CouchCoach
Staff member
- Messages
- 41,122
- Reaction score
- 74,907
The case for seems to revolve around two points.
1) He's a top 3 RB.
Can't argue that point and he'd probably be #1 if he scored more TD's on a team ranked 22nd in scoring in the NFL and 14th in the NFC. You read that right, 14th in the NFC behind the NYG and PHL. The only two NFC teams to score less were WAS and AZ.
The point I will argue is the necessity of a top 3 RB on any team.
2) The Cowboys run the offense through him and the QB is not as good without him in the game.
Can't argue that point either but is there a good reason to continue doing that with the price of the player? Is that what this offense is going to be dependent on for the QB? If so, take a look at that scoring ranking in the NFC again. A full 10 ppg behind the NFCCG participants. The QB needs THIS RB to average 21 ppg?
Maybe we're looking at this problem from the wrong angle? This QB needs a run game, or at least has up until now, but the only reason he needs this RB is that he's the only RB1 he's had. Do we assume there aren't other RB's that can help the QB? Cheaper RB's? Maybe playing in college this season?
The real case for not having a top 5 paid RB is that if this offense continues to run the offense through him, it's not going anywhere. That's the offense of yesteryear and if you think they promoted an ex QB to OC to run the ball, think that one again. All of this sign Elliott is based on that #2 point. If you expect that to continue, then expect another OC next season.
The name of the game is scoring and he doesn't do that. Top 5 paid RB's don't rank 19th in rushing TD's. And top 5 paid RB's don't get 47 yards on 20 carries and 2 catches for 19 in the most important game of the season.
A good RB is a necessity, a top 5 paid one is a luxury.
1) He's a top 3 RB.
Can't argue that point and he'd probably be #1 if he scored more TD's on a team ranked 22nd in scoring in the NFL and 14th in the NFC. You read that right, 14th in the NFC behind the NYG and PHL. The only two NFC teams to score less were WAS and AZ.
The point I will argue is the necessity of a top 3 RB on any team.
2) The Cowboys run the offense through him and the QB is not as good without him in the game.
Can't argue that point either but is there a good reason to continue doing that with the price of the player? Is that what this offense is going to be dependent on for the QB? If so, take a look at that scoring ranking in the NFC again. A full 10 ppg behind the NFCCG participants. The QB needs THIS RB to average 21 ppg?
Maybe we're looking at this problem from the wrong angle? This QB needs a run game, or at least has up until now, but the only reason he needs this RB is that he's the only RB1 he's had. Do we assume there aren't other RB's that can help the QB? Cheaper RB's? Maybe playing in college this season?
The real case for not having a top 5 paid RB is that if this offense continues to run the offense through him, it's not going anywhere. That's the offense of yesteryear and if you think they promoted an ex QB to OC to run the ball, think that one again. All of this sign Elliott is based on that #2 point. If you expect that to continue, then expect another OC next season.
The name of the game is scoring and he doesn't do that. Top 5 paid RB's don't rank 19th in rushing TD's. And top 5 paid RB's don't get 47 yards on 20 carries and 2 catches for 19 in the most important game of the season.
A good RB is a necessity, a top 5 paid one is a luxury.