Fisher: Source 'narrowing focus' to Surtain and Horn

morasp said:
That's my concern as well. I mean some of these guys that have been mentioned at 44 seem like huge reaches.
Click to expand...

I agree. A lot of the time when I'm doing a mock draft, I find myself seeking out trade down offers.
 
Western said:
Kuechly was the better player available.
Drafting for need ignores better players, especially 1st round talent which is considered a long-term investment.
Kuechly --- Rookie of the year (2012), defensive player of the year (2013), athleticism, excelled in coverage, and was a tackling machine.
Far exceeding any accomplishments that Claiborne produced -- Kuechly's value for Dallas would have been exceedingly greater than Claiborne's.
Drafting for chiefly for need in the 1st round, a team leaves much more valuable productive players on the board that will benefit the team overall.
Click to expand...
Western said:
Kuechly was the better player available.
Drafting for need ignores better players, especially 1st round talent which is considered a long-term investment.
Kuechly --- Rookie of the year (2012), defensive player of the year (2013), athleticism, excelled in coverage, and was a tackling machine.
Far exceeding any accomplishments that Claiborne produced -- Kuechly's value for Dallas would have been exceedingly greater than Claiborne's.
Drafting for chiefly for need in the 1st round, a team leaves much more valuable productive players on the board that will benefit the team overall.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying Claiborne had the better NFL career. I'm saying there was NO ONE who considered Kuechly a better NFL prospect than Mo Claiborne. You're having a bit of revisionist history here. Mo was considered a top 5 prospect by most people in that draft. He didn't work in Dallas. No doubt. And you can argue we shouldn't' have traded up for him....but he was widely regarded as the best corner in that draft and one of the best defenders.
 
stasheroo said:
I see him as an 'in-case' option that currently costs the team absolutely nothing should they do better and decide to cut him. A total non-factor when it comes to the draft. If you can draft an upgrade on a cheap, multi-year deal, you do that and simply cut Woods.
Click to expand...

We'll see, though that was pretty much the scenario last year. Actually I think Hill is just as likely to be cut, only played in 5 games, Woods started more than that....
 
JD_KaPow said:
Why would you draft a future HOFer when you can take a guy at a position of short-term need? It's a head-scratcher.
Click to expand...

Who in the hell knew Kuechly would be a future HOF'er? Come on stop this nonsense. If you want to say they screwed up then say that. But don't sit here and say you knew Kuechly would be a future HOF'er. Mo Claiborne wasn't Taco Chartlon no matter how much you guys want to make him out to be. He was highly regarded as a NFL prospect.
 
rocyaice said:
Who in the hell knew Kuechly would be a future HOF'er? Come on stop this nonsense. If you want to say they screwed up then say that. But don't sit here and say you knew Kuechly would be a future HOF'er. Mo Claiborne wasn't Taco Chartlon no matter how much you guys want to make him out to be. He was highly regarded as a NFL prospect.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I don't remember how they were rated relative to each other at the time, but there's no question Claiborne was considered a top-5 prospect. But "need" shouldn't have factored into the decision at all, and if it did, that was a mistake.
 
stasheroo said:
That’s just what I did this morning:

10. Patrick Surtain II CB Alabama

44. Jaelan Phillips EDGE Miami (FL)

75. Nick Bolton LB Missouri

99. Andre Cisco S Syracuse

115. Tyler Shelvin DT LSU

138. Jaylen Twyman DT Pittsburgh

179. Chauncey Golston EDGE Iowa

192. Thomas Graham CB Oregon

227. Justin Hilliard LB Ohio State

238. Mustafa Johnson DT Colorado
Click to expand...
I would be over the moon with that draft.
 
JD_KaPow said:
Why would you draft a future HOFer when you can take a guy at a position of short-term need? It's a head-scratcher.
Click to expand...

Claiborne was the no. 1 or 2 ranked cornerback before the draft. 2011 All American, Jim Thorpe award and SEC defensive player of the year.

He didn't work out mainly due to injury issues, which he didn't have much of in college....
 
LACowboysFan1 said:
We'll see, though that was pretty much the scenario last year. Actually I think Hill is just as likely to be cut, only played in 5 games, Woods started more than that....
Click to expand...

I have no problem upgrading and cutting both. The cupboard at defensive tackle is bare.
 
stasheroo said:
Off the top of my head, I bet that directly coincides with the team cutting the disastrous Dontari Poe?



