Disclaimer: This hypothetical is solely based on Michael Jordan's claims in The Last Dance documentary that the Bulls would have won their 7th championship in 1999 if they had stayed together. Since we can't go back in time, it's impossible to prove. All we know is that the Spurs are the team that actually won it that year. Most of the media personalities seem to side with MJ in his beliefs, but I personally don't agree with him. Yes, I'm a die hard Spurs fan, but in this hypothetical I'll do my best to be as logical as I can without letting being a fan cloud my judgment.
As always, I use FACTS to back up my claims. If you ever want to dispute any of the facts I present, I would be happy to point you in the right direction so you can do your research. This piece of writing is strictly MY OPINION, but an opinion that will be based on facts. I can't promise that readers won't feel a sense of partiality whenever they read what I write about my favorite teams/players, but the one thing I can promise is that it's based on what actually happened. In other words, you might not agree with the presentation of my narratives, but you WILL NOT find a lie in anything I write.
At the end of the series finale of The Last Dance, Michael Jordan made the claim that he felt like the Bulls could have won a 4th straight NBA championship in 1999, which would have been No. 7 for him and the Bulls franchise. He said that the team was robbed of the opportunity, and that they were entitled to defend what was theirs until somebody took it. I agree with MJ on both of those points. It's a shame that things had to end the way they did.
A Spurs/Bulls 1999 NBA Finals has been a hot topic in the sports world since The Last Dance, a 10-part documentary highlighting the 1997-98 Bulls championship team. I know for sure this matchup would have been highly rated. You had the Spurs Twin Towers of David Robinson and Tim Duncan, co-anchoring a historic defense, going up against a Bulls Big 3 of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman. Then you have the coaching battle between Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson. The big mistake I always see people make when they favor the Bulls in this hypothetical matchup is that they compare what the 1997-98 team did and dismissing the reality of what happened to the players after that season.
Before I get into how I think the series would play out, let me present you with the facts that support my logic:
*Michael Jordan severed a tendon in the index finger on his shooting hand with a faulty cigar cutter.
This happened in early January 1999 on a trip he took to the Bahamas. He had nerve damage that made it hard for him to palm a basketball. MJ needed surgery to fix the finger that would have sidelined him for 2 months if he decided to come back. But he said that by the time this happened he had already decided to retire, even though he didn't make it official until later in the offseason. MJ said in the documentary that he wouldn't have been messing around with a cigar cutter if he knew the team was being kept together.
*Scottie Pippen was coming off an injury-plagued season.
He had surgery on his left foot right before the start of the 1997-98 season that sidelined him for the Bulls' first 35 games. Then in the Eastern Conference Finals, Scottie injured his lower back and then aggravated it in Game 5 of the NBA Finals when he scored the Bulls' first basket of the game on a dunk. He had surgery on his back in the summer of 1998 and was never the same player. Scottie was still a high-end starter, but not the All-NBA player he was before those injuries.
*Scottie Pippen was highly upset about being underpaid for so long and wanted out of Chicago.
He was the 6th highest paid Bulls player and was determined to get a long-term deal done once his Bulls contract ran out. Michael Jordan rationalized that if Phil Jackson had committed to coming back, that he and Phil could have gotten everybody to come back on 1-year deals so they could try to win 1 more championship. I couldn't see a 33-year old Scottie Pippen, who was angry for years about being criminally underpaid with Jerry Krause refusing to renegotiate his contract, on the verge of getting the first big contract of his career, coming off a year where he missed just under half the season, coming off of back surgery, and didn't get along with the Bulls front office leaving money on the table to come back on a 1-year deal. Scottie finally got his money when he was traded to the Rockets.
*The 1997-98 Bulls were an older team and running on fumes.
They would be another year older in 1999, with their nucleus being in their mid to late 30's. Assuming they did stay together, at the time of the 1999 NBA Finals you would have a 36-year old Michael Jordan, 33-year old Scottie Pippen, and a 38-year old Dennis Rodman. To round out the starting lineup, you would have a 35-year old Ron Harper, and Luc Longley being the young one in the group at 30.
*There were other hungry teams on the rise.
The Pacers took the Bulls to 7 games in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals, where the Bulls escaped Game 7 with a 5-point win. The Pacers came back the next year and finished the season in a 3-way tie with the Heat and Magic for best record in the East. The Heat gave up the 2nd fewest points per game in the 1998-99 season and had a tandem of Alonzo Mourning (MVP runner-up) and Tim Hardaway. Zo would have given the Bulls front line fits. There was also the eventual conference champion Knicks, who weren't a true 8th seed. They upset the Heat in the 1st round and went on to eventually lose to the Spurs in the Finals. It's hard to imagine a Bulls team with Michael Jordan losing to the Heat or the Knicks, but seeing how the Pacers had them on the ropes in 1998 showed how much motivation teams had in dethroning them.
*The NBA squeezed a 50-game regular season into 90 days in 1999.
People look at the fact that the regular season was just 50 games and assume that would have given the Bulls an advantage because they were running on fumes. The season came after just 12 days for training camp, where rosters weren't even fully set because of free agency also going on at the time. Squeezing in 50 games in 90 days resulted in some instances where teams had 3 games in 3 nights, 3 in 4 nights, and plenty of back-to-backs. The quality of play suffered because there was little time to practice and players had to quickly work themselves back into shape. A grind like that would have been hell on the Bulls, especially since they played 58 playoff games over the previous 3 years. There was no such thing as load management back then, so the Bulls would have had to play their stars as much as it took to secure home court advantage because only 6 games separated the 8 playoff teams in the East by the time the regular season ended.
For the sake of this hypothetical projection, let's say Phil Jackson called a truce with Jerry Krause and agreed to come back for another year. Michael Jordan was somehow able to convince Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and all the role players to take 1-year deals. Now the Bulls have everything they need in place to try and become the first team since Bill Russell's Celtics to win 4 championships in a row. But there would be significant obstacles standing in their way, even in the East, because that conference still had the teams that made the road to their last championship difficult. In the end, they would run into a buzz saw in the Spurs and come up short. Here's how I see it playing out:
First of all, keep in mind that whatever the Bulls accomplish in this projection is under the assumption that the players' bodies would hold up long enough for them to go out and make it happen, which was far from a guarantee under the circumstances. The Bulls were worn out physically and mentally by 1999. The biggest thing working against them in this situation would be 302 games played in the previous 3 seasons. Exhaustion is often a major factor in dynasties falling off. There's also the fact that the 1998-99 season was a very condensed 50-game schedule, which is not good for old legs.
Here's a look at the star players for both teams and what they had going on........
Spurs
Tim Duncan: He was a monster in his 2nd year in the NBA. This a 23-year old pre-knee injury Tim Duncan we're talking about. He was fast, mobile, and athletic. Not to mention young and hungry. TD was a quiet assassin on offense and a terror on defense. He would have been too dominant, and wouldn't have been intimidated by Dennis Rodman's antics. TD put up double-doubles the first 2 times he faced The Worm in his career, with 19 points and 22 rebounds the first time, and then 14 and 12 the other time. With TD's improvement from his rookie season to Year 2, imagine how he would have feasted on a 38-year old Dennis Rodman.
Here's what former Bull and 3-time champion BJ Armstrong said about TD on ESPN's First Take leading up to the documentary:
"Technically speaking, Tim Duncan, to me, is a player that is really just probably as unique of a talent that I've seen in the NBA. And if you're going to have a player that's going to be able to counter a talent like Michael Jordan, who was almost like flawless technically in his game, Tim Duncan can do that because he could do things - not only offensively but defensively - to control the game."
David Robinson: He was in his 10th season and wanted to win a championship very badly. Athletic big men were the Bulls' kryptonite, so who would guard David Robinson? Granted, he wasn't the same guy that averaged 25 points and 11 rebounds in his first 7 seasons, but he was still an elite athlete at 33 years old. Also, by 1999 The Admiral appeared to finally be at peace with who he was and what he did so well. He was also noticeably playing with more fire and more of a sense of urgency.
Bulls
Michael Jordan: He was clearly slipping. From 1988-1997, in every year he played MJ led the NBA in offensive and total win shares, win shares per 48, offensive box plus/minus, total BPM, and value over replacement player. By every advanced statistical measure, MJ was the best player in basketball for a whole decade straight. He didn't lead any of those categories in the 1997-98 season, his last with the Bulls. His PER (25.2) and VORP (7.1) in that season were career-lows with the Bulls. MJ's raw numbers had also started to decline, and his shooting efficiency was dropping off. He wasn't terrible by any means, given the fact that he won his 5th MVP trophy, but he was no longer the clear-cut winner.
Fast forward a year and now Michael Jordan is 36 years old and the years have taken their toll. He seemed perfectly fine with playing 39 minutes per game in all 82 games in the previous season and then carrying his team in the playoffs by averaging 41.5 minutes per game at 35 years old. MJ was the best in the business at using his mind to push his body to places nobody thought it could ever reach. That's what gave him the strength to push through the food poisoning he played with in Game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals. In a season that saw so many injuries, a 36-year old MJ coming off 3 straight championship runs would likely feel the physical effects of a challenge no human body was prepared to withstand. You couldn't help but wonder how much more his body could take at that level of play and the amount his psyche could handle. MJ also had the burden of being the world's most famous celebrity.
Scottie Pippen: He was never the same player after having his back surgery in the summer of 1998. At 33 years old, he was still a high-end starter, but not the difference maker he had been. The agile and athletic Scottie Pippen that we saw before the 1997-98 season was gone. It should also be noted that he never made another All-Star team after his foot surgery in 1997. These are facts that most people conveniently ignore when they just assume that a hypothetical Bulls team in 1999 would automatically win it all. All that's doing is minimizing how great Scottie was before the surgeries, acting like a lesser Scottie Pippen would still make them favorites in 1999. The lockout season might have helped him a little bit, but he only averaged 14.5 points per game as the Rockets' 3rd best player behind Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. To Scottie's credit, he did play all 50 games that season. But again, he just wasn't the same player.
Dennis Rodman: He wasn't having the kind of impact he had in previous years. There were concerns that Dennis Rodman was disinterested, even at the end of the 1997-98 season. For that reason, along with him being 38 years old by the time the 1999 NBA Finals came around, I couldn't see him being able to guard Tim Duncan 1-on-1. The Worm was also playing a physical style that could only hold up for so long. He even started coming off the bench for the Bulls in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals (except for Game 3), and did it through the Finals. After the 1997-98 season, The Worm only played 35 games over the next 2 seasons (with the Lakers and Mavericks) before retiring in 2000.
As for how the series would play out, I see the Spurs taking it in 6 games, 5 with a couple of lucky breaks. The difference in this series would have been the Twin Towers. Their size would pose some real issues for the Bulls, who had never faced an interior duo like that in the Michael Jordan Era. As great as MJ and Scottie Pippen were in big moments, David Robinson and Tim Duncan would have been too much for the Bulls. They would have destroyed the Bulls front line of Dennis Rodman, Luc Longley (if retained), and Bill Wennington. Say what you want about the Bulls having the better perimeter tandem and backcourt, but I believe Sean Elliott, Mario Elie, and Avery Johnson would have made enough contributions for the Spurs to pull out the win. I'm pretty sure they would get a lot of wide-open shots with the Bulls putting most of their energy into collapsing in the post.
On the defensive end is where you would see the true advantages for the Spurs. Their GOAT-level half-court defense would wreak all kinds of havoc on a Bulls team that operated exclusively in the half court. The Twin Towers would be clogging the paint and forcing the Bulls into shooting a lot of jumpers. They would also be killing the Bulls on the glass. The Spurs were the best defensive team in 1998-99 and had the NBA record for opponent field goal percentage (.4016), which still stands today. They were also top 5 in rebounding (No. 1 in defensive rebounding). Points would certainly be at a premium.
In my opinion, the key to beating that Bulls team would be to let Michael Jordan get his and lock everybody else down. With the Twin Towers shutting the paint down, MJ would just have to shoot jumpers until his arm fell off. Who would help him score? Scottie Pippen was a shell of himself by then. So was Dennis Rodman, but he was never much of a scorer, and he was disinterested in basketball. This series would resemble the early part of MJ's career, when it was him vs. everybody. He escaped Utah in '98 by the skin of his teeth and would have to play an even bigger role in '99 as the only elite player on the team. That's an awful lot to ask out of a 36-year old man who had played in 3 NBA Finals in the previous 3 seasons.
A Spurs/Bulls series would have definitely been more competitive than the Spurs/Knicks series was, but again, I say the Spurs would take it in 6 games at most. Athletic big men were the Bulls' weakness, and the Spurs had 2 of them. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just too good on the inside, and the Spurs had a nice mix of veterans. The wear and tear from 3 straight championship runs would have been a lot to overcome against a hungry Spurs team. Many of the Bulls players declined after their last championship season, some quite a bit. As great as Michael Jordan still was, especially in crunch time, I just don't see him and a Bulls team that's another year older beating an already-great-but-still-ascending Tim Duncan and a David Robinson who was still capable, with both of them co-anchoring a historic defense.
So many people to this day still sleep on the 1998-99 Spurs. In fact, they are one of the more underrated and forgotten great teams in NBA history. They tied with the Jazz for the NBA's best record (37-13) after a 6-8 start. The Spurs also had the best metrics of any team by a wide margin that season, including a league-leading scoring margin (+8.1) and defensive rating (95.0). They were a runaway train after getting off to that slow start. The Spurs closed out the regular season by winning 12 of their last 13 games, including 3 against the Blazers (their Western Conference Finals opponent) and the Jazz. Then they went 15-2 in the playoffs on the way to their first championship.
For the record, Dennis Rodman said in The Last Dance that the Bulls would have "easily" won their 4th straight championship. The way they won their last one in 1998 suggests otherwise. They got pushed to the limit by the Pacers and then got taken to 6 games by the Jazz for a 2nd straight year. Not to mention the Nets playing them tough in the first 2 games of the opening round of the playoffs. That team was on its last legs and barely won that championship, mostly on the strength of some clutch plays and bad calls. To me, when you barely win it's always a sign that your time is up.
I won't say that the Spurs would have been able to stop Michael Jordan, but they most certainly would have made him a less efficient player. They held the Knicks to 39.2% shooting and allowed 79.8 points in the NBA Finals over 5 games. The Bulls would have fared better, but it still would have been a struggle for them to score. The Spurs were basically a superior version of those 90's Knicks teams that gave the Bulls problems. They would have been the best defense the Jordan Bulls have faced. In this case, the 2nd best would be the 1992-93 Knicks, who held a younger and better MJ to the most inefficient series of his prime. The Spurs were a different animal altogether.
It really is too bad that this matchup never happened because it very well could have been among the highest rated NBA Finals series ever. I also know the Spurs would have been extremely fired up to face the Bulls. The Spurs winning that series would have also been a nice passing of the torch from Michael Jordan to Tim Duncan. What better way for TD to start his legacy off by beating the consensus GOAT? The media would have also naturally made a bunch of excuses for the Bulls, with the main excuse being it wasn't the same Bulls team. But it still would have robbed the Bulls of some of their mystique and further elevated TD and the Spurs.
Tim Duncan is undoubtedly one of the very best to ever pick up a basketball. His consistency, ability to win multiple championships, leadership, numbers, and accolades are all proof of that. Year in and year out he always found a way to impact games and was able to dominate by for the most part just keeping his game simple. TD was the last superstar player to stay in college for 4 years before going to the NBA. We might not see that for a very long time, if ever again.
Here is a look at Tim Duncan's draft day scouting report courtesy of Usenet Draft:
Scout: Kevin Lachance
Duncan is the best player available in the draft and a lock to be the first overall pick. He has the ability to become an NBA superstar.
Scouts have mixed opinions on Duncan's NBA position. He may be a more dominant player early on in his career at power forward, but has the tools to be a dominant center. His position will depend on the team that selects him.
In terms of comparisons I have heard David Robinson and Brad Daugherty. I feel Hakeem Olajuwon is a closer comparison because of his mobility and size.
In terms of physical skills Duncan has great mobility. He is capable of consistently beating his man down the court. He has long arms and excellent timing for blocking shots. His footwork on post moves is constantly improving.
In terms of basketball skills, Duncan has the total package. Duncan can score in a variety of ways. He can take his man down low with an assortment of post moves. He uses the glass well on his turnaround jump shot. He can also step outside and hit the mid-range jumper. Duncan's passing ability is incredible for a player of his size and experience. He led Wake Forest in assists. Duncan handles the ball better than most post players.
Duncan's greatest attribute is his defense. He averaged double figures in rebounds in his final 3 years of college. This past season he averaged close to 15 boards a game. Duncan can swat shots with the best of them. He is the all-time blocked shots leader in the history of the NCAA.
Despite his overall game, he has a few things to work on. His biggest need is adding strength and weight. He will need to adjust to the power of the NBA. He needs to continue to develop his offensive game. One concern is his low free throw percentage (64%). However, it was the lowest total of his 4 years.
As NBA scouting director Marty Blake says "He may be the most complete player to enter the NBA in the last 10 years".
Scout: Philip Kasiecki
Tim Duncan is not the most talented player in this draft. However, he is the best player in it, and he will be a successful NBA player because of his style of play. For Duncan, it is simple: he plays. He plays hard every minute, with confidence and emotion at both ends of the floor, and he plays to win. He has a winning attitude that will greatly help the team that drafts him, going beyond what he will do that shows up in the box score.
Duncan is the type of player who can lift his team with his play, as he can take over games at either end of the floor, and is the consummate team player. He can dominate defensively, as he is an excellent shot-blocker and rebounder. At the offensive end, he is constantly adding to his game, as he has expanded his shooting range with time. When double-teamed, he will pass the ball back out to an open teammate; he involves his teammates as though he were a point guard, as he realizes that he alone will not win ball games.
Duncan will be a franchise player because he makes his teammates better, in addition to being a great individual talent. He averaged a double-double in each of his last 3 seasons in college, in scoring and rebounding.
If Tim Duncan is not the first pick in the draft, the GM doing the selecting will be referred to the best psychologist within a 50-mile radius. This holds even if the team selecting first is set at center, as Duncan can play power forward as well.
Scout: mmauer@bellatlantic.net
Duncan is one of college's most dominating centers to play the game since HAKEEM OLAJUWON. Duncan makes all the right plays offensively, which is perhaps his only weakness is that it is raw but still developing.
He is a HUGE defensive presence in the paint as a rebounder and a shot blocker. He isn't the kind of leader that some coaches would prefer. But if you look at Wake Forest's record you'll see that he did just fine. If he had desired to go into the past 2 drafts he would have been number 1 overall. But there is no doubting that he is a huge talent that will surely develop into a fine superstar. His averages are 20.8 PPG, 14.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, and 3.3 BPG.
This is the most complete player I've seen in years.
Scout: dedelman@acpub.duke.edu
Tim Duncan - An extraordinary college ballplayer; if you haven't seen him night in and night out you can't appreciate it. Needed badly to stay the extra year to work on his offense, but now has excellent footwork inside. Can nail the mid-range J. Good rebounder, both athletic and technical; reasonably good shot-blocker. Man defense not really tested in the ACC (no other centers of note). Starts as a 12/10 guy like Mutombo (fewer blocks) but his work ethic could make him into an Olajuwon type. To my mind a very easy #1 pick, the only guaranteed star and the most probable superstar in the draft.
Worst he could be: Otis Thorpe with a few assists thrown in.
Best he could be: Olajuwon.
Emmitt Smith - The Most Underrated Great RB
5/15/18
It's mind-blowing to me how a running back of Emmitt Smith's caliber could be so underrated. It's impossible to have one of the greatest records in all of sports and all of the other accomplishments he piled up and still be underrated, but that 's exactly what he is. In my opinion, Emmitt is undoubtedly a top 3 all-time RB, and a case can be made for him as the greatest of all-time.
What makes Emmitt underrated is that most "experts" have a hard time putting him in their top 3 and possibly top 5 all-time running backs list. So many people have a hard time acknowledging that he was a very special RB. He made it look easy, and so many people took it for granted.
Emmitt Smith was everything you want in a running back. He was the epitome of a complete RB. He was tough as nails, a warrior, a ferocious blocker, a lethal receiver out of the backfield, and if he had an open lane, most likely he would be adding another football to the collection in his storage room. Emmitt was also the Cowboys' best 3rd down back, best goal line back, and best pass protector.....in the good and bad years. I'll just leave his resume right here for you to look at and tell me why he shouldn't be mentioned among the best of the best.
Career Highlights And Awards
-NFL All-Time Leading Rusher
-NFL All-Time Leading Postseason Rusher
-Monday Night Football All-Time Leading Rusher
-Dallas Cowboys Ring Of Honor (2005)
-Pro Football Hall Of Fame (2010)
-NFL 1990s All-Decade Team
-8x Pro Bowl Selection (1990-95, 1998, 1999)
-4x First Team ALl-Pro (1992-95)
-Second Team All-Pro (1991)
-3x Super Bowl Champion (XXVII, XXVIII, XXX)
-Super Bowl XXVIII MVP
-1990 NFL Offensive Rookie Of The Year
-1993 NFL MVP
-1993 PFWA NFL MVP
-1993 TSN NFL MVP
-1993 Miller Lite Player Of The Year
-1994 TSN Sportsman Of The Year
-2x NEA NFL MVP (1991, 1992)
-1993 Bert Bell Award
-5x Galloping Gobbler Award
-3x First Team All-SEC (1987-89)
-1989 SEC Player Of The Year
-1989 First Team All-American
-1987 SEC Freshman Of The Year
-Gator Football Ring Of Honor
-College Football Hall Of Fame (2006)
-Florida High School All-Century Team
-Florida High School Athletic Association Player Of The Century
-1986 USA Today High School Player Of The Year
-1986 Parade Magazine High School Player Of The Year
NFL Records
-Most rushing yards in a career (18,355)
-Most rushing touchdowns in a career (164)
-Most rushing attempts in a career (4,409)
-Most consecutive 1,000-yard seasons (11)
-Most 1,000-yard seasons in a career (11)
-Most 100-yard games in a career (78)
-Most games in a season with a touchdown (15 in 1995)
-Most games in a season with a rushing touchdown (15 in 1995)
-Most rushing yards after turning 30 years old (5,789)
-Most playoff rushing yards in a career (1,586)
-Most playoff rushing touchdowns in a career (19)
-Most playoff total touchdowns in a career (21 - tied with Thurman Thomas)
-Most consecutive playoff games with a rushing touchdown (9)
-Most 100-yard playoff games (7 - tied with Terrell Davis)
Accomplishments
-Only running back in football history to be his state's all-time leading rusher in high school, school's all-time leading rusher in college, and the NFL's all-time leading rusher
-Only running back in NFL history to win a rushing title, MVP, Super Bowl, and Super Bowl MVP in the same season
-Only running back (since the merger) to lead the NFL in carries, rushing yards, all-purpose yards, rushing touchdowns, and total touchdowns in the same season
-First running back to win a rushing title and Super Bowl in the same season
-First running back to rush for 1,400+ yards in 5 straight seasons
-One of 2 non-kickers in NFL history to score over 1,000 points in a career (Jerry Rice)
-One of 5 players with 10,000 rushing yards and 400 receptions in a career
-One of 3 running backs to start their careers with 7 straight 10-touchdown seasons (Jim Brown, LaDanian Tomlinson)
How Is Tim Duncan Not Top 5 All-Time With THIS Resume?
4/25/18
Tim Duncan is widely recognized as the greatest power forward of all-time and generally considered one of the 10 players of all-time regardless of position. I personally believe that he's the most underrated and underappreciated superstar that the NBA has ever had. Most all-time lists have TD in the bottom half of the top 10 in their rankings. I know these lists are subjective, but to me, there's NO WAY he should be lower than 5. In addition to being one of the 5 greatest ever, I consider him the greatest of his generation.
I can go on ALL DAY LONG about why Tim Duncan is worthy of being in the pantheon of basketball's all-time greats, but for right now I'll leave you with his resume and dare you to come up with a good reason for why he shouldn't be mentioned among the best of the best.
Career Highlights And Awards
-Naismith College Player Of The Year (1997)
-AP College Player Of The Year (1997)
-John Wooden Award (1997)
-Adolph Rupp Trophy (1997)
-USBWA College Player Of The Year (1997)
-Sporting News Player Of The Year (1997)
-ACC Male Athlete Of The Year (1997)
-2x Consensus First Team All-American (1996, 1997)
-3x NABC Defensive Player Of The Year (1995, 1996, 1997)
-2x ACC Player Of The Year (1996, 1997)
-Honored By The U.S. House Of Representatives
-Jersey #21 Retired (Wake Forest)
-ACC 50th Anniversary Men's Basketball Team (2002)
-College Basketball Hall Of Fame (2017)
-5x NBA Champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
-3x NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
-2x NBA MVP (2002, 2003)
-NBA All-Star MVP (2000)
-15x NBA All-Star (1998, 2000-2011, 2013, 2015)
-15x All-NBA Selection (10 First Team, 3 Second Team, 2 Third Team)
-15x NBA All-Defensive Selection (8 First Team, 7 Second Team)
-NBA All-Rookie First Team (1998)
-NBA Rookie Of The Year (1998)
-NBA Shooting Stars Champion (2008)
-NBA Teammate Of The Year (2015)
-Sports Illustrated Sportsman Of The Year (2003)
-USA Basketball Male Athlete Of The Year (2003)
-NBA Community Assist Award (2003)
-Sports Illustrated NBA Player Of The Decade (2009)
-Jersey #21 Retired (Spurs)
Here are some of the countless milestones and achievements Tim Duncan had piled up by the time he retired:
-Had a 20+ PER (Player Efficiency Rating) in each of his first 18 seasons. (NBA Record)
-Received MVP votes in 16 of his first 18 seasons.
-Only player in the last 35 years to be selected to the All-NBA 1st Team as a rookie.
-Only player in the modern NBA era to lead a team to a championship with his team's 2nd through 5th scorers all shooting under 42%.
-Only player in NBA history to start on an NBA championship team in 3 different decades.
-Only player in NBA history with 15 All-Star selections, 15 All-NBA selections, and 15 All-Defensive selections.
-Only player in NBA history to be selected to an All-NBA and All-Defensive team in his first 13 seasons.
-Only player in NBA history with 100 offensive win shares and 100 defensive win shares.
-Only player in NBA history to average at least 13 points and 9 rebounds at age 38 or older.
-Only player in NBA history with 5,000 points, 2,500 rebounds, and 500 blocks in the playoffs.
-Only player in NBA history to win 1,000 games with 1 team.
-One of only 3 players in NBA history with 1,000 wins. (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Robert Parish)
-One of only 2 players in NBA history with 25,000 points, 15,000 rebounds, and 3,000 blocks. (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)
-One of only 4 players in NBA history with 20,000 points, 10,000 rebounds, 3,000 assists, and 2,500 blocks. (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal)
-One of only 3 players in NBA history to win the Wooden Award, NBA Rookie Of The Year, NBA MVP, NBA Finals MVP, and NBA All-Star Game MVP. (Michael Jordan, Larry Bird)
-One of only 5 players in NBA history to win 3 NBA Finals MVPs. (Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, LeBron James)
-One of only 3 players in NBA history with a championship, NBA Finals MVP, MVP, 10 All-NBA selections, 10 All-Defensive selections. (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kobe Bryant)
-One of only 4 players in NBA history to be selected to the All-NBA 1st Team in each of his first 8 seasons. (Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird)
-One of only 6 players in NBA history to ever win Rookie Of The Year and all 3 MVP awards. (Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal)
-One of only 5 No. 1 overall picks in the last 25 years to win a championship with the team that drafted him. (Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, LeBron James, Kyrie Irving)
-NBA record for most seasons played by a No. 1 overall draft pick for the team that drafted him. (19)
-Most consecutive seasons of at least 50 games played for the same franchise. (19 - tied with John Stockton)
-Most All-NBA selections in a career. (15 - tied with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar & Kobe Bryant)
-Most NBA All-Defensive Team selections in a career. (15)
-Most career defensive rebounds in All-Star Game history. (98)
-Oldest player in NBA history to record 20 points and 20 rebounds in a game. (23 points, 21 rebounds vs Hawks on 12/3/13)
-Has a winning record, regular season and playoffs, against every single franchise in the NBA. No other player is closer than 8 games under .500 during that span.
-Has beaten 18 different teams in the NBA playoffs. No other player in history has done this.
-He has a winning head-to-head record against every top power forward of his generation.
-Co-anchored a Spurs defense that finished the 1998-99 season with an NBA-record .4016 opponent field goal percentage.
-In his first 10 seasons, the Spurs were either No. 1 or No. 2 in the NBA every year in points allowed and opponent field goal percentage.
-He, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have the NBA record for most regular season wins (575) and most playoff wins (126) by a trio.
-Had 5 lottery picks from his draft class as teammates, which is the most for a No. 1 pick. (Antonio Daniels, Ron Mercer, Tracy McGrady, Austin Croshere, Derek Anderson)
-Had 9 players from his draft class as teammates, which is the most for a No. 1 pick. (Antonio Daniels, Ron Mercer, Tracy McGrady, Austin Croshere, Derek Anderson, Charles Smith, Jacque Vaughn, Stephen Jackson, Ira Newble)
-He and Gregg Popovich outlasted some historic teams in his 19 years: Shaq/Kobe Lakers, (1st) LeBron Cavs, Dirk Mavs, Larry Brown Pistons, 7 Seconds Or Less Suns, Kobe Lakers, Pierce/Garnett/Allen Celtics, The Heatles, Durant/Westbrook Thunder
Here is an overview of the impact Tim Duncan had on the Spurs organization:
-The Spurs had only been to the conference finals 4 times in 30 years before he joined them.
-The Spurs had a .600 or above winning percentage in all 19 of his seasons.
-The Spurs won 50+ regular seasons games in 17 consecutive seasons. (NBA record)
-The Spurs never finished a regular season with worse than the 2nd best record in their division in that span.
-The Spurs made the playoffs all 19 years he played. That's the most ever for 1 player with 1 team in NBA history.
-The Spurs won 35 of the 48 (73%) playoff series that he played in.
-The Spurs' .710 winning percentage with him is the best 19-year stretch in NBA history and the best of any franchise in all 4 major pro sports leagues.
-The Spurs have been the most successful organization in the history of North American team sports.
The GOAT Power Forward also made a huge impact on the NBA as well, but that's another story for another day. He played his game in a way where he could shine and his teammates could shine as well, and do their own thing without getting in each other's way. He also found ways to impact the game with his intangibles, putting his team in the best possible position to come away with a win. Winning was the most consistent thing TD did. Most of all, he continued to be a gracious mentor to his teammates and was willing to help them become better overall basketball players and people.
Tim Duncan was a constant for the Spurs no matter who his teammates happened to be, and was the common denominator for all 5 championships.....with different supporting casts for all of them. He welcomed them all and found a way to help them fit in and feel comfortable in their roles. Not a lot of players can do that. The "boring" label that was attached to TD was probably meant to be endearing, but it tended to overshadow how great he was. In other words, he was sold short throughout his career. I believe it's safe to say that there will never be another Tim Duncan. Never again will the NBA have anybody with the transcendence of his skills packaged quite like that.
Again......how his he not top 5 all-time?
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 is 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.
