JJT: Fear of Tony Romo injury shouldn't make Cowboys reach for quarterback

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
And it is not that ridiculously simple.

This is basically you saying that McFadden could have have had the type of year Murray had if Romo was around.

That is pretty fucking retarded.
No but it's me saying that with Romo last year and that running game we would have been 10-6 or better which is absolutely true. McFadden never would have sniffed the amount of carried that Murray got and McFadden isn't Murray.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Taking Elliott isn't about having a respectable or even good running game, I think we will have that either way, it's about taking it to the next level, having a historic running game, the type of attack that could will a team to a Super Bowl.
Yeah I just don't put Elliott in the same class as a runner with guys like Peterson and Gurley in the draft. I know where the experts have him ranked but I don't see that type of ability in terms of power and ability to run people over. I'm not going to sit here and say I see him as Trent Richardson, Cj Spiller or Darren McFadden either (Basically all the top 10 RBs taken since Peterson). I could easily see Elliott with a Jonathan Stewart type career though. Kind of similar backs.
 

mcnuttz

Senior Junior Mod
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
15,667
And it is not that ridiculously simple.

This is basically you saying that McFadden could have have had the type of year Murray had if Romo was around.

That is pretty fucking retarded.
3xactly..Murray carried the team in 14, and made Romo and Garrett look like the guys Jerry'd been hoping for.

I
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,758
No but it's me saying that with Romo last year and that running game we would have been 10-6 or better which is absolutely true. McFadden never would have sniffed the amount of carried that Murray got and McFadden isn't Murray.
No it isn't absolutely true.

This offense was struggling in a major way dealing with Murray's departure. We became a clone of Linehan's Detroit offense. And that is not sustainable.

The first game was basically Romo pulling it out of his ass. He was throwing gadgets to the backs as a substitute for the fact we knew we couldn't run. Everything was out of synch, and Linehan has come right out and said it.

The Philly game was us fumbling about for two and a half quarters offensively and luckily the defense was prepared that day.

Remember, McFadden was a fall back. Not the plan. You know, these geniuses we have running the offense. These shitheads actually put their trust in Joe Fucking Randle. McFadden's production was what you see when teams don't care. They didn't respect our no QB offense, but they sure as hell weren't worried about McFadden making them pay either.

I prefer to get them all the talent I can. And if it means taking a back like Elliott to do that, so be it.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
No it isn't absolutely true.
Only you in a year where we lost the best WR in football and a top 5ish QB would blame the fourth leading rusher in the NFL for the drop off. I get it, it fits with your fetish for Elliott but that doesn't mean it makes it true.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,932
And it is not that ridiculously simple.

This is basically you saying that McFadden could have have had the type of year Murray had if Romo was around.

That is pretty fucking retarded.
I haven't seen anybody claim that. But to think that he wouldn't have had a lot more success than he did if Romo WAS behind center is, well, pretty fucking retarded also. We had absolutely no passing game to back the defense off, yet we still had a decent running game.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Taking Elliott isn't about having a respectable or even good running game, I think we will have that either way, it's about taking it to the next level, having a historic running game, the type of attack that could will a team to a Super Bowl.
Here's the weird thing, most super bowl teams aren't teams with high powered rushing offenses. Peterson never went to a Super Bowl, neither did Sanders or Tomlinson, or Dickerson.
More often than not SB teams have had a platoon at RB.

My biggest concern with Elliot is that I see him as not being a powerful guy who could will the ball over the goal line, that's the kind of player we need to add actual scores onto the meaningless piles of yards we accumulate.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,417
Here's the weird thing, most super bowl teams aren't teams with high powered rushing offenses. Peterson never went to a Super Bowl, neither did Sanders or Tomlinson, or Dickerson.
More often than not SB teams have had a platoon at RB.

My biggest concern with Elliot is that I see him as not being a powerful guy who could will the ball over the goal line, that's the kind of player we need to add actual scores onto the meaningless piles of yards we accumulate.
Yea that's true although those guys usually were the focal point of their offenses, usually with average at best QB's, except for Tomlinson, and almost always without an HOF type of threat in the passing game to complement them.

Peterson especially has had to suffer through this, although when he had Favre they were an OT loss in the NFCC away from the Super Bowl, a game where they were honestly the better team, evidenced by the fact that it took a bonehead Favre mistake and OT for the Saints to beat them despite the fact that they were -4 in TO differential.

