Why You Can't Just Put ANY Running Back Behind A Great Offensive Line

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

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. 

Game 1 - Thunder 112, Spurs 106 (10/28/15)

It would have been nice for the Spurs to get the win tonight, but since it was only the first game of the season, there's no need to panic. They still have 81 more games to play. The Spurs controlled the game most of the way, but let it get away in the end.

Here are some bright spots that I took away from the game:

-The Spurs controlled the pace of the game and took care of the basketball in the first half.

-The Spurs also played excellent transition defense in the first half, giving up only 2 fastbreak points (the Thunder had 50 points) , and limiting the Thunder to 9 assists for the half.

-Kawhi Leonard was arguably the best player on the floor tonight. He had (a career-high) 32 points, 8 rebounds, 3 steals, and 2 blocks. He had a bunch of great defensive plays, especially against Kevin Durant aka "Doodle Jump".

The Spurs had their chances to win the game, and even threatened to go up by double digits on multiple occasions, but they went cold in the 4th quarter. The team showed some flashes of brilliance on defense, but it came down to a couple of 50-50 balls that they couldn't come up with and several offensive rebounds that the Thunder came away with. But there is a lot of room for improvement. The biggest difference in the game, in my opinion, was the bench consistently giving up leads. During one stretch late in the 3rd quarter, I counted 9 field goals in 9 trips down the floor for the Thunder bench. Many of those were 2nd and 3rd chance baskets.

That small ball post tandem of David West and Boris Diaw showed us some good versatility on offense, but got exploited on the defense glass. I would imagine that once Coach Pop sets the rotations that their time on the court together will be minimal because Tim Duncan or LaMarcus Aldridge will be on the court at all times. Speaking of TD and LA, the Spurs didn't exploit mismatches whenever they had them. If you have both of them on the court together, obviously one of them will be playing against a weaker defender.

The Thunder should be very concerned about the Spurs and shouldn't look past the fact that the Spurs' new guys barely contributed compared to what they are capable of, and still almost got the win. This WILL NOT be the same Spurs team the Thunder faces when these 2 teams meet again on March 12. For the most part, the Spurs played well enough to win tonight, and should beat most teams night in and night out if they keep playing like this. But they will have to step it up when they go against the other top teams in the NBA. How is this for perspective? The Spurs, a team trying to integrate several new players and adapt their system to fit the skills of those players, lost in the last minute on the road in a historically tough building to win in, against a top 4 team in the NBA. Once again, there is plenty of room for improvement and plenty of time to right the ship.

LA In SA - The Spurs' 4th Of July Free Agent

LA In SA - The Spurs' 4th Of July Free Agent

8/1/15


July 4, 2015 will be a day that Spurs fans will never forget. That was the day LaMarcus Aldridge, the star power forward who spent the first 9 years of his career with the Trailblazers, made his commitment to sign with the Spurs as a free agent. This is without a doubt the biggest free agent signing in the history of the Spurs. The Spurs have signed free agents with big names in the past (Moses Malone, Dominique Wilkins, Tracy McGrady), but they were at the end of their careers. LA is the first ever big-name free agent that the Spurs have signed that still had some prime years left.

This free agent pickup also adds to the good fortune for the Spurs on patriotic holidays, at least in the Tim Duncan era. First there was the Memorial Day Miracle in 1999, Sean Elliott's game winning 3-pointer in Game 2 of the Western Conference Finals against the Blazers, after trailing the entire game. Now 16 years later, we have The 4th Of July Free Agent. To me, this is an exciting change for the Spurs, who are known for being frugal. They have that label because they usually go into free agency looking to sustain their roster with minor tweaks - under-the-radar, cost-efficient signings instead of going after the big names. This particular method for the Spurs wasn't necessarily by choice, because in the past they have tried to sign upper-echelon talent, but the lower level cost-efficient players were all that was available to them. The 2015 free agency period is the latest instance that proves that the Spurs are just as flexible in the front office as they are on the court.

Out of all the teams that were in pursuit of LaMarcus Aldridge, the Spurs made the most sense for him because they are the best fit and they give him the best chance to win a championship. Once it got out that the Spurs were going after LA, I didn't think it would be a given that he would choose them, but I knew it would be tough for him to turn them down. From a basketball standpoint, here's what LA  gets for picking the Spurs:


*A chance to play next to and be mentored by his idol, who plays the same position and happens to be the best to ever play that position, and is a top 5 all-time great

*A chance to play with the best perimeter defensive tandem in the NBA, which happens to have the reigning Defensive Player Of The Year

*A Hall Of Fame point guard

*A 3-time Coach Of The Year that's known for maximizing the potential of his players and extending their careers

*Being reunited with former Blazers teammates (Patty Mills, and assistant coaches Ime Udoka and Sean Marks)

*Being the focal point on offense


I just don't see how you could turn down a golden opportunity to be a vital part of a franchise with a history that rich. So many players have in the past, and now I'm glad to see one finally break that trend. And then if you factor in the fact that LA has a son that lives in San Antonio and that Texas is his home state, I would say that this is the perfect situation for him.

Now that the Spurs have LaMarcus Aldridge, their starting lineup has:

*25 All-Star selections
*22 All-NBA selections
*17 All-Defensive selections
*11 rings
*2 MVP trophies
*1 Defensive Player Of The Year
*3 different Finals MVPs


That's just INSANE!! Then it gets even better once you throw David West, their other big free agent pickup, in the mix. With his addition that makes:

*5 10,000-point scorers
*5 current/former All-Stars
*4 current/former All-NBA selections
*3 Finals MVPs
*21 total rings
*5 All-Rookie selections
*3 major award winners
*7000+ games worth of experience (including playoffs)

All of the current players on the roster have scored 105,532 points combined.


The Spurs absolutely dominated free agency this summer. To make a long story short, after Tim Duncan announced that he was coming back, that's when everything started to fall in place. They hit their biggest free agency target, and they did it while they kept all of the key pieces they wanted to keep. Then they go and add David West, who was supposed to be the Spurs' fallback option if LA signed with another team. He left $12.6 million on the table with the Pacers to go to the Spurs for the veteran minimum. Then Manu Ginobili announced that he was coming back as well. The 2015 offseason played out to near perfection for the Spurs. With all of that being said, I believe R.C. Buford is clearly the favorite to win his 2nd Executive Of The Year award next year. It took a lot of sacrifice from the Spurs' players to make all of this come together, but in the end I believe the results will justify what they gave up.


What LA Brings To The Spurs

First of all, LaMarcus Aldridge is an elite offensive player. His back-to-the-basket game is the best in the NBA, and he's an excellent shooter from mid-range, which is a lost art in basketball. At 6'11", LA's high (really high) release point makes his shot almost uncontestable. I don't think I would be going out on a limb by saying that the mid-range game is his specialty. He led the NBA last season in mid-range points per game, as well as mid-range field goals made and attempted, while shooting 42%. His 327 made mid-range shots were more than the entire Houston Rockets team combined (243). LA has also led the NBA in total points from mid-range for the last 3 seasons with 2,058, followed by Dirk Nowitzki (1,698) and Carmelo Anthony (1,504). 

I imagine LA will continue to extend his range out to the 3-point line. If he masters that shot, the Spurs offensive possibilities would be endless. LA would be near unguardable, and the paint would be wide open for Tim Duncan to operate. I also believe it would be in his best interest to bring back that rolling hook across the lane from the blocks he had when he first came into the NBA. LA has the ability to operate from a wide variety of scoring spots and get shots off without turning the ball over. He can also create for himself in the half court and move the ball when he gets extra attention from the defense. Those are skills that you can build an offense around. Also, his presence as the #1 option takes the pressure off the older star players, as well as the younger players who might at risk of assuming too much, too fast. 

A lot of LA's advanced stats tell a different story than him being dominant on offense. Those numbers make him look like he's a volume scorer. In his last 2 years with the Blazers, LA's usage rate on offense was 30% when he was on the floor. His true shooting percentages have been below league average for the last 3 years, but in spite of that he has improved as a shooter every year of his career. LA also shot a career-best 84.5% from the free throw line for the 2014-15 season. 

The deceptive advanced metrics for LA are based on him being the focal point of the Blazers' offense for about the last 5 years and having to sacrifice efficiency for the good of the team. A lot of that stems from LA playing most of his career in isolation-heavy offenses, which can cause a lot of issues with efficiency. Lucky for him, he also has the ability to score in low-efficiency situations and can get a good look at the basket late in the shot clock or game. Defenses won't be able to key on LA like they did when he was in Portland because the Spurs have so much balance and diversity. His numbers might slip a little bit, but his efficiency will almost certainly improve.

This fact below speaks volumes:

LaMarcus Aldridge was the only player in the NBA to average 23 points and 10 rebounds in each of the last 2 seasons. the last player to do that was his new teammate.......Tim Duncan (2001-02, 2002-03).


I believe LA is a better defender than most people realize. For starters, he has a 7'4" wingspan to go along with his 6'11" frame. After watching clips of LA, I was pleasantly surprised with his ability to cover ground. He has excellent lateral movement for his size and can operate well in space for a big man. His greatest strength on defense is pick-and-roll defense. He can stay in front of wings on the perimeter if he gets switched and slide across for help defense when needed. Playing in the Spurs' system, and in particularly next to Tim Duncan, I'm expecting to see him play the best defense of his career once he figures it all out because the Spurs are the best team in the NBA at developing and maximizing talents. Since he won't have to carry as heavy a load on offense as he did with the Blazers, he'll have more energy to put out on that end of the floor.

Tiago Splitter's biggest strengths on defense are pick-and-roll defense, speed, and he has the size of a true center. Those elements are critical to the Spurs' defense. He can run Dirk Nowitzki off the 3-point line (like he did in the 2014 1st round of the playoffs) and he can bang with Zach Randolph (2013 Western Conference Finals). Guess who else can do those things?? LaMarcus Aldridge!! As a matter of fact, I saw LA go to-to-toe with Z-Bo in that 1st round Blazers/Grizzlies series. LA's ability to switch onto smaller players will serve the Spurs well and make them more dynamic in a small-ball matchup with the Warriors. The one knock on LA's defense is that he's not much of a rim protector, and I noticed that the majority of his blocked shots are on the ball. A lot of the perception of LA and his defense has to do with the supporting cast that he had around him in Portland. The one thing that stood out to me over the years is that he'll guard the other team's best player but they won't guard him. One example of that is when the T-Wolves played the Blazers, LA would guard Kevin Love, but Kevin Love would never guard him. As long as the Spurs' current system is in place, I don't think we'll have to worry about LA on defense. Also, the Spurs' overall team defense will be elite as well.


How LA Fits With The Spurs

Putting LaMarcus Aldridge with Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard gives the Spurs the best frontcourt in the NBA. LA (2nd team) and TD (3rd team) were both All-NBA selections last season, and Kawhi got the most votes out of any player that didn't get selected. When you add Tony Parker and Danny Green, I would say that this has to be the best starting 5 in the NBA. There will be an adjustment for LA, as well as the rest of the new additions, but Coach Pop will figure out how to make everything work. He's not a 3-time Coach Of The Year for nothing. I believe these adjustments will take time, but I don't see them taking the whole season.

To me, the biggest adjustment for LA (other than his role) with the Spurs is the style of play. In the Spurs' system, he won't be able to hold the ball and survey the court as much as he did with the Blazers. The Spurs' offense is a system of quick strikes, precise execution on pick-and-rolls, and fluid ball movement- the ball moving from side to side and player to player before finding the player with the best shot. LA is already a capable passer, which means once he gets acclimated he'll be able to move the ball the way the Spurs do. There has been a lot of worrying about how LA's ball-stopping post-ups fit into the Spurs style and the depth they sacrificed to make room for him. This is how I see it: The Spurs already had a championship-quality starting lineup last year with Tiago Splitter. He was replaced by an All-Star who can defend almost as well, stretch the floor with his jumper, make 3-pointers, and even bail the offense out with a post-up late in the clock. The Spurs used to bench Splitter against fast defenses in the playoffs who killed their spacing. They just replaced that cat with LaMarcus Aldridge!! This team will be NASTY.

The thing I'm most anxious to see, which will also be an adjustment, is how LA can coexist with Tim Duncan. Neither one of them are true centers, but they give the Spurs a lot of flexibility. As far as player rotations go, I see LA getting his normal amount of minutes he got in Portland, and maybe TD being subbed out earlier so LA can be the primary scorer with the bench to help make up the bench scoring that the Spurs lost with Marco Belinelli leaving. With both of these big men in the lineup, I see the Spurs running their offense inside-out for a good chunk of the regular season, and there is an unlimited amount of ways to get the ball inside to them. I can even see Pop bringing back those high-low plays he used to run with David Robinson and Tim Duncan and using them again. With the high-low, either big man can duck into the paint after a pinch-post entry pass because that short distance between the 2 post players makes it hard for the defense to swarm inside fast enough to stop the rim shot. Running the offense through LA in the post also means depending less on Tony Parker, who was the team's least efficient scorer last year. His own efficiency should be bolstered by seeing fewer double teams.

The Spurs will get LA the ball in the post in a variety of ways, just like they have always done for TD. Here are some examples:

-Run Danny Green off a baseline screen set by LA as he moves away from the ball (the ball is on the wing).

-Have LA set a ball screen before rolling into the post to square up, get the ball and make a play.


With this new addition to the starting lineup......who do you double? With LA and TD running the pick-and-roll, TD roaming the baseline with Danny and Kawhi on the wing and in the corner, I can't imagine we'll see a whole lot of double teams. Better yet, how can a team go small against this lineup? If a team like Golden State goes small, do you react or just make them pay for doing it? All I know is that I can't wait to find out.

The Spurs will still be a good defensive team, even with LA replacing Tiago Splitter. He's already a capable defender, but he will get better in time. I believe LA and TD can most certainly anchor a championship-level defense, not to mention the Spurs still have the best defensive wing tandem (known as Wing Stop), and even Tony Parker can get after the opposing point guard. The biggest reason why I don't worry about how the Spurs' new post tandem will fit is because TD is still an elite defender, especially as a rim protector and overall defensive anchor. Also, LA can do a little bit of everything, even switching on pick-and-rolls to defend a point guard for the last few seconds of the shot clock. His defense is a major factor in the Blazers basically being matchup-proof, which is a very valuable trait to have in the playoffs, especially in the Western Conference because seedings get trumped by matchups.

I'm also not worried about how LA fits into the Spurs culture because they have the best leadership in basketball, starting with TD and Pop. We all know about Pop's uncanny ability to motivate and bring the best out in his players, as well as being a 2nd father to them, but Tim Duncan is quite possibly the best leader of a team that any professional sport has ever had. His ability to mentor and inspire players, and just be a rock for them while they go through the ups and downs of an NBA season and career, are well-known and unmatched. Former NBA big man, Etan Thomas wrote not too long ago about how TD taught him how to be a more effective scorer while actually playing against him in a game. He also gave DeAndre Jordan some tips in that playoff series against the Clippers last season. He even taught Kobe Bryant his trademark bank shot several years ago.

The Spurs culture is designed to put the team above all else, treat everybody with respect, and the players genuinely like each other. They have a strong locker room, and I believe LA will fit into that culture like he has always been there. I believe him joining the Spurs is just as much about personal growth as a professional growth. Also, with him being 30 years old and only making it out of the 1st round of the playoffs once in his 9-year career, he wants to win. Being a part of the dynastic Spurs culture and playing next to one of the top 5 NBA players of all-time gives him an excellent chance of winning.

The only thing that's clear about the LaMarcus Aldrigde acquisition is that the Spurs will have to adjust to him just as much as he has to adjust to them. Yes, he clearly has a lot of respect for Coach Pop, but he's not the first and he won't be the last. Opposing players see how the Spurs players respond to Pop and how they react as a team. A lot of them even wish they could be a part of something like that, especially when their own team is not as well-run. Here's the thing: It's one thing to want to be coached, but it's another thing altogether to actually give into the coaching. There has even been times where the cornerstones of the Spurs have struggled with this dynamic. But at the end of the day, because of their personalities, they embraced the group dynamic and followed instructions.

With all of that being said, let's look at the main concerns, or as the national media likes to call them, potential downsides of the new-look Spurs:


1. New Kid On The Block

It has been widely publicized, especially in Portland, that LA didn't get along with teammates, even taking a separate flight home after a playoff game last season. There has also been talk in Portland that he felt overshadowed (first by Brandon Roy and the last couple of years by Damien Lillard) and underappreciated. In San Antonio, LA will be up against a dicey situation that would challenge a fragile ego. He's following Tim Duncan as the Spurs' all-time greatest big man, but can never be better than TD. And he's playing next to Kawhi Leonard, who Pop has already dubbed the next face of the Spurs. Can LA handle that?

2.   The Spurs As Targets

Most teams struggle when they have a bullseye on them. The offseason that the Spurs had definitely got the attention of their rivals and put a target on their backs. Making the type of splash they did, and winning championships are the 2 ways to make yourself a target. This is one more headache that the Spurs have to deal with in the upcoming season. They will have the headache without actually being the reigning champions.

3. Managing A New Roster

The last time Coach Pop had to deal with this type of situation with his personnel was probably Tim Duncan's rookie year. With LA being on the team now, he's expected to take the bulk of the shots, but Kawhi has also growing into that type of role the last couple of seasons.  The concerns here are: Will Kawhi see his shot attempts cut back? Will TD still see the ball enough to stay sharp? Will Tony Parker be able to adjust to his role changing, becoming more of a facilitator than the lead scoring option?


LaMarcus Aldridge said his his introductory press conference that he wasn't trying to be David Robinson or Tim Duncan, and we shouldn't expect him to be. He won't exactly fill their shoes, but he can keep the lineage going for dominant big men in Spurs history. Check this out: from 1989 to (at least) 2019 you have David Robinson, Tim Duncan, and LaMarcus Aldridge......either one or a combination with 2 of those 3 for 30 years in a row with a dominant big man!! There is just no precedent for that. For LA to keep the lineage going, all he has to do is to keep the trophies coming in. Everything else will fall into place.

It's Deja Screw Again For The Mavericks

It's Deja Screw Again For The Mavericks

7/9/15



July 8, 2015 will be a day people in Los Angeles and Dallas (especially Dallas) won't forget anytime soon. That was the day DeAndre Jordan backed out of his commitment to the Dallas Mavericks at the last minute. Players have changed their minds and backed out of deals before, but none of those deal reversals have had ramifications as destructive or dramatic as this one did. As for the Mavericks, this is not their first time being burned.

In 2012 Jason Kidd agreed to a 3-year, $9 million contract to stay in Dallas and retire as a Maverick. The same day he committed to the Mavericks, J. Kidd switched it up on them and agreed to a similar contract with the Knicks, where he finished out his playing career. I remember Mark Cuban being highly upset about that, so much so that he went on the radio and said that he wouldn't be putting J. Kidd's jersey number in the rafters. The Mavericks went on to have a revolving door at the point guard position in 2012-13.

The DeAndre Jordan snub hurt the Mavericks much worse because their whole offseason was built on getting DJ. They completely sold out to get him in Dallas. With the Mavericks under the assumption that they had DJ, they let Tyson Chandler sign with the Phoenix Suns. They also didn't make offers to the next best centers available, and all of them got snatched up. Even the Lakers managed to get Roy Hibbert in a trade from the Pacers. The Mavericks' big signing was Wes Matthews, who was supposed to be a complimentary piece for a team built around DJ. Now the Mavericks are screwed, having a bunch of cap space, but nobody to spend the money on. All they did was operate like they had a done deal, like it was set in stone, which happens to be standard practice for deals agreed to during the free agency moratorium. There is no Plan B when Plan A pulls the rug out from under you at the last minute.

Why exactly did the Mavericks want DeAndre Jordan so badly? To them, he was a bridge to the post-Dirk era, their next franchise player. He's a 7-footer that dominates the glass (led the NBA in rebounding last season), an elite rim protector, and he never takes nights off and gets better every year. Players with his abilities don't grow on trees. DJ claimed that he wanted a bigger role than he was getting with the Clippers, and the Mavericks would have given him that. Dirk Nowitzki is a selfless player that puts his team's needs first, and he would have been glad to let DJ have all the shine he wanted. That won't ever happen with the Clippers as long as Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are on the team. DJ could have been the focal point in Dallas, but maybe deep down he was more comfortable being 3rd in the Clippers pecking order. Whether fair or unfair, instead of being the team's next star, in Dallas DeAndre Jordan will always be seen as the man who destroyed the Mavericks.

With DJ, I believe the Mavericks would have been in a good situation. Along with him, Dirk, Chandler Parsons, and Wes Matthews they would have been a solid playoff team, and then next year they would go into the offseason with max cap space to pursue Kevin Durant. If not KD, then Al Horford (as Dirk's successor) or Mike Conley would be nice fallback options. But as of right now, the teams is in the worst situation it could find itself in, with no assets worth mentioning and nobody to spend their money on. All that's left for the Mavericks to do now is to rebuild. If they want to keep their 1st round pick next year, the best way to do that is to lose about 60 games. Because of the Rajon Rondo trade, the Celtics get the Mavericks' draft pick unless it's in the top 7. By that logic, the Mavericks would have to be as bad as possible to get the highest draft pick possible. With that being said, I just don't see them tanking the season, especially with Dirk Nowitzki still on the team.

With all of that being said, I'm still in shock with how many people are defending DeAndre Jordan for the way he screwed the Mavericks over, especially from the media. The justification for this move is just plain ridiculous. To me, this is INDEFENSIBLE!! This whole situation is bad business, just plain UNETHICAL, and won't end well for the Clippers. Yes, DJ had every right to change his mind, but he handled it like a coward. He refused to answer phone calls from the Mavericks front office and from his good friend Chandler Parsons. He also didn't respond to text messages from Mark Cuban or have the guts to tell him face-to-face that he changed his mind. If DJ had held out until he was sure about his decision, the Mavericks could have put together a backup plan. Instead, he dragged this whole process out until there were no viable options left. He put the Mavericks organization in a huge bind by being dishonest with them, and that WAS NOT cool.

Let me put it another way: The indecision itself is not the issue. Nobody is saying that DJ wasn't allowed to backtrack. The timing and his decision making process is what had everybody looking at him sideways. Did you notice that DJ was the ONLY free agent that backed out of the deal he agreed to? Again, I can't see how this whole thing is being defended. You can support DJ and the Clippers all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that all he had to do was wait until he knew what he wanted to do. At the end of the day, the Mavericks got screwed by missing out on other players they might have gone after.

The reason this whole mess happened in the first place was because of shoddy rule-making. NBA free agency operates from a set of unwritten rules. The league allows teams to start negotiating with free agents on July 1. For the next 8 days there is a moratorium on signing players. The NBA's fiscal year ends on June 30, and during those 8 days the NBA's accountants are auditing the league's finances and determining the next year's salary cap. July 9 is the day that players can officially sign the deals they agreed to during the moratorium. There is an obvious loophole in this situation: The deals negotiated in that 8-day window are not binding, but the NBA treats them that way. In other words, when a player makes a verbal commitment to a team during the moratorium, the rest of the league leaves him alone. There is an unwritten rule that once a player commits to a team they are off-limits. 

DeAndre Jordan's decision appeared to be a genuine change of heart, but because of the rules in place, it also could have easily been a malicious way to sabotage the Mavericks' offseason. If that was the case, DJ and the Clippers could have gotten away with it and there wouldn't have been anything anybody could do about it. This is also why I believe there will be some implications for the whole league. Teams can use this situation as a reference point to start doing free agent espionage - have your best free agent players commit to sign with another team, especially a rival, and then back out at the last minute and re-sign with you, effectively sabotaging your rival.

As for the Clippers' role in this mess, they would be the first ones to point out the DJ started it when he called Doc Rivers and teammates saying that he was having second thoughts. Once they saw that they had a chance to get DJ back, they jumped on it. They didn't take any chances either. As a matter of fact, if Doc built a moat around DJ's house that day, I wouldn't have been shocked. The fact that they froze DJ's agent out of the whole process spoke volumes to me. Also, people are more likely to bend or ignore rules when more is on the line. In the Clippers' case, their status as a contender was on the line.


Here is the question I have about this situation:

If you have to barricade a player's house and basically hold him hostage until he signs a contract, do you really want that player on your team?


Here are 2 points I came up with after it all went down that I haven't heard being mentioned:

1.) Chris Paul is the president of the NBA Players Association. With him holding that position, participating in these shenanigans is not a good look for him. I wonder why nobody mentioned his role in the NBPA's statement about DeAndre Jordan. Would the union be as kind and conciliatory if the player in question wasn't Chris Paul's teammate? I don't know about that. It's true that the NBPA exists to support the right of players over owners, but I have always wondered exactly how much all players actually benefit from the NBPA when one team and one owner have gained a lot from having their player be its leader.

2.) DeAndre Jordan not only screwed the Mavericks, but when you back out of a deal like that, you could be possibly screwing over your agent, and even possibly your own team. Once teams find out about an incident like this, they could lose trust in that particular agent and decide not to do business with him ever again. Once that happens, that agent's other clients would fire him and find themselves a new agent. A lot of free agency moves would go differently if he committed to the Clippers in the first place. But now that this mess has happened, the Clippers might have a hard time doing business with other teams in the future. There might not be a lot of incentive to help them out if they are interfering with other front offices like that.


I also have to question DeAndre Jordan's thought process in making this decision. His biggest gripe was that Doc Rivers and his teammates didn't treat him like a player who grew up and evolved from the 2nd round pick that he was. He also supposedly doesn't get along with Chris Paul. How can somebody with those issues with that coach and those players be OK with them coming to his house and stay all night, keeping him from talking to other people? He also said that he wanted a bigger role on offense, and that won't happen in L.A. At the end of the day, DJ is going back to the same exact thing he said he wanted to leave. For what DJ claimed to want and what he was saying throughout the whole courting process with the Mavericks, that's not an option for him with the Clippers. I believe he's content in L.A., and that he thought it would be easier to just stay there and be the 3rd wheel on a perennially underachieving team than to make a decision to branch off and take the next step in his career. To me, this further proves that DJ is not ready to be a franchise player, satisfied with being in the shadows of Blake Griffin and Chris Paul.

Did the Clippers really win by stealing DeAndre Jordan out from under the Mavericks? I don't think so. When it's all said and done, they still have a team where the star players don't like each other. The problems between the center and the point guard didn't fix themselves, and I don't see a resolution anytime soon. I believe DJ was lied to by the Clippers. In the beginning, they will give him more touches on offense, but as the season goes on things will go back to normal and he'll be back to being an afterthought. Then when he complains about it, they'll tell him to be quiet and "know his role". At that point, he'll remember why he even considered leaving in the first place and wish he was in Dallas, regretting his decision to stay.

One more time, nobody is saying that DJ didn't have the right to change his mind. The problem is that he said one thing and did another. When a man gives an organization his word, especially when that organization put so much effort into building a team around him, putting all their eggs into his basket and making everything they do all about him, to not have the decency to let them know he wasn't coming was as wrong as 2 left shoes. I understand having second thoughts or getting cold feet, but you back out of a commitment THAT BIG that late in the game, leaving the Mavericks high and dry. That's very unethical and disrespectful.

Like I said earlier, this situation should show the NBA office, owners, and players how this moratorium loophole can be exploited to weaken other contenders and division rivals. If not close the loophole altogether, there should at least be some alterations made to it. I know it's unlikely, but I believe the Mavericks should challenge this transaction. I know they probably won't win, but I still think it's a fight worth fighting. I think this was the most classless, and sleaziest conduct I have ever seen by a professional sports team. It's bad enough that the rules allow these things to happen. But if anybody knows how immoral and unjust it is to require an organization to count on the word of a player, to the franchise's detriment, and then have another franchise come in and tortiously interfere with that advantangeous business relationship after all the rest of the major free agents are off the market, it would be another professional sports organization.  

I bet if you dig deep enough, you would find all kinds of dirt in this situation. In my opinion, the fact that Clippers owner Steve Ballmer and Doc Rivers met with DeAndre Jordan speaks volumes. Not only is Doc the team's head coach, he's also the president of basketball operations. It's one thing to have a player unilaterally change his own mind or even be swayed by a former teammate to reverse his decision, but this situation is completely different. What you have here is an owner and president of an NBA team aware that a player has made a commitment to a competitor, making one last push to bring that player back. Since there was technically no contract in place, Mark Cuban likely wouldn't be successful in filing a claim against the Clippers for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, but he could still make a bold statement by filing for tortious interference with business expectancy. I also heard that a case could also be made for intentional interference with prospective economic relations. It's been publicized that the Clippers' pursuit of DJ bordered on badgering.

Once again, I don't think this should go unchallenged - win, lose, or draw. If Mark Cuban does decide to take a stand, it could set and change the tone on how free agent negotiations are done in the future. I'm not a Mavericks fan, but I hated seeing them get screwed like that. All I know, is that karma doesn't have an expiration date. The Clippers and DeAndre Jordan might not reap what they sowed right away, but they WILL eventually reap their harvest. This whole thing won't end well for DJ and the Clippers at all.