Rushing to help the Defense

[AsthmaField]

You're welcome.

And I come here to see your sexy avatar.

 

[Idgit]

And I come here to see your sexy avatar.

PM me for nudes.

 

[AsthmaField]

PM me for nudes.

 

[percyhoward]

If the plan was to win now with Romo, we should've signed more big name free agents in free agency.

Right, you don't take a RB at #4 and forego the chance at landing a couple of defensive starters with the first two picks if the plan is to win now.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm sure I read it the first time but thanks for posting it again...the numbers can't be argued...if you want an elite RB you have to pay for it or get really lucky like Tom Brady or Tony Romo.

The question isn't whether a high pick gives you a better chance at an elite RB.

It's how much an elite RB improves any team's (and especially this team's) chances of winning a championship.

 

[percyhoward]

I have no problem with them taking Elliott where they did - I think the guy is going to be a superstar, and will improve the offense regardless of whether he has the ball in his hands.

I have no doubt he'd make any team's offense better, and with this OL, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a HOF career. Elliott would have been a great pick for a team with an average OL and/or QB, and a pretty good defense. Or a team whose last missing piece of the puzzle was RB.

Maybe that's us someday, but not today.

 

[Nightman]

The question isn't whether a high pick gives you a better chance at an elite RB.

It's how much an elite RB improves any team's (and especially this team's) chances of winning a championship.

that is your question

it is clear if you want an all-time RB you have to draft one really early

the idea that winning a championship has little to do with a RB is ludicrous...you could say that with every position besides QB and we know that a QB can't do it alone

there is no way having an elite running game is bad thing...you can still have an efficient passing game and strong defense...these things aren't mutually exclusive...most of us argue they are intertwined

 

[Plankton]

I have no doubt he'd make any team's offense better, and with this OL, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a HOF career. Elliott would have been a great pick for a team with an average OL and/or QB, and a pretty good defense. Or a team whose last missing piece of the puzzle was RB.

Maybe that's us someday, but not today.

Again, the premise of this is based on the defensive option that would be selected being a high level player.

It could just as easily bust - look no further than the 2012 draft for the Cowboys.

They took the top rated guy on their board. I can never argue with that.

 

[percyhoward]

it is clear if you want an all-time RB you have to draft one really early

the idea that winning a championship has little to do with a RB is ludicrous...you could say that with every position besides QB and we know that a QB can't do it alone

there is no way having an elite running game is bad thing...you can still have an efficient passing game and strong defense...these things aren't mutually exclusive...most of us argue they are intertwined

To clarify, I'm not saying you can't have all three, or that an elite running game is a bad thing. Neither am I saying that more highly-drafted players aren't more likely to be great players.

It's easy to find the connection with passing or with defense (especially pass defense) and championships. I'd like to see you (or anybody) focus on just the part in bold, and establish a connection between a RB's rushing yards and championships. Somebody will learn something. Maybe it'll be me.

 

[percyhoward]

Again, the premise of this is based on the defensive option that would be selected being a high level player.

Why, out of curiosity?

 

[Plankton]

Why, out of curiosity?

Because you and others have postulated that the selection of a running back at that juncture of the draft was a waste of resources, and that the resources would be better spent on a defensive player of some kind.

Thus, the premise of this is that the defensive player that is selected there will be a high level player and contributor, because obviously, selecting a bust or a project is a waste at that position in the draft.

For me, the best selection is the best player. When you are 4-12, chances are, you have holes in multiple places. The Cowboys had Elliott as the top rated player on their board. To me, it's a no brainer - you take your top rated guy, and don't think twice about it.

If they picked a defensive guy, there's no guarantee that the player will work out. Morris Claiborne is a perfect example of this coming to fruition.

Just my opinion.

 

[percyhoward]

For me, the best selection is the best player. When you are 4-12, chances are, you have holes in multiple places.

Maybe you can explain how either generality applies to this particular case.

I remember going into the draft that the high-level defensive players had question marks, but that it was a deep draft defensively. That, plus the fact that we needed help at multiple defensive positions made the trade down an attractive option. And of course there's no guarantee that picking two defensive players who could start this year would improve the defense to a playoff level, but guarantees don't really enter into it anyway. Your odds are certainly better if you do.

