My Draft Day Fears...

[Jimmie]

Ok, I know this has been talked about and posted of numerous occasions but I wanted to get an opinion of something. Draft Day, 1st rd. 11 & 20. 2nd rd. #42 overall. Its been talked about and speculated that the cowboys will trade one of their firsts, maybe even both, to acquire extra picks. :banghead:

This is what I want to know. Would you rather have 3 Good/Great players (by staying & drafting at 11,20,42 or trade one or multiple picks & draft 1Good/Great Player (possibly 2 depending on which pick(s) you trade) and 2-3-4 average players?

To me, I pick QUALITY over QUANTITY. yet it seems like most teams/people would rather have Quanity. :clap2:

Please discuss, I want to read your opinion on this. :worthy:

[Matt]

I totally agree with you.
And now it seems as if Mike Williams, if available at 11, wont be going to us, a trade would be involved somehow

[dstew60105]

I totally agree with you.
And now it seems as if Mike Williams, if available at 11, wont be going to us, a trade would be involved somehow

Where are you reading this about Mike Williams?

[alancdc]

I agree that we should stay put with at least the 2 first round picks. We need 2 stud starters with those 2 picks. Anyway, with our history of 2nd and 3rd round disasters it's no guarantee that the extra picks will even be able to play. I think that we're fairly deep at more positions than last year! I don't think that we have THAT many holes to fill that we trade 2 "should be" big time starters for a bunch of "who knows"!

[ghst187]

actually, we need at least 3 and maybe 4 players on day one. We HAVE to get a starting DE with one of our picks. We HAVE to get a starting FS with one of those picks. We need to get a starting or starting caliber LB. We need to get a WR that can contribute soon. We could also use an OL.
The deal is, after the 7 elite players are gone in this draft, of which we're not likely to see any at 11 anyway, there are probably 20 guys or so that could really help us out at need positions between late 1st round to early 3rd round. I just don't know if standing pat and using our three picks will net us players that are cost-effectively better than a trade down or two and getting 4 or 5 players on day one.

[bula]

Think about it this way. You're JJ and BP. You have a list of needs and have thus compiled a list of players who are considered your key guys - absolutes inotherwords.

Draft day is always a toss up, especially when you do not have a super player draft to begin with. There is a lot of equal talent here at the top. Priority 1 for JJ and BP is to get 3 starters from the draft filling the critical holes that they need - DE/LB, WR, RT, S. They will not trade down at all UNLESS they can be assured that they can still get one of their key players and still not compromise their later picks by shifting draft picks by other teams - ie make a trade for #11 and that pick then screws someone elses pick at 12 and they are forced to take someone the Cowboys coveted.

Picking #11, 20 and 42 is the worst case scenario for the Cowboys. They will not trade unless they get the player they want or a player of equal value and picks. Julius Jones is a perfect example. I did not see anyone who liked that trade last year when it went down. ESPN went bonkers. But JJ got the last laugh on that one.

[dbair1967]

I totally agree with you.
And now it seems as if Mike Williams, if available at 11, wont be going to us, a trade would be involved somehow

you know thats probably why we're bringing him in for a visit, Jerry's probably asking him what teams behind us he'd like to be traded to

:rolleyes:

David

[alancdc]

I agree with the need for starters at DE, FS & LB, but why do we need a receiver this year? I agree that we will need some receiver help some day, but I don't think it is just a crucial position THIS year. If we keep those picks isn't it reasonable that we do get the other 3 starters @ DE, FS & LB with the 11, 20 & 42 picks? The fact that we are saying that we may need OL help means that we missed on 2 OL picks last year in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and that is where we are talking about trading down this year? JJ only gets the last laugh if he makes Buffalo's pick this year a starter. We would have gotten a starter last year at 24 had we stayed there.

