We picked Escobar at 47, Pitt grabbed Bell at 48

[KJJ]

Why do we have to wait for him to retire?

Due to the emergence Beasley. The Cowboys have a lot of talent at receiver and Escobar is stuck behind the log jam. The only way he's going to receive a good opportunity to produce is as the starting TE because Beasley has secured the slot.

 

[Blackspider214]

Hey, I'm all for getting Escobar more touches, he clearly has good hands. It's just hard when you're in a talented receiving core and are on the same team as the best RB in the league.

Well I want to see what this offense can be like with a TE who can stretch the field. Witten does not do that anymore at all. He's reliable but is very limited in his game. I don't want to shelve a 2nd round pick just because you feel the need to keep playing Witten because he has tenure. If that's the case, why even draft Escobar in the first place, if you knew Witten would be around this much longer.

That was a terrible pick on so many fronts.

 

[alicetooljam]

yes, last year, murray wasn't in a contract year. he was in the middle of his contract!!!! so you draft a RB, so that you can draft another RB two years from now just in case your initial pick does great and you will lose him...oh wait, we did that, we used not a 2nd round pick but a 5th rounder. his name is randle!!!!

it just doesn't make sense to spend a high pick on a RB, when the year before you just picked one with another high pick!!!!!

jeez

I dont think anyone has said RB (Bell) was the biggest need back then, but it certainly wouldve been wiser than how the pick was spent, nor can you argue at this point that he (Bell) may have been the BPA. No one knew Murray could stay healthy a full year and when he had went down (yearly), we had no running game.

And....what RB did we pick the year before Randle?

 

[KJJ]

Imagine how no one would know how amazing he is because he wouldn't be playing.

As Murray would be the starter ahead of him.

Just like with Randle Bell or Eddie Lacy would have gotten opportunities to spell Murray. Both backs were highly touted coming out of college and probably would have gotten more opportunity than Randle. They would have gotten a lot of opportunity last season when Murray missed some game time due to injury. They would both have been very good situational backs in short yardage and around the goal line. Murray receives the brunt of the carries because he's far and away better than Randle. The Cowboys have been involved in some tight back and fourth games which hasn't allowed them to take Murray off the field very much. Having a backup like Bell or Lacy they would have had confidence staying with them longer because you don't lose anything with them on the field.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Just like with Randle Bell or Eddie Lacy would have gotten opportunities to spell Murray. Both backs were highly touted coming out of college and probably would have gotten more opportunity than Randle. They would have gotten a lot of opportunity last season when Murray missed some game time due to injury. They would both have been very good situational backs in short yardage and around the goal line. Murray receives the brunt of the carries because he's far and away better than Randle. The Cowboys have been involved in some tight back and fourth games which hasn't allowed them to take Murray off the field very much. Having a backup like Bell or Lacy they would have had confidence staying with them longer because you don't lose anything with them on the field.

We could hope.

I don't have any real faith in it.

We wouldn't have stayed dedicated to the run last year anyway so that would have been a wash.

This year I don't think they'd have gotten anymore carries than they give Randal now. So you'd see some flashes, like you see with Randal now, but not really anything more.

 

[KJJ]

We could hope.

I don't have any real faith in it.

We wouldn't have stayed dedicated to the run last year anyway so that would have been a wash.

This year I don't think they'd have gotten anymore carries than they give Randal now. So you'd see some flashes, like you see with Randal now, but not really anything more.

We likely wouldn't have stayed dedicated to the run last season because the OL was still developing but the addition of Lacy would have probably gotten the Cowboy in the playoffs because he ran all over them in the Packers 23 point comeback last season. Lacy who had a very good rookie season ran for 141 yards on a bad ankle vs the Cowboys. He averaged 6.7 yards a carry and had a 60 yard run. He also scored the winning TD in the final moments. Lacy took a lot of pressure off Flynn who was able to have great success in the passing game due to being able to run the ball so effectively. Murray battled a nagging injury for 4 games last season where he wasn't effective and ended up having to miss 2 games. Although the Cowboys won 3 of those games it was the game they lost to the Lions that really came back to haunt them along with the Green Bay loss.

In the loss to the Lions Randle started in place of Murray and couldn't do anything. He was DREADFUL carrying the ball 14 times for only 26 yards. He averaged 1.9 a carry and when the Cowboys were trying to run out the clock to protect a 3 point lead with only 1:24 left Randle had a negative carry of -3 yards then Phillip Tanner followed that up with another negative carry of -1 yard. It resulted in a very quick series giving Detroit 1:02 to go down the field in only 6 plays to score the winning TD. There's little doubt in my mind had the Cowboys had a quality back like Lacy or Bell subbing for Murray in that game they would have won and last season would have turned out differently.

