FWIW, Last year's #4......

[vicjagger]

Amari Cooper, 4 years 22.6 M, an average of $5.5 M/yr.

Would Ezekiel Elliot be worth that kinda $?

Doesn't the new rookie slotting system somewhat eliminate the argument about drafting certain positions that high? They are going to pay a fixed price at #4 no matter whom they choose. Thoughts?



Link: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/2015/

 

[Sydla]

Rookie deals are 100% guaranteed. So in reality, Elliott would be making more than either Murray or Miller if they had signed in Dallas because Dallas could get out from under those deals with less pain than a rookie, guaranteed contract at #4.

So the question is, if the Cowboys were not willing to go above $12MM for Murray and $14MM guaranteed for Miller, would they have interest in paying Elliott double guaranteed money to play a position that they've said they do not want to make a large financial commitment to?

Maybe I am reading the wrong and they absolutely could and will take Elliott at 4. But based on what they have said and how they have handled the TB spot the last 2 years, I tend to believe RB won't be a high priority on their drafting board at #4.

 

[vicjagger]

Rookie deals are 100% guaranteed. So in reality, Elliott would be making more than either Murray or Miller if they had signed in Dallas because Dallas could get out from under those deals with less pain than a rookie, guaranteed contract at #4.

So the question is, if the Cowboys were not willing to go above $12MM for Murray and $14MM guaranteed for Miller, would they have interest in paying Elliott double guaranteed money to play a position that they've said they do not want to make a large financial commitment to?

Maybe I am reading the wrong and they absolutely could and will take Elliott at 4. But based on what they have said and how they have handled the TB spot the last 2 years, I tend to believe RB won't be a high priority on their drafting board at #4.

Understood and agreed. My only other thought is Murray was 28 and on his second contract. I'm thinking wherever Elliot lands, he'll more than likely play the entire 4 years, so I don't see the risk as comparable.

 

[CATCH17]

Amari Cooper, 4 years 22.6 M, an average of $5.5 M/yr.

Would Ezekiel Elliot be worth that kinda $?

Doesn't the new rookie slotting system somewhat eliminate the argument about drafting certain positions that high? They are going to pay a fixed price at #4 no matter whom they choose. Thoughts?



Link: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/2015/

That slotting system makes it even more valuable to get a guy that plays corner, QB, d end, or offensive tackle.

 

[revospeed]

If he is the best player available, it shouldn't matter because your pay any other player pretty much the same. I think he's the best RB to come out in a while and I wouldn't hate it if we drafted him at 4. I would be mad if we tried to get cute, traded down to the teens, he got scooped up and we ended up with the 4th best DE in the draft instead of the best RB.

 

[conner01]

Rookie deals are 100% guaranteed. So in reality, Elliott would be making more than either Murray or Miller if they had signed in Dallas because Dallas could get out from under those deals with less pain than a rookie, guaranteed contract at #4.

So the question is, if the Cowboys were not willing to go above $12MM for Murray and $14MM guaranteed for Miller, would they have interest in paying Elliott double guaranteed money to play a position that they've said they do not want to make a large financial commitment to?

Maybe I am reading the wrong and they absolutely could and will take Elliott at 4. But based on what they have said and how they have handled the TB spot the last 2 years, I tend to believe RB won't be a high priority on their drafting board at #4.

I'm opposed to Elliot at 4 but there is a huge difference in paying a rookie big money and giving a RB a second contract

 

[Sydla]

I'm opposed to Elliot at 4 but there is a huge difference in paying a rookie big money and giving a RB a second contract

They wouldn't pay Lamar Miller who is only 25 with little mileage on his body 14 million guaranteed.

Jerry said last year they simply do not want to sink that type of investment into a position they think has a short shelf life.

 

[ghst187]

They wouldn't pay Lamar Miller who is only 25 with little mileage on his body 14 million guaranteed.

Jerry said last year they simply do not want to sink that type of investment into a position they think has a short shelf life.

Elliott is way more talented than Miller

 

[vicjagger]

They wouldn't pay Lamar Miller who is only 25 with little mileage on his body 14 million guaranteed.

Jerry said last year they simply do not want to sink that type of investment into a position they think has a short shelf life.[/quote

That slotting system makes it even more valuable to get a guy that plays corner, QB, d end, or offensive tackle.

Absolutely true. You'd have to pass on a potential "bargain", to get someone that may just barely be justifiable. But if that player is the most likely to make an immediate impact, it might be worthy. Bosa, Jack, Ramsey, or whomever my take longer to become true contibutors.

