My draft thoughts....

[WillieBeamen]

I think it's because with the two QB gone, and Tunsil not being perceived as a need, that leaves Elliott. I'd want Elliott too if I coached offense.

But I don't think offense is our problem, and this may be our best chance at getting a top 12 defense in seven years.

Yea but Garrett, Marinelli, and Jerry all want Zeke. I think it all comes down to BPA for me. Zeke to me, will be the best player available at our pick. He's an elite talent with no wholes in his game.

Mcfadden, while productive last year, has injury concerns and struggles in our ZBS.

Morris is decent to me, but he carries no threat in the passing game. We almost are tipping our hand with the playcalling when he's in.

Dunbar.........

 

[percyhoward]

So why is Marinelli supposedly in favor of Elliott?

Marinelli said he would rather have Elliott than two more defensive starters?

 

[Alexander]

Marinelli said he would rather have Elliott than two more defensive starters?

Wait, so we are definitely trading down? How is that a foregone conclusion?

So two defensive starters can't come from picks 34 and 67?

 

[percyhoward]

So two defensive starters can't come from picks 34 and 67?

That said two more defensive starters -- the ones that would come from the picks you'd likely receive in even a bad trade down.

 

[Sydla]

Where did this story of Marinelli wanting Elliott start? I saw it pop up in a thread but never saw who it was linked to.

 

[reddyuta]

Where did this story of Marinelli wanting Elliott start? I saw it pop up in a thread but never saw who it was linked to.

Its all rumors and i dont believe it at all.I will be stunned if we pick at EE at 4,everything this team has done goes against it.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Marinelli said he would rather have Elliott than two more defensive starters?

The interview I heard with Brugler mentioned Garrett and Linehan want Elliott. Marinelli was not included.

 

[Stash]

Because those were garbage yards. They didn't happen organically within our offense. That was a product of having no passing game, falling behind, and then stat padding against defenses who weren't concerned with shutting the run down.

McFadden also couldn't score. I have Elliott averaging 12 a year. Adding about 6 or 7 more touchdowns to an offense over the course of a season can have a huge impact on your record.

If I'm spending the 4th overall pick and $24 million guaranteed to a running back, I'm demanding more than 75 upwards per game, especially given what this line has already shown they're capable of doing without him.

If both Tunsil and Elliott are there at #4, I'm drafting Tunsil or trading down if I get a quality offer.

 

[Stash]

It's a tough sell. We were 9th in the league in rushing already. There are at least 4 starter quality running backs available in rounds 2, 3 and 4. How will Zeke make us that much better when a) we were already good at running and b) other guys can offer similar production.

In spite of all that, I am all for Zeke at 4 and here's why: I believe he is a franchise-type player in a draft bereft of franchise-type players. If you can grab that type of player in the draft, you should.

We are never going to fill all of our holes. It's impossible. I hate the idea of drafting a lesser player because we need to fill a hole on the roster.

It is my belief that playmakers make the team better. They compensate for weaknesses. They make other players better. Romo is a great example. The kind of energy & confidence that a playmaker brings to a team sport is tremendous and cannot be measured with statistics.

And not only that, but playmakers make the game fun to watch. Having a reason to cheer and be excited is important to me. Sorry. I love football and this team. But they are the most boring thing in the world some times.

I'm drafting Tunsil ahead of him. After that, any running back I out out in the field - McFadden, Morris, or a rookie - will have their absolute best chance of success. For this year and many years to come.

And if I wanted to, I cou,d draft one of the top running backs next year as well. You draft Elliott, you're out of that market next year when it's shaping up to be a great one at the position.

 

[Stash]

This is one of the reasons I'm not wanting Elliott more at 4.

Marginal return on investment.
Compared to the cost, I'm not sure the additional return is worth it at 4 ( which, lest people forget, has the same worth as TWO middle 1st rounders)

I like him more a little later, and love him much later.

I won't jump from a roof if they take him at 4, but it's not my preference.

Same for me. It's not a knock on a very good player, it's about where we're picking, the cost of whoever we draft there, talent, and position value.

Unless Elliott is running for 2,000 yards a season, the return on investment isn't there.

 

[Stash]

The interview I heard with Brugler mentioned Garrett and Linehan want Elliott. Marinelli was not included.

No kidding! The offensive geniuses need a steak on every plate just to field a competitive offense. If you have to have that, what do we need them for?

 

[Gaede]

I'm drafting Tunsil ahead of him. After that, any running back I out out in the field - McFadden, Morris, or a rookie - will have their absolute best chance of success. For this year and many years to come.

And if I wanted to, I cou,d draft one of the top running backs next year as well. You draft Elliott, you're out of that market next year when it's shaping up to be a great one at the position.

That's understandable. Having two Tyron Smiths on the OL would be crazy. He's the #1 guy, so I can't fault that decision.

However, I don't agree with the bolded part. If Romo is healthy, we're not going to be able to draft one of the top talents next year anyways. In addition, who cares who else is good in the league if your guy is good as well? Did we care that Detroit had Barry when we had Emmitt?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Unless Elliott is running for 2,000 yards a season, the return on investment isn't there.

The problem is if he gained 2,100 yards, averaged 5.5 ypc and had 15 TD's... he's not going to repeat that... ever.

That number of carries is going to force him out of the game quickly. Even 1,500 yards... modern backs can't sustain that. And the rules don't support a back getting 300+ carries year after year. The concussion protocol works against it.

 

[Stash]

That's understandable. Having two Tyron Smiths on the OL would be crazy. He's the #1 guy, so I can't fault that decision.

However, I don't agree with the bolded part. If Romo is healthy, we're not going to be able to draft one of the top talents next year anyways. In addition, who cares who else is good in the league if your guy is good as well? Did we care that Detroit had Barry when we had Emmitt?

