This is the opposite of the way the Cowboys think

[Cowboy4ever]

They only reason the Cowboys were interested in Smith was due to him falling in the draft. They certainly wouldn't trade all the way to 1 to get him. In fact, it wasn't Smith they were interested in when they started trading down it was James Francis they had their eye on. When Emmitt got all the way to 17 they traded up to get him.

From my memory and it is not always right but I seem to remember that Jimmy wanted to trade up for Francis, that didn't work, so he worked out a trade with the Steelers to get Lamar Lathon, who was picked at 15. Since he was stuck at 17 anyway, they settled for Smith. Smith was def. not a player that Jimmy had targeted. Just think, if Jimmy hadn't wasted a number1 overall pick on his QB in Walsh, we would have had Junior, a HOF LB.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I just think that there's a concerted effort, throughout the league, to devalue the rb position for financial reasons. I think that the owners don't want to pay the qb position 15 mill+ and the 1300 yard rb 10 mill+ so that's why you see rb by committee and backs getting drafted so low.

I think it's a concerted effort because passing the ball more effectively has a greater correlation to winning in the league than running the ball effectively. Yes, running the ball can help assist with the passing game, but the general consensus is to find a QB, receivers that can catch the ball and blockers that can pass protect.

I think the amount of carries Murray got in 2014 and the trend of RB's wearing down completely after getting more than 380 carries in a season made it prohibitive to pay Murray what the Eagles paid him. And everything from Murray's 2015 season with the Eagles should lead us to conclude that the Cowboys made the right move in not re-signing him for that money. And McFadden's performance in 2015 when he became the starter (top-3 rusher in the last 10 games) just further emphasizes that point.

Also, owners have never been afraid to pay the QB and the RB a lot of money. The difference is that once a RB hits 30, they are pretty much done for. QB's can last to 35 years old and still be very productive.






YR

 

[Nightman]

They only reason the Cowboys were interested in Smith was due to him falling in the draft. They certainly wouldn't trade all the way to 1 to get him. In fact, it wasn't Smith they were interested in when they started trading down it was James Francis they had their eye on. When Emmitt got all the way to 17 they traded up to get him.

So even knowing what they know now they wouldn't pass on Steve Walsh and draft Emmitt #1 in 1990 because RBs are worth it? C'mon

 

[birdwells1]

I think it's a concerted effort because passing the ball more effectively has a greater correlation to winning in the league than running the ball effectively. Yes, running the ball can help assist with the passing game, but the general consensus is to find a QB, receivers that can catch the ball and blockers that can pass protect.

I think the amount of carries Murray got in 2014 and the trend of RB's wearing down completely after getting more than 380 carries in a season made it prohibitive to pay Murray what the Eagles paid him. And everything from Murray's 2015 season with the Eagles should lead us to conclude that the Cowboys made the right move in not re-signing him for that money. And McFadden's performance in 2015 when he became the starter (top-3 rusher in the last 10 games) just further emphasizes that point.

Also, owners have never been afraid to pay the QB and the RB a lot of money. The difference is that once a RB hits 30, they are pretty much done for. QB's can last to 35 years old and still be very productive.






YR

What passing stats are you referring to? I've heard this before but I forgot which passing stat most correlated to winning.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

What passing stats are you referring to? I've heard this before but I forgot which passing stat most correlated to winning.

Pick your choice.

QB Rating Differential. DVOA passing differential, Pro Football Reference's Passing Efficiency, etc.




YR

 

[big dog cowboy]

So even knowing what they know now they wouldn't pass on Steve Walsh and draft Emmitt #1 in 1990 because RBs are worth it? C'mon

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

 

[Nightman]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

It isn't about hindsight or not

They said no RBs have value in Top 5

That is absurd even for this board