Is it foolish to even consider RB in round 1?

[Chuck 54]

Maybe, maybe not.....but...

Even if the RB is BPA, even if you think the RB fits your scheme, even if the RB looks like a workhorse, even if the RB seems capable of producing as Murray did with over 1,500 yards, the real question is this:

When using a first round pick, is part of that pick's value that you hope he will be part of your team for close to a decade? We just proved that, even with a RB who leads the league in rushing and is viewed as the heart and soul of your newfound toughness, we aren't going to sign him to a second contract because while we value him, we are not willing to pay market value on a RB.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that philosophy. I actually support allowing Murray to walk. But that begs the question: even if Gurley or Gordon are exactly what we think they are and will star at RB, will the Cowboys spend a first round pick on a star RB for only 4 years? Having the RB is great, but if your philosophy and structure is such that you will not pay a star RB what a star RB commands in FA, does that perhaps prevent the Cowboys from pulling the trigger on a RB in round 1?

If no, then they don't mind the idea of using a 1st round pick on RB every 4 years if he's the BPA, and the first round pick is all about saving money on star RBs. Otherwise, why do it this year?

If yes, then how they use their first round pick aligns more with their offseason philosophy regarding RB. Let's face it, even with Gurley or Gordon, what are the odds that in 4 years they rush for 1,850 yards and lead the league. If we let a guy walk with those numbers, surely we let anyone with less walk too, right?

No agenda....just question about whether or not the Cowboys are seriously even considering using a first rounder on a RB, and what that might mean 4 years from now if they are consistent with their current philosophy.

Discuss?

 

[keds]

With Randle, Williams and McFadden on the roster there isn't an urgent need for a first round RB this year unless you believe the first round RB is a special, once in a decade talent...
otherwise your line of thinking is spot on...

 

[darthseinfeld]

Maybe, maybe not.....but...

Even if the RB is BPA, even if you think the RB fits your scheme, even if the RB looks like a workhorse, even if the RB seems capable of producing as Murray did with over 1,500 yards, the real question is this:

When using a first round pick, is part of that pick's value that you hope he will be part of your team for close to a decade? We just proved that, even with a RB who leads the league in rushing and is viewed as the heart and soul of your newfound toughness, we aren't going to sign him to a second contract because while we value him, we are not willing to pay market value on a RB.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that philosophy. I actually support allowing Murray to walk. But that begs the question: even if Gurley or Gordon are exactly what we think they are and will star at RB, will the Cowboys spend a first round pick on a star RB for only 4 years? Having the RB is great, but if your philosophy and structure is such that you will not pay a star RB what a star RB commands in FA, does that perhaps prevent the Cowboys from pulling the trigger on a RB in round 1?

If no, then they don't mind the idea of using a 1st round pick on RB every 4 years if he's the BPA, and the first round pick is all about saving money on star RBs. Otherwise, why do it this year?

If yes, then how they use their first round pick aligns more with their offseason philosophy regarding RB. Let's face it, even with Gurley or Gordon, what are the odds that in 4 years they rush for 1,850 yards and lead the league. If we let a guy walk with those numbers, surely we let anyone with less walk too, right?

No agenda....just question about whether or not the Cowboys are seriously even considering using a first rounder on a RB, and what that might mean 4 years from now if they are consistent with their current philosophy.

Discuss?

Good point of discussion. I think a big reason why they werent going to pay Murray was the amount of touches he got this year. Behind closed doors they were probably very happy he didnt take our offer because in the long term, he was very unlikley to even play up to our offer let alone what the Eagles gave him.

A top HB with a traditional workload can still play at an All Pro level over the course of a 2nd deal. Case in point McCoy and Forte. So while they didnt pay Murray, its not to say they wouldn't pay a Gurley or a Gordon if they reached elite status

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

You get a fifth year on first round picks. In my view, in the salary cap era you have to look to extract most of a player's value during their rookie contract. After that rookie deal, with few exceptions (for elite players at high value positions such as QB, LT, RDE and WR) players aren't worth the cap dollars they cost. RB is no different in that regard from most other positions. The notion that you're counting on getting a ten-year starter from your first rounder is largely antiquated, in my opinion. If you can get 5 years of impact from a guy like Gurley, you take it happily.

