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.
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 ^
Ramsey over Elliott. And it's not close.
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.
Good grief!! Put the pipe down! If you don’t like Zeke fine, but he is much better than Kenyon drake! Now way he’s putting up Zeke-like production.
Quote:
Dallas could’ve went Ramsey then Derrick Henry or Kenyan Drake in the third. I think both backs would’ve been just as productive as Zeke. Even more do bc neither has been suspended.
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.
Good grief!! Put the pipe down! If you don’t like Zeke fine, but he is much better than Kenyon drake! Now way he’s putting up Zeke-like production.
Look at Drake’s production the last 6 games or so last year when they finally featured him. It’s a legitimate debate Zeke v Drake getting 20+ touches behind Dallas’s OL. Like someone said earlier, Demarco Murray was the NFL leading rusher in Dallas and they let him walk.
And like I said earlier, it’s not just Ramsey v Zeke. It would be Ramsey and Drake vs Zeke and Maliek Collins.
Dallas should have selected Tevin Coleman instead of Randy Gregory.
Then in 2016 Dallas selects Ramsey instead of Elliott.
Coleman and Ramsey would have been better than Gregory and Elloitt.
Behind the Dallas OL Coleman would be a top 5 RB, just like Murray and McFadden before him.
Quote:
In comment 13951824 Giantfan in skinland said:
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.
In fact only 5 QBs the last decade have sat a year, and four of them it probably had with that they weren’t good:
Locker
Tebow
Manziel
Lynch
Mahoney (the only possible good one)
Quote:
In comment 13951824 Giantfan in skinland said:
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.
This is pretty much the biggest reason for why a QB at 2 was never an option. Everything this team has said and done this offseason indicates that they feel Eli has 2+ good years left in him. Teams in today’s NFL don’t draft quarterbacks in the first round to have them sit for 2 years.
If you are going to give lectures on positional value and cost, the least you can do is post accurate information.
A QB at 2 would not have sat 2019.
If you are going to give lectures on positional value and cost, the least you can do is post accurate information.
That is a good point, I think the cap hit for cutting Manning next year is close to, if not more than, what Barkley will earn next season.
This was a thread about Ramsey v. Elliot and general discussion of RB value. You gave turned this into a debate about the value of the Giants picking a QB at 2. Pretty much irrelevant.
As to the other backs mentioned in this thread, what you're missing is that the point isn't really that they'd be just as good as Elliot. I think he's a really good back (though not really an asset in the passing game). The point is that behind that OL, a lot of reasonably good backs could be very productive. While they may not quite put up Elliot level production, uthink they'd do enough for the cowboys to be successful. That's why I think the team is better overall by adding a guy like Ramsey.
Today, positional analysis often devolves into pithy conclusions like run of the mill RB's will produce as well as star RB's. Heck, one poster yesterday discussed how Darkwa and Gallamn produced better rushing yardage than McCoy. The inference being that if you cut McCoy and replaced him with two mediocre backs, you wouldn't lose any output.
We all know that's bullshit, but it is the meat of why so many people are now saying that RB's are just slightly more valuable than kickers and punters. When you say that last sentence with a straight face and conviction, it might be time to re-evaluate the positional value argument.
Quote:
please include his dead cap hit in your analysis.
If you are going to give lectures on positional value and cost, the least you can do is post accurate information.
That is a good point, I think the cap hit for cutting Manning next year is close to, if not more than, what Barkley will earn next season.
Hat is correct. His dead cap this year is $17 million and next year it’s $6.2 million I believe. So if you drafted Darnold you’d be paying close to $30 million in 2018 in the 2 QBs, then in 2019 if Manning was cut you are still paying close to $12 million if you factor in Eli’s dead money. And then if you choose to upgrade at RB (he cheapest position) you have to add in another $5 million give or take.
So at year 2 with Darnold and a FA RB you’ve already spent almost 2/3 of Barkley’s entire rookie contract. And then you have to factor that in 2019 Darnold is basically getting his first playing time and may suck so it’s possible we don’t even see an upgrade in QB play.
Lon story short, your bold statements have a lot of layers you didn’t bother to get into. I’m not saying I’m right, but I could be, and if I was, this scenario isn’t the greatest if you are going to talk positional value and give lectures on how an NFL franchise should operate using average salaries per position as your only focus.