[5mics]

I agree with the need for starters at DE, FS & LB, but why do we need a receiver this year? I agree that we will need some receiver help some day, but I don't think it is just a crucial position THIS year. If we keep those picks isn't it reasonable that we do get the other 3 starters @ DE, FS & LB with the 11, 20 & 42 picks? The fact that we are saying that we may need OL help means that we missed on 2 OL picks last year in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and that is where we are talking about trading down this year? JJ only gets the last laugh if he makes Buffalo's pick this year a starter. We would have gotten a starter last year at 24 had we stayed there.
I see your point BUT if MW was available at #11, IMO, he would be the BPA at that point. So even if wr isn't a bigger need right now, how do we pass up the BPA who happens to be a wr? I would draft MW quicker than a hiccup..... :cool:

[Chuck 54]

Ok, I know this has been talked about and posted of numerous occasions but I wanted to get an opinion of something. Draft Day, 1st rd. 11 & 20. 2nd rd. #42 overall. Its been talked about and speculated that the cowboys will trade one of their firsts, maybe even both, to acquire extra picks. :banghead:

This is what I want to know. Would you rather have 3 Good/Great players (by staying & drafting at 11,20,42 or trade one or multiple picks & draft 1Good/Great Player (possibly 2 depending on which pick(s) you trade) and 2-3-4 average players?

To me, I pick QUALITY over QUANTITY. yet it seems like most teams/people would rather have Quanity. :clap2:

Please discuss, I want to read your opinion on this. :worthy:
I've been saying for the past 2 years that this team won't get over the hump with more Parcells' players...this team is desperate for STAR players who make the difference on Sunday.

That said, there's still nothing wrong with trading down with your draft picks, as long as you don't do it before the draft...trades need to occur while you're on the clock. IF there's a star player that we really want, we won't trade down just to secure an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick. We'll trade down because we don't really want Merriman or a RB or DJ or maybe even Williams...if Parcells isn't sold on them and has another guy in mind that he really wants, then it makes sense to trade down a little bit, secure extra picks and still get your man.

It's only foolish if you pass on the #1 guy you have spent months thinking would really make a difference in your team just to get an extra pick.

[Tio]

There is a major flaw in your argument. Do you consider JJ or Witten average? Do you consider ekuban/carver good/great? Where you are picked does not mean how good you will be.

[AJM1613]

You should never be mad right after the draft because you have no idea how any of those players will pan out (remember 2002?). Wait three years.

[JackMagist]

The kind of trade down that I am talking about is the kind where you trade down 3 to 5 spots. That does not trade you out of the top talent but it does pick you up the extra later picks. So if you are saying that we could get 3 great players with 11, 20 and 42 then we should also be able to get 3 great players at 15, 25 and 42, with a chance of getting that gem in the 3rd or maybe with in the later 2nd. I would go with the 3 great players AND the 2 possibly good/great players. So I would rather do the trade down if we can get the right deals.

[blindzebra]

Based on our biggest needs DE, FS, and OLB having picks at #11 and #20 does not give us any value if we address those needs.

If we stay put we will either draft a lesser need or reach.

This draft has no clear-cut best player, hell there really is no clear-cut top 25. This draft is low on elite players but deep on good players, so the player at #11 is not that much better than the player at #20. #20 is really not much better than #30.

There are a lot of players who will make teams and really contribute in the 2nd and 3rd round of this draft.

It's as simple as this, is there a player at #11 that will have more impact on our team than a player we get at #14-17 and the 2nd or 3rd rounder that also plays a lot?

[MichaelWinicki]

Based on our biggest needs DE, FS, and OLB having picks at #11 and #20 does not give us any value if we address those needs.

If we stay put we will either draft a lesser need or reach.

This draft has no clear-cut best player, hell there really is no clear-cut top 25. This draft is low on elite players but deep on good players, so the player at #11 is not that much better than the player at #20. #20 is really not much better than #30.

There are a lot of players who will make teams and really contribute in the 2nd and 3rd round of this draft.

It's as simple as this, is there a player at #11 that will have more impact on our team than a player we get at #14-17 and the 2nd or 3rd rounder that also plays a lot?


Well said Z... as usual.

