Why would anyone want a RB in the first round?

[wick]

As we know from @AdamJT13's reams of data, winning and losing is determined by passing better than your opponent each week. While running backs provide some value in passing, the majority of their value is in the running game, which is largely irrelevant to winning and losing. Given that, why would anyone be excited to invest such a premium pick in a player who only provides secondary benefit to the part of the game that determines winning and losing?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

A bigger part to this is that high quality RB's have consistently been found in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. That is every bit the reason for the value of picking RB in the first round being questionable....you can get highly productive RB's in other rounds and it happens quite a bit.





YR

 

[bayeslife]

As we know from @AdamJT13's reams of data, winning and losing is determined by passing better than your opponent each week. While running backs provide some value in passing, the majority of their value is in the running game, which is largely irrelevant to winning and losing. Given that, why would anyone be excited to invest such a premium pick in a player who only provides secondary benefit to the part of the game that determines winning and losing?

I will say this about Elliot. Given the scheme Dallas was trying to create on offense with Dunbar, Elliot would be the complete package and may open up the playbook I'm ways we haven't seen before. He would be a tremendous factor in the passing game more so than any back coming out this year or next.

 

[JBS]

If one cannot comprehend how a running game improves the passing game...DRASTICALLY....this game might not be for you




Lolol at a rb improving the passing game by catching passes

 

[DogFace]

Because they're fast

 

[Jenky]

As we know from @AdamJT13's reams of data, winning and losing is determined by passing better than your opponent each week. While running backs provide some value in passing, the majority of their value is in the running game, which is largely irrelevant to winning and losing. Given that, why would anyone be excited to invest such a premium pick in a player who only provides secondary benefit to the part of the game that determines winning and losing?

I'd say the majority of what Lance Dunbar did last year before he got hurt was in the passing game. If I had a back like LT and did everything well, he'd open up the offense so much more. Almost like how Pittsburgh uses Bell.

I honestly don't care if it's just little dump offs and short passes to the middle. A RB that can catch, run, and block does so much more for the offense. It keeps the defenses honest.

 

[wick]

I will say this about Elliot. Given the scheme Dallas was trying to create on offense with Dunbar, Elliot would be the complete package and may open up the playbook I'm ways we haven't seen before. He would be a tremendous factor in the passing game more so than any back coming out this year or next.

Do you take a running back at #4 because of what he gives you in the passing game, though? That seems ridiculous on the surface.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

It's for the magic of an overpowering running game that creates a ball control offense that keeps the defense off the field, like what we had in 2014. The thing is, I suspect we can create that with McFadden and Morris. They're very good and our line is outstanding. Last year our passing game was crippled due to Romo and Dez being out, so defenses stacked against the run. We have the opportunity to shore up the defense with Bosa or draft Romo's heir apparent/backup in Lynch. It's a tough judgment call. You go for Elliot if you believe he'll be a quantum leap improvement over what we would have with McFadden/Morris which outweighs the other needs. I'm not convinced that it does, though I could be wrong.

 

[GroundZero1970]

Bottom line is scoring points. Our D last year held several teams below 20 points and we still lost. Yes McFadden was serviceable and yes we lost Romo and Dez but EE is a dynamic back that scored 43 TDs in essentially 2.5 years at OSU. Having a complete back is a necessity especially considering McFadden's injury history, Morris's decline over the years and truthfully we don't know what we have with Dunbar right now....For the record I wanted a QB but I think EE makes the most sense in a defense heavy draft

 

[wick]

It's for the magic of an overpowering running game that creates a ball control offense that keeps the defense off the field, like what we had in 2014. The thing is, I suspect we can create that with McFadden and Morris. They're very good and our line is outstanding. Last year our passing game was crippled due to Romo and Dez being out, so defenses stacked against the run. We have the opportunity to shore up the defense with Bosa or draft Romo's heir apparent/backup in Lynch. It's a tough judgment call. You go for Elliot if you believe he'll be a quantum leap improvement over what we would have with McFadden/Morris which outweighs the other needs. I'm not convinced that it does, though I could be wrong.

