Factors suggesting Offense at 10

[Verdict]

I think it’s likely we go offense at #10 and possibly even #44. Here are some factors that I think tilt the selection toward offense:

1. BPA. It’s most likely going to be Pitts or OT in terms of BPA at #10. To take a defender here is fighting the draft and “reaching” based on need. Taco says hello.

2. Pitts is rumored to be the best player in the draft by some. If we grade him that way the team will not pass on him at #10.

3. We just agreed to pay Dak $160M over 4 years. If Tyron or Collins can’t play are you going to risk $160M on a substitute? Not if you can avoid it. That’s not lost on Jerry.

4. This team goes as the OL goes. Our OL has dropped off, as of the last couple of years. Jerry will want to regain that form.

5. Cheap labor. LT is a MONEY position. It helps offset labor costs to draft an OT on a 5 year cheap labor contract. It also offsets Dak’s massive deal.

6. Longevity. A LT can play for 10 years in the league. That favors a premium pick.

7. We seem to be very good at selecting OL. It’s a relatively safe pick with a low probability of busting.

8. Tyron and Collins, are both coming off of injuries. Neither is guaranteed to play. At best Tyron has another year or two left.

9. You may be able to get some salvage value out of Tyron at this point, but not two or three years from now.

10. At one time, LVE and Jaylon were viewed as All Pro type of players. I don’t think Jerry has given up on them. Why assume that Tyron and Collins will return to form but Jaylon and LVE, with proper coaching will not? I think that will be how Jerry sees it.

11. And maybe most importantly, Mickey Spagnola, the team shill, seems to be banging the drum that we should draft the best defender at #10, which is probably a smoke screen.


I understand the argument against that is that the defense sucks. But I don’t think Jerry thinks his defenders suck as badly as some of you do.

 

[CowboyWay]

I am totally against drafting offense in the 1st round. Except for LT.

I Agree 100%

 

[Verdict]

I am totally against drafting offense in the 1st round. Except for LT.

I Agree 100%

I am not against drafting a defender in the first round. I am BIG TIME against reaching based on need. The defensive class in this draft is VERY weak at the top.

 

[817Gill]

Pitts, Sewell, and Slater could easily all be gone by our pick. Definitely two of the three will and most likely a lineman. I don’t see us picking offense especially without us having a top-5 pick.

 

[817Gill]

I am not against drafting a defender in the first round. I am BIG TIME against reaching based on need. The defensive class in this draft is VERY weak at the top.

Surtain is rated 9-13 in most rankings. Really not a reach at 10, he’s perfect for that 9-13 range.

 

[gimmesix]

I think it’s likely we go offense at #10 and possibly even #44. Here are some factors that I think tilt the selection toward offense:

1. BPA. It’s most likely going to be Pitts or OT in terms of BPA at #10. To take a defender here is fighting the draft and “reaching” based on need. Taco says hello.

2. Pitts is rumored to be the best player in the draft by some. If we grade him that way the team will not pass on him at #10

I don't think either Pitts or the top OT (Sewell) will be available when we pick. Thus, it's more likely going to come down to taking a receiver or a lineman like Slater who, depending on who you ask, isn't any more highly regarded than Surtain. So I don't think it will be reaching to take Surtain. Maybe Horn, but it depends on how Dallas rates the two corners.

The player that I want, Barmore, appears to be a reach and I'd hope we trade down if we're going to take him, but I think this premise that if we're taking defense, we're reaching is wrong.

 

[Typhus]

I don't think either Pitts or the top OT (Sewell) will be available when we pick. Thus, it's more likely going to come down to taking a receiver or a lineman like Slater who, depending on who you ask, isn't any more highly regarded than Surtain. So I don't think it will be reaching to take Surtain. Maybe Horn, but it depends on how Dallas rates the two corners.

The player that I want, Barmore, appears to be a reach and I'd hope we trade down if we're going to take him, but I think this premise that if we're taking defense, we're reaching is wrong.

One thing for sure, we are not reaching if we can trade back and there is a really good chance in this draft, the value that could be sitting there at 10,, good chance as we have had in years for a
nice small trade back.
I see the value in making that trade back if your pretty confident that you can still get one of your targets, and gain the extra 2nd/3rd whatever the value, its great value when you get into the later rounds.

 

[Verdict]

I don't think either Pitts or the top OT (Sewell) will be available when we pick. Thus, it's more likely going to come down to taking a receiver or a lineman like Slater who, depending on who you ask, isn't any more highly regarded than Surtain. So I don't think it will be reaching to take Surtain. Maybe Horn, but it depends on how Dallas rates the two corners.

The player that I want, Barmore, appears to be a reach and I'd hope we trade down if we're going to take him, but I think this premise that if we're taking defense, we're reaching is wrong.

I think the talking heads are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with these defenders. None of them are top 15 players.

 

[Gaede]

That's a really logical argument.

I am cool with Slater at 10. I'd prefer CB or Pitts, but realistically, we can get a good player at either position later in the draft. So if we take Slater, who by all accounts is a really good LT prospect, or Sewell if he falls, that's still a solid choice that makes a ton of sense and impacts the team right away

 

[JBS]

Point 1 is stupid. "Taco says hello"...but the other guy(watt) plays the same position..dumb argument when arguing reaching for need bc they both play the same position

Pitts isn't going to be available..so you can't just assume they will pass on him..another poor argument

There is less than 0% chance Dallas goes offense with both of their first two picks..forget about that dumb thought

 

[BourbonBalz]

I think the talking heads are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with these defenders. None of them are top 15 players.

That’s nothing more than your opinion.

 

[Verdict]

Point 1 is stupid. "Taco says hello"...but the other guy(watt) plays the same position..dumb argument when arguing reaching for need bc they both play the same position

Pitts isn't going to be available..so you can't just assume they will pass on him..another poor argument

There is less than 0% chance Dallas goes offense with both of their first two picks..forget about that dumb thought

I don’t think you read or understood my post. Watt really didn’t enter into my point. Reaching for need had zero to do with Watt. Watt would have been a better selection, but that wasn’t my point.

When you reach for need it tends to be a failure. When you stick to the draft board, it works better much more often.

There is no telling if Pitts will be available or not. I tend to doubt it, if he grades out as some suggest. If so, I would think he or an OT would be the pick.

It would not surprise me if the board fell such that the draft dictated that we go offense in both rounds. Pitts or an OL will likely be BPA at #10.

It would not surprise me if we draft Sewell or Slater in 1 that Creed Humphrey might be the pick in round 2, if he lasts that long.


If we draft Pitts in 1, I could see OT or Humphrey there in 2.

 

[Verdict]

That’s nothing more than your opinion.

That’s true. Isn’t that what all of us are doing here? Opining on things.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I think it’s likely we go offense at #10 and possibly even #44. Here are some factors that I think tilt the selection toward offense:

1. BPA. It’s most likely going to be Pitts or OT in terms of BPA at #10. To take a defender here is fighting the draft and “reaching” based on need. Taco says hello.

2. Pitts is rumored to be the best player in the draft by some. If we grade him that way the team will not pass on him at #10.

3. We just agreed to pay Dak $160M over 4 years. If Tyron or Collins can’t play are you going to risk $160M on a substitute? Not if you can avoid it. That’s not lost on Jerry.

4. This team goes as the OL goes. Our OL has dropped off, as of the last couple of years. Jerry will want to regain that form.

5. Cheap labor. LT is a MONEY position. It helps offset labor costs to draft an OT on a 5 year cheap labor contract. It also offsets Dak’s massive deal.

6. Longevity. A LT can play for 10 years in the league. That favors a premium pick.

7. We seem to be very good at selecting OL. It’s a relatively safe pick with a low probability of busting.

8. Tyron and Collins, are both coming off of injuries. Neither is guaranteed to play. At best Tyron has another year or two left.

9. You may be able to get some salvage value out of Tyron at this point, but not two or three years from now.

10. At one time, LVE and Jaylon were viewed as All Pro type of players. I don’t think Jerry has given up on them. Why assume that Tyron and Collins will return to form but Jaylon and LVE, with proper coaching will not? I think that will be how Jerry sees it.