I suppose it makes sense that if the average team goes 4-12, it more than likely needs help on both sides of the ball, but that's like saying "RB isn't a highly valued position, so we shouldn't have spent #4 on a RB." Drafting the best RB high actually does make sense if RB happens to be a particular team's area of need.

 

[Nightman]

Maybe you can explain how either generality applies to this particular case.

I remember going into the draft that the high-level defensive players had question marks, but that it was a deep draft defensively. That, plus the fact that we needed help at multiple defensive positions made the trade down an attractive option. And of course there's no guarantee that picking two defensive players who could start this year would improve the defense to a playoff level, but guarantees don't really enter into it anyway. Your odds are certainly better if you do.

I suppose it makes sense that if the average team goes 4-12, it more than likely needs help on both sides of the ball, but that's like saying "RB isn't a highly valued position, so we shouldn't have spent #4 on a RB." Drafting the best RB high actually does make sense if RB happens to be a particular team's area of need.

Before the draft we signed Thornton, Mayowa, RMcClain, Claiborne, JCrawford, Wilber...we didn't have any glaring holes on Defense

But our starting RB was a 29 years old with a huge injury history

I think we chose wisely

 

[Plankton]

Maybe you can explain how either generality applies to this particular case.

I remember going into the draft that the high-level defensive players had question marks, but that it was a deep draft defensively. That, plus the fact that we needed help at multiple defensive positions made the trade down an attractive option. And of course there's no guarantee that picking two defensive players who could start this year would improve the defense to a playoff level, but guarantees don't really enter into it anyway. Your odds are certainly better if you do.

The trade down was reportedly to move two slots down for a 4th rounder. Not multiple picks, one additional pick. I don't believe that there were any other trade proposals. I also recall that Dallas said that they asked the Ravens who they would have selected, and they said Elliott. The Ravens afterward claimed otherwise. It's hard to say who was telling the truth on this.

It's highly suspect that a fourth rounder would start this year. It was clear (in Dallas' plans) that they were going with Elliott. As they had him as their top rated player on the board when the draft began, I have no issue with this selection. Elliott provides a diverse skill set that allows the Cowboys to run their entire playbook with him in the game. As well as McFadden performed last year, they could not run their zone running game with him in the lineup because he isn't effective doing it.

I suppose it makes sense that if the average team goes 4-12, it more than likely needs help on both sides of the ball, but that's like saying "RB isn't a highly valued position, so we shouldn't have spent #4 on a RB." Drafting the best RB high actually does make sense if RB happens to be a particular team's area of need.

I think it makes sense if the player is the highest rated guy on your board when the draft began. If Elliott was 10th on their board, then it wouldn't have made any sense.

There's also no guarantee that Jalen Ramsey would have an impact on this team, and will not end up busting (I don't think he will, but he hasn't played yet either. Neither has Elliott, for that matter). Morris Claiborne was thought of as a top player in 2012, and his selection was hailed by many. He has been a bust. Just because a guy is selected high doesn't guarantee that he will start nor be effective.

 

[percyhoward]

The trade down was reportedly to move two slots down for a 4th rounder. Not multiple picks, one additional pick.

Right, one additional pick. I'd said that we needed help at multiple positions -- not that we'd been offered multiple picks. Trade downs are less risky when you need help at multiple positions, and it was a deep defensive draft. Of course, we could have spent the 4th-rounder on a RB.

It's highly suspect that a fourth rounder would start this year. It was clear that they were going with Elliott. As they had him as their top rated player on the board when the draft began, I have no issue with this selection. Elliott provides a diverse skill set that allows the Cowboys to run their entire playbook with him in the game. As well as McFadden performed last year, they could not run their zone running game with him in the lineup because he isn't effective doing it.

I think it makes sense if the player is the highest rated guy on your board when the draft began. If Elliott was 10th on their board, then it wouldn't have made any sense.

