quote:
Collins: This is the one pick I really just did not like in any way shape or form. Most had him projected as a 4th, 5th, or even 6th rounder and he's been called lazy and disinterested at times. If you really like him then fine, like him but take him at an appropriate spot like in the 5th.
quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
quote:quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
The running game with the addition of Zeke and Morris has the potential to be devastating. I don't care what the yardage was last year. The offense was so bad it looked to me like defenses dared the Cowboys to march the ball down the field with 4 and 5 yard runs. With more dynamic RBs they can run the ball for big plays and can probably do it even with mediocre QB play.
quote:Exactly.quote:quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
The running game with the addition of Zeke and Morris has the potential to be devastating. I don't care what the yardage was last year. The offense was so bad it looked to me like defenses dared the Cowboys to march the ball down the field with 4 and 5 yard runs. With more dynamic RBs they can run the ball for big plays and can probably do it even with mediocre QB play.
While the offense was poor, don't oversell it. The running game was Top 10 in the league. All he's saying is that if we improve from Top 10 to Top 5, it'll have just as much to do, if not more, with Romo and Bryant than it will with adding another running back.
People seem to forget that the reason Dallas couldn't score wasn't because they couldn't run the ball, but rather because no team worried about them passing the ball. And they still finished Top 10 in rushing.
quote:quote:Exactly.quote:quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
The running game with the addition of Zeke and Morris has the potential to be devastating. I don't care what the yardage was last year. The offense was so bad it looked to me like defenses dared the Cowboys to march the ball down the field with 4 and 5 yard runs. With more dynamic RBs they can run the ball for big plays and can probably do it even with mediocre QB play.
While the offense was poor, don't oversell it. The running game was Top 10 in the league. All he's saying is that if we improve from Top 10 to Top 5, it'll have just as much to do, if not more, with Romo and Bryant than it will with adding another running back.
People seem to forget that the reason Dallas couldn't score wasn't because they couldn't run the ball, but rather because no team worried about them passing the ball. And they still finished Top 10 in rushing.
quote:
Coulda had a prime defensive player with the first pick. Already had good running backs in place. Let's see if Zeke even starts...
quote:quote:quote:Exactly.quote:quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
The running game with the addition of Zeke and Morris has the potential to be devastating. I don't care what the yardage was last year. The offense was so bad it looked to me like defenses dared the Cowboys to march the ball down the field with 4 and 5 yard runs. With more dynamic RBs they can run the ball for big plays and can probably do it even with mediocre QB play.
While the offense was poor, don't oversell it. The running game was Top 10 in the league. All he's saying is that if we improve from Top 10 to Top 5, it'll have just as much to do, if not more, with Romo and Bryant than it will with adding another running back.
People seem to forget that the reason Dallas couldn't score wasn't because they couldn't run the ball, but rather because no team worried about them passing the ball. And they still finished Top 10 in rushing.
If the running game was so scary, why did we still see two high safety looks? Right, because teams knew the way to beat us was to take away the deep ball and force long drives. There's a reason they signed Morris and there is a reason they drafted Elliot.
quote:quote:quote:Exactly.quote:quote:quote: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.quote: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.
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.
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).
The running game with the addition of Zeke and Morris has the potential to be devastating. I don't care what the yardage was last year. The offense was so bad it looked to me like defenses dared the Cowboys to march the ball down the field with 4 and 5 yard runs. With more dynamic RBs they can run the ball for big plays and can probably do it even with mediocre QB play.
While the offense was poor, don't oversell it. The running game was Top 10 in the league. All he's saying is that if we improve from Top 10 to Top 5, it'll have just as much to do, if not more, with Romo and Bryant than it will with adding another running back.
People seem to forget that the reason Dallas couldn't score wasn't because they couldn't run the ball, but rather because no team worried about them passing the ball. And they still finished Top 10 in rushing.
If the running game was so scary, why did we still see two high safety looks? Right, because teams knew the way to beat us was to take away the deep ball and force long drives. There's a reason they signed Morris and there is a reason they drafted Elliot.
quote:
If you needed proof that Jerry Jr. and Spalding post on Texags just read the past few pages.
It's amazing.
quote:
The point continues to be that you don't need a top 5 at RB to have a good running game.
However, if there is anyone's approach you should rubber stamp as "he was their best player available!!!!!!" It's Jerrys.
His track record of success is without equal.
quote:
Lots of whiney babies in here.
Elliot will be an elite back.
Three years from now Ramsey will be just another guy
quote:quote:
The point continues to be that you don't need a top 5 at RB to have a good running game.
However, if there is anyone's approach you should rubber stamp as "he was their best player available!!!!!!" It's Jerrys.
His track record of success is without equal.
Yeah but it was Garrett's pick.
quote:
And five years from now, Elliott will be playing for another team.
quote:quote:
And five years from now, Elliott will be playing for another team.
Who says? You are trying to make a point by predicting the future 5 years in advance? Just makes no sense. And don't give me the Murray argument. He had one good year and Dallas wasn't going to break the bank.
If you know anything about Jerry, if Zeke is a stud he's not going anywhere 5 years from now.
quote:Broaddus had the Cowboys RB coach on and they said they saw him in the draft room before the draft started. He said yeah, Jason called me in to do him a favor. Then he said Elliott was the most complete back he's ever scouted.quote:quote:
The point continues to be that you don't need a top 5 at RB to have a good running game.
However, if there is anyone's approach you should rubber stamp as "he was their best player available!!!!!!" It's Jerrys.
His track record of success is without equal.
Yeah but it was Garrett's pick.
Right.
quote:
It's not a question of cash. Jerry will pay to keep his guys, sometimes to his detriment. It's a question of a running back being broken down.
Maybe he has 5 seasons with 300 carries and lots of catches. He is productive with 1700 yards and 14 touchdowns rushing in all those seasons. You think he can maintain that during his second contract?
Zeke Elliott will be used like a borrowed mule for next five years. After that, he might not be worth much.
quote:
Sure thing. Broaddus is the kind of objective opinion I like to put stock in especially when said opinion involves Jerry not making the call on first round picks.
Just because Jerry is a football idiot doesn't mean he's a PR idiot.
quote:
Saying he's a better Newman is supposed to be a slight?
