Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by 44cowboys22, Apr 16, 2013.
Yes he said he thought it was 16 but he would try to confirm or find out later.
I always find it amusing when they kind of say...Well we only had X number (always less than 32 and usually in the teens) players as first round players but when they take someone in the second round they say...We had him graded as a first rounder.
IOW sometimes what is said prior to the draft and what is said afterward is a bunch of bologna.
Not worried about 1st round. Last few years we've gotten production, heck the only one I can think of is Bobby Carpenter who was a bust. Others didn't turn into superstars, but at least produced.
It's after the 1st round that I'm concerned about.
Why not trade up for one of those few players graded so highly ?
Hold it down Saboteur. :
Just fyi though, those picks that I posted were some players that could have been chosen after the trade downs at the spots we end3ed up drafting from.
We had no business trading down so much in a weak draft, I agree, but the bottom line is always what you do with the picks you have. And clearly there was opportunity even after the trade downs.
i bet alot of people who have won the lottery would disagree with this thought:laugh2:
just because something does'nt work everytime, does'nt mean it won't work sometimes. no single invention has ever worked perfectly the first time.you can find plenty of examples where we have traded back and made good picks. the trade back was not the problem in 09, the players picked were the problem
indeed.just look at our recent 4th rd picks,its a bloodbath with some players who should have been UDFAs selected in the 4th for no reason.
Finally someone understands my post...if they were willing to trade up for Mo, why in the hell trade back!!!
if non of the top o-linemen are left and someone is desperate and gave us their first and a second, I'd do it--lots of good DL, OL, and Safeties will be around later
Darn it with all these people that didn't understand your post. We must have some reading comprehension issues or something...
Try this argument:
Every draft is different, and has its own strengths and weaknesses. What will work in one year may not work in the next one.
The circumstances surrounding the selection of Claiborne were unique in that he was the top defensive player on their board and they regarded him as the best cornerback prospect to come along in years - and he reached a point where they could afford to get him. Do those circumstances exist this year?
This draft does not appear to me to be all that strong at the top. On the other hand, every draft 'expert' I have read has stated that this draft is deep in talent in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, particularly in the areas that Dallas has needs. Does that not argue for trading down?
Finally, what makes you think that the Cowboys will not screw up their choice if the stay put or trade up? Why do you think the odds are better than if they trade down?
I am not advocating trading down for the Cowboys, although I believe it has some merit this year. That is because I do not know what their final board will look like, nor do I have the slightest idea how this draft will play out. Neither does anyone else. But, I am certainly not going to rule it out just because they screwed things up in 2009.
If the OP's logic is sound we should look for a QB in the 6th because that was the round that Brady was drafted in. I understand the OP's thought process but it is flawed. Just because something worked or failed to work in a given situation doesn't mean that the result will be the same the next time you try that strategy. Moreover the talent, distribution of that talent, and team needs from draft to draft vary widely from year to year to rule out a given strategy.
The last time Dallas drafted 18th overall they ended up with Bobby Carpenter. Perhaps trading down would have been a better move.
Drafting my grandma would have been a better move.