My draft thoughts....

[BigStar]

Its Lynch or bust at this point if we want a QB.

Feel ya there, just don't want to end up taking Ponder @ 4th overall just bc we weren't proactive earlier to gain TEN/CLE picks at much lower costs than what PHI and SF paid. I liked Wentz and Goff at the cost from 4th overall to 1/2 and saw Lynch as more in the Bridgewater/Manuel tier of the draft (just where they were selected; tbh I read up on Wentz/Goff a LOT more than Lynch). Saying all that and to be fair, I'm also aware that a minority have claimed Lynch is the best of the bunch throughout the whole pre draft evaluation process and they wouldn't see that as a reach pick at all @ 4, etc.

 

[Risen Star]

 

[Stash]

I have Ramsey rated as a safety. Overrated prospect because he doesn't make plays on the football. If you're going to take a DB high in the draft he better be a ball hawk. Ramsey is not that guy.

This is the inescapable fact that anyone advocating yo draft him can't ignore and can't dispute. People want to say he's the second coming of Deion Sanders.

No.

Sanders was a playmaker, with 14 interceptions over his college career to Ramsey's 3.

That's the issue I have with either Ramsey or Bosa being the pick at #4. Neither have shown themselves to be consistant playmakers. Guys who make big plays that affect the outcome of games. This defense tied the NFL record for the fewest turnovers for a season!

Do we really want to add to this group a 'playmaker' who doesn't make plays?

 

[Stash]

The team's philosophy with regard to life after Romo seems to be "It don't stink until you step in it." I think we got close enough to get a whiff of it last year, and this may have been our one chance at a seamless transition between quarterbacks.

As for Elliot, I'd like somebody who's really thought it through to explain how much better he would be on this team than some RB we could get in the 3rd or 4th round. Because it would have to be so much better that it would justify not taking one of the top two defenders in the draft.

Good luck getting that response! They don't think it through that much.

This line turned a 3rd round running back into the league's leading rusher, by a country mile! To the tune of 1,800 yards.

What would the return on investment have to be to justify using the #4 overall pick and guaranteeing that back $18 million? 2,300 yards?

 

[Stash]

Well at the risk of you regurgitating stats at me I don't know if I agree with that thought process.

What about cornerback? Convince me Jalin Ramsey would be so much better than a CB we could get in the 3rd or 4th round. Or explain to me why Joey Bosa would be so much better in Dallas than a mid round end.

I don't think you can look at it that way because the league is littered with quality mid round picks across the board. You'd be bypassing all positions thinking you can get a comparable player later.

I think you just have to look at the prospect. I think Elliott is a 1,200 yards, double digit TDs back for a number of years in Dallas. Among the top tier backs in the game. That's worth the pick for me. Particularly when we recently showed a strong commitment to the running game and the success it brought with it.

Romo, Elliott, Dez has the potential to be a nice set of triplets over the short term.

When a left-for-dead retread like McFadden gets 1,100 yards after a late start, how is 1,200 yards worth the #4 overall pick?

 

[Gaede]

Good luck getting that response! They don't think it through that much.

This line turned a 3rd round running back into the league's leading rusher, by a country mile! To the tune of 1,800 yards.

What would the return on investment have to be to justify using the #4 overall pick and guaranteeing that back $18 million? 2,300 yards?

It's a tough sell. We were 9th in the league in rushing already. There are at least 4 starter quality running backs available in rounds 2, 3 and 4. How will Zeke make us that much better when a) we were already good at running and b) other guys can offer similar production.

In spite of all that, I am all for Zeke at 4 and here's why: I believe he is a franchise-type player in a draft bereft of franchise-type players. If you can grab that type of player in the draft, you should.

We are never going to fill all of our holes. It's impossible. I hate the idea of drafting a lesser player because we need to fill a hole on the roster.

It is my belief that playmakers make the team better. They compensate for weaknesses. They make other players better. Romo is a great example. The kind of energy & confidence that a playmaker brings to a team sport is tremendous and cannot be measured with statistics.

And not only that, but playmakers make the game fun to watch. Having a reason to cheer and be excited is important to me. Sorry. I love football and this team. But they are the most boring thing in the world some times.

 

[Stash]

And I think you're way off on Dodd. He has only produced one season and his athletic numbers aren't anything special, much rather have Ogbah at 34 then Dodd

I'd certainly prefer Dodd in round 2 to Bosa at #4 overall. But, that said, I don't think we can go wrong with either Ogbah or Dodd. Two good players at a position where we could clearly use the help.

 

[Risen Star]

When a left-for-dead retread like McFadden gets 1,100 yards after a late start, how is 1,200 yards worth the #4 overall pick?

Because those were garbage yards. They didn't happen organically within our offense. That was a product of having no passing game, falling behind, and then stat padding against defenses who weren't concerned with shutting the run down.