 

[joseephuss]

We likely wouldn't have stayed dedicated to the run last season because the OL was still developing but the addition of Lacy would have probably gotten the Cowboy in the playoffs because he ran all over them in the Packers 23 point comeback last season. Lacy who had a very good rookie season ran for 141 yards on a bad ankle vs the Cowboys. He averaged 6.7 yards a carry and had a 60 yard run. He also scored the winning TD in the final moments. Lacy took a lot of pressure off Flynn who was able to have great success in the passing game due to being able to run the ball so effectively. Murray battled a nagging injury for 4 games last season where he wasn't effective and ended up having to miss 2 games. Although the Cowboys won 3 of those games it was the game they lost to the Lions that really came back to haunt them along with the Green Bay loss.

In the loss to the Lions Randle started in place of Murray and couldn't do anything. He was DREADFUL carrying the ball 14 times for only 26 yards. He averaged 1.9 a carry and when the Cowboys were trying to run out the clock to protect a 3 point lead with only 1:24 left Randle had a negative carry of -3 yards then Phillip Tanner followed that up with another negative carry of -1 yard. It resulted in a very quick series giving Detroit 1:02 to go down the field in only 6 plays to score the winning TD. There's little doubt in my mind had the Cowboys had a quality back like Lacy or Bell subbing for Murray in that game they would have won and last season would have turned out differently.

Eddie Lacy has faced the Lions defense three times in his career. He has 44 carries, 151 yards, 3.43 ypc and 0 rushing TDs. I don't think he would have fared any better against the Lions if he played for Dallas. Detroit has a strong front four that is very good at stopping the run.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I dont think anyone has said RB (Bell) was the biggest need back then, but it certainly wouldve been wiser than how the pick was spent, nor can you argue at this point that he (Bell) may have been the BPA. No one knew Murray could stay healthy a full year and when he had went down (yearly), we had no running game.

And....what RB did we pick the year before Randle?

so put your crystal ball away.

think back logically.

we have murray, who was a 3rd round pick the year before. He showed all the promise and ability to be a good RB. the team has boat loads of needs on the OL, DL, LB, CB, TE, second WR.

yet taking a RB with your high pick, a second rounder so he can be the back up makes sense!!! really!. how would you then split the carries? why would you want to split the carries?

so to use your logic. lets say we took bell. let murray walk. bell is in his second year. next year is his contract year. do you go ahead and spend another pick on a RB this year because then you are prepared for bell having a break out year and you need to replace him.

sorry, just doesn't make sense....

and as we can see. Witten the warrior is slowly losing his abilities and effectiveness and we have Escobar who should replace him. or would you have been screaming why take a RB in the 2nd round and not a TE?

all you guys with the crystal ball please stop. the argument shouldn't be if we should have taken a RB vs. TE.

if you would have argued that we should have taken another TE or DT or OL men, then you could have a great case. but not taking a RB. it would have been a collosal mistake.

 

[KJJ]

Eddie Lacy has faced the Lions defense three times in his career. He has 44 carries, 151 yards, 3.43 ypc and 0 rushing TDs. I don't think he would have fared any better against the Lions if he played for Dallas. Detroit has a strong front four that is very good at stopping the run.

He averaged 3.4 a carry which is a lot better than the 1.9 Randle had against them. He would have made a big difference in that game because the Cowboys have a better run blocking OL than Green Bay especially last season with the Packers left tackle Bryan Bulaga out for the season with an ACL during training camp. Lacy had 99 yards vs Detroit last season in week 5 averaging 4.3 a carry. In the 2nd game he only had 16 yards due to Rodgers being out and the Packers getting blown out. The had to abandon the run in that game.

 

[AsthmaField]

RB's are easy to find. Bell is a good one but they just aren't difficult to draft.

 

[egn22]

so put your crystal ball away.

think back logically.

we have murray, who was a 3rd round pick the year before. He showed all the promise and ability to be a good RB. the team has boat loads of needs on the OL, DL, LB, CB, TE, second WR.

yet taking a RB with your high pick, a second rounder so he can be the back up makes sense!!! really!. how would you then split the carries? why would you want to split the carries?

so to use your logic. lets say we took bell. let murray walk. bell is in his second year. next year is his contract year. do you go ahead and spend another pick on a RB this year because then you are prepared for bell having a break out year and you need to replace him.

sorry, just doesn't make sense....

and as we can see. Witten the warrior is slowly losing his abilities and effectiveness and we have Escobar who should replace him. or would you have been screaming why take a RB in the 2nd round and not a TE?

all you guys with the crystal ball please stop. the argument shouldn't be if we should have taken a RB vs. TE.

if you would have argued that we should have taken another TE or DT or OL men, then you could have a great case. but not taking a RB. it would have been a collosal mistake.

So taking Leveon bell over Gavin Escobar would've been a colossal mistake??? What are you smoking? And do you have any more if it?

 

[TrailBlazer]

We could hope.

I don't have any real faith in it.

We wouldn't have stayed dedicated to the run last year anyway so that would have been a wash.

This year I don't think they'd have gotten anymore carries than they give Randal now. So you'd see some flashes, like you see with Randal now, but not really anything more.