 

[keds]

If Jerry is weighing in heavily on our first round pick and Gurley is there, my bet is we take him... as long as there are no injury concerns...

 

[Redball Express]

Maybe, maybe not.....but...

Even if the RB is BPA, even if you think the RB fits your scheme, even if the RB looks like a workhorse, even if the RB seems capable of producing as Murray did with over 1,500 yards, the real question is this:

When using a first round pick, is part of that pick's value that you hope he will be part of your team for close to a decade? We just proved that, even with a RB who leads the league in rushing and is viewed as the heart and soul of your newfound toughness, we aren't going to sign him to a second contract because while we value him, we are not willing to pay market value on a RB.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that philosophy. I actually support allowing Murray to walk. But that begs the question: even if Gurley or Gordon are exactly what we think they are and will star at RB, will the Cowboys spend a first round pick on a star RB for only 4 years? Having the RB is great, but if your philosophy and structure is such that you will not pay a star RB what a star RB commands in FA, does that perhaps prevent the Cowboys from pulling the trigger on a RB in round 1?

If no, then they don't mind the idea of using a 1st round pick on RB every 4 years if he's the BPA, and the first round pick is all about saving money on star RBs. Otherwise, why do it this year?

If yes, then how they use their first round pick aligns more with their offseason philosophy regarding RB. Let's face it, even with Gurley or Gordon, what are the odds that in 4 years they rush for 1,850 yards and lead the league. If we let a guy walk with those numbers, surely we let anyone with less walk too, right?

No agenda....just question about whether or not the Cowboys are seriously even considering using a first rounder on a RB, and what that might mean 4 years from now if they are consistent with their current philosophy.

Discuss?

Yes they would draft one and yes they will draft one at #1.

Its simple.

Yes they only stay maybe 4 years.

But so what?

Romo and Witten are gone by then and rebuilding will happen

But frankly..

its crazy to believe we are going to again have another 1800 yd. RB at the end of his contract like we had with Murray.

Murray only stayed healthy enough to produce for 2 of his 4 years.

Had he started out with 1800 and watched his numbers decline from injury.

we would not be having this thread.

I do not see Dallas wanting to change their identity of massively running the ball.

It protects Romo, the defense and the play action passing game.

RB at #1 is the choice.

But who?

 

[dallasdave]

Get Gordon or Gurley, behind the Dallas OL they would be awesome.

 

[TheCount]

I don't know if I'd say it's foolish, but it seems like a real waste.

This is one of the deeper RB draft classes in recent memory, so why burn a 1st on a position that you might not even want to resign when their contract is up, even if they play well, because they'll be a 27ish year old RB?

RB's get used up and spit out, it's not worst the cost of a 1st.

 

[Craig]

Yes

 

[USMarineVet]

Offense is a strength for us right now. I wouldn't say it would be foolish but we have more pressing issues on defense. All depends on how the board unfolds. I know you all already know this. I'm just extremely bored right now.

 

[mattjames2010]

I don't know if I'd say it's foolish, but it seems like a real waste.

This is one of the deeper RB draft classes in recent memory, so why burn a 1st on a position that you might not even want to resign when their contract is up, even if they play well, because they'll be a 27ish year old RB?

RB's get used up and spit out, it's not worst the cost of a 1st.

This is the list of RBs in this "deep draft class" that will be legit potential number 1 RBs.

Gordon, Gurley, Coleman, Ajayi, Yeldon, and Johnson. MAYBE one of them will slip into the third, but if we want an RB in this draft, it must come in the first or second round.

And seeing as how our team lived and died by the run last year, you better get a quality RB on this team.

 

[dallasdave]

Offense is a strength for us right now. I wouldn't say it would be foolish but we have more pressing issues on defense. All depends on how the board unfolds. I know you all already know this. I'm just extremely bored right now.

