's assume Elliot has a great year and the Cowboys run the ball better. A majority of that increase in production will be because Romo is playing and opening up the field and the defenses aren't able to key in on the run and stuff the box, especially in short yardage situations. So even if Elliot has better production than Mcfadden, a good portion of that production will not be because of Elliot (who knows what Mcfadden could have done if Romo had played all year).