Archer: Would a runner make sense for the Cowboys at No. 4?

Simpleton said:
Yea but it also makes sense within the context that I used it.

As far as him being Peterson or Tomlinson, no I don't think he is quite that level, but those are probably the top two RB's of the last 15-20 years, so there's that. I do think he is one of the best RB prospects to come out in a while and I would understand the temptation to put a talent like that behind an OL like the one we have in an attempt to create a running game so formidable that it could carry an average defense and an injury prone QB to a title.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was just giving you a hard time for using what I consider a cheesy word. But I know what you were getting at. Essentially a great RB motivates a great offensive line and vice versa which leads to an even better running game then just the original individual talent of the two units put together.

I mention Peterson and Tomlinson because I look at the recent NFL and I have a hard time picking out a RB that I would take in the top 5 of the draft other then those two. Doug Martin was the second best RB last year in the NFL. Would you have taken him in the top 5 of the draft? I fail to see the appeal of taking a RB that highly unless I'm getting a special talent ala Tomlinson or Peterson (Neither of whom won a superbowl). I guess maybe Steven Jackson would go into that category. Most RBs are flash in the pan guys. You see them for 2 or 3 years and they disappear. To me that isn't worth a top five draft pick.

So if you want to talk Elliot at 4, I think he needs to be a Tomlinson or Peterson type. And even still I don't see all of the appeal. Running games don't carry teams to SuperBowls anymore.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Running games don't carry teams to SuperBowls anymore.
Click to expand...

Because the teams with dominant running games have happened lately to have been lazy and never seem to be able to find QB's. Brees was hurt and Rivers not developed when Tomlinson was in his prime.

QB's rarely win without running the ball, and a dominant running game can cover for a lot of defensive problems (like we saw in 2014).
 
townsend said:
RBs have had one of the highest bust factors. Myles Jack or Deforest Buckner may only be decent top 10ish prospects in other drafts, but Elliot's a guy who's no more likely to be a productive player than a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round pick.
Click to expand...

Not true based on the data I heard today. RBs taken in the first wound for the last 15 years I think, have a success rate of 89%. They based success on being in the top 3rd of backs statistically. For RBs taken in the 2nd round that number drops to 40% or less and each round after it gets progressively worse. So while your definition of a success may not be the same it is at least some measurable to compare to. That being said, based on the talent in this draft, if they don't take a QB at 4 then I think Zeke's skillset would help Tony stay upright longer and that would make him a good pick at 4.
 
I was wondering how he compared to Smith since they are built similar so I watched some Emmitt highlights. My goodness he was glorious to watch run, block and catch passes.
 
fortsbest said:
Not true based on the data I heard today. RBs taken in the first wound for the last 15 years I think, have a success rate of 89%. They based success on being in the top 3rd of backs statistically. For RBs taken in the 2nd round that number drops to 40% or less and each round after it gets progressively worse. So while your definition of a success may not be the same it is at least some measurable to compare to. That being said, based on the talent in this draft, if they don't take a QB at 4 then I think Zeke's skillset would help Tony stay upright longer and that would make him a good pick at 4.
Click to expand...

Here's the list of all the RBs of last ten years. They mostly suck. They've sucked even more since Trent Richardson

Darren McFadden (bust)

Jonathan Stewart (decent)

Felix Jones (bust)

Rashard Mendenhall (bust)

Reggie Bush (bust)

Laurence Maroney (bust)

DeAngelo Williams (bust)

Adrian Peterson (HOF)

Marshawn Lynch (all pro)

Chris Jonson (all pro)

Joseph Addai (good)

Todd Gurley (good)

Melvin Gordon (so far, bad)

Trent Richardson (bust)

Doug Martin (good)

David Wilson (bust)

Mark Ingram (bust)

C.J. Spiller (bust)

Ryan Mathews (mediocre)

Jahvid Best (bust)

Knowshon Moreno (bust)

Donald Brown (bust)

Beanie Wells (bust)
 
fortsbest said:
Not true based on the data I heard today. RBs taken in the first wound for the last 15 years I think, have a success rate of 89%. They based success on being in the top 3rd of backs statistically.
Click to expand...

I have to say I seriously doubt this statistic. What does top 3rd of backs statistically mean? Top third of starting NFL RBs? Or are we including this string RBs? Are we talking just a single season? Judging based strictly on rushing yards?
 
townsend said:
Here's the list of all the RBs of last ten years. They mostly suck. They've sucked even more since Trent Richardson

Darren McFadden (bust)

Jonathan Stewart (decent)

Felix Jones (bust)

Rashard Mendenhall (bust)

Reggie Bush (bust)

Laurence Maroney (bust)

DeAngelo Williams (bust)

Adrian Peterson (HOF)

Marshawn Lynch (all pro)

Chris Jonson (all pro)

Joseph Addai (good)

Todd Gurley (good)

Melvin Gordon (so far, bad)

Trent Richardson (bust)

Doug Martin (good)

David Wilson (bust)

Mark Ingram (bust)

C.J. Spiller (bust)

Ryan Mathews (mediocre)

Jahvid Best (bust)

Knowshon Moreno (bust)

Donald Brown (bust)

Beanie Wells (bust)
Click to expand...

