(05-02-2016 08:06 PM)Maize Wrote:  It should have been the last 4 Super Bowl Winners...Pete Carroll give the ball to BEASTMODE on the half yard line...

I never bought that, because the time left dictated a pass, and then two runs allowed for four chances at the endzone. It is not Pete Carroll's fault that Russell Wilson threw an INT. Had the pass not worked, they still had two more downs to run it with, after the clock stopped. How Wilson escaped blame for what was actually proper time management by the coach, I don't know, especially since it was more likely to catch NEW off guard who had sold out for the run (hence why the safety was in a position to make the play, he was looking for Lynch)

This right here shows why the real winners in the draft, are those who trade back and get more picks. Why? Because the draft is a crapshoot, and the more picks you have, the better your chances of getting a good player.

Final count: 12 first-round picks from ’13 have fifth-year options declined

Quote:The decisions are in, and 12 first-round picks from 2013 did not have their fifth-year contract options picked up by the teams that drafted them.

The deadline for such decisions was Monday. Some were of the last-minute variety, though it’s possible some teams just held off on announcements until Monday.

PFT tracked them all here.

There were slam-dunk option decisions — those for Tyler Eifert, Kyle Long and DeAndre Hopkins come to mind — and some close calls. We didn’t find out until Monday that the Chiefs picked up 2013 No. 1 pick Eric Fisher’s option, or that the Jaguars declined to pick up the option on the No. 2 pick from 2013, Luke Joeckel.

Now this doesn't mean these guys are busts, but 12 of the 32 first round picks (38%) were not deemed good enough to be worth the fifth year option, which generally is a relatively cheap price for the type of player you expect to get in the first round. To me, anyone who turned a first round pick into multiple second, third, and fourth round picks, are winners.

(05-02-2016 06:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:18 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 04:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:46 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 11:22 AM)Maize Wrote:  Pro Football Focus NFL Draft Grades:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/20...-32-teams/

For the Browns, this is a much better rating than CBS Sports' Pete Prisco. Pete hates everything Brown and Orange. FWIW, I don't put much stock in him anyway. Some of his reasoning is based on pure opinion and emotion and not analysis.

All I needed from Prisco was when he gave the Cowboys a "D" grade on drafting Ezekiel Elliott...whatever...

It probably has more to do with drafting a RB 4th overall and is not an indictment on Zeke. It was just a typical flashy "Cowboys" type of move that has become so Jerry Jones. Unless you think Elliot is going to be the next AP, Dallas reached at #4.

Let's just say this...Zeke is a better all around RB then Todd Gurley...plus behind that OL it will protect Romo and keep the Dallas Defense off the field...

You could also make the argument that because of the OL, that they should've focused on another, more valuable position on D. Hell, maybe trade down and snag a QB you like later for Romo to teach (he ain't no spring chicken). However, it sounds like the Dallas braintrust didn't like any of the other QBs early despite Jones liking Lynch.

(05-03-2016 09:14 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:18 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 04:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:46 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  For the Browns, this is a much better rating than CBS Sports' Pete Prisco. Pete hates everything Brown and Orange. FWIW, I don't put much stock in him anyway. Some of his reasoning is based on pure opinion and emotion and not analysis.

All I needed from Prisco was when he gave the Cowboys a "D" grade on drafting Ezekiel Elliott...whatever...

It probably has more to do with drafting a RB 4th overall and is not an indictment on Zeke. It was just a typical flashy "Cowboys" type of move that has become so Jerry Jones. Unless you think Elliot is going to be the next AP, Dallas reached at #4.

Let's just say this...Zeke is a better all around RB then Todd Gurley...plus behind that OL it will protect Romo and keep the Dallas Defense off the field...

You could also make the argument that because of the OL, that they should've focused on another, more valuable position on D. Hell, maybe trade down and snag a QB you like later for Romo to teach (he ain't no spring chicken). However, it sounds like the Dallas braintrust didn't like any of the other QBs early despite Jones liking Lynch.

The Cowboys did take a QB-(Dak Prescott) who many had going in the 2nd to 4th Round...plus the Cowboys did bring in a lot of bargin defensive FA and they drafted 3 Defensive players in the front part of the draft including Jaylon Smith.

