And I've seen the argument that somehow you have to pair an elite back with this OL to fully get everything you can out of the OL. I think that's bogus. There's a law of diminishing returns here. This OL turned Murray into an 1800 yard back. Well, shoot, if Elliott is that much better than Murray, I guess we should expect 2500 yards a year from Elliott.
Oh that's unrealistic? Probably is. But it highlights the fact that investing a high pick in an elite back probably won't have the return some of you think it will. How much better do you really think Elliott would be over the season Murray had in 2014? It would likely have to be pretty substantial to cover up the holes we have on defense.
No, no, no. People look at where Murray was drafted and assume that you can easily find another Murray in latter rounds based on that success. There were reasons why Murray fell and lack of ability was not one of them.
The truth is the relationship between offensive line and running back is much like the relationship between clown fish and anemone's. It is a symbiotic relationship. Both have to do their job and do so well to yield positive returns. This thinking that you can plug any running back back there and have success is ridiculous. Sure, a guy with speed, like McFadden is going to eat well when everything is clean. Transversely, a great back behind a mediocre line is going to have opportunities. But the difference between those marriages and marriage where both sides contribute is consistent winning.
See Vikings with AP
See Lions with Barry Sanders
See Browns with the various no names that have passed through there despite having a good line.
And then see the Cowboys of the 90's and more recently 2014.
It really isn't rocket science people.