Elliot @ 4, and the cap ramifications

[JohnnyHopkins]

From a purely Financial perspective it makes a lot of sense to go for a QB or DE at #4 just using the numbers from the draft and this year's Free Agency. Not gonna analyze QBs because the numbers are absurd enough to speak for themselves

Olivier Vernon and Malik Jackson just got five year contracts for around $85 million. They had 7.5 and 5 sacks last year.

Doug Martin just got a five year contract worth $36 Million. Doug Martin was All Pro in 2015.

Amari Cooper was picked last year at #4, so we can use his contract and bump it by 5% to get a reasonable estimate of what we could expect to pay our #4 pick.

Here is the rounded breakdown:
RB Doug Martin: Average Annual: 7 Million / Total Guaranteed Money: 15 Million
DE Olivier Vernon: Average Annual: 17 Million / Total Guaranteed Money 52 Million
#4 Pick: Average Annual: 6 Million / Total Guaranteed Money is normally 100% for top five players (Cooper #4 and Sherff #5 both signed fully guaranteed contracts.

Rookie would be getting 8.8 Million more guaranteed money than the second leading rusher from last year, only 1 million less per season average if Martin lasts his entire contract.

Rookie would be getting 28.2 million less guaranteed money than Oliver Vernon and 11 Million less per season.

From a Front Office perspective, it makes perfect sense to lock up a rookie DE at #4 for $11 million less per season than guys that were just "good", not great. A running back would need to finish at the top of the league each year to actually be worth that much guaranteed money in today's NFL.

From a pure needs perspective, the $11 million saved at the DE position could then be used to go after a premium running back in 2017, plus still have money. The same could not be said if Dallas drafted a running back and needed to sign a top five Defensive End.

Financially, Elliot would be more palatable in a trade down where the dollars made more sense.

 

[Risen Star]

We watched Murray turn our crap defense into good enough because he kept the opposing offense off the field. While a truly great corner can take away a great wr it's damn near impossible to shut down half the field like Deon back in the day. There are so many damn pick plays and bent rules in favor of wrs now making it difficult for dbs. An elite running back touches the ball 20+ times a game and dictates not only his offense but the other teams offensive opportunities.

Correct and while RBs can be found later, irrelevant cornerbacks can too. The league is littered with starting CBs from the mid rounds of the draft.

That's your litmus test for fans to see if they understand the game. If they covet the impact of a cornerback and scoff at a RB or WR, flush everything they'll ever say about the sport. They know nothing.

 

[Silver N Blue]

I am just guessing but I think their approach might be similar to last year. McFadden, look for a mid-round guy, see if anyone shakes free in the next few months from another team, Dunbar.

I actually don't have a HUGE problem with that thinking although I think they might be rolling the dice a bit on McFadden staying healthy for a full season. I think they need another vet in here, likely not a higher priced guy, and a draft pick.

Honestly, I'd be inquiring about Foster right now. I know he's coming off a foot injury but you can probably get him real cheap and if he's not healed by camp, just cut him.

Not a fan using last year's approach.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is just a thought, but in reading about the draft and the prospects we may have a shot at, the biggest knock on Elliot is the salary we will have to pay a rookie rb @ 4.

With that being said, who cares? Our draft class will cost the same no matter the players we draft right? It's become apearent we have changed our ways in free agency and prefer to resign our own and go with home grown talent.

So if the depth is at DL and Bosa isn't flashy enough why not take the stud RB and then take advantage of a deep draft class and go DL in the second?

I don't really agree with this. A big part of the reason you draft positions instead of signing in FA is because it's cheaper. If you use Cheaper on a position that should already be cheap, then you aren't really helping your cap. You still have to go out and get the more expensive positions filled, like QB or CB or Safety or what have you. It's not same same because the pick 4 pays what it pays. You have to consider position value in the equation.

 

[DFWJC]

This is just a thought, but in reading about the draft and the prospects we may have a shot at, the biggest knock on Elliot is the salary we will have to pay a rookie rb @ 4.

With that being said, who cares? Our draft class will cost the same no matter the players we draft right? It's become apearent we have changed our ways in free agency and prefer to resign our own and go with home grown talent.

