Will McClay - Running backs in the NFL come from every round

[CATCH17]

Aah .. and yet where/who are our stud RBs on this current roster ?

And why did we not draft a stud RB in any round last year ?

Dallas doesn’t pick RB’s. Gotta pick them to get them.

You’re looking at it solely from a Cowboys POV and ignoring the rest of the league.

 

[quickccc]

Dallas doesn’t pick RB’s. Gotta pick them to get them.

You’re looking at it solely from a Cowboys POV and ignoring the rest of the league.

what's the rest of the league ?

at one time we're hearing the devalue of the RB trend ...next we saw new free agent RB starters in Barkley & Henry, ..to new teams for SB and revolutionizing those two teams .

They added massive 'impact ' to their respective teams.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

That’s why they’re one of the worst sports programs in the nation. They don’t have a choice but to be “by committee” from poor roster design

You mean losing approach.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Seems like Dallas used to do that in past drafts

Yep...always seemed like we had a potential "next guy up". RB2 always seemed to do well and have potential.

 

[DFWJC]

McClay is correct as far as RBs that make teams.
Not starters

Pretty much all starting RBs are drafted in the first 2 to 3 rounds...with the sweet spot being late 1st round to mid 2nd round

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

That’s why they’re one of the worst sports programs in the nation. They don’t have a choice but to be “by committee” from poor roster design

Right...we act like it's some intentional winning strategy.
It's a CYA for being inept at finding (and managing!) a stud RB either through ineptness or hubris.

 

[CATCH17]

what's the rest of the league ?

at one time we're hearing the devalue of the RB trend ...next we saw new free agent RB starters in Barkley & Henry, ..to new teams for SB and revolutionizing those two teams .

They added massive 'impact ' to their respective teams.

If you want to argue about the RB position and how you can’t find them all over the draft then I’m out on that conversation.

It’s proven and I don’t really need to argue it.

 

[CATCH17]

McClay is correct as far as RBs that make teams.
Not starters

Pretty much all starting RBs are drafted in the first 2 to 3 rounds...with the sweet spot being late 1st round to mid 2nd round

You also have to factor in the depth at RB in this draft.

 

[Reality]

- Methinks it depends upon what makes those post-rookie RBs fall off ...ala freak injuries, poor support cast, overhaul coach-change or as i've seen many time, coaches that just overload, pound and wear & tear them to the ground.(the later is what i believe happened to Zeke here)

- Also what rounds do you consider high picks ? 1st and 2nd rounds ?

- And if it were that easy to find one, wouldn't every NFL team needing an impact, difference making starting RB ..already have one ?

Running backs in college are more focused on hitting space fast and taking off.

I have long suspected that why so many running backs have great rookie seasons and dominate the "he's the next <insert recent great running back here>" headlines is because they are allowed to use their existing instincts the first year and then in year two they are taught to wait for blocks to develop, holes to open up, make sure they pick up blocks, delayed runs and screens, etc. and that wipes out some of the things those running backs do best.

As for high rounds, I would say the first 3 rounds are "high" for a running back.

I never said it was easy and in fact, that's exactly why I said the solution is to throw numbers at the problem. If a team drafts/signs 2-4 rookie running backs every year, they will find one good one at least every couple of years if not one every year.

They will not likely be superstars, but you don't need superstar running backs to win. You need running backs that can consistently convert first downs and keep defenses honest.

That said, sometimes you get lucky and find a star running back who played for a lesser known college or from a well-known college that was not a focal point of the offense.

By throwing numbers at the problem, you increase the odds of finding those players without the overpaid contracts or the singular dependent RB1 that takes out half the playbook when they get injured.

 

[nalam]

I have said this for many years.

Running back is the one position you should throw numbers at, not high draft picks.

The Cowboys should draft one or two running backs in the 5th to 7th rounds and sign one or two undrafted rookie free agents every year.

You just need to hit on one of them every couple of years to maintain a solid running game without overpaying for it.