(05-03-2016 10:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 09:14 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:18 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 04:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  All I needed from Prisco was when he gave the Cowboys a "D" grade on drafting Ezekiel Elliott...whatever...

It probably has more to do with drafting a RB 4th overall and is not an indictment on Zeke. It was just a typical flashy "Cowboys" type of move that has become so Jerry Jones. Unless you think Elliot is going to be the next AP, Dallas reached at #4.

Let's just say this...Zeke is a better all around RB then Todd Gurley...plus behind that OL it will protect Romo and keep the Dallas Defense off the field...

You could also make the argument that because of the OL, that they should've focused on another, more valuable position on D. Hell, maybe trade down and snag a QB you like later for Romo to teach (he ain't no spring chicken). However, it sounds like the Dallas braintrust didn't like any of the other QBs early despite Jones liking Lynch.

The Cowboys did take a QB-(Dak Prescott) who many had going in the 2nd to 4th Round...plus the Cowboys did bring in a lot of bargin defensive FA and they drafted 3 Defensive players in the front part of the draft including Jaylon Smith.

I was more implying Lynch, Cook or Hackenberg. I liked Prescott in college, but he'll likely be limited in the NFL and probably won't be ready to play for at least three seasons. Also, the talent pool in the Top 10 is far more reliable and far better (historically) than in the 2nd-4th. After the second, it's essentially a crap shoot and you're drafting for scheme.

Running back at 4 in this day and age is a reach no matter who you get. It also is perplexing why Dallas even signed Morris as well now.

(05-03-2016 10:30 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 10:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 09:14 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:18 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  It probably has more to do with drafting a RB 4th overall and is not an indictment on Zeke. It was just a typical flashy "Cowboys" type of move that has become so Jerry Jones. Unless you think Elliot is going to be the next AP, Dallas reached at #4.

Let's just say this...Zeke is a better all around RB then Todd Gurley...plus behind that OL it will protect Romo and keep the Dallas Defense off the field...

You could also make the argument that because of the OL, that they should've focused on another, more valuable position on D. Hell, maybe trade down and snag a QB you like later for Romo to teach (he ain't no spring chicken). However, it sounds like the Dallas braintrust didn't like any of the other QBs early despite Jones liking Lynch.

The Cowboys did take a QB-(Dak Prescott) who many had going in the 2nd to 4th Round...plus the Cowboys did bring in a lot of bargin defensive FA and they drafted 3 Defensive players in the front part of the draft including Jaylon Smith.

I was more implying Lynch, Cook or Hackenberg. I liked Prescott in college, but he'll likely be limited in the NFL and probably won't be ready to play for at least three seasons. Also, the talent pool in the Top 10 is far more reliable and far better (historically) than in the 2nd-4th. After the second, it's essentially a crap shoot and you're drafting for scheme.

Running back at 4 in this day and age is a reach no matter who you get. It also is perplexing why Dallas even signed Morris as well now.

I actually agree with you on the Morris signing...but as far as RB...wait til next year...would not surprise me if you see as many as 4 RB going into the 1st Round. With the Cowboys I was fine at 4 with either Ramsey, Elliot or Buckner...

The idea that running backs are not worth top picks to me is flawed, as it is based on the idea hat by and large there are no elite running backs. That is simply not true. Out of 32 teams, 25-26 of them do not have elite running backs, and/or play a platoon system, and they are somewhat a dime a dozen. But those who do have an elite running back: you bet your ass they are worth a first round pick. People used to say safeties And tight ends are worth first round picks. Whoops. I bet 31Teams would trade a first round pick for Rob Gronkowki. He'll Seattle just traded a first round pick AND their center for Jimmu Graham. It's just flawed logic.

Another nugget: there are more running backs drafted in the first round who are in the hall for amd than quarterbacks. History actually she is first round QB's to be more overrated than first round running backs.

(05-03-2016 05:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The idea that running backs are not worth top picks to me is flawed, as it is based on the idea hat by and large there are no elite running backs.

There are very few elite running backs. This is one writer's list of the 10 best NFL RBs going into last season. We could argue about who's on the list, for sure. I would argue that the number who are truly elite is less than 10. But the point is that only 2 of these 10 were first-round draft picks, and there would be no more than 1 or 2 first-rounders no matter which RBs you have in your top 10.