There's also no guarantee that Jalen Ramsey would have an impact on this team, and will not end up busting (I don't think he will, but he hasn't played yet either. Neither has Elliott, for that matter). Morris Claiborne was thought of as a top player in 2012, and his selection was hailed by many. He has been a bust. Just because a guy is selected high doesn't guarantee that he will start nor be effective

I'm just talking about playing the odds, because "guarantees" don't play any role on either side of the argument, but I agree that McFadden would not have been the starter anyway, and that the 4th-round RB (had one been chosen with that extra pick) would have seen most of the playing time. Still, the fact that this OL made a washed up misfit the league's 4th-leading rusher has to be considered, and you have to weigh that against defensive need, which players are available, and the worth of a more versatile RB vs. improved defense.


.

 

[WillieBeamen]

The trade down was reportedly to move two slots down for a 4th rounder. Not multiple picks, one additional pick. I don't believe that there were any other trade proposals. I also recall that Dallas said that they asked the Ravens who they would have selected, and they said Elliott. The Ravens afterward claimed otherwise. It's hard to say who was telling the truth on this.

It's highly suspect that a fourth rounder would start this year. It was clear (in Dallas' plans) that they were going with Elliott. As they had him as their top rated player on the board when the draft began, I have no issue with this selection. Elliott provides a diverse skill set that allows the Cowboys to run their entire playbook with him in the game. As well as McFadden performed last year, they could not run their zone running game with him in the lineup because he isn't effective doing it.



I think it makes sense if the player is the highest rated guy on your board when the draft began. If Elliott was 10th on their board, then it wouldn't have made any sense.

There's also no guarantee that Jalen Ramsey would have an impact on this team, and will not end up busting (I don't think he will, but he hasn't played yet either. Neither has Elliott, for that matter). Morris Claiborne was thought of as a top player in 2012, and his selection was hailed by many. He has been a bust. Just because a guy is selected high doesn't guarantee that he will start nor be effective.

Great points and I 100% agree with your post. The problem with the Anti-Zeke crowd, is they will always say "well good rbs can be found in later rounds" and "this o-line is so good that we dont need an elite back". To me that's a flawed way of thinking. You draft to improve your team going forward and you do that by selecting the best players. If we wanted to "win now", we should've brought im better free agents on defense.

 

[percyhoward]

Great points and I 100% agree with your post. The problem with the Anti-Zeke crowd, is they will always say "well good rbs can be found in later rounds" and "this o-line is so good that we dont need an elite back". To me that's a flawed way of thinking. You draft to improve your team going forward and you do that by selecting the best players. If we wanted to "win now", we should've brought im better free agents on defense.

I don't think generalities like "improve your team by selecting the best player" work very well when you start trying to apply them to specific teams. BPA may not necessarily be the best way to improve your team. If you think about it, the only way it could be is if every team had the same needs.

Also, if we're not trying to improve the defense, it's a good idea to ask what the plan is for the rest of Romo's time here, I think.

 

[Plankton]

I don't think generalities like "improve your team by selecting the best player" work very well when you start trying to apply them to specific teams. BPA may not necessarily be the best way to improve your team. If you think about it, the only way it could be is if every team had the same needs.

Also, if we're not trying to improve the defense, it's a good idea to ask what the plan is for the rest of Romo's time here, I think.

You're assuming here that each team's board are exactly the same in this case, and they likely aren't. Teams stack their boards based off of scheme fit, injury assessments and character ratings, amongst other factors. In all three cases, teams will slot guys differently - some are very strict on character, and others are not.

And, you also are making the error of assuming that you can only improve the defense with a first round selection. The Cowboys selected defensive players in the second, third, fourth and sixth rounds. They also added some guys in free agency. Do I think that they made some big sweeping changes in the defense this offseason? No. Cedric Thornton will be a big upgrade over Nick Hayden. They are banking on Scandrick's return upgrading the secondary, as well as Byron Jones replacing J.J. Wilcox at safety. Benson Mayowa will compete for snaps on pass rushing downs at DE.

They will have to hold the fort through the first four weeks of the season until Lawrence and Gregory are eligible to return to the roster.

Would selecting Jalen Ramsey radically change their defense this year? I don't believe so. His impact at corner would be limited by the lack of pass rush upfront. I also think that he's a prototype safety, and better utilized there.

Taking a guy who is rated as the top player on your board at the onset of a draft is never a bad move. If it is, then you have a bad board, and need to reevaluate who is putting said board together.

 

[percyhoward]

You're assuming here that each team's board are exactly the same in this case.

So assume they aren't. Every team's needs won't always match their BPA when that team is on the clock -- whoever he is. Which means BPA isn't always the best choice to improve the team.

And, you also are making the error of assuming that you can only improve the defense with a first round selection.
Not at all. I'm saying spend the first two picks on defenders who can play now. And I realize you don't think the team is set defensively, just as I don't think Elliot's selection will hurt the team.

Would selecting Jalen Ramsey radically change their defense this year? I don't believe so.
Agreed, but again, the options were never limited to Elliott vs. Ramsey. I'm not pro-Ramsey, or pro- any specific player from the draft. I'm pro-analysis: player's strengths/weaknesses, team strengths/weaknesses, historical precedent, and Romo's window.

Taking a guy who is rated as the top player on your board at the onset of a draft is never a bad move. If it is, then you have a bad board, and need to reevaluate who is putting said board together.
It doesn't have to be a bad move for it not to have been the best move.

 

[Plankton]

So assume they aren't. Every team's needs won't always match their BPA when that team is on the clock -- whoever he is. Which means BPA isn't always the best choice to improve the team.

If you draft for need, you are bound to reach, and bound to fail. The board has to rule above all.

Case in point. In 1996, the Ravens had the fourth overall pick in the draft. They had a glaring need at running back, and had Lawrence Phillips rated in their top five overall. Art Modell, the owner, was pushing Ozzie Newsome, running his first draft, to select Phillips to fill a need. The Ravens highest rated player on their board was Jonathan Ogden, a LT. The Ravens already had a good LT in Tony Jones, so the need wasn't there. Newsome took Ogden anyway.

I don't think we need to review how that one turned out. If the Ravens drafted for need, they would have blown the selection. By sticking with their board, the Ravens grabbed a HOF player. If they went for need, they would have grabbed an all time bust.

And, you also are making the error of assuming that you can only improve the defense with a first round selection.
Not at all. I'm saying spend the first two picks on defenders who can play now. And I realize you don't think the team is set defensively, just as I don't think Elliot's selection will hurt the team.

I understand your point. I just think that if you ignore how you have slotted your board, and take a lower ranked player when your #1 player in the entire draft is available, then you have literally invalidated your entire draft preparation.

Would selecting Jalen Ramsey radically change their defense this year? I don't believe so.
Agreed, but again, the options were never limited to Elliott vs. Ramsey. I'm not pro-Ramsey, or pro- any specific player from the draft. I'm pro-analysis: player's strengths/weaknesses, team strengths/weaknesses, historical precedent, and Romo's window.

Well, given what we know, which is the only thing that we can base our suggestions off of, who would you have selected at #4? Or, who would you have selected at #6, with the assumption that Ramsey has been selected by the Ravens (as they allege they would have gone), and Ezekiel Elliott still on the board?

The entire draft preparation process is a pro-analysis exercise - this is why they take measureables, have guys participate in the same drills, review performances against common opponents, etc. Where it gets somewhat subjective, and potentially prone to error, is character assessment, and projection of injuries. I don't think that any NFL team in this day and age approaches a draft without months of analysis of what player is the best fit and player for their team.

Taking a guy who is rated as the top player on your board at the onset of a draft is never a bad move. If it is, then you have a bad board, and need to reevaluate who is putting said board together.
It doesn't have to be a bad move for it not to have been the best move.

Again, to say its not the best move is very subjective. All we have to work off of is their own rankings, and Ezekiel Elliott was the #1 player overall on the Dallas Cowboys draft board. Not any defensive player, Ezekiel Elliott. If the months of preparation in constructing that board gets thrown out four picks into a draft, then I would present to you a team that is a disaster waiting to happen.

Teams run draft simulations all the time to map out different scenarios. It's very rare that a team is caught completely flat footed in this era in terms of a player not being available within the top four selections of a draft. If they are, then their preparation was substandard, and deserving of critique.

I can understand where people may think that a running back is not a great investment high in the draft. I also can understand where people would say that defense should have been the pick. That being said, the process and preparation do matter here. If the months of evaluation and diligence in research resulted in Ezekiel Elliott being the top rated player on their board going into the draft, and they had a chance to select him at #4 overall, and passed, then they are indicating that their board was not put together properly.