Why You Can't Just Put ANY Running Back Behind A Great Offensive Line
8/21/16
When an opinion on a certain topic is popular and the majority seems to agree with it, I completely understand the reasons why the opinion is popular even if I don't have the same opinion. Ever since the Dallas Cowboys have rebuilt their offensive line and reestablished a dominant running game with DeMarco Murray in 2014, an old popular myth has been brought back to life. The myth is this: Any running back can run behind the Cowboys' offensive line. This ridiculous theory originated in the early 1990's when Emmitt Smith was the man carrying the load in the backfield.
To me, the belief that the best offensive line in the NFL can make rushing champions out of average RBs is up there with Jerry Jones saying years ago that "500 coaches could win the Super Bowl with this team". I honestly don't know which one is worse. By no means do I consider myself a football expert, but what I do know is this: No matter how great an offensive line is, you can't just put ANY running back behind them and expect the production to be the same. I have seen too much evidence over the years that proves this theory to be false.
People forget that running back is a SKILL position. Does the RB have the ability to make incoming defensive players miss or run over them? Does he have the breakaway speed to outrun defenders when he gets into the open field? Can he pick up yards after contact? What about getting those tough 1 or 2 yards on 3rd down when everybody in the stadium knows that he's getting the ball? Can he get those tough yards when adjustments are made after halftime, where most games are usually won or lost? Nobody remembers or even cares that you got off to a fast start if you can't finish. Does the RB have receiving skills? Can he protect the quarterback on passing plays? All of those traits factor into being a complete RB with all of the skills necessary to handle the position.
What also gets overlooked with RBs is the fact that maximizing the blocking in front of you is a skill. It's a skill that not all backs have in equal proportion. Even with a great offensive line, a RB still has to know how to hit the hole, when to hit it, when to be patient, and how he can use his vision to keep the chains moving. There have been a few running backs over the years that have benefited from great blocking more than most, but the best backs are creators. They use their physical abilities and the understanding of the system they play in to make things happen in unfavorable situations. In other words, they have the ability to do more than what their blockers create if need be. Emmitt Smith had all of these skills in abundance. That's why it's BS to say that he was only good because of his offensive line.
The offensive line is critical to the success of a running back because they open up the holes that allow the back to get down the field, but I believe that great running backs make a line better more so than the other way around. Again, even with a great line the RB still has to have the vision to hit the holes and know where to go. Running backs don't get clear paths to the end zone just because the offensive line is great. If you put some spare RB behind a great line, the line won't look as good in terms of run blocking because the RB's skills would be insufficient to take advantage of the blocking. The line can have Pro Bowlers at every position, but without that great runner they will see average effort and production in the running game every week. This can wear on the psyche of even the most dominant of offensive lines.
Because of this myth, there is a big misconception that having a great offensive line means that any and all running plays will work all the time. So many people believe that because a line is so good that it just comes together and holes just open up. The RB has just as much to do with it. A great offensive line can make an OK back serviceable, but if you want consistently great performances, you'll need a quality RB. It all starts with the line, but it helps to have a runner that they know will fight for some tough yards if they don't get the big push up front. Not to mention that the line feeds off of that. We saw these dynamics within the Cowboys' running game in 2014 and 2015.
In 2014, DeMarco Murray had a record-breaking season, rushing for a league-leading 1,845 yards and 13 touchdowns, which tied him for the league lead. That season earned him the Offensive Player Of The Year award. He gave the Cowboys offense their smash-mouth, run-first identity, and the rest of the team fed off of that energy. He can be replaced easier than Tony Romo or Dez Bryant, but the Cowboys wouldn't have won 12 games and been so close to a Super Bowl without him. The Cowboys front office convinced themselves that with their offensive line the running game wouldn't miss a beat with the runners that they had left, so they let Murray walk after his historic season. They missed him much more than they thought they would.
After the Cowboys let DeMarco Murray go, they passed on selecting a RB in the ensuing draft, named Joseph Randle the starter, and signed Darren McFadden as insurance. Those 2 backs, along with 3rd down running back Lance Dunbar, combined for 976 rushing yards in 2014 - 53% of Murray's total. The biggest question mark for the Cowboys going into the 2015 season was how Joseph Randle would perform as the feature back in Murray's place. When you let a RB go that led the NFL in rushing with 1,845 yards, you are gambling on the belief that you have an offensive line that can bring something special out of a back that hasn't proved to be an upper echelon NFL player. The Cowboys found out in 2015 that no matter how good your offensive line is, the running back matters.
The offensive line didn't look as good in 2015 without that stud RB to compliment them. As the season moved along, there was more and more talk about them being overrated, mostly in the media. It's funny how so many of the same people that were giving the line most of the credit for DeMarco Murray's great 2014 season were blaming them for not opening up holes for a couple of average backs that need space and a parting of the Red Sea to be effective. The perception of an average effort from the offensive line, as well as their psyche, was a direct reflection of the backs lining up behind them and the success that was being had by them. An offensive line will ALWAYS enthusiastically embrace a RB that consistently moves the chains, control the clock, and mix in the occasional long run. When those elements are missing from the running game, it's detrimental to the psyche of the guys in the trenches.
Here's an excerpt from my previous blog that further emphasizes my point:
Since 2011, the Cowboys have used 3 first round picks to rebuild the line, and last year signed a first round talent in La'el Collins as an undrafted free agent. With that being said, it just made too much sense not to take Zeke. With all of the resources that were put into building the line, the best way to get a return on that investment is to get the best running back you can find and put him behind them. If not, you are putting a lot of pressure on your offensive line to make average RBs good, and also wasting a great line. Putting average RBs behind an elite offensive line is like buying a Bentley or Rolls-Royce and putting the cheapest gas in it. How often do you get the chance to put the best running back in the draft behind the best offensive line in the NFL? An elite RB can turn what was an above average to good running game in 2015 into the elite running game it was in 2014.
One thing that often gets overlooked in the equation is the chemistry between a running back and his offensive line. Emmitt Smith had it with his line, and DeMarco Murray had it with his. Chemistry takes time to build. I also believe that it outweighs saving money in contract negotiations. It's not easy to create chemistry, so when you have it you should keep it. I don't think you can put a price on how valuable it is to have a situation where the line and the RB know each other's tendencies and abilities. You can have a back that's gifted and has all of the attributes, but not understand or have a feel for what's going on. With that being said, when you replace your lead RB, chemistry has to be built between the offensive line and the new back.
The relationship between a running back and his offensive line is a partnership - a mutually inclusive effort. One can either drag the other one down or make it look better. They get better as they work together. This is a big reason why I feel like you can't put anybody in your backfield and expect to not miss a beat. This was the biggest myth in football 20 years ago, and since the Cowboys have fixed their offensive line, it's the biggest myth in football today.
Back then (and still to this day), there was a widespread assumption that if Barry Sanders had Emmitt Smith's offensive line he would do better than Emmitt. The exact words I hear people use most are, "If Barry had Emmitt's line he would have 2,000 yards every year." I'm sorry, but nobody will ever get me to believe that one. This has nothing to do with me being a Cowboys fan. First of all, Emmitt and Barry had different running styles. If Barry had run behind the Cowboys' line, would he have developed the patience to wait for them to open up holes? What about waiting for the right moment to explode up the field? Those 2 skills were critical necessities behind that offensive line.
Even if you replace a back with another one that's similar in talent level, but is a different style runner, it still won't work......especially if the line is built to fit the RB that you replaced. Barry ran a bunch of tosses and sweeps because he had that extra gear that Emmitt didn't have, which has nothing to do with ball control and eating up the clock. I'm not sure the Cowboys had a line that could handle that style of runner. With all the size they had, they were more built for north-south runners. Not having the right back to compliment your line will limit what your offense can do. In other words, you can't just put a different style runner behind an offensive line - even if it is Emmitt or Barry - and expect the same results.