The question is whether the added value of Elliot vs. other guys that were available with a lesser investment justifies the high cost the Cowboys paid for him. As others have argued, plug Derrick Henry or Tevin Coleman in behind that line, and I just don't think it meaningfully alters the expected trajectory of the Cowboys season. Add Jalen Ramsey to the mix on top of that and I think you have a better team overall (and healthier one from a long term cap perspective).
When every team starts to use cut-rate RB's to be the feature back they do free money up elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the pool of elite backs have shrunk.
Here's a funny thing about the positional value argument, though. The teams in the last 5 years who have been over the cap or had to make significant moves to get under the cap weren't teams with expensive RB's. So it really isn't helping in cap management terms. The two teams over the cap this past offseason, the Eagles and Rams have a small portion of $$ tied to the RB. The Rams with Gurley being on his rookie contract, and the eagles are in the bottom half of the league in RB salary.
Teams with an excellent OL can win with mediocre backs. Teams with an average line can win with an elite RB. We won with Bradshaw and Jacobs, but looked like shit with Rashad Jennings and Perkins.
Elliot started 10 games and scored 7 TDs.
Alf and Rod Smith split 6 starts and scored 6 times. That's actually a higher TD rate.
I'm not arguing Elliot is anything other than one of the best backs in the league. But, despite popular belief to the contrary, the Cowboys running game renained perfectly productive without him.
After that my comments are directed towards the Darkwa bullshit. I’m sick of watching our run game, it’s pathetic. I’m glad we have what should be a game changing back and his cost vs drafting Darnold and having him sit + he dead cap hit for Eli makes that whole cost argument a wash.
Quote:
I’m not missing anything. That OL was great and has regressed and may continue to do so. Morris has 1 TD in Elliott’s absense.....1. You keep talking about yardage and don’t talk about scoring, catching the ball, or having to account for EE on every down since he can score from anywhere.
Elliot started 10 games and scored 7 TDs.
Alf and Rod Smith split 6 starts and scored 6 times. That's actually a higher TD rate.
I'm not arguing Elliot is anything other than one of the best backs in the league. But, despite popular belief to the contrary, the Cowboys running game renained perfectly productive without him.
I am using the same stats and logic to state that Zeke isn't a top 5 RB..Even McFadden did really good the year before once Cowgirls started giving him the workload... there are quite a few RBs that are better than Zeke.. David Johnson, Fournette, Dalvin Cook, Bell, Gurley, Howard and Hunt are all better.. I may be in minority but thats my opinion.. Barkley will also be better than Zeke..
6-4 with Zeke, 3-3 without him.
And the beating they took in Atlanta had a lot more to do with losing their left tackle... than it had to do with Zeke.
He’s a bellcow who can score from anywhere and catch. He has the body to handle 300+ touches per year. I think he’s better than Fournette, Howard and the jury is out on Cook and Hunt despite early success. The only RB in the NFL that’s definitviely better is Bell, possibly Gurley. Johnson would be too but I need to see him post injury.
I don't have anything against the position as much as I think Zeke is over ratted.. when scrub level players can replicate your performance then you aren't a top 5 player..
6-4 with Zeke, 3-3 without him.
And the beating they took in Atlanta had a lot more to do with losing their left tackle... than it had to do with Zeke.
Also that 6-4 includes a win against the eagles when they weren't trying to win and had their playoff position setup.. yet Dallas Offense wasn't good.. so really it was 5-4 with Zeke.. but don't let facts and stats get in your way of judging Zeke as a top 5 RB..
6-4 with Zeke, 3-3 without him.
And the beating they took in Atlanta had a lot more to do with losing their left tackle... than it had to do with Zeke.
Not to mention they were 13-2 with Zeke on the field in 2016, and 0-1 without him. So over the last 2 seasons they are 19-6 with Elliot and below .500 when he is playing.
Compare that to the previous few year: in 2017 there were only 4 taken in the first two rounds, 2 in 2016, 4 in 2015, 2 in 2014.
Compare that to the previous few year: in 2017 there were only 4 taken in the first two rounds, 2 in 2016, 4 in 2015, 2 in 2014.
It was a good year for RBs. Drafts are like harvests. Sometimes you have a bumper crop at a certain pointion. Other years there's maybe one worth a damn.