My point was unlike Goff who had a shit oline and was playing from behind most of the time, Wentz was not being put in the same stressful positions.
You can't cry about not getting Barry Sanders. Doesn't mean you shouldn't take Emmitt Smith.
Smith was better than Sanders if you care more about winning games than highlights.
And Elliott is neither. Laughable really.
No shit.
It's a stretch if you're comparing Elliot to Smith and to this day, I would still take Smith over Sanders and not for homer reasons. I just believe that Smith was a better rounded back than Sanders who could be either feast or famine. For almost every big run he made, he lost yardage dancing around in the backfield. Sanders was a top five pick. What did the Lions win with him? RB is not as valued a position as it once was. We didn't lose twelve games because DMac was a former 1st round bust who exceeded expectations, we lost 12 games because we had jack shit for depth on defense and back up QB along with our star receiver going down early.
I can't believe this. After what we all saw in 2014? Dallas goes 12-4 with the worst defensive front in the league.
Hey, JMO. We brought in a retread former top 5 pick last year who many people considered a bust and he ended up in the top 5 in rushing yards last year without even starting a full season. Was that because he finally managed to realize his potential and stay healthy for once or was it because when you have a competent offensive line, you could basically plug in a back with above average athletic ability and he would have some success? The draft is replete with those kind of guys and you don't have to burn a premium pick on them. Equating Elliot to Emmitt is not even a valid argument because you're talking about using a top five pick on Elliot but Emmitt wasn't even a top ten pick and with today's salary structure it doesn't make sense. On the flip side, we drafted Felix Jones at 22 in '08 and there were backs drafted after him(Johnson, Forte, Rice) that had better production/careers than he did. Only one of those backs won a title and the one that did was drafted the lowest of the three.
I see this "McFadden was in the top 5 rushing" thrown out a lot around here. But for me, watching the games it seemed like his runs were either for 1 or 2 yards, big gains on sweeps or he'd pop an occasional big run to the outside. Looking at his stats, his 9 runs of 20+ yards kinda confirms that a bit. Those 20+ yard runs definitely helped his avg, but he seemed to have an issue with the tough yards inside at times which is where Murray did much better.
That was pretty much Murray over the last 7 games in 2014 as well.
And just to follow-up, this week he posts:
That reeks of smokescreen but I guess we'll find out.
Oh, I don't disagree because stats can be misleading and DMC certainly isn't a long term solution at the position and neither is Morris or Dunbar. With DMC, for every twenty yard run, there's two where he's stuffed. He isn't an inside runner but he's still is one of only a couple of backs that have gone over 1,000 yards since Emmitt went to AZ in 2003 though. JJ, Murray twice and McFadden. Even crap teams have had 1,000 yard RBs but what did it get them?
That would be an ideal scenario for a trade down. Teams would be tripping over themselves to move up.
If that's the case, I hope like hell we'd get a trade down offer.