McFadden also couldn't score. I have Elliott averaging 12 a year. Adding about 6 or 7 more touchdowns to an offense over the course of a season can have a huge impact on your record.

 

[percyhoward]

Because those were garbage yards. They didn't happen organically within our offense. That was a product of having no passing game, falling behind, and then stat padding against defenses who weren't concerned with shutting the run down. McFadden also couldn't score. I have Elliott averaging 12 a year. Adding about 6 or 7 more touchdowns to an offense over the course of a season can have a huge impact on your record.

Don't know if you ever saw this, but all nine of the other top 10 rushers had more garbage yards than he did. Also, add in the extra yards he would have accumulated if defenses hadn't been playing run and if we'd had more leads. The same goes for extra touchdowns, obviously. If Elliott is that good, then his annual quest for a 2,000-yard season will be fun to watch until the defense lets us down in the playoffs.

There were only four Super Bowl-winning defenses in 50 years that did not rank in the top 12 in points allowed during the regular season. And none of those four would have won the SB without outstanding defensive performances in the playoffs. They all had playoff games in which they held the opposing QB to 30 points below his season rating, and they all held the opponent under 20 points per playoff game on average.

Only three teams have failed to have a top 12 defense at least once in this decade: Oakland, Washington, and Dallas.

 

[Alexander]

In spite of all that, I am all for Zeke at 4 and here's why: I believe he is a franchise-type player in a draft bereft of franchise-type players. If you can grab that type of player in the draft, you should.

We are never going to fill all of our holes. It's impossible. I hate the idea of drafting a lesser player because we need to fill a hole on the roster.

That is the issue at hand.

I guess we can all sit around and debate the wonderful virtues of McFadden's yards and pretend that we are just fine there.

I find it hilarious that people are downgrading the talent of Norman, while saying he wasn't worth it because his team didn't want him.

What about Washington? They basically said, Morris was not even worth a cheap deal, bye.

Yet we should think that dumpster diving again is just the way to go?

Right now, you last comment is the issue. We are not going to fill all the holes.

If we force the picks with the ideas of fixing holes versus adding playmakers, and that is a key word, we will struggle.

I am to the point where if the defense is going to be average at best, regardless of who we add.

It is not going to take a significant leap even if we added a Ramsey or Bosa. They are not going to step right in and be difference makers with some of the other significant concerns.

We will still struggle to score points, even with a healthy Romo in 2015, we were not exactly the same kind of offense as we were in 2014, where we scoring points.

It would be very shortsighted to ignore the best playmakers offensively since it is clear we will have to pretty much outscore opponents to have a chance to compete.

 

[percyhoward]

I guess we can all sit around and debate the wonderful virtues of McFadden's yards and pretend that we are just fine there.

We can upgrade from an older, injury prone, average-at-best RB without it costing us the #4 pick in the draft.

 

[Alexander]

We can upgrade on an older, injury prone, average-at-best RB without it costing us the #4 pick in the draft.

So these backs in the third, fourth etc. As they going to be playmakers to Elliott's degree?

There is a reason why he is one of the few backs that has been ranked in the upper tier of a draft in a while.

If there were an elite WR we could take, I would consider that too.

The worst thing to do is ignore better talent simply because of the position they play, thinking you can get an okay player later.

Plenty of good talent evaluators like Bill Polian think Elliott is special.

That is enough for me to not downplay that potential talent infusion simply because I can upgrade McFadden later.

 

[percyhoward]

So these backs in the third, fourth etc. As they going to be playmakers to Elliott's degree?

There is a reason why he is one of the few backs that has been ranked in the upper tier of a draft in a while.

If there were an elite WR we could take, I would consider that too.

The worst thing to do is ignore better talent simply because of the position they play, thinking you can get an okay player later.

Plenty of good talent evaluators like Bill Polian think Elliott is special.

That is enough for me to not downplay that potential talent infusion simply because I can upgrade McFadden later.

Considering what Murray and McFadden did behind this OL, how many more wins do you get with Elliott than with a RB you could draft later?

Is that difference so big as to justify adding one less defensive starter (and two less in a trade-down scenario)?

 

[DFWJC]

When a left-for-dead retread like McFadden gets 1,100 yards after a late start, how is 1,200 yards worth the #4 overall pick?

This is one of the reasons I'm not wanting Elliott more at 4.

Marginal return on investment.
Compared to the cost, I'm not sure the additional return is worth it at 4 ( which, lest people forget, has the same worth as TWO middle 1st rounders)

I like him more a little later, and love him much later.

I won't jump from a roof if they take him at 4, but it's not my preference.

 

[WillieBeamen]

We can upgrade from an older, injury prone, average-at-best RB without it costing us the #4 pick in the draft.

I think most want Elliot, because of the question marks surrounding the top 2 rated defensive players. There arent any Khalil Macks or Von Millers in this draft.

