Should we replace with Zeke with Marcel Reece?

[Idgit]

Actually the truth is Adam showed up at the RB thread, so I created this thread so the other thread would not get detoured.
So it was a new angle because our argument headed towards Zeke, and I tried to find a Zeke comp (minus running ability)
I just got everyone upset because my attempt at humor did not go so well lol

Though Marcel Reece looks pretty good, does he not?
What do you think about picking him up as our FB instead ?

I'm happy standing pat at FB, btw.

 

[Idgit]

If you only knew how funny the concept is to people with actual training in statistics...

The argument by me, Waldo and a few others has nothing to do with being counter-intuitive. We're not promoting the old school line of "I believe what I see" or however that goes. We're coming from a perspective of the science of statistics.

Anybody that was against picking Zeke at draft time shouldn't really get into this discussion anyway. That group of people have built in bias to prove their point.

Lol. I've at least had enough statistics for my MBA, for what that's worth. And I know what you think you're laughing at. I just don't believe you know as much as you think you know on the topic, and I think you're tactics for team building are pretty foggy as a result.

And I reject categorically that somebody who didn't want Zeke at draft time shouldn't weigh in on the value of a running back v. the players at other positions that were available at the time. I could claim the opposite and make just as bad an argument going the other direction, but I wouldn't.

 

[waldoputty]

I don't have the data on how this year's 8-in-the-boxes compare to last years. I know we were running into a wall most of last season, too, because we couldn't beat teams passing the ball. Honestly, I like watching a dominating running game. I'm happy to have one. I just have never wanted it at the expense of the pass rush, which is where I've wanted to spend my resources. After Bosa, I originally wanted Ramsey on draft day. That's because CBs are important, take time to acclimate, and we had two starters I thought would very possibly be gone next offseason and Scandrick coming back off of injury. It turns out, we're a lot deeper at CB than I had expected this year. Plus, we hit on Brown.

The real problem for me is that we don't have an edge rusher on the roster other than Gregory whose talent alone would qualify him as an upper-echelon starter. And I don't trust Gregory at all. So the idea of passing on that to take a player at a position that can often be filled in a middle round and that hasn't been proven to be all that essential to winning in today's game anyway....no, thank you. I still want the DL addressed, and at this point, even in a deep DL draft, we're going to be picking so late it makes finding that impact rusher difficult again.

Re: the QB v. RB thing, btw, just look at how the offense stalled v. PHI when Dak wasn't throwing the ball well. With Zeke in the game and running well by all accounts. I don't think there ought to be any doubt: the difference between last year and this is the quality of the QB play more than anything else. It'd look the same with Romo in there, given time. And both Romo and Dak would look better with Morris than Zeke would look with Matt Cassel or Brandon Weeden.

i dont think Zeke was running great in the 1st half against the eagle.
defenses can choose to shut down the run by focusing on it, especially when Dak was misfiring.
that is why i kept saying running stats are horrible to base regressions on.

IMO, Dak >>> Cassell/whoever else
Zeke >> McFadden
If you want to bring up Murray, I think Zeke is a full step above Murray in terms of speed and fumbling at the wrong time.

Other than Bosa, which DE would you have considered at #4?
If you cannot get a dominant DE, then you are choosing between Zeke and the CB.
I for one am glad we picked Zeke, and I am fully aware of the salary cap implications of a cheaper shutdown CB.

How would Dak do without Zeke, I hope we do not have to find out.

 

[risco]

Why did this thread even gain life???????

 

[Idgit]

i dont think Zeke was running great in the 1st half against the eagle.
defenses can choose to shut down the run by focusing on it, especially when Dak was misfiring.
that is why i kept saying running stats are horrible to base regressions on.

IMO, Dak >>> Cassell/whoever else
Zeke >> McFadden
If you want to bring up Murray, I think Zeke is a full step above Murray in terms of speed and fumbling at the wrong time.

Other than Bosa, which DE would you have considered at #4?
If you cannot get a dominant DE, then you are choosing between Zeke and the CB.
I for one am glad we picked Zeke, and I am fully aware of the salary cap implications of a cheaper shutdown CB.

How would Dak do without Zeke, I hope we do not have to find out.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/10/31/ezekiel-elliott-highlights-vs-eagles

Elliott ran pretty well the whole game, IMO.

I'd have taken Bosa. Then Ramsey, though I concede in hindsight we didn't need the CB like I thought we would. But hindsight is 20/20. With both off the table, I'd have traded down and used the ammunition to probably get two mid-round first round defenders. But I don't want to digress the thread too much here. We hit on Zeke, he's an impact player even if ti's at a position I have as a very low priority. I'm ok with that, for sure.

 

[xwalker]

Lol. I've at least had enough statistics for my MBA, for what that's worth. And I know what you think you're laughing at. I just don't believe you know as much as you think you know on the topic, and I think you're tactics for team building are pretty foggy as a result.

And I reject categorically that somebody who didn't want Zeke at draft time shouldn't weigh in on the value of a running back v. the players at other positions that were available at the time. I could claim the opposite and make just as bad an argument going the other direction, but I wouldn't.

For disclosure I was basically neutral on the Zeke issue. I wanted a DE but there were none on Zeke talent tier.

My math and related experience is extensive.

 

[waldoputty]

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/10/31/ezekiel-elliott-highlights-vs-eagles

Elliott ran pretty well the whole game, IMO.

I'd have taken Bosa. Then Ramsey, though I concede in hindsight we didn't need the CB like I thought we would. But hindsight is 20/20. With both off the table, I'd have traded down and used the ammunition to probably get two mid-round first round defenders. But I don't want to digress the thread too much here. We hit on Zeke, he's an impact player even if ti's at a position I have as a very low priority. I'm ok with that, for sure.

I dont know who we would have picked if we got 2 1st rounders.
I dont think any DE was up there... and too risky to try to get Ogbah and expect him to do well or any mid 1st DE.
Zeke to me was the biggest surest impact pick - maximize run game.

The biggest argument for CB was salary cap.
Zeke's salary is not cheap for RB - actually $6M is one of the higher salaries for RB.
The same salary for CB is low for a shutdown corner.
However, I would think Zeke's chance for being a dominant RB is much higher than the CB's chance for being a dominant CB.

 

[Idgit]

For disclosure I was basically neutral on the Zeke issue. I wanted a DE but there were none on Zeke talent tier.

My math and related experience is extensive.

It's really irrelevant who you wanted in the draft. You're capable of having opinions on both topics, regardless, and there's no requirement for being unbiased in a sports message board discussion, anyway.

I don't doubt your math experience is extensive for the record. It just doesn't give you a free pass to dismiss a contrary argument without doing the work.

 

[xwalker]

It's really irrelevant who you wanted in the draft. You're capable of having opinions on both topics, regardless, and there's no requirement for being unbiased in a sports message board discussion, anyway.

I don't doubt your math experience is extensive for the record. It just doesn't give you a free pass to dismiss a contrary argument without doing the work.

What work?

More statistical analysis fundamentals are not going to mean anything to most people.

I don't have data showing 8 man fronts vs 7 man fronts. I doubt any fan has that type of info.

 

[jobberone]

I've had plenty of statistics but I'm not blowing my horn as I'm not a professional there. And the use of stats is of further dubious use as most acknowledge there aren't good models for rushing based on limited or no use of variables to add to the model.

I think it is a current truism that teams that win the passing battle win 80+% of the time and that's a reasonably good model.

It would be silly to think that a dominant rushing attack is equal to one that is efficient. The question is not the RB so much as does the running game affect the defense enough or not. How much more does a dominant rushing attack add to the 'win' column? My opinion is an effective RB can get you wins IF the passing attack is good enough coupled with your pass defense. IF you can add a dominant rushing attack to that side of the equation then you're using gravy.

You will not likely find coaches or GMs that believe you can win in this league consistently with an effective running attack but with a suboptimal passing attack. You will be in the minority if you believe you cannot win in this league with an effective passing attack and a suboptimal running game.

If you had to pick a player between a RB and a rush end who were on the same tier you would take the DE unless already loaded. You aren't finding a RB like Zeke outside the first round very often though BTW. But you had a Bosa v Zeke pick and IMO they would be better off long term to have taken Bosa. I don't feel strongly about that now nor did then.

I would point out that the length of a career for a top RB is shorter than that of a top DE.

 

[Trouty]

This thread got very high brow, very quickly. Lol.

Zeke good. I eat meat.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Why did this thread even gain life???????

Great question.

 

[waldoputty]

I've had plenty of statistics but I'm not blowing my horn as I'm not a professional there. And the use of stats is of further dubious use as most acknowledge there aren't good models for rushing based on limited or no use of variables to add to the model.

I think it is a current truism that teams that win the passing battle win 80+% of the time and that's a reasonably good model.

It would be silly to think that a dominant rushing attack is equal to one that is efficient. The question is not the RB so much as does the running game affect the defense enough or not. How much more does a dominant rushing attack add to the 'win' column? My opinion is an effective RB can get you wins IF the passing attack is good enough coupled with your pass defense. IF you can add a dominant rushing attack to that side of the equation then you're using gravy.

You will not likely find coaches or GMs that believe you can win in this league consistently with an effective running attack but with a suboptimal passing attack. You will be in the minority if you believe you cannot win in this league with an effective passing attack and a suboptimal running game.

If you had to pick a player between a RB and a rush end who were on the same tier you would take the DE unless already loaded. You aren't finding a RB like Zeke outside the first round very often though BTW. But you had a Bosa v Zeke pick and IMO they would be better off long term to have taken Bosa. I don't feel strongly about that now nor did then.

I would point out that the length of a career for a top RB is shorter than that of a top DE.

I don't think many will disagree with a dominant passing game being preferred to a dominant running game.
Unfortunately, if we compare NE's offense to our offense, I would have to give the nod to NE.

The problem with Bosa was that he was not projected to be a dominant DE.
I think people were calling him a 12 sack guy at his prime.
Since he was not available at #4, it is also moot.

So it was a choice between a RB and a CB.
IMO, that is a choice between a dominant offense vs. an incremental but significant improvement in the defense.
Furthermore, Zeke seemed more of the sure thing compared to the CB.

 

[jobberone]

I don't think many will disagree with a dominant passing game being preferred to a dominant running game.
Unfortunately, if we compare NE's offense to our offense, I would have to give the nod to NE.

The problem with Bosa was that he was not projected to be a dominant DE.
I think people were calling him a 12 sack guy at his prime.
Since he was not available at #4, it is also moot.

So it was a choice between a RB and a CB.
IMO, that is a choice between a dominant offense vs. an incremental but significant improvement in the defense.
Furthermore, Zeke seemed more of the sure thing compared to the CB.

Agreed. I guess I made a mistake in pointing out an example like Bosa. He was not available. But we had other options including CB, DE, and OLB as well as trading down.

I'm not second guessing but to think without the benefit of hindsight we HAD to pick Zeke is erroneous. I love the pick. Picks need to work. We don't need to try and second guess whom might have been better. But there were plenty of picks including trading down and picking up to top 50 picks probably higher.

 

[Idgit]

Agreed. I guess I made a mistake in pointing out an example like Bosa. He was not available. But we had other options including CB, DE, and OLB as well as trading down.

I'm not second guessing but to think without the benefit of hindsight we HAD to pick Zeke is erroneous. I love the pick. Picks need to work. We don't need to try and second guess whom might have been better. But there were plenty of picks including trading down and picking up to top 50 picks probably higher.

I mentioned Bosa earlier, but it was in the context of who I wanted going into the draft. Again, the most important thing was not to miss on the pick, and we definitely did not miss. Can you imagine how Rams fans feel right now? Not that they necessarily missed on him, but it's not looking good right now.

 

[jobberone]

I mentioned Bosa earlier, but it was in the context of who I wanted going into the draft. Again, the most important thing was not to miss on the pick, and we definitely did not miss. Can you imagine how Rams fans feel right now? Not that they necessarily missed on him, but it's not looking good right now.

I was using him for an example of a DE. My only reservation is Zeke's longevity at this point.

 

[waldoputty]

Agreed. I guess I made a mistake in pointing out an example like Bosa. He was not available. But we had other options including CB, DE, and OLB as well as trading down.

I'm not second guessing but to think without the benefit of hindsight we HAD to pick Zeke is erroneous. I love the pick. Picks need to work. We don't need to try and second guess whom might have been better. But there were plenty of picks including trading down and picking up to top 50 picks probably higher.

I remember the excitement after drafting Zeke, and it was a honest effort to maximize what remained of Romo's 'prime'. It is hard to imagine what Zeke is doing now, but it was quite feasible to imagine a faster Murray who fumbled less, or adding a couple yards after contact above and beyond what McFadden gave us. Given the deck we were dealt, the investment of the #4 pick fully leveraged the prior investment in the OL. Did I think Zeke would give us enough to win the superbowl? No, I did not, but it may have been our best shot.

IMO, Jalen Ramsey would not have the nearly same impact in the near future because the DL was so bad.

If we traded down and actually got 2 mid-1st round picks (optimistic), I do not recall any high impact players that would match Zeke's anticipated impact. I do not watch other teams' games, so I am not very familiar with the feats of the overall rookie class. God forbid, if we had 2 1st round picks, we probably would have taken Lynch and forgot about Dak. Even with hindsight, are there many players in the mid/late 1st round that have been high impact? I just took a look at those picks and don't see anyone of note... May be you could name a couple.

With this line of thinking, it is easy to imagine a similar predicament in the 2017 draft. Let's say we are drafting 32, the likelihood of getting an impact DE or CB is limited. What happens if the BPA is an OT or WR? Our only remaining issues in the offense are RT and WR2. If we filled those needs, the offense would not have any holes whatsoever. Do we 'complete' the offense or do we add an incremental lower-rated piece on the D.

 

[waldoputty]

I was using him for an example of a DE. My only reservation is Zeke's longevity at this point.

I have been thinking that the Cowboys have a window of ~5 years.
This is based on the age of the key OL members, in particular TSmith and TFred are both 25.
This also assumes that we are able to replace Dez within 2 years.

After ~5 years, I would not be surprised if we would have to surround Dak with a mostly-new core.
I hope Zeke can last at least 5 years.

 

[waldoputty]

I mentioned Bosa earlier, but it was in the context of who I wanted going into the draft. Again, the most important thing was not to miss on the pick, and we definitely did not miss. Can you imagine how Rams fans feel right now? Not that they necessarily missed on him, but it's not looking good right now.

I remember people were saying Bosa is at best a 12 sack guy in his prime.
How is he playing?
He has 4 sacks to date, but no idea how much pressure is he causing...

 

[Idgit]

I remember people were saying Bosa is at best a 12 sack guy in his prime.
How is he playing?
He has 4 sacks to date, but no idea how much pressure is he causing...

He's been a handful, yeah, and is generally considered to be in the DRotY conversation.

You're probably thinking of Broaddus' dumb comments about Bosa having Greg Ellis' ceiling. But the guy can play. Even with the long holdout.