Lol so your saying leveon bell wouldn't get any carries for the cowboys this year? What a joke. Like murray is that good he could keep bell off the field. Bell can take it the distance and make guys miss. He would get his share of touches no doubt

 

[erod]

Lol so your saying leveon bell wouldn't get any carries for the cowboys this year? What a joke. Like murray is that good he could keep bell off the field. Bell can take it the distance and make guys miss. He would get his share of touches no doubt

If Bell carried and caught the ball as much as Murray, he'd get broken in half like a pencil.

 

[KJJ]

An RB would have gotten a lot more opportunities than a TE. The Cowboys had already wasted a couple of #2's on TE's and keep repeating the same mistake every few years. Someone asked the question of why draft an RB when we have Murray? My response to that is why keep drafting TE's in the 2nd round when you have Jason Witten? Two backs can be utilized effectively giving each back an opportunity to carry the football.

Murray had 32 carries vs Chicago last week which is too many carries. Having a back like Lacy or Bell would have given the Cowboys the best one-two punch at RB in the league. You could save one back for later in the second half and have them wear down the defense. There's all kinds of ways you can utilize 2 quality backs effectively.

 

[ThreeandOut]

I wonder how many people wanting someone other than Escobar were upset with the Cowboys not taking Sharrif Floyd because he was the "best player on their board?". Well guess what...Escobar and Terrance Williams were the best available players on their board when they selected in the second round.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

So taking Leveon bell over Gavin Escobar would've been a colossal mistake??? What are you smoking? And do you have any more if it?

yes. it would have. again put your crystal ball away. its easy to sit and say it today because we have all the data to make a decision. at that time they are prospects. and you have no idea how they might turn out. so at that time. when you have taken murray the year before with a high pick. taking another RB without knowing anything more than your scouting assessment would have been colossal mistake. but you have are having a big problem putting your crystal ball down. you are making an assessment two years from the actual event of picking a player. not sure why this is such a hard concept for you. plus, bell is the starting RB for pitt. he is getting chances to prove he is good. do you think he would have the same chances here? playing back up to murray? you keep avoiding the question.... and want to continue to speak through your crystal ball.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

An RB would have gotten a lot more opportunities than a TE. The Cowboys had already wasted a couple of #2's on TE's and keep repeating the same mistake every few years. Someone asked the question of why draft an RB when we have Murray? My response to that is why keep drafting TE's in the 2nd round when you have Jason Witten? Two backs can be utilized effectively giving each back an opportunity to carry the football.

Murray had 32 carries vs Chicago last week which is too many carries. Having a back like Lacy or Bell would have given the Cowboys the best one-two punch at RB in the league. You could save one back for later in the second half and have them wear down the defense. There's all kinds of ways you can utilize 2 quality backs effectively.

do you know how many draft picks billicheck spend on TEs until he hit on one? he took two the year he took gronkowski. plus RBs are more easily found.

and teams run a lot more double TE sets than do two RB sets or have a first half, second half back. and cowboys have randle. who has shown to be effective relief when given the chance, so its more the case of them keep giving it to murray.

so to your other comment regarding already having witten why draft a TE. the reports had been that they wanted to draft witten's eventual replacement given he has been around for a sometime now. and having a two TE set is the formations that a lot of teams are trying for as well. that's why we drafted Bennett way back when. except he was a head case.

and compare witten to murray. last year when bell was selected. murray was in his second year. witten in his 10th. so which position do you want to draft to replace for?

come on its not that difficult.

plus how do you know what the scouting grades were on Bell vs. Escobar?

everyone is speaking after the fact. the consideration for the draft pick at the time of the pick is based on draft grades then. bell fell into the second round for a reason according to 32 teams and their scouts. so did escobar. but its not like all you all in here knew bell was going to be a great RB. that's how this conversation is coming across.

and if you do know who the next great college star that's going to fall into the 2nd and 3rd round is going to be please let us know. I will keep track and touch base with you next year this time.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Lol so your saying leveon bell wouldn't get any carries for the cowboys this year? What a joke. Like murray is that good he could keep bell off the field. Bell can take it the distance and make guys miss. He would get his share of touches no doubt

how do you know? how many team have two great RBs and split their carries like you described? there is quite a few teams with average RBs who split carries but most teams have one featured back...

give me a break dude.

 

[TrailBlazer]

If Bell carried and caught the ball as much as Murray, he'd get broken in half like a pencil.

Possibly. But Let's not pretend murray hasn't had injury issues

 

[TrailBlazer]

how do you know? how many team have two great RBs and split their carries like you described? there is quite a few teams with average RBs who split carries but most teams have one featured back...

give me a break dude.

If you have 2 good backs you run them both.
You don't sit a RB you spent a high draft pick on. Especially one as good as bell. There is no reason to not give him any carries. None. He would offer something murray cant. Make guys miss in space and take it to the house. As well as being able to pass protect and catch the ball out of the backfield.