“Luxury” picks

[CATCH17]

I see posters use the term “luxury” pick over and over on this board. I don’t mean this offensively to any poster, or posters, but that terminology may be the most idiotic phrase ever used on this board.

This phrase is usually used in the context of “I know player “A” will probably be (or was) the best player available when we will pick (or did pick) but we can’t afford the best player available because it’s a luxury pick. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

The draft is about talent acquisition. The sole focus of the draft should be talent acquisition. The draft is not the only means of filling holes. Moreover, just because we pick a player at a position of need does not mean that we filled that hole.

If a player is selected at a position that we don’t have an immediate need for that isn’t a “luxury pick”. Lol. It’s talent acquisition. Churn your roster to fill the holes if you need to.

If you have Donald as your DT and another Donald falls to you are you going to turn him down because it’s a “luxury pick” because you don’t need another Donald? Hell no. You are going to sprint to the podium and turn in his card and have two Donalds on the roster.

Do you select Taco Charlton if your team needs defense but Travis Kelce is available.

A large part of this board thinks you do lol.

 

[cowboyec]

Taking another WR at 10. LOL.

chase over horn...yes.
chase is the better player.
chase over surtain...yes...but barely.
Gallup is a f/a at seasons end...if chase or smith is the highest rated player on your board...turn in the card and move on with your day.
forcing a pick for need is how you get Taco.

 

[ChuckA1]

Picks are supposed to better the team and help win games. These aren't luxury picks unless you don't mind losing.

 

[Sydla]

Another Cee Dee Lamb or another Taco. Who are you choosing?

Why is the option a failed defender? Are you saying that if they take Parsons over Chase, that Parsons will fail or can't be better than Chase? Or that Surtain will be a failure and won't be a better player than Chase? Surtain has been mocked and listed in that 8-14 range, so taking him over say Smith isn't some big reach here.

And where are you going to play Chase? Again, you need to get real value out of your first round pick. You draft Chase or Smith, you aren't going to get that player on the field as much as you'd like because of the three pass catchers already at WR. Now if you are working some side deal here where you take a Smith or Chase (or even Pitts) and then flip a Gallup or Cooper for additional pick(s), then there's a bit of logic to that.

This is the problem when your front office plan is to largely ignore FA and just think the draft will deliver you all your starting needs.

 

[Sydla]

Do you select Taco Charlton if your team needs defense but Travis Kelce is available.

A large part of this board thinks you do lol.

This Charlton example has to die a slow death. The guys we are linked to, like Surtain, are largely going to be in that 7-13 range so it's not like we'd be taking some reach on defense to pass on Smith or Waddle at that spot. Charlton had mixed grades as a first rounder. We really did reach for him there.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have always felt BPA but needs have to factor into this. Main thing is that #1 pick must be a day 1 starter, if Dallas goes with Pitts fine, if that pick is Surtain fine. What I don't want to see is Dallas reaching for a player based purely on need. If BPA was a RB would you take him? I highly think many would say NO

 

[CATCH17]

This Charlton example has to die a slow death. The guys we are linked to, like Surtain, are largely going to be in that 7-13 range so it's not like we'd be taking some reach on defense to pass on Smith or Waddle at that spot. Charlton had mixed grades as a first rounder. We really did reach for him there.

Yeah.. I'm actually fine with Surtain.

I just don't see him as a impact player and the NFL is about impact players.

I'm definitely not taking a WR but passing on Kyle Pitts/Sewell/Slater for a corner would be a travesty.

We've gotten way to focused on the 2021 upcoming season. We're going to win the division, possibly win a wild card, and for sure get eliminated the following week by a real team as our best case scenario next year.

That's with or without Surtain.

 

[Vinnie2u]

Taking WR or TE at 10 shows that the FO has learned Zero about team building in the last 25 years.. and we’re headed to 25 more years of futility.

 

[RonnieT24]

There are scenarios like last year when going against your biggest need is the right choice
But purely BPA is a recipe for failure
You have to factor need into the equation
All things being relatively even need prevails

People touting the whole "BPA" argument are being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter which QB is there when the Cowboys draft we know he isn't going to win the starting job any time soon so to spend a top 10 pick on somebody who isn't going to play for a minimum of two years is stupid drafting. Every draft pick needs to be viewed through the lens of how much he can help the team, how quickly can he help the team and for how long. Top 10 picks are rightfully expected to be day one starters and cornerstone players. If they turn out to just be "solid" then you over drafted. If there was a Demarcus Ware, JJ Watt or Aaron Donald or even a Chase Young in this draft nobody would be talking about Pitts.

 

[stilltheguru]

Another undercover Pitts thread. Hes not Randy Moss, hes not Calvin Johnson and hes not Aaron Donald. Ok?

 

[Sydla]

Yeah.. I'm actually fine with Surtain.

I just don't see him as a impact player and the NFL is about impact players.

I'm definitely not taking a WR but passing on Kyle Pitts/Sewell/Slater for a corner would be a travesty.

We've gotten way to focused on the 2021 upcoming season. We're going to win the division, possibly win a wild card, and for sure get eliminated the following week by a real team as our best case scenario next year.

That's with or without Surtain.

Pitts would be in play because he's so unqiue. Sewell, I'd consider it. I think Slater is overrated by some on this board and some have suggested he might not even be an OT in the NFL, rather his future might be at OG. I am not spending the 10th pick on a guy who might be an OG unless that guy is a super stud like Quenton Nelson was.

 

[Doomsday101]

People touting the whole "BPA" argument are being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter which QB is there when the Cowboys draft we know he isn't going to win the starting job any time soon so to spend a top 10 pick on somebody who isn't going to play for a minimum of two years is stupid drafting. Every draft pick needs to be viewed through the lens of how much he can help the team, how quickly can he help the team and for how long. Top 10 picks are rightfully expected to be day one starters and cornerstone players. If they turn out to just be "solid" then you over drafted. If there was a Demarcus Ware, JJ Watt or Aaron Donald or even a Chase Young in this draft nobody would be talking about Pitts.

I would add, who is the BPA and according to whom? There are many draft publications out there that have their big board and normally once you get past first through 4th prospect these boards change on whom they think the top players are. Each team makes up their big boards and few are the same in terms of how they view a player and where he ranks amongst the top players in the draft. We use the term BPA loosely since it varies

 

[JustChip]

I agree with the OP. There is no way to predict the future. What is a position of strength today might be one if weakness tomorrow, literally. The center was a position of strength at the 2018 draft, then look at what happened during camp.

 

[boysfanindc]

I think picking BPA is also not a absolute, you don't just blindly look at your board and say we have to take the only player left with the 93 grade at a position that is not a need Vs a player that has a 92 grade of high need. You can also trade back to get a position of need at value and pick up additional picks.

I also think all positions are not necessarily created exactly equal, would you take a FB with a grade of 92 over a OT with a grade of 90 and you have a need at OT, if you could not trade back?

Is a perennial Pro Bowl OT a more valued position then a perennial Pro Bowl CB?

Sewell has a ESPN grade of 93 and Surtain has a 92 (can agree of disagree with the grading).

All teams will rate slightly differently though.

So not a absolute IMHO, but you definitely do not want to be selecting positions of need when there are players on the board with grades 2 or 3 points higher at valued position even if they are not a current need.

 

[CouchCoach]

I see posters use the term “luxury” pick over and over on this board. I don’t mean this offensively to any poster, or posters, but that terminology may be the most idiotic phrase ever used on this board.

This phrase is usually used in the context of “I know player “A” will probably be (or was) the best player available when we will pick (or did pick) but we can’t afford the best player available because it’s a luxury pick. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

The draft is about talent acquisition. The sole focus of the draft should be talent acquisition. The draft is not the only means of filling holes. Moreover, just because we pick a player at a position of need does not mean that we filled that hole.

If a player is selected at a position that we don’t have an immediate need for that isn’t a “luxury pick”. Lol. It’s talent acquisition. Churn your roster to fill the holes if you need to.

If you have Donald as your DT and another Donald falls to you are you going to turn him down because it’s a “luxury pick” because you don’t need another Donald? Hell no. You are going to sprint to the podium and turn in his card and have two Donalds on the roster.

