Video: Rapoport w Shan & RJ: Cowboys had Parsons above CBs

[BermyStar]

It's not and you didnt. I asked the same of that person weeks ago....and others who were claiming the same thing.

If Dallas didn't want to lose Parsons, then I don't blame them for not making the deal.

But the idea that the phone never rang or the offer for 10 was much lower than 11 makes zero sense on any type of level.

Searching around....I find much more to support my point than the opposite.

Think about it....I'm Chicago. I like Fields. If he slips to the 8-12 range we can probably afford to get him. Call Detroit, Denver...feel them out and are given a probably not....considering what they actually did. Call NY at 11 (who they actually made a deal with).

But Call Dallas at 10?? Nope. Don't even bother.

See what I mean? They called offering probably the same general package. Why wouldn't they??

They were probably told only if none of the three top defenders were there. That's not the same as it wasn't offered.

The team has every incentive to downplay this as it only adds another level of potential second guessing, although I have yet to hear them do it despite what some people seem to want this to be.

It's moot IMO because I now see the value in Parsons, and am happy to have him. They would not have gotten him with a move to 20....and that's good enough reason to have passed....but Chicago made the call and probably the offer.

Well said

 

[BermyStar]

I trust Rapaport as far as I could throw him. I doubt there is any chance that they would have traded down at 10 if Parsons was gone but Surtain, for example, was there.

That is a tough one to picture.

 

[Stash]

Garrett wanted to be a no nonsense type of HC and it just rang hollow.

It wasn't imposing in any kind of way, and his wings were clipped by Jerry at all times.

Said the same crap over and over like a robot.

Anyone shocked that guy couldn't command an NFL locker room?

Check out this video. Take note of who is standing back away from all of it.



This perfectly illustrates who Jason Garrett is. When it comes time for a ‘fight or flight’ response, he shows his true colors. He just doesn’t have the courage when it counts.

 

[BermyStar]

did I like horn and surtain? yes. did I like Parsons? yes. my concern with parsons were the off the field character issues and rumors about that. I believe you build inside out. given the DL class was weak, then LB was the next logical step in the process. plus this was a deep CB class, not deep at all in DL as mentioned and only 2-3 deep at LB, so you find your LB in the first round and you can get great value in second round for CB which is what we did. I think they did well in the draft.....

100% this is my take on it as well. CB in the first and LB in the 2nd might not have yielded the same talent we were able to get.

 

[eromeopolk]

Ian even went on to say Dallas would have traded back if Micah was gone but one of the CBs were available. Interesting....

I like it myself just because if true it means the team was really sold on dude and didn't just settle. I also really like Parsons and think we did well to get Joseph in the 2nd.

I have stated that Micah Parson was the best defensive player in this draft. Parsons showed he can be a game changer and difference play maker. None of the other defensive players had won Bowl Game MVP. Than usually goes to an offensive player. He earned Penn St. a Bowl game win.

When he had his Pro Day, it confirmed everything that was seen on field (super athlete, speed, play maker, and football player).

Its nice that the Cowboys and the media finally caught up on the obvious.

 

[zrinkill]

They should ...... He is a better player

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think overall Parsons would be rated higher than both CBs but i would’ve taken Surtain if possible just because of the price of a top tier CB is much higher than a LB.
however, it went how it went and if we use Parsons properly and rush him occasionally from the end, he could end up to be quite an impactful pick.

I keep seeing this comment about the corner is more desired than a LB.

So, Deion Sanders is sitting there at 12 along with Ray Lewis or Mike Singletary. Deion can affect one side of the field. A middle linebacker that can play sideline to sideline, and backfield to up field seems to have more influence on the field than a corner. Else why do teams target the weak corner in their passing games? Because throwing to the other side away from a Deion offers success, where the generational linebacker (and both Deion and Lewis were generational at their positions) the linebacker seems to do more. Especially when you understand he also is the QB of the defense and gets people in position as well as calling out what he reads from the offense.

