I’ve seen a few writers mention in regards to the Barkley pick that as good as Zeke is, the Cowboys would likely be a better team with Ramsey and would take him if they could do it over again.
Forgetting for a moment that Barkley is a better prospect than Elliott was, is the above true? I personally don’t think so and was surprised to read that several times. When Elliott played the full 16 games in 2016, they won 13 games. They don’t have a ton of talent on defense so they weren’t winning 13 games in 2016 or 2017 with Ramsey. Adding a single corner doesn’t add to your win total like controlling the clock, keeping your defense rested (making it more effective) and opening up opportunities for the quarterback. Without Elliott, Dak didn’t just look pedestrian like he did with him in 2017, but he looked terrible. Other than a much better QB and possibly an absolutely dominant pass rusher (think Von Miller or a healthy JJ Watt), it’s hard to see how any player could effect Dallas in the way that Elliott has.
Most point to the Cowboys 3-3 record without Elliott but they didn’t hit double digits in points for 3 weeks. They beat the Giants and Raiders who by all accounts were terrible teams and had largely given up at that point. They did easily beat the Skins but Cousins was sacked 4 times in that game, turned the ball over 3 times and Dallas had a special teams TD. While the score looks lopsided today, a lot had to go right for them to win that game given that Dak threw for all of 100 yards. Morris did have a big game but Washington has the worst run D in football and he wasn’t nearly as effective in other games during Elliott’s absence.
What do you think bbi? Am I crazy? I could see the argument made in favor of Ramsey having a lengthier career or him being far cleaner off the field but as football players I just don’t see where that conclusion comes from.
Regarding Ramsey, he's a very special corner. He may become the best corner in the league.
Ramsey, whose a top 5 cb already, if not top 3, is probably 2x as valuable than Elliot When it comes to win contribution. When it comes time to pay Elliot and Ramsey, this will be reflected in their salaries too.
Positional value matters
Qb
Edge rusher/de
Cb
Ot
Wr
In that order ^
False. You pick guys that force touchdowns and prevent them
qbs, pass rushers, cbs
Having a corner who could shut down half the field is more valuable.
Elliott does more to contribute to winning games than Ramsey. The latter is a stone cold baller, a bad ass, and I would want him on my team. But I would still take Elliott, because controlling the ball is an even better way of stopping an opponent's offense than having great players stop them. In one case they aren't even on the field.
Elliott does more to contribute to winning games than Ramsey. The latter is a stone cold baller, a bad ass, and I would want him on my team. But I would still take Elliott, because controlling the ball is an even better way of stopping an opponent's offense than having great players stop them. In one case they aren't even on the field.
the difference between a guy who averages 5 ypc and 3.7 ypc
and a guy
50 passer rating and 100 passer rating against
is not even close
Zeke was a boon to that team, likely a bigger boon than Ramsey would have been the last two years, but zeke is a ticking time bomb and Ramsey is getting better and better.
Look at how Dallas has performed with and without out Elliot, check out their record when he has played vs. when he hasn't played. They are significantly better with Ezekiel Elliot on the field.
Ramsey, whose a top 5 cb already, if not top 3, is probably 2x as valuable than Elliot When it comes to win contribution. When it comes time to pay Elliot and Ramsey, this will be reflected in their salaries too.
Positional value matters
Qb
LT
Edge rusher/de
Cb
Ot
Wr
In that order ^
Actually I heard a former GM break down the positional values the other day. I've made the change in your post to reflect the proper order.
QB is the best player on a team. LT (usually because most QB's are right handed) protects the most valuable player. Then LDE because he attacks the best player in the game.
Indisputable.
They also got subpar QB play from a second-year player that hasn't figured it out yet. Also a contributing factor. Their best offensive weapon other than Elliot last season was a 900 year old TE with one foot into retirement.
The same writer as the OP cites also said the Jags wouldn't select Fournette if they had a chance to do it all over again. That one is different because the alternative might be DeShaun Watson.
I have become annoyed by some writers' insistence of focusing solely on positional value as opposed to individual prospects. If individual prospects no longer matter, we might as well select players by choosing from buckets that say "Quarterback" or "Left Tackle".
Look at how Dallas has performed with and without out Elliot, check out their record when he has played vs. when he hasn't played. They are significantly better with Ezekiel Elliot on the field.
Wasn’t their LT hurt the same time Zeke was out?
Elliott does more to contribute to winning games than Ramsey. The latter is a stone cold baller, a bad ass, and I would want him on my team. But I would still take Elliott, because controlling the ball is an even better way of stopping an opponent's offense than having great players stop them. In one case they aren't even on the field.
You could argue that being able to shut down the opponents offense is a form of ball control.
That’s why the league pays cornerbacks more on average than running backs.
Dallas OL makes life easy for RBs. I think there’s a good chance they wouldn’t miss a beat if Bo Scarborough had to get the lion’s share of the carries for whatever reason.
Quote:
the “easily” posts are terrible.
That’s why the league pays cornerbacks more on average than running backs.
Amazing argument, really, I can’t believe you thought of something so brilliant.
1. The Cowboys won three games the year prior to drafting him. However, people seem to forget that they played that year without Tony Romo and (I think?) Dez Bryant and Sean Lee for significant chunks. It's not like they added Elliot and that was the only change.
2. The running back the year prior was Darren McFadden. A lot of Rbs would have been a significant improvement.
3. When Elliot was out this year, Alf Morris averaged over 5 yards a game. Elliot's absence isn't why they weren't winning, imo. That had more to do with the complete lack of weapons in the passing game and some losses on the OL (leary). The OL was even further weakened when Tyron Smith got hurt.
