Alfred Morris Agrees to 2 Year deal with Dallas

[Too Loud 5]

I keep hearing people say "Alf will be a beast, they made DMC look good last year." Last I checked, DMC is still there and has taken advantage of his fresh start. Alf is an interesting reserve right now, nothing more. Upside for sure but not a starter by any means. Better than Randle who last year I had ranked as a 10th round flier at best (no I'm not lying, he was one of my patented "too low" guys).

if you do not catch passes you are not worth much to me in ppr. this comes down to how much is he going to actually touch the ball. he wont catch passes and he will have to share carries. he will get the gl carries and that should prove worth in the 6-8 td range.

[Cruzer 1,992]

When you have a force multiplier, hedge to your advantage. But Dallas fans, and I've talked and heard from countless of them, feel because their offensive line is so bad-ass that they can skimp and go cheap at running back.

Again, black and white it is not... Do you hedge your advantages? Yes, sometimes. But sometimes doing so doesn't help your overall football team if X, y, z isn't worth a crap.

 

Divisional playoff game, Dal v. GB:

 

* Romo throws for 2 tds, no picks

* Murray runs for 123, 4.9 ypc

 

All the ball control offense you can have from your running game, in fact Dallas lead the Pack in time of poss... Yet, bcoz this team could not get GB off the field or make a stop when it mattered - we got beat... On 1 freaking leg, we could not get to, or stop, a hobbled Rogers. He and the Pack go 9-14 on 3rd down conversions... Twice in fact, on 3rd down - Rogers completes passes for TDs..

 

Building on a strength for this team doesn't fix the problem. Your strength, the line, will give you enough of what you need on that side of the ball - we have to make the other side an asset, not a hang-on liability.

[Cruzer 1,992]

 

in research terms, you have created a selection problem. anyone chosen with the first 10 picks is most likely getting drafted by a very poor team, and is therefore automatically less likely to be successful than a player chosen later (even if the later guy has less talent). DMC had talent, but he got drafted by a dumpster fire of an organization--this might have had something to do with his lack of success. spiller didn't join a strong organization either-- two 1st round RB picks in three years says something about buffalo. bush got drafted by a pass-first offense. so really, the only comp in that list is peterson.

 

you've also conflated market value with use value--they're two different things. you're saying that top RBs are 3rd round talents simply because teams usually don't draft those RBs earlier. but that only relates to the draft market, not to the player's actual usefulness to the team. in other words, teams might be consistently making market errors by mistakenly passing up on very useful players.

 

does that make sense? think about emmitt. in terms of use value, he should have been the first pick in that draft, but 16 teams passed on all that use value (trying to maximize their market value). his market value was 17th, but that doesn't mean that he was a 17th-pick talent. he was a 1st-pick talent who got mistakenly passed over in the market. jimmy certainly wasn't a genius for picking him--jimmy was just lucky. and that luck (combined with building a good organization) turned out to make him look extremely good.

 

 

to get back to today, the question revolves around which one player would have more impact on the team ecosystem. it's possible that elliott has the ability to elevate the entire offense from pretty good to dominant while he is still a rookie. so as we look at the defensive prospects, which one player has the potential to elevate the entire defense while he is still a rookie? do you think ramsey by himself can elevate the entire defense to a playoff level? bosa? jack?

 

who?

Bottom line is, unless you think Elliot is AP, Barry Sanders or even T. Gurley - you don't take him at 4.. You don't pay 4th slot money to an undervalued position... Nor do you fire a top 5 pick at a position that, given this line, the difference between he and the 3rd round guy is probably minimal... How many times did we hear during Emmitt's reign, "Hell, my grandma could run for 1500 yards behind that line."?

 

So who do you take? For me, it's simple... If Wentz is there you take him... After that, you look at Ramsey.. If both are gone, I'd try like hell to move down, pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd - then take the most impactful, playmaking defensive player available.... Dallas got a really bad bit of luck. To finally have a top 4 pick and have the pool of star quality prospects be so thin - figures.

[R8RMick 242]

Again, black and white it is not... Do you hedge your advantages? Yes, sometimes. But sometimes doing so doesn't help your overall football team if X, y, z isn't worth a crap.

 

Divisional playoff game, Dal v. GB:

 

* Romo throws for 2 tds, no picks

* Murray runs for 123, 4.9 ypc

 

All the ball control offense you can have from your running game, in fact Dallas lead the Pack in time of poss... Yet, bcoz this team could not get GB off the field or make a stop when it mattered - we got beat... On 1 freaking leg, we could not get to, or stop, a hobbled Rogers. He and the Pack go 9-14 on 3rd down conversions... Twice in fact, on 3rd down - Rogers completes passes for TDs..

 

Building on a strength for this team doesn't fix the problem. Your strength, the line, will give you enough of what you need on that side of the ball - we have to make the other side an asset, not a hang-on liability.

 

Have heard this from you many times, and it is an argument not without merit. But truth of matter is Dallas isn't even playing in Green Bay without DeMarco Murray and that run game.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Have heard this from you many times, and it is an argument not without merit. But truth of matter is Dallas isn't even playing in Green Bay without DeMarco Murray and that run game.

Very possible... Then again. maybe they are.. Maybe they have a very capable RB, that who behind that line - gets you enough ball control to get you there.

 

At the very least - we've seen the Murray alone theory doesn't work, I know, we tried it... So I'm for trying the alternative - reliable, serviceable back with a bolstered defense.. Bcoz until somebody proves me wrong and actually does it, running games don't win titles, defenses do - I know bcoz we see it year in and year out.

[sirensong 111]

 

So who do you take? For me, it's simple... If Wentz is there you take him... After that, you look at Ramsey.. If both are gone, I'd try like hell to move down, pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd - then take the most impactful, playmaking defensive player available.... Dallas got a really bad bit of luck. To finally have a top 4 pick and have the pool of star quality prospects be so thin - figures.

 

 

one of my posts from BtB:

 

 

We can talk all day long about what ought to happen, so I’ll put my cards on the table and predict what I think is going to happen. I suspect that the FO wants Ramsey or Wentz. If either of those guys are on the board, they’re the pick at 4. If not, I think Jerry will be willing to sacrifice a little value to trade back into the 10-12 range. If he can’t get a good enough deal, Bosa is the pick.