Never suggested you did. What I mean is that he's a JAG, not even guaranteed to MAKE this roster. A 'starter' last year by necessity, not design. Re-signed to an exclusive rights deal with no guarantees should they decide to cut him.



I have several options that I would be looking at. And have mock drafted many of them at the position. My point is that there is room, opportunity, and need to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Didn't say there wasn't...
 
JD_KaPow said:
I agree with that. I don't remember how they were rated relative to each other at the time, but there's no question Claiborne was considered a top-5 prospect. But "need" shouldn't have factored into the decision at all, and if it did, that was a mistake.
Click to expand...

Yeah Mo was highly rated. Most people had him top 5 on their big boards. It was like Jeff Okudah last year.

In regards to need.....I'll assume it did go into their decision because they traded up to get him. So knowing that? Yeah I'd say they went based off of need. And yeah you could argue that wasn't the right decision because that usually spells disaster. But had they stood pat...Kuechly would've went before they drafted anyway. If I'm not mistaken I think the plan had they stood still was to get Wagner in the 2nd round if I'm not mistaken. That's their hindsight thinking anyway.

Its tough. I'm not against drafting need if the best player there is a player you need. That was Mo. That was a BPA + Need pick.
 
rocyaice said:
Yeah Mo was highly rated. Most people had him top 5 on their big boards. It was like Jeff Okudah last year.

In regards to need.....I'll assume it did go into their decision because they traded up to get him. So knowing that? Yeah I'd say they went based off of need. And yeah you could argue that wasn't the right decision because that usually spells disaster. But had they stood pat...Kuechly would've went before they drafted anyway. If I'm not mistaken I think the plan had they stood still was to get Wagner in the 2nd round if I'm not mistaken. That's their hindsight thinking anyway.

Its tough. I'm not against drafting need if the best player there is a player you need. That was Mo. That was a BPA + Need pick.
Click to expand...

Have to wonder - how would the Cowboys have done if he'd turned out as his potential said he'd do?

As is the case usually, the player partly gets saddled with the team's lack of success...
 
In order to go Phillips in the first, I need to buy myself a bit of insurance in the form of an addition pick. In other words, I'd be hard pressed to take Phillips at 10 but if I could slide to 15, say, with NE wanting to get a QB that slides to 10, I am more willing to then take Phillips there at 15 and then still have the 44th and 46th picks (in the trade with NE) to grab two other high level guys.

Like if you traded with NE and took Phillips at 15, Stokes at 44 and maybe McNeil at 46, that's something I could live with.
 
LACowboysFan1 said:
Have to wonder - how would the Cowboys have done if he'd turned out as his potential said he'd do?

As is the case usually, the player partly gets saddled with the team's lack of success...
Click to expand...
So if I'm being a pessimist....I'd probably say something else probably would've failed lol...probably would've gave up a bunch of rushing yards a game.

But realistically? I think he and Brandon Carr would've shored up that secondary. I think we all had hopes of him being a shut down defender......shutting down that side of the field would've helped this defense tremendously.

I stand by the pick though. I disagree with a lot of things...and if you want to argue that we should've never traded up for Mo I'd agree with that. But if people want to argue that we shouldn't have drafted him or that they knew he would bust? I'd have to call BS on that. Injuries probably set him back more than anything else. To me drafting Carpenter or Taco was more criminal.
 
Sydla said:
In order to go Phillips in the first, I need to buy myself a bit of insurance in the form of an addition pick. In other words, I'd be hard pressed to take Phillips at 10 but if I could slide to 15, say, with NE wanting to get a QB that slides to 10, I am more willing to then take Phillips there at 15 and then still have the 44th and 46th picks (in the trade with NE) to grab two other high level guys.

Like if you traded with NE and took Phillips at 15, Stokes at 44 and maybe McNeil at 46, that's something I could live with.
Click to expand...
To me that's getting too cute...but if in their mind they want Phillips than I wouldn't be against that.
 
rocyaice said:
To me that's getting too cute...but if in their mind they want Phillips than I wouldn't be against that.
Click to expand...

I just can't take Phillips at 10. The risk is just too great with his injury issues.
 
rocyaice said:
As do I...is that where he's projected to go? I was hoping more of a 2nd round flyer on him.....
Click to expand...

He's been rising and likely will be a mid teens to early 20s pick based on the mocks and draft guide rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 44 more.
Total: 2,744 (members: 144, guests: 2,600)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,963
Messages
13,907,318
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top