As far as the Chargers, you had to feel like they underachieved, they were the clear SB favorites in 2006 and it took a completely ridiculous game against the Patriots at home for them to not make it. They also made the AFCC a year or two later I believe.

Sanders obviously never got close but the conference was dominated in that era by another team with a dominant rushing attack. I have no clue what happened with Dickerson but I'd imagine they probably got close to the SB a time or two despite having what I assume was shit QB play.

At the end of the day I think it has more to do with teams becoming over-reliant and possibly lazy when it comes to building an offense around an HOF type of RB. Often times those teams are too content to try to make due with an average passing game to go along with their running game, whether it be because their QB is anywhere from shit to average or because they don't have any real targets in the passing game.

How many elite RB's have been accompanied by an elite QB and elite WR?

And then what might be a generational type of OL on top of that?

Almost none, so while in many ways I totally agree with much of what you and Cowboysrock are saying in theory, I think there is a strong argument to make for Elliott considering the specific circumstances of our team.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Yea that's true although those guys usually were the focal point of their offenses, usually with average at best QB's, except for Tomlinson, and almost always without an HOF type of threat in the passing game to complement them.

Peterson especially has had to suffer through this, although when he had Favre they were an OT loss in the NFCC away from the Super Bowl, a game where they were honestly the better team, evidenced by the fact that it took a bonehead Favre mistake and OT for the Saints to beat them despite the fact that they were -4 in TO differential.

As far as the Chargers, you had to feel like they underachieved, they were the clear SB favorites in 2006 and it took a completely ridiculous game against the Patriots at home for them to not make it. They also made the AFCC a year or two later I believe.

Sanders obviously never got close but the conference was dominated in that era by another team with a dominant rushing attack. I have no clue what happened with Dickerson but I'd imagine they probably got close to the SB a time or two despite having what I assume was shit QB play.

At the end of the day I think it has more to do with teams becoming over-reliant and possibly lazy when it comes to building an offense around an HOF type of RB. Often times those teams are too content to try to make due with an average passing game to go along with their running game, whether it be because their QB is anywhere from shit to average or because they don't have any real targets in the passing game.

How many elite RB's have been accompanied by an elite QB and elite WR?

And then what might be a generational type of OL on top of that?

Almost none, so while in many ways I totally agree with much of what you and Cowboysrock are saying in theory, I think there is a strong argument to make for Elliott considering the specific circumstances of our team.
Simply put a balanced offense is the key.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
Taking Elliott isn't about having a respectable or even good running game, I think we will have that either way, it's about taking it to the next level, having a historic running game, the type of attack that could will a team to a Super Bowl.
Exactly. Isn't this what having the 4th pick in the draft should be about? If franchise QB isn't happening then get me Buckner or Zeke.

And frankly with the depth at DL in this draft you could take Zeke and still get a strong DL in the 2nd.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Here's the weird thing, most super bowl teams aren't teams with high powered rushing offenses. Peterson never went to a Super Bowl, neither did Sanders or Tomlinson, or Dickerson.
More often than not SB teams have had a platoon at RB.

My biggest concern with Elliot is that I see him as not being a powerful guy who could will the ball over the goal line, that's the kind of player we need to add actual scores onto the meaningless piles of yards we accumulate.

I hate this blanket statement narrative. None of those RBs you mentioned except for Tomlinson had a QB, which makes all the difference.

Many other all-time great RBs won championships - Harris, Dorsett, Brown, Emmitt. They had QBs. We have that QB. It's been shown time and again that a great QB/RB combo is lethal. We showed it ourselves in 2014.

And the one exception of the guys you mentioned, Tomlinson, had a shitty HC. We on the other hand have... uhh...oh crap. Nevermind.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,335
:robowink
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I hate this blanket statement narrative.
I completely agree with this statement even though I totally disagree with you about Elliott at 4. There is more then one way to skin a cat. As soon as you say teams with a dominant running back don't win a superbowl, one will. Ultimately though I think it's about a running game far more then it is about a RB. A running game consists of many different factors one of which is the RB. The offensive line plays a massive role in that as well. So does play calling. So do the other RBs on the roster. So if you have a great running game but do it with 1 featured guy, that's awesome. If you have a great running game but do it with a platoon of 3 RBs, that works as well. All that really matters is the end result out of the running game.