So if the depth is at DL and Bosa isn't flashy enough why not take the stud RB and then take advantage of a deep draft class and go DL in the second?

I won't pass out if we draft Zeke--though I'd of course prefer it slightly later so we could get player and an extra 2nd or 3rd. But we all can want...don't mean we can have.

But I think you need to factor in current and future market costs for various position players. And also probability of successfully filling position needs later in the draft or in FA.
History says the ave price is lower for RBs and that they are far easier to find than QBs or pass-rushers later in the draft or in FA.
I think that's the main issue with using the 4th overall on Zeke.

 

[CWR]

From a purely Financial perspective it makes a lot of sense to go for a QB or DE at #4 just using the numbers from the draft and this year's Free Agency. Not gonna analyze QBs because the numbers are absurd enough to speak for themselves

Olivier Vernon and Malik Jackson just got five year contracts for around $85 million. They had 7.5 and 5 sacks last year.

Doug Martin just got a five year contract worth $36 Million. Doug Martin was All Pro in 2015.

Amari Cooper was picked last year at #4, so we can use his contract and bump it by 5% to get a reasonable estimate of what we could expect to pay our #4 pick.

Here is the rounded breakdown:
RB Doug Martin: Average Annual: 7 Million / Total Guaranteed Money: 15 Million
DE Olivier Vernon: Average Annual: 17 Million / Total Guaranteed Money 52 Million
#4 Pick: Average Annual: 6 Million / Total Guaranteed Money is normally 100% for top five players (Cooper #4 and Sherff #5 both signed fully guaranteed contracts.

Rookie would be getting 8.8 Million more guaranteed money than the second leading rusher from last year, only 1 million less per season average if Martin lasts his entire contract.

Rookie would be getting 28.2 million less guaranteed money than Oliver Vernon and 11 Million less per season.

From a Front Office perspective, it makes perfect sense to lock up a rookie DE at #4 for $11 million less per season than guys that were just "good", not great. A running back would need to finish at the top of the league each year to actually be worth that much guaranteed money in today's NFL.

From a pure needs perspective, the $11 million saved at the DE position could then be used to go after a premium running back in 2017, plus still have money. The same could not be said if Dallas drafted a running back and needed to sign a top five Defensive End.

Financially, Elliot would be more palatable in a trade down where the dollars made more sense.

I understand what you're saying and I believed the same until the realization hit me that we aren't players in free agency and haven't been since Carr. So we won't likely be using that money to go out and sign a big name DE or DB or QB or anyone else for that matter.

Point being we pay the class X amount of guaranteed money no matter who we draft in each round. Consequently, it really doesn't matter who gets the bigger slice of the pie because the pie will be the same size regardless.

Now if we were to go out and pay a top flight free agent than yes I get it we are better off paying a rookie at a "premium" position in the draft and spending our FA money on a cheaper position such as RB. However, our philosophy seems to be not to pay FAs top dollars so with that I'm not sure the financial reward of drafting a premium position is as relevant.

 

[Sydla]

I understand what you're saying and I believed the same until the realization hit me that we aren't players in free agency and haven't been since Carr. So we won't likely be using that money to go out and sign a big name DE or DB or QB or anyone else for that matter.

Point being we pay the class X amount of guaranteed money no matter who we draft in each round. Consequently, it really doesn't matter who gets the bigger slice of the pie because the pie will be the same size regardless.

Now if we were to go out and pay a top flight free agent than yes I get it we are better off paying a rookie at a "premium" position in the draft and spending our FA money on a cheaper position such as RB. However, our philosophy seems to be not to pay FAs top dollars so with that I'm not sure the financial reward of drafting a premium position is as relevant.

At least from the Cowboys perspective, it does.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I understand what you're saying and I believed the same until the realization hit me that we aren't players in free agency and haven't been since Carr. So we won't likely be using that money to go out and sign a big name DE or DB or QB or anyone else for that matter.

Point being we pay the class X amount of guaranteed money no matter who we draft in each round. Consequently, it really doesn't matter who gets the bigger slice of the pie because the pie will be the same size regardless.

Now if we were to go out and pay a top flight free agent than yes I get it we are better off paying a rookie at a "premium" position in the draft and spending our FA money on a cheaper position such as RB. However, our philosophy seems to be not to pay FAs top dollars so with that I'm not sure the financial reward of drafting a premium position is as relevant.

That actually assists my point dramatically. They do not want to spend big time Free Agency money, instead using it to retain their own guys. They can grab a guy like McFadden on the cheap and get the 4th leading rusher in the NFL, but they can't get the 4th most sacks in the league without paying $85 million+ that they will not spend. Running backs can be obtained in a pinch and we are seeing first hand at this moment that good DEs cannot.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

I laugh at those who say you can't draft a RB at 4 but have no problem wasting that pick on an irrelevant cornerback.

Who was more impactful on Sundays. DeMarco Murray or any CB that's played here since Deion Sanders?

Well, said RB didn't do squat for Philly in 2015. Said RB only had one good season behind arguably the best OL at the time. Put said RB somewhere else and you get epic fail.

Admittedly, Claiborne has been a bust. Claiborne was a bad pick and not the norm. Claiborne is low hanging fruit for those who want to complain about something.

Seattle gambled and just chose some, at the time, irrelevant CB in Richard Sherman. He turned out to be good. Sherman also had the advantage of playing secondary with one of the best defensive lines providing pressure. Seattle's defensive line lost about 3 defensive lineman this year. I suspect Sherman's performance will suffer too if their DL can't get pressure. We'll see.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, said RB didn't do squat for Philly in 2015. Said RB only had one good season behind arguably the best OL at the time. Put said RB somewhere else and you get epic fail.

Admittedly, Claiborne has been a bust. Claiborne was a bad pick and not the norm. Claiborne is low hanging fruit for those who want to complain about something.

Seattle gambled and just chose some, at the time, irrelevant CB in Richard Sherman. He turned out to be good. Sherman also had the advantage of playing secondary with one of the best defensive lines providing pressure. Seattle's defensive line lost about 3 defensive lineman this year. I suspect Sherman's performance will suffer too if their DL can't get pressure. We'll see.

I don't know that Philly is a good example. I mean, Shady ran for well over a thousand Yards in 4 of the last 5 seasons he was there behind that OL. Murray can clearly get yards if he's used properly. The problem there was not Shady or Murray or the OL. The problem was Kelley IMO.

I would also disagree with you on Seattle. They didn't just randomly pick Sherman. They knew something about him. They did their homework and it paid off for them.

JMO

 

[DFWJC]

If Hardy had dominated last year with15-18 sacks and been a model teammate and citizen, you can be sure they would have ponied up an 85 mil contract.
No chance they would spend that on a RB

 

[CWR]

My point is they will not pay 85 million in any case unless it's 85 million to pay thier own. I get what your saying I just don't see us having an 85 million dollar DL player on the

That actually assists my point dramatically. They do not want to spend big time Free Agency money, instead using it to retain their own guys. They can grab a guy like McFadden on the cheap and get the 4th leading rusher in the NFL, but they can't get the 4th most sacks in the league without paying $85 million+ that they will not spend. Running backs can be obtained in a pinch and we are seeing first hand at this moment that good DEs cannot.

Sure, and if we can get the 4th most sacks in the league at 4, than I'd be all for it. But if Bosa or Buckner isn't rated as such we should get the prospect we do love and take a defensive lineman later since this is supposedly a deep draft at the position. You can't have the mindset that it is a financial decision. You take the best prospect at 4.

 

[Risen Star]

Well, said RB didn't do squat for Philly in 2015. Said RB only had one good season behind arguably the best OL at the time. Put said RB somewhere else and you get epic fail.

Admittedly, Claiborne has been a bust. Claiborne was a bad pick and not the norm. Claiborne is low hanging fruit for those who want to complain about something.

Seattle gambled and just chose some, at the time, irrelevant CB in Richard Sherman. He turned out to be good. Sherman also had the advantage of playing secondary with one of the best defensive lines providing pressure. Seattle's defensive line lost about 3 defensive lineman this year. I suspect Sherman's performance will suffer too if their DL can't get pressure. We'll see.