It is true that many teams think RBs are pretty much interchangeable and/or have a useful span of only a few years, and that's another reason why they look elsewhere when making first-round picks.

Also, most top RBs have shorter NFL careers than elite QBs, WRs, LBs, DBs, etc. Peyton Manning retired at age 39; Marshawn Lynch retired at age 29. Even the RBs who hang on for a few years more are typically well below their peak after they turn 30.

(05-04-2016 10:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 05:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The idea that running backs are not worth top picks to me is flawed, as it is based on the idea hat by and large there are no elite running backs.

There are very few elite running backs. This is one writer's list of the 10 best NFL RBs going into last season. We could argue about who's on the list, for sure. I would argue that the number who are truly elite is less than 10. But the point is that only 2 of these 10 were first-round draft picks, and there would be no more than 1 or 2 first-rounders no matter which RBs you have in your top 10.

It is true that many teams think RBs are pretty much interchangeable and/or have a useful span of only a few years, and that's another reason why they look elsewhere when making first-round picks.

Also, most top RBs have shorter NFL careers than elite QBs, WRs, LBs, DBs, etc. Peyton Manning retired at age 39; Marshawn Lynch retired at age 29. Even the RBs who hang on for a few years more are typically well below their peak after they turn 30.

Exactly. If you're picking in the Top 5, you should be damn sure you're getting a guy who can give you 5-8 good seasons. I know a lot of gems are found later on or even as UFAs, but the top 5-10 are easily the surest bets to be solid, foundation building players.

It is uncommon for a running back to even give any single team 3-5 years of quality play (especially quality play without major injury). If you're taking a guy like Zeke at 4, you better be damn sure he can stay healthy and that he will play substantial meaningful minutes for you.

(05-04-2016 11:13 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 05:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The idea that running backs are not worth top picks to me is flawed, as it is based on the idea hat by and large there are no elite running backs.

There are very few elite running backs. This is one writer's list of the 10 best NFL RBs going into last season. We could argue about who's on the list, for sure. I would argue that the number who are truly elite is less than 10. But the point is that only 2 of these 10 were first-round draft picks, and there would be no more than 1 or 2 first-rounders no matter which RBs you have in your top 10.

It is true that many teams think RBs are pretty much interchangeable and/or have a useful span of only a few years, and that's another reason why they look elsewhere when making first-round picks.

Also, most top RBs have shorter NFL careers than elite QBs, WRs, LBs, DBs, etc. Peyton Manning retired at age 39; Marshawn Lynch retired at age 29. Even the RBs who hang on for a few years more are typically well below their peak after they turn 30.

Exactly. If you're picking in the Top 5, you should be damn sure you're getting a guy who can give you 5-8 good seasons. I know a lot of gems are found later on or even as UFAs, but the top 5-10 are easily the surest bets to be solid, foundation building players.

It is uncommon for a running back to even give any single team 3-5 years of quality play (especially quality play without major injury). If you're taking a guy like Zeke at 4, you better be damn sure he can stay healthy and that he will play substantial meaningful minutes for you.

In today NFL not sure it that important...look at the amount of players that were taken in the 1st Round in 2012 that didn't get their 5th year option renewed.

(05-04-2016 10:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 05:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The idea that running backs are not worth top picks to me is flawed, as it is based on the idea hat by and large there are no elite running backs.

There are very few elite running backs. This is one writer's list of the 10 best NFL RBs going into last season. We could argue about who's on the list, for sure. I would argue that the number who are truly elite is less than 10. But the point is that only 2 of these 10 were first-round draft picks, and there would be no more than 1 or 2 first-rounders no matter which RBs you have in your top 10.

I think we are talking about two different things. My point is that an elite running back IS worth a top 5 pick. It appears your statement is that it is hard to determine WHO is an elite running back, and it may not be worth the risk. I would agree with that, you can't predict how good a player will be. But that is true for everyone, including quarterbacks, who are often taken in the top five due to need.

I saw a stat where there were only 4 number one overall pick QB's are in the hall of fame, and a total of 14 first round quarterbacks are in the hall of fame. 14 out of the 29 HOF QB's: six of those did not play for the team that drafted them (meaning to an extent the team that drafted them gave up on them). I mean that is a good percentage, almost 50% of the QB's came from round one, but it also means more than half of the top flight QB's in the history of the game, were passed over at least once by every then existing team. BTW, there are 17 hall of fame running backs out of 27, a much higher percentage of "getting it right" than with quarterbacks

That means the NFL is not that adept at deciding who the best quarterbacks are either. And I'd say there are about the same percentage of "elite" quarterbacks in the game at any one time, yet two teams just traded the farm, to draft quarterbacks that most draftniks did not even have in their top five best players. . Why do we hold only running backs to this standard?

Note that there are only 12 total number one overall picks are in the hall of fame. From 1936 to 1997, at least one drafted (or undrafted) player from each class by one (1943) made the hall of fame. That means that at a minimum, only 12 of the 60 teams who drafted first those other years got the most bang for their buck out of their draft pick (actually three of those number one picks were QB's who were traded, so not even all 12 did). The NFL just isn't very good at the draft, when say compared to the NBA. But likely is still better than MLB.

What I am saying is, if your top five pick is a RB, but he turns into an Adrian Peterson, LaDanion Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, etc, one of the top 2-3 RB's in the game at a given time, even in this NFL today, he is worth the pick. Now can we correctly predict how good he will be, or who will be that guy? No. But history is showing us we cannot predict very well how good anyone at any position is. So I don't really hold that against running backs.

That is the same reason people claim kickers have no value in the draft, because it is hard to predict who the good ones are. To me that is not a good enough reason to say a player is not worth the pick.

I assumed the Browns had the most cap space in the NFL. Close enough. They'll need it assuming the number of draft picks to sign over the next several years.

NFL Team Cap Space Tracker

(05-07-2016 10:06 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I assumed the Browns had the most cap space in the NFL. Close enough. They'll need it assuming the number of draft picks to sign over the next several years.

NFL Team Cap Space Tracker

Browns won't have difficulty with the cap space. Players on their first contract are relatively a bargain, especially at high-demand positions. It's veteran free agents, or guys on their 2nd or 3rd contract, who squeeze the cap.

Compare what the Texans are paying Osweiler ($18 MM/year, for 4 years) and what the 49ers have to pay their backup QB Kaepernick this year ($12 MM guaranteed) to what the Broncos will pay late 1st round pick Paxton Lynch (about $10 million total over 5 years if the team exercises its 5th year option).

Okay, I've had enough time to digest the draft and fix the hole in my wall but here is my analysis of my favorite team, the Dallas Cowboys.

I hate the Ezekiel Elliott pick for many of the reasons previous posters used. One argument here that I didn't see mentioned (or at least not entirely fleshed out) was the opportunity cost. The fourth overall pick must be a cornerstone player, someone who you can build the team around (not just a scheme). However, runningbacks have a shorter lifespan at a more injury-prone position so the MORE you use Elliott, the shorter his career will likely be. With that in mind, why would you want to use the most valuable asset in improving the team in the short and long term on a player that you will want to limit? And if you don't plan to limit Elliott, then why would you spend the fourth pick in the draft on a player that you probably won't give a second contract to because you ran him until the tread is gone? The Cowboys wouldn't pony up for DeMarco Murray (reportedly offered $24 million over four years with $12 million guaranteed compared to the massive deal the Eagles offered) who had just won the offensive player of the year award but the Cowboys will pay MORE money to an unproven rookie? I'm not saying letting Murray walk wasn't the right choice, but when you put all those limited resources of cap dollars and first round draft picks into the best run blocking offensive line in the league then that should allow you to go cheap in other places, specifically runningback. It hurts my brain. Oh well. Good luck Zeke and welcome to the Cowboys! I hope you have a long and prosperous career and you bring Super Bowl wins to the Cowboys!

In a vacuum, I would be cautiously optimistic about Jaylon Smith. The Cowboys' doctor did his knee surgery and his brother, Rod, is already a player on the Cowboys. So if anyone had an inside scoop, it was the Cowboys. If they didn't take Jaylon then everyone else should have avoided him, if that makes sense. But here is where I hate the Smith selection: the Cowboys already used the fourth overall pick on a player playing an injury-prone position and now they select an injured player at another injury-prone position. So now the chances are much higher that the Cowboys could get a whole lot of nothing from extremely high first and second round picks.

The rest of the draft was pretty good. I am happy with the remaining draftees based on how players should fit into the system. Overall, I would grade it at a C- at best, which is really disappointing when you think of how it should be having such a high draft pick. At least, when healthy (big if), Elliott and Smith should be great players that can really help the team.

Rumors and Gossip: The Cowboys tried to trade back into the first with Seattle to draft Paxton Lynch. They offered more than what Seattle took from Denver, reportedly a 2nd and 3rd. Seattle said no seemingly to stay in the first round to have the 5th year option on the rookie's contract. I may not be alive due to bleeding in the brain if that happened. Not because I don't like Lynch; I think he's fine and would be great to sit and learn for a couple years behind Romo. But using two first round picks on a runningback and quarterback would have been catastrophic. Baltimore offered a 4th round pick to move up from 6th to 4th but the Cowboys declined. Baltimore says it was for Ramsey (who I wanted) but Dallas said "a team" made an offer for Elliott. The Cowboys also tried to trade up to the top of round two to get either of the two pass rushers that went immediately ahead of them and they were declined which left them trying to trade down unsuccessfully before picking Smith. The Cowboys were going to pick Conner Cook with their first fourth round pick but the Raiders moved ahead of them and grabbed him (I sincerely thank the Raiders for that).

As an FYI, Jerry Jones gets a lot of the spotlight for moves and non-moves but he really isn't calling the shots like he's portrayed. He may have the final say but he goes with a consensus among his son Stephen, Jason Garrett, and Will McClay (basically the GM). The coordinators have a say as well but the three big guys in Jerry's ear are Stephen, Garrett, and McClay. It's just more fun to say stupid things like having to tackle Jerry to rip the card of Johnny Manziel out of his hand (even though you can watch the draft feed of the war room and nobody turns in draft cards in any of the clubs' war rooms).

Your theory is flawed. You are saying don't draft at that position because if you overuse him, he may not last forever. Then you are stating if you aren't going to overuse him, he can't be a cornerstone. That is flawed logic. You don't draft for 20 years: few players do that. Even the most overused running backs tend to last 7-8 years: that is PLENTY of time to get your investment back.

Actually in the NFL draft, you only need to look 4-5 years, because that's how long the contracts last. Hey don't have NBA type loopholes that all but guarantee you retain the best of players. They are unrestricted free agents. So drafting for 20 years or even ten years is bad math and bad logic. You draft for who can help you now, and up to five years from now. Nothing more: nothing less.

(06-04-2016 07:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Your theory is flawed. You are saying don't draft at that position because if you overuse him, he may not last forever. Then you are stating if you aren't going to overuse him, he can't be a cornerstone. That is flawed logic. You don't draft for 20 years: few players do that. Even the most overused running backs tend to last 7-8 years: that is PLENTY of time to get your investment back.

Actually in the NFL draft, you only need to look 4-5 years, because that's how long the contracts last. Hey don't have NBA type loopholes that all but guarantee you retain the best of players. They are unrestricted free agents. So drafting for 20 years or even ten years is bad math and bad logic. You draft for who can help you now, and up to five years from now. Nothing more: nothing less.

Why is that bad logic? Why wouldn't you draft someone who, if he reaches his potential, should be good until his early 30's before declining and who is retiring around 35 instead of someone who's timeline is declining at 27 and then retired by 32 at best? Is it not more prudent to use a draft pick on someone with a much higher potential to have a longer career?

The article is two years old but it is still relevant: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_...ter-age-27

Here are a couple more: http://www.rotowire.com/football/showArt...m?id=20883 http://www.rotowire.com/football/showArt...m?id=20975

Replacing your star players after 7 - 8 years in the league is inefficient. What would be even worse is to sign Elliott to a big contract extension after his rookie deal with lots of guaranteed money when he'd only be useful for a few more seasons. If that becomes the case, then why bother even offering a second contract? Just franchise tag him a year and then let him walk after six years of hopefully elite production. What other position would you even consider doing that with? A running back's best years are his early ones so a second contract will just be more expensive for less production. The Cowboys could have drafted nearly any other running back and received a much better production per cost ratio. If teams only need to look at the next 4-5 years, then it makes more sense to draft a defensive difference maker with the 4th pick and then draft a running back who can just plug in and get a little less production at a much less cost. Or don't draft a linebacker who won't play his first year.