Rumor: Cowboys high on Gordon

[DFWJC]

Not to make a big deal out of this, but thread titles that are rumors should probably say so.
or maybe "Pauline says..." or "Rumor:...."

 

[CATCH17]

I give up trying to evaluate Gordon.


He reads blocks well and can get up to top speed quick.. He can carry the load but he isn't a very physical runner but has the body to be more physical.


I think he would do really well in Dallas but I do worry about 3rd and 1 and giving him the ball.


If I have to put money down id bet on him being a top 10 NFL back.

 

[endersdragon]

The last big trade up was Mo. That has really hurt.

We aren't talking about that kind of trade up though. We are talking about a trade up 5 or 6 spots to the 22nd or 21st spot, which will likely cost us a 3rd but get us back a 4th or 5th.

 

[theogt]

I give up trying to evaluate Gordon.


He reads blocks well and can get up to top speed quick.. He can carry the load but he isn't a very physical runner but has the body to be more physical.


I think he would do really well in Dallas but I do worry about 3rd and 1 and giving him the ball.


If I have to put money down id bet on him being a top 10 NFL back.

You don't really see many guys being bruising inside runners in college anymore. That style of play just doesn't do well in college relative to simply bouncing it outside and getting 10 yards instead, so it's just not a developed skill for most backs. That said, I think Gordon runs inside better than any of the backs in the top couple tiers.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gordon can juke in small spaces and break ankles. He is more likely to dive at a crease then try to truck someone. I understand the criticism. I also think it carries over to his pass protection. I watched several games and most of the time they had him cut. He looked awkward trying to square up and strike.

His grace and quickness is tremendous. He's like Gayle Sayers in that he can make a move and lose no speed and then throw another move after a step or two. Very good balance too. If those strengths translates to the NFL, he is going to be very good.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

You don't really see many guys being bruising inside runners in college anymore. That style of play just doesn't do well in college relative to simply bouncing it outside and getting 10 yards instead, so it's just not a developed skill for most backs. That said, I think Gordon runs inside better than any of the backs in the top couple tiers.

There are several good inside runners in the draft including Gurley, Allen, Langford and especially Yeldon whom some think is the best inside runner coming out.

 

[ghst187]

I agree with tyke.
Also, I know it's unfair but I do strongly consider the success/failure rates of those that came before from the same system/schools at the same position. In that light, I like Gordon a bit less than a lot of folks. IMO Gurley is the best back coming out since AP, meanwhile I HOPE Gordon isn't a bust.
I actually like Coleman better than Gordon.

 

[AsthmaField]

With this offensive line, we're the "right situation" for any running back, not just Gordon.

lol, true enough... Gordon being in the same blocking style is what I was pointing to but you do have a good point.

I think Gurley's vision and reaction time is far superior.

This, I'm not so sure of. I do think Gurley has really good vision (and run instincts) but I think Gordon does too. As for reaction time, I haven't paid specific attention to that one, so I'll make sure to watch for that.

Again, anyone can run through gaping holes, that doesn't take a special back. In comparing them both, and looking at their overall attributes, Gurley looks like the special one to me, blending vision, power, and speed into a once a decade package.

I can't disagree about Gurley being a special back but I feel like they both have special qualities. Without the knee injury, Gurley would clearly be the choice between the two but I see Gordon as a very good back as well.

To put it simply: I would be happy with either one. Gurley sure would be nice though.

Gordon looks like a good running back who benefits from a specific system and isn't worth a first round pick for this team. Again, just my opinion.

I understand that a lot of people worry that Gordon is a product of the Wisconsin run game because so many other backs did well there and had middling NFL careers. However, when I watch Gordon run I don't see anything that makes me think it was the line that was solely responsible for the big numbers. He has everything you want out of a RB except for maybe a little more power.

The other UW RB's had good college careers but not like Gordon.

Just look at their YPC average while at UW:

Ron Dayne: 5.8 on 1220 attempts
Michael Bennett: 5.4 on 367 attempts
Montee Ball: 5.6 on 924 attempts
James White: 6.2 on 643 attempts
Melvin Gordon: 7.8 on 631 attempts

I think an average back can get 1800 yards in the UW system... but not 2587 yards like Gordon did. Their system is good but not 2600 yards good.

Anyway... I'm with you on Gurley, all the way. I just think Gordon is better than you do.