Also, the front office inquired about trading for Murray when he was available. If what we are hearing about the coaches wanting Elliot too, then we should assume our running game success isnt all because of the oline.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

As for Elliot, I'd like somebody who's really thought it through to explain how much better he would be on this team than some RB we could get in the 3rd or 4th round. Because it would have to be so much better that it would justify not taking one of the top two defenders in the draft.

A shot across the bow!

Well at the risk of you regurgitating stats at me I don't know if I agree with that thought process.


What about cornerback? Convince me Jalin Ramsey would be so much better than a CB we could get in the 3rd or 4th round. Or explain to me why Joey Bosa would be so much better in Dallas than a mid round end.

I don't think you can look at it that way because the league is littered with quality mid round picks across the board. You'd be bypassing all positions thinking you can get a comparable player later.

I think you just have to look at the prospect. I think Elliott is a 1,200 yards, double digit TDs back for a number of years in Dallas. Among the top tier backs in the game. That's worth the pick for me. Particularly when we recently showed a strong commitment to the running game and the success it brought with it.

Romo, Elliott, Dez has the potential to be a nice set of triplets over the short term.

Risen is being evasive! He won't answer the question. He's dodging. Moving left to right real well! He's light on his toes when presented with an uncomfortable truth!

Because those were garbage yards. They didn't happen organically within our offense. That was a product of having no passing game, falling behind, and then stat padding against defenses who weren't concerned with shutting the run down.

McFadden also couldn't score. I have Elliott averaging 12 a year. Adding about 6 or 7 more touchdowns to an offense over the course of a season can have a huge impact on your record.

Oh man! Risen comes out firing! He's throwing punches discounting statistics (garbage yards) and dropping uppercuts ignoring context (this was a Moore/Weeden/Cassel offense that struggled to score period) and creating a biased narrative(McFadden can't score).

Don't know if you ever saw this, but all nine of the other top 10 rushers had more garbage yards than he did. Also, add in the extra yards he would have accumulated if defenses hadn't been playing run and if we'd had more leads. The same goes for extra touchdowns, obviously. If Elliott is that good, then his annual quest for a 2,000-yard season will be fun to watch until the defense lets us down in the playoffs.

There were only four Super Bowl-winning defenses in 50 years that did not rank in the top 12 in points allowed during the regular season. And none of those four would have won the SB without outstanding defensive performances in the playoffs. They all had playoff games in which they held the opposing QB to 30 points below his season rating, and they all held the opponent under 20 points per playoff game on average.

Only three teams have failed to have a top 12 defense at least once in this decade: Oakland, Washington, and Dallas.

WOOOOOWWWWWWW Percy saw him coming. He takes the punch square and follows up with a one two combination. Risen's glass jaw ruptures and he's down seeing stars!

What a one sided yet oddly entertaining fight!

 

[percyhoward]

I think most want Elliot, because of the question marks surrounding the top 2 rated defensive players. There arent any Khalil Macks or Von Millers in this draft.

Also, the front office inquired about trading for Murray when he was available. If what we are hearing about the coaches wanting Elliot too, then we should assume our running game success isn't all because of the oline.

I think it's because with the two QB gone, and Tunsil not being perceived as a need, that leaves Elliott. I'd want Elliott too if I coached offense.

But I don't think offense is our problem, and this may be our best chance at getting a top 12 defense in seven years.

 

[Alexander]

Considering what Murray and McFadden did behind this OL, how many more wins do you get with Elliott than with a RB you could draft later?

Is that difference so big as to justify adding one less defensive starter (and two less in a trade-down scenario)?

Depends on a lot of factors. Who are we trading down for? Or are we doing it just to do it to get "defensive starters".

Elliott has the potential to score a lot of points and extend a lot of drives. What third round back offers anything close?

Now, about the defenders, what single defender, or two in a trade down is going to end up helping surrender less points, create more turnovers, end more drives and result in more wins?

And I am speaking in microwave terms, i.e. not two three years from now. Since we refused to make the aggressive move for the future QB, we are working with basically a rookie contract.

I am looking at the specific players, not constructs and maybes. We are at a point right now where we need a special player from this pick.

That's my primary concern.

 

[Alexander]

I think it's because with the two QB gone, and Tunsil not being perceived as a need, that leaves Elliott. I'd want Elliott too if I coached offense.

But I don't think offense is our problem, and this may be our best chance at getting a top 12 defense in seven years.

So why is Marinelli supposedly in favor of Elliott?

 

[Alexander]

I think most want Elliot, because of the question marks surrounding the top 2 rated defensive players. There arent any Khalil Macks or Von Millers in this draft..

You had better believe if there were players like that to choose from at four, I know I personally would be all over that and right in step with the "get a RB later" crowd.

Again, it comes down to reality, this draft, what we can get out of it, not just the ideas of what the draft should look like.