For all those lamenting Lamb

[Sydla]

Who was on the board that we should have taken instead?

- there were no CBs left at the spot that had the value of Lamb (or the talent)

- I guess you can can argue we should have taken Chaisson, who has big upside, but the rest of the potential DL at that spot - Gross-Matos, etc? None are close to Lamb in terms of skill.

So who did we pass on that we should have taken at 17 rather than Lamb? Its easy to pound your fist on the table and scream we should have gone defense.......... tell us who.

 

[big dog cowboy]

No one.

 

[ksg811]

The only argument is Chaisson and it's a very short argument.

 

[John813]

Only argument is a trade down, but it takes two to tango in a trade.

Good with the pick and I was not for a receiver pre draft, as I expected Jeudy/Lamb to be gone by 17

 

[alicetooljam]

I was scared to death they were going to pass on Lamb ala Randy Moss and Steven Jackson...if only all their picks could be this easy.

 

[ghst187]

Who was on the board that we should have taken instead?

- there were no CBs left at the spot that had the value of Lamb (or the talent)

- I guess you can can argue we should have taken Chaisson, who has big upside, but the rest of the potential DL at that spot - Gross-Matos, etc? None are close to Lamb in terms of skill.

So who did we pass on that we should have taken at 17 rather than Lamb? Its easy to pound your fist on the table and scream we should have gone defense.......... tell us who.

totally agree, but Chaisson could be Ware or total bust...no idea because his stats don’t support his case.
I liked LB Murray or a short trade down for Ruiz...but you’re right, there weren’t any defensive players that we probably had rated anywhere close to as high as Lamb was on our board. I’d rather have a player at a position we don’t need (see Pollard) than another Taco or Hill.

 

[dckid]

Who was on the board that we should have taken instead?

- there were no CBs left at the spot that had the value of Lamb (or the talent)

- I guess you can can argue we should have taken Chaisson, who has big upside, but the rest of the potential DL at that spot - Gross-Matos, etc? None are close to Lamb in terms of skill.

So who did we pass on that we should have taken at 17 rather than Lamb? Its easy to pound your fist on the table and scream we should have gone defense.......... tell us who.

I agree no one. He was the right pick at that spot. Stop overthinking. Just being competent is the key.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Who was on the board that we should have taken instead?

- there were no CBs left at the spot that had the value of Lamb (or the talent)

- I guess you can can argue we should have taken Chaisson, who has big upside, but the rest of the potential DL at that spot - Gross-Matos, etc? None are close to Lamb in terms of skill.

So who did we pass on that we should have taken at 17 rather than Lamb? Its easy to pound your fist on the table and scream we should have gone defense.......... tell us who.

Only legitimate argument would have been a great trade down option that we dont know of yet.

Picking up a 3rd and taking Chaisson is not a better option in my mind.

 

[thunderpimp91]

It was lamb, chaisson, or a trade down. anything else would have been a head scratcher. If they tried to get cute and take someone like Ruiz for example you would have had a lot of people questioning their loyalty to this organization.

 

[Jumbo075]

Only argument is a trade down, but it takes two to tango in a trade.

Good with the pick and I was not for a receiver pre draft, as I expected Jeudy/Lamb to be gone by 17

They had 3 trade offers, according to Jerry Jones. But Lamb was rated the 6th best prospect on their draft board, behind Burrow, Young, Okudah, Brown, and presumably Tuavailoa or Simmons.

 

[Sydla]

Only legitimate argument would have been a great trade down option that we dont know of yet.

Picking up a 3rd and taking Chaisson is not a better option in my mind.

Jerry said he had three options. We will never know the trades though.

It would had to have been really rich for me to move from 17 and pass on Lamb.

 

[DFWJC]

I'm sure they were thrilled that Chaisson was falling to them.
But they got painted into a corner when a player in a full tier (or even two smaller tiers) higher was still on the board.
Had to take Lamb or trade down slightly.

The risk in a trade down would be that you end up with neither Lamb nor Chaisson.
Probably not worth the risk

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It was interesting to here Jerry say the team had four players at 17 they were prepared to take.

Chaisson, Lamb, Terrell, but who would be the fourth?

 

[Risen Star]

The only argument is Chaisson and it's a very short argument.

9.5 career sacks in college. He's got great traits and may blossom in the NFL but the Cowboys took an actual great on field player vs a guy who looks like he could be one day.

No debate for me.

 

[mattjames2010]

Only argument is a trade down, but it takes two to tango in a trade.

Good with the pick and I was not for a receiver pre draft, as I expected Jeudy/Lamb to be gone by 17

We had trade offers, we chose to go with a skill position to sell jerseys.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It was the best of all scenarios in my mind.

I wanted Chaisson heading into the draft and never even considered Lamb being available where we picked. Lamb was the best receiver in the draft in my opinion.

I also look at it this way.

There is a bit of projecting with Chaisson (although I would be willing to wager on him), so there is some risk assessment. When you have a guy in Lamb that's arguably the best receiver in the draft at a position of need, albeit not a pressing need, taking the higher graded and proven player (Lamb) was a no-brainer.

 

[charron]

It was the right pick given who was left on the board. He doesn't help our biggest weakness though and that is what is disappointing.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Who was on the board that we should have taken instead?

- there were no CBs left at the spot that had the value of Lamb (or the talent)

- I guess you can can argue we should have taken Chaisson, who has big upside, but the rest of the potential DL at that spot - Gross-Matos, etc? None are close to Lamb in terms of skill.

So who did we pass on that we should have taken at 17 rather than Lamb? Its easy to pound your fist on the table and scream we should have gone defense.......... tell us who.

When a player ranked 6th on your board at a position where the top players make 20 million a year is their at 17, you take him.

I know I overvalue position sometimes, but taking Lamb their is exceptional team building.

 

[HellCrowe]

I feel that consensus is this was the right pick. I feel good about that. You got some doubters but it’s a breath of fresh air compared to the consensus of Dak or the lack of.

 

[darthseinfeld]

It was the best of all scenarios in my mind.

I wanted Chaisson heading into the draft and never even considered Lamb being available where we picked. Lamb was the best receiver in the draft in my opinion.

Best fit at WR for us, especially if McCarthy wants to integrate some WCO concepts