Ultimately, I think you can get sufficient production at RB with a lesser investment. It's harder to do the same at CB and the cap savings make the CB even more valuable in terms of building a roster.
Ramsey, whose a top 5 cb already, if not top 3, is probably 2x as valuable than Elliot When it comes to win contribution. When it comes time to pay Elliot and Ramsey, this will be reflected in their salaries too.
Positional value matters
.
Qb
Edge rusher/de
Cb
Ot
Wr
In that order ^
Except that ultimately it is all about the players being compared... no doubt that Ramsey is more valuable than Elliott because he has exceeded all expectations as a shut down corner. What about Elliott versus another top ten drafted cornerback like Eli Apple? Or perhaps a top ten drafted offensive tackle like Ereck Flowers? No doubt that Elliott is a thousand times more valuable than either one despite the lower positional value. You can't be a slave to mechanical rules when evaluating talent...
Again, all the more reason paying an RB at the top of the market hurts your roster. Save huge money at QB, CB, or DE and you can splurge at OL. Pay top of the league money at RB and you have to scrimp elsewhere.
As to who you can put back there, again, Alf Morris averaged over 5 yards a carry last season as the starter.
Quote:
they can’t afford to keep them all, so putting any old body back there isn’t going to be a viable option.
Again, all the more reason paying an RB at the top of the market hurts your roster. Save huge money at QB, CB, or DE and you can splurge at OL. Pay top of the league money at RB and you have to scrimp elsewhere.
As to who you can put back there, again, Alf Morris averaged over 5 yards a carry last season as the starter.
It really doesn’t. The fact that RBs make so little means paying a top one doesn’t keep you from spending elsewhere. What don’t you get about that?
I’m not suggesting to just go out and pay every RB but paying guys like LeVeon Bell help your team more than giving the same money to an above average guard, for example.
This notion that RBs aren’t valuable because they are paid the least is exactly why capitalizing on rule can be smart. Get ahead of the curve, not behind it, and have fun paying top dollar for average players at other positions.
I pay a rookie RB 10 million and a vet QB or CB 15-30 million.
Understand why I'm at a disadvatange?
It's been quite clear that when Zeke comes off the field, the Cowboys do not run the ball as effectively.
I pay a rookie RB 10 million and a vet QB or CB 15-30 million.
Understand why I'm at a disadvatange?
Where do you factor in sitting and not playing for 2 years? And I’m only partially talking about rookie contracts. On contract #2 RBs that are great are a bargain compared to average players at other positions. Hence my previous post.
Quote:
In comment 13951626 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
the “easily” posts are terrible.
That’s why the league pays cornerbacks more on average than running backs.
Amazing argument, really, I can’t believe you thought of something so brilliant.
Perfect retort for something you can’t dispute.
But a shut down corner lets you deploy an extra player (safety help) creatively. (perhaps a safety dropping into the box to stop a dominant runner like Elliot).
Zeke is a stud. Hes one of the best players in football. No one cares how much money he makes until he’s no longer a great player. Same will apply to Barkley.
Zeke is a stud. Hes one of the best players in football. No one cares how much money he makes until he’s no longer a great player. Same will apply to Barkley.
I don’t know how people believe this. He had 2000 yards and 16 TDs in 2016 and still had 1200 yards and 9 TDs in 2017. Morris isn’t a threat in he passing game and had a WHOPPING 1 TD in 2017.
Morris being just as effective as Elliot is the definition of bullshit.
Darkwa is much better than Fournette. THat extra .5 YPC would have guaranteed them the Super Bowl.
Quote:
Zeke averaged 4.1.. Zeke is all about his oline.. he isn't as good as Bell, David Johnson, and definitely not as good as Gurley.. Barkley will last be much better than Zeke..
Darkwa is much better than Fournette. THat extra .5 YPC would have guaranteed them the Super Bowl.
unfortunately they (Darkwa and Fournette) played for different Oline.. also their game flow dictated different running condition.. Zeke and morris played behind Dallas Oline..
Zeke is better than morris but he isn't a huge game changer.. Demarco Murray did the same thing with that Oline.. Zeke also provides better pass catching ability and therefore is three down back.. but make no mistake at pure running there isn't a huge difference.. let Zeke run behind a bad Oline and then you can judge him.. Guys like Bell, David johnson and Gurley are much better than him..
Quote:
You pay an RB 1-5 million and a rookie QB or CB 10 million.
I pay a rookie RB 10 million and a vet QB or CB 15-30 million.
Understand why I'm at a disadvatange?
Where do you factor in sitting and not playing for 2 years? And I’m only partially talking about rookie contracts. On contract #2 RBs that are great are a bargain compared to average players at other positions. Hence my previous post.
A) What QB drafed high has sat for 2 years? Has that happened since Aaron Rodgers? The league is different now. QBs taken in the first round are usually playing by the middle of their first season, and definitely by year 2.
B). RBs are "bargains" on contract two because nobody wants to spend money on an RB with 4-5 seasons of mileage on them. That's because it is usually the case that the RB is already slowing down at that point. There are exceptions...but it's not the norm.
As for 2nd contracts, tops RBs get second contracts. The only reason why Bell hasn’t is because he wants WR money. He’s making over $14 million this year because they can’t come close to replacing his production without him. Would love to see Darkwa and Perkins generate 85%, heck even 50% of his production which you conveniently cap at yardage and don’t even discuss scoring (you ignore it with Elliott, Bell, and Johnson). But continue spewing your garbage.