1) Investment. Elliott cost the No. 4 overall pick. Unless that player sucks, which Elliott has not and definitely was not at the time of the signing, you give him a second contract.
2) Health. Murray was coming off a nearly 2,000-yard season, but he had had some troubling years healthwise. Investing in a player who hasn't consistently shown the ability to stay healthy is not wise.
3) They reportedly tried to give Murray a four-year deal worth more than any FA RB received the previous year. The Eagles offered more and Dallas said that's as high as we'll go.
#1 is laughable. You don't have to give a guy a 2nd contract, especially a TB, just because he was the 4th pick. Even if he didn't suck. Look at the league, pretty much everyone was getting away from investing real resources in a TB and utilizing cap resources in other positions. Teams that gave big money deals to RBs - Rams and Cardinals - were pawning off their TBs after they realized what a mistake it was.
Taking Elliott at 4 was a questionable move to begin with. You don't compound that problem by dropping your pants and paying a TB a record contract just because you used a 4th pick on him. Two years later and he still has the largest contract for a RB in history. That's after guys like Kamara and McCaffery and Cook signed.
- Largest total contract by $15 million
- Most guaranteed money by $12 million
Just poor roster management all around by the Jones'. That's hardly surprising given what we've seen over the years.
On #2, Elliott had significant use in college and even in the NFL by the time he was re-signed. So let's not act like he was some fresh, little used TB here.
And this isn't even about Elliott. I don't care who our TB is, it would have been a mistake to give any good TB the contract we gave Elliott.
