Is it foolish to even consider RB in round 1?

[fishspill]

It's all on scouting. There are so many nice backs in this draft that getting a consensus on which will pan out on this site is difficult. Now hopefully the scouts can figure out which can actually play on this level and we don't end up with mistakes at RB like we had in the past. Then the team needs to slot them and take them nearest to where they present value.

Gurley is the least controversial of the choices, but even he has his detractors.

 

[thisiscowboyscountry]

The best value will be at RB, then probably cb and lb. Most of the impact dl will probably be gone.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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.

If Gurley is available at 27 he will be far and away the BPA.

 

[big dog cowboy]

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

Yes they only stay maybe 4 years.

But so what?

Romo and Witten are gone by then and rebuilding will happen

I really couldn't disagree more with that last line. We are rebuilding the defense now. The OL is set. People talk like once Romo and JWit are gone we are going back to those 5-11 seasons again. I don't think that is the Cowboys plans for the future.

The #1 reason I'm against going RB at 27 is that player won't likely get a 2nd contract. Draft a building block player we can keep for 10-12 years.

 

[USMarineVet]

Being that our first round pick IS JUST LIKE an early 2nd round pick (holla @USMarineVet ) ;-) I would say we probably take Gurley or our next highest rated back.

I think that the backs go before then... So we go DE... Hopefully!

LOL...

Well hang on now... our 1st round pick is basically an early 2nd rounder "IF" everyone we've given 1st round grades to has already been drafted.

With that said, and having been beaten over the head with the philosophy that the salaries for RBs have diminished due to the fact that it's a fairly easy position to replenish... I can totally see us resigning a RB we drafted in the 1st round.

Of course certain factors would have to occur:

1) Let's not forget that we have a 5th year option with all first round picks.
2) The RBs workload and productivity in his first 5 years.
3) Assuming he was productive (otherwise it would be senseless to debate this) what is the market value for a RB with this kind of production?
4) What are our other options via trade, free agency and the draft?
5) What does our cap situation look like in the event we do consider throwing some extra cheese his way?
6) What is his health status? Has he had any injuries that are likely to reoccur?
7) What kind of leader is he on the team? Does he have an impact in the locker room and off the field as well?
8) How many Jerry Jerseys does he sell? (Ok, kidding on this one, but not out of the realm of possibilities)

IMHO, it's not a question that you can answer now. You have to see what you've got in the player before you can determine that. All players, regardless of what position they play need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. You also have to consider the overall shape of the team in his contract year. How many other contracts need attention and what can we afford? If not all, then who should we prioritize?

As we've learned this year a productive RB is going to want to test free agency to see what another team is willing to give, compared to what the notion of his market value is. So there lies the dilemma. It's a cat and mouse game.

But with all that being said, and under the right conditions, I don't see why we can't re-sign a 1st round RB. It just has to be a marriage that works for everyone.

 

[Common Sense]

Technically, you could get seven years out of a first-round RB without offering a second contract.

 

[jobberone]

If Gurley is available at 27 he will be far and away the BPA.

Would be a difficult decision depending on who is available. A player in a position of need who was close in talent to a RB would make be consider both.

 

[USMarineVet]

Technically, you could get seven years out of a first-round RB without offering a second contract.

True... But then you're delving into the 5 highest paid contracts area with a 20% increase in year 7. You'd have to be a special kind of back to receive that kind of cheddar.

 

[WillieBeamen]

POST OF THE YEAR!

Even when Romo retires, an offense consisting of Gurley/Dez is an offense worth reckoning with.

GREAT point. Man i hope he falls to us..

 

[jobberone]

Any team without Romo would need an excellent QB otherwise Dez and Gurley would help but likely not propel a team to contender status.

 

[BAZ]

If Gurley is available at 27 he will be far and away the BPA.

I keep hearing that man but going over all the 1st round RB picks back to 2008 it looks like not one has lived up to the hype.

 

[Blackspider214]

Yes, extremely foolish.

