Poll: Who would do this trade - Page 2 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Rack Bauer · 03-27-2005

Clayton and Williamson can't hold Big Mike's jock.

whcarm · 03-27-2005

His jock isn't worth moving up for, not with all the needs we have. If he falls to 11th I'd be thrilled to get him, but he isn't going to be running by a lot of NFL CBs. He isn't a sure thing and we aren't the position to move up to take a chance on a WR.

Rack Bauer · 03-27-2005

Quote:

His jock isn't worth moving up for

Read my first post in this thread. I disagreed with the trade. I wasn't talking about the trade, I was talking about your view of Mike Williams. The trade has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

but he isn't going to be running by a lot of NFL CBs

Neither did Michael Irvin. I don't want track stars, I want football players.

whcarm · 03-27-2005

I can only handle reading so many of your posts in one day Rack, I would say they drive me to drink, but I'm already an alcoholic

Anyway, like I said, I wouldn't mind getting him at 11. But I don't think he is far and away best WR in the draft. I also don't think Edwards is all that great either. I don't think either are worth a top 10 pick, but I wouldn't be upset with getting either of them at 11. Especially since there aren't many other players that I think are worthy of a high pick in positions that we have a need at.

However, I would rather get Clayton at 20 than getting Williams at 11. I think it would be better value. I also think he fits in with the other receivers we already have.

I do like Williamson's speed, but I would be reluctant to pick him in the first round because he played against lower competition and he is a workout guy rather than simply a football player.

Overall, I'd much rather trade down and pick up more picks than risk taking a guy high, getting no extra picks, and risking him being a bust.

Finally, Irvin was best when he had a speedy guy opposite him.

Shotgun Dave · 03-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q_the_man

Trade our #11, #20, 2 6th rounders, Al Singleton and a 2nd next year for the bears #4 and their 2nd rounder.....

I say yes.. Why?

Because we still get 3 picks in the 1st 2 rounds, we could grab Mike Williams at #4, still get Tuck and Bullocks in the 2nd and all we actually lose is Singleton and a 2nd next season....

To me I think this would be a fair trade if tha Bears go for it......

Why don't you offer tham your mother and kid sister while you're at it?

Sheesh!

StonetheCrow77 · 03-27-2005

Mike Williams is a good WR... but, WR isn't the biggest need on this team... why move up to number 4, pay that much more salary to a player that isn't needed that much? I'd stay put and draft a pass rusher...

Rack Bauer · 03-27-2005

Quote:

but, WR isn't the biggest need on this team...

If we only drafted for "Need" Roy Williams wouldn't be a Cowboy.

Anyway, you're wrong. WR IS a need. Both our starters are in their 30s and one of them didn't last half the season. We NEED a WR.

That said, I wouldn't trade up for any player in this draft.

StonetheCrow77 · 03-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rack

If we only drafted for "Need" Roy Williams wouldn't be a Cowboy.

Anyway, you're wrong. WR IS a need. Both our starters are in their 30s and one of them didn't last half the season. We NEED a WR.

That said, I wouldn't trade up for any player in this draft.

Yup, I agree... you have to balance out Need vs. BPA... is Mike Williams going to be that much better than Shawne Merriman or Derrick Johnson or Dave Pollack or any other pass rusher available this draft... that's certainly debatable... I feel he isn't that much better to validate moving up... WR is a need, just not as bad as a pass rusher... Parcell's even said himself that the defense needs more help than the offense... whoever is taken with the first pick had better be a starter... can you assure that Mike Williams will beat out Key or Glenn this year??

whcarm · 03-27-2005

I think Roy Williams was a need. Who else did we have back there? Dixon? Yeah, that worked out well. Our secondary was a need back when we drafted Williams, heck, it is still a need now.

He was the best player available at a position of need when we drafted. We even got to trade back a few spots and still get him.

ghst187 · 03-27-2005

well, we had a guy named Woodson back there at SS when we drafted Roy...

Personally, i'd trade both firsts and something else to move up and get MW. I think there are plenty of players in this draft that would help us a lot at need positions BUT as noted by many, there is a lack of great playmakers. I think MW is one of those guys that has the potential to change games. Sure, we could "fill" out most of our need positions by trading down and loading up on picks..etc...but I think MW could take our offense to the next level, esp in the redzone, and do more to instantly make us a contender than any other player this offseason. So IMO, that's worth it.
Now, if we don't get MW, I hope he's a giant bust and I'm dead wrong.
I think Clayton, Williamson, etc...Murphy would help us on offense but I don't think they have the potential to alter an entire defense's scheme like MW.
I don't think its a coincidence that we couldn't score in the redzone after we lost Irvin, or that Philly became a contender with the addition to TO, or Detroit winning games with the addition of Roy Williams....those guys altered everything the defense did and required special gameplanning and attention. Frankly, even though MW has been away for a year, I just fail to see how any DBs are going to be able to cover a 6'5 freakish athlete with gluehands....

StonetheCrow77 · 03-27-2005

I don't think taking the huge "playmaker" works so well any longer... in the salary cap era it pays to have a more balanced team with very good players, than it does to have a few great players and a lot of poor/good players... if Williams is there at 11, I have no problem with them drafting him... trading up I don't like so much...

**big dog cowboy** · 03-27-2005

Are you Mike Lynn in disguise???

Rack Bauer · 03-27-2005

Quote:

I think Roy Williams was a need.

No, we had enough strong safeties on the team. We didn't know ANYTHING about Dixon at the time (and no, you can't use hindsight) and we still had Darren Woodson. If anything we needed a FREE safety, not a strong safety. But Roy was #1 on my list back then just like Mike Williams is #1 on my list now. The difference is Roy was a realistic "want". Mike Williams isn't a realistic want.

We can still take Pollack at #11 though. He's gonna be the best defensive lineman/linebacker in this draft, IMO.

Payton34Smith22 · 03-28-2005

That would be a negative sir.

TwentyOne · 03-28-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsthmaField

So who was the other person that voted yes?

a bears fan