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

Did you think Emmitt was worth trading up for at the time? I didn't say draft him if a QB is there and we want that QB, but I just don't think Jerry and his troops think the need is there like the rest of us do. And frankly, I've told all of you how pessimistic I am. If their plan was to trade with SF at 7 and get those picks and tale Elliot there, then by God Jax or Balt would take him before us. He looks like the surest bet to be the kinda of back that would make this offense dominant again and if they believe that as well, then take him at 4 and don't risk it.

Nice sig Joe!
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Then good, saves us of blowing a top ten pick on a 5 year player AT Most.
Click to expand...

Great running backs should give you 7 very good to great years, barring injuries.

How long do you think this OL is going to be together anyway?

Nothing lasts forever, and Dallas has a rare opportunity to put together one of the best rushing attacks since Dickerson with the Rams. I say take it.
 
ravidubey said:
Great running backs should give you 7 very good to great years, barring injuries.

How long do you think this OL is going to be together anyway?

Nothing lasts forever, and Dallas has a rare opportunity to put together one of the best rushing attacks since Dickerson with the Rams. I say take it.
Click to expand...

The king of hyperbole strikes again.:lol

How in the world did you invoke the name of Dickerson.
 
I don't necessarily think it's hyperbole. I think Elliott looks to be a very good overall back. He seems to be patient enough to wait for things and hits holes hard when they appear. We all agree this line makes a decent back good. It could make an very good back exceptional. For crying out loud, Murray got 1800 plus and we all agreed with the idiot back that Murray left yards on the field.
 
ravidubey said:
Great running backs should give you 7 very good to great years, barring injuries.

How long do you think this OL is going to be together anyway?

Nothing lasts forever, and Dallas has a rare opportunity to put together one of the best rushing attacks since Dickerson with the Rams. I say take it.
Click to expand...
those "great" RBs are more rare than franchise QBs. Steven Jacksons and Adrian Peterson's don't grow on trees. Since the last great RB was drafted Luck, Newton, Ryan, Flacco, and Stafford have become franchise QBs.
 
fortsbest said:
I don't necessarily think it's hyperbole. I think Elliott looks to be a very good overall back. He seems to be patient enough to wait for things and hits holes hard when they appear. We all agree this line makes a decent back good. It could make an very good back exceptional. For crying out loud, Murray got 1800 plus and we all agreed with the idiot back that Murray left yards on the field.
Click to expand...

All of that could be said for most backs in any draft, there is nothing Elliot does that is extra special.

The Hyperbole was invoking Dickerson who was one of the best athletes and RB's in NFL history and played in an era where they ran the ball much more than they did now.

And oh yeah how many superbowls did those teams or Dickerson ever get to?
 
There is a reason that the NFL puts such little value on RBs these days. It's wonderful to invoke names of previous eras but the NFL is different now. Name me the elite NFL RBs right now? AP who is at the tail end? Hell everyone thought the Packers had one and then he immidiately fell off. It's how the position goes.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
There is a reason that the NFL puts such little value on RBs these days. It's wonderful to invoke names of previous eras but the NFL is different now. Name me the elite NFL RBs right now? AP who is at the tail end? Hell everyone thought the Packers had one and then he immidiately fell off. It's how the position goes.
Click to expand...

And Ravi was the one waving the Lacey flag the most.:lol
 
townsend said:
those "great" RBs are more rare than franchise QBs. Steven Jacksons and Adrian Peterson's don't grow on trees.
Click to expand...
So if you have a chance to get one, why not take it?

And it takes the right kind of team, too. Dallas has a tradition of feeding good RBs, and now we have our best OL ever. This would be a perfect fit.
 
ravidubey said:
So if you have a chance to get one, why not take it?

And it takes the right kind of team, too. Dallas has a tradition of feeding good RBs, and now we have our best OL ever. This would be a perfect fit.
Click to expand...

So now Elliot is a rare back?
 
ravidubey said:
So if you have a chance to get one, why not take it?

And it takes the right kind of team, too. Dallas has a tradition of feeding good RBs, and now we have our best OL ever. This would be a perfect fit.
Click to expand...

I feel like there's this delusion the Elliot is a known commodity. The closest things that have come to "sure things" in the draft since Peterson were Richardson and McFadden, they were definitely not great RBs as it turns out. Elliot isn't rated nearly as highly as those two, he's a bottom of the first, top of the second back. He's Melvin Gordon level of talent (not to say he's an analogous type of running back, just commenting on his rough value)

If we were debating whether to take Leonard Fornette at #4, it'd be a different conversation. Fornette has all the look of that "great" back you're talking about.
 
Elliot to me is a Jonathan Stewart type prospect. A good player and will be good in the NFL but not anywhere worth a high first round pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom