Parsons, Pitts or Surtain?

[kskboys]

Pitts hands down, best player!

Not hands down, not at all. Parsons is rated higher.

 

[kskboys]

he is such a boom or bust. his experience as a LB is limited, but he has physical traits out of this world...he maybe the best. he may end up a total bust.... that's why I don't want to gamble and would like to make sure we get a player that produces at a high level. gambles are for 3rd, 4th round...

He's less of a gamble than both Pitts and Surtain

 

[rambo2]

He's less of a gamble than both Pitts and Surtain

Pitts and Surtain are not a gamble at all.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Not hands down, not at all. Parsons is rated higher.

Disagree.

 

[Zekeats]

Check out this breakdown on Barmore. You might become a believer after watching it...

I am 100% with you. Everyone here cries safety all the time but the true problem is no pocket collapse. It's been our biggest problem since our Super Bowl years. David Irving was awesome for us in the middle and one year won us at least 3 games because of his play. We need a force in the middle more than we need another corner or a meh safety.

 

[CouchCoach]

Pitts and Surtain are not a gamble at all.

Every draft pick is a gamble, there are no sure things. The safest picks in the 1st round are OL.

5 QB's can go in the top 10 and the odds are 3 of them will bust.

 

[CouchCoach]

I am 100% with you. Everyone here cries safety all the time but the true problem is no pocket collapse. It's been our biggest problem since our Super Bowl years. David Irving was awesome for us in the middle and one year won us at least 3 games because of his play. We need a force in the middle more than we need another corner or a meh safety.

Agree, they need that force but is Barmore that force? I watch a lot of Bama ball and there were times he disappeared and times he was a force. But I can say that about most of the DL in this draft class, I don't see a real standout like in past drafts.

At 10, CB or LB looks like a better option than DL.

 

[Zekeats]

Agree, they need that force but is Barmore that force? I watch a lot of Bama ball and there were times he disappeared and times he was a force. But I can say that about most of the DL in this draft class, I don't see a real standout like in past drafts.

At 10, CB or LB looks like a better option than DL.

Oh definitely not passing up Surtain, Pitts at 10 but if we trade back with Wash or Chi Baremore is a perfect fit in the mid to late 1st. Then you go get Stokes or if Farley slips in the 2nd.

 

[kskboys]

Pitts and Surtain are not a gamble at all.

Yes, they are.

 

[kskboys]

Pitts and Surtain are not a gamble at all.

Why do you consider Parsons such a gamble? Looks like his floor is good starter, and ceiling is Urlacher. He might be the least gambled pick in the draft. Or, prolly Sewell and then Parsons.

 

[Western]

If all available at 10, no quality trade back options available while Dallas is on the clock, take the best player available with the highest first round grade coupled with their superior ceiling potential as an all-pro:

Pitts is the number 1 choice, followed by Parsons, then Surtain.

 

[kskboys]

If all available at 10, no quality trade back options available while Dallas is on the clock, take the best player available with the highest first round grade coupled with their superior ceiling potential as an all-pro:

Pitts is the number 1 choice, followed by Parsons, then Surtain.

Why are you saying Pitts is BPA over Parsons?

 

[J-man]

As much as I want defense, (Surtain over Parsons for me) but if Pitts is there at 10 you take him and don't look back.

 

[Western]

Why are you saying Pitts is BPA over Parsons?

Drafting for need is reactive, rather than proactive.

Drafting for need means the front office is focused only on one year ahead. Basically, the franchise is asking the question: What position(s) do we need to fill in order to compete this year?

The problem is that the organization may leave better players on the board in the effort to draft a guy that they think will make them competitive in September.

The front office should be asking the question: Which player available will have the strongest positive impact on the franchise for the longest number of years -- especially with a top 10 first round selection?

That’s the guy you choose -- Long-term, Pitts's impact on the franchise is slightly more valuable than Parsons.

It's all a projection -- but just my opinion -- talent, measurables, collegiate production, ceiling potential, game-changing impact -- Pitts is slightly a higher grade than Parsons at the 10th pick.

 

[rambo2]

Why are you saying Pitts is BPA over Parsons?

Most people would have Pitts ranked over Parsons. A lot think that Pitts is the best player in the draft.