It is interesting that we have to go back a couple of decades to find the real stud feature backs winning the Superbowl. Just shows how the NFL has changed since then.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
Not to speak for Simpleton, but I think he's just saying that if you aren't going to take one at the top of the draft, don't piss away a 2nd or 3rd on a Cook or Prescott because those guys aren't going to be Superbowl caliber QBs anyway. Better to spend that 2nd or 3rd on a player who can help win now, because we all know that you can get good linebackers or defensive linemen in the those early rounds.

And I agree with that. I'd take a QB at #4, myself. I think it has to be done. But I don't want them going halfway and taking a marginal prospect like a Cook just so Jerry and Garrett can gloat in a PC about addressing the position.
r.
This is exactly where I've been at this whole offseason. Either go big or go home. Take one of the top 2 QB's at 4...or trade down (or up from 2nd) for Lynch. If not then wait til day three for a backup/developement type and don't waste a high 2nd or 3rd on a marginal QB prospect.

But I think they are invested in drafting a QB this year that if they don't get one of the top 3 prospects they'll end up taking Cook, Dak or Hackenberg on day 2 and squander a quality draft pick in the process.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
That running game did not do that at the end of 2014 either is was Romo converting 3rd downs at a historical rate.
And having a big-time rushing threat helped open up the passing game to allow for this. It's no coincidence that our best season in close to a decade was '14 when we had a strong running attack to balance out the offense and didn't have to just rely on Romo passing.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
3xactly..Murray carried the team in 14, and made Romo and Garrett look like the guys Jerry'd been hoping for.

I
Yep. Romo is good and we saw last year what happened without him. But even if he were healthy all last season I'm sure we wouldn't have the same success we did in '14 without a dominant run game to balance out the offense. We've seen that Romo can win games but when he and the passing game has to carry the offense week in and week out it hasn't usually ended well.

You'd think someone like Garrett who was on the teams with Aikman and Emmitt would've realized this, but other than '14 he's always been overly pass happy since he first came here as OC. If anything was going to make the light go off in their head it should've been the '14 season. But seems like all Jerry and Jason took from that year was it was just the OL and anyone successful behind it. The continued idiocy of those two is mind-numbing.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I completely agree with this statement even though I totally disagree with you about Elliott at 4. There is more then one way to skin a cat. As soon as you say teams with a dominant running back don't win a superbowl, one will. Ultimately though I think it's about a running game far more then it is about a RB. A running game consists of many different factors one of which is the RB. The offensive line plays a massive role in that as well. So does play calling. So do the other RBs on the roster. So if you have a great running game but do it with 1 featured guy, that's awesome. If you have a great running game but do it with a platoon of 3 RBs, that works as well. All that really matters is the end result out of the running game.

It is interesting that we have to go back a couple of decades to find the real stud feature backs winning the Superbowl. Just shows how the NFL has changed since then.
It's still happening though, Marshawn Lynch for instance.

Theoretically I agree, you can win a lot of different ways including running back by committee.
 

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
I completely agree with this statement even though I totally disagree with you about Elliott at 4. There is more then one way to skin a cat. As soon as you say teams with a dominant running back don't win a superbowl, one will. Ultimately though I think it's about a running game far more then it is about a RB. A running game consists of many different factors one of which is the RB. The offensive line plays a massive role in that as well. So does play calling. So do the other RBs on the roster. So if you have a great running game but do it with 1 featured guy, that's awesome. If you have a great running game but do it with a platoon of 3 RBs, that works as well. All that really matters is the end result out of the running game.

It is interesting that we have to go back a couple of decades to find the real stud feature backs winning the Superbowl. Just shows how the NFL has changed since then.
Wouldn't the Seahawks with Beastmode count...?

We have seen Romo the "put the team on your back" QB and Romo the "Bus driver", he was better as a bus driver, he's like the Vettel/Hamilton of bus drivers while he has that "will fuck up in the end" name as a "put the team on your back" QB and that will be more evident the older he gets.

Could Romo win a SB in the time he has left? I'd put it at 7-1 odds if he's a bus driver, but carrying the team? 10,000-1...

Which is why I'm also for QB with the first or trade down, but if neither is an option Elliott would be my choice
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
And having a big-time rushing threat helped open up the passing game to allow for this. It's no coincidence that our best season in close to a decade was '14 when we had a strong running attack to balance out the offense and didn't have to just rely on Romo passing.
Nobody is disputing that.
 
Top Bottom