Hey you are right it's kind of slow now and I'm bored too. Can't wait for the draft !!!!!

 

[burmafrd]

I am torn on this; I want a top RB since every single SB championship this team has ever won came with a top RB. Calvin Hill and Duane Thomas in 71; TD in 77; and of course Emmitt.
I do NOT think that is a coincidence.

BUT at the same time I think you can get a very good RB as late as the third.

 

[vicjagger]

Is this the Draftzone?

 

[TommyBoy21]

If you take a running back first round, you're admitting you think his talent is special. Murray is a fine back, but he isn't so gifted that he's worth the amount of money he was demanding.

If they drafted a Gurley or Gordon in round 1, and they went on to produce during these 4 years, I see the front office doing everything possible to retain him.

 

[BAZ]

It's pretty strange that no back has gone first in the last two years and Gordon/Gurley appear to be consensus locks to do just so, guess fear from the Richardson, Martin, Wilson draft has worn off. I don't like it for the first and would rather they take the BPA plan. Don't think the difference between a rookie and Mcfadden will be big enough to matter.

 

[Maxmadden]

Is this the Draftzone?

No, but it's not hard to find if that is what you are looking for.

 

[TheCount]

This is the list of RBs in this "deep draft class" that will be legit potential number 1 RBs.

Gordon, Gurley, Coleman, Ajayi, Yeldon, and Johnson. MAYBE one of them will slip into the third, but if we want an RB in this draft, it must come in the first or second round.

And seeing as how our team lived and died by the run last year, you better get a quality RB on this team.

So you're saying you can get a good RB outside of the 1st round. I agree.

 

[jazzcat22]

I don't think teams look at drafting a player, then in 4 or 5 years planning they will let him walk. You take the player if you feel he helps you now and for future years. It's business, and when the contract is up, you deal with it at that time. you take a player thinking he will be here for 10 years, regardless of position.
You need to take him while he is there if he helps your team now.

But I agree with others, we can still get a RB in round 2 or 3.

 

[thisiscowboyscountry]

Maybe, maybe not.....but...

Even if the RB is BPA, even if you think the RB fits your scheme, even if the RB looks like a workhorse, even if the RB seems capable of producing as Murray did with over 1,500 yards, the real question is this:

When using a first round pick, is part of that pick's value that you hope he will be part of your team for close to a decade? We just proved that, even with a RB who leads the league in rushing and is viewed as the heart and soul of your newfound toughness, we aren't going to sign him to a second contract because while we value him, we are not willing to pay market value on a RB.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that philosophy. I actually support allowing Murray to walk. But that begs the question: even if Gurley or Gordon are exactly what we think they are and will star at RB, will the Cowboys spend a first round pick on a star RB for only 4 years? Having the RB is great, but if your philosophy and structure is such that you will not pay a star RB what a star RB commands in FA, does that perhaps prevent the Cowboys from pulling the trigger on a RB in round 1?

If no, then they don't mind the idea of using a 1st round pick on RB every 4 years if he's the BPA, and the first round pick is all about saving money on star RBs. Otherwise, why do it this year?

If yes, then how they use their first round pick aligns more with their offseason philosophy regarding RB. Let's face it, even with Gurley or Gordon, what are the odds that in 4 years they rush for 1,850 yards and lead the league. If we let a guy walk with those numbers, surely we let anyone with less walk too, right?

No agenda....just question about whether or not the Cowboys are seriously even considering using a first rounder on a RB, and what that might mean 4 years from now if they are consistent with their current philosophy.

Discuss?

This is a deep rb class with about 5 guys who could step in and be productive. However, I do believe a player like Gurley, or Ingram stand to make the greatest initial impact, while other guys may just be in the mix for playing time in a crowded backfield.I dont think you can wait to the late 2nd and expect a starter right away this year then were back to the julius jones vs stevn jackson debate. Gurley is Steven Jackson.