One other key contributor to this myth is the changes that the NFL has made in recent years. The evolution of offenses and rule changes designed to increase scoring has led to the devaluing of running backs and the belief that it's a plug-n-play position. As a result, the belief is that you can find solid contributors at literally any point in the draft, which has caused teams to shy away from picking a RB high in the draft. Most teams have also shifted to a running back-by-committee approach, as well as a short passing game as a substitute for a running game.
I have NEVER been a fan of the RBBC approach, and never will be. I believe running backs need touches to get into a rhythm and get stronger as the game goes on, which is hard for them to do when they go in and out of the game with limited carries. Whether it's by specialty or limitation, each back in the committee brings different skills to the table. A lot of teams feel like this approach is the best way to game plan each back into their best situation, but depending on which back is in the game and when, it could tip off the opposing defense to your plays. These are the biggest reasons why I don't like the RBBC approach.
To me, versatility the most overlooked and important part of being a running back. If you have a complete back that can do it all - run inside with power, run outside with speed, block, and catch out of the backfield, you can keep the defense guessing all day. Having a stud offensive line is great, but having a back with all the necessary skills and durability to carry the load is better. In 2014, DeMarco Murray's production overcompensated for a defense that overachieved and allowed them to be off the field twice as much as previous seasons. It also made Tony Romo's job much easier. After Murray left, the Cowboys couldn't make up for the lost production.
The obvious silver lining to finishing the 2015 season with a 4-12 record was the drafting of Ezekiel Elliott with the #4 overall pick in April. The Cowboys did have other pressing needs, but I don't see how you could pass on the player who could have the most immediate impact on the team, as well as the opportunity to put the best running back in the draft behind the league's best offensive line. Besides, who knows when we would get another chance to add a talent of Zeke's caliber to the team? Again, the Cowboys would have been doing the offensive line a huge disservice by not putting a star RB behind them.
Speaking in generalities, I also want to point out that the Cowboys most certainly could have found other running backs to produce, but an 1,100-yard rusher won't have the same impact on an offense that an 1,800-yard back would. Having a back capable of rushing for 1,800 yards draws an extra defender into the box for run support, opens up the passing lanes for the QB, and opens up the whole playbook for an offense. This keeps defenses honest and not sure if they should play the run or pass. In other words, PICK YOUR POISON. An added bonus to having a player like that is that his mere presence instantly helps the QB's durability, mainly because whenever he's on the field he has to be accounted for.
One last thing......great runners watch what great offensive lines provide for them and then take full advantage of it. I believe Ezekiel Elliott will do just that. I'm especially looking forward to seeing him using his vision and mental decisiveness to hit the zone blocks that he'll get from his line. With Zeke in the fold, I'm ready to see if the Cowboys coaches have enough confidence in the running game to go to it in clutch situations. I'm ready for Zeke to prove that it really does matter what running back you put behind your offensive line.
Why I Feel Picking Zeke Was The Right Move For The 'Boys
6/3/16
Most of the talk about the Dallas Cowboys' plans for the 2016 NFL Draft was centered around what they would do with the 4th overall pick. Apparently, the choices for them were narrowed down to Ohio State running back Ezekiel Elliott and Florida State defensive back Jalen Ramsey. It was speculated all throughout the media that the Cowboys were leaning towards Ramsey if he was still available when it was their turn to pick. I like Ramsey, but I'm glad we didn't go that route with our first pick. Here's why:
For starters, we don't know what his position will be in the NFL. Will he be asked to do what he did at Florida State in the NFL, or would he be a cornerback full-time? You don't draft a CB at #4 unless he's an absolute shutdown corner. Jalen Ramsey was projected better as a safety than corner, but he doesn't want to play safety. I just can't see going all-in at #4 and allocating $26 million to a player who would likely be asked to change positions.
Let's say the Cowboys did draft Jalen Ramsey and make him a full-time CB. They have a pair of 9-year veterans starting at corner in Orlando Scandrick and Brandon Carr. How would Ramsey get quality playing time at CB with both of them locked in and healthy? Is it really worth using the 4th pick on a player that would be battling Morris Claiborne for the nickel CB spot? Even if you put Ramsey at safety, SS in particular, he still would still be in the same situation. For all of Barry Church's flaws in pass coverage, he led the Cowboys with 78 solo tackles in 2015 and is a team captain. How do you replace a team captain with a rookie? Where would Church get moved to?
I personally believe that Jalen Ramsey would get shuffled around in the beginning. If everybody stayed healthy, his playing time would have been limited. He would have likely been a nickel corner or play sporadically at free safety. The Cowboys also might have started Ramsey at CB and moved him to SS in 2017 once Barry Church becomes an unrestricted free agent, which would hinder his development. To believe that Jalen Ramsey would come in and transform the Cowboys defense right away would have been wishful thinking. Very seldom does a defensive back come in and contribute right away as a rookie.
Something else to consider, is that the Cowboys already have a Jalen Ramsey-type player on the team.....his name is Byron Jones. In fact, if you compare their numbers from the Scouting Combine, you will see that BJ had the better numbers and was graded better than Ramsey, it's just that injuring his shoulder in his senior year at UConn made him fall to the bottom of the 1st round in the 2015 NFL Draft. After the knee injury to Orlando Scandrick and sub par play from J.J. Wilcox, BJ was able to step in and show his versatility and play well enough to finish 3rd in Defensive ROY voting.
Before the draft, I had a few conversations (in person and through social media) with a few fellow Cowboys fans that said that Jalen Ramsey is "way better" than Byron Jones. For everybody that feels that way, check this out: In 2015, Byron Jones played 249 snaps as an outside corner, 185 as a slot corner, 270 as a free safety, and 186 as a strong safety or extra linebacker in the box. He was solid against the run, but it was his coverage skills that made him a top-3 defensive rookie, finishing the season with 6 pass breakups. BJ even wowed the Cowboys coaches with his ability to lock down tight ends in the passing game. Him shutting down Rob Gronkowski, the best TE in the NFL, as a rookie speaks volumes.
It's cool to want a certain player on your team, but let's not diminish the accomplishments of somebody that's already on the team, who has already proven that he can adequately do what was said that he couldn't. In no way am I saying that Jalen Ramsey isn't as good or won't be better than Byron Jones, but to say that BJ can't hold his jockstrap at this point is just wrong. I think I'll reserve my judgement and see if Ramsey can even accomplish what BJ did in his rookie season before I can make a claim either way.
At the end of the day, here are the 2 single biggest reasons why I don't see Jalen Ramsey making a huge immediate impact:
1.) Defensive backs have a tough transition from college to the NFL.
It takes 2 or 3 years for a defensive back to make the transition at the next level. They might have the ball skills, speed, and change-of-direction ability to compete in the NFL, but these DBs struggle mainly with technique, identifying offenses, and matching the tempo of the game starting out. Here's an example of these things:
Technique - In college, a defensive back can get away with sub par technique sometimes because of his athletic ability, closing speed, and the limited routes they see from receivers at that level. This allows a DB to take false steps, sit on routes, and play with poor eye discipline. Their talent level gives them opportunities to recover against college competition.
Defensive backs with poor technique won't last long in the NFL, especially with the speed and route-running ability of veteran receivers along with the arm strength and ball placement of experienced quarterbacks. Most rookies don't have the necessary skill set to keep up, starting with their inability to play off-man.
At the NFL level is where a DB will experience multiple breaking routes, deep intermediate cuts, and some advanced route-running that includes a wide variety of stems and release points to widen defenders at the break point. This is how footwork and leverage get exposed, and the rookie DB finds himself in a trail position against receivers (or tight ends) that keeps them from recovering to the point of attack. That's when panic sets in for the DB, forcing him to pull or grab while not being able to find the ball.
Identifying Offenses - This starts with learning how to properly study film. Every nuance from splits to formations to routes ran by receivers add up for rookies because they don't have the experience of tape study at the NFL level. NFL offenses consistently disguise their alignments and formations, but the concepts don't change. The ability for cornerbacks and safeties to identify those concepts comes with time and hours of film study. Once this ability is developed, it will allow the player to make more plays on the field. Rookies have A LOT to learn in the film room.
Matching The NFL Tempo - A rookie defensive back has to learn how to simplify the game to match the faster tempo on this level. I'm aware of there being some defensive schemes and pressure packages that are difficult and overwhelming, but there is only so much you can do with 11 players on the field. The rookie just needs to focus on his job, his responsibility on every snap, and break the game down to a level that allows him to play fast. Once these rookies start getting reps on the field and developing their technique and learn how to study film, the game will slow down to a point where they can process their reads and match up consistently with the veteran receivers in the NFL.
2.) Drafting for need instead of going with the best player available is football suicide.
First, let me give you these definitions. As far as the draft goes, "need" means filling a hole and "desire" means reinforcing a strength. In this case, the 2016 Cowboys have a "need" for depth at cornerback, safety, and linebacker because we see holes opening up at those positions within the next year or two. They have a "desire" for an elite running game because having a running back like Ezekiel Elliott behind that offensive line would turn what would have been a good offense into an elite one (if everybody stays healthy).
The smartest NFL GMs go for the best player available over need, at least in the first 3 rounds of the draft. That leads to an overall higher level of talent on your roster. here are the reasons I feel like drafting for need is so dangerous:
1.) You pass up more talented players for the sake of short term fixes.
2.) The same needs you have on draft day might not be the same needs you have when you break training camp and are getting ready for the first game. As violent as pro football is, 1 play, 1 injury changes your needs assessment drastically.
3.) Your misses in the draft are magnified because your focus was so narrow. You ignored other players with star potential at other positions.
4.) You limit your trade options and your flexibility.
I think it's better to fill needs in free agency, because you already have an idea of what the free agent can do at the professional level. You know what type of environment they thrived in and you got to watch their strengths and weaknesses. You are more likely to have a bust in the draft than free agency. Again, if you draft for need the player drafted might not be developed enough to come in and fill that need right away. To an owner or a GM, a draft bust means putting millions of dollars into a paper shredder. To a fan, it just means having to wait another year for a chance to draft a player that could help their favorite team. It might seem easy from the outside, but there is so much more that goes into these draft choices than the average fan will ever know.
If you were on the Jalen Ramsey bandwagon, you need to ask yourself: "How is it that the Cowboys have used so many resources to fix the defense the last several years and still have the same problems?" The team has a locker room full of first round talent on defense....and the defense still has been sub par. Why is that? Better yet, explain how a rookie defensive back would have fixed the defense. The Cowboys have tried too many times to fix the defense by putting resources into the secondary. It hasn't worked because DBs are only as good as the defensive line in front of them. Bolstering your secondary won't matter if your front 7 can't put pressure on the QB.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't have hated it if the Cowboys picked Jalen Ramsey at #4, but there are just too many question marks to go all-in at that spot and take a player who could possibly be asked to change positions. Besides, the Cowboys defense has too many holes in it for one guy to come in and make a real difference on that side of the ball. In other words, draft for TODAY. Get the player that would have the most immediate impact for the team. This is why picking Ezekiel Elliott made the most sense for us.
Even if a player doesn't fill a need, drafting him can still help your team. Drafting the best player available can turn something you are mediocre at into a great strength, opposed to drafting for need, which could turn something you are terrible at into a mediocre strength. There is a fixed amount of quality talent in the draft, and every team in the NFL is vying for it. Going BPA allows you to potentially come out of the draft with more quality than other teams. If you take a player in a position of need, then quality is not necessarily a priority for you. With quality players being a scarce resource, you are allowing other teams to improve incrementally more than your own team. You never want to waste the value of a draft spot because of a perceived roster hole. If you really can't use the best player available, then you should trade down and use that pick to its fullest value.
Again, just because a team might be thin at a particular position, it doesn't mean they need to draft for that position. The most common logic among Cowboys fans was, "We can get good production from the running backs we have because the offensive line is so good. We need defense." The value positions (defensive end, cornerback) are where teams will look first if they pick as high as the Cowboys did in the 2016 NFL Draft. I see it like this: Being on the clock with the #4 pick, you don't have a blue-chip player at RB but you regard Ezekiel Elliott as a blue-chip talent, why would you pass on the blue-chip talent to take a lesser talent at a position of need? That's where franchises can get themselves in a lot of trouble. If you go by who the best player is on your board at that time and not worry about need or depth at a position, it usually works out well for you.
The best example that I can come up with is from 1977, which was the last time the Cowboys drafted a RB that high. At that time, RB wasn't a glaring need for them either. The Cowboys were already Super Bowl contenders with Robert Newhouse, Preston Pearson, and Doug Dennison carrying the ball. That backfield helped the Cowboys to an 11-3 record in 1976, and 10-4 with a narrow loss in the Super Bowl the year before that. After Tony Dorsett made it clear that he didn't want to play for the Seahawks, an expansion team in 1976, the Cowboys traded up to take the 1976 Heisman Trophy winner and NCAA all-time leading rusher at #2.
Here are some more recent examples of BPA over need:
1998: The Vikings already had 2 legitimate starting wide receivers with Cris Carter and Jake Reed when Randy Moss fell to them at the 21st pick.
2000: The Ravens had an excellent RB in Priest Holmes, and even had Errict Rhett, who led the team in rushing in 1999 because of injuries to Holmes. In the 2000 NFL Draft, the Ravens took Jamal Lewis with the 5th pick.
2007: The Vikings had Chester Taylor, a pretty decent RB who was coming off a 1,200-yard season. They had a bunch of other needs that were more pressing. What did they do with the 7th pick that year? They drafted Adrian Peterson. He had the most immediate impact of all rookies in 2007, and won Offensive ROY.
2010: The Cowboys were coming off an 11-5 season and a playoff berth in 2009, and it was especially a good year for the receiving corps. Miles Austin had a breakout year with 81 catches, 1,320 yards, and 11 touchdowns. Roy Williams was still serviceable, Patrick Crayton was as good as it gets for a 3rd receiver, and prime Jason Witten had 90+ catches for over 1,000 yards. Guess what the Cowboys did in the 2010 NFL Draft? After seeing Dez Bryant falling, they traded up to #24 and took him.
Bottom line, having a special player trumps having a good player at a position of need. For everybody that insisted that the Cowboys go defense with their first pick, answer this question for me:
How important is it to you to protect your quarterback and keep him in one piece for the season?
Let's keep in mind that our QB happens to be 36 years old, has had 2 recent back surgeries, and is recovering from a broken collarbone for the 3rd time. If we don't protect him by giving him an elite running game again, we could force him into retirement a year or 2 before he's ready. Losing DeMarco Murray last year hurt more than a lot of people want to admit. Drafting Ezekiel Elliott gives us a golden opportunity to get back what we lost when we lost Murray. This was the Cowboys' RB situation before the draft:
1.) We have a RB who even though he finished 4th in the NFL in rushing last year, has a rich history of injuries. In his 8 NFL seasons, he has only been healthy for 2 of them, and he'll turn 29 before the season starts. This RB is also a square peg trying to fit into a round hole with the zone-blocking scheme the offensive line uses. Oh, and by the way, he only scored 3 TDs last year running behind the league's best offensive line.
2.) We signed a RB this offseason that went from 1,600 yards and a Pro Bowl in his rookie season to 750 yards and just 1 TD, and a demotion last year. On a positive note, he has never missed a game in his career. On the flip side, as his yardage totals decreased, so did his yards per carry average. We don't know what we have in him, and he'll be 28 by the end of the season.
3.) We have a RB that's coming off of reconstructive knee surgery and won't be ready for the start of the season. He'll likely start the year out on the PUP (Physically Unable to Perform) list, meaning he won't be available for the first 6 weeks.
Would you really feel comfortable going into the 2016 season with that kind of situation at RB? By drafting Zeke, we got a potential All-Pro and possibly could have solidified the position for years to come, even making the transition easier for our next quarterback. Now think about the QBs we'll have to face in 2016: Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, and even Eli Manning twice. In the playoffs we could even possibly seeing Drew Brees, Cam Newton, or Russell Wilson. What's our best chance at beating them? KEEPING THEM OFF THE FIELD with a strong running game. Yes, the Cowboys needed defense, but no one player was going to come in and change things on that side of the ball because there are too many holes. But a young stud RB can come in and have an immediate impact on offense and keep the defense off the field and well-rested.
Another reason drafting Ezekiel Elliott made the most sense, is that having him in the backfield maximizes our offensive line. Since 2011, the Cowboys have used 3 first round picks to rebuild the line, and last year signed a first round talent in La'el Collins as an undrafted free agent. With that being said, it just made too much sense not to take Zeke. With all of the resources that were put into building the line, the best way to get a return on that investment is to get the best running back you can find and put him behind them. If not, you are putting a lot of pressure on your offensive line to make average RBs good, and also wasting a great line. Putting average RBs behind an elite offensive line is like buying a Bentley or Rolls-Royce and putting the cheapest gas in it. How often do you get the chance to put the best running back in the draft behind the best offensive line in the NFL? An elite RB can turn what was an above average to good running game in 2015 into the elite running game it was in 2014. Thankfully, the Cowboys got the pick right.
Not only did the Cowboys draft the best player available in Ezekiel Elliott, who in my opinion was the prize of the draft, but they got the best player who gives them the best chance to win right away. Having Zeke also helps protect Tony Romo and maximize the years we have left with him. It's not just his ability to block, it has more to do with Zeke's presence on the field and the fact that he has to be accounted for. That keeps defenses honest and wondering whether they should play the run or pass. It's a pick-your-poison situation. Zeke also seems to be the perfect fit for what the Cowboys want in a running back. He can plant his foot in the ground and go with his excellent vision. He has the quickness to shed tacklers if the blocking is not up to par. He's big enough to create his own hole, which is a must in short yardage situations. Because of Zeke's ability to block and catch passes, he doesn't have to come off the field either.
Here is something else that the "Team Ramsey" crowd should know: In 2015, the Cowboys had 8 total rushing touchdowns all season, and 4 of those were from Joseph Randle. He was the team's leader despite only playing 6 games. The Cowboys lost 12 games last year mainly because the offense could only muster up 17.2 points per game and couldn't keep the ball long enough to let the defense get a breather. The team was in every game last season with the defense they had, the defense was just on the field too long, which made that unit look worse than what it was. Besides, how many NFL teams have a defense that's great enough to overcome losing an 1,800-yard rusher, their leader/starting QB, a top 5 receiver, and their best 3rd down option?
Adding Ezekiel Elliott will help the Cowboys' defense as well as the offense. How? By keeping them off the field. With the offense back to controlling the time of possession, the defense will be on the field for 12-15 less plays, making them fresher and more effective late in games. Again, defense wasn't the team's biggest problem last year, it was the inability to sustain drives and score in the red zone. Dan Bailey was the Cowboys' leading scorer in 2015. Your kicker should NEVER be your main source of offense. Having Zeke on your team changes all of those things.
