Drafting another offensive tackle - Dallas Cowboys Forum

rolldog · 02-02-2012

I often see mock drafts allocating David DeCastro (G) to the Cowboys. My question is, would there be anything wrong with drafting another tackle and moving Free to guard since this is supposed to be a strong tackle class? Wouldn't two strong tackles and Free at guard be better than one strong tackle, one strong guard, and Free (as you can see, I don't have too much faith that Free can handle playing tackle)? Having two bookends for the next 10 years just sounds like the way to go. Just a thought...

Doomsday101 · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolldog

I often see mock drafts allocating David DeCastro (G) to the Cowboys. My question is, would there be anything wrong with drafting another tackle and moving Free to guard since this is supposed to be a strong tackle class? Wouldn't two strong tackles and Free at guard be better than one strong tackle, one strong guard, and Free (as you can see, I don't have too much faith that Free can handle playing tackle)? Having two bookends for the next 10 years just sounds like the way to go. Just a thought...

Free is not a G. I think Free is a guy who has shown he can play the RT spot and do so very well. The 09 season where he had to take over for Colombo Free did an outstanding job and helped this team to post season. I think he is better suited for the RT spot as opposed to LT

Risen Star · 02-02-2012

You don't have to move Free to G to take that T. You can play the new T at G early in his career similar to what we did with Flozell Adams.

But, yes, I like the idea of keeping your options open and rebuilding this OL at all costs. The value could very well be at OT at 14.

Gaede · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risen Star

But, yes, I like the idea of keeping your options open and rebuilding this OL at all costs. The value could very well be at OT at 14.

Definitely. It's very possible one of the top tackles is there at our pick. We can't get cute and take an inferior player at a different position just because we already have two tackles. Our team has gotta go with the best guy at that spot.

Sasquatch · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risen Star

You don't have to move Free to G to take that T. You can play the new T at G early in his career similar to what we did with Flozell Adams.

But, yes, I like the idea of keeping your options open and rebuilding this OL at all costs. The value could very well be at OT at 14.

Agreed. I don't think drafting an OT should automatically entail moving Free to OG. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to ensure that the team has quality bookends in place for the twilight of Romo's career and the first years of his eventual successor.

respectdatstar · 02-02-2012

Are we talking about Martin or Reiff sliding to 14 or taking Adams? Would Adams be a value pick at 14? I know he had a good Senior Bowl and his stock is rising. Would he be a better solution than taking a CB or pass rusher and just taking Osemele/Washington/Zeitler in the 2nd?

JoeCorrado · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by respectdatstar

Are we talking about Martin or Reiff sliding to 14 or taking Adams? Would Adams be a value pick at 14? I know he had a good Senior Bowl and his stock is rising. Would he be a better solution than taking a CB or pass rusher and just taking Osemele/Washington/Zeitler in the 2nd?

I like Mike Adams. But maybe not at the 14 spot. Remains to be seen. Remember, the draft has to be about fixing the team needs and keeping in mind player ratings, BPA and who will be available later who compares favorably. I favor going defense in round one, and FA (or later rounds) for o-line.

Moving Free to guard would not be an issue. He would actually find it much easier going since the space is more confined along the interior of the line. Usually you move a tackle to guard only if he lacks the athleticism for tackle at the NFL level. Free would excel, but be over priced... but the team cost would balance with the rookie pay scale and averaging the cost.

A tackle at 14 would make way more sense than a guard, and would provide us depth and flexibility.

Risen Star · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

Remember, the draft has to be about fixing the team needs

I don't agree. This draft, and any draft, has to be about getting the best player at every pick. If you can address a need in the process, bonus.

Doomsday101 · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risen Star

I don't agree. This draft, and any draft, has to be about getting the best player at every pick. If you can address a need in the process, bonus.

I think it has to be a bit of both. I think if a team just goes out for need they will miss on players if you go BPA you end up entering the season with the same holes you had when the season was over.

If you have 2 or 3 guys at 14 that their grades given are fairly close to each other and one of those can also fill a need then I think you have to go with BPA that fills a need.

**MichaelWinicki** · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

If you have 2 or 3 guys at 14 that their grades given are fairly close to each other and one of those can also fill a need then I think you have to go with BPA that fills a need.

And that's probably the way it is much of the time. You don't have one player who's head & shoulders above everyone else. You probably have two or three that are grouped fairly close.

But if you have one guy who's graded much better than anyone else, then you probably have to consider pulling the trigger.

Doomsday101 · 02-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

And that's probably the way it is much of the time. You don't have one player who's head & shoulders above everyone else. You probably have two or three that are grouped fairly close.

But if you have one guy who's graded much better than anyone else, then you probably have to consider pulling the trigger.

Of course. I would not miss on a guy who I felt was head and shoulders above other prospect should he fall to 14 regardless of need. However as you said more often than not the guys is the mid range will not normally be far apart in terms of grades

rester · 02-02-2012

I think we take a OT maybe late or as UDFA or one FA a swing guy

but we got to many other need s

Matt McCants, OT, UAB
Height: 6-6. Weight: 309.
Projected 40 Time: 5.06.
Arm: 35. Hand: 8 3/4.
Projected Round (2012): 6-7.

Tobal · 02-02-2012

The good, or well bad news is we can both draft for need and BPA as we have lots of needs.

Macnalty · 02-02-2012

At pick 14 who will be available that we do not need, I can only think of QB, WR, TE, Kicker and RB, at around 14 the two top QB's(Luck and Griffin), WR(Blackmon), will be gone, along with the top RB(Richardson), leaving us to shy away from TE and kicker, otherwise we take the best player available. In theory this draft should be difficult to screw up.

dallasfaniac · 02-02-2012

BPA is crap. It's just a word used to justify why you like one player more than another. I would wager that no two teams have the same rankings of every player, let alone the first player to be taken in a draft. The teams themselves determine who they feel is the bpa based upon how they value each position, their offensive/defensive schemes, the talent differential between what they have and what they don't have, differential between this draftable player and the next ranked player of the same position, future roster projections, etc. Need probably has just as much influence on what determines BPA as anything else.