11. And maybe most importantly, Mickey Spagnola, the team shill, seems to be banging the drum that we should draft the best defender at #10, which is probably a smoke screen.


I understand the argument against that is that the defense sucks. But I don’t think Jerry thinks his defenders suck as badly as some of you do.

I like this post. Very well reasoned. I think some of this comes down to those 9 picks ahead of them. I don't think it will be much of a reach to take a Surtain or a Parsons. But if one or two defenders happen to go in front of the Cowboys, which is always possible, the value is almost certainly going to be on offense.

You might pass up your 8-9 guy to take your 10-12. You can't pass up a top 5-6 guy to take your 13-15. Very bad business. And you can't always just snap your fingers and trade back. You need an eager dance partner.

People better steel themselves. Offense might well be the way to go. You are right on.

 

[BourbonBalz]

That’s true. Isn’t that what all of us are doing here? Opining on things.

Yes, but you seem to be talking in absolutes regarding the defensive players. Maybe I’m reading more into your comment than you meant.

 

[gimmesix]

I think the talking heads are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with these defenders. None of them are top 15 players.

I don't know after about the first six or seven, I think the top defensive talent equals the top offensive talent. And it's always really questionable with the quarterback. There might be five who go in the top 10, but I'm not sure how many of them actually belong in the top 10 since QBs rise to the top possibly more based on the position than the skills.

I'd put Sewell, Pitts, Chase, Smith, Lawrence, Wilson and Fields ahead of the top defenders, then I think it levels some. I'm not sure I'd consider Waddle and Slater better prospects than Surtain. So let's say the top 7 I have listed all go along with two more QBs because of the value of the position, we'd be picking from that second group of players and I'd easily take Surtain in that case because of need.

Any of those top seven fall (other than the QBs) and it gets a little more difficult. However, I won't be surprised if no matter who is there, Dallas ends up taking someone like Horn instead. I'm not saying they would be wrong to do it, but it would make me wonder.

 

[J-man]

I think there is a very good chance they go offense in rd1. But if they do, I have a hard time thinking they could do it again in rd 2. IMHO, the only offensive players they should have on the needs list are an OT and a speedy WR. Maybe a OG/C but I doubt it.

But if you can pick either Pitts, Sewell or Slater at 10 instead of Surtain, Parsons or Horn, you do it, or trade back.
But than I think you would have to go CB, DT, Edg, LB or S in rd 2 and the next few picks as well. The only scenario I can see them taking 2 offensive players in the first 100 is if they land Pitts at 10 and an OT or WR they really really like falls to 75 or 99. But if they get an OT at 10, I tend to think it would have to be a super highly rated player that fell for them to take another one that early.

 

[Bigdog]

If Pitts or Sewell is there than it is a no brainer to pick them. If not than go with a defensive player. With that being said, those two will probably not be there at 10.

 

[Risen Star]

I am totally against drafting offense in the 1st round. Except for LT.

I Agree 100%

Then you don't understand the draft.

 

[John813]

I don’t think you read or understood my post. Watt really didn’t enter into my point. Reaching for need had zero to do with Watt. Watt would have been a better selection, but that wasn’t my point.

When you reach for need it tends to be a failure. When you stick to the draft board, it works better much more often.

There is no telling if Pitts will be available or not. I tend to doubt it, if he grades out as some suggest. If so, I would think he or an OT would be the pick.

It would not surprise me if the board fell such that the draft dictated that we go offense in both rounds. Pitts or an OL will likely be BPA at #10.

It would not surprise me if we draft Sewell or Slater in 1 that Creed Humphrey might be the pick in round 2, if he lasts that long.


If we draft Pitts in 1, I could see OT or Humphrey there in 2.

Who was the BPA in 2017? Next few guys taken was Njoku(TE), Watt(LB/edge), Foster(LB), Ramczyk(OT), King(CB) and then Robinson(OT).

Njoku had the hype, but hasn't done much. Foster had red flags and continual issues in the NFL.

Ramczyk developed nicely. Not sure if he was the BPA.

What if Taco was one of the higher rated guys on the board at the time? He did have a 2nd round grade on their board but at pick 27... that's not too far off. King had a 1st round grade but it's not like he was a huge miss