 

[Redball Express]

I really couldn't disagree more with that last line. We are rebuilding the defense now. The OL is set. People talk like once Romo and JWit are gone we are going back to those 5-11 seasons again. I don't think that is the Cowboys plans for the future.

The #1 reason I'm against going RB at 27 is that player won't likely get a 2nd contract. Draft a building block player we can keep for 10-12 years.

I understand your reasoning..

very old school to be sure.

I just think the league is very different now.

You build a team to make a 2-3 year run and then you face rebuilding again.

I look at what just happened to the 9ers..

now the Eagles..

wholesale dismantling of the coaches and marque players when they fail to win.

Only teams traditionally considered winning franchises not really going thru a lot of rebuilding is the Packers and the Patriots.

I thought like you do back when Romo came up in 2006 and we immediately went to the playoffs and then Parcells was supposed to be rebuilding the team.

I thought sure..here came 2007 and we made the playoffs again and we were going to set in for a nice run where somewhere we had a championship ahead.

then poof.

It was all over and Philips came in and it was all downhill.

So I really don't subscribe to the Looooonnngggg term view.

Do everything you can to win now if your talent is there and roll the dice..hope the players are hungry and the fates smile.

But that's just me.

 

[plasticman]

A RB drafted in the first round doesn't necessarily have to be a superstar to make an impact or earn a worthwhile salary. There is this perception that 1st round picks have to be perennial All Pros or it was a wasted pick.

Under Garrett's system, a RB can be a valuable commodity as a 1st rounder if he is a great receiver that maximizes his carries. He doesn't have to carry the ball 392 times....maybe 250 and 50 receptions. If he averages 4.5 yards a carry and 7.5 yards a catch then he is producing 1500 yards a season.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

That's where I stand. The point of not paying a running back a second contract is that he's liable not to live up to the contract because of the lack of longevity for the position. That makes it important to hit on an RB as a rookie, ride him through that first contract and move on to the next one.

Dallas is at the point where it is considering long-term worth more than short-term return when handing out guaranteed money. When it's just about short-term return, as with Hardy, the Cowboys are smartly limiting their investment.

I do not see RB as a position where the guaranteed investment can ever be huge if a team is realistic about the risks after that initial contract.

 

[robjay04]

I see several people referring to a RB as only a one contract player. That may be the case with the majority of running backs but there are a group of elite guys that command second contracts(AP, McCoy, Charles, Lynch etc) and I feel Gurley could be that guy. Chances are he won't be available but if he is, you take him.

Now considering where we will be picking...will you take a DL that won't even start on the team and likely has a limited ceiling or a RB that has a real chance to be the best at his position? The choice is clear in my opinion. We really aren't as horrible on DL as some make us out to be, a rookie DE would likely only be 4th on the rotation and I highly doubt we find an impact DT at the bottom of the first.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

The key to any 1st round draft pick is to get a guy who can start THIS year. Whether that is a RB, CB, or DT, they need to be able to step in and be ready to go. Most times you can get a starter at RB in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, especially in this draft. But if you think Gurley is a top 10 talent, and he is your BPA at 27, then you take him. And go CB or DT in 2nd and 3rd.

 

[Risen Star]

Yeah, this is why the value of a RB has dropped. You don't want your 1st round pick to be a one contract player. Just like you should only re-sign the special backs, you should only draft the special ones in the 1st round.

Gurley is special.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

True... But then you're delving into the 5 highest paid contracts area with a 20% increase in year 7. You'd have to be a special kind of back to receive that kind of cheddar.

Yeah and if you're that good to warrant the franchise twice you might as well offer a 5 year extension heading into year 5 with a 26 yo

 

[TwoDeep3]

With a first round pick you get five years of service.

Unless an exceptional defensive player or quarterback falls, then why would you not take advantage of tying up a player like Gurley for five years?

Relying on McF and the others is inviting disappointment.

One is a third down player. One may steal himself out of a job. And the other didn't show much with his former team.

This game is won with play makers.