Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by WoodysGirl, Feb 8, 2013.
The goal should definitely be to get at least two starters out of this draft.
what about acl injured left tackles ?
Yup Bobby Wagner was our man guys.. We needed him last year too and moving on to a 4-3 this guy would have made our LB core complete.
It erks me because if they didn't like Micheal Brockers why didn't they move back? There was some safeties and guards that would have been some nice prospects for Dallas in a trade down scenario.. We would have still came into this draft with a need at cb but there are some better corners in this draft than last year draft.
They had Wagner rated high, but don't think they would have taken him. Where would he have played? I'm sure they were not thinking Lee and Carter would be hurt.
I think they would have went Konz.
Yes, and there are drafts that look good that turn out to be bad.
It's easy to say right now that this draft looks loaded with DL/OL, but injuries, laziness and players merely not panning out could wipe that out. Plus, just picking the ones who will pan out is more difficult than some seem to think.
I always find it funny that writers like this refer to it as being "smart." The draft has shown over the years that it's more about being lucky than being smart, as with the players you've listed. Sure, you need to do your homework, have good scouts, stick to your board and make the best picks possible by it, but it still doesn't guarantee you're going to come out looking smart.
Yes, I still go with an offensive lineman in the first for that reason, unless the board has a much higher value at another position. Then, I'd probably look for a safety and DL with the next two picks.
If I'm drafting any other offensive linemen, I'd probably just take a shot with a late-round pick because Dallas has just a good a chance of succeeding then as it does in the third round. The only other time for Dallas to take one and have a chance of succeeding is the second round, and it's 50/50 at best.
It is not negative to tradeback in the first and pick up a second maybe more. With the holes on this team, spending a first and second didn't make sense. It is a different approach than the team took and it must be hard for you to understand.
...that's drafting fellas: plain and simple. Alot of US could pick olinemen in the first two rounds: not rocket science. But from the 3rd round on you have to KNOW what you are doing from a scouting and talent evaluation standpoint. Jerrah and his yes men clearly don't.:banghead:
Nothing against Mo, but I totally agree. Giving up our second for a CB that will not be Revis was unwise IMO. We could have gotten two solid starters instead of one good CB. I don't think we needed to make that move. Perhaps this year we pull off a draft more like 2005. My fingers are crossed...
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.
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.
your principle is solid. but us choosing Dez is a bad example. he'll be a first ballot hall of famer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who said that he won't be?
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