And the other thing the rookie slotting pool does if is force a team to budget for the position that they decide to pick at that slot. Is a starting CB, DE, OT, or QB worth those kinda dollars? Absolutely. How about a bell-cow running back? I think so also.

Kicker? NO. Punter? NO. KR/PR? No. Swing Tackle? No. Long Snapper? No.

Unfortunately, too many seem to think that it would just fine to pay a back-up QB the same $$$$.

 

[waving monkey]

Amari Cooper, 4 years 22.6 M, an average of $5.5 M/yr.

Would Ezekiel Elliot be worth that kinda $?

Doesn't the new rookie slotting system somewhat eliminate the argument about drafting certain positions that high? They are going to pay a fixed price at #4 no matter whom they choose. Thoughts?



Link: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/2015/

Elliott puts "W" on the board.
If the mantra is "just win baby,win"

 

[Sydla]

Elliott is way more talented than Miller

It doesn't matter how much more talented you think he is. The Miller saga is another clear example of how the front office decided not to sink even a decent and reasonable amount of money into a TB. They believe there are certain positions you sink money into - OT, DL, QB - and some you do not - RB. I can only go on what Jones has been very, very clear about with regards to running back and then their actions in not paying for Murray in 2015, Miller in 2016 and deciding not to even try to work a trade to get Murray back after they inquired about him.

Look, if you guys want to believe the Cowboys are going to take Elliott at 4 and sink $24MM in guaranteed money into that position, have at it.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

That slotting system makes it even more valuable to get a guy that plays corner, QB, d end, or offensive tackle.

100% agree.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Understood and agreed. My only other thought is Murray was 28 and on his second contract. I'm thinking wherever Elliot lands, he'll more than likely play the entire 4 years, so I don't see the risk as comparable.

I think the chances are good that he will be a good NFL back but I don't think it's a given that he will play 4 years and it's an unknown as to how healthy he will be over the 4 years. Of course, this can be said for any player you draft so my last statement is not exclusive to Elliot. It's the general idea that any player will play out a rookie contract.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Less Mileage, less age, history of injuries and view of how good a player can be is things that need to be taken into account.

With Murray they had a history of injuries, they had some age concern, they had a concern over the mileage he had on him and even with all of those concerns they offered him a good amount of money but the Eagles just offered more.

Lamar...I am not sure what they offered, if they offered at all. Either way he is a younger player, less mileage and I don't think he had a history of injuries but maybe they did not think he was as valuable as others believe and frankly although he was probably the best RB in FA...he really did not have a huge amount of production.

A rookie however has age on his side, he has no NFL mileage but he might not have as much wear and tear as say the perceived alabama players have on them, he does not have a big injury history that I know of...AND they could view him as a great RB they COULD view his as vastly superior to Miller. He is one of those few Rookie RBs that seem to be a complete package coming out Including blocking which seems to be what most rookie RBs struggle with.

Now does that mean they really want him? Who knows.

However I don't think you can use the argument of not keeping Murray or not getting Miller as an iron clad excuse as to why they will not or would not take Zeke.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Rookie deals are 100% guaranteed. So in reality, Elliott would be making more than either Murray or Miller if they had signed in Dallas because Dallas could get out from under those deals with less pain than a rookie, guaranteed contract at #4.

So the question is, if the Cowboys were not willing to go above $12MM for Murray and $14MM guaranteed for Miller, would they have interest in paying Elliott double guaranteed money to play a position that they've said they do not want to make a large financial commitment to?

Maybe I am reading the wrong and they absolutely could and will take Elliott at 4. But based on what they have said and how they have handled the TB spot the last 2 years, I tend to believe RB won't be a high priority on their drafting board at #4.

It wasnt the guaranteed money for Miller and Murray, it was the cap hit per year. Miller at $26M/4 years, averages a cap hit of $6.5M a year. Murray's deal in Philly averaged $8.5M a year. We simply were not going to pay that much for ANY RB.

But for a rookie RB who is more talented than both Miller and Murray, we might be willing to pay what Amari Cooper got at #4: $5.5M a year.

Note: that when Murray signed his deal with Philly, it was reported that we had a "soft cap" of $5M a year for Murray. I think we'd be prepared to exceed that for Elliot. Not saying I want us to do that, but if Ramsey is gone, we do not want a QB, and dont think Bosa is elite, I would not hate it.

 

[AzorAhai]

It wasnt the guaranteed money for Miller and Murray, it was the cap hit per year. Miller at $26M/4 years, averages a cap hit of $6.5M a year. Murray's deal in Philly averaged $8.5M a year. We simply were not going to pay that much for ANY RB.

