Eisen: If you feel Ezekiel Elliott is the next La'Veon Bell....

[tyke1doe]

And yet we did that in 2014 with a 3rd round TB, who prior to 2014, many fans didn't think had the stuff to be a every down, bell cow back.

But how long did it take that third-round back to get to a place where he could tote the rock a full season?
One of the knocks on Murray coming out of college was that he was/is injury prone. Could that have been the reason he was taken in the third round?

Ezekiel Elliott doesn't have such baggage. Which is why he's being mentioned as a first rounder. He can step right in whereas it took Murray (the third rounder) three years before he was ready to be the MAN in the Cowboys' backfield.

Jerry Jones may think Romo has three years left, but we don't have three years to wait for a running back to emerge. Plug EE in year one and watch Romo grow healthier.

Which highlights my main point. You don't need to take a TB at 4 to have a successful running game. Again, if the Rams called and said they will give us 15, 45 and 48 for 4 and Elliott is there at 15........... great I take him because I now have three 2nd round picks to fix the defense, our bigger need. But there is no chance in hell, with the needs we have, that I am taking a TB at 4 when it's quite possible I could take a guy in the 3rd round who could probably still produce a very good running attack behind this OL.

I don't have any problems with your perspective here. I would love to drop, pick up more draft picks and select Elliott.

But I don't know if the draft is going to flow that way. So I operate from the position that if we're not able to drop and if we're not going to draft a quarterback (my preference too if the consensus is the elite three in this draft are franchise quarterbacks), whom do we select.

I think under this scenario I'd be okay with Elliott. I really wouldn't want us to take him at four for the reasons you've stated about the value of running backs. But I wouldn't be disgusted nor would I shatter my flat screen television if we did.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

FWIW, here are the RBs taken in the first round dating back to 2000. Seems a decent number hung around for much longer than 2.5 years...........

2015 - Gurley, Gordon
2014 -
2013 -
2012 - Richardson, Martin, Wilson
2011 - Ingram
2010 - Spiller, Mathews, Best
2009 - Moreno, Brown, Wells
2008 - McFadden, Stewart, Jones, Mendenhall, Johnson
2007 - Peterson, Lynch
2006 - Bush, Maroney, Williams, Addai
2005 - Brown, Benson, Williams
2004 - Jackson, Perry, Jones
2003 - McGahee, Johnson
2002 - Green, Duckett
2001 - Tomlinson, McAllister, Bennett
2000 - Lewis, Jones, Dayne, Alexander, Canidate

Hello Sydla,

Thank you for doing that. I am not sure how much longer they played but I doubt it's what you might get out of other positions. I believe that the average career length of a 1st round pick, in general is around 9 to 10 years. The average is probably grater then that as RBs are included in that average. I don't know what the average is for 1st round RBs but I would guess that it's not as long as other positions. I would also guess that the actual years a RB spends as a starter are less, which is not even measured so far as I know. Either way, I think the reality is that if you do take a RB, unless he's an AP or an Emmitt, you are probably looking at fewer years of impact.

JMO

 

[tyke1doe]

Did we have the top OL in football when we had Julius Jones, Felix Jones or Marion Barber? So again, another non-apples to apples comparison that doesn't make much sense.

LOL! The interesting thing about these discussion is that you can always point to some stat or some situation that supports your argument and negates another person's. So your basic argument is that we didn't have a top offensive line with Julius and Felix Jones and Marion Barber, but we did in 2014? Okay, let's examine this claim.

In 2007, we had the Number TWO (2) ranked offense!!! Number 2!!!

In 2014, we had the Number FIVE (5) ranked offense.

Wouldn't having the No. 2 ranked offense be better than having the No. 5 ranked offense?

So my question to you is this: Who was primarily responsible for the No. 2 ranking in 2007? Felix Jones? Marion Barber? Tony Romo? Or the offensive line?

Similarly, who was responsible for the No. 5 offensive in 2014? DeMarco Murray? Tony Romo? Or the offensive line?

Bonus question: What role did the 2007 Cowboys offensive line play in achieving the No. 2 ranked offense?

 

[Sydla]

Hello Sydla,

Thank you for doing that. I am not sure how much longer they played but I doubt it's what you might get out of other positions. I believe that the average career length of a 1st round pick, in general is around 9 to 10 years. The average is probably grater then that as RBs are included in that average. I don't know what the average is for 1st round RBs but I would guess that it's not as long as other positions. I would also guess that the actual years a RB spends as a starter are less, which is not even measured so far as I know. Either way, I think the reality is that if you do take a RB, unless he's an AP or an Emmitt, you are probably looking at fewer years of impact.

JMO

For the record, I was just providing names. I am against taking Elliott at 4.

 

[Sydla]

LOL! The interesting thing about these discussion is that you can always point to some stat or some situation that supports your argument and negates another person's. So your basic argument is that we didn't have a top offensive line with Julius and Felix Jones and Marion Barber, but we did in 2014? Okay, let's examine this claim.

In 2007, we had the Number TWO (2) ranked offense!!! Number 2!!!

In 2014, we had the Number FIVE (5) ranked offense.

Wouldn't having the No. 2 ranked offense be better than having the No. 5 ranked offense?

So my question to you is this: Who was primarily responsible for the No. 2 ranking in 2007? Felix Jones? Marion Barber? Tony Romo? Or the offensive line?

Similarly, who was responsible for the No. 5 offensive in 2014? DeMarco Murray? Tony Romo? Or the offensive line?

Bonus question: What role did the 2007 Cowboys offensive line play in achieving the No. 2 ranked offense?

Not really sure what your argument is here.

 

[TrailBlazer]

I would trade back into the first for Zeke before I picked him outright at 4.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not really sure what your argument is here.

I originally pointed out how a healthy Romo with Marion Barber and Felix Jones weren't able to take the Cowboys any farther than they've gone now.

You responded by saying the offensive line of 2007 wasn't as good as the offensive line of 2014.

I pointed out that the offensive of 2007 was ranked higher than the offense of 2014.

My point: It's not just an issue of our "great" offensive line or Romo. We've done better as an offensive unit with a "lesser" offensive line and a younger, healthier Romo. So the running back comes into play somewhere. I think Ezekiel Elliott will be a better back than Barber or Felix, who played for a team that achieved a better offensive ranking than the Great Wall of 2014. Imagine if we put Ezekiel Elliott behind that line playing with a more experience, albeit, injury prone Romo?

 

[Sydla]

I originally pointed out how a healthy Romo with Marion Barber and Felix Jones weren't able to take the Cowboys any farther than they've gone now.

You responded by saying the offensive line of 2007 wasn't as good as the offensive line of 2014.

I pointed out that the offensive of 2007 was ranked higher than the offense of 2014.

My point: It's not just an issue of our "great" offensive line or Romo. We've done better as an offensive unit with a "lesser" offensive line and a younger, healthier Romo. So the running back comes into play somewhere. I think Ezekiel Elliott will be a better back than Barber or Felix, who played for a team that achieved a better offensive ranking than the Great Wall of 2014. Imagine if we put Ezekiel Elliott behind that line playing with a more experience, albeit, injury prone Romo?

Imagine if we draft a TB in the 3rd or 4th round who also gives the Cowboys a great running game and we use the first two picks to fix a real weakness of ours - defense (or better yet, try to buy yourself an insurance policy with a young QB)?

Here's our disconnect. You seem to think that in order to have a great running game you have to take a stud like Elliott at 4. I don't agree with that. I think you can find a TB in the 3rd or 4th round who can be an immediate impact player at that position given how good our OL is and then use that 4 pick to take what you hope will be an impact defensive player. I simply do not believe that there is a massive chasm in terms of production between Elliott and this OL and say if you took Booker or Collins or Perkins and put him behind this OL.

I just simply don't agree that Elliott at 4 is a wise use of that pick. Doesnt' mean I think he stinks or won't be very good if he were in Dallas. I just think when looking at this team, how it's constructed, what our true needs are, that 4th pick has more value to the franchise at another position or in a trade than taking a TB.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

For the record, I was just providing names. I am against taking Elliott at 4.

That's cool. I was not suggesting that you wanted to take Zeke or even have an opinion on it one way or the other. I like Zeke Elliott and would not be unhappy if we were to trade down and take him. I do not favor taking backs in the 1st round, only because the long term value and the financials associated with the slotting in the first round vs the productivity curve of the position are often problematic. However, as I watch Elliot, he has a lot of skills. He does everything pretty well. I don't think he is a once in a generation type talent but I do think he is pretty darn good. I also like Prosise from ND. He is interesting and can do a lot of different things. If we went with DMC and Dunbar, Prosise might be a guy we could take later that could give you 10 carries and develop into your every down back.

Either way, I would not use the 4th pick on a back in this draft. To me, there is not a RB in this draft that is worth drafting with that high a selection.

 

[tyke1doe]

Imagine if we draft a TB in the 3rd or 4th round who also gives the Cowboys a great running game and we use the first two picks to fix a real weakness of ours - defense (or better yet, try to buy yourself an insurance policy with a young QB)?

Here's our disconnect. You seem to think that in order to have a great running game you have to take a stud like Elliott at 4. I don't agree with that. I think you can find a TB in the 3rd or 4th round who can be an immediate impact player at that position given how good our OL is and then use that 4 pick to take what you hope will be an impact defensive player. I simply do not believe that there is a massive chasm in terms of production between Elliott and this OL and say if you took Booker or Collins or Perkins and put him behind this OL.

I just simply don't agree that Elliott at 4 is a wise use of that pick. Doesnt' mean I think he stinks or won't be very good if he were in Dallas. I just think when looking at this team, how it's constructed, what our true needs are, that 4th pick has more value to the franchise at another position or in a trade than taking a TB.

You point out my disconnect, but it works in reverse against your argument too. We could get a stud back in Elliott then fill in holes on our defense in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. For every Prince Amukamara (1st Round, 19th pick), there's a Richard Sherman (5th, 154th) . For every Sean Weatherspoon (1st, 19th), there's a NaVorro Bowman (3rd, 91st). For every Dee Millner (1st, 9th), there's a Tyrann Mathieu (3rd, 69th). And on and on.

In summary: You can take a stud like Ezekiel Elliott and then take other defensive players who could quite possibly be better than the Ramseys, Jacks and Bosas you rue passing because you think their play will be as great as where you pick them.

I believe Elliott is a better back than the other backs you've mentioned. And if there are questions about other players and Dallas can't move beyond #4 (I've already said I'd prefer we move down, get some picks and draft Elliott, so on this point we have no dispute), you just take the best player rated on your board, regardless whether he's a running back or not, especially when you have a need there and particularly when Jerry Jones says he expects Romo to play for five more years. A defensive player aint gonna protect Romo from taking a lot of hits. A running back the caliber of Elliott will.

 

[Sydla]

You point out my disconnect, but it works in reverse against your argument too. We could get a stud back in Elliott then fill in holes on our defense in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. For every Prince Amukamara (1st Round, 19th pick), there's a Richard Sherman (5th, 154th) . For every Sean Weatherspoon (1st, 19th), there's a NaVorro Bowman (3rd, 91st). For every Dee Millner (1st, 9th), there's a Tyrann Mathieu (3rd, 69th). And on and on.

In summary: You can take a stud like Ezekiel Elliott and then take other defensive players who could quite possibly be better than the Ramseys, Jacks and Bosas you rue passing because you think their play will be as great as where you pick them.

I believe Elliott is a better back than the other backs you've mentioned. And if there are questions about other players and Dallas can't move beyond #4 (I've already said I'd prefer we move down, get some picks and draft Elliott, so on this point we have no dispute), you just take the best player rated on your board, regardless whether he's a running back or not, especially when you have a need there and particularly when Jerry Jones says he expects Romo to play for five more years. A defensive player aint gonna protect Romo from taking a lot of hits. A running back the caliber of Elliott will.

I'd be stunned if the Cowboys had Elliott even that high on their board. At 4, there is going to be a few guys left on your board that you wont be reaching for a guy. So I think taking a TB at 4 is just a foolish move. You won't convince me otherwise.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'd be stunned if the Cowboys had Elliott even that high on their board. At 4, there is going to be a few guys left on your board that you wont be reaching for a guy. So I think taking a TB at 4 is just a foolish move. You won't convince me otherwise.

Fair enough. First, I want a franchise quarterback. If the franchise quarterback isn't there, I want a difference maker. So if that's Ramsey, Elliott or Jack, I'll be good.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

You asked which would I rather have, AP or Emmitt.

Emmitt was a great RB, but so is Peterson and Peterson is a freak athlete that Smith wasn't. Put Peterson behind some of those dominant OLs in the 90s and I suspect he'd have been great too.

You still didn't answer the question. You keep talking about the OL and IF Peterson had the same OL.

Since you won't Emmitt wasn't the fastest or greatest athlete but ran for more yards then any other running back. You claim OL then why couldn't our other running backs have the same success behind the same OL.

We have a great OL now but missing that elite back. Speed doesn't define a running back or how good he will be. Felix Jones had speed. .......