I'm torn. We need defense in the worst way, and I like Surtain. I said he is the most ready player of all the defensive players in this draft, and is the safest pick. I just don't see a "bust" with him. But is one defensive player, even Surtain, going to fix this defense? It's going to take multiple defensive picks to fix the defense. So is picking Pitts first and picking defense the rest of the way going to severely hurt efforts to fix the defense? I say no.
The argument for Pitts is that he gives Dak - in whom we have invested $40 million - another weapon, and a special weapon. And with all due respect to those who say we scored 30 points a game, many of those games were when we were behind. We may have come back and beat the Falcons, but remember, we were down 29-7 (or something like that). So much for having all these weapons. I say with Pitts, we add another game-changing option for Dak, one who can create mismatches against LBs and safeties AND open up opportunities for other players like Cooper, Lamb, Gallup and Zeke. We will be virtually indefensible.
The problem with the Cowboys offense wasn't necessarily scoring - if you look at the final score. It was consistently scoring on drives and taking advantage of our offensive fire power BEFORE the end of the game when teams were letting up and letting us score to run down the clock. We had too many drives where we settled for field goals.
Pitts gives us the ability to score consistently so we won't be in a position to put up garbage yardage, field goals and "garbage" TDs.
The one big positive in favor of Surtain is that his style fits playoff football. During the playoffs, refs let corners get a bit more physical. There are fewer PI penalties called. Surtain is a big corner, and I think his size will benefit us in the post season. But ... we have to get to the post-season first.
Give me ... Pitts if he and Surtain are available. But I don't think he will be, and I hope we don't move up to take him.