Are you talking about the same Richard Sherman who has gone on record that his success comes from the guys in Seattle's front seven? That guy?

Yeah. Put Sherman here and Claiborne there and they have very different careers. They just don't provide any impact.

 

[Oh_Canada]

We watched Murray turn our crap defense into good enough because he kept the opposing offense off the field. While a truly great corner can take away a great wr it's damn near impossible to shut down half the field like Deon back in the day. There are so many damn pick plays and bent rules in favor of wrs now making it difficult for dbs. An elite running back touches the ball 20+ times a game and dictates not only his offense but the other teams offensive opportunities.

Murray was drafted in round three and how did he do last year?

An elite running back in the modern NFL not named AP might have four productive years...maybe.

An elite corner is on your roster for a dozen.

And yes, a great corner can neutralize a team's best WR which is very important because it forces the QB to his second and third reads.

How much impact did Todd Gurley have on the Rams really?

Ask the Chiefs if there rookie corner had a positive impact.

Not sure why anyone would want to spend a top four pick on a running back-ever. To me it's lunacy. He is off your roster in six years max and if not, he will be a diminishing asset by the day.

 

[Hardline]

Everyone seems to want to point to examples of teams with great RBs not contributing to the overall success of their teams.
Now point to me an example of the DALLAS COWBOYS having success without a great RB.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Everyone seems to want to point to examples of teams with great RBs not contributing to the overall success of their teams.
Now point to me an example of the DALLAS COWBOYS having success without a great RB.

Well, Dallas hasn't had much success period in twenty years, so that is probably why people use other teams. Just sayin!

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Sure, and if we can get the 4th most sacks in the league at 4, than I'd be all for it. But if Bosa or Buckner isn't rated as such we should get the prospect we do love and take a defensive lineman later since this is supposedly a deep draft at the position. You can't have the mindset that it is a financial decision. You take the best prospect at 4.

Well, yeah of course! If Adrian Peterson 2.0 comes along then you take him without question. I haven't heard anything from any of the draft pundits that say any one player is head and shoulders above the rest though and I'm not pro-scout level like some of these other posters to see a big difference, so I am operating on the premise that they are all comparable talent relative to their position.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you talking about the same Richard Sherman who has gone on record that his success comes from the guys in Seattle's front seven? That guy?

Yeah. Put Sherman here and Claiborne there and they have very different careers. They just don't provide any impact.

I think Sherman is a bad example there. I recall reading an article some time back that outlined the fact that Seattle new that Sherman would run slow but be way faster then he timed. I think he was injured or some such thing. They knew him and his people. Somebody in the Seattle Organization knew Vic Fangio or something like that. I know what Sherman said and I agree, that DL along with the best FS in the NFL do help him but honestly, as slow as he ran, there is a good chance that he would have gone undrafted had Seattle not taken him. IDK.

 

[Sydla]

Everyone seems to want to point to examples of teams with great RBs not contributing to the overall success of their teams.
Now point to me an example of the DALLAS COWBOYS having success without a great RB.

Great. No one denies that Dallas is better when they run the ball.

The point is you don't have to use the 4th pick in the draft to put together a very good running game.

The season you all keep referring to, 2014, was on the back of a TB who was a 3rd round pick.

 

[CWR]

Well, yeah of course! If Adrian Peterson 2.0 comes along then you take him without question. I haven't heard anything from any of the draft pundits that say any one player is head and shoulders above the rest though and I'm not pro-scout level like some of these other posters to see a big difference, so I am operating on the premise that they are all comparable talent relative to their position.

Well if you ask around here Bosa isn't close to Elliot's talent level. So I'm not sure about your premise of relative talent. But I'll say this if they like Bosa and Elliot equal I'm happy with Bosa. I'm just not sure that's the case.

The arguments I've heard :
Ramsey doesn't have the picks
Bosa doesn't have the ceiling
Jack doesn't have the production

And so on......Elliot however has pretty steadily been mentioned as having no weaknesses.