Explain how DeAngelo Williams is a bust. He's had a very solid career in the NFL. Yet, you call Joseph Addai - a player who had one above average season - "good".
 
Plan9Misfit said:
Explain how DeAngelo Williams is a bust. He's had a very solid career in the NFL. Yet, you call Joseph Addai - a player who had one above average season - "good".
Click to expand...
honestly I didn't realize D.W. Had that good of a career, I was mostly going off of memory.
 
Last April, if I asked most of you if you would take Elliott, you would have replied absolutely. Now we arguing bust rates?
 
Also a year ago we thought we would be picking at the end of the first. No one knew we would have a productive RB in McFadden. Situation was way different.
 
Yea, I would be totally fine taking Elliott with what I would've assumed would be a pick somewhere between about 15-25, not at 4. The only reason I would give Elliott so much consideration at 4 would be because of how weird/underwhelming this draft is at the top.
 
Taking Elliott at 4 would be lazy. You could definitely trade down, even if it's just a few spots.

Slam Dunk Franchise QB > Buckner > Elliott > Bosa > Treadwell > etc.

I think the gap between Bosa and 2nd round DL prospects is greater than Elliott and 2nd round RB prospects.

But so what?

Elliott is a better player and a difference maker.

He's arguably the all-around best RB OSU has ever produced... more explosive than George more powerful than Griffin and more dominant in every way than Keith Byars, Beanie Wells or Maurice Clarett. George was probably a better receiver, but Elliott would be #2 overall there. He averaged 6.9 and 6.3 YPC vs. tough competition past two seasons. If they hand him the ball vs Michigan State, the Buckeyes are probably national champs.

Some of you might not remember the difference Emmitt Smith or Tony Dorsett made and how they keyed everything else. Football hasn't changed, despite what you've been told. It's degraded into pass-fests to keep egomaniac QB's and fans happy, but when it comes down to it nothing will ever beat a dominant running game coupled with a dynamic pass offense.

Dallas has built an OL that should feature the best running attack in the league year after year. It only makes sense to have the NFL's best RB lead that attack.
 
ravidubey said:
He's arguably the all-around best RB OSU has ever produced... more explosive than George more powerful than Griffin and more dominant in every way than Keith Byars, Beanie Wells or Maurice Clarett. George was probably a better receiver, but Elliott would be #2 overall there. He averaged 6.9 and 6.3 YPC vs. tough competition past two seasons.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put much faith in numbers from the goofy offense that Urban Meyers runs.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
I wouldn't put much faith in numbers from the goofy offense that Urban Meyers runs.
Click to expand...

Elliott made tough yards and always managed to spring himself for big plays. Nothing goofy about the physical, explosive, and often punishing way he ran and pass-protected at OSU against top competition.

His time of 4.47 for a big dude is a huge difference from a guy like Shaun Alexander even a tenth of a second slower.

Gimmick offenses concern me only with Coaches, QBs, and WRs.

I'm not calling him a HOFer, but he's clearly a major, major improvement over what we have.

We call ourselves a run-first team, then why not have the best possible RB?
 
I'm not a fan of picking a RB in the top 5 these days but I like Elliot and wouldn't hate him toward the lower top end/middle part of the round, definitely not in the bottom half. What about a trade down scenario where we drop a couple, few spots, pick up an additional 1st and could take Elliot with one and Alexander out of Clemson or another defender at the other? It's not as though JJ is averse to trading down. "Maybe" with Stephen more in the loop it could pay off.
 
DLK150 said:
I'm not a fan of picking a RB in the top 5 these days but I like Elliot and wouldn't hate him toward the lower top end/middle part of the round, definitely not in the bottom half. What about a trade down scenario where we drop a couple, few spots, pick up an additional 1st and could take Elliot with one and Alexander out of Clemson or another defender at the other? It's not as though JJ is averse to trading down. "Maybe" with Stephen more in the loop it could pay off.
Click to expand...
That would be ideal, but Elliott is going top ten, probably to the Giants right at 10.
 
So we trade down with SF for their first, second and next year's first.
Take Zeke at 9, if Paxton drops we take him at 34, if he doesn't we wait till next year (we have 2 firsts) and get a DT and another Defender or Fuller with the 2 seconds.
 
I'd be fine with Elliott in the #10-20 range, just not at #4.

Now if Wentz or Goff aren't at #4 for some reason and we trade down a bit then fine. Just think #4 is a bit too high for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom