I believe it is foolish for an NFL team to heavily invest in a running back, but Dallas might be on the verge of doing just that with Ezekiel Elliott.
First-round draft picks basically get one chance in five years to threaten a holdout, and the 24-year-old Cowboys rusher is staying away from training camp this year as he seeks a new contract. Which makes for an interesting case in Dallas as the team comes off a playoff season, a run many believe was significantly aided by Elliott's presence on offense.
MORE: The NFL's 25 highest-paid players
The Cowboys have several considerations to take into account, and they go beyond the often-debated true impact of a running back in the NFL. The risk for Dallas is that an Elliott extension can clog up their salary cap — especially down the line — and put the team at a competitive disadvantage.
One of the reasons the NFL Draft is so important is it gives teams the ability to find cheap, productive talent at premium positions like quarterback, cornerback and edge-rusher. The lower costs of these players help open windows for teams to take risks elsewhere in free agency. But once a team gives a veteran contract to one of these players, that luxury vanishes, and the margin for error shrinks.
Still, for veteran contracts at most positions, a team generally can stay on par with the rest of the league because so few premium contracts exist.
Running back, however, is a different animal.
The following table lists the premium paid — in terms of new money average annual salary — for the top multi-year contracts over contract five, 10, and 32 at each position.
| Position | Premium over five | Premium over 10 | Premium over 32 |
| RT | 103.1 percent | 144.4 percent | 1,818.6 percent |
| RB | 79.5 percent | 130.4 percent | 713.1 percent |
| LB | 47.8 percent | 70.0 percent | 240.0 percent |
| Interior DL | 38.0 percent | 82.4 percent | 394.8 percent |
| S | 33.3 percent | 64.7 percent | 347.4 percent |
| EDGE | 30.6 percent | 42.4 percent | 261.5 percent |
| P | 22.5 percent | 47.2 percent | 566.7 percent |
| Interior OL | 19.7 percent | 27.3 percent | 100.0 percent |
| K | 19.0 percent | 29.4 percent | 852.4 percent |
| TE | 17.0 percent | 47.1 percent | 273.2 percent |
| QB | 16.7 percent | 40.0 percent | 695.6 percent |
| LT | 16.4 percent | 33.3 percent | 811.9 percent |
| WR | 11.1 percent | 24.1 percent | 132.3 percent |
| CB | 7.4 percent | 20.4 percent | 123.0 percent |
The numbers for RB massive. (And they really should be the highest premiums, but the Raiders grossly overpaid Trent Brown as a left tackle then moved him to the right side.)
Another problem for Dallas: The three teams with the NFL's highest-paid running backs — the Rams (Todd Gurley), the Jets (Le'Veon Bell) and the Cardinals (David Johnson) — all have QBs on rookie contracts. When the Rams extended Gurley, they knew they were two years away from dealing with Goff. The Jets and Cardinals just drafted QBs, so their running backs might be gone by the time their QB decisions arrive.
If the Cowboys extend Elliott, they won't be able to justify not doing the same for Dak Prescott. (Unless they plan to bail on him.) At the very least, they only have one more year of cost control at QB. On top of that, theoretically, they have premium contracts coming up at wide receiver and cornerback to go along with their high-priced offensive line.
This is not to say all of these deals can't be done. The Rams, despite having one cheap year left with Goff, have a bunch of high-priced players. But it would limit the Cowboys.
Dallas has been a virtual non-factor in free agency for years. I believe this is by design so that a contract like an Elliott extension will have less of impact than it would for a team like the Jets, who live in free agency. But it also probably blocks free agency in the future.
MORE: Ranking the NFL's best rivalries
The final consideration — and this applies for most teams — is that the expensive RB often blocks progress at the position. Unlike wide receiver, a position at which teams generally have three guys on the field at once and a handful who could break out, the expensive running back is more or less a one-man show in the backfield. Teams with these kinds of backs have a tendency to get wrapped up in the name value, and they are not as likely to try anything new offensively.
Further, if Dallas is thinking it wants to find a new coach in the near future — and who knows if it does? — that new coach might not have a need for a $15 million player at running back. That scenario would leave the Cowboys with an expensive paperweight.
So Dallas' decision tree regarding Elliott should be simple:
- Option 1: Force Elliott to play out his contract, which runs through 2020 at an average cost of about $8.5 million on the cap. Then make the choice between paying him for one more year on the tag or letting him walk.
- Option 2: Avoid the headache of Elliott's continued holdout and extend him now.
Any other option, like waiting a year to re-sign him, is insanity. The Cowboys have to either play hardball or make the most of a bad situation and do what they can to benefit themselves in the process.
NFL UNIFORM RANKINGS:
Why Cowboys have the league's best look
For the sake of argument, let's assume Elliott is seeking a contract extension that will pay him $60 million over four new years with around $30 million guaranteed at signing and $50 million effectively guaranteed.
Barring serious injury, those baselines won’t change much between now and 2021. By extending Elliott now, Dallas can roll $12.95 million of his existing salary, which is already guaranteed, into that $30 million package. It also gives Dallas two additional years of flexibility to work with the cap charges and make the effective value of the contract much cheaper.
From the team's perspective, the effective annual value of a contract is generally more important than the new value of the deal. So for Elliott, a $50 million extension works out to an effective value right under $63 million, an annual value of about $10.5 million. It’s still a big premium — about 34 percent over the fifth-ranked effective annual value and 68 percent over the 10th-ranked effective annual value — but not as bad as it would be if the Cowboys were to wait until 2021 for a new deal.
If the Cowboys already know they want to keep Elliott after spending a high draft pick on him, then it's best for them to do the deal right now. A sample deal that beats the Gurley benchmarks might look like the following.
| Year | Base salary | Prorated bonus | Cap number | Dead money | Saved | New running cash |
| 2019 | $7,853,137 | $5,687,516 | $13,540,653 | $54,539,653 | ($40,999,000) | $12,000,000 |
| 2020 | $13,099,000 | $1,600,000 | $14,699,000 | $40,999,000 | ($26,300,000) | $16,000,000 |
| 2021 | $13,500,000 | $1,600,000 | $15,100,000 | $26,300,000 | ($11,200,000) | $29,500,000 |
| 2022 | $8,000,000 | $1,600,000 | $9,600,000 | $11,200,000 | ($1,600,000) | $37,500,000 |
| 2023 | $10,500,000 | $1,600,000 | $12,100,000 | $1,600,000 | $10,500,000 | $48,000,000 |
| 2024 | $12,000,000 | $0 | $12,000,000 | $0 | $12,000,000 | $60,000,000 |
Don’t get caught up in the huge dead money totals. In re-signing Elliott, the Cowboys are committing to overpaying him through 2022, so they will not cut him on the front end of the contract, anyway.
Due to the low prorated portion of the contract, though, a deal like this does open the door to the possibility of a trade in any year — especially in 2022, when the base salary is low. At worst, the Cowboys could hope his 2022 salary will be a closer match with his production, giving them an opportunity to bail in 2023.
This is absolutely not the optimum solution. The Cowboys would be better off placing a couple franchise tags on Elliott rather than doing this deal, and ultimately, the proper course is to let him walk in a year or two.
But it seems the reality is different for Dallas. And if that's the case, the Cowboys should just get the deal done and turn their attention to more important matters.