Dallas was 5th in rushing yards per attempt last season. Even though how well you run doesn't matter, we were still really good at it.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Dallas was 5th in rushing yards per attempt last season. Even though how well you run doesn't matter, we were still really good at it.

It's all a matter of whether EE is such an extreme upgrade to justify the pick over other needs. The defense was decent last year, but struggled to get to the passer and to get turnovers. That makes Bosa a very tempting choice over Elliot. This is a very tough decision. I would be tempted to say grab Elliot and don't look back. On the other hand, last year I wanted Melvin Gordon, and he failed to live up to expectations in San Diego.

 

[wick]

Bottom line is scoring points. Our D last year held several teams below 20 points and we still lost. Yes McFadden was serviceable and yes we lost Romo and Dez but EE is a dynamic back that scored 43 TDs in essentially 2.5 years at OSU. Having a complete back is a necessity especially considering McFadden's injury history, Morris's decline over the years and truthfully we don't know what we have with Dunbar right now....For the record I wanted a QB but I think EE makes the most sense in a defense heavy draft

Look at the decline in Dallas' adjusted net yards per pass attempt from 2014 to 2015. We went from 2nd to 32nd. On defense, the change wasn't much, going from 17th in 2014 to 20th in 2015. That's why we lost games in 2015. It wasn't due to the running game.

 

[CATCH17]

A bigger part to this is that high quality RB's have consistently been found in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. That is every bit the reason for the value of picking RB in the first round being questionable....you can get highly productive RB's in other rounds and it happens quite a bit.





YR

x 1000



You can still take Ramsey and very well take a RB 2 rounds later that produces on the same level as Elliot.


I think Elliot is a good RB but he is not that special of a player.

 

[Spectre]

In theory, the threat/presence of a big time RB improves the passing game. Teams don't 'stack the box' against a Lance Dunbar, Darren McFadden (anymore) or Alfred Morris. They do against Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, etc.

 

[Garrettop]

In theory Elliot would improve the defense more than any defensive rookie.

 

[AdamJT13]

If one cannot comprehend how a running game improves the passing game...DRASTICALLY

Except that's not true. There is very little correlation between how well a team runs the ball and how well it passes the ball.

If we draft Elliott, the vast majority of our games will still be decided by how well we pass the ball and how well we defend the pass, no matter how well Elliott (or McFadden or Morris) rushes or how well our defense stops the run. That's how it is about 80 percent of the time in the NFL -- and how it has been in 37 of our past 38 games (97.4 percent).

So the question becomes whether Elliott adds more to our pass offense than any other player would add to our pass offense or our pass defense.

 

[CosmicCowboy]

We need to score and move the chains consistently keeping their offense off the field. Wear their defense down,for the fourth quarter. Football hasn't changed that much.

 

[wick]

In theory, the threat/presence of a big time RB improves the passing game. Teams don't 'stack the box' against a Lance Dunbar, Darren McFadden (anymore) or Alfred Morris. They do against Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, etc.

They don't stack the box when the offense is in formations that would preclude it. If you put Peterson in the game with four wideouts, no defense is stacking the box unless it likes giving up free touchdowns.

 

[wick]

We need to score and move the chains consistently keeping their offense off the field. Wear their defense down,for the fourth quarter. Football hasn't changed that much.

But most of "moving the chains consistently" involves passes on third downs. In 2014, three-quarters of our third-down plays were passes.

 

[DFWJC]

A bigger part to this is that high quality RB's have consistently been found in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. That is every bit the reason for the value of picking RB in the first round being questionable....you can get highly productive RB's in other rounds and it happens quite a bit.





YR

I think this is more the point.

I do think a great run game helps in many ways. But so many strong RBs are taken after the 1st round and almost none are taken in the top 4 anymore.