Sturm: If they're smart, the Cowboys can get three starters in this upcoming draft

[newlander]

Originally Posted by conner01

mostly because they have'nt tried. we have went more the free agent route to find olinemen. we have'nt used many top 3 picks on them

...and HOW has that worked out? The old saying is that those who can't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The previous post about Claiborne is also correct: BAD move to trade up for him. JJ simply CANNOT resist the big splash: did the same thing with Dez. Keeps butts in the seats but it cripples a team. Those are picks we should have kept and selected interior linemen with.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by newlander

...and HOW has that worked out? The old saying is that those who can't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The previous post about Claiborne is also correct: BAD move to trade up for him. JJ simply CANNOT resist the big splash: did the same thing with Dez. Keeps butts in the seats but it cripples a team. Those are picks we should have kept and selected interior linemen with.

There are several linemen that started for their teams this year as rookies and done a good job. They were not first round picks either. I didn't agree with the direction of the last draft when it took place and said so. Cordy Glenn and Osemele were there for the taking in the second, along with others. If I can see it and others can see it, why can't Jerry and staff see it. The only time you trade up is if you are a player or two away from having a Super Bowl team, or you are going after a QB IMO. You don't trade up when a team is full of holes and has no depth.

[cannonball44]

Originally Posted by newlander

...and HOW has that worked out? The old saying is that those who can't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The previous post about Claiborne is also correct: BAD move to trade up for him. JJ simply CANNOT resist the big splash: did the same thing with Dez. Keeps butts in the seats but it cripples a team. Those are picks we should have kept and selected interior linemen with.

your principle is solid. but us choosing Dez is a bad example. he'll be a first ballot hall of famer.

[Prossman]

Had we not moved up for Mo we would be being held hostage by Jenkins as we speak or trying to figure out how to come up with 10-12 mill to sign a veteran corner or draft one and still keep spencer. Hindsight is 20/20. The good news is this draft is loaded with good offensive and defensive lineman we can make great strides on both sides of the ball if we play our cards right. Besides it is a whole lot harder to get the top rated corner n a draft then it is to get interior offensive lineman, and MO was the 2nd rated player on our board and filled a need to boot.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

No. He's talking about instant or at least early starters and saying this draft is deep where the Cowboys lack talent. Not every team fields a semi-pro quality offensive line as well as a mediocre at best DL.

Every team has holes.

BMore just won the SB and yet could very reasonably land 3 starters from this draft.

Doing so could put in a position of reaching for need though.

Which might well be the opposite of drafting smart.

The Cowboys O isn't going to be as easy to crack as you suggest.
Not if the returning players are healthy. It is certainly plausible that Parnell beats out an r2 or r3 RT for one season. If we had drafted David DeCastro last year he'd have been penciled in as a starter on draft day but never actually have counted as such until what week 12?

Its always easy to talk about things.
Quite another to do them.

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by conner01

mostly because they have'nt tried. we have went more the free agent route to find olinemen. we have'nt used many top 3 picks on them

do a little research and see how many 3rd rd and lower picks we have tried on the O line the last 5-7 years.

And guess what? If you do not count Free we have not gotten one single good starter from all those picks. And considering how Free played last year you could say right now we have not gotten one single draft pick on the O line that has panned out with the exception of Smith in the First. The last one we had that became a good starter was Gurode in 2002.

[Risen Star]

Originally Posted by jterrell

Every team has holes.

BMore just won the SB and yet could very reasonably land 3 starters from this draft.

Doing so could put in a position of reaching for need though.

Which might well be the opposite of drafting smart.

The Cowboys O isn't going to be as easy to crack as you suggest.
Not if the returning players are healthy. It is certainly plausible that Parnell beats out an r2 or r3 RT for one season. If we had drafted David DeCastro last year he'd have been penciled in as a starter on draft day but never actually have counted as such until what week 12?

Its always easy to talk about things.
Quite another to do them.

There isn't a less talented OL in the league than in Dallas. Their DL is about as marginal as you'll find in the league. This was Sturm's point. This draft is strong where the Cowboys are weakest. So nabbing 3 early starters is more of a possibility with the Cowboys than most other teams.

A C, G, RT, DE, DT. A quality rookie could start at any of those spots next year.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

There isn't a less talented OL in the league than in Dallas. Their DL is about as marginal as you'll find in the league. This was Sturm's point. This draft is strong where the Cowboys are weakest. So nabbing 3 early starters is more of a possibility with the Cowboys than most other teams.