I totally disagree, I have used much more idiotic phrases. I have actually used that phrase but was called an idiot long before I used that.

I like making luxury posts. I know they are because someone will ask me "CC, now was that really necessary"? No, it wasn't, it was a luxury post.

I looooovvvvve me some luxury. Give me the top shelf whiskey, hidden in the humidor cigars and bacon on my burger, Wagyu burger and Berkshire bacon. And rich Corinthian leather in my Yugo.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

I see posters use the term “luxury” pick over and over on this board. I don’t mean this offensively to any poster, or posters, but that terminology may be the most idiotic phrase ever used on this board.

This phrase is usually used in the context of “I know player “A” will probably be (or was) the best player available when we will pick (or did pick) but we can’t afford the best player available because it’s a luxury pick. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

The draft is about talent acquisition. The sole focus of the draft should be talent acquisition. The draft is not the only means of filling holes. Moreover, just because we pick a player at a position of need does not mean that we filled that hole.

If a player is selected at a position that we don’t have an immediate need for that isn’t a “luxury pick”. Lol. It’s talent acquisition. Churn your roster to fill the holes if you need to.

If you have Donald as your DT and another Donald falls to you are you going to turn him down because it’s a “luxury pick” because you don’t need another Donald? Hell no. You are going to sprint to the podium and turn in his card and have two Donalds on the roster.

Generally speaking, yes go for the superior talent but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Lets take Pitts and Sewell as an example - both highly talented guys but Pitts being the higher rated guy...who would help our offense more? Or to put it in another way, who do you think the Chiefs would've rather have Pitts or Sewell...

Edit - just saw boysfanindc post above - he said it way better than I...

 

[Thomas82]

I see posters use the term “luxury” pick over and over on this board. I don’t mean this offensively to any poster, or posters, but that terminology may be the most idiotic phrase ever used on this board.

This phrase is usually used in the context of “I know player “A” will probably be (or was) the best player available when we will pick (or did pick) but we can’t afford the best player available because it’s a luxury pick. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

The draft is about talent acquisition. The sole focus of the draft should be talent acquisition. The draft is not the only means of filling holes. Moreover, just because we pick a player at a position of need does not mean that we filled that hole.

If a player is selected at a position that we don’t have an immediate need for that isn’t a “luxury pick”. Lol. It’s talent acquisition. Churn your roster to fill the holes if you need to.

If you have Donald as your DT and another Donald falls to you are you going to turn him down because it’s a “luxury pick” because you don’t need another Donald? Hell no. You are going to sprint to the podium and turn in his card and have two Donalds on the roster.

Cosign!! Cosign!! Cosign!!

Not to mention the fact that ANY position can become a position of need on any given snap.

 

[JoeKing]

if sewell pitts or parsons are on the board when we pick...i'm taken'm and moving on with my day.

You can't pick'em all, just one, so which one is it?

 

[jaythecowboy]

People touting the whole "BPA" argument are being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter which QB is there when the Cowboys draft we know he isn't going to win the starting job any time soon so to spend a top 10 pick on somebody who isn't going to play for a minimum of two years is stupid drafting. Every draft pick needs to be viewed through the lens of how much he can help the team, how quickly can he help the team and for how long. Top 10 picks are rightfully expected to be day one starters and cornerstone players. If they turn out to just be "solid" then you over drafted. If there was a Demarcus Ware, JJ Watt or Aaron Donald or even a Chase Young in this draft nobody would be talking about Pitts.

It's not intellectual dishonesty. Positional value is a completely separate discussion. There are other factors like positional value, but that just muddies the waters . Would anyone have been happy if the Cowboys picked the best punter in the 1st round last year because it was a need? No because positional value says not to pick a punter there.

 

[Jarv]

yup!!!!!!!

it all go to bpa vs need really

tbh idk how any football fan who pay close attention to the nfl ever want to draft need over bpa with how much roster turn over and injured there are in the nfl. talent and coaching win games in the nfl. stack all the talent u can all day long!

draft = value
free agentcy = need

always!!!!!

What about QB?