This is true if you have an elite run blocking schemeand players to execute it. ( like Rams used to)

Guess Schotty is tryingto do that

 

[Old'Boyfan]

You can find any position in any round.
RBs arent a dime a dozen. Like with any other position the higher you pick them the better the odds 0f getting a great one.

Precisely.
And the 'Boys just lost out not having a 4th round pick.
Jerryworld.

 

[Old'Boyfan]

If only we stopped trading our 4th round picks…Cam Skattebo would have been good in the 4th.

Skattebo was my pet pick but the Giants took him before the 'Boys pick was up.
Nonetheless Jerruh now uses 4th round picks for him to play with. I guess we should be relieved, it used to be the 2nd round picks he gambled with.

 

[Reality]

Ok
What if it’s the one peace you’re missing ?
If your close and all you need is a dominant RB and you can get them late in Rd one
You still wouldn’t ?

That way you have the beast chance to win while they aren’t broken down and before you have to pay them

I know you can still get lucky in the later rounds like we did with DeMarco Murray but the seems like the exception rather than the rule

Barkley made a huge impact for Philly as did C MaC for the 49ers

The reason Barkley was available was because he was injured almost every season for the Giants and missed several games. That's why the Giants let him go, not because they thought he had declined.

Last season McCaffrey was injured and missed most of the season and what happened to the 49ers? They had their first losing season in 4 years.

And that is my point. When you draft or sign a high round running back, you do so because you want to center your offense around them. That's great when they are on the field, but if they get injured, it greatly impacts your offense.

Teams already have to deal with losing quarterbacks, so the last thing you should do is make your offense and season dependent on having both your star quarterback and runningback on the field or else your season is over.

Now, that being said, if you have a great team and are missing just one player, you could sign or draft a player to fill that need, but that's a temporary solution, not a long term solution and I still think you would be better off with two solid-plus running backs.

 

[DFWJC]

CBS Draft site lists 4 main needs for Dallas:

WR, DL, S, LB

 

[Paperbag]

In the last 10 years, no, I would not have.

A first round running back is usually a focal point of your offense and that creates problems if they are injured at some point because you don't have a second first round running back waiting to start if that happens.

It also means after 3 seasons, you will have to pay them a huge contract to keep them as their production starts to peak and/or decline.

If you throw numbers at the problem, you can maintain 2 solid-plus running backs every year by adding 2 to 4 new running backs to the mix via the draft and undrafted rookie pools, you have both consistency and redundancy every year at a key position.

That means you avoid having to spend a lot of money on it and are capable of weathering

The reason Barkley was available was because he was injured almost every season for the Giants and missed several games. That's why the Giants let him go, not because they thought he had declined.

Last season McCaffrey was injured and missed most of the season and what happened to the 49ers? They had their first losing season in 4 years.

And that is my point. When you draft or sign a high round running back, you do so because you want to center your offense around them. That's great when they are on the field, but if they get injured, it greatly impacts your offense.

Teams already have to deal with losing quarterbacks, so the last thing you should do is make your offense and season dependent on having both your star quarterback and runningback on the field or else your season is over.

Now, that being said, if you have a great team and are missing just one player, you could sign or draft a player to fill that need, but that's a temporary solution, not a long term solution and I still think you would be better off with two solid-plus running backs.

I respect your opinion but disagree
The Giants GM didn’t want to pay Barkley and to your point with out McCaffrey the 49er were not good even though Mason did a decent job filling in

With a few exceptions ( The Chiefs whom might have the best QB ) the rest of the Teams that are successful in the playoffs have a dominant RB

I wish the Team would have signed Ricco and then drafted a back in the later rounds then the two they signed ( Sanders did a good job in Philly when he was there) but Williams isn’t the answer

 

[deerhunter11]

Of course they do. It's not a position you need to burn a first round on or second or third. Not when the players we drafted are available.

The Cowboys are killing this draft so far. You can find a RB in FA. Or via trade or even as UDFA.

Our fans can be pathetic.

Great draft we have drafted 3 first round picks and all 3 players are difference makers .

 

[RonWashington]

An alpha player (a running back, as well) needed on this team.
Go get him Jerry:

The Giants liked him . Now Dallas can gave him .