A C, G, RT, DE, DT. A quality rookie could start at any of those spots next year.

there are worse and less talented OLs than Dallas.
the fact you refuse to acknowledge this basic and simple truth is why having any conversation on this subject becomes akin to speaking logically to a suicide bomber.

i understand sturm's point. it was a simplistic point but one rooted in some measure of reality. the very basic premise is you can draft a quality player at a position of need yet he still not start for you. did decastro only start 3 games for pitt because they weren't smart? was sean lee a bad draft pick because he wasn't a rookie starter?

if ratliff and hatcher are back a quality rookie DT may well not start next year. the thought you judge a draft class based on its rookie years is rather stupid. Just ask troy aikman or michael irvin.

the "smart" way to draft is add the most talent possible. that may or may not result in a plenitude of rookie starters.

talk to me about how many are starting year 3. that's what matters.

[big dog cowboy]

Originally Posted by BIGDen

Giving up our second for a CB that will not be Revis was unwise IMO.

Who said that he won't be?

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by jterrell

there are worse and less talented OLs than Dallas.
the fact you refuse to acknowledge this basic and simple truth is why having any conversation on this subject becomes akin to speaking logically to a suicide bomber.

i understand sturm's point. it was a simplistic point but one rooted in some measure of reality. the very basic premise is you can draft a quality player at a position of need yet he still not start for you. did decastro only start 3 games for pitt because they weren't smart? was sean lee a bad draft pick because he wasn't a rookie starter?

if ratliff and hatcher are back a quality rookie DT may well not start next year. the thought you judge a draft class based on its rookie years is rather stupid. Just ask troy aikman or michael irvin.

the "smart" way to draft is add the most talent possible. that may or may not result in a plenitude of rookie starters.

[View Full Quote]talk to me about how many are starting year 3. that's what matters.

frankly the fact that there are worse O lines then the Boys means nothing. And not like there are that many. Sad statement on how far we have fallen as regards the O line when so many posters boast that we do not have the worst O line in the NFL

[speedkilz88]

Originally Posted by big dog cowboy

Who said that he won't be?

A few ignorant fans so far.

[junk]

Originally Posted by Prossman

Had we not moved up for Mo we would be being held hostage by Jenkins as we speak or trying to figure out how to come up with 10-12 mill to sign a veteran corner or draft one and still keep spencer. Hindsight is 20/20. The good news is this draft is loaded with good offensive and defensive lineman we can make great strides on both sides of the ball if we play our cards right. Besides it is a whole lot harder to get the top rated corner n a draft then it is to get interior offensive lineman, and MO was the 2nd rated player on our board and filled a need to boot.

Not at all. Could have used that second round pick on Casey Hayward.

Plenty of way to build a team and last year's draft (and FA class) was deep for corners.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by junk

Not at all. Could have used that second round pick on Casey Hayward.

Plenty of way to build a team and last year's draft (and FA class) was deep for corners.

hindsight like this is hilariously bad and why fan discussion is so daft.

there is not a single GM in football that would rather have casey hayward over mo claiborne.

how a guy plays in a rookie season asked to do different things is hardly some overall equivalency test.

steve walsh had a better rookie season than troy aikman on the field....
should we have traded aikman and kept walsh?

where there is an argument to be made is that if we were moving to a tampa 2 it was silly to spend so luxuriously on CBs who can and in fact are at their best when they play shut down man technique.

it almost a virtual certainty three years from now that anyone crying about selecting mo claiborne will get mocked as he'll be our best defender.

[AmishCowboy]

Originally Posted by Prossman

Had we not moved up for Mo we would be being held hostage by Jenkins as we speak or trying to figure out how to come up with 10-12 mill to sign a veteran corner or draft one and still keep spencer. Hindsight is 20/20. The good news is this draft is loaded with good offensive and defensive lineman we can make great strides on both sides of the ball if we play our cards right. Besides it is a whole lot harder to get the top rated corner n a draft then it is to get interior offensive lineman, and MO was the 2nd rated player on our board and filled a need to boot.

[junk]

Originally Posted by jterrell

hindsight like this is hilariously bad and why fan discussion is so daft.

there is not a single GM in football that would rather have casey hayward over mo claiborne.

how a guy plays in a rookie season asked to do different things is hardly some overall equivalency test.

steve walsh had a better rookie season than troy aikman on the field....
should we have traded aikman and kept walsh?

where there is an argument to be made is that if we were moving to a tampa 2 it was silly to spend so luxuriously on CBs who can and in fact are at their best when they play shut down man technique.

it almost a virtual certainty three years from now that anyone crying about selecting mo claiborne will get mocked as he'll be our best defender.

I think you are completely missing the point. The OP said that the team would have been "held hostage" had they not drafted Claiborne. That simple isn't true. There were many options to address corner last year and Claiborne wasn't the only path to take.