One more reason why I feel that drafting Zeke was the right move is.....the Cowboys defense has so many holes in it that by the time it gets fixed it'll be time to rebuild the offense. In fact, the Cowboys need defense every year. We spend more picks on defense in the draft and STILL need defense in every draft. I'm always looking for the defensive players that they draft and barely see any of them on the field, and the ones I do see are playing but not making much of an impact. It's the same old problem every year. Drafting for need has usually resulted in getting a substandard player. Most of the times the Cowboys have done it, like when we drafted Shante Carver, Greg Ellis, and Ebeneezer Ekuban, the administration graded on a curve and talked themselves into believing that the grade was close enough. I was concerned that Joey Bosa would fit into the same category. Thankfully, the Cowboys didn't let the suspensions of DeMarcus Lawrence and Randy Gregory pressure them into forcing the selection of a defensive end.
In my opinion, there was no sure thing pick for the defense in the first round. To reiterate my point from earlier, let me ask this question again: What good is having Jalen Ramsey when our pass rush is still suspect? A defensive back can only cover his man for so long. Coverage starts with the defensive line, then at the 2nd level. The secondary needs the Front 7 in both pass rush and coverage. EVERY.....SINGLE.....TIME!! Since the defense is still a long way from being a well-oiled machine, why not go back to pounding the rock and controlling games? To me, picking Ezekiel Elliott was the only logical move. We just couldn't neglect our offense in the first 2 rounds like we did last year.
The running back position has been devalued in recent years. As a result of that along with all of the changes made in the NFL geared toward an increase in scoring, teams have shied away from taking a running back high in the draft. The popular belief lately has been that you can find solid contributors at literally any point in the draft. This belief is wildly popular among Cowboys fans (and the media) who believe that any RB can run behind the Cowboys' offensive line. I can preach ALL DAY LONG about how that's just NOT TRUE, but that's another blog in itself. For now, I'll just say this: Over the years there have been several RBs that have benefited from great blocking more than most, but the best RBs are creators. They use their physical abilities and the understanding of the system they play in to make things happen in unfavorable situations. Also, if your line uses a zone blocking scheme, having a straight-line runner behind them will limit what your offense can do.
In any other year it might have made sense to hold off on picking a running back, but this was not most drafts. Other than Zeke, we had a top 5 with 2 QBs that both have huge question marks, a DE that didn't grade out as an elite pass rusher, and a secondary player without an exact position or an interception. We even had an injured LB getting some consideration in the top 5. It just so happened that the best player available and the one that would have the most immediate impact was a RB, a position that wasn't a glaring need for the Cowboys. Considering everything Zeke brings to the table, we just couldn't pass on him. Who knows when we would get another shot at adding talent of his caliber to the team? Speaking in generalities, I also want to point out that the Cowboys could find other backs to produce, but an 1,100-yard rusher won't have the same impact on an offense that an 1,800-yard back would. Like I said earlier, the Cowboys would have been doing that offensive line a huge disservice by not putting a star RB behind them.
Here's one other observation that I wanted to make:
The last time the Cowboys drafted a running back in the top 5.......
-He was the NFL's Offensive ROY.
-They won a Super Bowl in his rookie year.
-They went back to the Super Bowl the next year. His QB (also an older QB) was the #1 rated passer in the league that season.
-They went to 5 conference championships in his first 6 seasons.
-He set just about every Cowboy record for his time.
-He was inducted into the Hall Of Fame.
Before the draft, the big dilemma about the Cowboys' draft position was: Should they pick the player that can most help the team immediately? Or should they pick the player that would help the most for the next decade? In my opinion, the answer to both of those questions could be the same guy.......Ezekiel Elliott. Again, he maximizes the 2-3 year window with Tony Romo, as well as transitioning the next QB who can lean on a strong running game as he learns the ropes. Just going off of potential, Zeke is the best all-around RB the Cowboys have had since Emmitt Smith. Adding him to the mix gives the team a less expensive upgrade to a position that carried the offensive load in 2014. He also brings the same toughness to the Cowboys that DeMarco Murray used to. Hopefully Zeke can go on and add to what's already a rich tradition at the RB position. I would love to see him one day make the Cowboys the first team in the NFL with a 3rd 10,000-yard rusher. If nothing else, I'm looking forward to seeing Zeke prove that taking him at No. 4 overall in the 2016 NFL Draft was well worth it.