Like always, time will tell.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with tyke.
Also, I know it's unfair but I do strongly consider the success/failure rates of those that came before from the same system/schools at the same position. In that light, I like Gordon a bit less than a lot of folks. IMO Gurley is the best back coming out since AP, meanwhile I HOPE Gordon isn't a bust.
I actually like Coleman better than Gordon.

Being reported that he ran a 4.35 and a 4.4 at his Pro Day this morning.

 

[Stash]

lol, true enough... Gordon being in the same blocking style is what I was pointing to but you do have a good point.

This, I'm not so sure of. I do think Gurley has really good vision (and run instincts) but I think Gordon does too. As for reaction time, I haven't paid specific attention to that one, so I'll make sure to watch for that.

Yeah, take a look and let me know what you think. It jumps out at me how well he sees what's going on and how quickly he processes that information and reacts to it.

I can't disagree about Gurley being a special back but I feel like they both have special qualities. Without the knee injury, Gurley would clearly be the choice between the two but I see Gordon as a very good back as well.

I see him as very good also, it's just that I see Gurley as special and worthy of making the exception to use a first round pick for. It's not intended as a knock against Gordon though.

To put it simply: I would be happy with either one. Gurley sure would be nice though.

As would I. And everything else aside, we would both be rooting for huge success.

I understand that a lot of people worry that Gordon is a product of the Wisconsin run game because so many other backs did well there and had middling NFL careers. However, when I watch Gordon run I don't see anything that makes me think it was the line that was solely responsible for the big numbers. He has everything you want out of a RB except for maybe a little more power.

I would add in breakaway speed. And the pass protection gives me a bit of concern, especially given our quarterback.

The other UW RB's had good college careers but not like Gordon.

Just look at their YPC average while at UW:

Ron Dayne: 5.8 on 1220 attempts
Michael Bennett: 5.4 on 367 attempts
Montee Ball: 5.6 on 924 attempts
James White: 6.2 on 643 attempts
Melvin Gordon: 7.8 on 631 attempts

I think an average back can get 1800 yards in the UW system... but not 2587 yards like Gordon did. Their system is good but not 2600 yards good.

A fine point, and I don't mean to give the impression that I disregard Gordon's abilities, I don't.

Anyway... I'm with you on Gurley, all the way. I just think Gordon is better than you do.

Like always, time will tell.

Agreed. Good conversation, thanks!

 

[Beast_from_East]

It also might be a smokescreen to MIN. We have brought in every highly-ranked RB for a visit. Now we are leaking that we might trade up to draft one in the first round (Gordon). May be a message to MIN that we are not trading anything more than a 2 or a 3 for AP because we really like the RBs in this draft. So much so that we'd be willing to spend a #1 pick and trade up.

Good call, I agree this is way more legit than us leaking our draft plans.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'd snap if they traded up.

Glad I'm not alone.

 

[JBell]

Before doing any armchair scouting I was in the "any RB can run behind this OL" crowd, and still kinda am.

But after watching all of Gordon's games on DraftBreakdown, I would have no problem with him at #27. Sign me up for 5 years of running dominance. Gordon's acceleration and agility is Shady-like.

People are getting too caught up on 40 times and overlooking much more important qualities for an RB. He's the #2 RB by a wide margin.

 

[jterrell]

If it is a smoke screen, what do we have to gain from it if he is already gone?

To hope it causes another player to drop?

I don't know if I believe that because they is just as good of a chance of him going anyway.

Now if they said..>The cowboys are really interested in LB McKinney, DT Goldman, DE OO or Edwards Jr, CB Darby and so on...I would believe it is more of a smoke screen as those players are probably going to still be there at 27.

Less likely it is a smokescreen than it being just nonsense.

Dallas is high on Gordon. So are 20 other teams that would like to get a RB in this draft.
And they are all likely high on 3-5 other RB too.

Dallas had the rb coach at Tevin Coleman's workout and are high on him... reported by the same guy.

Locally we already know who Dallas likes because they've become pretty transpararent in bringing guys in they want to draft.
They obviously can't draft them all but their draftees largely are visit guys of late.
They brought in like 5 or 6 backs for visits.
They didn't do all that because they were locked in on nay one of them.

 

[dbonham]

Stats for a college RB are not going to be that enlightening. Just watch him run. He would be special behind our line I think.