But for a rookie RB who is more talented than both Miller and Murray, we might be willing to pay what Amari Cooper got at #4: $5.5M a year.

Note: that when Murray signed his deal with Philly, it was reported that we had a "soft cap" of $5M a year for Murray. I think we'd be prepared to exceed that for Elliot. Not saying I want us to do that, but if Ramsey is gone, we do not want a QB, and dont think Bosa is elite, I would not hate it.

Umm the 4th pick this year is slotted to get over 25 million. What are you talking about?

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Umm the 4th pick this year is slotted to get over 25 million. What are you talking about?

Was just going by OP's numbers for Amari Cooper from last year.

 

[Sydla]

Average cap hit? Cap hit is usually staggered. So in the case of Amari Cooper, his first year cap hit was $4.1MM and his last cap hit is $7.2MM.

Plus, it's also about being able to walk away from a bad deal with limited pain. Let's say for example, after two years, Cooper was a total screw up and always hurt and the Raiders wanted to cut him................. the financial hit they'd have to take is substantial. The amount of dead money is huge.

That's the point. The Cowboys were unwilling to give a lot of guaranteed money to Murray and Miller because their belief is a TB takes a beating, moreso than any other position. And if they give a TB a deal with a lot of guaranteed money and he gets hurt or falls off the cliff performance wise, they are staring at a situation where they can't get out from under that contract without taking a big hit.

So if you give Elliott $25MM guaranteed, the financial pain is pretty harsh if they want to get rid of him before the final year of his rookie deal. And given how they've stated that they have serious reservations about sinking money into the TB position because of the pounding they take and injury potential, it would seem odd they'd take on a RB contract, even for a rookie, that would put them in the situation they've said they don't want to be in.

 

[Leadbelly]

It wasnt the guaranteed money for Miller and Murray, it was the cap hit per year. Miller at $26M/4 years, averages a cap hit of $6.5M a year. Murray's deal in Philly averaged $8.5M a year. We simply were not going to pay that much for ANY RB.

But for a rookie RB who is more talented than both Miller and Murray, we might be willing to pay what Amari Cooper got at #4: $5.5M a year.

Note: that when Murray signed his deal with Philly, it was reported that we had a "soft cap" of $5M a year for Murray. I think we'd be prepared to exceed that for Elliot. Not saying I want us to do that, but if Ramsey is gone, we do not want a QB, and dont think Bosa is elite, I would not hate it.

Agreed, and I wouldn't hate it either, but I'd also look ahead to that 2nd contract. If Elliott is already at our max as a rookie, then we'd be spending a top 5 pick on someone we probably wouldn't sign to a 2nd contract. Don't know that we'd even pick up his 5th year option given the option dollars for players picked in the top 10.

Elliott would have to be a perennial top 5 RB in the league to warrant the 2nd contract from Dallas. If he's just very good (1,200 or so yards) then it's not much different than if he was a bust. 'Very Good' probably gets $7.5m per year in 2020. He'd bring us a good compensatory pick.

Bosa, Ramsey, Lawson, Spence, Buckner, Goff, Wentz, and maybe even Treadwell and Hargreaves can justify the 2nd contract even if they're just good. I think they'd have to think Elliott is special. (**Not sure Goff or Wentz can justify the first contract.)

Jack is possibly in a similar boat. Tough to justify a 2nd contract for a LB at $7.5+ mil per unless the team thinks he can be All-Decade special.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Agreed, and I wouldn't hate it either, but I'd also look ahead to that 2nd contract. If Elliott is already at our max as a rookie, then we'd be spending a top 5 pick on someone we probably wouldn't sign to a 2nd contract. Don't know that we'd even pick up his 5th year option given the option dollars for players picked in the top 10.

Elliott would have to be a perennial top 5 RB in the league to warrant the 2nd contract from Dallas. If he's just very good (1,200 or so yards) then it's not much different than if he was a bust. 'Very Good' probably gets $7.5m per year in 2020. He'd bring us a good compensatory pick.

Bosa, Ramsey, Lawson, Spence, Buckner, Goff, Wentz, and maybe even Treadwell and Hargreaves can justify the 2nd contract even if they're just good. I think they'd have to think Elliott is special. (**Not sure Goff or Wentz can justify the first contract.)

Jack is possibly in a similar boat. Tough to justify a 2nd contract for a LB at $7.5+ mil per unless the team thinks he can be All-Decade special.

I agree. My choice would be a franchise QB at 4. Saves lots of dollars elsewhere and you'd definitely sign to second contract if he is good.