There look to be four or five top running backs available next year, rather than just one considered elite this year, making 2017 the better market for it.

We have McFadden for one more year. Draft a rookie to compliment he and Morris this year, later on.

Morris' contract is after 2017, draft one next year to replace him.

Doug Free's contract calls for him to make $6.5 million in 2017. Would you personally rather pay him that, or pay Tunsil $4.5 million?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There look to be four or five top running backs available next year, rather than just one considered elite this year, making 2017 the better market for it.

We have McFadden for one more year. Draft a rookie to compliment he and Morris this year, later on.

Morris' contract is after 2017, draft one next year to replace him.

Doug Free's contract calls for him to make $6.5 million in 2017. Would you personally rather pay him that, or pay Tunsil $4.5 million?

I'm taking Tunsil behind door #1.

And you can that guy for 4 more seasons at a very low rate for a competent OT.

 

[Gaede]

There look to be four or five top running backs available next year, rather than just one considered elite this year, making 2017 the better market for it.

We have McFadden for one more year. Draft a rookie to compliment he and Morris this year, later on.

Morris' contract is after 2017, draft one next year to replace him.

Doug Free's contract calls for him to make $6.5 million in 2017. Would you personally rather pay him that, or pay Tunsil $4.5 million?

As I said, I'm good with Tunsil at 4. Just on talent alone. Numbers are just icing on the cake.

However, there's no need to get cute and look ahead to next year. If we did that last year, would we have taken Jones? To me, looking ahead to the next draft is pointless. 'Oh, we didn't make our team better this year, but we can always fix it in the next draft!' Meanwhile, the next draft comes along and we tell ourselves the same thing. In fact, I bet you could look up last years draft threads and see ppl saying, oh don't worry, we didn't get a RB this year, but we can try to get Elliot next year!

And yeah, McFadden had a good year last year. But are really going to avoid getting a potential superstar so we can stick with Mr. Reliable Darren McFadden?

 

[Stash]

As I said, I'm good with Tunsil at 4. Just on talent alone. Numbers are just icing on the cake.

However, there's no need to get cute and look ahead to next year. If we did that last year, would we have taken Jones? To me, looking ahead to the next draft is pointless. 'Oh, we didn't make our team better this year, but we can always fix it in the next draft!' Meanwhile, the next draft comes along and we tell ourselves the same thing. In fact, I bet you could look up last years draft threads and see ppl saying, oh don't worry, we didn't get a RB this year, but we can try to get Elliot next year!

And yeah, McFadden had a good year last year. But are really going to avoid getting a potential superstar so we can stick with Mr. Reliable Darren McFadden?

Was McFadden a "superstar" when we got him? Far from it. He had one foot out of the door of this league. And this line paved the way for a career revitalization and the #4 leading rusher.

This line doesn't need a "superstar". They showed that when everyone thought they couldn't do without Murray either.

 

[Stash]

As I said, I'm good with Tunsil at 4. Just on talent alone. Numbers are just icing on the cake.

However, there's no need to get cute and look ahead to next year. If we did that last year, would we have taken Jones? To me, looking ahead to the next draft is pointless. 'Oh, we didn't make our team better this year, but we can always fix it in the next draft!' Meanwhile, the next draft comes along and we tell ourselves the same thing. In fact, I bet you could look up last years draft threads and see ppl saying, oh don't worry, we didn't get a RB this year, but we can try to get Elliot next year!

And yeah, McFadden had a good year last year. But are really going to avoid getting a potential superstar so we can stick with Mr. Reliable Darren McFadden?

And where's the response to paying Doug Free $6.5 million in 2017? You're good with that?

 

[Risen Star]

Don't know if you ever saw this, but all nine of the other top 10 rushers had more garbage yards than he did. Also, add in the extra yards he would have accumulated if defenses hadn't been playing run and if we'd had more leads. The same goes for extra touchdowns, obviously. If Elliott is that good, then his annual quest for a 2,000-yard season will be fun to watch until the defense lets us down in the playoffs.

Percy I usually enjoy your stuff but you'll never convince me that Darren McFadden is an 1,100 yard back. The difference between him and Elliott is enormous. There's a reason why his career has looked the way it has.

He had his career year for the Cowboys last year. Against disinterested defenses who didn't respect him. Only you and your calculator seem to think 2015 was McFadden's norm. I'm saying Elliott is a year in, year out 1,200 yards double digit TDs back at the minimum for the Cowboys.

So, yes, I can at least convince myself that upgrading McFadden to Elliott is pretty significant.

There were only four Super Bowl-winning defenses in 50 years that did not rank in the top 12 in points allowed during the regular season. And none of those four would have won the SB without outstanding defensive performances in the playoffs. They all had playoff games in which they held the opposing QB to 30 points below his season rating, and they all held the opponent under 20 points per playoff game on average.

Only three teams have failed to have a top 12 defense at least once in this decade: Oakland, Washington, and Dallas.

Are you suggesting we make draft decisions based off trends? Should we ignore offensive talent if all we have to do is get our defense into that top 12? How much do you rely on numbers?

How many of those Super Bowl winning defenses had pro bowl caliber QBs?

 

[Risen Star]

I think most want Elliot, because of the question marks surrounding the top 2 rated defensive players. There arent any Khalil Macks or Von Millers in this draft.

Also, the front office inquired about trading for Murray when he was available. If what we are hearing about the coaches wanting Elliot too, then we should assume our running game success isnt all because of the oline.

I think most want Elliott because we're out of options. He's the only player worth the pick. The two QBs will be gone. Tunsil probably will too. There isn't a player left in this draft worth the 4th pick.