Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by WoodysGirl, Apr 17, 2013.
Maybe not home runs, but I'd be pretty satisfied.
Is Joe Kruger Paul's little brother?
To each his own I guess. I thought Mo had a great rookie campaign, so did Hayward. Brockers and Decastro are far from proven. Mo could end up being a rare player, the others not so much.
Plus, there is a very obvious elephant in the room with any claims of Dallas trading up to get Barron and still being able to take anyone in the 2nd round.
Anyone getting what I'm saying, so I don't need to state the obvious? :laugh2:
I'd have loved that, too, had Baron been there and had we known Hayward would pan out. But that's the 20/20 hindsight game. A year later, it's easy to look back at players who delivered at positions of relative need and to say we should have picked them. There's any number of positive ways a draft might play out if you just take the best players among the rookies and give them to Dallas.
We weren't going to take Decastro. And we probably weren't going to go into last season with a primary plan of starting a second round. That would have been, what, Dre Kirkpatrick--whom we'd have to look to move up for, Janoris Jenkins--who had obvious character concerns, or Casey Hayward, who played great in injury relief last year but who even the Packers projected to be a nickel CB his rookie year. But, yah, other than that, second-guessing sure is fun.
If we really knew how to draft, we'd have just taken Russell Wilson instead of any of those guys, and either saved a fortune on Romo's extension, or traded one of our QBs to a needy team for a boatload of picks this year.
we are all second guessing
you said that "we would have had to scramble for CB" if we hadnt traded up for MO in rd 1. isnt that second guessing? how do you KNOW "we would have had to scramble for a CB"?
my point still stands, we would not have had to scramble, because there would have been options at #45 if we could only evaluate talent and hold our water and not want to make a splash
i guess that is too much to ask
Ok, let me spell out the obvious.
You would have had to use your 2nd round pick to move up to get Baron.
So, getting Hayward in the 2nd round would have been out of the equation.
Crawford can and almost certainly will play DT on passing downs unless you think he somehow starts over Spencer or that we have 2 better interior pass rushers....
Ratliff played in 15 or more games from 2006-2011. He had one "injury-prone" year. Good grief.
Hatcher is almost a prototype 1Tech DT. He is moving positions because that's where he fits. Technically Sean Lee is moving positions too... should we draft a starting MLB??
DL is certainly a legit use of pick but it isn't the kind of need you reach for. It might be different if we were going to release Hatcher but that actually costs us money so will not be happening.
If Dallas rated Sylvester Williams the best player so be it. Kiper does not. He rates Fluker and Matt Elam both higher. Two guys who walk in as day 1 starters for this team by default. Williams has about 0 chance to start in 2013.
I want Dallas to get a DT. My top guy is Sheldon Richardson. Perfect 1 Tech for a Kiffin defense. But Williams isn't that type athlete. He is a 1/3 tech tweener. He is a good athlete for his size but not purely explosive nor having great lateral acceleration. He may be a default pick if others are gone but he isn't an A draft guy.
No, accepting the posed hypothetical and looking at the alternatives that would have been available is not second-guessing.
Second guessing is being critical about a decision after the outcome is known.
And your point is still a weak one. Heading into the mid-second in last year's draft looking for a starting CB to replace an injured Jenkins would have been an incautious thing to do. Without regard for the fact that GB hit on a draft pick for a player they'd targeted to challenge for nickel snaps who ended up playing really well as an injury replacement.
sorry, you are guessing here
you have no way of knowing that we "would have been scrambling for a CB"
since Mo would not have been picked, maybe he would be available for buffalo and we could have taken Gilmore at our pick (no scrambling involved)
we could have taken hayward with our #2 pick (no scrambling involved)
we may not have picked a CB at all and found someone in FA or jenkins could have played more minutes (no scrambling involved). the cowboys said that they were going to take brockers and LB in rd 2 so this is quite plausible.
what you were trying to do by your cryptic post was make excuses for a poor decision by the cowboys (per usual) and got called on it
love the faux indignation in your post BTW
Ok. We're not going to have a conversation where I explain the difference between 'guessing' and 'second guessing' to you.
Neither am I going to explain by what magic I was able to determine that, had we not taken Claiborne, we'd have had to fill a CB position with an NFL-caliber player.
As to filling the hole by reaching with the first round pick, yes, that's exactly what I meant by 'scrambling.' And I've already walked through the various risky 2nd round options, so there's really no need to repeat that argument again.
Let me sum up all the whining about trading up.
We should never trade up and in fact always trade down because we can then reliably determine whom the best players are at each position available and then select them.
Not only that but if they actually fail to repeat a great rookie season I will re-draft again after their sophomore seasons.
I can always have the best player available so I just need to look at underachievers and write it up. Magic.
stop making nonsensical excuses for poor decisions as you should be OK
Let's see. Do I have it right, then?
Don't trade up to take a player you like, because you can't evaluate talent properly. You should trade down.
Unless, of course, you trade down, and a player you should have traded up for happens to play well. Then you should never trade down because you're unwilling to be aggressive and get the player you need.
Also, I've got a draft list that contains the names of several players who play at positions of need for the Cowboys and whose names I've heard about on tv or other message boards where people say good things about them. In a hypothetical situation where they play as well in DAL as they did in one season for the team that drafted them, it would have been a mistake for us not to have taken them. And since that hypothetical can't be disproven, it's a lock-solid thing to complain about. Or second guess about. Or guess about. I'm not sure which.
Either way, I'm unhappy, because we should have done something besides what we did. Maybe the opposite of what we did. If you don't agree, you should probably stop making excuses because you're not making any sense.
Does that about sum it up?
You weren't pimping Hayward till after his rookie season. Give it a break.
Pretty much. Maybe add a line about consulting various posters who always love the best players and hated the ones who didn't pan out.
I mean if only this particular draft forum had posts from last year.... wait, what?
I like Kruger a lot but there is no way he's a 3rd round pick in my mind.
we have soooo many holes. its a joke that jerry jones would trade a first and second away to get a position that isn't nearly as important as o-line and d-line
You talking about CB v. OG?
And, with Josh Brent in the lineup, DL isn't as thin as it is now. And that's an event that happened after last year's draft. We're thin at DL because Spencer's on a one-year deal and Hatcher's looking to leave in FA next season.