I hate the #11 spot... unless of course we can trade out of it and pick up a 2nd or 3rd along the way. :)

[dbair1967]

Well said Z... as usual.

I hate the #11 spot... unless of course we can trade out of it and pick up a 2nd or 3rd along the way. :)

I dont know that I hate the #11 spot...if Mike Williams is there at 11 I like it...if Braylon Edwards is there at 11 I like it...

otherwise mostly agree...I dont see alot of difference between the DE/edge rushers who will probably be available, so if they are all there at 11 then trading down makes sense...if there is a run on DE's though you have to think about staying at 11, or moving not far from 11 (unless they work out a deal for Howard or Abraham)

I dont like any OLB/ILB at 11, any QB, any OL, any S, any TE, or any DT...I dont like any RB other than Ronnie Brown at 11, and then I'd have to think long and hard about it because we dont really need a RB, even one who can do all the things Brown can...that leaves WR (Edwards, Williams) and maybe DE, and again, I dont see alot of difference in the DE's

David

[blindzebra]

I dont know that I hate the #11 spot...if Mike Williams is there at 11 I like it...if Braylon Edwards is there at 11 I like it...

otherwise mostly agree...I dont see alot of difference between the DE/edge rushers who will probably be available, so if they are all there at 11 then trading down makes sense...if there is a run on DE's though you have to think about staying at 11, or moving not far from 11 (unless they work out a deal for Howard or Abraham)

I dont like any OLB/ILB at 11, any QB, any OL, any S, any TE, or any DT...I dont like any RB other than Ronnie Brown at 11, and then I'd have to think long and hard about it because we dont really need a RB, even one who can do all the things Brown can...that leaves WR (Edwards, Williams) and maybe DE, and again, I dont see alot of difference in the DE's

David

Actually what I like about the #11 spot is it is very possible a player we don't really want, but another team may covet, will be there.

If Edwards or Williams is there several teams CAR, JAX, BAL, and PIT could all come calling and someone will over pay.

[tyke1doe]

There's a presumption inherent in this silly little argument, and that is that we absolutely, certainly know which player is going to be a blue chip player and which player isn't.

We don't nor do the teams nor do the coaches. I'm sure if teams could revisit the draft of last year, Ben Roethlisberger would probably be the top pick, the Chargers wouldn't have taken Phillip Rivers, the Browns may have passed on Kellen Winslow II.

We just don't know. So to accuse a team of trying to trade down for more picks and ignoring the blue chip player, the team must believe the player isn't the blue chip prospect we fans think he is. Otherwise, they wouldn't have traded down and passed said player up.

I just remember when the Pats were drafting and they desperately needed a wide receiver and David Terrell, considered the best receiver available, was there for the taking. And the Pats passed on him in favor of Richard Seymour, and many Patriots fans likely broke their television sets or cursed the team.

Now look. Belichick was correct while the fans were wrong and Terrell ends up a Patriot after all.

I remember when J.J. Stokes was touted as the next Michael Irvin, and the 49ers moved up the draft to pick him. Stokes was a bust.

So nobody really knows. That's why I don't get all upset if a team passes on a player.

I think most of us are just in love with players because we hear their names and think they're the best at their position based on our image of them.

[mperfection]

I see your point BUT if MW was available at #11, IMO, he would be the BPA at that point. So even if wr isn't a bigger need right now, how do we pass up the BPA who happens to be a wr? I would draft MW quicker than a hiccup..... :cool:

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Rezz]

Great post Tyke1doe.

[big dog cowboy]

There is a major flaw in your argument. Do you consider JJ or Witten average? Do you consider ekuban/carver good/great? Where you are picked does not mean how good you will be.
Very well said. :)

[Hiero]

I agree quality over quantity. the cowboys probably wont have another #11 pick for awhile, and when youre picking that high, you''ve got a shot at a bluechip guy, a person who can really change the team, i dont wanna pass on a guy like that, just to get a backup or a "solid" guy who could possibly start someday.