The game is skewed toward scoring, thus the rules which give the receivers the edge. But this game is still based on moving chains, and that requires a running game along with a clean pocket for the QB.

No pass rush, no pass defense. We've seen this for how many years now? Don't stop the run, your defense is on its heels and play action dominates your secondary.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I wouldnt say Cowboys look for the "fit the scheme" thing. I think Cowboys have been drafting best player available lately. Parson when LB wasnt the biggest need - CeeDee when WR wasnt the biggest need

Sure buddy. Lets move on.

 

[CATCH17]

I got on a whole paragraph of a Garrett rant and deleted it. You are all welcome!

Still mad. I want that decade back.

You should be temp banned for doing that.

 

[fivetwos]

You should be temp banned for doing that.

Lol, I ranted off topic badly.....a wasted decade will do that to people.

No one would have read it anyway. I think there's an unfortunately small number of folks around here who read posts longer than a sentence or two.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

That’s why I don’t believe the **** they tell us. Jerry is still a salesman.

They still took a gamble to trade back behind the Giants. Someone could have traded up to take Parsons.

These owners and GM's are all friends. They all know each other. So for Jerry and co. to trade back its because they knew what the other teams wanted. They knew if they traded back they were getting Parsons or Slater or maybe even someone else high on their board.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I trust Rapaport as far as I could throw him. I doubt there is any chance that they would have traded down at 10 if Parsons was gone but Surtain, for example, was there.

Its hard to say. If they would've I would understand it. It would even be logical.

And I say this because I don't know what the Cowboys think of their personnel. What if they really believe Diggs and Jourdan Lewis are great corners and want to go into the season with them as their starters? They signed Lewis to a 3 or 4 year deal I believe.....so yeah I could see them passing up those corners......then I also have to wonder what this team would've done if Pitts was there...

 

[pacy]

These owners and GM's are all friends. They all know each other. So for Jerry and co. to trade back its because they knew what the other teams wanted. They knew if they traded back they were getting Parsons or Slater or maybe even someone else high on their board.

I understand but the argument was that they had Parsons higher on the board then the two corners. But apparently they were fine to lose out on Parsons with the trade back.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Lol, I ranted off topic badly.....a wasted decade will do that to people.

No one would have read it anyway.

I know one who would have...

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I understand but the argument was that they had Parsons higher on the board then the two corners. But apparently they were fine to lose out on Parsons with the trade back.

In what scenario do they lose out on Parsons though? They traded with the Eagles so you can rule them out. Giants wanted a wide receiver....I'm not seeing which scenario allows for them to miss out on Parsons?

 

[Stash]

In what scenario do they lose out on Parsons though? They traded with the Eagles so you can rule them out. Giants wanted a wide receiver....I'm not seeing which scenario allows for them to miss out on Parsons?

Do you feel it’s guaranteed that the Giants would pass on Parsons for a lesser receiver?

Last I checked, the Giants aren’t overflowing with linebackers.

 

[TheGoat73]

Ian even went on to say Dallas would have traded back if Micah was gone but one of the CBs were available. Interesting....

I like it myself just because if true it means the team was really sold on dude and didn't just settle. I also really like Parsons and think we did well to get Joseph in the 2nd.

Don’t believe it for a second.

 

[pacy]

In what scenario do they lose out on Parsons though? They traded with the Eagles so you can rule them out. Giants wanted a wide receiver....I'm not seeing which scenario allows for them to miss out on Parsons?

Giants lost out on WR Smith. There was rumor that they might go Parsons and like I already said someone could have traded with the Giants to get Parsons.

 

[America's Cowboy]

why would that play any role in ranking your board?

Not mine. I said that's how I see the Cowboys ranked it based on need.

If you don't see need as the #1 reason to fix this defense, this defense would never get fixed. Cowboys did well.

 

[MoistMayonnaise]

~yawn~